The role of education, participation in departmental decisions, and burnout in social support and consulting networks in juvenile probation departments
| Date | 01 August 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/2066220319868023 |
| Published date | 01 August 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
868023EJP0010.1177/2066220319868023European Journal of ProbationHolloway et al.
2019
Original Article
European Journal of Probation
2019, Vol. 11(2) 72 –95
The role of education,
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
participation in departmental
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/2066220319868023
DOI: 10.1177/2066220319868023
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejp
decisions, and burnout in
social support and consulting
networks in juvenile probation
departments
Evan D Holloway
Candace Mootoo
Fordham University – Rose Hill, USA
Uzay Kırbıyık
Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health at IUPUI, USA
Matthew C Aalsma
Indiana University School of Medicine, USA
Abstract
Juvenile probation officers (JPOs) play an important role as decisionmakers for
adolescents under their supervision in the community. While some research has
examined how individual and organizational characteristics may affect their decision-
making, this is the first study to examine the role of social networks that naturally
occur within the juvenile probation department workplace. Specifically, demographics,
attitudes about participation in the workplace, and burnout were examined as predictors
of social support and consultation networks within the workplace. The current study
was exploratory in nature. Participants were JPOs who supervised adolescents in the
United States within one state. JPOs who felt more involved in workplace decision-
making processes reported receiving more social support from their colleagues.
JPOs with some graduate education or a Master’s degree were less likely to provide
Corresponding author:
Evan D Holloway, Fordham University – Rose Hill, 441 East Fordham Road, Dealy 226, Bronx, NY 10451,
USA.
Email: eholloway1@fordham.edu
Holloway et al.
73
consultation to others on tough cases or to be rated by others as providing social
support. Implications are discussed.
Keywords
Burnout, consultation, juvenile probation, social network analysis, social support,
workplace decision making
Introduction
In 2013, just over half of all adolescents who were arrested (n = 582,800, 55.4%)
had their case petitioned by the juvenile courts in the United States (U.S.; Furdella
& Puzzanchera, 2015). For cases where the adolescent was convicted, community
supervision by a juvenile probation officer (JPO) was the most common disposition
(61%). Despite some evidence of significant between-jurisdiction variation
(Holloway, Cruise, Downs, Monahan, & Aalsma, 2017), JPOs are statutorily man-
dated to perform specific functions at the state level in the U.S. A recent statutory
analysis found that 40 state legislatures in the U.S. had identified probation prac-
tices/strategies that were consistent with the balanced and restorative justice model
(BARJ; Hsieh et al., 2016).
There is evidence that the aims of probation in the U.S., and associated practices,
overlap significantly with probation in Europe, as both seek to reduce recidivism risk and
identify needs for individuals involved in the criminal justice system. Specifically, pro-
bation in Great Britain has been conceptualized as a profession most closely identified
with social work (Raynor, 2018), which largely matches the skillset of probation officers
in the U.S. Likewise, Dutch JPOs utilize risk/needs assessment instruments to identify
criminogenic needs according to the Risk-Needs-Responsivity model (Bosker,
Wittemann, & Hermanns, 2013), which is currently best practice in the U.S. Risk/needs
assessment is also identified as a best practice in Sweden, although there is some evi-
dence of resistance among front-line POs (Persson & Svensson, 2011); this pattern has
also been documented by juvenile probation officers in the U.S. (Shook & Sarri, 2007).
Finally, probation departments in the U.S. and Europe use similar strategies. For exam-
ple, probation departments in Great Britain and Ireland employ electronic monitoring
strategies to monitor individuals under their supervision (Mair & Mortimer, 1996; Moss,
2018), a practice that is commonplace in the U.S.
In addition to these responsibilities, probation officers make recommendations to the
court that impact sentencing (Walsh, 1985). Conversely, researchers have found that
probation officers’ decisions are likely impacted by judges and other court officials, spe-
cifically, prosecutors and probation supervisors (Rosecrance, 1985). More recent evi-
dence supports the interpretation that probation officers (POs) anticipate what their
supervisors and the judge would like and make recommendations accordingly (Leifker
& Sample, 2010). Anticipation by POs would likely be based on prior experience in the
same workgroup and client- and department-specific factors that had influenced their
decision-making in similar cases.
