Work Ideologies of Juvenile Probation Officers: The Effects of Individual Characteristics 

ABSTRACT

Probation is the oldest and most widely used community-based corrections program. Research on probation primarily focuses on the experiences of justice-involved juveniles and the supervision of juveniles in the probation system. Much less is understood about the impact probation officers' perceptions have on job performance and what factors influence those perceptions. The current study aimed to examine the relationship between individual characteristics (e.g., age, gender, race, level of education, tenure, political party affiliation, and jurisdiction) and juvenile probation officers' perceptions about their work ideology. Data for the study came from a sample of juvenile probation officers in nine states. Participants were asked questions about sanctioning, disposition, and role orientation. The study's findings show that few individual characteristics are significantly associated with attitudes/perceptions about work ideology. Probation officers’ race was the only predictor significantly associated with several outcomes. Implications and future directions for research are discussed.

KEYWORDS: juvenile probation officers, work ideologies, individual characteristics 

Received April 2023; Accepted August 2023; Published September 2023             DOI: 10.52935/23.10514.9

INTRODUCTION

Probation is the oldest, most widely used community-based corrections program, and it plays a pivotal role in the juvenile justice system. Every year, nearly half a million youths are given some form of probation (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2018). The juvenile justice system was founded on an orientation of rehabilitation, and presumably, most people working in the field favored rehabilitation and acted accordingly toward juvenile offenders. Today, juvenile justice system staff members are tasked with punitive and rehabilitation obligations. The need to study the predictors of rehabilitation and punishment orientations among juvenile probation officers is two-fold. First is the widespread use of discretion in decision-making: probation practices vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, officer to officer (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2018; Farnworth et al., 1988), which has the potential for negative impact not only to the lives of juvenile offenders; short-term and long-term outcomes, but also on their families, and the community. Second is the continual fluctuation between rehabilitation and punishment in juvenile justice policy (Bernard, 1992; Bolin & Applegate, 2018; Ward & Kupchik, 2010).

Purpose of the Present Study

The purpose of this paper was to add to the existing literature on rehabilitation and punishment by exploring the perceptions (influenced by indiv-idual characteristics) of juvenile probation officers on work ideology (rehabilitation vs. punishment). This study had both a general and a specific purpose. Generally, it sought to examine the perceptions of juvenile probation officers regarding whether the primary goal of the juvenile justice system was still rehabilitation and if they perceived that their pre-sentencing recommendations were considered at adjudication. Specifically, this study sought to examine the relationship between individual characteristics of juvenile probation officers and their perceptions regarding their work ideology (rehabilitation vs. punishment).

LITERATURE REVIEW

Juvenile probation has been called the cornerstone (Kurlycheck et al., 1999; Stahl et al., 1999), the heart (Hsieh et al., 2016), and the workhorse (Torbert, 1997) of the juvenile justice system. Juvenile probation officers across the United States screen cases, determine how cases are processed, make detention decisions, prepare investigation reports, and provide supervision and aftercare services. Juvenile probation plays a central role in the administration of juvenile justice in the United States (Bolin & Applegate, 2018; Mohammad & Azman, 2018; Soung, 2022; Torbet, 1997). The policies and programs advanced by juvenile probation departments define the nation’s response to juvenile crime (Kurlycheck et al., 1999).

The influence of juvenile probation officers on dispositional outcomes has received attention in the literature. For example, research (Bishop & Frazier, 1996; Carter, 1966; Carter & Wilkins, 1967; Frazier et al., 1983; Leifker, 2009; Norman & Wadman, 2000; Petersilia, 1997; Rosecrance, 1987; Rush & Robertson, 1987; Stinchcomb & Hippenstell, 2001) found that probation officers' sentencing recom-mendations in Presentence Investigation Reports (PSI) correlate to the actual sentence the offender receives. Similarly, there has been research on the influence of juvenile probation officers' individual characteristics on work ideologies: rehabilitation vs. punishment. Mack and Rhineberger-Dunn (2021) explored individual factors: age, gender, race, educational level, tenure, job position, contact, job perceptions, and organizational characteristics that predict rehabilitation and punishment orientations among juvenile detention and probation officers. They found that individual characteristics had a greater impact on both rehabilitation and punishment than either job perceptions or organizational factors. Finally, Reese et al. (1998) looked at individual characteristics: age, gender, education, and family structure, and found that the individual characteristics were directly associated with the inconsistencies found in the dispositional recommendations for juvenile offenders.

