NCJ Number
170846
Date Published
1997
Length
22 pages
Annotation
This paper examines the various issues associated with arming probation and parole officers and suggests that there may be options that will ensure the integrity of community-based correctional service delivery systems while promoting officer safety.
Abstract
Probation and parole officers' (PPOs') fear of violent victimization in the field has resulted in increased attention to officer safety, which, in turn, has led to a call for their being armed. Agency administrators, in many instances, have responded to the pressure for providing weapons to staff without systematically examining the impact on agency mission and philosophy as well as traditional worker roles. In determining whether or not to arm the PPOs of a particular agency, three questions must be addressed. First, how will arming all of the staff reflect upon agency mission and philosophy? Second, what role expectations and staff duties lead to the need for arming? Third, are there other options besides arming officers that will meet staff and agency needs and requirements? In considering the latter issue, there are a number of options that deserve consideration. They include forbidding all home visits and requiring officers to act as brokers and referral agents only; depending on police to conduct all street and surveillance work in apprehending absconders and those thought to be engaged in criminal activity; and transferring police officers to the probation/parole agency to serve as a special squad on detached duty to deal with parole/probation violators. As one alternative to the arming of officers, many agencies have implemented special training programs in nonlethal means of self-protection. This paper also lists 25 critical questions related to arming PPOs. The author advises that it is possible that the redefinition of roles, changes in job descriptions, and organizational restructuring can be used to deal with the problem of PPO safety. 61 references