Probation is a sentence served in the community and includes a number of supervision conditions. If the conditions are violated, individuals could receive a sanction, including revocation. Not every violation, however, may receive a consequence. Probation officers have discretion for how they manage individuals on the caseloads. This study used qualitative data from two departments in a MidWest state in the United States, one rural and one urban, to explore officer decision-making in supervision. It is critical to examine these factors due to the high number of individuals revoked from probation each year. The study findings illustrate the factors officers use in monitoring conditions, as well as in violations and revocations.
AdamiMF (2005) The use of triangulation for completeness purposes. Nurse Researcher12(4): 19–29.
2.
AlbonettiCA (1991) An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems38(2): 247–266.
3.
AlmSS (2016) HOPE probation: Fair sanctions, evidence-based principles, and therapeutic alliances. Criminology & Public Policy15(4): 1195–1214.
4.
AndrewsDABontaJ (2010) Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law16(1): 39–55.
5.
BeyensKPerssonA (2017) Discretion and professionalism in a breach context. In: BooneMMaguireN and ProQuest (Firm) (eds) The Enforcement of Offender Supervision in Europe: Understanding Breach Processes. New York: Routledge, 59–76.
6.
BlayEBooneMPruinI (2018) Parties, role and responsibilities. In: BooneMMaguireN and ProQuest (Firm) (eds) The Enforcement of Offender Supervision in Europe: Understanding Breach Processes. New York: Routledge, 39–58.
7.
BrilliantJA (1989) The modern day scarlet letter: A critical analysis of modern probation conditions. Duke Law Journal38(5): 1357–1385.
CullenFTJonsonCLNaginDS (2011) Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science. The Prison Journal91(3): 48S–65S.
12.
CullenFTPrattTCTuranovicJJ, et al. (2018) When Bad news arrives: Project HOPE in a post-factual world. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice34(1): 13–34.
13.
DalyKJ (2007) Qualitative Methods for Family Studies & Human Development. California: Sage Publications.
14.
DavisAJ (2008) The American prosecutor – power, discretion, and misconduct. Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals1396: 24–37.
15.
DohertyF (2013) Indeterminate sentencing returns: The invention of supervised release. New York University Law Review88(3): 958–1030.
16.
DohertyF (2016) Obey all laws and be good: Probation and the meaning of recidivism. The Georgetown Law Journal104(2): 291–354.
17.
DurnescuI (2011) Pains of probation: Effective practice and human rights. International Journal Of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology55(4): 530–545.
18.
FergusonLMWormithJS (2013) A meta-analysis of moral reconation therapy. International Journal of Offenders Therapy and Comparative Criminology57(9): 1076–1106.
19.
FisherRH (1974) Parole and probation revocation procedures after morrissey and gagnon. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology65(1): 46–61.
20.
GarlandBWodahlEJMayfieldJ (2011) Prisoner reentry in a small metropolitan community: Obstacles and policy recommendations. Criminal Justice Policy Review22(1): 90–110.
21.
HalcombEJAndrewS (2005) Triangulation as a method for contemporary nursing research. Nurse Researcher13(2): 74–82.
22.
HawkenAKleimanM (2009) Managing Drug Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii's HOPE: Executive Summary. Grant Report. Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Reference Services.
23.
HucklesbyAMaguireNAnagnostakiM, et al. (2017) Legitimacy, fairness and justice in breach processes: Comparative perspectives. In: BooneMMaguireN and ProQuest (Firm) (eds) The Enforcement of Offender Supervision in Europe: Understanding Breach Processes. New York: Routledge, 77–105.
24.
HutchisonMHummerDWooditchA (2013) A survey of existing program strategies for offenders with intellectual and developmental disabilities under correctional supervision in Pennsylvania. Probation Journal60(1): 56–72.
25.
JonesMKerbsJJ (2007) Probation and parole officers and discretionary decision-making: Responses to technical and criminal violations. Federal Probation71(1): 9–15.
26.
KlingeleC (2013) Rethinking the use of community supervision. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology103(4): 1015–1069.
27.
KlockarsCB (1973) A theory of probation supervision. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science63(4): 550–556.
28.
