COVID-19's Impact on Probation Professionals’ Views About Their Roles and the Future of Probation

• Author: Kelli D. Martin,Haley R. Zettler
• Published date: 01 June 2022
• Date: 01 June 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/07340168211052876
• Subject Matter: Articles

COVID-19’s Impact on

Probation Professionals’Views

About Their Roles and the

Future of Probation

Kelli D. Martin, PhD

1

and Haley R. Zettler, PhD

2

Abstract

In 2020, the COVID-19 global pandemic forced probation departments to change their practices

overnight. The phenomenon presented many challenges for probation departments but also opened

avenues for innovation and changes in attitudes toward supervision practices. We surveyed adult

and juvenile probation departments in the entire state of Texas, specifically targeting management

and supervisory personnel, officers with caseloads, including court officers, and information tech-

nology personnel (N=1,353). Our goals of this research included not only obtaining information

about operational changes made because of the pandemic but also gauging attitudes toward

these changes and the future of probation. We understood operational changes were inevitable,

thus findings of significant operational changes were not surprising. We found that probation per-

sonnel were open to changes in operational procedures and that the pandemic spurred innovation

and widespread acceptance in the use of technology for a variety of activities going forward that may

not have been accepted prior to the pandemic.

Keywords

COVID-19, probation, community supervision, future of probation

Introduction

Since its inception, probation has faced the conflicting goals of public safety and rehabilitation

(Ellsworth, 1990). Much research has assessed how probation has evolved to include more hybrid

approaches, balancing surveillance, law enforcement, and rehabilitation (Cullen & Jonson, 2012;

Grattet et al., 2018). While the field of probation continues to grapple with its central purpose, in

1

Research Policy Planner, Taylor Callahan & Coleman, Bexar, and Hidalgo Counties CSCD, 450 Pecan St., Ste. 200, Abilene,

TX 79602, USA

2

Department of Criminal Justice, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #305130, Denton, TX 76203-5017, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kelli D. Martin, Research Policy Planner, Taylor Callahan & Coleman, Bexar, and Hidalgo Counties CSCD, 450 Pecan St.,

Ste. 200, Abilene, TX 79602, USA.

Email: kmartin@taylorcscd.org

Article

Criminal Justice Review

2022, Vol. 47(2) 167–184

© 2021 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/07340168211052876

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr

March 2020, the COVID-19 global pandemic forced probation agencies to quickly change policies

and practices, which has affected how probation workers view the role of community supervision.

These changes include but are not limited to reducing the number of face-to-face contacts,

changes in court proceedings, the utilization of technology for contacts as well as treatment services,

budget and staff constraints, and the health and safety of those working in supervision agencies. As

probation agencies have been forced to adopt substantive changes to their practices, it is important to

assess how these changes have implications for the future of community supervision.

A plethora of literature exists across many disciplines regarding organizational change and resist-

ance to such changes. Criminal justice agencies, including probation departments, are not immune to

this problem. Considering the responsibilities to protect the community, affect change in individuals

on probation, and comply with court orders probation departments have traditionally been resistant to

change in part because of the nature of bureaucracy. Bureaucratic structures are generally not con-

ducive to innovation (Thompson, 1965). They are characterized by rigid lines of communication,

emphasis on efficiency and control, centralized authority and decision making, and specialized divi-

sion of labor (Udy, 1959; Weber, 1921). Most criminal justice agencies are still hierarchical

Weberian organizations with mechanistic and formalistic operations, with specialized tasks and divi-

sion of labor that create a narrow range of duties (Dias & Vaughn, 2006; Hagan, 1977; McCleary,

1975). These rigid bureaucratic traits make it difficult for probation agencies to innovate, especially

if both management and employees within these organizations are resistant to change.

Resistance to organizational change can be institutionalized due to a variety of factors such as

their size, complexity or number of structural components, centralization or the locus of decision-

making, formalization or use of rules in an organization, pressure, individual attitude, and departmen-

tal attitude (Allen, 2002; Erwin & Garman, 2010). Moreover, individual attitudes such as trust in

management, communication, and considerations of threats and benefits of change can impact

how well an organization adapts to change. Moreover, change may be slow due to managerial

quality and its impact on organizational performance (Fayol, 1950; Furst & Cable, 2008).

Probation administrators have not only been dealing with resistance to change within their organiza-

tions but also with trying to stay abreast of the ever-evolving research about “what works”in com-

munity supervision.

Over the last several decades, criminal justice agencies have been slowly adopting and implement-

ing evidence-based practices, but they are still struggling to implement theory into daily practices

(Taxman, 2018; Taxman & Smith, 2020). Taxman’s (2018) research reviewed how organizations

adapt to change and the implementation of evidence-based practices. This study culminated in the

development of a research agenda to build implementation knowledge. Moreover, because certain

evidence-based practices are still evolving, such as the risk-needs-responsivity model (Taxman &

Smith, 2020), this presents implementation issues for organizations to keep pace with progressing

research. Not only do agencies have issues in translating theory into practice, but it also takes

time for the practice to become widespread throughout the organization (Amodeo et al., 2011).

However, with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, changes were forced to occur swiftly.

One change that occurred across community supervision agencies was the increased reliance on

technology to conduct virtual visits, treatment sessions, and other face-to-face programming. The use

of technology in community corrections has expanded in recent years, as a response to increased

caseload sizes with fewer resources (Russo et al., 2019). In their report on an expert workshop

with community corrections stakeholders, Russo et al. (2019) found that participants expressed a

common need to leverage technology to both train and support officers in their job duties. Most

research on community corrections’use of technology has focused on the use of risk assessments,

electronic monitoring, and less frequently, automated reporting such as kiosk supervision. The use

of electronic monitoring has increased in recent years, as both a way to alleviate overcrowded

168 Criminal Justice Review 47(2)