Abstract
PurposeLittle is known about how ex-prisoners’ parole supervision experiences support or hinder the process of desistance. The aim of this article is to analyse the nature of parole supervision of Dutch (ex-)long-term prisoners in terms of official conditions, as well as the way in which parole officers (POs) and ex-prisoners navigate these conditions. The focus is particularly on the experienced supervision style and how this interacts with different dimensions of efforts at desistance.MethodsTwenty-three Dutch parolees were interviewed in depth at three waves starting in prison up to one year after their release from prison. A thematic analysis was undertaken to analyse the 69 interviews. In addition, the parole files of these ex-prisoners were examined containing information about conditions, violations and sanctions.ResultsParole files revealed the practice of highly engaged parole officers, who worked with parolees to strengthen factors known to foster desistance and tried to accommodate the difficulties of navigating ‘life outside’ after a relatively long prison sentence. However, the interviews showed that most parolees found their parole experience predominantly surveillance-oriented and not very helpful for desistance. Parole was experienced as most beneficial when parole officers were viewed as social workers or mentors and used their discretionary power to adjust conditions creating ‘space’ for trial-and-error.ConclusionsThis longitudinal study suggests that a policy culture and discourse of risk management do not necessarily preclude desistance support in parole supervision in the Netherlands, due to discretionary power of parole officers.
Highlights
Various scholars have advocated in favour of desistance-focused parole supervision [22, 53, 56]
Our analysis of longitudinal interview data with Dutch parolees combined with their parole files and criminal records provided a number of key findings
Importance was given to addressing criminogenic needs, reflected in the fact that a majority of parolees were subjected to psychological assessment and treatment and/or placement in assisted living facilities
Summary
Various scholars have advocated in favour of desistance-focused parole supervision [22, 53, 56]. Many scholars argue that the current focus of parole in the USA and Europe is dominantly on crime-control and risk management instead of maintaining the original dual focus on rehabilitation and compliance [25, 57, 64]. This shift has been attributed to the ‘new penology’ [23], in which the social dimension has become less important and more weight has been given to supervising officers’ controlling tasks to monitor supervised individuals [25]. Successful supervision outcomes (i.e. compliance, [9]) do not necessarily display real change
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