Theoretical Background

In 1934, LaPierre’s study of hotel and restaurant personnel brought attitudinal theory to the forefront. Attitudinal theory has several assertions. First, individuals' perceptions are shaped by their beliefs and values. Two, individuals with positive perceptions should behave positively toward the attitude object. Three, perceptions are learned and differ according to an individual’s life experiences and cultural environment. Finally, it is these perceptions then that give rise to an individual’s intentions and determine an individual’s behavior (Atkins, 1974; Atkins & Green, 1976; Atkins & Zavonia, 1974; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977; Brigham & Wrightsman, 1982; Curtis, 1991; D’Angelo, 2000, 2007a; 2007b; Feld, 1991; Gibson, 1978; Pennington, 1986).

Numerous studies have been conducted since the 1930s using attitudinal theory to show that individuals' behaviors can be predicted based on their perceptions, which are driven by individual characteristics. This is extremely important because individual characteristics are the critical component in developing a complete understanding of an individual's work ideology. For example, several studies (Atkins, 1974; Atkins & Green, 1976; Atkins & Zavonia, 1974; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977; Brigham & Wrightsman, 1982; Gibson, 1978; Goldman, 1975; Howard, 1981; Keenan, 2021; Keenan et al., 2015; Pennington, 1986; Schubert, 1974; Spaeth, 1963; Tanenhaus, 1966) have been conducted using attitudinal theory to predict (using individual characteristics) judges’ work ideologies. However, this research primarily focuses on the Federal Court System and Federal Court judges. There are a few studies that have examined how individual characteristics of adult criminal court judges (D’Angelo, 2000, 2007a; 2007b; Myers, 1988; Schwartz et al., 1993) and juvenile court judges (Keenan, 2021; Keenan et al., 2015) affect their work ideologies; however, a review of the literature reveals a dated, limited, and somewhat jumbled picture of the influence of individual characteristics of probation officers and their work ideologies.

Individual Factors

Several studies have examined the influence of juvenile probation officers' individual characteristics on work ideologies. Individual characteristics: age, gender, race, education, family structure, tenure, political party affiliation, and jurisdiction, have been suggested to affect an individual's work ideology. For this study, we focused on the individual characteristics of age, gender, race, level of education, tenure, political party affiliation, and jurisdiction.

Age

Attitudinal theory asserts that as individuals age, they accumulate life experiences. It is these life experiences that shape their perceptions and behaviors. Therefore, younger (i.e., newer) juvenile probation officers would maintain different work ideologies than older ones. As an individual grows older, he/she may adopt a more cynical attitude toward juvenile offenders (Schwartz et al., 2017). The literature reveals a jumbled picture of the influence of age on juvenile probation officer work ideologies. Some research found that age had an effect, while others found that age was not a significant predictor. For example, Bazemore et al. ( 2007) and Ward and Kupchik (2010) found that punitiveness increased with age. Sluder and Reddington (1993) found that age affected the personal views of the juvenile probation officer regarding work ideologies; the more time the officer spent in direct contact with the probationer, the more likely they were to support law enforcement strategies. In contrast, Bazemore et al. (1994) found that older juvenile probation officers were less likely to favor a punitive orientation. Finally, three studies (Gordon, 1999; Leiber et al., 2002; Lopez & Russell, 2008) found that age did not significantly predict rehabilitation or punishment ideologies for juvenile probation officers.

Gender

Attitudinal theory asserts that males have different life experiences than females and that these differences shape their perceptions, behaviors, and work ideologies. For example, research (Erikson & Luttbeg, 1973; Gruhl et al., 1981; Kritzer & Uhlman, 1977) has shown that women are more liberal in their beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions. The literature on juvenile probation officers reveals a muddled picture of the influence of gender on work ideology. Significant research (Bazemore et al., 1994; Donnellan & Moore, 1979; Gordon, 1999; Sluder & Reddington, 1993; Ward & Kupchik, 2010) has found gender to be a significant predictor of work ideology in juvenile probation officers; female officers were more likely to stress rehabilitation, and male officers were more likely to embrace control/punishment ideals. Contradictory, three studies (Blevins et al., 2007; Leiber et al., 2002; Mack & Rhineberger-Dunn, 2021) found gender failed to demonstrate a significant predictor of attitude towards either punishment or rehabilitation orientation.

Race

Attitudinal theory asserts that Whites would have different life experiences than minorities that shape their perceptions and behaviors; Whites and minorities would maintain different work ideologies. For example, Welch et al. (1988) found that African Americans tended to hold more liberal views and were more lenient than Whites. The literature on juvenile probation officers reveals an untidy view of the influence of race on work ideology. Sluder and Reddington (1993) and Cullen et al. (1989) found that minorities are more likely than Whites to support rehabilitation. Bazemore et al. (1994), Blevins et al. (2007), and Gordon (1999) all found that race did not have a significant effect on either punishment or rehabilitation orientation/ideology.

