An Assessment of Parole Officer and Administrator Attitudes on Organizational Culture and Parole Supervision in a Northeastern State

Probation Staff Attitudes Toward Substance Abuse Treatment and Evidence-Based Practices

“…Although a promising finding, we also found that line officers were more supportive than management for punishment/deterrence-based responses to crime. This finding mirrors that of Schlager (2008) that parole line staff was more likely to have favorable views of supervision strategies that emphasize sanctions. Although rehabilitative and punishment/deterrence-based responses to crime are not always in direct competition, staff preference for both can result in neutralization and a preference for more punishment approaches in response to relapse or failure to comply with treatment.…”

“…Despite these potential implementation barriers, there is evidence that attitudes toward innovation can be shaped by staff relationships and how the change is implemented (Steiner, Travis, & Makarios, 2011) as well as policy initiatives to support organizational change (Young, Farrell, Henderson, & Taxman, 2009). For example, Schlager (2008) found that parole staff agree with the importance of providing treatment for offenders. Whether these views are common within probation agencies is largely unknown.…”

“…Whether these views are common within probation agencies is largely unknown. Schlager (2008) found that parole staff believed that there were not enough staff to implement changes in treatment programming, and that training was of low quality and could not generate high-quality programming. Rudes et al (2011) found that staff viewed their agency as not having sufficient funding and staffing, reported cynicism about the agency's ability to undergo change, and perceived low levels of support for case planning from managerial level staff.…”

The Organizational Politics of Implementing Risk Assessment Instruments in Community Corrections

“…as White (2004) noted, "Such change will not occur easily and will require persistence, patience, and leadership" (p. 44). Organizations that are unable to consistently, continually, and persistently deliver a message of change and encouragement, that are unwilling to be patient enough or who are afraid to listen to staff that have concerns about the process, and that are incapable of providing solid, unfailing, leadership and who often fold in the face of sometimes staunch opposition, will fall woefully short in successfully implementing a risk assessment instrument (Ferguson, 2002;Fuller, 2004;Schlager, 2008;White, 2004).…”

“…Line staff often resorts to setting their own priorities and goals despite agency directive (Corbett, 2008). Once this disconnect occurs, senior management personnel have little control of the message and/or the messenger and the resulting breakdown in communication only goes to foster or further inflame animosity and distrust between line staff and management and to further distance the agency from its intended goal (Schlager, 2008). asking staff at any level to fundamentally change their thought process with respect to community supervision is not enough and, in and of itself, will not result in any meaningful, sustainable change.…”