Negotiating desistance and risk in probation practice: A process-oriented perspective from Austria

Abstract

This article explores how probation supervision is organised and experienced within Austria’s probation service, NEUSTART, against the background of shifting probation paradigms. Drawing on qualitative data from three focus groups with probation officers (n = 17) and interviews with people on probation (n = 12), the study examines how probation success is defined and pursued by professionals and how supervision is experienced by probationers. Adopting a process-oriented perspective, the analysis focuses on how organisation objectives are translated into everyday practice rather than outcomes alone. The findings show that Austrian probation supervision is characterised by a hybrid use of desistance-oriented social work and risk-oriented tools, which are continuously co-constructed. It is argued that probation practice is best understood as a relational and adaptive process in which institutional frameworks and individual change processes are continuously negotiated.

Introduction

This article presents the results of qualitative research on the process and goals of Austria’s probation service delivery from a staff perspective and subsequently examines how these processes are experienced by people on probation themselves (henceforth called probationers). Rather than treating probation outcomes as linear effects, the analysis focuses on how intended objectives are translated into everyday practice and how they are experienced by probationers. Factors that facilitate or inhibit these processes are examined and related to the mechanisms through which probation supervision unfolds in practice.

This research forms part of a larger mixed-methods project assessing the effectiveness of Austria’s probation service. This paper draws on three focus groups with a total of 17 probation officers, and 12 interviews with probationers, which were based on an analysis of organisational and educational material from the Austrian probation services NEUSTART. While the quantitative component of the project (published in a forthcoming paper) examines large-scale effects, the qualitative analysis pursued here aims at a case-oriented understanding of probation as a lived and relational process: how probationers experience supervision, how probation officers define progress and success, and which process mechanisms support or impede change. The guiding research question is therefore: how do probation officers define and pursue probation success, and how do probationers experience and interpret their time on probation?

To fully appraise these findings, the article contextualises Austria’s probation service within broader (inter)national developments in probation rationale and modes of service delivery. Probation practice has never been shaped by a single coherent paradigm; rather, it has historically oscillated between relational, individualised forms of supervision and more structured, programme-based interventions, with both elements co-existing in shifting configurations over time (Durnescu, 2012). From this perspective, contemporary developments in probation do not emerge in a vacuum but often represent reconfigurations of enduring tensions between professional discretion, interpersonal engagement, and standardised intervention tools. Against this background, NEUSTART’s organisational role is outlined, before the analysis turns to probation supervision as it is enacted in everyday practice. This article contributes to probation research by bringing together the perspectives of probation officers and probationers, examining how different probation paradigms intersect and are negotiated within supervision processes in Austria. This raises the question of whether the approach observed in the Austrian probation service constitutes a genuinely distinct model, or whether it reflects a context-specific recombination of already established practices.

What works versus how does it work

Despite their differing rationales, probation services are legally legitimized by a common goal: preventing recidivism. Evidence shows that the use of community-based sentencing leads to lower reoffending rates in direct comparison to carceral sanctions, and therefore contribute to strengthening community safety (Petrich et al., 2021). The question arises how lasting behavioural change can be fostered and enabled. To answer this question, research into effective interventions has developed along two main paradigms: the risk paradigm and the desistance paradigm.

A growing emphasis on reconviction rates as indices for successful intervention reflects broader shifts in the probation service landscape, particularly the rise of risk-oriented intervention programs. As an answer to the ‘Nothing works’ debate (Martinson, 1974), risk-based interventions gained traction in order to legitimize probation practice and prove that, in fact, ‘something works’ (Bonta and Andrews, 2007). Specifically the RNR-framework (Bonta, 2023a), originally based on three core principles, ¹ offers a comprehensive guide to interventions based on risk-reduction through supervision. ² Supported by meta-analyses, the use of RNR shows a significant reduction of recidivism through community-based interventions (Andrews et al., 1990; Bonta, 2023b). However, recidivism measures have significant limitations: firstly, recidivism rates can be seen as an incomplete and biased measurement. Non-reported instances of reoffending are not statistically depicted and the depicted instances of reoffending are subject to sampling and selection biases (Hedderman, 2009). Secondly, other possible outcomes of probation programs – such as the improvement of the probationers' health or securing employment – are neglected (Cunneen and Luke, 2007). Finally, the instance of reoffending is commonly defined as a binary event which either occurs or does not occur. However, variations in the severity of offences are usually not discernible using reconviction data (The Council of State Governments, 2025).

