The Limits Of Individual Control? Perceived Officer Power And Probationer Compliance

Interactions between correctional agents and the offenders they supervise are assumed to be highly contingent upon latent power dynamics. Yet, currently there is little research that differentiates the bases of power used by correctional personnel. The present study drew on a classic typology to examine the role of power in probation supervision. Perceptions of power and their impact on probationers\u27 compliance were examined using data collected from self-report surveys and case files of 376 misdemeanor probationers. Although the results for perceived power were similar to those of prior research, the current study\u27s findings largely did not support the expected relationship between bases of power and compliance with the conditions of probation. The theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

From The Inside: The Meaning Of Probation To Probationers

Beyond considerations of relative punitiveness, very little is known about how offenders understand the experience of serving a probation sentence. The current study surveyed offenders currently on probation to assess the extent to which they believed their sentence was rehabilitative, incapacitative, deserved, and a deterrent to future offending. Perceptions that probation served no purpose and that it represented a game of manipulation and impression management were also investigated. The results showed that most probationers believed that their sentence was a deterrent, and it was rehabilitative and deserved. They also felt that probation served multiple purposes, and a minority of respondents perceived that there was no point to being on probation. The implications of these findings are discussed. © 2008 Georgia State University

Exploring The Determinants Of Probationers\u27 Perceptions Of Their Supervising Officers

Despite the widespread use of probation in the United States, little is known about how offenders perceive this sentence or the officers who provide their supervision. The present research measures and evaluates perceptions of the probation process, specifically probationers\u27 perception of their probationer officer, and examines characteristics associated with these perceptions. The sample consisted of 347 probationers drawn from a large urban county office. A self-administered survey was utilized to reveal probationers\u27 views of their probation officer. Overall, the probationers expressed positive feelings regarding their probation officers. They were fairly satisfied, and a majority of probationers felt officers were fair, competent, helpful, and clear. Perceptions were more positive among clients who were supervised by an officer of their own race. © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

The limits of individual control? Perceived officer power and probationer compliance

Interactions between correctional agents and the offenders they supervise are assumed to be highly contingent upon latent power dynamics. Yet, currently there is little research that differentiates the bases of power used by correctional personnel. The present study drew on a classic typology to examine the role of power in probation supervision. Perceptions of power and their impact on probationers' compliance were examined using data collected from self-report surveys and case files of 376 misdemeanor probationers. Although the results for perceived power were similar to those of prior research, the current study's findings largely did not support the expected relationship between bases of power and compliance with the conditions of probation. The theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.

From the Inside: The Meaning of Probation to Probationers

Beyond considerations of relative punitiveness, very little is known about how offenders understand the experience of serving a probation sentence. The current study surveyed offenders currently on probation to assess the extent to which they believed their sentence was rehabilitative, incapacitative, deserved, and a deterrent to future offending. Perceptions that probation served no purpose and that it represented a game of manipulation and impression management were also investigated. The results showed that most probationers believed that their sentence was a deterrent, and it was rehabilitative and deserved. They also felt that probation served multiple purposes, and a minority of respondents perceived that there was no point to being on probation. The implications of these findings are discussed