Title:
An
Analysis Of Probation Officers In Mississippi: Demographics, dual role of
probation, and employment environment
(thesis proposal, 2005, by
Patrick Fagan)
Mississippi Department of Corrections, probation officers, mission statement study, administration of community corrections
Introduction:
Television has glamorized the FBI, CIA, police, detectives, and crime scene investigation, but probation officers have not received similar treatment. The law-abiding public, for the most part, has no contact at all with probation officers. Officers wear no uniforms, and they conduct most of their work behind closed doors. The probation system is just as nebulous to civilians, even though both the probation system and probation officer constitute a vital part of the criminal justice system. Ignorance and avoidance of the probation system seems odd, because if an offender has committed a felony, he or she will more than likely be working with the probation system sooner or later. The same can be said for most juveniles who are arrested and found guilty. Local courts frequently work with county probation offices.
Many articles have been written on the probation system and officers of other states and especially on the federal system of probation. None have been published specifically and exclusively on Mississippi probation though. Although studies abound in which state probation officers have been surveyed, the probation officers in Mississippi have not been surveyed by any researcher outside the Department of Corrections (Bunnel, 2005). Certainly an understanding of probation work and officers in Mississippi should not be hazy or avoided in today’s academic or civilian world.
Nothing in this dissertation will glamorize probation, but it is to be hoped that clarity and public appeal will be brought to the probation officers and their work in Mississippi. What is more, the administration of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, the current probation officers, and future DOC employees contemplating probation work will find utility in the research items presented in this dissertation. Those items are a compendium of probation at both the federal and state level; a discussion of the organization and structure of the Department of Corrections with the central focus on the Probation and Parole Office; an explanation of relevant case law and state law; and an analysis and results of a survey of 225 probation officers and 15 managers.
The value inherent in this dissertation and its attendant survey is that some current practices of probation officers and the administrators in the MS DOC will be validated, invalidated, or both. Additionally, levels of responsiveness that officers give to their work and to the probationers in their care will be established. Such levels would be useful for future researchers who might want to determine whether probation in Mississippi is effective. Finally, results of the survey derived from a section on stress, whether caused by management or the offender, will be beneficial to the DOC Administration (Bunnel, 2005).
Methodology:
A qualitative, rather than quantitative, survey has been designed to address three hypotheses and twenty research questions. That survey was presented to the Director of Probation and Parole in Mississippi, Charles Bunnel, and two other probation officers. The purpose of presenting a preliminary survey to these personnel was to get approval to conduct a survey of the approximate 225 officers in the state and to get feedback on the survey design. Based on feedback from those personnel and interdepartmental notification of the DOC commissioner, the survey was modified and is planned to be mailed the first week of December 2005. The survey appears as Appendix A on Page 10.
Questions for this survey were designed as an original product of the dissertation author and were not based on the studies or scales of predecessors. Reasons for the originality are that few studies exist on probation officers in which the offenders are not also surveyed or used as a comparison; Director Charles Bunnel believed his officers would not complete the survey if it was longer than five pages; and several of the questions could be construed by the officers to be very personal. Regarding the questions about being proactive and taking a rehabilitative approach to probation, it is possible to increase the chances of offending one’s sensitivities.
Being a former employee of the state probation office, this author knew many of the survey responders personally and anticipated the reluctance of a few officers to respond honestly and accurately. Therefore, it was hoped that the MS DOC personnel who participated in the survey were better served by having original questions created specifically for them by a researcher who constructed and organized questions in such a way as to be less intrusive and offensive all the while remaining objective. The result is that some standard survey questions, which would be asked regarding the specific hypotheses used in this research, were not asked. For example, inquiring about tobacco use would be pertinent in determining stress levels because tobacco users are known to have higher levels of stress than non-tobacco users (Territo and Sewell, 1999). From the experience of this author who worked in three different offices and had monthly meetings with officers from other areas of the state, it was observed that many of the officers used tobacco and they often faced resentment from other employees who did not use tobacco. Obviously such instances with similar content on the survey needed to be avoided.
