This study aimed to explore, describe, and interpret New Zealand probation officers’ insights into supervisees’ non-compliance with community sentences. Seventeen probation officers participated in two focus groups. Probation officers viewed problems with cognitive skills as a key barrier to sentence compliance. They reported that these problems underpinned other factors linked to compliance, such as meeting basic needs and skill acquisition. Probation officers employed a number of social worker oriented evidenced-based strategies, including building high-quality relationships and being flexible, along with modification of sentence requirements to increase supervisee compliance, especially with supervisees who faced considerable obstacles when engaging with a community sentence.
AnnisonJEadieTKnightC (2008) People first: Probation officer perspectives on probation work. Probation Journal55(3): 259–271.
2.
AtkinsonDFMannRE (2012) Prison officers as observers of offence paralleling behaviours: An untapped resource?The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology23(2): 139–155.
3.
BontaJ (1995) The responsivity principle and offender rehabilitation. Forum on Corrections Research 7(3): 34–37.
4.
BontaJAndrewsDA (2016) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Oxfordshire: Taylor & Francis.
5.
BooneMHerzog-EvansM (2013) Decision-making and offender supervision. In: McNeill F and Beyens K (eds) Offender Supervision in Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 51–96.
6.
BooneMMaguireN (2017) The Enforcement of Offender Supervision in Europe: Understanding Breach Processes. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
7.
BottomsA (2001) Compliance and community penalties. In: Bottoms A, Gelsthorpe L and Rex S (eds) Community Penalties: Change and Challenges. London: Willan, 87–116.
8.
BourgonGBontaJ (2014) Reconsidering the responsibility principle: A way to move forward. Federal Probation78: 3.
9.
BrackenD (2003) Skills and knowledge for contemporary probation practice. Probation Journal50(2): 101–114.
10.
BrackenDC (2007) Risk management and/or punishment in the community: Supervising conditional sentences. British Journal of Community Justice5(2): 71.
11.
BraithwaiteV (2003) Dancing with tax authorities: Motivational postures and non-compliant actions. Taxing democracy3: 15–39.
12.
BraunV and Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology3(2): 77–101.
13.
BrownJD (2004) Managing the transition from insitution to community: A Canadian parole officer perspective on the needs of newly released federal offenders. Western Criminology Review5: 97.
DeeringJ (2010) Attitudes and beliefs of trainee probation officers: A ‘new breed’?Probation Journal57(1): 9–26.
16.
DeLisiMDruryAElbertM (2021) Who are the compliant correctional clients? New evidence on protective factors among federal supervised releases. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X21992681.
17.
DenneyASTewksburyRJonesRS (2014) Beyond basic needs: Social support and structure for successful offender reentry. Journal of Quantitative Criminal Justice & Criminology 2(1): 39–67.
18.
DurandEChevignardMRuetA, et al. (2017) History of traumatic brain injury in prison populations: A systematic review. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine60(2): 95–101.
19.
EppersonMWCanadaKThompsonJ, et al. (2014) Walking the line: Specialized and standard probation officer perspectives on supervising probationers with serious mental illnesses. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry37(5): 473–483.
20.
FarrallS (2002) Long-term absences from probation: Officers’ and probationers’ accounts. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice41(3): 263–278.
21.
GannonTAWardT (2014) Where has all the psychology gone?: A critical review of evidence-based psychological practice in correctional settings. Aggression and Violent Behavior19(4): 435–446.
22.
GarlandBWodahlEJMayfieldJ (2011) Prisoner reentry in a small metropolitan community: Obstacles and policy recommendations. Criminal Justice Policy Review22(1): 90–110.
23.
GoldsteinH (1963) Police discretion: The ideal versus the real. Public Administration Review 23(3): 140–148.
24.
GrantSMcNeillF (2014) The quality of probation supervision: Comparing practitioner accounts in England and Scotland. European Journal of Probation6(2): 147–168.
25.
GrattetRNguyenVBirdM, et al. (2018) Probation’s changing role in California: Challenges and opportunities for hybrid supervision. Federal Probation82: 20.
26.
GunnisonEHelfgottJB (2011) Factors that hinder offender reentry success: A view from community corrections officers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology55(2): 287–304.
27.
HaggertyKDBuceriusSM (2020) Picking battles: Correctional officers, rules, and discretion in prison. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal 59(1): 137–157.
28.
HerbertCWMorenoffJDHardingDJ (2015) Homelessness and housing insecurity among former prisoners. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences1(2): 44–79.
29.
HucklesbyA (2009) Understanding offenders’ compliance: A case study of electronically monitored curfew orders. Journal of Law and Society36(2): 248–271.
30.
HughesW (2012) Promoting offender engagement and compliance in sentence planning: Practitioner and service user perspectives in Hertfordshire. Probation Journal59(1): 49–65.
