Toward Accountability: A Qualitative Assessment of Supervision Officers’ Responses to Noncompliance During the COVID-19 Pandemic

• Published date: 01 September 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241246149
• Author: Lucas M. Alward,Ashley Lockwood,Jill Viglione
• Date: 01 September 2024
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2024, Vol. 51, No. 9, September 2024, 1450 –1469.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241246149

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2024 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1450

TOWARD ACCOUNTABILITY

A Qualitative Assessment of Supervision Officers’

Responses to Noncompliance During the COVID-19

Pandemic

LUCAS M. ALWARD

Boise State University

ASHLEY LOCKWOOD

JILL VIGLIONE

University of Central Florida

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic placed new strains on community corrections including officers’ ability to

enforce and respond to client noncompliance. With system-wide closures to courthouses, delays in case processing, and

limited incarceration space, supervision officers were faced with new challenges regarding the availability of sanction

response options. The goal of the current study was to examine how supervision officers responded to noncompliance when

traditional, incarceration-based sanctions were largely unavailable. Drawing on qualitative interviews with American proba-

tion/parole officers (PPOs) (n = 42), we identified several themes surrounding changes in officers’ strategies to address and

respond to noncompliance. Results from thematic analysis suggest major changes in how PPOs monitored supervision com-

pliance during the pandemic including changes to client supervision requirements, modality of contacts, and use of technol-

ogy for remote surveillance. Findings also revealed changes in how PPOs applied traditional graduated sanctions during the

pandemic. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords: community corrections; noncompliance; COVID-19; sanctions

Probation and parole officers (PPOs) have a wide range of discretion in determining how

to respond to noncompliance, including the decision whether to file formal revocation

proceedings (Kerbs et al., 2009). For more serious violations (e.g., new criminal offense) or

sustained noncompliance, PPOs may initiate a formal revocation process whereby

AUTHORS’ NOTE: This study was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation (#2030344). The

authors thank the three anonymous reviewers and the Criminal Justice and Behavior editorial staff for their

thoughtful insight and recommendations for preparation of this article. They also recognize and acknowledge

the willingness of community corrections agency staff to participate in this work by sharing their experiences

during an especially challenging time. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lucas

M. Alward, School of Public Service, Boise State University, 1910 University Drive—MS 1900, Boise, ID

83725; e-mail: LucasAlward@boisestate.edu.

*Ashley Lockwood is also affiliated with Georgia Southern University.

1246149CJBXXX10.1177/00938548241246149Criminal Justice and BehaviorAlward et al. / Towards Accountabilty

research-article2024

Alward et al. / TOWARDS ACCOUNTABILTY 1451

recommending to the judiciary or parole board that a client’s supervision term be terminated

(Jones & Kerbs, 2007). Under such circumstances, clients may wait in local county jail as

their supervision disposition is decided and they may be returned to state prison if their

supervision is revoked (Steen et al., 2013). However, PPOs can use a range of response

options for technical violations (i.e., behavior that is not illegal, but reflects noncompliance

with supervision conditions) such as short-term jail stays (Boman et al., 2019; Wodahl

et al., 2015), increased drug testing or surveillance (Taxman et al., 1999), verbal repri-

mands, or referrals for treatment programming (Bonta & Andrews, 2017).

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic significantly reduced PPOs ability to enforce

and respond to supervision violations. In fact, research coming out of community correc-

tions during the early phases of the pandemic reported that an inability to hold clients

accountable represented one of the biggest challenges that officers faced (Lockwood et al.,

2023). With courthouse closures (Viglione et al., 2020), delays/backlogs in case processing

in the courts (Viglione et al., 2023), and limited jail and prison space (or refusal to accept

violators) (Cohen & Starr, 2021), PPOs were in uncharted territory regarding the availabil-

ity of options. While existing research documents the challenges PPOs and agencies

reported, we know little about how officers did respond to noncompliance when traditional,

incarceration-based sanctions were unavailable. This line of questioning is important given

calls for community corrections agencies to limit the use of incarceration for violations

prior to the pandemic (The Pew Charitable Trust, 2018). However, reform in this area has

been significantly difficult. For example, studies document PPO misalignment with reforms

designed to alter the control and punishment-oriented culture of probation and parole agen-

cies (e.g., Rudes, 2012; Viglione et al., 2015). Across these studies, PPOs often subvert

reform out of concerns for liability and public safety (Viglione, 2019). The COVID-19

pandemic acted as a catalyst for change, forcing PPOs to respond to noncompliance differ-

ently than they might have otherwise (e.g., Lockwood et al., 2023; Viglione et al., 2020).

The goal of this article was to better understand what this process looked like during the

pandemic—how PPOs monitored compliance, how they responded to noncompliance, and

importantly what they perceived to be effective strategies at addressing noncompliance

when they were not able to rely on incarceration.

RESPONDING TO VIOLATIONS

Probation and parole officers have a great deal of discretion in deciding how to respond

to noncompliance. Among the range of possible tools, research indicates that many supervi-

sion agencies rely on deterrence-based strategies that focus on incarceration as the primary

response to supervision noncompliance (Hamilton et al., 2016; Hawken & Kleiman, 2009).

The underlying goal of incarceration as a sanction, including short-term periods of confine-

ment, is to disrupt and discourage clients from continued engagement in antisocial behav-

iors including drug and substance abuse (Kleiman et al., 2014). Use of incarceration in

response to violations often requires a process of submitting paperwork, obtaining a war-

rant, and/or receiving judicial approval (Steen et al., 2013). In addition, there are many

forms of noncompliance that range in seriousness, all of which may not warrant such an

extreme response. For these reasons, agencies and their officers may turn to other graduated

sanctions that emphasize increased control or surveillance (Taxman et al., 1999). These

graduated sanctions range in terms of severity. For example, PPOs can prescribe incremen-

tal responses to escalating behaviors such as providing verbal warnings, increasing the