The following section of the research paper helps to put the topic of the research, “The legally prescribed tasks mandated of probation officers and their actual roles”, into its historical context, enabling the readers to understand the pertinent issues, trends, functions and roles of probation officers in implementing corrective processes and resocialization programs to THE offenders. Furthermore, the literature review will give the readers an opportunity to understand other researcher’s perspective on the issue of the probation service. The major reason for undertaking the literature review is to understand what other researchers found out on the roles and functions of probation officers, as well as the different strategies and techniques that probation officers adopt in the implementation of corrective programs to offenders.
Undeniably, offenders are not detained in corrective facilities such as prisons or juvenile centers for the sole purpose of punishment but also, to undergo procedures that will enable them abandon their bad old ways and adopt new acceptable behaviors through a comprehensive resocialization process (Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005). When the offenders are detained, they basically derailed from the acceptable social norms in the society and thus should undergo a special training process to realign themselves with the acceptable social norms and behaviors to enable them live harmoniously with the rest of the member s in the community. Therefore, the major focus of this chapter will be the discussion of the various roles of probation officers in the corrective process of offenders. The various techniques adopted by probation officers will also be discussed as well as the different rights and responsibilities of probation service officers.
The Roles and Functions of Probation Service
A research conducted by Purkiss, Kifer, Hemmens and Burto (2003) accurately provides information about the functions of probation officers by first looking at the history of the probation service and ends with a statutory analysis of the roles and responsibilities of probation officers. Indeed, as observed by Purkiss et al. (2003), the probation service has faced great challenges since its inception based on the competing needs for law enforcement, public safety and the resocialization processes of offenders. Arguably, the challenges faced by probation officers in the dissemination of the probation services may sometimes lead to a conflict of interest that greatly affect the quality and standards of probation services (Smith, Schweitzer, Labrecque & Latessa, 2012). A deeper analysis of the statutory stipulations of the probation officers indicate that the law has emphasized on the need to perform a law enforcement role rather than balancing between law enforcement, resocialization processes and public safety. However, similar to most of the literature around this topic, this research also proposed or recommended that the various conflicting roles of probation officers need to be redistributed to ensure that no conflict of interest emerge in the process of providing probation services to offenders. Historically, the initial purpose for creating a probation service unit was solely to rehabilitate offenders and successfully socialize them back to the community. But with a changing and dynamic judicial environment, more roles of probation officers have been adopted to include enforcing the law and public safety functions.
Apart from the conventional roles and functions of probation officers within the corrective department, such as recommending or instituting rehabilitation plans for offenders and conducting comprehensive investigations on offenders who are lined to appear before the court, there are other moral responsibilities that the probation officers owe the offenders (Petrillo, 2007). Brooks, Miller and Leskovac (2016) emphasized on this claim that there are other responsibilities that probation officers can assume while instituting corrective program to the offenders. Focusing on the various needs of juvenile offenders, probation officers can provide Medicaid services to deserving persons under their custody, as they are human beings who at some point in their life may need basic services such as medical treatment when they fall sick. The three researchers confessed there was little research about the various roles and functions of probations officers other than those stipulated by the law; especially in the case for Medicaid provision and continuity services for the juveniles. Using a retrogressive cohort design for data collection, the research was able to collect adequate data for comprehensive analysis of the different functions of the probation officers and additional responsibilities of providing Medicaid coverage to the juveniles, who may be vulnerable to sickness and other illnesses (Taylor, Swerdfeger & Eslick, 2014). Their findings showed that many juvenile offenders were from the African American populations and that the probation officers actually played a role for maintaining their health.
In another research that highlights the roles played by probation officers, Steiner, Purkiss, Kifer, Roberts and Hemmens (2004) observe that historically, since the development of the probation service unit of the judiciary and executive arms of government, there have existed two major competing or conflicting roles played by the probation officers. The role of enforcing the law as defined in the statutes also conflict with the re-integration roles played by probation officers. Due to the nature and the conflicting roles of probation service, many times probation officers find themselves in situations where they have to choose roles, whether to enforce the law or to focus on the initial role of resocialization of offenders back to the society. Evidently, due to the conflicting roles, the quality and purpose of probation service is sometimes affected adversely. During the early establishment of the service commonly known as the American Probation for Adults and Juveniles, Steiner et al. (2004) also recognize that the basic role or function of the probation service unit is to ensure a proper resocialization of the offenders into the society.
