Probation Officer Decision-Making Research Paper

This sample Probation Officer Decision-Making Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need help writing your assignment, please use our research paper writing service and buy a paper on any topic at affordable price. Also check our tips on how to write a research paper, see the lists of criminal justice research paper topics, and browse research paper examples.

Imposed in lieu of incarceration, probation is the most common sentence in the United States for convicted adults. A probation sentence orders convicted offenders to adhere to conditions of release that are specified by statute (mandatory conditions) or leveled in response to the particular circumstances of the case (special conditions). The former require probationers, for example, to report to their probation officers and to seek permission from the court to move from the sentencing jurisdiction. The latter require probationers, for example, to pay restitution to victims or to obtain treatment for drug or alcohol addiction. Probation officers are agents of the court responsible for enforcing the mandatory and special conditions of probation.

In the initial appearance stage of the court process, probation officers evaluate arrestees for bail. These evaluations are based on arrestees’ charges as well as their criminal histories, ties to the community, and previous records of court appearances. Those with the most severe charges and criminal histories – especially those involving sex or other types of violent crimes – and records of failing to appear in court are the least likely to be recommended for bail or for a low amount of bail, ensuring that they will be detained in a jail until their cases are adjudicated. Before a sentence is rendered, probation officers conduct presentence investigations that inform the court in rendering the most appropriate sentence in light of a defendant’s criminal and social histories. Officers typically recommend a sentence to probation for those who can be supervised safely in the community and benefit from social and behavioral healthcare services.

As part of their duties, probation officers also engage in assessments that guide their case management strategies at the post-adjudication stage of the court process. Based on an assessment of risk (i.e., the likelihood of continued criminal activity while on probation), officers decide on the level and frequency of contacts for each member of their caseloads. Higher-risk offenders are seen more often in the office and in home visits compared with lower-risk offenders who may be allowed to report by phone, mail, or computer. Based on an assessment of need (i.e., the rehabilitative and treatment services required to help offenders reintegrate into the community as law-abiding citizens), officers decide on the nature and intensity of services brokered in the community or provided in-house. Other decisions rendered by probation officers include the filing of petitions to the court requesting to revoke probation for offender rule breaking or to terminate an offender early for rule adherence. Whether officers are more inclined to monitor or counsel their cases depends in part on their backgrounds (e.g., law enforcement or social work) and styles of supervision.

Introduction

Of the numerous correctional reforms and innovations that emerged in the nineteenth century, few were as broadly or readily embraced as probation. Rooted in common law practices, such as suspended sentences and judicial reprieves, the first use of probation in the courts is widely attributed to the voluntary efforts of an altruistic Boston boot maker, John Augustus (1784–1859), who is considered the father of probation. Between 1841 and 1859, Augustus acted as advisor, advocate, and surety for nearly 2,000 people. Augustus was an early and ardent proponent of rehabilitation, declaring that the purpose of the law is to reform criminals and to prevent crime, not to punish criminals for the sake of retribution or vengeance. He was known to rebuke police officers, judges, and others who challenged his correctional philosophy; many officials regarded Augustus as an interloper in the court system and interfered with his efforts to persuade judges to release defendants to his guardianship. Augustus’s progressive, humanitarian approach to supervision was designed to encourage offenders to repudiate their destructive habits (rehabilitation) and return to the community as law-abiding citizens (reintegration).

Augustus assisted lawbreakers by counseling and supervising them during periods of release from court custody. According to his records, among the first 1,100 probationers under his authority, only one forfeited bond. If any of his charges were too poor to pay court costs, Augustus advanced them a loan and provided them with lodging and subsistence. Rudimentary assessment strategies appear in his informal evaluations of offenders’ intentions to remain sober and to become upright, law-abiding citizens. During Augustus’s time, other concerned Bostonians emulated his efforts by putting up bail for defendants and offering employment to those who were jobless. These voluntary endeavors greatly impressed the court and were instrumental in leading Massachusetts to become the forerunner in probation legislation. Almost 20 years after Augustus’s death, the Probation Act of 1878 called for the appointment of a paid probation officer (PO) to serve the courts, thereby creating the basic model of probation that remains in operation today. POs were given authority to investigate cases and recommend probation for people who could be reformed without punishment.

