COVID-19's Impact on Probation Professionals’ Views About Their Roles and the Future of Probation

Abstract

In 2020, the COVID-19 global pandemic forced probation departments to change their practices overnight. The phenomenon presented many challenges for probation departments but also opened avenues for innovation and changes in attitudes toward supervision practices. We surveyed adult and juvenile probation departments in the entire state of Texas, specifically targeting management and supervisory personnel, officers with caseloads, including court officers, and information technology personnel ( N = 1,353). Our goals of this research included not only obtaining information about operational changes made because of the pandemic but also gauging attitudes toward these changes and the future of probation. We understood operational changes were inevitable, thus findings of significant operational changes were not surprising. We found that probation personnel were open to changes in operational procedures and that the pandemic spurred innovation and widespread acceptance in the use of technology for a variety of activities going forward that may not have been accepted prior to the pandemic.

The COVID-19 Pandemic and Probation in Chile: Remote Supervision and Regional Differences

“…We argue that the use of remote supervision is not a panacea. The emerging research suggests a number of benefits to the use of remote supervision (see Lockwood et al, 2021 ; Martin & Zettler, 2021 ; Sturm et al, 2021 ), but it is not without limitations. Beyond disparities in access to technology (Martin & Zettler, 2021 ; Phillips et al, 2021 ), potential disadvantages include the loss of in-person interaction with co-workers and clients (Stempkowski & Grafl, 2021 ), struggles in holding clients accountable (Lockwood et al, 2021 ) and difficulties conducting risk assessments (Phillips et al, 2021 ).…”

“…The emerging research suggests a number of benefits to the use of remote supervision (see Lockwood et al, 2021 ; Martin & Zettler, 2021 ; Sturm et al, 2021 ), but it is not without limitations. Beyond disparities in access to technology (Martin & Zettler, 2021 ; Phillips et al, 2021 ), potential disadvantages include the loss of in-person interaction with co-workers and clients (Stempkowski & Grafl, 2021 ), struggles in holding clients accountable (Lockwood et al, 2021 ) and difficulties conducting risk assessments (Phillips et al, 2021 ). Moreover, although some officers have indicated remote supervision can increase client engagement (Norton, 2020 ), others have found that remote contacts pose engagement challenges, particularly for newer clients (Phillips et al, 2021 ).…”

“…While remote supervision could also constitute a practice that might help to better distribute the already limited resources, it is important to acknowledge there is a cost associated with remote technologies (Viglione et al, 2020 ). Martin and Zettler ( 2021 ) reported that 75% of probation administrators stated that financial issues hindered their ability to integrate more technological services into their agencies. Therefore, the use of remote supervision requires considering budget restrictions, especially in regions where probation agencies have already limited budgets.…”

“It was there when I came home”: young adults and jail reentry in the context of COVID-19

“…The post-release probationary period commonly includes frequent check-ins with probation officers, drug tests, and participation in reentry services, such as mental health, parenting, education, and employment programs. Recent literature suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic altered the nature of probation services (Martin & Zettler, 2022 ). In many regions, in-person probation check-ins were replaced with remote communication such as telephone calls, video conferences, emails, and text messages (Schwalbe & Koetzle, 2021 ).…”

‘Lockdown probation leaders’ and Fundamental Human Needs

“…Like most non-critical activities, Scottish probation offices were closed, and essential personnel and their staff were required by their employing local authorities to, where possible, work from home. In these circumstances, Scottish probation services and their staff had to innovate (Martin and Zettler, 2022), in particular by working remotely (Dominey et al, 2021; Phillips et al, 2021), whilst being isolated from each other and working in conditions that were highly uncertain, alarming and indeed, life threatening. This has raised questions regarding how Criminal Justice managers reacted.…”