The shortcomings of the focus on risk and reconviction rates paved the way for the desistance paradigm, which examines the processes of lasting change and marks a ‘return to morality’ (Durnescu, 2012: 205). Desistance-paradigm research seeks to identify the factors that help individuals achieve sustainable change in their lives, going beyond measures of recidivism rates. While desistance is understood as a complex and non-linear process, empirical findings generally point to three categories of interest: the age of the offender and connected changes in maturity, turning points which redirect trajectories, and internal narrative transformations (Ghanem and Graebsch, 2020). Empirically derived external factors include family (Bachman et al., 2016; Laub et al., 1998), employment (Kruttschnitt et al., 2000; Skardhamar and Savolainen, 2014; Walker et al., 2020), and social network factors (Ullrich and Coid, 2011). These external factors can form meaningful social ties, constituting a so-called turning point in the individual’s life (Laub et al., 1998). Structural support and social bonds are linked to declines in reoffending rates by stabilising offenders and solidifying support during their desistance journey. Internal factors combine feelings of the self-efficacy of probationers and their individual motivation to foster change, informing how certain obstacles were approached (Farrall, 2022), and the solidification of a new, noncriminal identity (Farrall and Maruna, 2004; Maruna, 2001). It is theorised that ‘desistance involves individuals reinterpreting their past criminal selves with prosocial views of themselves to reconcile their current identities as good people’ (Bachman et al., 2016: 165). While further analysis of the interdependency of internal and external factors would extend the scope of this paper ³ , both are considered crucial to offenders’ paths to desistance.

While risk paradigm research turns to grand scale recidivism rates to prove effectiveness of interventions, this approach offers little to answer the question of how the intervention process takes effect. The desistance paradigm recognises this gap and criticises the fact that there is ‘little understanding of how or why a process works for some individuals and not for others’ (Maruna, 2015). It therefore focuses on the mechanisms of desistance and the internal and external factors that facilitate or hinder it. While this distinction between the paradigms is analytically useful, it may overstate their separation. As (Durnescu, 2012) argues, probation practice has long been shaped by the interplay of three elements: staff characteristics, staff skills, and structured programmes. Rather than replacing one another, these elements have historically been combined in different ways, suggesting that current debates about risk and desistance may reflect a rebalancing of emphasis rather than a fundamental transformation of probation practice. Even though it is tempting to view these paradigms as inherently opposing or in competition with each other (the preceding analysis being no exception), the discussion around these terms has recently shifted from focusing on their differences to the potential of a ‘blended’ approach (Kemshall, 2021). While differences are recognized, they are valued for their individual potential to inform probation practice and, in cooperation, offer a tool-box for supervision (Maruna and Mann, 2019). Instead of choosing which type of evidence to trust and rely upon, blended concepts of supervision highlight the integration of ‘practices to manage risk with practices to enhance desistance’ (Kemshall, 2021: 5), known as protective integration.

NEUSTART’s hybrid approach

This study examines Austria’s probation service and its effects on probationers; hence, it is essential to situate NEUSTART within the broader methodological discourse that has shaped its development.

As other European probation services, NEUSTART has been influenced by the aforementioned paradigm shifts throughout the past decades. Founded in grassroots social work with civic volunteers, NEUSTART began employing full-time social workers in the late 1970s and gradually expanded from supervising adolescents to adults. It currently still relies on volunteers for supervision of around 25% of cases (NEUSTART, 2025). Founded with the aim of offering an inclusionary alternative to carceral punishment as a civil organisation, NEUSTART has since developed into a government-commissioned association navigating the tension between its original mission and a more security-driven orientation (Pilgram, 2013). This tension is also observable in a shift of methodical approach, wherein probation intervention has extended its lens from individual relationship building with the objective of fostering the probationers’ social integration to offence-focused work concentrating on risk management (Hofinger, 2019). This focus on risk-based intervention gradually shaped probation practice in Europe. Consequently, NEUSTART began to define recidivism prevention as their central organisational goal (Kufner-Eger, 2018). It adapted developed tools to address the offences in question and generally developed in the spirit of risk-reduction and -management as an organisation.

However, NEUSTART refrains from focusing solely on risk reduction. In line with their grassroots origins, it continues to integrate desistance-oriented approaches that emphasise health, housing, employment, and social bonds as foundations for sustainable change. This hybrid approach allows NEUSTART to navigate between evidence-based risk assessment tools and client-centred rehabilitation goals, acknowledging the combination of both internal and external factors of offender rehabilitation (Hofinger, 2019). However, the development of this approach did not unfold without challenges. With the professionalisation and standardisation of NEUSTART’s social work, a loss of case-based, individual offender assistance at the discretion of the probation officers and an over-emphasis of risk and security management under growing pressures for legitimacy was, and is still, feared (Kufner-Eger, 2020). While this development brings the previously discussed blended approach of probation to mind, one important distinction is to be noted: protective integration strategies typically describe how findings from the desistance paradigm are incorporated into predominantly standardized, risk-based practice. Austria, however, represents a distinct configuration of these elements. Rather than integrating desistance-oriented practices into a dominant risk-based framework, as commonly described in the literature, NEUSTART’s development reflects the inverse trajectory: the incorporation of structured, offence-focused tools into an originally relational and case-based practice. While a common development elsewhere has been the reduction of case-based work in favour of developing risk-assessment approaches, later supplemented by desistance research, this has not been the case in Austria. Austria has remained rooted in case-based, relational work and has only integrated risk-based tools at a later stage, while continuously emphasizing its foundations. Today, NEUSTART identifies the improvement of probationers’ quality of life not just as instrumental but as indicative of their organisational success. As a result, any research examining the methods and objectives of NEUSTART must look beyond criminal behaviour and its associated risk or protective factors, focusing instead on the wider impacts of probation on the individuals’ lives. Following Durnescu’s (2012) framework, this article understands probation practice as constituted through the interaction of relational work, professional skills, and structured intervention tools. The notion of a hybrid approach is therefore used here to capture how these elements are combined and prioritised within NEUSTART’s organisational practice.

