Specialty Probation Officers as Street-Level Bureaucrats: Exploring How Discretion Is Perceived and Employed on a Mental Health Caseload

• Published date: 01 May 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X21990783
• Date: 01 May 2022
• Author: Philip Mulvey,Brice Terpstra
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X21990783

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2022, Vol. 66(6-7) 670 –693

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X21990783

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Specialty Probation Officers

as Street-Level Bureaucrats:

Exploring How Discretion Is

Perceived and Employed on

a Mental Health Caseload

Brice Terpstra1 and Philip Mulvey2

Abstract

This study explores the perceptions of specialty mental health caseload probation officers

and their use of discretion in day-to-day supervision of individuals with mental illness in

one large jurisdiction in the United States. Scholars have examined overall effectiveness

of specialty probation programs, probation officers’ roles as street-level bureaucrats, and

the impact of the mental health caseload probation officer and probationer relationship

on successful completion. Less attention, however, has been placed on examining how

the officers supervising these specialty caseloads perceive their roles as mental health

probation officers and how they use discretion in their caseload management. The

current study examines the narratives of 24 specialty mental health caseload probation

officers and supervisors to understand how discretion is used on a problem-solving

caseload and how discretionary decision-making may impact probationer outcomes.

Keywords

mental ilness, problem solving caseloads, specialty probation, street level bureaucracy,

discretion

Introduction

The criminal justice system is now the leading mental health care provider in the

United States (Torrey et al., 2010) as roughly one in six individuals in the system have

1Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, Phoenix, USA

2Department of Criminal Justice Sciences, Illinois State University, Normal, USA

Corresponding Author:

Philip Mulvey, Department of Criminal Justice Sciences, Illinois State University, Campus Box 5250,

Normal, IL 61790-0001, USA.

Email: pwmulve@ilstu.edu

990783IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X21990783International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyTerpstra and Mulvey

research-article2021

Terpstra and Mulvey 671

a mental illness (Steadman et al., 2009). Although limited information is available for

specific prevalence rates of individuals with mental illness on probation, estimates

suggest that 15 to 18% of probationers have a mental health problem (Adams &

Ferrandino, 2008; Beck & Maruschak, 2001; Ditton, 1999; Geraghty & Kraus, 1998;

Lamberti, 2007; Lurigio et al., 2003) and over one-half million probationers have a

serious mental illness (SMI) (e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression)

(Crilly et al., 2009; Epperson et al., 2017).

As a partial result of the prevalence of individuals with mental illness coming into

contact with the criminal justice system, mental health courts (MHC) and specialty

probation caseloads have become common, attempting to assist individuals with men-

tal illness cycling in and out of the criminal justice system (Wolff et al., 2013).

Although programs vary considerably in size, make-up, and services provided, proba-

tioners on mental health caseloads and specialty courts normally participate in a vari-

ety of treatment conditions as part of the terms of their probation that include: regular

urinalysis, substance use and mental health treatment, adherence to psychotropic med-

ication (when appropriate), increased contact with the courtroom workgroup and pro-

bation officers, refraining from illegal behavior, and paying monetary restitution when

necessary (Epperson et al., 2017).

The probation officers who supervise individuals in these SMI criminal justice pro-

grams serve as the system’s “front line” to work with probationers with mental illness

on a day-to-day basis. These probation officers operate as agents of change through the

principles of therapeutic jurisprudence in order to achieve rehabilitation with crimi-

nally involved individuals (Slate et al., 2004). Scholars have noted that this can often

be an extremely challenging endeavor as officers are tasked with both “enforcing com-

pliance” to help ensure public safety, but also to “provide direct and supportive ser-

vices” to help in the treatment of this group (Epperson et al., 2014, p. 474). In addition

to having the general concerns of standard officers, SMI caseload officers are com-

monly trained in areas specific to helping individuals with mental health need.

Probation officers working with individuals with mental illness can be imperative to

the probationer’s successful completion as “the relationship between probation officer

and probationer has been identified as an essential factor in achieving successful pro-

bation outcomes” (Epperson et al., 2017, p. 189).

To date, little empirical work has considered SMI caseload probation officers’ per-

ceptions of their work, and how these officers use discretion in their day-to-day activi-

ties working with probationers with mental illness. In the current paper we explore this

topic by examining the extensive narrative accounts of a sample of 24 SMI caseload

officers who all completed semi-structured qualitative interviews during a 14-month

period at Maricopa County Adult Probation (Phoenix, Arizona metro region) in the

United States. SMI caseload officers in the current sample ultimately function as

“street-level bureaucrats” (SLBs), defined as “workers who interact with and have

wide discretion over the dispensation of benefits or the allocation of public sanctions”

(Lipsky, 2010, p. xi) for the probationers with mental illness on their caseloads. In

their role as SLBs, SMI caseload officers in the current study served as the primary

agents of multiple forms of social control in the lives of probationers and exerted