Probation, a sentence in lieu of incarceration that orders convicted offenders to adhere to conditions of release, is the most common sanction in the United States. At the end of 2009, more than four million adults were on probation. In general, the conditions of probation can be categorized as mandatory, punitive, or service oriented. All people sentenced to probation are subject to mandatory conditions as dictated by state statute, such as reporting to a PO and refraining from criminal activity and gun ownership. Mandatory conditions also prohibit offenders from leaving the jurisdiction without the express permission of the sentencing judge. Punitive and service-oriented conditions – known as special conditions – are tailored to the specific circumstances of the case and the special needs of probationers. The former include allowing unannounced home visits, fulfilling community service hours, paying fines and restitution, and obeying a curfew. The latter include being referred to treatment for psychiatric or substance use disorders and participating in vocational or educational programs. Conditions of probation must be reasonable and constitutional and serve a legitimate purpose in terms of rehabilitating offenders and protecting community safety. Throughout the period of supervision, the court retains the right to modify the conditions of probation and to resentence the offender when those conditions are violated.

Probation Officers’ Roles

POs are agents of the court, responsible for a variety of activities before sentencing (pre-adjudication), as well as monitoring and enforcing the conditions of probation after sentencing (post-adjudication). To serve the court, POs must make several decisions that affect probationers throughout the criminal justice process. Like most other criminal justice professionals, these officers exercise discretion in rendering decisions about defendants and offenders. However, also like most other criminal justice professionals, their decisions must be bound by the law and in accordance with departmental policies, standard operating procedures, and professional standards.

The responsibilities and case management decisions of POs and parole agents are highly similar; they both strive to protect community safety by monitoring the conditions of release and reintegrating offenders into the community by brokering services. Unlike probation, which is a sentence in lieu of incarceration, parole is early release from prison (post-sentence). Probation officers enforce the mandates of the court system; parole agents enforce the mandates of the corrections system. Although parole agents are never involved in pretrial or presentencing decisions, they are involved in making decisions pertaining to assessment, supervision, and revocation. Unlike probation officers, parole agents struggle to help formerly incarcerated persons with the many and varied challenges of prisoner reentry.

Pretrial Decisions

The Federal Bail Reform Acts of 1966 and 1984 significantly changed the mechanisms for setting bail and were enacted to protect the constitutional rights of all defendants, especially the indigent who were languishing in jail because they were unable to afford the bond amount needed to secure their freedom before their cases were heard. An experiment by the Vera Institute of Justice, known as the Manhattan Bail Project, played a significant role in the bail reform movement and was instrumental in POs’ participation in the bail decision-making process. The project examined whether judges could release defendants safely without monetary bail (on their own recognizance), contingent upon their providing the court with verifiable information about their families, jobs, and associates (criminal and noncriminal). The study found that defendants who had been released on their own recognizance were more likely to appear in court than defendants released with monetary bail, setting the stage for POs’ evaluations of defendants for pretrial release and bond amounts.

The Bail Reform Act of 1966 enjoined the court to first consider releasing defendants on their own recognizance and to use a cash bond only in cases in which a recognizance release was deemed insufficient to guarantee a defendant’s appearance in court. In addition, the court was required to select bail release options that were responsive to the needs of each defendant. The Act also defined the factors that should be considered in pretrial release decisions: the nature and circumstances of the current offense; the weight of evidence against the defendant; the defendant’s social history and personal characteristics, including the defendant’s character, mental health problems, family ties, employment status, and financial resources; the defendant’s length of residence in the community; the defendant’s criminal history and previous failures to appear before the court; and whether the defendant was on probation or parole or had other pending cases at the time of the arrest.

The Bail Reform Act of 1984 amended the previous reform act in order to permit the court to consider preventive detention as a means to protect the public from high-risk defendants. In such instances, a defendant could be denied bail and detained if the defendant was likely to pose a serious risk to public safety or to obstruct justice or intimidate witnesses or jurors. Bail also could be denied to defendants with lengthy criminal histories or to those accused of a felony, or a violent or drug offense that carried a potential life sentence or the death penalty.

