Probation Philosophies and Workload Considerations

Abstract

Researchers have devoted a great deal of attention to understanding the punishment attitudes of different groups. Much of this research has focused on punishment attitudes of members of the public, while a few studies have considered how criminal justice officials perceive different sanctions. This study explores the justifications of probation rated by a sample of probation and parole officers. Attention is given to whether justifications are tied to the way officers rated the importance of different tasks as well as how much time officers reported their agencies devoting to different types of probation and parole activities. The results show some inconsistencies between justifications and work preferences/work activities. Implications are provided.

Comparing Demographic Factors, Background Characteristics, and Workplace Perceptions as Predictors of Burnout Among Community Corrections Officers

“…In addition, there was no research at all on the work experiences of residential officers. The existing literature on the work experiences of probation/parole officers covered topics such as job stress (O’Donnell & Stephens, 2001; Pitts, 2007; Slate, Wells, & Johnson, 2003; Wells, Colbert, & Slate, 2006), turnover intention (Lee, Joo, & Johnson, 2009; Matz, Woo, & Kim, 2014; Simmons, Cochran, & Blount, 1997), workplace decision-making (Jones & Kerbs, 2007; Slate et al, 2003), probation justification and work tasks (Payne & DeMichele, 2011), attitudes toward substance abuse treatment (Here, Cunningham, & Martin, 2000), attitudes toward girls (Gaarder, Rodriguez, & Zatz, 2004), perceptions of arming probation/parole officers (Roscoe, Duffee, Rivera, & Smith, 2007), secondary trauma (Severson & Pettus-Davis, 2013), and juvenile probation officer experiences (Blevins, Cullen, Frank, Sundt, & Holmes, 2006; Rush, 1991; Salyers, Hood, Schwartz, Alexander, & Aalsma, 2015).…”

Game Changer? The Impact of the Reentry Movement on Post-Prison Supervision

“…For the sake of precision, many of these questions consisted of several items, which were also informed by the prior literature and direct knowledge of reentry-based services and PPS activities. 1 The first dimension was measured through the 12-item question, “How important is it to your superiors that the following activities are performed by officers when supervising an offender released from prison?” Rating the importance of supervision activities has a long history in CC research and the measurement of organizational change in the wake of policy reform (Lutze, 2014; Ohlin, Piven, & Pappenfort, 1956; Payne & DeMichele, 2011; Seiter & West, 2003). To better isolate changes in official policy and practice, the question solicited input on what was deemed important to one’s superiors as opposed to oneself.…”

It's a Small World, but I Wouldn't Want to Paint it: Learning from Denmark's Experience with Electronic Monitoring

“…One of my colleagues and I (see DeMichele and Payne, ; Payne and DeMichele, ) prefer to define electronic monitoring as a tool rather than as a sentence. In the United States, it is rare that judges “sentence” an offender to electronic monitoring.…”

“…The tool will only be as useful as the officials are who put it to use. To be sure, the tool has implications for officers’ workload (Blackwell, Payne, and Prevost, ; Payne and DeMichele, ), which means that officials will need to be trained on how to use the technology, when to use it, when to avoid it, and how to avoid any associated pitfalls. When used effectively, offenders should, at least theoretically, experience electronic monitoring in a way that prevents offending and assists with reintegration back into the community.…”