Along these same lines of thought, the decision was made to keep the survey questions simple and relevant to the officers than to use more sophisticated designs. Short and good scales such as Cullen and Lutze’s (1989) that were used to measure attitudes toward rehabilitation were avoided. Scales that measured views on punishment, such as Stalans’ (1992), were not used either. In measuring of officers’ attitudes towards probation work, for example, complex scales like those of Robinson and Porporino (1992) were not used. Their scales had True or False items by which respondents were offered no alternatives but to answer the questions or skip them. The survey for this present research design, however, gave officers a neutral answer to the questions. This method allows the researcher to know that the question was not accidentally skipped and that the responder did not wish to answer the question when the neutral answer was chosen. In a similar mode, some questions afforded the officers a decision whether the questions pertained to them by choosing “not applicable” is they did not apply to them.
On whether officers are satisfied with their jobs, other researchers have had thorough research designs that assessed job satisfaction (Cook and Wall, 1981). For the survey in this current research, though, the rate of pay and a few simple questions asking about the relationship of the officer and upper management were the determinant of whether officers were satisfied with their career in the Mississippi probation system.
In short, the survey consisted of some Likert scale questions and some discussion-type questions and some open-ended questions. For reasons stated above, it was believed that one consistent format would not have been as beneficial as this mix and match design. The consequence of this design might be that test and retest reliability will be degraded. That is not necessarily a bad omen for this current research project. Indeed, allowing officers a chance to write in their own responses, instead of having predetermined responses for them, could increase officer participation and make this researcher aware of unanticipated problems.
The four regional directors received the surveys en masse and distributed them to the relevant officers with self-addressed, stamped envelopes. Officers were told they did not have to write their return address on the envelopes unless they wished, and they were given an email address in order to contact the author if any problems or questions arose. The directors and officers were told that they would later be provided with a password to access the results of the survey that would be posted on the internet.
Hypotheses:
H1 – The majority of probation officers support the dual role of community corrections instead of favoring one over the other.
The dual role of community corrections—whether enforcement and assistance, or punishment and rehabilitation, or social worker and cop, or deterrence and treatment—was a frequent issue of discussion from the 1970s to the late 1980s (Erwin and Clear, 1987). In other words, should the focus of probation be on punishment or on rehabilitation? That, of course, sparks the question, Why can there not be both? Richard Gray, in 1986, called for administrators to incorporate both functions of probation, because it was indeed possible to have both. Still, some authors believed that having a dual role actually kept officers from performing their duties adequately (Lipsky, 1980; Allen and Eskridge, 1985). That did not stop others from thinking that probation should have only one role: rehabilitation (Stanley, 1978; Hirsch and Hanrahan, 1979). In the late 1980s, it was found that line staff were ambivalent about the dual role of probation (Lovell, 1988). By the early 1990s, some workers in community corrections grew tired of the discussion because they thought the consensus seemed to be that rehabilitation should take precedence over punishment (Bodhaine, 1991). Yet at the same time other researchers were interviewing offenders and officers to find out that probation appeared to be as strict as jail (Petersilia, 1990), and probation officers widely practiced a dual role of community corrections (Ellsworth, 1990). While there can be no real consensus on which philosophical approach dominates in community corrections, it can be said that finding a balance between enforcement and treatment or between punishment and rehabilitation would be the appropriate emphasis for achieving effective probation.
Whether using a dual role or having just one central role, the goal or mission of the corrections agency will not be achieved unless its officers support and believe in the goal or mission. The MS DOC diplomatically incorporates both punishment and rehabilitation into its mission statement. Officers employed for only one year are more likely to espouse the rehabilitative philosophy of probation (Farkas, 2001). Recently, the MS DOC had a higher jump in officer turn-over, so a newer and younger cadre of officers came into the department. It might follow, then, that the DOC treats probationers as “customers,” which is a sign of preferring rehabilitation over punishment. At the line level of the Mississippi Department of Corrections in Probation and Parole, the probationers are referred to as “clients” rather than convicts or felons. To be certain, however, with Hypothesis 1 the probation officers were surveyed to learn whether the majority of officers support the dual role of community corrections instead of favoring one over the other
H2 – Mississippi probation officers are proactive with their probationers.
Although making no use of surveys or outer-departmental comparisons, Scott Ballock in 2001 wrote a denunciation of his fellow probation offices that held in part:
Rather than performing our jobs with passion, attacking the problems placed before us, we sit back and watch ... and wait. We watch as our clients make mistakes; move in the wrong direction. We wait for them to stumble just enough so that they can be revoked. We hold out hope that they’ll do well, that they’ll move in a positive direction. But if they don’t, we’re there to notate their fall.