What roles should then prevail when a probation officer is confronted with a situation where there exists a conflict of the roles to be played by the probation officer? Should he or she focus on rehabilitation process or take up the role of enforcing the law and encouraging public safety? Nevertheless, the changing roles witnessed in the probation service were always expected as the increasing criticism on the resocialization philosophy led to the adoption of a “get tough” approach in dealing with offenders thus the development of the law enforcement roles by probation officers (Schaeffer & Borduin, 2005). In his opinion, Steiner et al. (2004) suggest the changes were necessary as the probation and parole departments had been infested with punitive ideologies, which rendered the rehabilitation function of the probation service, unimportant. Notably, the roles of probation officers for adult and juvenile corrective centers are similar with the intensity of the corrective programs varying to suit the individual offenders depending on their willingness to rectify their behaviors (Drakeford, 2002).
Methods and Techniques in Probation Service
To achieve results in the probation service, probation officers need to adopt dynamic, flexible and sustainable approaches in order to achieve positive results in the effort to succeed in their rehabilitation and law enforcement functions (Newman & Nutley, 2003). Project success entirely depend on the methodologies and techniques adopted in the execution and implementation of a probation service program. According to Hollin et al. (2004), adopting a group work approach for controlling and rehabilitating offenders can be a proper manner to encourage resocialization. Group work techniques as defined by Ellemers, De Gilder and Haslam (2004) is a social work methodology that can be adopted by probation officers to assist offenders to engage in purposeful group experiences to help in resolving their personal and group problems which sometimes lead them to engage in offensive behaviors. Moreover, the researchers proposed the adoption of strategies as outlined in the crime reduction programs as well as the pathfinder programs of rehabilitation of errant and deviant members of the society. Using cognitive behavioral skills and principles, the “think first” technique adopted by probation officers was designed to help in the rehabilitation process for offenders through joining discussion groups and group work. The adoption of the technique was focused on identifying social cognitive deficits that lead a person to offend or act against the accepted norms of the society. The technique involved attending 22 sessions, with each session lasting for two hours to encourage the identification of the cognitive or social elements that are in deficit in order to administer a corrective procedure to prevent the repeat of similar social offences such as stealing, killing, or extreme social deviance from the norms such as vampirism and the practice of serial killing (Allen-DeBoer, Malmgren & Glass, 2006). Adopting reasoning and rehabilitation approaches by probation officers can significantly increase the success of the functions of probation officers as they rely on behavioral programs and principles. This technique also employs the utilization of cognitive behavioral theories to also identify the deficit skills that may be associated with continuous offending. The group work technique can also be applied in addressing issues regarding substance abuse related offenders, which can also adopt motivation speaking aimed at changing the attitudes of the offenders.
A casework approach is another technique for rehabilitating offenders both in the adult and juvenile detention and corrective centers (Trinder, 2000). Casework techniques in the delivery of probation services involve a methodology of assisting offenders to begin a resocialization process through an individualized counselling sessions (Early & GlenMaye, 2000). The casework approach may adopt a one on one methodology to promote desistance of certain behaviors of the offenders; according to Burnett (2013), more probation officers have continued to be adopted in the modern day processes of offender rehabilitation and administration of corrective programs. The research maintains that the fairest description of the case work approach for offender rehabilitation would be viewed as planned advice sessions, assisting and befriending the offenders with an aim of re-socializing them into the mainstream population or members of the society. The case work program for rehabilitation programs also involved the supervision and schedules whereby the supervision methodology was mainly adopted to assist in ensuring that the probability of an offender engages in a re-offending activity are as low as possible; if possible, at zero probability. Moreover, the casework and supervision techniques are designed to assist the offenders slowly get re-integrated into the society as reformed persons. In the casework methodology for re-socializing offenders, each offender should receive a personalized or customized rehabilitation process to achieve maximum benefit in identifying the socio-cognitive mishaps that cause the people to engage in offensive characteristics. One of the benefits of adopting a casework approach for rehabilitating offenders is that the adult or juvenile offenders have the opportunity to receive psychological assistance as well as social and material needs thus are able to re-create a link between themselves and the people in the community or society, which further helps to increase the success chances of re-integrating the individuals in the society (Skowyra & Cocozza, 2007). Additionally, casework techniques provide an opportunity to the probation officers to modify the corrective styles so as to provide the best services to the offender and encourage them to continue practicing the accepted societal norms instead of engaging in deviant behaviors.