At the pre-adjudication or pretrial level, POs present judges with information that helps them determine whether to release a defendant on bond. The process of collecting and presenting information to the court is based, in part, on bail legislation and research. POs’ recommendations also inform judges in setting the type and amount of bond ordered. Officers conduct a comprehensive evaluation of defendants to arrive at these recommendations. The first area of investigation involves a defendant’s risk of continued criminal activity and threat to public safety. To render decisions in this area, POs examine a defendant’s current charge(s) and criminal history. In general, those who pose the greatest risk for committing a future crime have lengthier criminal records and are charged with more than one offense. Other risk factors include gang membership and addiction to drugs or alcohol.

The second area of investigation involves the risk of absconding (the failure to appear on the designated court dates), which is based on an assessment of community ties or connectedness. Defendants who have ties to social institutions (school, family, job) are considered a lower risk of absconding than defendants with weak or no ties (single, unemployed, and out of school). POs’ decisions take the form of a recommendation to the court to release defendants on bail or keep them confined to jail pending court hearings or trial. A decision to recommend bond also can include a recommendation of bond type (cash, deposit, or recognizance) and dollar amount (high, moderate, or low).

Several studies have created and tested statistical tools for bail decision-making, which consist of factors that are related to pretrial outcomes. POs assess defendants for bail by scoring them on each factor – for example, current charges, criminal histories, and community ties – for the purpose of determining the likelihood that the defendant will appear in court and refrain from criminal activity while awaiting trial. The scores are added, and the sum equates to the level of risk. Defendants who score higher on such assessments usually are considered a higher risk for committing a future crime or absconding. In such cases, POs are likely to recommend detention or a high bond amount. Inversely, defendants who score lower are considered a lower risk. In such cases, POs are likely to recommend release to the community or a low bond amount. POs have the discretion to override the score and recommend a decision to the court that is based on their informed judgment of the defendant’s suitability for release.

The Vera Institute of Justice introduced its “points system” of bail decision-making in the Manhattan Bail Project. In this system, more points predict lower risk. Specifically, defendants are awarded points for having no criminal record, living with immediate family in the area, being employed, or attending school. Defendants who have lived at same residence for several years or are cooperative during the bail interview also are awarded more points in the system.

The most common factors incorporated in bail assessment tools include prior court appearances, nature of the offense, and criminal history. Courts also examine defendants’ employment and financial status, family and community ties, psychiatric and substance use disorders, length of residency, and evidence of dangerousness to the community. In addition, the court may order defendants to participate in pretrial supervision programs, which were implemented to relieve jail overcrowding by monitoring defendants in the community. POs’ decisions about the level or closeness of pretrial supervision are based on their evaluation of roughly the same factors considered in POs’ decisions about bond. Defendants who present the highest risk for criminality and absconding are monitored at the highest level of supervision, and vice versa.

Presentence Decisions

After a defendant has been convicted, POs shift the focus of their decisions from the pretrial to the presentence level, at which POs conduct a thorough evaluation of convicted offenders, or presentence investigation (PSI) – usually required for offenders convicted of a felony. The PSI consists of interviews with offenders and crime victims, as well as reviews of court and criminal records. POs compile this information into a PSI report, covering the offender’s criminal, social, educational, military, and employment histories; current charges and the circumstances surrounding his or her arrest, such as the use of a weapon and victim harm; current living arrangements; and previous experiences in prison and on probation or parole. POs decide whether to recommend probation, and, if so, they prepare a supervision plan that specifies how the offender should be monitored and serviced. POs’ decisions to recommend probation are highly important in cases in which a judge may sentence an offender to a term of either probation or imprisonment, that is, when the statute imposes no mandatory prison sentence for a given charge (Class X Felony) or a given offender (repeat felon statutes or “three strikes” laws).

Postsentence Decisions

POs’ postsentencing decisions relate to the case management of offenders, which involves monitoring offenders in order to minimize their risk of continued criminal activity and responding to offenders’ needs for services and treatment in order to assist them in living more productive and crime-free lives. POs also are interested in helping offenders to reintegrate into the community and restore their good citizenship. As the first step in the case management process, risk and needs assessment guide officers in rendering decisions about the nature and frequency of offender contacts, as well as the provision or brokerage of services. POs’ assessment strategies have evolved through three generations of decision-making protocols.