Ballock went on to exhort probation officers to become more proactive. He said that being proactive was “establishing a genuine, meaningful relationship with your offenders, meeting with them at the halfway house before they are even under your jurisdiction” (p. 46). Ballock believes that doing more field work instead of office work is the greatest sign of being proactive.
It is the opinion of this author that an indicator of being proactive can simply be the steps taken by officers to identify the specific needs of the probationer as an individual. If the officer adjusts his or her work schedule to accommodate a probationer or a probationer’s employer or if the officer gives a probationer a ride to a job interview, then he or she may be considered proactive. Additionally, any efforts not required by legislation and that are taken by the probation officer to help the probationer not recidivate can be considered proactive. Supervision of probationers in the field rather than the office is an indicator of being proactive (Taxman and Byrne, 2001; Ballock, 2001). Just having in place some rehabilitative programs, such as shock incarceration, drug programs, and school programs, intimates that probation officers will be proactive. It cannot be gainsaid that certain programs in community corrections have the cardinal purpose of being rehabilitative, but those programs will be worthless without proactive officers.
The discussions of what is or is not proactive, however, usually revolve around recidivism. A reduction in recidivism can be a product of the relationship between the probation officer and the probationer and that relationship can have other positive effects on probationers (Corbett, 1993; Bingham, 1994; Leibrich, 1994). Others have suggested that it is unwise to “use recidivism as the sole measure of probation and parole effectiveness” (Boone, 1994) and that measures outside recidivism should be examined when considering the effectiveness of programs and officers (Matthews, 1994). Taxman and Byrne (2001) believe that if the focus of probation is not rehabilitative, recidivism will not decrease.
Besides recidivism, cynicism can also be used to learn whether officers are proactive. Obviously if cynicism sets in, officers are not going to be very proactive. Curtis and Reese, from their data of the late 1970s, showed that cynical officers do not support the rehabilitative mission of an agency (1990). Although no question on the survey in this research was deliberately written to assess cynicism, a few of the open-ended questions might result in signs of it. It is very doubtful that cynical officers will successfully implement the mission statement of the MS DOC, which does incorporate pro-activism into its mission. Therefore with Hypothesis 2, Mississippi probation officers were surveyed to determine whether they are proactive with their probationers.
H3 – Probation work in Mississippi has the likelihood to produce stress for officers.
It is known well that police work is a stressful job. However, Bernie Patterson has shown that work in corrections is actually more stressful than the typical police job (1992). Probation officers can have higher stress levels than civilians in the common public (Slate and Wells, 2003). Of probations officers, those who have been employed for at least six years are more likely to be the ones who have inordinate amounts of stress (Violanti and Aron, 1995). Besides length of employment, there are many, many internal and external factors that can cause officer stress, but there are only a certain few that are explored in this research; they all pertain to internal issues.
Although there are positive aspects of some stress, it is the lingering negative stress that leads to emotional fatigue, employee burnout, abandonment of work, or absenteeism. It is feasible that if the job is causing an officer stress, the officer will leave that job in order to assuage that stress (Lambert, 2001). Slate and Wells asserted that the mightiest stress agents were “inadequate salary, courts being too lenient on offenders, lack of promotional opportunities, frustration with the criminal justice system, excessive paperwork, ineffectiveness of the judicial system, expectations to do too much in too little time, lack of recognition for good work, ineffectiveness of the correctional system, inadequate support from the agency and lack of community resources” (2003). Finn and Kuck in 2005 found that heavy caseloads, paperwork, deadlines were significant contributors to an officer’s stress levels. As demonstrated by Slate and Wells in 2003, budgetary cutbacks of states have increased the number of felons that probation officers must deal with. Accordingly, caseloads often have a negative effect on officer stress levels.