74
European Journal of Probation 11(2)
Besides the impact of courtroom workgroup dynamics, myriad factors have been
identified that influence adult and juvenile probation officer decision-making, including
client (Schwalbe & Maschi, 2009; Aalsma, Holloway, Schwartz, Anderson, & Zimet,
2017), individual, and organizational characteristics. For instance, JPOs’ individual ori-
entation towards rehabilitation or law enforcement influenced the types of strategies they
employed on the job (Steiner, Travis, Makarios, & Brickley, 2011). Individual factors
such as age, gender, political beliefs, and level of education have also been associated
with adult and JPOs’ professional orientation (Dembo, 1972; Donnellan & Moore 1979;
Sluder and Reddington, 1993). Furthermore, knowledge and skills likely influence pro-
bation strategies. For example, familiarity with community resources (Stiffman et al.,
2004) is essential to linking clients to treatment; a lack of familiarity with appropriate
resources would likely hamper JPOs’ ability to employ rehabilitation strategies. In the
same vein, there is evidence that individual skillsets also play a role; for example, indi-
vidual JPOs’ perceived self-competency to address mental health concerns has been
found to predict their use of rehabilitation strategies (Holloway et al., 2016).
Various extra-individual factors have also been found to impact PO orientations. For
example, Sluder and Reddington (1993) found that POs who worked in larger depart-
ments were more likely to endorse law enforcement strategies. Manager and front-line
POs may also have divergent goals. For example, Donnellan and Moore (1979) found
that POs in management positions were more likely to identify behavior change of their
clients as a central goal of probation, compared to front-line probation officers. Thus,
managers’ priorities may be in contrast to their subordinates; managers may become
isolated by their divergent priorities and having fewer co-workers higher in the hierarchy
compared to front-line POs.
Departmental policy has also been identified as a relevant predictor of individual
orientation. For example, Clear and Latessa (1993) compared two adult intensive super-
vision probation departments and concluded that a social work (i.e., rehabilitative) orien-
tation was more influenced by departmental policy than a law enforcement orientation.
Given evidence of substantial between-department variation in juvenile probation prac-
tice (Holloway et al., 2016), more research is needed to unpack department-specific
characteristics that influence individual JPOs.
Despite evidence that supervisors within probation departments influence probation
officer recommendations (Leifker & Sample, 2010; Rosecrance, 1985), little is known
about whether other probation department colleagues influence probation officers as
well. Based on the research presented above, the extent to which JPOs are empowered to
use their discretion when making professional decisions may be limited by the relative
hierarchical power that judges and supervisors hold over front-line JPOs. Still, despite
documented evidence that supervisors influence decision-making, it is likely that JPOs
choose to consult with and seek advice from co-workers of their choosing in order to
guide their decisions, particularly around difficult cases. In the absence of an explicit
hierarchical relationship between probation officers and their colleagues, individual and
departmental factors may influence who JPOs consult for guidance on these decisions.
However, little is known about factors that influence professional interactions by JPOs
that are not driven by top-down hierarchical relationships.
Holloway et al.
75
Further, consulting with colleagues who have differing perspectives without an
explicit hierarchy to resolve such differences may lead to disagreement over how to
finalize decisions, which may in turn may have negative consequences for clients and
POs. For example, conflicting perspectives could prolong decision-making and adjudi-
cation processes and, therefore, delay access to services for clients. Such issues could
lead JPOs to feel overwhelmed by job demands and professional role conflicts; research
indicates that these factors are associated with feeling disengaged from clients, one theo-
retical dimension of burnout (Whitehead, 1987).
Job burnout is a common measure of job stress that is conceptualized as a response to
repeated, work-related stressors and is particularly relevant for professionals who work
with and serve others (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Burnout may impact job-
related attitudes and behaviors...
To continue reading
Request your trial