Abstract
With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, community supervision agencies were forced to incorporate drastic changes to traditional supervision techniques, which shifted the daily roles of probation officers (POs). Research on the pandemic identifies rapid adaptations to supervision strategies and increased demands on POs during the pandemic. Using qualitative data from interviews with POs across the United States, the goal of this study was to examine the experiences of POs working during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results suggest POs had to alter their supervision approach, both physically and ideologically. POs discussed shifts to both remote supervision in place of in-person work coupled with a need to use an “agent of change” approach given limited access to formal, punitive responses to noncompliance, with a priority on the highest risk/need clients. Findings suggest several implications for practice, including factors to consider regarding community correction reform efforts in a post-pandemic world.
In the United States, there are over 3.8 million individuals on probation or parole (Kaeble, 2021), supervised by an estimated 90,070 probation/parole officers (POs; BLS, 2021). These POs are often tasked with a multitude of job responsibilities and demands that, at times, may conflict (e.g., law enforcement and rehabilitative functions) (Ellsworth, 1990). In 2020, with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, POs had to incorporate drastic changes to traditional supervision techniques, all while still fulfilling their preexisting job requirements and balancing new personal health and public health concerns (Viglione et al., 2020).
A growing body of research identifies rapid changes in supervision strategies and increased demands on POs during the pandemic (Schwalbe & Koetzle, 2021; Schwartzapfel, 2020; Viglione et al., 2020). As a result, agency operations were disrupted (Powell et al., 2022), and POs had to shift the ways in which they completed their tasks. For example, agencies at the federal, state, and local levels implemented new prevention, containment, and response policies to prevent the spread of COVID-19 (e.g., social distancing), which resulted in total office closures and/or changes to in-person operations (Cohen & Starr, 2021; Viglione et al., 2020). Decarceration efforts to reduce the spread of the virus within prison settings resulted in an influx of individuals being released and placed on community supervision (Cousins, 2020). To accommodate social distancing and lockdowns, POs were forced to adopt remote supervision strategies (Galleguillos et al., 2022; Viglione et al., 2020).
Given the drastic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on community supervision, the goal of this study was to examine the specific experiences of POs while working during the COVID-19 pandemic. While existing research documents the major policy and practice changes that occurred within community supervision during the pandemic, there has been less in-depth attention toward the experiences, approaches, and decision-making of frontline POs during this time. This study examined three primary research questions: (1) How were the daily experiences and routines of POs shaped by the COVID-19 pandemic?, (2) How did changes to PO routines impact how officers understood their role?, and (3) How did PO supervision strategies differ based on client risk level? Exploring changes in PO experiences and routines could help better illuminate the landscape of community supervision during the pandemic. Given the ongoing nature of the pandemic, it is critical to examine the experiences of these frontline workers and responses to identified challenges, as forced shifts made during the pandemic have the potential to inform the field moving forward and may potentially inform reform efforts.
Agency-Level Adaptations to COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a myriad of changes to the field of community supervision (Powell et al., 2022; Viglione et al., 2020) including dramatic and sweeping shifts to the way community supervision work was conducted. With the closure of many government buildings during the early phases of the pandemic, many probation and parole offices discontinued in-person community supervision work (Schwartzapfel, 2020; Viglione et al., 2020). To accommodate this shift, many agencies rapidly shifted to remote supervision of clients, altered/reduced drug testing, and shifted their response to supervision violations (Rapisarda, 2020; Schwalbe & Koetzle, 2021; Schwartzapfel, 2020; Viglione et al., 2020).
Data from juvenile probation directors noted unique shifts and challenges at their agencies attributable to working during the COVID-19 pandemic (Lockwood et al., 2023). For example, community supervision agencies struggled to adapt to new social distancing restrictions due to limited office space and reported vast disruptions in the availability of treatment programming in the community. Further, variation exists across regions for agency access to and adoption of telehealth means for providing treatment and services. Some agencies were better equipped to transition to this modality prior to the pandemic, while others struggled to rapidly implement the new use of technology (Viglione & Nyugen, 2022). Offices across the country implemented policies that halted the issuance of violations for late payment of supervision fees, early termination of cases where the client had been compliant as an attempt to reduce the number of individuals on supervision during the pandemic or received a flux in client numbers as the pandemic progressed (Viglione et al., 2020). Some agencies worked to create specialized medical care plans for staff working during the pandemic, as many offices experienced multiple cases of COVID-19 among staff (Viglione et al., 2020).