Kathryn Farrow in 2004 believed that possible indications of stress in the probation office would be the inverse of staff having ample opportunity to communicate their feelings with supervisors. She also noted that organizational health can be enhanced when decision-makers and line staff have a good working relationship, especially when officers are incorporated into the management-making decisions. (Farrow, 2004). Stinchcomb in 2004 also found that “stress-reducing impact of changes in organizational features ranging from communication and decision-making to managerial practices and disciplinary actions” could have a strong impact of the long-standing health of personnel. Obtaining better job performance from officers and increasing officer health is enhanced when those officers are allowed to participate in the managements process (Slate and Wells, 2003). When there are too many administrative problems and the bureaucracy seems too large, officers can become disillusioned with their jobs (Gordon, 1999). Logically, stress can be the result of that.
Trying to balance the demands of the public, the offender, and the DOC administration can be extremely demanding of a probation officer. Failure to attain a balance can cause a role conflict. When roles are not clear in an agency, the employees might be less likely to support that agency and its mission. That in itself can lead to an increase in his or her stress levels. Poor direction from supervisors can also cause role conflict. Domurad in 2000 conducted research in the private sphere to study role conflict officers might have. He found that decentralization, officer inclusion in management procedures, and greater emphasis given to qualitative service rather than quantitative service were each a viable solution for combating officer stress.
Organizational health is important. It goes without saying that unchecked stress in too many employees is inimical to that organization. Clearly it should not be the management, or rampant internal factors, that is causing officer stress. Therefore with Hypothesis 3, it will be determined whether the MS DOC has a working environment conducive to success or one that has the likelihood to produce stress for its probation officers.
Research Questions:
With three qualitative hypotheses and an associated survey, there will be additional questions that should be answered in the research process. That is typical of any research. Accordingly, in addition to the above hypotheses, there are twenty research questions to be addressed. Those questions are listed below.
R1 - What is the role and goals of the Mississippi probation system?
R2 - With the decline of state funding, have probation services also declined?
R3 - What preventative or rehabilitative programs have been implemented by the DOC in regards to probation?
R4 - What percentage of adults incarcerated by the state is on probation?
R5 - Which counties in have the fastest growing probation population?
R6 - How many of the local probation offices have a person who counsels or deals specifically and exclusively with probationers who have a substance abuse problem?
R7 - What are the personal and demographic characteristics of probation officers? (education, race, sex, marriage, children, etc.)
R8 - What is the typical caseload of probation officers?
R9 - How much time does an officer spend in court?
R10 - How much time does an officer spend in the field?
R11 - How much time does an officer spend per day on paper work?
R12 - How much time does an officer spend on diversion programs, if any?
R13 - How often does an officer provide direct sentencing suggestions to a court?
R14 - How often does an officer conduct a home visit?
R15 - What are the criteria for conducting a home visit?
R16 - How often does an officer conduct unannounced visitations?
R17 - What are the reasons likely to conduct an unannounced visitation?
R18 - Excluding courts, how often do probation officers work directly with local law enforcement?
R19 - Are offices understaffed?
R20 - Are caseloads too large for officers to be effective?
Conclusion:
The probation system serves as a type of incarceration for offenders who are also expected by administrative and external sources to have some rehabilitation. Although state funding for the probation system has dwindled, the responsibilities of probation officers and the number of offenders responsible to them are still increasing. Even so, the role and responsibilities of the probation department and its officers remain obscure to the general public. Complicating the obscurity is the absence of analysis of Mississippi from the body of research on state probation officers. Upon successful completion of this dissertation and its survey, the above shortcomings will be remedied.
See Appendix A, the actual survey, here .
Works Cited:
Allen, Harry and Chris Eskridge. Probation and Parole in America (Free Press, 1986).
Ballock, Scott. “A View from the Field,” 65 Federal Probation 1 (June, 2001):
43-45.
Bingham, Robert. “Probationer Questionnaires: A Tool for Gathering Management Information,” Executive Exchange. National Association of Probation Executives. (Winter 1994).
Bodhaine, Vicki. “Probation Officers’ Role: Cop vs. Social Worker Debate is Passé,” Perspectives. American Probation and Parole Association (Spring 1991): 7-9.
Boone, Harry. “An Examination of Recidivism and Other Outcome Measures: A Review of the Literature,” Perspectives (Winter 1994): 12-18.
Bunnel, Charles. Director Probation and Parole. Phone interview conducted September 2005.
Cook, John and SJ Hepworth. Experience of work: A compendium and review of 249 measures and their use (Academic Press, 1981).