Study design

This paper presents the results of the qualitative components of a larger mixed-methods project evaluating the effectiveness of the Austrian probation service. As the first step of the project, a theoretical effect model was designed based on internal documents of the Austrian probation service. This document analysis ensured a comprehensive understanding of the organisation’s internal logic and intended program theory. Subsequently, focus groups were conducted with probation officers to include the view of practitioners and further develop the effect model. Based on this, over 400 probationers were interviewed using a standardised structured questionnaire. Additionally, their respective probation officers filled out multiple surveys to examine self- and external assessment while also considering the influences of differing social work approaches.

While conducting the structured interviews, individual probationers were recruited to participate in follow-up semi-structured interviews based on a purposive sampling approach. The present paper comprises the results of the qualitative components of the project, that is, the focus groups with probation officers and semi-structured interviews with probationers. Since the goal of this study was to understand the how rather than the if of probation succeess, probationers themselves were deemed an invaluable source for investigating the mechanisms of the probation process in specific.

This approach is rooted in realistic evaluation (Pawson and Tilley, 1997) and desistance research which stress the dependence of program success on context and the active contribution of participants. It shifts the focus from whether a program works to ‘what [it is] about a program which makes it work’ (ibid., 66) and, along with desistance research, widens the lens toward ‘how and why the rehabilitative process works’ (Maruna, 2015: 313). Probationers were invited to share their subjective experiences about their probation and could thereby provide nuance by confirming or challenging the previously gathered insights from probation officers.

The present research goes beyond the question of ‘what works’ by putting organisational approaches in relation to probationers’ views on how and why the Austrian probation service works – if it works.

Methodology

In order to capture the view of probation officers on the probation service’s goals and methods, three focus groups with a total of 17 probation officers were conducted at two different locations in Austria. One of the groups consisted of volunteers only, while the other two groups consisted exclusively of employed staff. The focus group guide was developed based on an analysis of relevant literature as well as the organisation’s internal topical documents. The content of these documents initially hinted at an internal hybrid method applied by NEUSTART which was further explored during the interviews presented in this article. The focus groups were conducted by the research team between the months of February and March 2024 (Table 1).

Table 1.

Sample description focus groups with probation officers.

Interview period	01.02.2024–31.03.2024
Mode of employment	11 employed POs, 6 volunteers
Length of employment	7 months–42 years
Perceived gender identity	6 male, 10 female
Location distribution	2 focus groups in Vienna with 12 POs, 1 focus group in Vorarlberg with 4 POs

During a survey with people on probation, a select number of probationers were recruited for semi-structured interviews. Participants were purposively selected based on the researchers’ assessment that they could offer rich, reflective insights into their lived experiences, represent diverse social and situational contexts, and articulate their perspectives and emotions in a way that would meaningfully inform the qualitative analysis. Guided by the prior quantitative survey, the research team identified and kept a record of factors that made individuals valuable interview partners. The authors of this article then independently assessed potential interviewees to minimise personal bias. The most highly rated individuals were prioritised in the interview process. The overall aim was to reflect the heterogeneity of people on probation and their diverse experiences within the probation service. Interviews were held locally at the research institute, at NEUSTART offices and – in one case – at a probationer’s home due to restricted mobility (Table 2).

Table 2.

Sample description qualitative Interviews with people on probation.

Interview period	02.05.2025–04.07.2025
Supervision period	10 months–11 years
Age range	15 years of age–approx. mid 60s
Perceived gender identity	11 male, 1 female
Location distribution	Vienna x 7, Graz x 2, Linz x 1, Innsbruck x 1 and Wiener Neustadt x 1

Both the focus group discussions and the individual semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim and subjected to a qualitative content analysis following Kuckartz’s methodological framework (2018). The following chapter first presents the findings derived from the focus groups with probation officers, followed by the findings of the interviews with probationers.

Focus groups with probation officers

The aim of the focus groups was to understand how probation officers themselves view successful probation in Austria and which tools they utilise to achieve the desired objectives. The emerging themes of the thematic analysis of the focus groups with probation officers can be categorised along three main groups: the defined objectives of supervision, the methodical approach of probation officers, and possible indicators of successful supervision.

