7 Probation and Parole Officers

Qualifications and Qualities Minimum requirements for entry-level positions, usually include: possession of a state driver’s license minimum age, generally 21 U.S. citizenship physical qualifications absence of a conviction for a felony and certain serious misdemeanors

Qualifications and Qualities Other qualifications vary but focus on education supervision skills firearms proficiency

Personal Qualities Basic knowledge Individual characteristics Understanding of psychology, sociology, criminal statutes, police operations, internet, securities, accounting, banking Individual characteristics Ability to relate, exercise authority, work well with staff, organize work properly and prepare reports

Personal Qualities P/P agency Other agencies Accept responsibilities, enforce rules and adhere to regulations Other agencies Deal effectively with many kinds of agencies and persons

Tasks and Hiring of Probation/ Parole Officers Monitoring and enforcing compliance Investigating Analyzing and making recommendations Report writing and documentation Handling emergencies Interacting/Communicating with probationers

Tasks and Hiring of Probation/ Parole Officers Interacting/communicating with nonprobationers Working with probation staff and other agencies Working with the justice system Performing physically demanding work

Selection of Probation/Parole Officers Merit system Meet minimum qualifications Pass a competitive written examination Ranked list Developed to remove public employment from political patronage Critics argue that the written exam cannot determine who will be a good officer

Selection of Probation/Parole Officers Appointment system Meet minimum requirement Hired on the basis of an evaluation by the agency No written examination

Selection of Probation/Parole Officers Interviewed by an agency representative Provides agency officials with the greatest amount of flexibility History of being used for political purposes

Selection of Probation/Parole Officers Combined system First screened through a qualifying exam Those passing are placed on a list Usually have an interview with agency representative(s)

Agency Models Control Model Social Service Model Primary focus is controlling the client’s activities with unannounced home and employment visits, checks for drug use Social Service Model The primary focus is on client needs, including employment, housing, and counseling

Agency Models Combined Model Parole < ………… > Probation This model requires the officer to provide social services, while attending to control functions Parole < ………… > Probation ControlCombinedSocial Service Most agencies would be in the middle Probation typically on the right and parole on the left

Agency Models P/P officer with a law enforcement focus would be found in the control or combined model agency P/P officer with emphasis on rehabilitation would most likely be found in the social service model Is the role compatible with the agency model?

Probation/Parole Officer Roles Law enforcement Primary concern is protection of the community through control of the client Rehabilitation Primary concern is the improved welfare of the client

Probation/Parole Officer Roles Blend The officer attempts to effect a combination of law enforcement and treatment

Officers as Treatment Agents Does the probation officer have the training and skill to change the behavior of the client? Is the therapeutic enterprise possible in a probation/parole setting? Is it realistic to expect the delivery of treatment where caseloads average between 80 and 100? Related to the social service model

Brokers or Advocates Some see the brokerage approach as almost diametrically opposed to the treatment approach Officer functions as a manager or broker of resources and social services available from other agencies Officer’s relationship with community agencies is more important than the relationship with the client

Brokers or Advocates Counseling and guidance are considered inappropriate activities for the officer Assess the concrete needs of each probationer and make appropriate referrals to existing community services Related to the social service model

Law Enforcement Agents Most controversial role of the probation/parole officer Related to the control model of supervision Arrest powers and the carrying of firearms have become increasingly common Officers going into high crime areas for home visits

Law Enforcement Agents Agency policy with respect to firearms: Officers are not permitted to carry firearms based on either state law or agency policy Officers are by statute peace/law enforcement officers, but the agency either restricts or discourages the carrying of weapons

Law Enforcement Agents Agency policy with respect to firearms: Officers are by statute peace/law enforcement officers and the agency permits or requires all qualified personnel to carry firearms

Law Enforcement Agents Should probation/parole officers make arrests and carry firearms? Some agencies that permit the carrying of firearms on duty forbid officers from carrying a firearms while off duty

Powers of Search and Seizure Shift in courts regarding the rights of prisoners and those under supervision in the criminal justice system Griffin v. Wisconsin (1987) - The special needs attendant to supervising probationers justified a warrantless search based on “reasonable grounds”

Powers of Search & Seizure Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott (1998) Evidence seized by parole officers without a search warrant could be used at a parole violation hearing Parolee signed a parole agreement The relationship between the parole officer and the parolee is more supervisory than adversarial

Powers of Search & Seizure United States v. Knights (2001) Expanded the Scott decision Probationer’s residence can searched based on reasonable suspicion Reasonable expectation of privacy is diminished Rehabilitation and protecting society from future criminal violations State may focus on probationers

Powers of Search & Seizure Supreme Court’s overall expectation of probation was to be much more oriented toward law enforcement than serving the needs of probationers Samson v. California (2006) Police officer may conduct suspicionless search of a parolee Part of written agreement with parolee

Legal Liability of Probation/Parole Officers Agencies generally exempt from liability for their governmental activities unless waived Immunity for probation officers Dependent on the agencies for which they work and nature of the functions they perform In general, they have qualified immunity

Legal Liability of Probation/Parole Officers Negligence Most common form of tort action Failure to exercise that degree of care which a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under similar circumstances or conduct that creates an undue risk of harm to others

Legal Liability of Probation/Parole Officers Four elements to a negligence action Legal duty owed to plaintiff Violation of that duty by act or omission to act, which constitutes a breach of that duty Act or omission was proximate cause for injury or damage suffered by the plaintiff

Legal Liability of Probation/Parole Officers Four elements to a negligence action Failure to warn Duty to warn third persons when there is a “special relationship” between certain types of professionals and a person under their care Reasonably foreseeable risk of harm

Legal Liability of Probation/Parole Officers Reiser v. District of Columbia (1977) Reasonably foreseeable risk factors: The parolee’s job His or her prior criminal background or conduct The type of crime for which he or she was convicted

Volunteers in Probation/Parole Work Four volunteer service models One-to-one model Obtain the trust and confidence of the client and help them maintain their existence Supervision model Working as a case aide to the P/P officer, the volunteer provides services at the direction of the PO

Volunteers in Probation/Parole Work Four volunteer service models Professional model Professional in his or her field Provides specialized services to client Administrative model Assists with project administrative functions and interacts only indirectly with clients

Key Terms Control model Social service model Broker Appointment system Reasonable expectation of privacy Probable cause Merit system Combined system

Key Terms Volunteers Legal liability Negligence Failure to warn