Moderating Probation and Parole Officer Attitudes to Achieve Desired Outcomes

Abstract

Much has been written about officer role orientations in probation and parole and about principles of effective correctional intervention, but little research adequately reflects the importance of linking these two discussions. The present study on officer attitudes provides a first step toward making this link. An officer attitude survey was conducted with both regular and intensive supervision officers at two different program sites. Each site recently implemented a prototypical model of intensive supervision that encourages a balanced approach to supervision and is based on principles of effective correctional intervention. Prior to implementation, the intensive supervision officers at each site participated in comprehensive training and development activities. The primary purpose of this research was to learn the extent to which attitudes of the intensive supervision officers differ from those of regular supervision officers—who did not participate in the training and development activities—in terms of their focus and style of supervision. The results suggest that a comprehensive approach to training and development can effectively instill in officers the supervision attitudes that are most conducive to promoting offender change.

The Influence of Parole Officers’ Attitudes on Supervision Practices

“…Additionally, if agencies wish to moderate officers' existing attitudes towards supervision, they may consider employing training sessions geared towards achieving attitudinal change. Fulton, Stichman, Travis, and Latessa (1997) found that training officers on the principles of effective intervention (see, e.g., Cullen & Gendreau, 2000) was associated with attitudes towards supervision that were more treatment oriented and less focused on control (see also Lurigio & Skogan, 1994, for an application of this idea to police officers). Regardless of agency objectives, the findings from this study suggest parole officers' attitudes may have an important influence on their behavior.…”

A comparison of punishment exchange rates between offenders under supervision and their supervising officers

“…The finding that probation and parole officers had conflicting views of their roles (e.g., as either law enforcement officers or social workers) might give some insight into how they viewed the sanction continuum. Numerous studies indicated that many officers used a combination of the two roles to perform their jobs (see Fulton, Stichman, Travis, & Latessa, 1997;and Studt, 1978, for examples). Hardyman (1988) found that some officers rotate between the two roles, depending on the perceived character and behavior of the offender.…”

Examining the predictors of juvenile probation officers' rehabilitation orientation

“…Under this new model, probation officers were expected to make sure that offenders were made accountable for their actions (Forst & Blomquist, 1992). To achieve this, probation officers had to incorporate more punitive methods as a mechanism for preventing juveniles from re-offending (Fulton, Stichman, Travis, & Latessa, 1997).…”