Probation and parole officers have become increasingly important given the high number of individuals incarcerated in the US. They serve an important role in supervision by tracking offenders to ensure they comply with court orders. In this case, the offenders’ behavior is kept in check. The probation and parole officers also report the progress by the probationers and parolees to the relevant authorities. They also network with social service and community agencies that assist offenders to reenter society successfully. In this case, they play a direct role in ensuring the offenders readjust in a meaningful way. Their work is essential given that it streamlines the judicial process and connects various stakeholders, including the courts, offenders, and the community, to guarantee community safety and offender rehabilitation. Probation officers decide how first-time offenders are treated by deciding against a court process in favor of an initiative centered on community service. They also work with the offenders' families, therapists, and social workers to assist offenders to change their lives. Offenders are able to comply with the conditions of their releases as a result of the actions of the probation officers. For instance, probation officers ensure that offenders attend counseling sessions or engage in drug abuse recovery programs. Drug users are able to undergo mandatory drug testing overseen by the officers. In this scenario, drug abuse behavior among the offenders is likely to decrease significantly due to the officers' actions. The officers also assist offenders to find housing and employment, and, in this case, the offender can settle and begin acting responsibly. Offenders are typically monitored through meetings, work visits, home visits, or a GPS device. Parole officers also play a similar role in assisting the offender to settle in and, in effect, avoid falling back into crime.
Probation and parole officers serve as an external conscience from the offenders' perspectives, specifically among sex offenders. The officers assist the offenders to avoid committing sex offenses by ensuring the latter receive the required treatment. Their role also entails performing activities intended to prevent sex behaviors among individuals in the community. In this case, the community members are protected from sexual offenders. Probation and Parole officers are trained professionals with their training focused on problem-solving. They recognize offense-related problems such as family issues or drugs, set goals to solve the problems, then develop and implement strategies to meet the goals. Notably, they are able to guarantee the offenders’ wellbeing and welfare.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The importance of parole and probation officers in the successful re-entry and adjustment or probationers and parolees cannot be further emphasized. Despite their importance, the welfare of probation and parole officers has been overlooked. As part of the community supervision team, they are overloaded. Recent data indicates that more than four million individuals in the US are on probation or parole, with this number being double the prison population in state and federal prisons. The high number of offenders on probation or parole increases the number of cases handled by each probation and parole officer. In addition, the pay does not commensurate with the workload they handle. The increased workload and low pay may contribute to stress and dissatisfaction among the parole and probation officers. In turn, probationers and parolees are likely to suffer since the individuals who hold them accountable are significantly preoccupied. Without the assistance of the probation or parole officer, the offender may find it hard to adjust in society, and they may go back to their criminal practices. In this sense, recidivism is likely to rise. Various states, including Mississippi, report that their probation and parole workers are underpaid and overworked. Given the problem of dissatisfied, overworked, and underpaid probation and parole officers, there is a need for a new policy to correct this problem to ensure the best outcomes for the officers and offenders.
Literature Review
Published studies highlight that there is a need to increase job satisfaction among probation and parole officers, given that they are underpaid and overworked. King (2018) examined turnover among parole and probation officers in community corrections. The study's independent variables included dissatisfaction with remuneration, job stress, and secondary trauma, while turnover intention was the dependent factor. The study's subjects comprised twenty-four probation officers in three Northern Kentucky counties. The study's findings showed that there was a substantial negative correlation between turnover intention and dissatisfaction with pay. In this case, if the parole and probation officers were dissatisfied, their intention to leave their positions increased. The study's results support the policy focused on decreasing dissatisfaction among probation and parole officers. Lee et al. (2009) examined the turnover intention among supervisory staff, including probation officers. They conducted a web-based survey on probation staff working in Texas. The results showed that all respondents had a strong inclination to live their job positions in the probation department. Forty-one percent of the respondents reported their turnover intention, while thirty percent indicated that they had serious thoughts of leaving the department in the near future. The results also showed that the probation officers were dissatisfied with pay and promotion job aspects in their current position. In addition, role overload, including excessive paperwork and little time to complete duties, were the major stress-inducing factors of the participants in their probation roles. They concluded that pay satisfaction was the greatest underlying cause of high turnover intention in probation departments in Texas. They advocated for the increase in remuneration to reduce turnover intention by increasing job satisfaction. Based on the findings, the proposed policy can focus on improving remuneration to promote job satisfaction among parole and probation