Defined objectives

To understand the outcomes probation officers aim to achieve through their work, participants were asked about the objectives they pursue during supervision. While some themes could be identified, interviewees stressed how difficult it was to offer generalised goals of probation, since the cases and their respective objectives differed greatly. Depending on the needs and resources a probationer might bring into the process, probation officers need to tailor not only their approach but also their expectations concerning probation outcomes.

I find it very difficult to generalise, because goal-setting is genuinely individual for each person. (Volunteer staff Vienna) ⁴

However, four general themes could be identified: the offender-supervisor relationship, social integration of the probationer, cognitive or behavioural changes, and the overall prevention of recidivism.

The offender-supervisor relationship

The offender-supervisor relationship can be attributed a dual function in the supervisory process. Firstly, it is a means to foster cooperation and probationer engagement which are vital aspects in the work with probationers. Due to the relatively long duration of probation supervision, especially in comparison to other social work efforts, a stable relationship can be built over a longer period of time, creating space for open reflection and joint perspective development. Secondly, the offender-supervisor relationship constitutes an objective in and of itself, and does not just function as a means to an end. The effect of probationers opening up to their probation officers, keeping appointments and contributing to the relationship building process, is, in the eyes of the probation officers, a significant positive development. This echoes the literature on the importance of relationship building within any area of social work, not only for probation (Riegler, 2016; Schäfter, 2010). Going beyond being one of multiple objectives in the probation process, the relationship between probationer and probation officer constitutes an overarching element of probation supervision.

Social integration of the probationer

From the perspective of the probation officers the measures to secure the livelihood of the probationers and theirs social integration take priority in the probation process, constituting an essential objective. While this objective is dependent on individually defined lifestyle choices, aspects like housing, employment, financial security, and social relationships are usually part of this objective. Probation officers reiterate the importance of tolerating the probationers’ prerogative of choosing their own way of living and stress how diverse differing life-concepts can be. While social integration is a common goal set by the probation service, this perspective offers a more nuanced and somewhat critical approach to what can or should be expected from probationers and what the term ‘social integration’ implies (cf. Spencer and Deakin, 2004). Therefore, goals concerning integration need to be individually tailored through working with probationers directly and adjusting the probation officers’ expectations on possible outcomes.

Cognitive or behavioural changes

As another distinct goal probation officers noted the support they give probationers by working on their general attitudes and therefore facilitating cognitive changes. As a part of this personal development, probation officers focus on developing alternative courses of action for the future and enabling probationers to deal constructively with conflicts to avoid harm to themselves or others. Additionally, the triggers, proceedings, and consequences of the offence are to be thoroughly addressed to lower the risk of recidivism, employing a cognitive-behavioural RNR-approach (Mayer, 2015). While the probation officers reported offering support concerning these aspects, the ultimate goal is to establish the probationers’ self-efficacy in gaining a new sense of direction in their own lives and developing the aptitude to self-reflect and raise problem awareness. Changes in attitude oftentimes manifest in changes in behaviour, spanning from small improvements in reliability to the successful avoidance of conflict escalation.

Preventing recidivism

The prevention of recidivism constitutes the legal mandate of the probation service and can be seen as its fundamental objective. Success in this regard often interacts with improvements in the area of social integration and the cognitive changes of the probationers. However, desistance from crime does not present as black and white as the legal mandate might suggest. As mentioned at the outset, recidivism, in theory, is commonly seen as a binary event which does or does not occur. While desistance from crime can be defined as an overall goal of being on probation, the binary idea that it can be either achieved or failed was predominantly rejected by probation officers (as researched within the desistance paradigm; cf. Suzuki et al., 2025). Rather, the severity of an offence and the individual’s assessment of the situation also affects the desistance journey. Minor instances of recidivism were on occasion even interpreted as a beneficial chance for certain probationers to stay under supervision longer, and therefore prolonging the time probation officers can offer.

Methodical work approach

The focus groups with probation officers showed that methodical work in probation rarely begins with structured tools. While techniques such as offence-focused conversations (‘Deliktverarbeitung’) or goal-setting are central components, probation officers consistently emphasised that these tools only become meaningful once a certain foundation has been established. What this ‘something’ entails varies between probation officers, yet the descriptions point towards a shared understanding: meaningful intervention is dependent on a stable and credible working relationship.

Establishing a working relationship

Across focus groups, probation officers describe relationship-building not as a preliminary step but as an integral part of their work, forming an objective as well as a tool. This relationship is built through a set of actions that, taken together, shape the way the supervision process is experienced: Remaining committed and optimistic when setbacks occur, being reliably present, and offering continuity over long periods of time were frequently mentioned as core elements. The probation officers also highlighted the modelling effect of their own behaviour. People on probation observe how conflicts are dealt with, how boundaries are maintained, and how healthy relationships are formed. This oftentimes leads to people on probation mirroring these patterns and putting trust into their respective probation officer.