31.
JamesDJ (2004) Profile of Jail Inmates, 2002. Washington D.C: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice.
32.
JonesMKerbsJJ (2007) Probation and parole officers and discretionary decision-making: Responses to technical and criminal violations. Federal Probation71: 9.
33.
KlockarsCB (1972) A theory of probation supervision. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science63(4): 550–557.
34.
LutherJBReichertESHollowayED, et al. (2011) An exploration of community reentry needs and services for prisoners: A focus on care to limit return to high-risk behaviour. AIDS Patient Care and STDs25(8): 475–481.
35.
MeijersJHarteJMMeynenG, et al. (2017) Differences in executive functioning between violent and non-violent offenders. Psychological Medicine47(10): 1784–1793.
36.
MowenTJWodahlEBrentJJ, et al. (2018) The role of sanctions and incentives in promoting successful reentry: Evidence from the SVORI data. Criminal Justice and Behavior45(8): 1288–1307.
37.
NellisM (2006) Surveillance, rehabilitation, and electronic monitoring: Getting the issues clear. Criminology & Public Policy5(1): 103–108.
38.
OuimetMCBrownTGNadeauL, et al. (2007) Neurocognitive characteristics of DUI recidivists. Accident Analysis & Prevention39(4): 743–750.
39.
PetersiliaJ (2004) What works in prisoner reentry-reviewing and questioning the evidence. Federal Probation68: 4.
40.
PrinsSJ (2014) Prevalence of mental illnesses in US state prisons: A systematic review. Psychiatric Services65(7): 862–872.
41.
PurkissMKiferMHemmensC, et al. (2003) Probation officer functions – A statutory analysis. Federal Probation67: 12.
42.
RaynorPUgwudikePVanstoneM (2014) The impact of skills in probation work: A reconviction study. Criminology & Criminal Justice14(2): 235–249.
43.
RobinsonGMcNeillF (2008) Exploring the dynamics of compliance with community penalties. Theoretical Criminology12(4): 431–449.
44.
RoszykAIzdebskaAPeichertK (2013) Planning and inhibitory abilities in criminals with antisocial personality disorder. Acta Neuropsychologica11(2): 193–205.
45.
SchaeferLWilliamsGC (2018) The impact of probation and parole officers’ attitudes about offenders on professional practices. Corrections 5(4): 1–18.
46.
ScottCKGrellaCEDennisML, et al. (2014) Predictors of recidivism over 3 years among substance-using women released from jail. Criminal Justice and Behavior41(11): 1257–1289.
47.
SerucaTSilvaCF (2015) Recidivist criminal behaviour and executive functions: A comparative study. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology26(5): 699–717.
48.
SloasLMurphyAWooditchA, et al. (2019) Assessing the use and impact of points and rewards across four federal probation districts: A contingency management approach. Victims & Offenders14(7): 811–831.
49.
Staton-TindallMHavensJROserCB, et al. (2011) Substance use prevalence in criminal justice settings. In: Leukefeld C, Gullotta T and Gregrich J (eds) Handbook of Evidence-Based Substance Abuse Treatment in Criminal Justice Settings. New York: Springer, 81–101.
50.
SteinerBTravisLFIIIMakariosMD, et al. (2011) The influence of parole officers’ attitudes on supervision practices. Justice Quarterly28(6): 903–927.
51.
TravisJSolomonALWaulM (2001) From prison to home: The dimensions and consequences of prisoner reentry. Washington D.C: Urban Institute.
52.
TrotterCEvansP (2012) An analysis of supervision skills in youth probation. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology45(2): 255–273.
53.
UgwudikeP (2010) Compliance with community penalties: The importance of interactional dynamics. In: McNeill F, Raynor P and Trotter C (eds) Offender Supervision. London, Willan: Cullompton, 351–369.
54.
UgwudikeP (2013) Compliance with community orders: Front-line perspectives and evidence-based practices. In: Ugwudike P and Raynor P (eds) What Works in Offender Compliance. New York: Springer, 165–182.
55.
Van DeinseTBCuddebackGSWilsonAB, et al. (2018) Probation officers’ perceptions of supervising probationers with mental illness in rural and urban settings. American Journal of Criminal Justice43(2): 267–277.
56.
WeaverBPiacentiniLMoodieK, et al. (2020) Exploring and explaining non-compliance with community supervision. The British Journal of Criminology 61(2): 434–455.
57.
WestADSeiterRP (2004) Social worker or cop? Measuring the supervision styles of probation & parole officers in Kentucky and Missouri. Journal of Crime and Justice27(2): 27–57.
58.
WhiteheadJTLindquistCA (1992) Determinants of probation and parole officer professional orientation. Journal of Criminal Justice20(1): 13–24.