officers. Rhineberger-Dunn et al. (2016) examined the predictors of burnout among probation officers. According to the researchers, burnout is a significant problem among supervisory personnel such as probation and parole officers. The results showed that the officers' perceptions of their remuneration were essential in predicting burnout, specifically emotional exhaustion. The authors recommended the increase in job satisfaction through educational training of the probation officers to reduce their work stress. In this case, a policy focused on improving remuneration can help alleviate emotional exhaustion among probation and parole officers. Gayman & Bradley (2012) examined work stress and depressive symptoms among supervisory personnel such as probation and parole officers. The researchers used statewide data from more than 800 probation and parole officers to explore the link between depressive symptoms, work stress, and emotional exhaustion. Their results showed that work stress is a vital determinant of emotional exhaustion or burnout, with the predictors having a link to depressive symptomology. Models that took into account work stress accounted for two-thirds of the variations in burnout. Emotional exhaustion, role workload, and work stress were linked to depressive symptom levels. The study demonstrated that work stress contributed significantly to the wellbeing of the probation and parole officers. Notably, the proposed policy should focus on reducing work stress by reducing workload to guarantee the wellbeing of probation and parole officers. Getahun et al. (2008) examined job satisfaction and work commitment among parole and probation officers. The results of the study showed that work stress had a considerable impact on the job satisfaction levels of the officers. Probation and parole officers who reported greater levels of job meaningfulness were more likely to be satisfied. The results also showed that job satisfaction increased with age as a result of eligibility for benefits. In this respect, the level of benefits paid to the officer affected their level of job satisfaction. Based on the findings, the level of job stress and benefits can determine whether the probation or parole officer can have a high level of satisfaction. Therefore, in devising the new policy, such variables must be considered. Lewis et al. (2012) examined the personal effect of the job on the probation officers. They assessed the traumatic stress and burnout experienced by workers who supervised criminal offenders. They obtained data from adult probation officers in three states, namely Texas, California, and Arizona. The results showed that probation officers experienced traumatic job stress and workload, especially when they were assaulted or threatened while dealing with offenders. They also showed that there existed a link between tenure and traumatic stress. Increments in traumatic stress were directly linked to tenure in the probation field. The researchers recommended that reducing case workloads could reduce the potential of assault and threats, in turn, leading to low levels of traumatic job stress, which impacts job satisfaction. Essentially, the proposed policy should focus on reducing the role workload of probation officers in the field to reduce their work stress and increase their satisfaction levels. White et al. (2015) explored job-linked burnout among juvenile probation officers. According to the researchers, the high demands and obligations of probation work specifically with juvenile clients can contribute to burnout which can affect how the officers work with probationers. They surveyed 246 probation officers in a Midwestern US state to determine the prevalence and potential effects of burnout. The surveyed officers reported moderate levels of burnout. The results also showed that burnout was predicted by factors such as dissatisfaction with work guidelines, job dissatisfaction, and turnover intention. The juvenile probation officers who suffered from burnout were more likely to promote mental health stigma and lack of mental health expertise while dealing with offenders who had behavioral health issues. The researchers concluded that burnout intervention programs such as reducing workload would contribute to increased job satisfaction, reduced turnover, and better handling of offenders with behavioral health needs. In essence, the new policy should focus on diminishing the workload of probation and parole officers to increase their job satisfaction and retention level. Based on the results, reduced burnout due to reduced workload would result in positive outcomes for the offenders, given that their needs would be met. Lee et al. (2009) examined the effect of participatory management on the general job satisfaction, job stress, and turnover rate among probation officers. According to the researchers, correctional agencies are continually being plagued by high employee turnover rates. The researchers analyzed survey results from 209 probation officers in Texas, Missouri, and Kansas. The results indicate a considerable negative correlation between turnover intention and overall job satisfaction. In this case, a high level of turnover intention was linked to a low level of job satisfaction. Additionally, there was also a high positive correlation between internal stress and turnover intention. In this regard, an increase in internal stress was associated with an increase in turnover intention. Based on the findings, the researchers recommended that a reduction in internal stress and increase in job satisfaction through reduced workload would lead to low turnover intention among the probation officers.
Description of Policy
A comprehensive policy that covers remuneration and workload should be implemented to ensure the welfare needs of probation and parole officers are met effectively. The implementation of such a policy would ensure that a low turnover rate is realized in various probation and parole departments. In addition, the increased satisfaction of the parole and probation officers would ensure that they are motivated to meet the needs of probationers and parolees. As a consequence, probationers can successfully adjust in society while parolees can successfully reenter society.