Another technique that has not been fully utilized in the corrective processes for offenders is the adoption of a social networking methodology to assist the quick re-integration of offenders to the community. Schlechter (2015) highlights on the proper use of the networking strategy to assist offenders to rectify their behaviors and prepare them to be re- admitted to the community. The Social Work Service in Austria recommended a similar methodology for training and preparing offenders for a re-integration process where a conferencing method would be used in the probation service unit, which would be utilized in the Vienna territories (Leichsenring, 2004). Aptly defined, social work is a discipline that concerns itself with the fostering engagements between individuals, communities, families and different groups of people with the aim of improving their well-being (Hare, 2004). The research clarifies that the conferencing or social networking technique was developed in order to leverage of the advantages of offenders interacting with family members and thus came to be known as the Family Group Conferencing. The technique was adapted from an Australian organization that offered corrective programs for adults and juveniles to re-socialize the offenders into the community as better citizens who will only engage in constructive activities. The technique was based on the argument that an offender’s social network had great potential in problem solving processes in the life of an individual, especially the offenders. Through the use of this technique, the supervisor or probation officer is able to determine the level or extent of social control that the offender needs before recommending for their release.
Rights and Responsibilities of Probation Service Officer
Probation programs may adopt community based corrective methodology whereby the people under supervision or probation may not be actually behind bars, but could be living right within the society. According to Petersilia (2011), by 2007 there were approximately seven million people who were serving community based probation services while 2 million others were under custody due to the extent of offence committed by the offenders. Using an interview technique to gather information about the specific rights of probation officers, the officers have the right to stand their ground and refuse to be swayed by criticism from the public as they are performing their roles as probation officers. According to the researcher, maintaining one’s ground increases the credibility and regains public confidence in probation programs as they represent an organization whose decisions will not be influenced by factors outside the probation programs like public pressure of political influences. Moreover, the probation officers may not be under any duress to give a statement or discuss an ongoing investigation of an offender while the case is before the court. The given restriction to speech is a necessary element in increasing the public perception about the independence and integrity of the probation service, as well as the outright impartiality of the judicial corrective system.
Eno Louden, Skeem, Camp, Vidal and Peterson (2012) seem to complement this research by highlighting the different rights that can be enjoyed by a probation officer, for example, a probation officer may temporarily or permanently disallow family members, political figures of financers from meddling in the probation service programs if they try to influence the decisions of the court regarding the dissemination or implementation of corrective and probation programs to offenders. As such, no probation officer can be forced to accept any gifts or presents which may seek to influence the free pursue of the probation service objectives. The probation officer can refuse to accept such offers if the ultimate effect would be to influence the probation officer’s ability to discharge his or her mandate in the probation service. A probation officer may also recommend further punishment to offenders who continue showing errant behaviors within the corrective facility or request for a transfer to stricter probation service facilities to undergo special corrective programs depending on the defiance level. Thus, the probation officer has the power to recommend release or further detention of the offenders depending on the observable improvements of the offender, and their willingness to be readmitted into the society as good members who will abide by the law. However, such rights are always accompanied by their associated limitations and obligations, for example, in the process of investigating offenders, the probation officers may consume information with commercial value, but the officers are restricted to transfer such information without due permission from the affected parties or without an express order to disseminate information by the court. Additionally, the probation officer code of conduct requires that no officer may engage in commercial transactions with any person or organization which may affect the delivery of justice in the probation service unit.
