In the last decade history of social work gained a growing interest among social professionals, teachers, students and policy makers. They want to know more about the contributions the social work professions made to social welfare, community building and public safety. A website was launched, which today in 2017 presents the history of fifteen fields of social work: www.canonsociaalwerk.eu/.
Part of this is the history of Probation. In this article this history is told, following highlights as the inspiration from Great Britain, the start in 1823 and the first decades of volunteer work. Probation tried to compensate the negative effects of solitary confinement. Since the early twentieth century the role of the state was growing (Probationcharter 1910) leading to 100% financial support in 1965 and 100% control in the 1980s. The probation service was integrated in the juridicial system, but became not an stateservice. Performance was delegated to relative independant institutions, heirs of the private probation associations of the past, with strong traditions of work ethic. This history of probation shows the influence of social casework methods since the 1950s, the search for a balance between dependance and independance from the state, and the balance between punishment and resocializing. Since the 1990s the role of probation in alternative sanctions, the contribution of volunteer work to a highly professionalized probation service and the What Works-debate brought innovation and new inspiration to the field of probation service.

Since 2016 advices the probation service delivers to the public prosecution office or prison service are no longer financed by counting the number of advices produced, but by a lump sum budget. That should give probation officers the much needed room to do what is necessary in an individual case, instead of following strict protocols. This article describes the changes in the work of probation officers and their co-operation with public prosecutors, as a result of this change. Findings are based on ongoing research, and describe the practice at the end of 2016.

The UK government has embarked on an ambitious programme to reform the English and Welsh probation sector. Key to these reforms has been ‘marketisation’ involving Payment by Results. More recently the devolution of justice has become a key theme. This paper describes key reforms that have taken place since 2010 and sets out evidence for their effectiveness. Currently, the available evidence is limited, but more evidence is available from other sectors where similar models have also been used. This evidence base is discussed with particular reference to the potential for the reforms to promote innovation.

New demands require probation to invest in high standards of professionalism. Probation officers can nowadays build their professionalism on common values, scientific knowledge, professional discretion and public accountability. Collaboration with universities of applied sciences results in a common research agenda, new degree programs and well-structured post-initial training. Questions yet to answer are how to guarantee professionalism in a context of large professional discretion. Probation seeks answers in facilitating their professionals to do the master degree program forensic social professional, in developing peer audits based on new quality standards and in initiating a professional register.

The probation in the Netherlands works more victim conscious since last year. Victim conscious working in probation is defined as: involving the perspective and interests of the victim when working with offenders. This broadly and to the extent it is justifiable from the primary task of the probation to reduce recidivism and promote the re-integration of probation clients/offenders. With this justification is both the moral level (right action) as being involved professional standards (effective action).
The article describes, among other, a study on how the victim consciously work has been implemented within the Salvation Army Probation Service in the Netherlands.

Recently the Dutch probation is faced with changes in the local situation: new forms of cooperation and networks have emerged, due to the transformation of the social domain. The probation officers participate on different levels in these networks. They can no longer simply deliver their ‘products’, but have to ‘do what is necessary. A lot of decisions have to be made on the operational level.
Examples of the changes are given. Recent research on cooperation in the social domain show that ‘cooperation’ is easier sad then done. These changes ask for a new set of competences.

The probation service gives advice to the court tens of thousands of time each year, coordinates tens of thousands of community service orders, and supervises tens of thousands of offenders. This is done professionally and takes place without much incidents or problems. However, the probation is not very well known to the general public. The identity of probation is also ambiguous and therefore not strong. There is less appreciation for the probation than they deserve. This can be met by making the probation service responsible for the implementation of all community-based sanctions (suspended sentences and other conditional modalities and community service orders), similar to the responsibility of the prison system for custodial sanctions and measures. Secondly, by differentiation in the nature and intensity of activities. Many probation clients do well. They represent only a low risk, and probation involvement may be limited. For other clients, more is needed: more activities, greater intensity and focus on criminogenic needs. It is proposed to distinguish between probation and probation plus. In both, probation supervision and community service are at the center, but the plus version is emphatically more focused on rehabilitation and reintegration, and thus on minimizing recidivism. This requires more efforts by the probation service. It also requires adapting the organization: one probation organization that is accountable and responsible for the implementation of community-based sanctions, but with the possibility to outsource work if special expertise and special activities are required.