1. Probation/Parole OfficersProbation/Parole Officers
DiscretionDiscretion
Sociology/Criminology
Morgan Robertson
mar449@cabrini.edu
Theory Review:
According to Slabonik and Sims (2002),
Probation Officers’ discretion is the most important and
often least understood aspect on the job because officers’
decide on handling their clients supervision. Probation
officers take part in exercising discretion in all phases of
criminal proceedings with their clients including arrests,
sentencing, violations, court appearances, treatment
programs, and supervision (Slabonik & Sims, 2002).
Theory and practice of administration must satisfy
expectations of discretion on one hand and political
accountability regarding laws on the other (Slabonik &
Sims, 2002).
Methods:
Participants: 15 Probation Officers’ participated in
this study. Out of 15 officers, 11 were female and 4
were male. The average age of officers was 21-30
(M=3.29). The data showed that 93.3% of officers
were Caucasian, and 6.7% fell under other. 53.3%
of officers worked the job 0-4 years, and 80%
supervised juveniles.
Materials: A survey was adapted from the Peer-
Reviewed Journal of the American Correctional
Association on “ Controlling discretion in
Bureaucratic Agencies: A Survey of Adult Probation
Officers” from the Dauphin County Adult Probation
and Parole in South Central Pennsylvania (Slabonik
& Sims, 2002).
The survey measures:
Discretion with the public interest
Officers self-interest goals
Administration policies
Decisions on supervising offenders
Job training
Imposing sanctions
Question# Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
1- Officers use discretion consistent with the public
interest*
2- Officers are influenced by self-interest goals and
person norms.
0
6.
0
46.7
80.0
46.7
20.0
0
3- Officers should be allowed to decide how to handle
clients.
4- More policies would help officers deal with
discretion.
6.7
6.7
20.0
40.0
53.3
53.3
20.0
0
5- Officers should have input on new policies dealing with
discretion.
6- Important to provide job training for use of discretion.
0
0
0
6.7
73.3
60.0
26.7
33.3
7- Officers should use incentives as means for discretion.
8- Probation departments should impose sanctions on officers
overdoing discretion.
0
0
66.7
40.0
26.7
46.7
6.7
13.3
9- All probation officers are treated equally even with
disciplinary actions.
10-Gender has effects on officers’ discretion.
33.3
6.7
33.3
60.0
33.3
20.0
0
13.3
11- Number of years on the job effects officers’ discretion. 6.7 26.7 53.3 13.3
12- Administration makes policies clear to officers. 33.3 33.3 33.3 0
Table 2. Reported percentages on perceptions of
discretion survey (N=15).
Results:
In order to test the hypotheses that age, groups of offenders
under supervision, years on the job, and gender effecting
Probation Officers’ beliefs about the use of discretion on the job,
the following tests were run: three One-way Analysis of
Variance, and a One-Way Analysis of Variance with Post HOC
Test.
Effects of age
Officers’ over 40 years of age were more likely to support
(M=4.0, SD=0) increased inputs into new policies dealing with
discretion than were officers’ ages 31-40 (M=2.33, SD=.52) and
the youngest officers ages 21-30 ( M=3.0, SD=0). F= 7.2( 2,12)
p=.009.
Effects of gender
Women officers were less likely to believe (M=1.73, SD=.79)
that administration makes clear policies than men officers (M=
2.75, SD= . 50) (F= 5.75(1,13)p=.03.
Types of Offender
Officers who supervise only juveniles are more likely to believe
(M=3.08, SD=.67) in making decisions on offenders supervision
levels than officers who supervise both adults and juveniles
(M=2.0, SD=1.0). F=5.29(1,13)p=.03.
Officers who supervise both adults and juveniles were more
likely to believe (M=4.0, SD=.00) that job training would benefit
the use of discretion than officers that supervise only juveniles
(M=3.08, SD=.51). F=9.0(1,13)p=.01.
Effects regarding years on the job
Officers’ who worked the job between 5-10 years
(M=2.75, SD=.50) were more likely to believe that more policies
would help with the use of discretion than officers’ who worked
the job 0-4 years (M=2.63, SD=.52) or more than 10 years
(M=2.75, SD=.50) F=4.45(2,12)p=.04.
Officers’ who worked the job between 5-10 years were more
likely to believe (M=3.67, SD=.58) that officers’ should have
input on new policies dealing with discretion than officers’ who
worked the job over 10 years (M=3.50, SD=.58) and officers
who worked the job 0-4 years (M=3.0, SD=.00) F=4.6(2,12)
p=.03.
Officers’ who worked the job over 10 years were more likely to
believe (M=3.75, SD=.50) officers job training benefits
discretion use than officers’ who worked the job between 5-10
years (M=2.67, SD=.58) and officers’ who worked the job
between 0-4 years (M=3.25, SD=.46) F=4.14(2,12) p=.04.
Variable Age Gender Offenders
supervised
Years on job
Handling clients Officers who work
with juveniles only
are more likely to
believe that they
should make own
decisions
More policies Females favor more
policies regarding
discretion
Officers who worked
the job between 5-10
years believe more
policies help with
discretion
Officers’ input Officers over 40 years
of age likely support
increased inputs for
new policies
Officers who worked
the job between 5-10
years believe input for
new policies
Job training Officers over 40 more
likely to believe job
training would help
with discretion
Officers who
supervise both adults
and juveniles believe
job training benefits
discretion
Officers who worked
the job over 10 years
believe training
benefits discretion
Administration Male officers believe
administration makes
clear policies
Table 3: Questions showing significant difference by age,
gender, offenders supervised, and years on job.
References
Slabonik, M., & Sims, B. (2002). Controlling discretion in Bureaucratic
Agencies: A survey of adult probation officers. The peer-
reviewed Journal of the American Correctional Association, Vol.
27, No. 9.
Introduction:
Discretion plays a major role for Probation Officers
on their jobs while supervising offenders, and their attitudes
towards discretion. Probation officers from Delaware
County, PA were surveyed on a four-point Likert scale,
ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree (Slabonik
& Sims, 2002). Officers were questioned about perceptions
on discretion related issues including beliefs on discretion
consistent with the public interest, administration, attitudes
towards incentives and sanctions to indicate misuse of
discretion, and determine if age, years on the job, gender,
and types of offenders supervised effect attitudes towards
discretion (Slabonik & Sims, 2002).
Questions:
The Question is does age, gender,
groups of offenders under supervision, and
years on the job effect Probation officers
attitudes towards discretion? Examinations are
conducted to replicate Probation officers
perceptions on discretion in Delaware County,
PA. Discretion is not limited to what is
authorized or legal, but includes all that’s
within effective limits of Probation Officers
authority (Slabonik & Sims, 2002).
Conclusion:
The question was does age, gender, groups of offenders under
supervision, and years on the job effect Probation officers
attitudes towards discretion?
The results showed officers over 40 years of age who worked the
job between 5-10 years support inputs on new policies, female
officers favor more policies to benefit discretion, officers who
supervise both adults and juveniles that worked the job over 10
years believe job training benefits discretion, officers who
supervise only juveniles believe in deciding supervision levels,
and officers who worked the job between 5-10 years believe
more policies would benefit discretion. The variables age,
gender, groups of offenders under supervision, and years on the
job effect at least one attitude towards discretion. In comparison
with the 61 officers surveyed from Dauphin County, PA, a
majority of disagrees and agrees were almost the same
percentage, with very few strongly agrees, and only one strongly
disagree.