When they have experienced an initial setback, or something has not worked out as we had hoped… And then they realise, OK, I'm not being abandoned now, but even though I've made a mistake, the probation service still believes in me. (Employed officer Vorarlberg)

Honesty as well as authenticity plays a central role in these interactions. Several probation officers pointed out that transparent communication and the ability to convincingly express that they are ‘on their side’ help create the credibility and trust needed for other steps in the process. Practices associated with motivational conversation techniques, alongside simply providing structure (regular appointments, clear expectations, and stable routines) support this process. Collectively, these aspects provide the foundation necessary for people on probation to engage with more challenging methods later on.

I think the first thing that matters in probation at the beginning ... is that they realise, okay, probation is a good thing and wants to help me move forward and doesn't want to work against me but with me. (Employed staff Vorarlberg)

Clarifying needs

Once a basic level of trust is established, probation officers report moving towards clarifying probationers’ needs. This is often the first time probationers are encouraged to articulate what they themselves consider important, rather than responding to pre-formulated expectations. This process is rarely straightforward and requires probation officers not to determine goals too hastily. Nevertheless, the joint clarification of needs plays a central role: it structures the subsequent course of supervision and helps determine whether certain topics can be addressed within the scope of probation or need to be delegated to other services (such as the Austrian employment service or addiction counselling).

I believe that it is precisely this, that they can formulate their goals and their ideas about life, whatever they may be […] at best with impunity. And that probation assistance is the support they need to pursue their goals, their next steps. In other words, that they create a concept for their life […]. (Employed staff Vorarlberg)

Applying specific tools

With this groundwork completed, probation officers introduce more formalised methods. Offence-focused work is often used as a point of entry into deeper reflection. For many people on probation, these conversations represent the first occasion they speak openly about the circumstances surrounding their offence. The probation officers describe these discussions as opportunities to explore alternative ways of behaving, to reassess prior assumptions, and to strengthen their capacity for self-reflection. Importantly, it is stressed that these conversations must remain connected to the individual’s broader life situation and that they require a solid foundation in their relation to their probation officer to allow for honest reflection and sometimes even confrontation.

And by now I’ve noticed that once I know the person better, and they know me better, the interaction is completely different. At that point, the [offence-focused work] actually becomes a meaningful part of the overall supervision and a useful method for me. (Employed officer Vienna)

Goal-setting is framed in a similarly individualised manner. Although recidivism prevention is a guiding objective across probation services, the probation officers emphasised that goals need to be deliberated with people on probation and tailored to their specific circumstances. Instead of coming into supervision with rigid expectations, probation officers stress the importance of keeping an open mind and allowing for a goal-setting process that is both compatible with their official mandate and the individual’s interests.

What they all have in common is the mandate from the justice system, the offence-focused work – that’s really the core of the entire supervision. But the individual goals that become relevant are always different. (Volunteer staff Vienna)

Taken together, the focus groups portray probation practice as a process that unfolds gradually, is shaped by the interaction between relational work, clarifies needs, and uses specific methods carefully and gradually. The probation officers describe this process not as linear but as one that moves back and forth, adjusting to the individual’s situation over time. Despite this fluidity, there is a clear methodical logic underlying their work: building credibility and trust enables people on probation to engage more openly; this openness allows needs to be identified, and on this basis, targeted interventions can take hold. In contrast to the specialist practice and the fragmentation of supervision of the British probation service (Robinson, 2005), Austrian probation still allows for long-lasting working relationships that even continue after relapses and periods of incarceration (Hofinger, 2019). Across employed and volunteer officers, this basic structure remains consistent.

Successful supervision indicators

In the area of social integration, probation as social work can foster educational or professional progress and positive developments with regard to living situations or substance use. These examples, however, are on the ambitious side of supervision, with a lot of probationers showing smaller signs of progress, for example, showing up reliably for appointments or approaching their probation officer with a more honest attitude. Specifically, a more reflective approach to situations of conflict, though difficult to measure objectively, is seen as a big step. Even when the commission of new offences cannot be fully avoided, diminished offence severity can indicate success for probation officers.

There are indeed many clients who manage to stop offending altogether, or who reoffend only in less severe ways. In other words, the severity of their offences decreases. It makes a difference whether someone moves from committing an armed or violent robbery to, for example, a case of property damage. (Employed staff Vienna)

Overall, events or milestones which can be seen as indicators of success heavily depend on the individual situation of the probationer, making supervision success as heterogenous as the probationers’ input. Additionally, the probation officers recognise their own limitations and stress the significance of the probationer’s own participation and his social capital (Farrall, 2004). While supervision can facilitate and support certain progress, it should not be seen as an administered cure. The engagement of probationers in setting goals and pursuing them is vital to probation success. Some probationers merely wish to comply with court orders and not take their supervision beyond them. Successfully fulfilling these orders should also be acknowledged as success.