Officer-Level Changes Due to COVID-19
The onset of the pandemic also brought forth a number of changes for POs. For example, many POs were forced to utilize remote, virtual strategies to supervise their caseloads. With agency-level shifts to virtual supervision, POs had to dramatically change the way they interacted with their caseload. Historically, community supervision work is a “people business,” with officers having regular in-person contact with individuals under supervision, their family and friends, and members of the community. Officers experienced mixed feelings and perceptions surrounding the switch to primarily remote work during the pandemic (Dominey et al., 2021). While this switch reduced time spent on travel, POs reported challenges with virtual supervision regarding increased isolation from their agency and coworkers (Phillips, 2022), decreased ability to detect and respond to violations (Martin & Zettler, 2022; Viglione et al., 2020), difficulty staying up to date on client needs and behaviors (Viglione et al., 2020), and did not feel virtual supervision alone was adequate to supervise higher-risk clients (Martin & Zettler, 2022).
Reductions in treatment program availability also created challenges for officers. Recent literature found it was more difficult for POs to assist individuals on their caseload in providing access to resources (e.g., treatment programs and community service), as many outside programs shut down completely or had drastically reduced capacity (Sirdfield et al., 2022). Officers were also unable to formally respond to supervision violations due to shifts in courtroom processes and policing (e.g., court backlogs, delay of probation violation hearings, and not issuing/acting on warrants) (Viglione et al., 2020, 2023). With their ability to issue violations and/or revocations limited, POs were left with reduced tools to address and/or respond to client behavior (Schwalbe & Koetzle, 2021; Viglione et al., 2020).
For some POs, navigating the pandemic brought forth negative experiences. Martin and Zettler (2021) found that 30% of POs in their study were overwhelmed during the pandemic. Officers were forced to navigate adjustments to their typical approach to the job, while also managing the increased needs of clients (e.g., increased mental health concerns, employment, housing, and food insecurity) (Schwalbe & Koetzle, 2021). Prior to COVID-19, field visits and face-to-face client interactions were perceived as essential to the field of community supervision. However, engaging in these traditional community supervision strategies became contrary to the well-being of officer and client health and safety during the pandemic (Powell et al., 2022). In addition, POs noted frequent changes in agency policies and procedures during the pandemic, resulting in increased uncertainty and decreased productivity (Martin & Zettler, 2022).
Despite some negative experiences while working during the pandemic, adjustments made during COVID-19 also brought forth positive change. While the types and frequency of contact officers were able to make with clients shifted (e.g., in person to virtual), some research found POs were able to improve the quality of contacts they had with clients (Powell et al., 2022). Officers noted surprise that clients were responsive to virtual contact methods and decreased field visits (Powell et al., 2022). A recent study of POs in Texas found officers identified video conferencing and extended use of technology for supervision as positive changes to the field that increased the number of tools in an officer’s toolkit (Martin & Zettler, 2022). For some officers, the switch to remote work reduced the overwhelming officer burden of meeting all clients face-to-face and increased flexibility in the job (Powell et al., 2022). For clients who had an established relationship with officers, POs noted telephone meetings as an effective means of communication and appointments (Dominey et al., 2021). In fact, Dominey and colleagues (2021) found that POs believed clients were more engaging and forthcoming during virtual visits due to increased comfort because of having the meeting somewhere other than the probation office and not being face-to-face with their officer (Dominey et al., 2021). Across these studies, the research identifies significant shifts in the work of POs, with evidence of both challenges and benefits as a result. The goal of this study was to dig deeper into the experience and approach of POs during the pandemic to examine both how POs daily routines changed but also how shifts in their work vary based on client characteristics. That is, with limitations to the way they conducted their work, we were interested in whether PO decision-making and use of limited resources varied based on client risk level.
