Probation Officers’ Perception of the Work Difficulties Research Paper

Abstract

The paper discusses the peculiarities of probation officers’ work and their attitude towards performing their professional functions. The problem investigated in the study is the impact of work on probation officers. The study is descriptive, and its design is non-experimental. The research methodology is a review of the literature. The review covers such aspects of the problem as the benefits and limitations of probation at a method of punishment, the tools used by probation officers, their attitude to work, and its impact on them.

Data was collected through a survey. The sample group is twenty probation professionals from local offices. The survey includes ten questions related to professional skills and feelings. The analysis of data indicates that the number of years in the office and the complexity of cases influence officers’ attitudes to work and their level of burnout. The limitations of the study include small sample size and insufficient validity.

Problem Statement

The problem analyzed in the current paper is the impact of probation on the work of the officers engaged in this system. It is expected that with the help of the survey, it will be possible to analyze in what ways work in the sphere of probation influences officers. Both positive and negative manifestations will be investigated.

The problem is rather crucial because there is much evidence of the detrimental effect of work in the probation system on officers. Thus, it is necessary to analyze the causes of such impact and find the possible solutions that would mitigate the negative effects. Once the issue is resolved, it will become easier to find the most beneficial probation approaches that would improve the offenders’ conduct and change their disposition towards criminal activity. Also, finding the resolution to the problem will make the work of probation officers simpler by enabling them to minimize the presence of negative factors in their everyday professional activities.

Methodology and Design of Research

The study has a descriptive nature. This type of research makes it possible to provide a comprehensive picture of the investigated issue. At the core of descriptive research, there is a need to explain some phenomena most accurately. The result of such research is the representation of the problem or an answer to research questions. In the current paper, the focus is on probation and probation officers’ perceptions of their work. Therefore, it is necessary to concentrate the attention on finding out how officers treat their professional duties and why they treat them in particular ways. Descriptive research does not pay much attention to the exploration of some issues or the explanation of them. Rather, it depicts the general tendencies of concepts and provides detailed reports on the problem’s background.

The design of the research is non-experimental. The participants are not divided into groups and are not assigned any tasks the outcomes of which might be used to draw some conclusions. Rather, they are required to answer the questions of a survey the results of which will be further interpreted and analyzed. The choice of design may be considered weak in respect to finding the cause and effect relationship. However, it is simple enough to perform and provides the opportunity to ask for people’s opinions, which is one of the most usual methods of social research.

The research methodology is a literature review. The detailed analysis of scholarly peer-reviewed articles focused on probation and its various aspects are performed. With the help of the literature review, it is possible to identify the most crucial issues associated with the process of probation, the tools employed by the probation officers, the benefits and limitations of probation as a method of punishment, and the impact of probation on the offenders and officers.

Literature Review

The specific research questions that are answered with the help of this review of literature are:

• what are the benefits and limitations of probation as a means of punishment?
• what kinds of tools do probation officers use and how do they apply them?
• what are the negative manifestations of work on probation officers?
• what types of officers work in the system of probation and how does their attitude to work impact the offenders?
• how does probation influence different categories of offenders?

The type of research employed in the review is descriptive. The review analyzes and synthesizes findings of scholarly studies dedicated to the theme of probation and the outlined research questions.

Probation as a Means of Punishment: Benefits and Limitations

Several of the analyzed articles investigate the advantages and disadvantages of probation as a method of dealing with a criminal offense. Research by Doherty (2016) focuses on the conditions of probation and their thorough analysis since the author argues that the level of the state’s power to govern and punish offenders is closely associated with the circumstances imposed. As a result of her research, Doherty (2016) concludes that the standard circumstances of probation allow a large range of noncriminal behavior to be punished with criminal penalties. Thus, the standard probation conditions create the opportunity for recidivism that is responsible for overcriminalization (Doherty, 2016).

Doherty (2016) admits that probation is often considered as a promising solution to the issue of excessive incarceration. However, the author argues that it is necessary to view probation as a constituent of the sequence of superfluous penal control. Doherty (2016) identifies the following conditions of probation: avoiding vicious conduct, working earnestly at the occupation assigned by the probation officer, staying away from places and persons of disruptive nature, and supporting one’s dependents as ordered by the probation officer. King (2013) investigates probation from its impact on resistance processes.

