NCJ Number
97868
Journal
Federal Probation Volume: 48 Issue: 4 Dated: (December 1984) Pages: 14-21
Date Published
1984
Length
8 pages
Annotation
The perceived roles and functions of 139 probation officers employed by adult probation departments in a Southwestern State were assessed utilizing a self-administered anonymous questionnaire.
Abstract
The questionnaire contains scales to assess professional identification, attitudes toward presentence investigations (PSI), role conflict, and working relationships. While a majority of subjects showed a generally high degree of professional identification with their field, 50.4 percent believed they were not given equal professional status with attorneys and were not seen as professionals by attorneys and judges. Many officers did not conduct PSI, thus, the large percentage of uncertain responses should be interpreted as nonapplicable. Many question the objectivity, impartiality, and value of the PSI reports in the sentencing decision. Some degree of job dissatisfaction or role conflict was indicated regarding excessive caseloads and paper work. That most probation officers appeared to accept their role as in support of the court rather than as advocates of their clients suggest greater emphasis is placed on control than on rehabilitative functions. A high proportion entered the field with greater expectations of pursuing rehabilitation and change goals than they now have. Most officers enjoyed quite positive working relations with their administrators, supervisors, and judicial personnel. Findings are discussed with reference to A. Blumberg's (1979) assessment of the probation officer's role and function and implications for increased professionalism and autonomy in the field. Percentage responses to items in the 4 scales are provided in tables, and 28 references are given.