Methodology
Purpose and Subject of the Study
The central focus of the study was to investigate the various roles and functions of probation officers, inspired by my great interest in becoming a probation officer in order to assist and participate in corrective programs for petty offenders in the juvenile category. Further, the research was designed to look into the various techniques adopted by probation officers to implement a probation service program that would enable the achievement of probation objectives like rehabilitating offenders, protecting the public from criminal activities and danger, as well as enforcing the law and punishments on offenders. Other issues discussed in the research study include the relationships between the probation officers and the offenders, and how the relationships may affect the outcomes of the probation programs for an individual serving a temporary detention. Moreover, an inquiry into the effect of a collaboration between the probation officers and the offender’s family, (a program called the Family Group Networking) was conducted to understand how the technique impacted the process of correction and identification of social-cognitive mishaps that lead to an individual to engage in offensive behavior. The research was based on the assumption that probation officers could not be influenced by external factors in the completion of their tasks and duties.
Research Problem
Given my high level interest in becoming a probation officer, the main research problem for the study was to understand the probation procedures and guidelines for a supervised resocialization of offenders. In solving the research question for the research study, the reader, as well as the researcher will understand the purpose of a personalized probation program to hasten the quick resocialization of the offenders back into the society. Additionally, the research problem sought to identify the various challenges faced by probation officers in the implementation of probation or corrective programs. As revealed by Stalans, Juergens, Seng and Lavery (2004) the adoption of a standard probation procedure for all detainees or offenders may not result into better outcomes as the deviance levels of every offender may vary thus requiring different intensity levels of probation programs to achieve the desirable probation outcomes and resocialization process. The research problem serves to give the research study a boundary where the discussion about probation officers and their various roles and responsibilities is conducted to achieve a deeper understanding of the functions and reliability of probation service agencies.
Methods and Techniques of the Research
To achieve the objectives of the research study, a qualitative approach was used to analyze the information about the different roles and functions of probation officer. According to Taylor, Bogdan and DeVault (2015), a qualitative methodology of research involves an exploratory study to collect information and synthesize it to understand a certain phenomenon. For this case, the primary objective was to gain a deeper understanding of the probation service operation by focusing on the different roles of probation officers as stipulated by law, the different probation techniques adopted during corrective programs and the rights, responsibilities and limitations of a probation officer. The data collection device utilized for this study was a semi-structured interview with four probation officers whose questions were carefully crafted to enable maximum retrieval of information from the respondents thus understanding the probation service better (Each interview session lasted 10-15 minutes). Opdenakker (2006) identifies numerous advantages of adopting an interview technique as a data collection technique over other techniques such as observation or case study, such as: interview techniques are good in obtaining detailed information on the research topic as it involves a detailed discussion of the topic itself. Personal feelings of the respondents about the various issues of the topic can also offer more information about the research topic, where other data collection techniques such as questionnaires may not record the respondents’ feelings about the matter. However, the research faced few problems, for example, the initial plan was to interview seven probation officers but only four of the respondents were able to show up at the interview location. Moreover, the researcher or authors of this research study were forced to fit into the respondent’s different schedules, as they were busy officers in the line of duty.
Study and Group Characteristics
The research study was conducted in London as the research subjects were located at the probation service center located at Great Dover Street. This facility accommodates the largest number of offenders in the city and thus a higher number of probation officers worked in this part of the town, increasing the chances of interviewing more officers to get a first-hand information about the mature of the job through looking into the roles and functions of probation officers in the dissemination of justice. Moreover, the facility worked closely with the national probation service and thus, the officers working in this corrective center were experienced and could offer insightful information about the probation services offered. The target group to respond to the interview questions were male or female probation officers aged between 38-40 years as we estimated their work experience to range between 15 years to 17 years. Luckily, despite serving a large number of offenders, the facility was not so complex and thus finding the respondents and interviewing them was not difficult, however, some respondents could not find time to respond to our questions die to the large responsibilities they played within the corrective center.
Research process
Following the sociological research process, the research study adopted an 8-steps procedure to complete the research. First step involved the choosing of a research topic, and in this case, the study sought to find out and explain “The legally prescribed tasks mandated of probation officers and their actual roles”. The next step was to conduct a literature review, which put the research in its historical context and further providing information to help the readers of the study to understand the purpose of the research. Journals and books were utilized in the development of the literature review providing information from other researchers on the same research topic. The next process was the formulation of the research hypothesis or the research questions to guide the completion of the research. This was followed by defining variables to be measured and a data collection process to provide data for research synthesis and interpretation. A sampling process and eventual data analysis procedure was conducted from the information collected through the interview processes at the London corrective probation service facility.
