Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic placed new strains on community corrections including officers’ ability to enforce and respond to client noncompliance. With system-wide closures to courthouses, delays in case processing, and limited incarceration space, supervision officers were faced with new challenges regarding the availability of sanction response options. The goal of the current study was to examine how supervision officers responded to noncompliance when traditional, incarceration-based sanctions were largely unavailable. Drawing on qualitative interviews with American probation/parole officers (PPOs) (n = 42), we identified several themes surrounding changes in officers’ strategies to address and respond to noncompliance. Results from thematic analysis suggest major changes in how PPOs monitored supervision compliance during the pandemic including changes to client supervision requirements, modality of contacts, and use of technology for remote surveillance. Findings also revealed changes in how PPOs applied traditional graduated sanctions during the pandemic. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

community corrections noncompliance COVID-19 sanctions

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ainslie

Fowler

Phillips

Westaby

(2023). COVID-19 and community sanctions. In Kay

Case

(Eds.), Crime, justice and COVID-19 (pp. 50–75). Bristol University Press.

Baldwin

J. M.

Eassey

J. M.

Brooke

E. J.

(2020). Court operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 743–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09553-1

Barnes

G. C.

Ahlman

Gill

Sherman

L. W.

Kurtz

Malvestuto

(2010). Low-intensity community supervision for low-risk offenders: A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 159–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9094-4

Batastini

A. B.

King

C. M.

Morgan

R. D.

McDaniel

(2016). Telepsychological services with criminal justice and substance abuse clients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Services, 13(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000042

Boman

J. H.

IV Mowen

T. J.

Wodahl

E. J.

Lee Miller

Miller

J. M.

(2019). Responding to substance-use-related probation and parole violations: Are enhanced treatment sanctions preferable to jail sanctions? Criminal Justice Studies, 32(4), 356–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601x.2019.1664506

Bonta

Andrews

D. A.

(2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315677187

Charmaz

(1995). The body, identity, and self. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(4), 657–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1995.tb00459.x

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.

Clarke

Braun

(2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613

10.

Cohen

T. H.

Starr

V. L.

(2021). Survey of US probation and pretrial services agencies’ adaptations to COVID-19. Federal Probation, 85(1), 14–23. https://www.uscourts.gov/file/36257/download

11.

Corbin

J. M.

Strauss

(1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593

12.

Emerson

R. M.

Fretz

R. I.

Shaw

L. L.

(2001). Participant observation and fieldnotes. In Atkinson

Coffey

Delamont

Lofland

(Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 352–368). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608337

13.

Hamilton

Campbell

C. M.

van Wormer

Kigerl

Posey

(2016). Impact of swift and certain sanctions: Evaluation of Washington State’s policy for offenders on community supervision. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(4), 1009–1072. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12245

14.

Hawken

Kleiman

M. A.

(2009). Managing drug involved probationers with swift and certain sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE (No. 229023). National Institute of Justice.

15.

Jones

Kerbs

J. J.

(2007). Probation and parole officers and discretionary decision-making: Responses to technical and criminal violations. Federal Probation, 71(1), 9–15. https://www.uscourts.gov/file/22949/download

16.

Kerbs

J. J.

Jones

Jolley

J. M.

(2009). Discretionary decision making by probation and parole officers: The role of extralegal variables as predictors of responses to technical violations. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25(4), 424–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986209344556

17.

Kim

(2020). Organizational resilience and employee work-role performance after a crisis situation: Exploring the effects of organizational resilience on internal crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 32(1–2), 47–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2020.1765368

18.

Kleiman

M. A.

Kilmer

Fisher

D. T.

(2014). Theory and evidence on the swift-certain-fair approach to enforcing conditions of community supervision. Federal Probation, 78(2), 71–75.

19.

Lockwood

Viglione

Peck

J. H.

(2023). COVID-19 and juvenile probation: A qualitative examination of emergent challenges and useful strategies. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 50(1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211046977

20.

Mackey

B. J.

Appleton

C. J.

Lee

J. S.

Skidmore

Taxman

F. S.

(2022). At the intersection of research and practice: Constructing guidelines for a hybrid model of community supervision. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 63, Article 101689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2021.101689

21.

Marcum

C. D.

(2020). American corrections system response to COVID-19: An examination of the procedures and policies used in Spring 2020. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 759–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09535-3

22.

Martin

K. D.

Zettler

H. R.

(2022). COVID-19’s impact on probation professionals’ views about their roles and the future of probation. Criminal Justice Review, 47(2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/07340168211052876

23.

