The Probation Service has experienced massive changes during the past 10 years, including the way in which its probation officers are trained. Whether or not the espoused intention of this latter change was to introduce a `new breed' of officer more versed in control than care, the three studies reported here all demonstrate the same finding, namely that individuals enter the training to work with people, and that they continue to achieve most satisfaction from this. The studies focus variously on newly qualified officers, those in training, and those applying for training. This article reviews these studies and offers a critical analysis of their key findings.

The theme of this article was developed at a conference organized by Conférence Permanente Européenne de la Probation (CEP) together with the Ministry of Justice of Estonia which took place in Tallinn, September 2007. The title of the conference was `Unity and Diversity in Probation'. Within this context, this article aims to examine issues and dilemmas in evaluating probation effectiveness in different jurisdictions. According to the published aims of various probation services, probation systems in EU countries could be divided into four main types: probation services based on promoting community measures and sanctions; probation services based on the model of assisting the judiciary; probation services based on the rehabilitation model/public protection; and probation services based on a punishment or enforcement model. These different types require different criteria for evaluating probation effectiveness, but each criterion has some important risks, which need to be carefully assessed. The article's focus therefore is on the methodological dilemmas and not on the ethical aspects of defining probation's purposes and objectives.

This article is a practitioner's response to Susan Batchelor's article `"Prove me the bam!": Victimization and agency in the lives of young women who commit violent offences' published in the December 2005 edition of Probation Journal. Batchelor undertook a research study comprising in-depth oral-history interviews with 21 women convicted of violent offences aged between 16 and 24 years who were detained in HMPYOI Cornton Vale in Scotland, interviews with adults who work with `such young women' (p. 361) and an analysis of available documents (such as relevant social work reports, prison narratives, programme records, etc). The focus of Batchelor's article was to explore the background and characteristics of female offenders convicted of violent offences and to use this to develop a `what works' discourse on how to respond to such behaviour.

This article is a practitioner's response to Susan Batchelor's article `Prove me the bam!': Victimization and agency in the lives of young women who commit violent offences', published in Probation Journal (December, 2005). The article drew on research Susan Batchelor had undertaken at HMPYOI Cornton Vale in Scotland with 21 young women aged from 16 to 24 years-old who were imprisoned for violent offences. Susan Batchelor's findings challenge the notion that female violence is `abnormal' or `bizarre', suggesting instead that it is a rational response in lives characterized by multiple disadvantage.