Risk assessment is the cornerstone of effective offender management. The first generation of risk assessment was based on subjective or clinical judgments in which officers trusted their “gut instincts” and experiences in the formulation of case management plans. Early studies of PO and parole officers’ supervisory decisions demonstrated that they used stereotypes and beliefs that crystallized through repeated contacts with offenders and were situated in the professional climates and cultures in which officers functioned. For example, one study showed that POs stored their information about probationers into stereotypic categories known as schemata, which consisted of information about offenders’ past criminal behaviors, social histories, pathways to crime, and drug and alcohol use. Schemata are abstract cognitive representations of organized prior knowledge, extracted from experiences with specific cases. Types of probationer schemata have included “the gang member,” “the professional burglar,” “the white-collar criminal,” “the drug addict,” “the career criminal,” and “the violent man.” Experienced POs produced fewer but richer (more detailed) schemata than inexperienced POs. Research has shown that stereotypic categories, for example, “dangerous men,” “criminals,” and “sincere clients,” also are used by parole agents to guide supervisory strategies, treatments, and prognoses, and to render decisions about the nature and frequency of offender contacts.

Decisions about schematic cases usually are made more quickly, easily, and confidently than decisions about non-schematic cases. Despite these advantages, the use of informal or stereotyped decision-making is fraught with limitations and errors. Clinical judgments – especially those that involve predictions of future risk – are mostly invalid (inaccurate) and unreliable (inconsistent). Such professional judgments are unstructured and unstandardized. In addition, they are subject to personal bias and difficult to correct because of their deeply practiced and entrenched nature. Furthermore, professional assessments are difficult to study because each PO’s decision-making procedure is idiosyncratic, and individual judgments have never been systematically tracked to determine their predictive value.

The second generation of risk assessment was based on actuarial (statistical) assessments of risk. Since the 1950s, research has found consistently that actuarial or statistical methods of risk assessment that are empirically derived predict criminal behavior more accurately than those that are clinically derived. As a result of their demonstrated predictive superiority, actuarial assessment and classification models have been implemented by correctional agencies in order to guide supervision practices. Based on prediction tools that were developed to gauge offender risk for parole release (e.g., the Salient Factor Score Model), probation departments created case classification systems that assigned probationers to levels of supervision, establishing a fairer and a more rational and effective use of department resources than could be achieved with clinical approaches to offender assessment. With such statistical models, officers’ time could now be properly allocated to monitor the highest-risk and highest-need offenders. More intensive surveillance and services could be dedicated to manage offenders at higher levels of risk and with greater needs for services. A uniform classification system can also be used to describe the client population, to allocate department resources, and measure the effectiveness of community supervision practices.

The development of second-generation risk assessment tools often involves a multistep process of research/analysis. A sample of closed cases is selected randomly from a recently terminated population of probationers, yielding information about the predictive or outcome variable, such as rearrests during the probation period and status at termination (successful or unsuccessful fulfillment of the conditions of the sentence).

The sample is split evenly between probationers who had a positive (no rearrests, completion of conditions) or a negative (rearrest or violation of conditions) outcome. Information on the outcome and a variety of predictor variables (e.g., age at intake, number of previous arrests, juvenile record) are collected and coded from the case files.

The sample is then divided in half, preserving in each half equal numbers of successful and unsuccessful probationers. The data in the first half of the sample, called the construction sample, are analyzed to identify factors that are statistically related to the outcome.

The data in second half of the sample, called the validation sample, are analyzed to test how well the factors can predict the outcome with a new group of cases. In this stage of the analysis, the accuracy of the variables is determined by comparing the percentages of correct and incorrect classifications, which include false-positive errors (predicting a failure when the case was actually successful) and false-negative errors (predicting a success when the case was actually a failure). Other measures of the accuracy of a prediction tool are its sensitivity (its power to select true positives) and specificity (its power to predict true negatives).

If the tool has a high rate of correct classifications (a low rate of errors), the next step in the process is to scale the factors and place them in an instrument. In a pilot test of the tool, POs score a sample of probationers on each variable and add up the scores to determine the probationer’s level of risk: high, medium, or low. The pilot test results suggest a cutoff score for each of the risk categories.