Having analyzed the effect of probation on transitions towards resistance, the author concludes that this process may have a beneficial influence on such transitions. However, King (2013) also admits that the support given by probation to the socio-cultural elements of resistance is not sufficient. As a result, King (2013) suggests that these elements should be managed with the help of external agencies, but even their help may fail in providing enough support for desistance processes.

Phelps (2013) analyzes the benefits of introducing probation into the criminal justice system. While he admits that this reform has proved to bring some benefits to the decrease in imprisonment rates, Phelps (2013) also remarks that the spread of this method plays a crucial role in the increase in incarceration estimates. In his analysis of probation as a component of the criminal justice system, Phelps (2013) makes two essential conclusions.

The first one is that probation is not the initial generator of mass incarceration in the majority of the US states. The second one is that probation does not have the prospects of becoming an easy remedy to mass incarceration. Phelps (2013) suggests that when probation is merged with other important resolutions, it may become a crucial part of the efforts aimed at decreasing the incarceration rates.

Fitzgibbon and Lea (2014) research the privatization of probation in England and Wales, remarking that this process has frequently been prone to “twin processes” of privatization and growing absorption as an instrument of discipline and criminal justice (p. 24). Fitzgibbon and Lea (2014) mention that the state fails to notice the connection between the old top-down methods of management and privatization. The authors emphasize that while probation has turned to be more professionalized, it has never reached an equal place in the criminal justice system (Fitzgibbon & Lea, 2014).

Tools Employed by Probation Officers

Viglione, Rudes, and Taxman (2014) analyze the risk and needs assessment (RNA) tools used by probation officers as a significant element of the implementation of evidence-based practices. Viglione et al. (2014) remark that these tools have the potential to improve the system outcomes at the offender-level. As a result of their research, scholars note that probation officers employ the RNA tools frequently, but they do not tend to find a connection between these tools and supervision decisions and major case management issues.

Viglione et al. (2014) conclude that there are some difficulties and challenges concerned with the implementation of RNA tools in daily practice. Research performed by the authors indicates that there is an urgency of changing the existing probation practices to form a connection between the RNA and the associated supervision methods. The study by Viglione et al. (2014) gives insight into a better understanding of how the new method of punishment combines risk management with client-focused cases to enhance the results.

Another essential constituent of probation officers’ methods is the competency of the formulation. In their research on case formulation training, Minoudis et al. (2013) focus on the fact that the ability to apply formulation involves many skills and different sources of data. The authors note that there are no relevant current methods of working with offenders who have personality disorders.

Thus, it is crucial for probation officers to know how to evaluate the offenders’ mental health issues properly. Minoudis et al. (2013) remark that the process of such assessment frequently lacks validity and reliability. In their endeavor to analyze the reasons for such a state of things, authors have assessed a checklist created for determining the quality of formulation. Also, Minoudis et al. (2013) have measured the effect of training and discussion on officer’s formulating skills. The authors conclude that the major factor influencing officer’s formulating abilities is their prior experience, and training does not bring much enhancement of these skills.

Probation Officers’ Attitudes to Work and the Impact of Work on Officers

Much attention of researchers is dedicated to the personality traits of probation officers and their attitudes to work. Miller (2015) analyzes the importance of social work skills and law enforcement roles of probation officers. The scholar suggests a typology of officers grounded in their practices. Depending on the power of supervision, probation officers are classified into four categories:

1. “High engagers” – officers belonging to this group demonstrate high scores on such items as the risk of detention, outcomes of behaviors, supervision of behaviors, and administering the rules in case of transgression (Miller, 2015, p. 325). These officers can inaugurate empathy and trust, implement the rehabilitative objectives, and link offenders with family-based services, therapeutic opportunities, and skill-building projects. Also, high engagers work with probationers to help them detect and stay away from risky activities and places and bring family into operation to help observe and analyze probationers’ behavior. These officers are reported to be moderately engaged with police and community, and they do not tend to emphasize their authority.
2. “Medium engagers” – this group is the largest of all (Miller, 2015, p. 326). Officers belonging to this class tend to use the control, surveillance, and rehabilitation tactics most frequently. They employ opportunity-focused supervision rarely, especially in cases where third parties are involved. Still, the representatives of medium engagers’ groups employ third-party opportunity-focused supervision at a moderate level.
3. “Medium engagers – traditional” – this group’s engagement patterns are similar to the previous class, but officers in this category have a very low engagement with third parties as an element of opportunity-focused supervision (Miller, 2015, p. 326).
4. “Low engagers” – this group of officers demonstrates low scores on all of the analyzed items (outcomes of behaviors, administering the rules in case of transgression, supervision of behaviors, and risk of detention) (Miller, 2015, p. 326). These officers’ activity is highest on control and surveillance issues. Their concentration on the opportunity-focused supervision associated with the engagement of third parties is low.

