Co-Production in a Network Setting: Providing an Alternative to the National Probation Service

ABSTRACT

This article examines the policy implementation phase of co-production, focussing on micro-level dynamics (individual relationships, motivation, and trust), which are largely out of the direct control of the government. A case of an alternative probation service in Estonia is presented, where experimentation and the inclusion of motivated citizens were used to contend with the limits of traditional policymaking and implementation and the lack of resources. The case shows that while co-production can generate new ideas, the diffusion of bottom-up practices is extremely difficult due to the inherent qualities of the public-sector: authority, accountability, and legitimacy.

KEYWORDS:

• co-production
• desistance
• policy experimentation
• post-release rehabilitation
• standardization

Notes

¹ As a response to these challenges, the national probation system was initiated with the vision completed in 1993; the drafting of the Probation Supervision Act started in 1996 and it was passed by the Riigikogu in 1997. In order to alleviate the challenges in the prison system, the Estonian government, among other solutions, also toyed with the idea of prison privatization; an idea that would have changed the context of probation and readaptation systems, but was never implemented (see Lember, 2004).

² In May 2014, the number of probationers was 5954 (http://www.vangla.ee/41291, accessed 6.05.2014) and the number of probation officers was 232 (http://www.vangla.ee/41408, accessed 6.05.2014).

³ A diaconia was originally an establishment built near a church building for taking care of the poor and for the distribution of the church’s charity in medieval Rome or Naples.

⁴ For example, during the internship in the prison there was an occasion, where a prisoner asked his official contact officer in prison if he could be released a bit earlier or later than the official time of release set in prison rules. He wanted to avoid meeting his former criminal friends he knew would greet him at the prison gates. The officer’s response was that it is not in the rules and there are no exceptions. A similar thing happened to a prisoner with drug addiction. His day of release was approaching and the officer listened to his fears of re-using but did not come up with any suggestion on how to avoid slipping, for example, giving information on service providers. “It is not our job to give advice like that”, was her response when asked about it (notes from internship at Tallinn Prison from 13 to 31 October 2014).