Current Study
In the context of COVID-19, community supervision agencies faced a multitude of changes (e.g., closures and social distancing protocols), and POs had to rapidly adjust in multiple ways, such as altering the way in which they carried out their job via a shift to remote supervision (either partially or fully) or altering the way they responded to noncompliance (Schwalbe & Koetzle, 2021; Viglione et al., 2020). Officers had to make these changes while continuing to balance their existing roles and responsibilities with the additional new stressors that came with the pandemic (e.g., protecting their own health and balancing family/home life). Research to date suggests COVID-19 has largely disrupted the everyday lives and routines of POs and has brought forth new challenges (Phillips, 2022). While existing literature explores the challenges of community supervision agencies and officers during the pandemic, this research has often focused largely on the impact of policy and procedural changes, specifically the use of remote supervision techniques. However, we know less about some of the deeper impacts of the pandemic on PO approaches to their work. For example, previous research has not explored how changes during the pandemic aligned (or misaligned) with PO role orientations or how POs made decisions during a time when they had little access to resources. This study seeks to expand on existing literature through an in-depth qualitative analysis to further understand how POs did their jobs during the pandemic. This study examined three main research questions: (1) How were the daily experiences and routines of POs shaped by the COVID-19 pandemic?, (2) How did changes to PO routines impact how officers understood their role?, and (3) How did PO supervision strategies differ based on client risk level? As recent literature has documented both positive and negative perceptions of shifts to remote work and deviation from traditional community supervision tactics (Martin & Zettler, 2022; Powell et al., 2022), understanding larger shifts in role orientations and decision-making can inform key lessons learned from the pandemic.
Method
Data Collection
Data for this study were collected as part of a larger, longitudinal study examining community corrections agency responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. All study procedures and documents were approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board prior to the start of data collection. As part of this project, we examined both agency-level impacts as well as the experience of frontline POs working during the pandemic over time. This study examines data collected during the first wave of interviews with POs. Interviews were conducted from June 2020 through November 2020. As part of the larger project, surveys were conducted with agency directors across the United States (for more information on this process, see Viglione et al., 2020). At the end of the survey, agency directors were asked if they would be willing to distribute a flyer recruiting frontline community supervision officers in their agency to participate in interviews. Directors who agreed provided their e-mail addresses and received information about interview participation to distribute to their staff. In total, 57 directors agreed to distribute the interview flyer in their agency. The flyer contained a link officers could access to sign up for an interview, or they could contact a member of the study team to schedule an interview. The research team contacted all 56 officers who signed up for an interview and was able to connect with 42 officers. In this initial conversation, the researchers provided information about the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of the study, and acknowledgment that the study was approved by the university’s institutional review board. After this review of informed consent, all 42 interested participants continued with the interview.
Participants
The sample from this study includes both adult (n = 38) and juvenile (n = 4) POs. A total of 42 interviews were completed, representing 28 unique agencies across 15 U.S. states. Approximately two-thirds of the sample identified as female (67%) and 33% identified as male. The sample was predominately White (86%) and non-Hispanic/Latino (91%). Approximately 60% of the sample held a Bachelor’s degree, 33% held a Master’s degree, and about 7% held a high school diploma/GED or associate degree. On average, interviewed POs supervised a caseload of 71 individuals, with 55% reporting they supervised at least one special population.
Interview Protocol and Study Measures
Prior to the interview, the research team developed a protocol to guide semi-structured interviews. During the interview process, research team members utilized informal interview probing to introduce new questions, allowing participants to share additional experiences with the researchers (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). All interviews were conducted via telephone and were not recorded. The research team recorded detailed responses in Microsoft Word during the interview with participant consent. 1 Immediately following each interview, the researchers cleaned the typed interview transcripts (e.g., fixed typos and expanded shorthand). The interview protocol contained questions designed to measure officers’ perceptions regarding their experiences as community supervision officers during the pandemic. Relevant to this study, we asked officers to “Please describe how your experience as a community corrections officer has changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic?,” “How has your daily routine changed the most?,” and “How are these changes applied to different groups of individuals?” Because officers often spoke about their experiences working during COVID-19 in response to other interview prompts, this study also utilizes data that was recorded during all parts of the interview.
Coding and Analysis
Before coding, the research team developed a “start list” of codes (Charmaz, 2006; Miles & Huberman, 1994), which were created by identifying a code for each open-ended survey question (e.g., officer experience, officer experience with changes). First, all participating officers were assigned a pseudonym, which was used throughout this manuscript to protect their confidentiality. Next, all typed interviews were uploaded in Atlas.ti, where two research team members individually coded each interview using the start list. Following this initial round of coding, researchers independently engaged in inductive coding, creating new codes to identify multiple themes and patterns beyond those identified in the creation of the start list. This type of coding procedure allows for the identification of additional themes which may not have been directly solicited by the open-ended survey questions (Charmaz, 1995). Following these steps, the research team merged the data in Atlas.ti to compare coded transcripts and examine interrater reliability. The researchers compared their independent coding of the interview transcripts, where they agreed on coding for 96% of the coded transcripts. For those codes where the researchers were not in agreement, disagreements were discussed with the larger researcher team. Utilizing consensus decision-making (Van Deinse et al., 2021), the lead researcher served as a tiebreaker. All disagreements were able to be reconciled with this method.