In the final step of the process, POs are trained to use the tool and asked to complete questionnaires about its practicality and effectiveness. They also are also asked to track the amount of time they spend supervising offenders in each of the risk categories and to recommend improvements to the tool. Such feasibility studies are critical in encouraging the proper use of the tool and ensuring that changes are made before mistakes and poor practices become embedded in everyday usage.

Undertaken by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) in the early 1980s, the Risk Classification Initiative encouraged the adoption of case classification systems in probation. NIC offered training and technical assistance to probation agencies nationwide in an effort to implement case classification systems as tools for accurate assessment and efficient resource allocation. The NIC Model Risk Classification system consisted of both risk and needs assessment instruments, which were developed in Wisconsin. The risk component of the assessment evaluates the likelihood that probationers will commit an offense while on probation. The Wisconsin Risk Assessment tool contained items such as age at first conviction, number of prior periods of probation and parole supervision, number of prior felony convictions, and convictions/adjudications for a violent crime.

The needs component of assessment evaluates the nature and extent of offenders’ problems and the amount of time necessary for supervision and resource brokerage for cases with varying degrees of problems. The needs scale contained the following items: academic/vocational skills, employment problems, financial management, marital/family relationships, companions, emotional stability, alcohol use, other drug use, mental ability, health, sexual behavior, and officers’ impressions of offender problems. Based on scores from the risk and needs assessment scales, offenders are assigned to maximum, medium, or minimum levels of supervision. POs place probationers in the highest supervision category indicated by either scale. However, with approval from their supervisors, POs can override the level of supervision dictated by the scales if individual circumstances warrant the reassignment of a probationer to a higher or lower level of monitoring. Maximum supervision probationers exhibit either a high potential for continued criminal activity or a substantial need for services, or both. Medium supervision probationers exhibit either a moderate potential for continued criminal activity or a moderate need for services, or both. Minimum supervision probationers exhibit little potential for continued criminal activity and few problems and therefore are likely to successfully complete probation.

In tandem with the Wisconsin risk and needs instruments, the NIC model used the Client Management Classification tool (CMC), which was a structured interview that helped POs formulate case plans for working with different types of offenders. The CMC identified four treatment/ supervisory modalities for different types of probationers: selective intervention, environmental structure, casework/control, and limit setting.

Although second-generation actuarial prediction tools contained risk factors that are related statistically to outcomes, these factors consisted mostly of static or historical factors, which are unchangeable. For example, juvenile record, history of conduct disorder, and parental involvement in crime are all strong predictors of early adult offending. However, they also are immutable. In other words, such variables can explain criminality and reoffending but are unresponsive to probation officers’ interventions. In contrast, criminogenic needs are dynamic factors, which form the building blocks of third-generation risk assessment batteries. When properly addressed by POs, dynamic factors can reduce offender risk. For example, if an offender is unemployed (dynamic risk factor), then the PO can help the offender find a job. Examples of other dynamic factors are educational status, faulty cognitions, deviant sexual fantasies, family relationships, leisure activities, criminal associates, and substance use disorders. The third-generation approach to risk assessment is known as “structured professional judgment.”

According to research, the eight major risk factors associated with criminal conduct are antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, and beliefs; procriminal associates and isolation from prosocial people; temperament and personality factors, such as impulsivity, adventurousness, and pleasure-seeking tendencies; history of antisocial behavior; family criminality or lack of family caring or cohesiveness; low levels of educational, vocational, or financial achievement; lack of prosocial leisure activities; and abuse of drugs and alcohol. All of these considered critical predictors but the first four, as also known as the “Big Four,” and are deemed the most predictive risk factors among the set. Third-generation tools often contain many of these factors.

The Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) is the best-known and most widely adopted third-generation assessment tool. Like its second-generation predecessors, the LSI-R is used to evaluate offenders for case management decisions. Unlike earlier models of risk assessment, the LSI-R focuses on criminogenic needs; it also has a theoretical basis and considerable empirical support, attesting to its accuracy, reliability, and usefulness in several areas of correctional practices. In addition to the principles of risk and needs, the tool incorporates the principle of responsivity: tailoring interventions to each offender’s motivational level, abilities, strengths, and learning style. The tool consists of 54 items, divided into ten dimensions or subscales: criminal history, employment/education, finance, accommodations, family/marital, leisure/recreation, friends/associates, drug/alcohol use, mental health, and attitude/orientation. Information to score the LSI-R is drawn from a thorough case review and semi-structured interview. Offenders who score higher on the LSI-R have a higher risk of recidivism, and vice versa.