Under the new policy, the probation workers should not only be paid higher wages, but also their basis of payment should be altered to ensure a high level of job satisfaction. In addition, the policy should stipulate the maximum and the minimum number of cases to be handled by the probation and parole officers to ensure they are not overworked. Concerning pay, the probation and parole officers should be paid additional compensation according to the number of caseloads they handle. The caseload is the number of probationers or parolees handled by the probation or parole officer, respectively. Currently, the probation and parole officers are paid per hour. The pay varies from one state to another, with states such as Iowa, Illinois, and Rhode Island paying the highest wages countrywide with an annual average wage of more than $68,000. States such as Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, and Florida pay the lowest wage rates that are below $43000 per annum. Based on the new policy, the probation and parole officers should be paid the hourly wage plus additional wage determined by the number of cases they handle. In this case, the remuneration paid to parole and probation officers will take into account both the workload and caseload. The caseload size will grow with the increase in offender populations while the workload is a constant figure since the probation and parole officers are required to work a specific number of hours per day. The increase in the caseload will result in an increase in the remuneration paid to the probation and parole officers. In this scenario, if a probation or a parole officer is assigned many caseloads, the high remuneration is likely to lead to increased satisfaction given the feeling that their work is valued. The parole or probation officer is likely to be motivated to handle more parolees or probationers. Under the policy, there should be a maximum number of cases that can be assigned to the probation or parole officer. Such a limit would ensure that the probation or parole officer is not overloaded with work. In addition, it would also ensure that the needs of the probationers or parolees are met effectively, given the high level of attention they receive from their supervisors. Overall, the new policy would solve the problems of dissatisfaction, case, and work overload, and poor pay experienced by probation and parole officers currently. However, funding allocated to the probation and parole department should be increased if this policy is to be adopted successfully.
Conclusion
Overall, there is a need for a new policy related to probation and parole given the importance of probation and parole officers in supervising probationers and parolees and reducing recidivism among the offenders. There is a high number of offenders on either parole or probation, with this number exceeding the total number of prisoners in jail. The high number of probationers and parolees means that probation and parole officers have a high number of caseloads which contributes to the officers being overloaded. In addition, they are underpaid, and this scenario exacerbates the current problem since it leads to increased turnover. The probation and parole officers leave their position in search of better remuneration either in other correctional departments or other careers. A high turnover rate of probation and parole officers means that the probationers and parolees cannot establish a long-lasting bond with the officers. In this scenario, the offenders are likely to fall back into crime, leading to an increase in recidivism cases. The increase in caseloads contributes to job stress and burnout, as indicated by research. In turn, the probation and parole officers are demotivated in their positions and seek other options. Research shows there is a moderate level of satisfaction among parole and probation officers, and such a level is attributed to burnout and a high level of job stress. A comprehensive policy is needed to reduce cases of turnover among probation and parole officers in addition to the risk of recidivism among parolees and probationers. The focus on remuneration and a limit on the number of caseloads handled by the parole or probation officer is likely to have positive effects on the officers and offenders. Increased remuneration can ensure that the parole and probation officers feel valued and, in turn, will be motivated to assist the offenders in adjusting in society. Fundamentally, the number of parole and probation officers leaving their posts is likely to reduce, and offenders will benefit given that they will have individuals to keep them accountable. The limit of the number of caseloads per parole or probation officer will ensure that each offender is given the attention they need. The offender is likely to respond by complying with the rules issued by the court. If the offender settles in well, the chances of them going back to prison will be significantly reduced. In this sense, there will be positive outcomes for the offenders.
References
Gayman, M. D., & Bradley, M. S. (2013). Organizational climate, work stress, and depressive symptoms among probation and parole officers. Criminal Justice Studies , 26 (3), 326-346.
Getahun, S., Sims, B., & Hummer, D. (2008). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment among probation and parole officers: A case study. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice , 3 (1), 1-16. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1478601X.2012.742436
King, T. D. (2018). Overworked and underpaid: Examining turnover in community corrections. Honors Theses . 566. https://encompass.eku.edu/honors_theses/566
Lee, W. J., Joo, H. J., & Johnson, W. (2009). The effect of participatory management on internal stress, overall job satisfaction, and turnover intention among federal probation officers. Fed. Probation , 73 , 33.
Lee, W. J., Phelps, J. R., & Beto, D. R. (2009). Turnover intention among probation officers and direct care staff: A statewide study. Fed. Probation , 73 , 28.
Lewis, K. R., Lewis, L. S., & Garby, T. M. (2013). Surviving the trenches: The personal impact of the job on probation officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice , 38 (1), 67-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-012-9165-3
Rhineberger-Dunn, G., Mack, K. Y., & Baker, K. M. (2017). Comparing demographic factors, background characteristics, and workplace perceptions as predictors of burnout among community corrections officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 44 (2), 205-225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816666583
White, L. M., Aalsma, M. C., Holloway, E. D., Adams, E. L., & Salyers, M. P. (2015). Job-related burnout among juvenile probation officers: Implications for mental health stigma and competency. Psychological Services , 12 (3), 291. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000031