Corbett, Ronald. “A Medley of Responses to David Osborne and Ted Gaebler’s Reinventing Government: Reinventing Community Corrections,” Perspectives (Summer 1993): 7-14.
Curtis, Russell and William Reese and Michael Cone. “Cynicism among juvenile probation officers: a study of subverted ideals,” 18 Journal of Criminal Justice 6 (1990): 501-517.
Domurad, Frank. “Who is Killing our Probation Officers: The Performance Crisis in
Community Corrections,” 4 Corrections Management Quarterly 2 (2000): 41-51.
Ellsworth, Thomas. “Identifying The Actual And Preferred Goals Of Adult Probation,” 54 Federal Probation 2 (1990): 10-15.
Erwin, Billie and Todd Clear. “Rethinking Role Conflict in Community Supervision.” Perspectives (Spring 1987): 21-24.
Farkas, Mary. “Correctional Officers: What Factors Influence Work Attitudes?” 5 Corrections Management Quarterly 2 (2001): 20-26.
Farrow, Kathryn. “Still Committed After All These Years? Morale in the Modern-day
Probation Service,” 51 Probation Journal 3 (2004): 206-20.
Finn, Peter and Sarah Kuck. “Research for Practice: Stress among Probation and Parole
Officers and What Can be Done about It,” National Institute of Corrections, June 2005 [www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/205620.pdf]: October 30, 2005.
Gordon, Jill. “Do Staff Attitudes Vary By Position? A Look at one Juvenile Correctional Center,” 24 American Journal of Criminal Justice 1 (1999): 81-93.
Gray, Richard. “Probation: An exploration in meaning,” 60 Federal Probation 4 (1986): 26-31.
Hirsch, Andrew and Kathleen Hanrahan. The Question of Parole (Ballinger, 1979).
Lambert, Eric. “Absent Correctional Staff: A Discussion of the Issue and Recommendations for Future Research,” 25 American Journal of Criminal Justice 2 (2001): 279-292.
Leibrich, Julie. “What Do Offenders Say About Supervision and Going Straight?” 58 Federal Probation 2 (1994).
Lipsky, Michael. Street-level Bureaucracy (Russell Sage, 1980).
Lovell, Rick. “Research Utilization in Complex Organizations: A case study in corrections,” 5 Justice Quarterly 2 (1998): 257-280.
Matthews, Timothy and Harry Boone and Vernon Fogg. “Alternative Outcome Measures: The Concept.” Perspectives (Winter 1994): 11-12.
Patterson, Bernie. “Job Experience and Perceived Job Stress among Police, Correctional, and Probation/Parole Officers” 19 Journal of Criminal Justice and Behavior (1992): 260-85.
Petersilia, Joan. “When probation becomes more dreaded than prison,” 54 Federal Probation 1 (1990): 23-27.
Risdon, N. Slate and Terry Wells and William Johnson. “Opening the Manager’s Door: State Probation Officer Stress and Perceptions of Participation in Workplace Decision Making,” 49 Crime and Delinquency 4 (2003).
Robinson, David. “Commitment, Attitudes, Career Aspirations and Work Stress: The Experience of Correctional Staff,” 4 Forum 1 (1992): 16-24.
Robinson, David and Frank Porporino and Linda Simourd. “Staff Commitment in the Correctional Service of Canada,” February 1992 [http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/ reports/r21/r21e_e.shtml]: November 17, 2005.
Stalans, Loretta. “Measuring attitudes to sentencing” in Julian Roberts’ Changing Attitudes to Punishment: Public Opinion, Crime and Justice (William Publishing, 2002): 15-32.
Stanley, David. Prisoners Among Us: The problem of parole. (Brookings, 1976).
Stinchcomb, Jeanne. “Searching for Stress in All the Wrong Places: Combating Chronic Organizational Stressors in Policing,” 5 Police Practice and Research 3 (July, 2004): 259-277.
Taxman, Faye and James Byrne. “The Truth About Broken Windows Probation: Moving Towards A Proactive Community Supervision Model,” Perspective (Spring 2001).
Territo, Leonard and James Sewell. Stress Management in Law Enforcement (Carolina Academic Press, 1999).
Violanti, John and Fred Aron. “Police Stressors: Variations in Perceptions among Police Personnel” 23 Journal of Criminal Justice (1995): 280-91.