Substance Involvement and Probation Outcomes: Evidence From a Cohort Study

Substance use disorders are common among justice-involved populations, the majority of whom are under community supervision in the form of probation. Substance involvement can amplify the challenges of complying with requirements of probation supervision, violations of which can lead to incarceration. In this study, we assess the role of substance involvement in violations of probation conditions across 47 counties representing 70% of individuals sentenced to probation in the state of Pennsylvania. We also consider the role of court-ordered treatment. We conclude by estimating the consequences of resentencing for substance-involved individuals in Pennsylvania (in incarceration and supervision days). Results suggest that individuals who are substance-involved are at greater risk of technical violations. However, treatment may reduce some negative outcomes for substance-involved individuals. Court-ordered treatment was associated with a reduction in the likelihood of being resentenced for a new offense relative to individuals who were substance-involved but not ordered to treatment.

Putting a face to a name: Telephone contact as part of a blended approach to probation supervision

This article is about the experience of telephone supervision from the perspective of practitioners. It is set in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, which changed and challenged the nature of probation supervision and required service users and supervisors to communicate remotely, using the telephone, rather than by meeting face-to-face. The article explores some of the impacts and consequences of telephone contact and examines the extent to which this approach has a part to play in future, post-pandemic, ways of working. The article draws on findings from a research project examining remote supervision practice during the pandemic. Fieldwork (comprising an online survey and a series of semi-structured interviews) was conducted between July and September 2020 in three divisions within an English community rehabilitation company. The article reinforces the importance of face-to-face work in probation practice but suggests that there is scope to retain some use of telephone supervision as part of a future blended practice model. Further thinking about telephone supervision might consider these three themes identified in the research: remote working limits the sensory dimension of supervision, relationships remain at the heart of practice, and good practice requires professional discretion.

Probation Officers, Discretion, and Participatory Management

Probation officers (POs) are perhaps the correctional workers with the greatest reach, since more people are under probation supervision relative to every other correctional branch (i.e., jail, prison, and parole). The individuals under probation supervision and the community-at-large depend on POs to do their job well. However, POs have a job that requires them to make numerous decisions within an organization with conflicting goals and ambiguous roles, often with great discretionary power and little oversight. This relatively autonomous discretionary power often produces racial disparities in probation outcomes, the misuse of evidence-based tools such as risk and needs assessments, and ultimately the inability of probation organizations to effectuate change. These effects have negative consequences for probation organizations, probationers, and POs themselves. Participatory management produces an organizing framework that calls for hierarchical organizations to take a balanced approach to decision-making by increasing information sharing throughout the organizational hierarchy. This organizational structure carries the potential to remedy these aforementioned problems. By increasing oversight and accountability for POs via participatory management, POs’ discretionary power may be managed without limiting decision-making. Participatory management may create additional benefits such as increasing the efficiency of probation organizations, improving client outcomes for probationers, and increasing occupational satisfaction for POs. There are numerous potential threats to participatory management and several solutions for overcoming them. The main solution calls on probation agencies to make participatory management as effective as possible by constructing an equal balance between a loosely and tightly coupled organizational implementation of policies and practices.

Desistance from crime and probation supervision: Comparing experiences of English and French probationers

This research compares how English and French desisters experience and perceive probation supervision. In this qualitative study, desisters of both countries were interviewed to collect narratives of change within the context of punishment in the community. The aim of this research was to explore and compare the role of probation in desistance processes, in different national, socio-economic, and criminal justice settings. The findings demonstrate similarities in perceptions of probation officers as people with resources. Differences emerged in the types of resources engaged with and the perceived punitiveness of mandatory supervision.

Towards a desistance-focused approach to probation supervision for people who have committed Intimate Partner Violence: A digital toolkit pilot study

We analyse practitioner and service user reflections on a digitally enabled toolkit designed to enable desistance-focused conversations within routine probation supervision of men with convictions for Intimate Partner Violence in England and Wales. We explore how to embed inclusive therapeutic service provision within the role of public sector National Probation Service practitioners through the testimony of case managers (N = 9) and people on probation (N = 7). We discuss the strengths and challenges of the approach and its implementation. The findings are discussed in the context of: the forthcoming Domestic Abuse Bill; the renationalisation of probation; the recovery of probation services following the COVID-19 pandemic; and the emergence of technology that supports desistance.

How to Assist Probationers with Debt Problems during Supervision? A Qualitative Study into the Experiences of Both Probation Officers and Clients

Little research exists on what works in the supervision of offenders with debt problems. This qualitative study aims to provide insight into the barriers probation officers and clients experience during supervision regarding debt and the support that clients need. Interviews were conducted with 33 Dutch probation officers and 16 clients. The results show that debt often negatively influences clients’ lives and hinders their resocialization. Probation officers lack effective methods to support clients with debt problems. To adequately help clients with debt problems, probation officers should obtain more knowledge about effective interventions and collaborate more closely with debt specialists from the probation supervision outset.

Juvenile Probation Supervision Contacts in a Reforming State: Rise of the Street-Level Expert?

We examined juvenile probation officers’ use of evidence-based principles in routine supervision contacts in five counties of a reforming state, focusing on relationship quality, attention to criminogenic needs, and the use of structuring activities. We did this using ethnographic observations of 112 routine supervision contacts, supplemented by qualitative interviews and a practitioner survey. Analysis showed officers typically applied some evidence-based principles in supervision meetings, though encounters varied in their focus on rehabilitation, and whether rehabilitative work used specialized techniques. Variations were shaped by client circumstances and meeting contexts. They also reflected officers’ affinity for specialized approaches, with evidence suggesting the existence of a group of “experts” within the officer population committed to using specialized techniques. The presence of experts was related, in part, to offices’ leadership, organizational practices, and history with evidence-based reforms. Findings offer cautious optimism about the prospects for mainstreaming these evidence-based principles within community corrections agencies.