Probation officers serve as a bridge between incarceration and reintegration into society for individuals who have been incarcerated. The aim of this study is to contribute to existing literature on community supervision by examining (a) the extent to which probation clients are satisfied with their probation officer and (b) the extent to which perceived procedural justice and felt support of their probation officer are related to levels of satisfaction. The current study used cross-sectional data from 597 formerly incarcerated adults who had contact with the Dutch Probation Services. The findings showed that probation clients were generally satisfied with their probation officer. A significant portion of the variability in probation clients’ satisfaction with their probation officer can primarily be attributed to perceived procedural justice.
AbrahamMVan DijkBZwaanM (2007) Inzicht in toezicht: De uitvoering van toezicht door de reclassering. The Hague: WODC.
2.
BakerTVan HallMRayJV, et al. (2024) Perceptions of probation officer procedural justice, low self-control, and recidivism after release from prison. Legal and Criminological Psychology29(2): 181–194.
3.
BaresKJMowenTJ (2020) Examining the parole officer as a Mechanism of social support during reentry from prison. Crime & Delinquency66(6-7): 1023–1051.
4.
BlaskoBLTaxmanFS (2018) Are supervision practices procedurally fair? Development and predictive utility of a procedural justice measure for use in community corrections settings. Criminal Justice and Behavior45(3): 402–420.
5.
BolgerMALytleDJBolgerPC (2021) What matters in citizen satisfaction with police: a meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice72: 101760.
6.
BooneM (2016) Community punishment in The Netherlands: a history of crises and incidents. In: RobinsonGMcNeillF (eds) Community Punishment, European Perspectives. London: Routledge, 95–113.
7.
BucknerZMartinSNorrisK, et al. (2025) Does procedural justice matter in probation? Investigating the relationship between procedural just treatment and law-Abiding behavior among a sample of high-risk offenders. Crime & Delinquency71(1): 175–196.
8.
CampbellCLabrecqueRMSchaeferRL, et al. (2020) Do perceptions of legitimacy and fairness matter in prison? Examining how procedural and distributive justice relate to misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior47(12): 1630–1653.
9.
De JongsteWM (2022) Het Nederlandse strafrechtsysteem. In: MeijerRFMolenaarDEGChoenniR, et al. (eds) Criminaliteit en rechtshandhaving 2021: Ontwikkelingen en samenhangen. Den Haag: WODC.
10.
De KogelCHNagtegaalMH (2008) Supervision programs for offenders and forensic psychiatric patients. In: Effectiveness and Mechanisms that Are Assumed to Be Effective. Den Haag. WODC.
11.
DeLudeBMitchellDBarberC (2012) The probationer's perspective on the probation officer-probationer relationship and satisfaction with probation. Federal Probation76(1): 35–39.
12.
DigardL (2010) When legitimacy is denied: offender perceptions of the prison recall system. Probation Journal57(1): 43–61.
13.
DirkzwagerAJENieuwbeertaPBeijersbergenKA, et al. (2018) Cohort profile: the prison project—a study of criminal behavior and life Circumstances before, during, and after Imprisonment in The Netherlands. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology4(1): 120–135.
14.
DoekhieJVORVan GinnekenEFJC (2020) House, bells and bliss? A longitudinal analysis of conventional aspirations and the process of desistance. European Journal of Criminology17(6): 744–763.
15.
DoekhieJVORVan GinnekenEFJCDirkzwagerAJE, et al. (2018) Managing risk or supporting desistance? A longitudinal study on the nature and perceptions of parole supervision in The Netherlands. Journal of developmental and life-course criminology4(4): 491–515.
16.
DoekhieJVORKoenraadtRDen BestenAL (2024) Van Bajes Naar Buiten. WODC.
17.
DurnescuIKennefickLSucicI, et al. (2018) Experiencing offender supervision in Europe: the Eurobarometer - Lessons from the pilot study. Probation Journal65(1): 7–26.
18.
FarralSHunterBSharpeGH, et al. (2014) Criminal Careers in Transition: The Social Context of Desistance from Crime. Oxford University Press.
19.
FarrallS (2002) Rethinking what works with offenders: probation, social context and desistance from crime. Cullompton: Willian.
20.
Fernández-VillàGVan HallMDirkzwagerAJE (2023) Sources of police legitimacy in Europe: the role of immigrant status and ethnic discrimination. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research1–22.
21.
Fitzalan-HowardFBoxGWakelingH (2023) Examining Procedural Justice Perceptions in Probation in England and Wales. HM Prison & Probation service.
22.
GillCWilsonDB (2017) Improving the succes of reentry programs: Identifying the impact of service-need fit on recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior44(3): 336–359.
23.
HealyD (2012) Advise, assist and befriend: can probation supervision support desistance?Social Policy and Administration46(4): 377–394.
24.
HindsLMurphyK (2007) Public satisfaction with police: using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology40(1): 27–42.
25.