Level of Education

Attitudinal theory asserts that individuals with post-secondary education would have different life experiences that shape their perception and behaviors than those without, thus, maintaining different work ideologies. The literature on juvenile probation officers reveals a disjointed picture of the influence of education level on work ideology. For example, Donnellan and Moore (1979) found that the level of education completed by the juvenile probation officer influenced the perception of the role that the officer played, which ultimately affects how the offender is treated; juvenile probation officers with higher levels of education viewed rehabilitation/service as the main focus of their job, while juvenile probation officers with less education perceived the law enforcement/ punishment the most essential role. These findings are repeated in the research through the decades (Anderson & Spanier, 1980; Farnworth et al., 1988; Sluder & Reddington, 1993) and confirmed in more recent research. For example, Mack and Rhineberger-Dunn (2021) found that officers with higher degree attainment were more likely to support rehabilitation than officers with less education. Officers who reported lower degree attainment were more likely than those who reported higher levels of education to support a punishment orientation.

One study (Blevins et al., 2007) found that support for rehabilitation declined as education level increased; support for punishment increased with increased education levels. And two studies (Gordon, 1999; Lopez & Russell, 2008 ) that failed to demonstrate a significant relationship between educational levels and rehabilitation or punishment orientation/ ideology.

Tenure

Attitudinal theory asserts that as individuals age, they accumulate life experiences. It is these life experiences that shape their perceptions and behaviors. Therefore, newer juvenile probation officers would have different levels of experience than those on the job longer, thus, maintaining different work ideologies. The literature on juvenile probation officers reveals a bipolar picture of the influence of tenure on work ideology. For example, Sluder and Reddington (1993) found that length of employment affected the individual views of the juvenile probation officer regarding their role. Findings revealed that the more time officers spend in direct contact with probationers, the more likely they are to support law enforcement strategies. Cullen et al. (1989) and Whitehead & Lindquist (1989) found that seniority was positively associated with control orientation and negatively related to rehabilitation orientation. Bazemore et al. (2009) found that tenure was a significant predictor of punishment. However, some research (Belvins et al., 2007; Gordon, 1999; Lopez & Russell, 2008; Miles, 1965; Ward & Kupchik, 2010) found that job tenure was not a significant predictor of rehabilitation or punishment ideology. Finally, Philliber (1987) has noted the risks of confounding the effects of experience (time on the job/tenure) and officers' ages if these two variables are not controlled for.

Political party affiliation

Attitudinal theory suggests that individuals who are conservative and liberal maintain different perceptions, behaviors, and work ideologies. For example, considerable research (Curtis, 1991; Smith & Wright, 1992; Taylor, 1989) found that individuals who identify as conservative tend to be more punitive than those who identify as liberal. Furthermore, scholars (Gibson, 1978; Nagel, 1961) suggest that those who identify as democrat tend to be more working class-oriented in their perceptions, attitudes, values, and behaviors than their Republican peers; democrat are more sympathetic to the plight of the lower and working class resulting in more lenient sentences.

There is consensus in the literature on the effects of political party affiliation on juvenile probation officers' work ideology. Dembo (1972) found that juvenile probation officers with liberal political orientations support rehabilitation, while conservatives tend to favor offender control. Cullen & Cullen (1987) reiterated these findings in their study. Sluder & Reddington (1993) found that probation officers who are more liberal are more likely to support resource brokerage caseload management strategies, and officers who are more politically conservative are more likely to embrace offender-control ideologies. Finally, research (Benekos, 1990; Lindner, 1994; Steiner et al., 2004) also showed that political ideology was a determinant of a juvenile probation officer’s decision to embrace a particular work orientation.

Jurisdiction

Attitudinal theory suggests that individuals from different cultural environments: rural, suburban, and urban, would maintain different perceptions and behaviors, thus, work ideologies. In other words, the beliefs that shape an individual's perceptions differ according to where he/she resides. When applying attitudinal theory to an agency setting, we might find that smaller agency, which tends to be less bureaucratically entrenched, place greater emphasis on the human element of their work; larger agencies emphasize the mechanical elements of probation, thus, focusing more on offender control. Jurisdiction is another place consensus in the literature is found. For example, Colley et al. (1986) found rural officers to be more "oriented towards people'' to "use resources wisely" and have a better "knowledge of community resources" than urban officers. In contrast, urban officers perceived the task of "recognizing the true criminal" to be of greater importance. Sluder & Reddington (1993) found that smaller agencies were more likely to support rehabilitation, and officers working in larger probation agencies were likelier than others to support offender control strategies.

METHODOLOGY

To continue reading, download the full open access article.