Kohler-HausmannI (2013) Misdemeanor justice: Control without conviction. American Journal of Sociology119(2): 351–393.
LaurinaviciusAUstinaviciuteL (2018) Breach of community punishment in Lithuania. In: BooneMMaguireN and ProQuest (Firm) (eds) The Enforcement of Offender Supervision in Europe: Understanding Breach Processes. New York: Routledge, 211–268.
31.
LeinfeltFH (2006) Police officer discretion and race in an American midwestern city: Predicting arrests, citations, and warnings: A multivariate examination. The Police Journal79(1): 3–27.
32.
LipskyM (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
33.
MacDougallCBaumF (1997) The devil's advocate: A strategy to avoid groupthink and stimulate discussion in focus groups. Qualitative Health Research7(4): 532–541.
34.
MarionN (2002) Effectiveness of community based correctional programs: A case study. The Prison Journal82(4): 478–497.
MaruschakLMMintonTD (2020) Correctional Populations in the United States, 2017–2018. Washington D.C.: Department of Justice, Officer of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus1718.pdf
37.
MedinaJC (2017) Making the decision to extend probation supervision at a local agency. Crime & Delinquency63(13): 1712–1730.
38.
NikartasSVaičiūnienėRRinkevičiūtėG (2021) Probation officers’ discretionary decisions in responding to probation violations: The case of Lithuania. Probation Journal68(1): 28–46.
39.
O’ConnellDJBrentJJVisherCA (2016) Decide your time: A randomized trial of a drug testing and graduated sanctions program for probationers. Criminology & Public Policy15(4): 1073–1102.
40.
O’LearyVClearTR (1984) Directions for Community Corrections in the 1990s. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
41.
ParentD (1994) Responding to Probation and Parole Violations. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
RhineEE (1993) Reclaiming Offender Accountability: Intermediate Sanctions for Probation and Parole Violators. VA: American Correctional Association (ACA).
46.
RuhlandELPetkusAALinkNWHyattJMHolmesBPateS (2021) Monetary Sanctions in Community Corrections: Law, Policy, and Their Alignment With Correctional Goals. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice37(1):108–127.
47.
SerinRCLowenkampCTJohnsonJL, et al. (2016) Using a multi-level risk assessment to inform case planning and risk management: Implications for officers. Federal Probation80(2): 10–15.
48.
ShannonSKSUggenCSchnittkerJ, et al. (2017) The growth, scope, and spatial distribution of people with felony records in the United States, 1948–2010. Demography54: 1795–1818.
49.
SiehEW (2003) A theoretical basis for handling technical violations. Federal Probation67(3): 28–32.
50.
SteinerBCainCM (2017) Punishment within prisons: An examination of the influences of prison official's decision to remove sentencing credits. Law & Society Review51(1): 70–98.
51.
SteinerBTravisLFMakariosMD (2011a) Understanding parole officers’ responses to sanctioning reform. Crime & Delinquency57(2): 222–246.
52.
SteinerBTravisLFIIIMakariosMD, et al. (2011b) Short-term effects of sanctioning reform on parole officers’ revocation decisions: Short-term effects of sanctioning reform. Law & Society Review45(2): 371–400.
53.
TaxmanFSSouleDGelbA (1999) Graduated sanctions: Stepping into accountable systems and offenders. The Prison Journal79(2): 182–204.
54.
ThornbergRCharmazK (2014) Grounded theory and theoretical coding. In: FlickU (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage, 153–169.
55.
TravisLFStaceyJ (2010) A half century of parole rules: Conditions of parole in the United States, 2008. Journal of Criminal Justice38(4): 604–608.
56.
TurnerSBraithwaiteHKearneyL, et al. (2012) Evaluation of the California parole violation decision-making instrument (PVDMI). Journal of Crime and Justice35(2): 269–295.
57.
WalkerS (1993) Taming the System: The Control of Discretion in Criminal Justice 1950–1990. NY: Oxford University Press.
WilligC (2014) Interpretation and analysis. In: FlickU (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage, 136–150.
60.
WodahlEJBomanJHGarlandBE (2015) Responding to probation and parole violations: Are jail sanctions more effective than community-based graduated sanctions?Journal of Criminal Justice43(3): 242–250.