Miller (2015) remarks that there is not much evidence of the traditional function of a social worker depending principally on rehabilitation strategies. Moreover, there is little evidence of a law enforcement function since the employment of control and surveillance approaches are commonly associated with a variety of rehabilitation tactics even when some of them have a higher degree of approval than others.

A study by Lewis, Lewis, and Garby (2013) focuses on the analysis of the negative impact of work on probation officers. Research performed by Lewis et al. (2013) indicates that there is a higher degree of burnout and traumatic stress in the officers who experience offenders’ suicides, cases of violent recidivism, and threats or aggression in communication. Officers who do not have many such experiences are reported to have higher job satisfaction levels. Lewis et al. (2013) conclude that to alleviate adverse impacts, increase officers’ flexibility, and raise the level of evidence-based practices, it is necessary to introduce stress management projects and arrange training, education, and evaluation.

The Effect of Probation on Different Categories of Offenders

Some scholars concentrate their studies on the effect probation performs on different classes of offenders. Morash, Kashy, Smith, and Cobbina (2014) analyze the effect of probation on female offenders. The authors investigate two aspects of relationship styles – probation punitiveness and supportiveness. Morash et al. (2014) note that females on parole or probation report low levels of crime-avoidance self-efficacy when agent supportiveness is employed. Agent punitiveness is indicated to evoke greater anxiety and self-efficacy concerned with crime avoidance. Supportiveness is associated with positive results for the highest-risk female offenders. The punitive approach is concerned with anxiety in lowest-risk women.

Ryan, Abrams, and Huang (2014) investigate the effectiveness of probation in dealing with juvenile offenders. Scholars compare the rates of recidivism under the conditions of three approaches: in-home probation, a probation camp, and a group-home placement. Ryan et al. (2014) conclude that in-home probation is the most effective method of interrupting criminal inclinations of young offenders and decreasing the incidence of recidivism.

Identifying the Issues That Require a More Thorough Investigation

The review of literature of probation, its methods, and peculiarities of officers’ approaches make it possible to make the following conclusions regarding further research:

• it is necessary to investigate the methods of improving officers’ skills of the formulation;
• emphasis should be put on the analysis of officers’ attitudes to work about their work conditions and caseloads;
• the ways of improving the system of probation as an element of the criminal justice system should be suggested.

The literature of the Identified Questions

According to Miller (2015), probation officers’ work is defined by several features such as the nature and number of caseloads, the philosophies of practitioners, and probation agencies’ variations. Due to such a diversity of factors, probation officers have always been categorized into two types depending on the role that prevails in their activity. The “social work” role is determined towards the rehabilitation or help to the offender (Miller, 2015, p. 315).

The “law enforcement” role is focused on control and surveillance (Miller, 2015, p. 315). Traditionally, officers tend to choose one of these roles. However, Miller (2015) mentions that it is also possible to combine them into a “synthetic” approach that incorporates both law enforcement and social work functions (p. 315). The activities included in officers’ work are the following: monitoring, enforcement, reminding of consequences and risks, establishing probationers’ trust and rehabilitative objectives, connecting them with therapeutic, family-based, and skill-building programs, seeking help and support from community and families, informing probationers about the risky activities and places, and encouraging them to avoid such places and individuals (Miller, 2015).

Apart from the detailed explanation of probation officers’ duties and responsibilities, scholars pay attention to the impact that work makes on the officers. Lewis et al. (2013) remark that depending on the number of years of service and the seriousness of crimes committed by the probationers, officers may experience different levels of work-associated negative influences. The issues identified by Lewis et al. (2013) are workplace burnout, workplace stress, and traumatic workplace stress. Scholars note that the degree to which these issues are present depends on the officers’ work experience and the severity of caseloads.

Data Collection, Interpretation, and Analysis

Data Collection Tool

The chosen approach to data collection is a survey. This research tool has some disadvantages that may limit its reliability. Respondents may feel uncomfortable when asked questions of personal character or the ones that may present them in a negative light. Also, they may feel not interested in participation, which leads to their choosing answers at random without thinking of them. Another problem is that closed-ended questions have lower validity than open-ended ones.

