Introduction
The field of probation is governed by codes of ethics. However, the set guidelines are not inclusive, and at times, probation and parole officers face different ethical issues due to the nature of their work (Bonner & Vandecreek, 2006). This paper explores the different ethical issues that probation and parole officers may face whilst execute their duties. The paper also gives the appropriate tools for addressing the issues coupled with pointing out the impact of my leadership style on choosing the tools.
Ethical issues
Probation and parole officers are involved in intensive supervision programs. The officers are expected to watch over the involved individuals all the time for the entire period of probation. Given such working conditions, an officer may be tempted to become reluctant to execute his/her duties. Being on call for 24 hours a day for seven days a week is strenuous, and thus the involved officers might be forced to look for ways of creating personal time. However, the idea of creating personal time whilst on duty is unethical.
In addition, most local and state governments experience fiscal constraints, and this aspect means that such officers may not have the necessary resources and backups to execute their duties optimally. One of the greatest ethical challenges that probation and parole officers experience is the role of conflict. Morris and Tonry (1990) define role conflict as “the tension between the probation officers’ control function and casework function, having to be both a police officer and a social worker” (p. 183).
Parole officers are expected to enforce intermediate punishments like carrying out urine tests to see whether the individual under probation is taking drugs. Police officers function best as enforcers, while social workers are implementers. Therefore, an ethical issue arises in this case, as the involved officers are torn due to the role conflict.
Corruption is another serious ethical issue amongst probation and parole officers. Clients can bribe officers in a bid to have some privileges. The financial constraints mentioned earlier in this paper lead to the underfunding of such programs, and this aspect may create a loophole for officers to engage in corruption. Probation officers can also be tempted to engage in sexual harassment, given the environment under which such programs are executed, like house arrests (Gregory, 2011). In some cultural orientations, women are subordinates, and thus officers may be tempted to engage in sexual harassment due to such cultural incompetency.
Tools
The most appropriate tools in handling the said problems are sticking to the set codes of ethics, supervision, and monitoring, coupled with observing personal dignity. Codes of ethics will function optimally in addressing the issues arising from intensive supervision programs. Maintaining personal dignity will address the issue of corruption, absconding duties, and sexual harassment. Supervision and monitoring are the core probation aspects, and thus I will use these tools for optimal results.
Leadership style
My leadership style is participative, and thus I normally consult all the involved parties in the decision-making process. Therefore, based on this leadership style, I will choose the aforementioned tools because I seek to involve everyone in the process for the best outcomes.
Conclusion
Probation and parole officers encounter numerous ethical challenges in the line of their duty. The common potential ethical issues in my workplace include intensive supervision, corruption, and sexual harassment. However, my participative leadership style will facilitate the choice of the most appropriate tools to address the mentioned ethical issues.
References
Bonner, R., & Vandecreek, L. (2006). Ethical decision making for correctional mental health providers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(4), 542-564.
Gregory, M. (2011). Practical Wisdom and the Ethic of Care in Probation Practice. European Journal of Probation, 3(3), 60-77.
Morris, N., & Tonry, M. (1990). Between prison and probation: intermediate punishments in a rational sentencing system. New York, NY: Oxford University.