NCJ Number
218466
Journal
Criminal Justice Studies Volume: 20 Issue: 1 Dated: March 2007 Pages: 43-63
Date Published
March 2007
Length
21 pages
Annotation
Based on data from New York statewide surveys, this study examined factors that influenced probation departments' decision to arm their officers.
Abstract
Probation departments' decision to arm their officers was found to be influenced primarily by the advocacy of probation line officers, with probation associations acting as catalysts. Officers' arguments for allowing them to be armed on the job included claims of the increased threat to them while they are performing their jobs, the increased number of violent probationers in their caseloads, and increased expectations that probation officers should enforce probation conditions. Since arming decisions by probation departments in New York State were not related to crime levels in their jurisdictions, this study suggests that departments with a treatment-oriented philosophy and a majority of treatment-oriented officers are less likely to advocate arming officers; whereas, agencies and officers with an enforcement philosophy are more likely to believe that arms are essential, given the nature and priorities of their tasks. Data for this study came from a research project conducted through a partnership of the University at Albany, School of Criminal Justice; the New York State Council of Probation Administrators; and the New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives. Three statewide surveys were conducted, one each with probation staff, judges, and county executives. Also, personal interviews were completed with all but 2 of the 58 directors of probation agencies. For the probation survey, the statewide return rate was 54 percent. Due to a low survey return rate, the analysis excluded New York City. Surveys solicited data on the following variable sets: county demographic variables; probation department variables, including the decision for officers to carry arms; treatment scales (enforcement versus treatment orientation); and variables related to threat and safety need perceptions. 3 tables, 34 references, and appended treatment scales for the three surveys