Probation departments are emphasizing a greater level of community interaction between officers and ordinary citizens as an integral part of effective offender supervision. This trend is due in part to the prisoner reentry correctional paradigm, which conceptualizes probation officers as relationship brokers between offenders and their employers, family members, and community stakeholders. Field probation officers are a critical part of implementing this community-oriented approach. Few scholars, however, have evaluated probation departments’ organizational capacities to implement this change in light of the legal vulnerabilities to torts faced by these officers. We use in-depth interview data from a sample of field probation officers in eastern Washington State to understand how probation officers’ concerns about being sued and their trust in the organization may affect its capacity to innovate. The theoretical and policy implications of our findings are discussed.
Abadinsky, H. ( 2000). Probation and parole. (7th ed., pp. 96-132). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
Bayley, D.H., & Shearing, C.D. (1996). The future of policing . Law & Society Review, 30, 585-606.
3.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2007). Bureau of Justice Statistics Correctional Surveys, 2007. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corr2.htm
4.
Clear, T.R. ( 1996). Toward a "corrections of place": The challenge of "community" in corrections. NIJ Journal, 231, 52-56.
5.
Clear, T.R., & Cannon, J.B. ( 2002). Neighborhood probation offices in Maricopa County, Arizona . In D. R. Karp & T. R. Clear (Eds.), What is community justice? Case studies of restorative justice and community supervision (1st ed., pp. 37-58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
del Carmen, R.V., Barnhill, M.B., Bonham G., Jr., Hignite, L., & Jermstad, T. ( 2001). Civil liabilities and other legal issues for probation/parole officers and supervisors. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
7.
Karp, D.R., & Clear, T.A. ( 2002). What is community justice? Case studies of restorative justice and community supervision. (1sted., pp. 111-133). Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.
8.
King v.City of Seattle, 84 Wn. 2d 239 (1974).
9.
Kraska, P.B., & Kappeler, V.E. (1997). Militarizing the American police: The rise and normalization of paramilitary units. Social Problems, 44(1), 1-18.
Lutze, F., Smith, P., & Lovrich, N. ( 2000). Premises for attaining more effective offender accountability through community involvement: Washington State’s new approach. Corrections Management Quarterly, 4(4), 1-9.
12.
Lutze, F., Smith, P., & Lovrich, N. ( 2004). A practitioner-initiated research partnership: An evaluation of neighborhood-based supervision in Spokane, Washington (Grant No. 1999-CE-VX-0007) . Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
13.
Lutze, F., & van Wormer, J. (2007). The nexus between drug and alcohol treatment program integrity and drug court effectiveness: Policy recommendation for pursuing success. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18, 226-245.
14.
Morgan, K.D., Belbot, B.A., & Clark, J. ( 1997). Liability issues affecting probation and parole supervision . Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 211-222.
15.
Murphy, D., & Lutze, F. ( 2009). Police-probation partnerships: Professional identity and the sharing of coercive power. Journal of Criminal Justice , 37, 65-76.
16.
Office of Justice Programs. (1998). Rethinking probation: Community supervision, community safety (NCJ Publication No. 178236). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
17.
Parent, D., & Synder, B. ( 1999). Police corrections partnerships (NCJ Publication No. 175047). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
18.
Petersen v.State, 100 Wn. 2d 241; 671 ( 1983 ).
19.
Petersilia, J. ( 2003). When prisoners come home. New York : Oxford University Press.
20.
Purkiss, M., Kiefer, M., Hemmens, C., & Burton, V.S. ( 2003). Probation officer functions-A statutory analysis . Federal Probation, 67(1), 12-23.
21.
Taggart v. State, 118 Wn. 2d, 195 (1992).
22.
Tardif, M., & McKenna, R. ( 2005). Washington State’s 45-year experiment in governmental liability. Seattle University Law Review, 29(1), 1-63.
23.
Travis, J. ( 2001). But they all come back: Rethinking prisoner reentry . Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(3), 23-33.
24.
Travis, J. ( 2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
25.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1980). 1980 census of population: General social and economic characteristics (U.S. Census Bureau Publication PC80-1-C1). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
26.
Washington State Department of Corrections. ( 2007). Cop shops, police, corrections, and community partnerships . Retrieved from http://www.doc.wa.gov/news/stories/pre2005/COPS.asp
27.
Worrall, J.L. ( 1998). Administrative determinants of civil liability lawsuits against municipal police departments: An exploratory analysis. Crime & Delinquency, 44, 295-313.
28.
Worrall, J.L., & Marenin, O. ( 1998). Emerging liability issues in the implementation and adoption of community oriented policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 21, 121-136.