References
Allen-DeBoer, R. A., Malmgren, K. W., & Glass, M. E. (2006). Reading instruction for youth with emotional and behavioral disorders in a juvenile correctional facility. Behavioral Disorders, 32(1), 18-28.
Brooks, M., Miller, E., & Leskovac, J. (2016). Motivational interviewing for probation officers: A case study from a mid-sized county. Journal of Adolescent Health, 58(2), S56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.10.125
Burnett, R. (2013). One-to-one ways of promoting desistance: in search of an evidence base. In What works in probation and youth justice (pp. 198-215). Abingdon: Routledge.
Drakeford, W. (2002). The impact of an intensive program to increase the literacy skills of youth confined to juvenile corrections. Journal of Correctional Education, 139-144.
Early, T. J., & GlenMaye, L. F. (2000). Valuing families: Social work practice with families from a strengths perspective. Social work, 45(2), 118-130.
Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management review, 29(3), 459-478.
Eno Louden, J., Skeem, J. L., Camp, J., Vidal, S., & Peterson, J. (2012). Supervision practices in specialty mental health probation: What happens in officer–probationer meetings? Law and human behavior, 36(2), 109.
Hare, I. (2004). Defining social work for the 21st century: The International Federation of Social Workers' revised definition of social work. International Social Work, 47(3), 407-424.
Hollin, C., Palmer, E., McGuire, J., Hounsome, J., Hatcher, R., Bilby, C., & Clark, C. (2004). Pathfinder programmes in the probation service: A retrospective analysis. Home Office Online Report, 66(04).
Leichsenring, K. (2004). Developing integrated health and social care services for older persons in Europe. International journal of integrated care, 4(3).
Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2005). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement. Criminology & Public Policy, 4(2), 263-290.
Newman, J., & Nutley, S. (2003). Transforming the probation service: 'what works', organisational change and professional identity. Policy & Politics, 31(4), 547-563.
Opdenakker, R. (2006, September). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/175/391
Petersilia, J. (2011). Community corrections: Probation, parole, and prisoner reentry. In Crime and public policy. Oxford; Oxford University Press.
Petrillo, M. (2007). Power struggle: Gender issues for female probation officers in the supervision of high risk offenders. Probation journal, 54(4), 394-406.
Purkiss, M., Kifer, M., Hemmens, C., & Burto, V. S. (2003). Probation officer functions-A statutory analysis. Fed. Probation, 67, 12.
Schaeffer, C. M., & Borduin, C. M. (2005). Long-term follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of multisystemic therapy with serious and violent juvenile offenders. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 73(3), 445.
Schlechter, H. (2015). Social network conferences: conferencing with juvenile offenders in the Austrian probation service. Ljetopis Socijalnog Rada/Annual of Social Work, 22(1).
Skowyra, K. R., & Cocozza, J. J. (2007). Blueprint for change: A comprehensive model for the identification and treatment of youth with mental health needs in contact with the juvenile justice system. Policy Research Associates, Inc. Retrieved from https://www.ncmhjj.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/2007_Blueprint-for-Change-Full-Report.pdf
Smith, P., Schweitzer, M., Labrecque, R. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2012). Improving probation officers' supervision skills: An evaluation of the EPICS model. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(2), 189-199.
Stalans, L. J., Juergens, R., Seng, M., & Lavery, T. (2004). Probation officers' and judges' discretionary sanctioning decisions about sex offenders: Differences between specialized and standard probation units. Criminal Justice Review, 29(1), 23-45.
Steiner, B., Purkiss, M., Kifer, M., Roberts, E., & Hemmens, C. (2004). Legally prescribed functions of adult and juvenile probation officers: Worlds apart? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39(4), 47-67.
Taylor, L. E., Swerdfeger, A. L., & Eslick, G. D. (2014). Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Vaccine, 32(29), 3623-3629.
Taylor, S. J., Bogdan, R., & DeVault, M. (2015). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Trinder, L. (2000). Evidence-based practice in social work and probation. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470699003