Interviews with probationers

The results of the thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with probationers can be categorised into three distinct themes: probationers’ input and practical assistance; established changes and the influence of supervision; and the offender-supervisor relationship. These themes offer a comprehensive insight into how probationers experience this approach to supervision.

Probationers’ input and practical assistance

Understanding the probationers’ life circumstances at the beginning of their time on probation is crucial for understanding the preconditions of supervision and assessing any consequential changes or developments in their lives. This can be described as the input probationers bring to the proverbial table. Their reported living situations are characterised by issues spanning across various practical obstacles such as strained financial situations, a lack of employment and physical health issues. While employment, housing, and financial stability emerged as recurring themes, their interdependence makes it difficult to establish a clear hierarchy of importance. Most interviewees presented multifaceted problems which cannot be ascribed to singular themes but rather as a conglomeration of issues in a tangled net:

When you get almost nothing but rejections from job applications and only receive money from the AMS ⁵ , and you can’t afford the rent or other expenses, then you’re just desperate. (H)

The type of practical assistance provided by probation officers mirrors these difficulties and consists of activities undertaken within the framework of probation supervision to improve probationers’ circumstances in accordance with their individual needs. Support concerning financial matters constitutes a recurring theme across the assistance offered by NEUSTART. It intersects with (almost) all other dimensions of support, ranging from the procurement of basic provisions such as minimum income and health insurance to guidance in employment matters and debt settlements. While assisting probationers in stabilising their overall financial situation is central to NEUSTART’s initial priority of securing livelihoods, it remains relevant throughout supervision and continues to inform what further assistance is required.

Securing housing was described as one of the core forms of support by the probationers, ranging from the support in accessing housing to acquiring financial aid, which is especially crucial when social networks are absent. Health-related issues were an additional recurring problem at the beginning of supervision, and here too NEUSTART’s assistance was deemed central. Going beyond health insurance, interviewees reported referrals to medical specialists and, in the area of mental health, to therapists and psychiatrists:

Thanks to the probation service, I am now doing both: therapy and taking medication. (I)

At the same time, assistance in mental health extended beyond referrals. Many reported improvements in their well-being through being able to rely on their probation officer as a confidant. Having a trusted person with whom to discuss difficult issues was described as providing psychological relief and contributing to greater emotional stability:

Mentally too, the conversations with him… he was responsive to me. That helped me, it really helped me. (A)

Although some common areas of difficulties were identified, the interviewees’ initial circumstances were ultimately defined by their heterogeneity. Beyond problems concerning social welfare and employment, interviewees reported personal difficulties including struggles with substance use, personal relationships and family issues. Probationers entered supervision with diverse circumstances, differing in age, offence profile, criminal background, and level of social integration. Correspondingly, the assistance provided by probation officers was overwhelmingly reported as heterogeneous and closely tailored to each individual’s needs and situation. Despite these individual differences, a common theme across interviews was the value probationers placed on officers’ professional expertise, which helped them navigate complex issues and better understand bureaucratic and judicial processes. Such support included accompanying probationers to court appointments, offering legal and bureaucratic guidance in dealings with authorities, and sharing their broad experience and knowledge.

Whenever an individualised approach was not facilitated, a feeling of frustration with supervision was reported. In some cases, supervision was described as too rigid and inflexible, and therefore not offering any support tailored to individual needs.

I had the feeling that there’s a guideline and everyone just sticks to it. But looking a bit to the left and right – that unfortunately doesn’t happen. (F)

An overarching, one-size-fits-all approach leaves some probationers without the support they actually need and, in some cases, misses the mark when it comes to using the time under supervision effectively.

Established changes and the influence of supervision

The findings suggest that the effects of probation are embedded in a wider social context and should therefore not be considered in isolation, since changes in probationers’ lives and their respective circumstances may occur independently of supervision. Supervision therefore encounters inherent limits, as probationers’ lives are influenced by many factors beyond its remit. Assessing current life circumstances thus offers only a snapshot of the interviewees’ situations and progress. What could be considered successful outcomes cannot with certainty be attributed directly to the impact of probation supervision.

The probationers who reported positive changes since the beginning of their time on probation refer to success in the area of social reintegration, such as finding or sustaining employment or the completion of a substance use therapy.