To eliminate these disadvantages, the present survey does not ask any personal questions. Moreover, it does not require any personal or demographic data at all. All questions pertain to the professional life of the participants, and none of the questions suggests answers that might discredit the participants in any way.

Along with some limitations, surveys have many benefits. They are quite easy to administer, which makes it possible to save time and money. Also, surveys are not difficult to develop and suggest a possibility to collect much information from many people simultaneously. Additionally, surveys can be administered both in-person and remotely. All of these features make researchers choose surveys as data collection tools most frequently in social research. Surveys allow scholars to obtain unique information from people whose attitudes are important to investigate in the studies.

The reason for choosing a survey as a data collection tool for current research is that it is easy to administer, and its analysis and interpretation do not require much time and many efforts. The survey consists of ten questions, each of them having three options of answers (see Appendix A). No demographic data is required from the participants. All of the questions are associated with their work and the feelings of their professional life.

The first question asks about the work experience of the participant. Next questions are concerned with the roles of probation officers, their burnout level and causes of it, the severity of caseloads, the reasons of stressful situations at work, the easiest and most difficult issues of work, and personal qualities that officers find the most necessary in their work. The chosen data collection tool made it possible to gather the most relevant information within a short period. Also, it was easy to perform the interpretation and analysis of the collected data.

Survey Sample and Informing the Participants

For the present research, a small sample was chosen. Twenty officers participated in the survey. They were informed about the prospective survey in person. Officers’ age, gender, race, or social status was not taken into consideration since their personal information was not the key aspect of research. The survey was focused on their professional attributes and the issues that they find difficult to cope with the process of work. The participants were chosen through a non-randomized approach in local probation offices. Out of 30 professionals initially approached, 25 agreed to help in research. Out of these, 5 missed one or more questions, which made it impossible to consider their results as valid. Thus, 20 surveys were completed to the right extent and were further analyzed.

Although officers did not have to share any personal information, they were given the researcher’s email to be able to ask any questions or clarify some issues. Also, those officers who wanted to learn about the results of the survey gave their email addresses to the researcher.

Data Interpretation and Analysis

Out of twenty participants, 5 (25%)have been working in probation for one or two years, 7 (35%) – for three to five years, and 8 (40%)- for over five years.

5 officers consider the social work role as the most important. 6 officers think that the law enforcement role is the most crucial. 9 officers find the synthetic role to be the most significant.

For the majority of officers -11 (55%)- their role coincides with the one they find the most crucial. Nearly half of the participants, 9 officers (45%)do not consider themselves to perform the functions they find the most necessary. Mostly, those who give dominance to the synthetic role, admit that they perform either the law enforcement or the social work function.

5 officers report not having any burnout issues. Out of these, three have 1-2 years of experience, and 2 have 3-5 years of experience. 5 officers report to experience slight burnout. 10 officers have a severe degree of burnout. Out of these, 4 have been working for 3-5 years, and 6 have more than 5 years of experience.

5 participants remark that each of their cases is severe. Out of them, 3 have been working for more than 5 years, and 3 have been working for 3-5 years. 10 participants report that every second or third case in their practice is severe. 5 officers report that they rarely work with severe cases.

When asked about the most stressful work issues, officers report the following. 2 of them consider the need to communicate with the offenders the most stressful thing. 7 officers say that they find it difficult to explain to the offenders the need to avoid risky people, places, and behaviors. 11 participants consider creating cooperation between the offenders and their families and communities as the hardest task.

What concerns the greatest cause of burnout, 3 officers find it to be the number of caseloads. 7 participants consider communication with a variety of people and services the reason for burnout. 10 officers mention the specification of caseloads as their greatest concern.

An equal number of respondents find the feeling of anger and depression the easiest feeling to overcome in their work. 6 people replied “anger,” and the same number of people replied “depression.” 8 officers admit that for them, dealing with personal issues is the easiest issue to manage.

The most difficult thing to deal with is the pessimistic attitude for 7 officers, the chronic feeling of fatigue for 8 of them, and the loss of faith in people for 5 respondents.

11 officers consider the ability to treat offenders as equals as the most necessary feature for a probation officer. For 6 of them, the most important characteristic is the ability to support and understand. For 3 officers, it is the belief in the possibility of offenders’ improvement.