Morgan

D. L.

Nica

(2020). Iterative thematic inquiry: A new method for analyzing qualitative data. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920955118

24.

Mowen

T. J.

Wodahl

Brent

J. J.

Garland

(2018). The role of sanctions and incentives in promoting successful reentry: Evidence from the SVORI data. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(8), 1288–1307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818770695

25.

Muhr

(1991). ATLAS.ti—A prototype for the support of text interpretation. Qualitative Sociology, 14(4), 349–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989645

26.

Nunphong

Mellow

Koetzle

Schwalbe

(2022). Exploring Thailand’s probationary practices since COVID-19: Changes in strategies with regards to probation supervision. Victims & Offenders, 18(5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2022.2131667

27.

Pattavina

Long

J. S.

Petrich

D. M.

Byrne

Cullen

F. T.

Taxman

F. S.

(2024). Revisiting the effectiveness of HOPE/swift-certain-fair supervision programs: A meta-analytic review. Criminology & Public Policy, 23(1), 45–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12635

28.

The Pew Charitable Trusts. (2018). Probation and parole systems marked by high stakes, missed opportunities [Pew report]. The Pew Center on the States. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2018/09/probation-and-parole-systems-marked-by-high-stakes-missed-opportunities

29.

Phelps

M. S.

Ruhland

E. L.

(2022). Governing marginality: Coercion and care in probation. Social Problems, 69(3), 799–816. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spaa060

30.

Powell

Hyatt

J. M.

Link

N. W.

(2022). Implementing reforms in community corrections: Lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic. Crime & Delinquency, 68(8), 1223–1246. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287211061722

31.

Rudes

D. S.

(2012). Getting technical: Parole officers’ continued use of technical violations under California’s parole reform agenda. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(2), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2012.677572

32.

Seeger

M. W.

Ulmer

R. R.

Novak

J. M.

Sellnow

(2005). Post-crisis discourse and organizational change, failure and renewal. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810510579869

33.

Smith

Gendreau

Swartz

(2009). Validating the principles of effective intervention: A systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Victims & Offenders, 4(2), 148–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880802612581

34.

Steen

Opsal

Lovegrove

McKinzey

(2013). Putting parolees back in prison: Discretion and the parole revocation process. Criminal Justice Review, 38(1), 70–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016812466571

35.

Taxman

F. S.

(2008). No illusions: Offender and organizational change in Maryland’s proactive community supervision efforts. Criminology & Public Policy, 7(2), 275–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2008.00508.x

36.

Taxman

F. S.

Soule

Gelb

(1999). Graduated sanctions: Stepping into accountable systems and offenders. The Prison Journal, 79(2), 182–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885599079002004

37.

Van Deinse

T. B.

Crable

E. L.

Dunn

Weis

Cuddeback

(2021). Probation officers’ and supervisors’ perspectives on critical resources for implementing specialty mental health probation. 48, 408–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-020-01081-8

38.

Vera Institute of Justice. (2020, March 18). Guidance for preventative and responsive measures to coronavirus for parole, probation, and clemency. https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/coronavirus-guidance-parole-probation-clemency.pdf

39.

Viglione

(2019). The risk-need-responsivity model: How do probation officers implement the principles of effective intervention? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(5), 655–673. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818807505

40.

Viglione

Alward

L. M.

Lockwood

Bryson

(2020). Adaptations to COVID-19 in community corrections agencies across the United States. Victims & Offenders, 15(7–8), 1277–1297. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2020.1818153

41.

Viglione

Peck

J. H.

Frazier

J. D.

(2023). COVID-19 and courts: An exploration of the impacts of the pandemic on case processing and operations. Victims & Offenders, 18(5), 818–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2022.2133034

42.

Viglione

Rudes

D. S.

Taxman

F. S.

(2015). Misalignment in supervision implementing risk/needs assessment instruments in probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(3), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/009385481454844

43.

Vuolo

Schneider

L. E.

LaPlant

E. G.

(2022). Surveillance and the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic for formerly incarcerated individuals. Punishment & Society, 25(2), 386–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745221080696

44.

Wodahl

E. J.

Boman

J. H.

IV Garland

B. E.

(2015). Responding to probation and parole violations: Are jail sanctions more effective than community-based graduated sanctions? Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(3), 242–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.04.010

Toward Accountability: A Qualitative Assessment of Supervision Officers’ Responses to Noncompliance During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References