I now earn more money legally than I used to earn illegally. I got my driver’s license back, I have a car. I have my dog, I have a house with a garden. Everything has gone in the right direction. (K)

Changes in the interviewees’ own attitudes and outlooks on life were also described:

[I am] consistently more positive, problem-solving-oriented, compared to before, solution-oriented. (G)

Concerning offending behaviour, all interviewees report living a crime-free life due to cognitive and integrative changes established since being on probation. Regret regarding the original offence and the desire to live without further convictions were unanimously expressed. ⁶

Because a causal connection between supervision and changed life circumstances cannot be assumed, probationers were explicitly asked what influence they attribute to probation. While some interviewees rejected a link between changes that had manifested in their lives and their time on probation (‘To be completely honest: probation services cannot help anyone.’(L)), some attribute the initiation of change as well as its maintenance to their time with NEUSTART:

[…] NEUSTART is like the moral compass on my left shoulder. It’s always there, or at least I know it’s always there, and I experience it from time to time. In that sense, you could say it’s like a buoy that’s always with me, and I simply don’t have to panic anymore or fall back into old patterns of behaviour. (C)

Negation of any influence of supervision was related to general mistrust of the institution or to a desire to see change attributed to one’s own effort. A strong need for the acknowledgement of these probationers’ self-efficacy became apparent. Instead of solely crediting the probation service’s assistance, these interviewees placed importance on the fact that sustainable change had been established through their own efforts:

But I’ve already solved all these problems myself. And that’s why I don’t think about [NEUSTART] at all. (E)

The individual level of need and the availability of existing safety nets also influenced the degree of credit given to probation. Dependence on help naturally determined the perceived connection between changes manifested and the assistance offered. In contrast, when probation was experienced as facilitating change, this was often connected with increases in self-confidence and a more optimistic outlook. This betterment in mental health enabled improvements in other practical areas, such as social bonds or employment. Probation officers were appreciated for enabling concrete developments through the mental support they provided. As one interviewee acknowledged with regard to a promotion:

He helped me rebuild my confidence and believe in myself, so that I could say: foreman, easy, we can do that. And to his credit, because it works. (K)

In these cases, probation was perceived as a safety net preventing further escalation of difficulties and enabling probationers to regain a foothold in society:

[…] Thank God there are institutions like this, otherwise you'd fall completely through the social safety net out there. (C)

In the interviews, the probationers themselves occasionally compared different probation periods, highlighting that probationers are often assisted by NEUSTART more than once in their lives. Moreover, their needs change over time depending on external factors. The interviews demonstrate how complex the probationers’ lived experiences actually are. NEUSTART’s work does not take place in isolation but is shaped by a variety of external factors. The probation service can offer support and stability amidst shifting circumstances, yet the path of change is at times uneven.

The probationer-supervisor relationship

To understand the role of the probationer-supervisor relationship, interviewees were asked about their individual relationships with their respective probation officer. The responses attest to a wide variety of relationships which differ in nature and intensity. While some interviewees report an appreciated level of ‘healthy distance’ (G), which is not experienced as a shortcoming, others value their relationship to their probation officer beyond the court order, describing their probation officer as a type of ‘family member’ (H) to whom they could imagine maintaining a relationship even post-probation. While these presented types are at the polar ends of the spectrum, they provide insight into how diverse a functioning probationer-supervisor relationship can present and how dependent relationship building is on the particular individuals.

Some probationers reported very concrete forms of support that significantly facilitated their relationship building with their probation officer. For instance, one interviewee described how his attitude towards probation shifted after receiving help tailored specifically to his situation. He had initially expected probation to get on his nerves, but this perception changed:

She had some very, very good tips. At first I thought, well, fine, I’ll do it, I’ll have a look at it. And it actually turned out to be great. (B)

Other probationers emphasised the importance of having pleasant, respectful conversations – particularly during the first meetings. The fundamental experience of being treated with warmth and appreciation created a sense of optimism about their time with NEUSTART:

Maybe during the first two appointments I was still tired and not really in the mood to go. But she had a fairly open personality and her way of doing her job was also very pleasant, so I quickly thought to myself, OK, this isn't unpleasant at all. And I also quickly saw the benefits. (I)

Another interviewee explained that although they had ‘a kind of friendly relationship’, the probation officer still remained a ‘figure of authority’ (H). Several participants described their initial fear of being met with rejection, and expressed relief at being treated respectfully and kindly at NEUSTART. This was particularly significant for those recently released from prison, who often feared associated stigma:

At first, it was quite difficult to move around outside as a free person again. At the beginning, I was like... is anyone watching me, or looking at me strangely, or whatever. Can you tell by looking at me that I'm a criminal or not? That’s really though […] What fascinated me was that no matter what had happened [the probation officer] saw me as a human being and spoke to me normally. And that really did me good. (G)

An often pre-existing sense of ‘mistrust’ (Gahleitner and Hösl, 2021: 123) must first be reduced before a trusting relationship can develop. Once trust is established, probationers are more willing to communicate openly with their probation officers and to integrate probation appointments into their daily routines. This trust facilitates open communication, enables emerging problems to be addressed, allows probation officers deeper insight into the probationers’ lives, and often has positive effects on the probationers’ wider social environment beyond probation itself (ibid.). A trusting relationship also strengthens the influence probation officers can have on the probationers:

Personally, I always attach great importance to what Mr A. says about this and that. Because we do have a relationship of trust, when it comes to problems [...] (C)

For some ‘relation-shaken individuals’ (ibid.), it is a new experience to speak openly about their worries and thoughts within probation. Such exchanges are only possible in a safe and trusting environment. Especially for individuals who otherwise have few opportunities to reflect on their life circumstances, this setting can be particularly effective.

