The accommodations of criminal justice personnel to changes in organizational structure is an unresearched phenomenon. Drawing upon qualitative data, I present a historical accounting of how probation officers responded to the bureaucratization of their department. Patterns of accommodation resembled those described by Presthus as (1) upwardly mobile, (2) indifferent, and (3) ambivalent. An analysis of these patterns helps provide an understanding of organizational dynamics prevailing in contemporary agencies. Those officers most suited to a bureaucratic setting dominate today's probation practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Blau, P. M. (1974). On the nature of organizations. New York: John Wiley.
2.
Blumberg, A. S. (1979). Criminal justice: Issues and ironies. New York: New Viewpoints.
3.
Chambliss, W. , & Seidman, R. (1971). Law, order, and power. Reading, MA: Addison & Wesley.
4.
Conrad, J. P. (1985). The penal dilemma and its emerging solution. Crime & Delinquency, 31, 411-422.
5.
Glaser, B. , & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
6.
Glaser, D. (1985). Who gets probation and parole: Case study versus actuarial decision making. Crime & Delinquency, 31, 367-378.
7.
Goldsborough, E. , & Burbank, E. (1968). The probation officer and his personality. In C. Newman (Ed.), Sourcebook on probation, parole, and pardons (pp. 104-112). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
8.
Hagan, J. (1977). Criminal justice in rural and urban communities: A study of the bureaucratization of justice. Social Forces, 55, 597-611.
9.
Hagan, J. , Hewitt, J., & Alwin, D. (1979). Ceremonial justice: Crime and punishment in a loosely coupled system. Social Forces, 58, 506-527.
10.
Jacoby, H. (1973). The bureaucratization of the world. Berkeley: University of California Press.
11.
Klockars, C. (1972). A theory of probation supervision. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 63, 550-557.
12.
Littrell, W. B. (1979). Bureaucratic justice: Police, prosecutors, and plea bargaining. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13.
McCleary, R. (1975). How structural variables constrain the parole officer's use of discretionary powers. Social Problems, 23, 209-225.
14.
McCleary, R. (1978). Dangerous men: The sociology of parole. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15.
McHugh, J. (1973). Some comments on natural conflict between counsel and probation officer. American Journal of Corrections, 35, 34-36.
16.
Meyer, M. (1979). Debureaucratization?Social Science Quarterly, 60, 25-34.
17.
Petersilia, J. , Turner, S., Kahan, J., & Peterson, J. (1985). Executive summary of Rand's study, granting felons probation: Public risks and alternatives. Crime & Delinquency, 31, 379-392.
18.
Presthus, R. (1962). The organizational society: An analysis and a theory. New York: Knopf.
19.
Presthus, R. (1978). The organizational society (rev. ed.). New York: St. Martin's.
20.
Pugh, D. S. , Hickson, D. J., & Hinings, C. R. (1985). Writers on organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21.
Reiss, A. J. (1974). Discretionary justice. In D. Glaser (Ed.), Handbook of criminology (pp. 679-704). Chicago: Rand McNally.
22.
Rosecrance, J. (1985). The probation officers' search for credibility: Ball park recommendations. Crime & Delinquency, 31, 539-554.
23.
Rosett, A. , & Cressey, D. R. (1976). Justice by consent. New York: Lippincott.
24.
Scott, W. R. (1965). Field methods in the study of organizations. In R.E.L. Faris (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 485-529). Chicago: Rand McNally.
25.
Scott, W. R. (1981). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
26.
Shover, N. (1979). A sociology of American corrections. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
27.
Tepperman, L. (1973). The effect of court size on organization and procedure. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 10, 346-365.
28.
Terkel, S. (1975). Working. New York: Avon.
29.
Walker, S. (1985). Sense and nonsense about crime. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
30.
Udy, S. (1959). Bureaucracy and rationality in Weber's organizational theory: An empirical study. American Sociological Review, 24, 791-795.