JacksonJTylerTRBradfordB, et al. (2010) Legitimacy and procedural justice in prisons. Prison Service Journal191: 4–10.
26.
JacksonJBradfordBHoughM, et al. (2011) Developing European indicators of trust in justice. European Journal of Criminology8(4): 267–285.
27.
JannettaJReginalTLawrenceDS, et al. (2021) Applying procedural justice. community supervision: Assessment of pilot testing in the Georgia Department of community supervision. Washington DC: Urban Institute.
28.
LametWDirkzwagerAJEDenkersA, et al. (2013) Social Bonds under supervision: Associating social Bonds of probationers with supervision Failure. Criminal Justice and Behavior40(7): 784–801.
29.
LattimorePVisherCA (2010) The Multi-Site Evaluation of SVORI: Summary and Synthesis. RTI International/Urban Institute.
30.
LevensonJSPrescottDS (2009) Treatment experiences of civilly committed sex offenders: a consumer satisfaction survey. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment21(1): 6–20.
31.
LindEATylerTR (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York, NY: Plenum.
32.
LiuLBeckerPMowenTJ (2023) Social support during reentry: family, Mentor, Religious, parole officer, and social service roles. Criminal Justice and Behavior50(7): 1053–1070.
33.
MairGMillsH (2009) The Community Order and the Suspended Sentence Order Three Years on: The Views and Experiences of Probation Officers and Offenders. London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
34.
MarunaS (2001) Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington, DC: Americam Psychological Association.
35.
MazerolleLAntrobusEBennettS, et al. (2013) Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: a randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology51(1): 33–63.
36.
MazerolleLSargeantECherneyA, et al. (2014) Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Policing. New York: Springer.
37.
McCullochP (2013) Re-analyzing the compliance dynamic: towards a co-productive strategy and practice? In: UgwudikePRaynorP (eds) What Works in Offender Compliance? International Perspective and Evidence-Based Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 44–64.
38.
MengerA (2018) De Werkalliantie in Het Gedwongen Kader. Utrecht: Eburon.
39.
MurphyK (2009) Public satisfaction with police: the importance of procedural justice and police performance in police-citizen encounters. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology42(2): 159–178.
40.
PennerEKViljoenJLDouglasKS, et al. (2014) Procedural justice versus risk factors for offending: predicting recidivism in youth. Law and Human Behavior38(3): 225–237.
41.
Peterson-BadaliMCareSBroekingJ (2007) Young People's perceptions and experiences of the lawyer–client relationship. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice49(3): 375–401.
42.
PryceDK (2018) Does procedural justice influence general satisfaction with police? A study from a hard-to-reach population of immigrants in the United States. Journal of Crime and Justice41(1): 31–48.
43.
PryceDKWilsonG (2020) Police procedural justice, lawyer procedural justice, judge procedural justice, and satisfaction with the criminal justice system: findings from a Neglected region of the World. Criminal Justice Policy Review31(9): 1286–1311.
44.
RaaijmakersEde KeijserJWNieuwbeertaP, et al. (2015) Criminal defendants' satisfaction with lawyers: perceptions of procedural fairness and effect of the lawyer. Psychology, Crime and Law21(2): 186–201.
45.
TaxmanFS (2012) Probation, intermediate sanctions, and community-based corrections. In: PetersiliaJReitzKR (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections. Oxford: Oxford Academic, 363–386.
46.
TylerTR (1990) Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT, US: Yale University Press.
47.
TylerTR (2006) Why People Obey the Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
48.
TylerTR (2009) Legitimacy and criminal justice: the benefits of self-regulation. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law7(1): 307–360.
49.
TylerTR (2010) Legitimacy in corrections: policy implications. Criminology & Public Policy9(1): 127–134.
50.
TylerTRHuoYJ (2002) Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. New York, NY, US: Russell Sage Foundation.
51.
Van HallMBakerTNieuwbeertaP, et al. (2024b) Changes in probation officer procedural justice and self-reported recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology.
52.
Van HallMDirkzwagerAJEVan der LaanPH, et al. (2023) Procedural justice, perceived legitimacy, and reoffending behavior: in police and court setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior50(12): 1874–1892.
53.
Van HallMBakerTDirkzwagerAJE, et al. (2024a) Perceptions of probation officer procedural justice and recidivism: a longitudinal study in The Netherlands. Criminal Justice and Behavior51(8): 1139–1156.
54.
Van HallMDirkzwagerAJEVan der LaanPH, et al. (2024c) Detainees’ perceptions of procedural justice: an examination throughout the criminal justice system. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology68(13–14): 1323–1341.
55.
Van HallMVan der LaanPHNieuwbeertaP, et al. (2024d) Procedural justice in their eyes: a qualitative interview study among detainees. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology1–24.
56.
Van KalmthoutAMTiggesL (2008) Netherlands. In: van KalmthoutAMDurnescuI (eds) Probation in Europe. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.
57.
VerweijSWeijtersG (2020) Recidive tijdens en na reclasseringstoezicht. WODC.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