Caseload Management Decisions

Offender case management strategies are predicated on discretionary decisions about the nature of the officer-offender relationship and the status of probationers during the supervisory period. These decisions cover the areas of supervision, treatment, early termination, and revocation. The surveillance or control aspect of the supervisory decision consists of two components. The first component is the frequency with which probationers report to their officers. The frequency of contacts is modified in accordance with the officer’s assessment of the offender’s level of risk or likelihood of continued criminal behavior. Probationers can report monthly (the most common frequency), bimonthly, or weekly. Higher-risk offenders report more often than lower-risk offenders.

The type or mode of supervision is the second component of the decision. POs can monitor a probationer through office visits, telephone contacts, mail-in reports, or computer-screen reporting at a kiosk. The offender’s assessed level of risk can also determine the supervisory mode. For example, felony probationers are generally required to visit the probation office regularly, whereas less serious offenders are allowed mail-in or kiosk reports. Related to the determination of the supervisory mode are officers’ decisions to assume a particular professional posture with different members of their caseloads.

POs adapt their attitudes, focus, and emotional tone to different offenders. Specifically, officers’ supervisory styles are influenced by offenders’ reporting demeanor; willingness to cooperate in the rehabilitation process; and desire to lead a productive and law-abiding life, for example, by finding a job, finishing school, and refraining from gang-related activity. These factors comprise what is known as the probationer’s “attitude.” Offenders who are honest in their self-disclosures and accept the conditions of their sentence are viewed as progressing satisfactorily and possessing a “positive attitude.” A “negative attitude,” on the other hand, is displayed in a probationer’s continued belligerence, indifference, sarcasm, or blatant attempts to curry favor with an officer. Such behaviors are indicative of a poor adjustment to probation. In short, offenders with positive and negative attitudes are treated differently during office and home visits.

At any point during the probation period, POs can contact probationers’ spouses, parents, teachers, friends, employers, or other professionals with whom the probationers are in contact. These contacts are often initiated to verify information, such as residence, employment, and the fulfillment of special conditions. POs also attempt to enlist the aid of others in efforts to control, rehabilitate, and reintegrate offenders. If POs suspect that a probationer is involved in illegal activities, they can obtain reports about subsequent arrests.

The second discretionary decision consists of an assessment of offenders’ major problems, for example, emotional, medical, interpersonal, and financial. During initial meetings with a probationer, POs search for signs of drug/alcohol abuse, symptoms of serious psychological disorders (e.g., disorientation, bizarre ideation, or odd behaviors), intellectual deficits, or lack of social or vocational skills in order to evaluate probationers’ needs for counseling or other services. Using the assessment tools described above, POs also can rely on their own sensitivity and experience to identify offender needs and to devise problem-solving strategies accordingly. Counseling sessions with officers follow a didactic, instructional style that fits better within a guardian-ward model than a therapist-client model. Officers’ educational backgrounds rarely prepare them to conduct therapy with probationers who have mental health or substance use problems. In such cases, POs broker services, referring offenders to community-based programs that treat a variety of specific disorders. POs link offenders to these services, ensuring that they obtain access to interventions for their most pressing problems. Given their large caseloads, POs can spend only limited time counseling or advising offenders. The choice of available referrals is dictated by situations or factors outside the POs’ control, for example, economic conditions that affect the number of job referrals and budget cuts for social service programs. Hence, officers must choose probationers for referrals who are most in need of treatment and the most likely to benefit from it. Offenders who request services, have minor criminal records, and display a “positive attitude” are generally considered the best candidates for counseling and other programs.

POs can recommend early terminations for offenders who pose no risk to the community. Early termination is warranted for probationers who have complied with their conditions and are on track for continued success in school or at work; for example, early termination can be recommended for an offender who asks to leave the state in order to accept a job. In contrast, for noncompliant probationers, officers can ask judges to extend periods of supervision up to the maximum sentence allowed by statute for the original offense.