The findings indicate that the levels of stress and burnout are associated with the years of experience in the system of probation, but not in all cases. Sometimes, officers who have only worked for a few years, feel stressed and exhausted. In other cases, officers with many years of experience do not report any occurrences of depression and fatigue.

Reliability, Validity, and Limitations of Research

The reliability of research is gained through equal conditions for each participant and the stability of answers across time. To improve the study’s reliability, all questions were constructed accurately, and the answers included the most comprehensive set of options. Moreover, the measurement level was precise. The factor that may have undermined reliability is the absence of a pilot test.

Validity presupposes the level of truthfulness. In the present study, it is difficult to say how valid the respondents’ replies are. Observation may have given a more valid account of the social phenomenon. However, the use of a survey for this research seems quite justified even though it may not produce the highest level of validity.

There are several limitations to the research. The major one is the size of a sample. A greater number of participants might have given more reliable outcomes. Another limitation is the fact that officers were selected through non-probability sampling. Also, the choice of design may be considered weak because it limits the possibility of instituting the cause-and-effect relationship.

References

Doherty, F. (2016). Obey all laws and be good: Probation and the meaning of recidivism. Georgetown Law Journal, 104(2), 291-354.

Fitzgibbon, W., & Lea, J. (2014). Defending probation: Beyond privatisation and security. European Journal of Probation, 6(1), 24-41.

King, S. (2013). Assisted desistance and experiences of probation supervision. Probation Journal, 60(2), 136-151.

Lewis, K. R., Lewis, L. S., & Garby, T. M. (2013). Surviving the trenches: The personal impact of the job on probation officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(1), 67-84.

Miller, J. (2015). Contemporary modes of probation officer supervision: The triumph of the “synthetic” officer? Justice Quarterly, 32(2), 314-336.

Minoudis, P., Craissati, J., Shaw, J., McMurran, M., Freestone, M., Chuan, S. J., & Leonard, A. (2013). An evaluation of case formulation training and consultation with probation officers. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 23(4), 252-262.

Morash, M., Kashy, D. A., Smith, S. W., & Cobbina, J. E. (2014). The effects of probation or parole agent relationship style and women offenders’ criminogenic needs on offenders’ responses to supervision interactions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(4), 412-434.

Phelps, M. (2013). The paradox of probation: Community supervision in the age of mass incarceration. Law & Policy, 35(1-2), 51-80.

Ryan, J. P., Abrams, L. S., & Huang, H. (2014). First-time violent juvenile offenders: Probation, placement, and recidivism. Social Work Research, 38(1), 7-18.

Viglione, J., Rudes, D. S., & Taxman, F. S. (2014). Misalignment in supervision: Implementing risk/needs assessment instruments in probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(3), 263-285.

Appendix A

The Survey

1. How long have you worked in the sphere of probation?
   1. from one to two years.
   2. from three to five years.
   3. more than five years.
2. Which of these roles do you consider the most important?
   1. social work.
   2. law enforcement.
   3. synthetic.
3. What role do you consider to be most pertaining to you?
   1. social work.
   2. law enforcement.
   3. synthetic.
4. How would you define the level of burnout that you experience?
   1. I do not experience any burnout.
   2. I feel slight burnout.
   3. I experience a severe level of burnout.
5. What aspects of you work do you find the greatest cause of burnout?
   1. the number of caseloads.
   2. the specification of caseloads.
   3. the communication with many individuals and services besides the offenders.
6. How frequently do you work with serious caseloads (rapists, murderers, etc.)?
   1. every case.
   2. every second or third case.
   3. rarely.
7. What aspects of your work do you find the most stressful?
   1. the need to communicate with the offenders.
   2. the difficulty explaining to the offenders the need to avoid risky behaviors, people, and places.
   3. the difficulty creating cooperation between the offenders and communities or families.
8. What obstacles of your work do you find easiest to overcome?
   1. dealing with personal issues.
   2. the feeling of anger.
   3. depression.
9. What challenges do you find the most difficult to deal with?
   1. pessimistic attitude.
   2. chronic feeling of fatigue.
   3. the loss of faith in people.
10. What personal qualities do you find the most necessary for a probation officer?
    1. the ability to support and understand.
    2. the ability to treat offenders as equals.
    3. the belief in the possibility of offenders’ improvement.