In cases where this positive feeling could not be established, participants reported difficulties that eventually led to a desire to change probation officers. A minority described such conflicts, but where they occurred, probationers reported a lack of appreciation and a basic sense of mistrust. One interviewee described initial setbacks that stopped only after a change in probation officer and a resulting improvement in the working relationship:

I used to get up to a lot of nonsense, like burglaries […] And I said I wanted a different probation officer. And then I got a new one. And then I really did everything calmly. I’m on the right path […] At the beginning I wasn’t sure whether I could trust the person or not. That’s normal. And it didn’t work with the first one, but with the second one I really opened up. (H)

These accounts show that it is not always possible to establish a positive or productive working relationship. When relationships are perceived negatively or as unstable, regardless of why, probationers tend to cancel appointments, develop mistrust, and engage less effectively with the support offered. In most cases, dissatisfaction with supervision eventually led to a change of probation officer, whether due to external circumstances such as a relocation or a new court order, or in one case upon direct request. This change was typically accompanied by an increase in the probationers’ compliance within the supervision process.

Conclusion

This article offers insight into Austria’s probation service organisation, the methods by which probation supervision is delivered, the objectives being pursued, and how these aspects are experienced by probationers. By bringing together probation officers’ perspectives and probationers’ lived experiences, the study makes visible how different probation paradigms are translated into everyday practice in Austria. Importantly, the empirical patterns identified in this study are consistent across both data sources, with probation officers and probationers describing closely aligned understandings of supervision practices and change processes. This points to a somewhat congruent understanding of service delivery by staff and probationers, and suggests a transparent flow of communication concerning relational and practical matters.

Across both data sources, the working relationship in probation emerges as a central element of supervision. While its importance is widely acknowledged, its concrete form varies considerably. The findings indicate that there is no ideal type of relationship building; rather, appropriate working relationships must be shaped in interaction with individual probationers and their biographies (see also Gahleitner and Hösl, 2021). This relational work is closely linked to the practical assistance described by probationers, particularly with regard to housing, employment, financial stability, and health. Internal developments, such as cognitive or emotional changes, are less directly observable but nonetheless remain essential for many probationers’ trajectories.

Both probation officers and probationers describe change as complex, multifactorial, and often discontinuous (cf. Farrall, 2022). In line with desistance research, setbacks do not necessarily indicate failure but are frequently part of a longer process of adjustment and learning (Ghanem and Graebsch, 2020). These findings caution against an overly rigid or standardised understanding of probation practice. As both desistance research and the RNR framework have highlighted, excessive ‘over-manualisation’ risks neglecting individual contexts and undermining meaningful engagement (Andrews et al., 2011).

An important implication of the present study is that probation success cannot be adequately captured through standardised key performance indicators. Instead, individual differences are enormous and require not only tailored methods but also tailored expectations of results. Success emerges through relational and processual dynamics, such as the establishment of trust, the clarification of individual needs, and the gradual strengthening of probationers’ self-efficacy. These processes do not merely precede intervention outcomes but constitute a core part of how probation supervision works in practice.

By synthesising professional and probationer perspectives, the study highlights NEUSTART’s hybrid use of desistance-oriented social work and risk-oriented tools. This co-constructed hybridity does not appear as an unsolvable contradiction but as a working logic that depends on professional discretion, relational continuity, and contextual sensitivity. Where such conditions are present, probation supervision can adapt to individual trajectories and balance organisational mandates with probationers’ lived realities. Austria’s probation practice can therefore be viewed as a blended supervision approach put into practice. At the same time, the findings suggest that this hybridity should not be understood as entirely novel. Rather, it reflects a particular reconfiguration of relational, skill-based, and programmatic elements that have long co-existed within probation practice (Durnescu, 2012). What distinguishes the Austrian case is less the presence of these elements themselves than the way they are sequenced in practice, with relational engagement forming the precondition for the effective use of structured intervention. While its chronological development differs from the commonly described integration of desistance into standardized risk-practices, the present findings show how protective integration strategies can practically work from the perspective of staff and probationers in Austria.

Finally, the findings underline the value of qualitative, process-oriented research for understanding probation practice. By focusing on lived experiences and everyday interactions, such approaches complement outcome-focused evaluations and help explain how and why probation supervision unfolds differently across individuals and contexts. Taken together, the study positions probation as a fundamentally relational and adaptive practice in which organisational frameworks and individual change processes are continuously negotiated.