Early termination is an incentive for “good behavior” and a demonstration to other probationers that cooperation and compliance with rules are rewarded. A key factor in the decision to recommend early termination is consistent offender reporting, which increases the likelihood that a case will be reviewed for early termination. Indeed, the “best probationers” are those who routinely report at their scheduled times. If a cancellation is unavoidable, these probationers promptly call their officers to inform them about the circumstances that prevented or that will prevent them from reporting at their scheduled times. POs take a dim view of probationers who are frequently late, skip appointments, and who call at the last minute or after the fact with implausible excuses for failing to report. When queried about the progress of a case, POs are likely to respond with a quick tally of the number of times a probationer missed a report day.

Release on probation is conditional and subject to compliance with the court-ordered terms or conditions of release. When probationers violate those terms, POs can initiate revocation proceedings. In most circumstances, the commission of a new crime during the probation term, known as a law violation, results in the filing of a violation of probation (VOP) petition, which is especially likely for a felony arrest. Technical

VOPs involve no new offenses and are considered less serious infractions. In such cases, POs exercise discretion when deciding whether to file a VOP petition with the court. They do so by evaluating the infraction as well as offenders’ performance on probation, criminal history, attitude, family relationships, and employment status. Probationers with a consistent record of reporting to their POs and of gainful employment are usually allowed to continue on probation for relatively minor transgressions.

After filing a VOP petition, POs must decide to recommend the imposition of a more serious sentence or a continuation of probation with more stringent conditions of release. This determination is based on the same set of factors as the decision to file a VOP. Officers might recommend a jail term for probationers during which they can receive more intensive services and contemplate the value of their freedom. The court can reject POs’ recommendations and dismiss the VOP petition, thereby allowing the offender to continue serving the term under the original conditions of release. Nonetheless, as in the case of early termination, the court often abides by officers’ recommendations to revoke probation and to impose a more serious penalty. In three landmark cases, the Supreme Court ruled that probationers and parolees retain their due process rights in revocation hearings (Morrissey v. Brewer, Gagnon v. Scarpelli, and Mempa v. Rhay).

Probation Officer Typologies And Styles

POs wear many hats in pursuing the primary goals of probation. Different typologies describe the various roles of officers, such as the punitive/ law enforcement officer, the social worker, the civil servant, and the synthetic officer. Punitive/ law enforcement POs are concerned overwhelmingly with exercising their legal authority and enforcing the conditions of probation. These POs regard probation as a privilege, not as a right. The second type of officer is the social worker or therapeutic agent, who strives to rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders into the community. Social workers cultivate a helping relationship with offenders by formulating plans for treatment and services. In contrast, civil servants or timeservers exhibit little concern for the welfare of the community or the probationer. They concentrate on maintaining or advancing their position in the probation bureaucracy with the ultimate goal of retirement, pension, or entry into another field, for example, law or police work. Civil servants observe rather than initiate behavioral changes in their clients. Synthetic/ protective officers’ supervisory styles reflect the basic orientations of the rule enforcer and social worker, recognizing the importance of both the treatment and control components of probation. Synthetic/protective officers integrate monitoring with rehabilitation. A more fundamental distinction has been made between the probation officer as a law enforcement agent and as a service broker and client advocate. In most cases, POs shift their emphasis to one role or the other depending on their assessment of each probationer’s risk and needs as well as his or her progress on probation.

Bibliography:

Abadinsky H (2002) Probation and parole: theory and practice. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Augustus J (1972) John Augustus: the first probation officer. Patterson Smith, Montclair
Austin J (2006) How much risk can we take? The misuse of risk assessment in corrections. Fed Probat 70:58–63
Baird C, Heinz RC, Benus B (1982) The Wisconsin classification/staff development project: a two-year, follow-up report. American Correctional Association, College Park
Bonta J, Wormith SJ (2008) Risk and need assessment. In: McIvor G, Raynor P (eds) Developments in social work with offenders. Jessica Kingsley, London, pp 131–152
McCleary R (1978) Dangerous men: the sociology of parole. Sage, Beverly Hills
Petersilia J (2002) Reforming probation and parole. American Correctional Association, Lanhan
Travis J, Petersilia J (2001) Reentry reconsidered: a new look at an old question. Crime Delinq 47:291–313