After this process was complete, researchers queried the data to identify the most prevalent themes present within the data (Morgan & Nica, 2020). Given the focus of this study, the queries used to generate the current set of analyses and results focused on themes related to changing work experiences, shifts in officer routine, client risk level, and strategies for supervision during the pandemic. The resulting data were identified within responses to the three specified interview questions as well as throughout other portions of the interview transcripts.
Results
Daily Experiences and Routines During the COVID-19 Pandemic
To examine the first research question, officers were asked to describe how their experience as community corrections officer changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the changes described, the two most prevalent were (1) the switch to virtual or remote corrections work and (2) adjustments to policies implemented in response to COVID-19 (e.g., COVID-19 mitigation policies). The following section expands upon these findings.
Virtual Community Supervision Work
Over three-quarters (76.2%) of POs interviewed reported the largest change experienced was the shift to virtual or remote work as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. One PO provided a detailed account of how community supervision work took place prior to the pandemic and the shifts that have occurred as a result of COVID-19: Prior to COVID we usually have clients that come into the office to have face-to-face interaction or, for instance, if they need to sign documents. We can also refer them to the office clerk if they have questions about online payments or just need information in general. Since the onset of the pandemic, that has obviously changed, and we have gone to a complete telecommunication caseload . . . we have gone to a telephonic and virtual communication. With that I will have clients that might be calling me to report and check-in or if I don’t have the answer [to their questions] I will have them call the clerk because they specifically handle the payments. We do not see anybody in the office any longer.
The pandemic resulted in swift changes to the way POs were able to monitor and assist their clients. In particular, POs had to shift from conducting nearly all contacts in-person to conducting nearly all contacts virtually (e.g., via telephone or videoconference). While this strategy worked for typical office visits, there were other aspects of the job where virtual communication did not translate as cleanly. For example, agencies had to figure out how they would conduct home visits, a key component of community supervision work. Theoretically, home visits pose a larger safety risk to officers as they are typically required to enter the home of the client they are visiting and may involve interactions with family members, friends, or other individuals who are present. Given the focus on social distancing to disrupt the spread of COVID-19, home visits became a particularly tricky aspect of the job to navigate. To circumvent entering the homes of clients, some officers reported their agencies implemented innovative strategies. For example, one PO noted: Now with COVID, we’re not going into their homes at all. Our office implemented drive by home visits. So, basically, when I’m outside their home, I call my client and say come outside and I might yell at them outside my truck window, and they might stand outside, but mostly its I see you at your home and continue driving.
These “drive-by” home visits allowed POs the opportunity to follow current safety protocols while also making an in-person contact with their clients. Officers described how this work around allowed them a means to check in on clients and assess their current status while also following COVID-19 mitigation policies.
In addition to the challenges to field work, POs raised concerns about the challenge of building rapport and developing quality relationships during virtual interactions. This was especially apparent among POs who were assigned new cases where they had never met their client in-person, such as individuals being released from incarceration and placed on parole. As detailed in officer interviews, this presented a unique challenge in not being able to make an initial strong “human connection” with their clients, which POs believed reduced engagement in meaningful conversations over the phone or via Zoom. Several POs also commented that the removal of in-person contacts prevented staff from developing a level of trust with their clients, noting that clients struggled to open up or talk about their feelings during phone calls. PO Munson provided an illustrative account of this finding: Overall, not being able to see people face-to-face to build a relationship with a client and that rapport has been difficult and challenging. Now we are all doing things by phone and I had a guy who just got released from prison and has served a 5-year sentence and trying to coordinate with him about expectations while that is fine, not meeting him and communicating services face-to-face is really a struggle.
This sentiment was echoed by other POs who similarly identified the difficulty of building a new relationship with clients. This challenge in building a connection was also true in situations where POs attempted to use evidence-based practices such as a risk assessment or behavioral technique as described by PO Buckner: Not being able to see an individual and sit down with them and not go over a behavior chain or make a connection when you do an assessment. That has been really difficult for me. You gain a working relationship, and we haven’t been able to do that with everything going on.
As illustrated by the excerpt above, using principles of effective intervention such as a risk instrument by phone challenged POs’ ability to make connections with their client and build rapport and relationships. PO Kent shared a similar example of the increased difficulty concerning the use of best practices over the phone and concern for his clients with mental illness. The following fieldnote captures his sentiment: The only challenging part is trying to implement evidenced based practice . . . having the genuine interactions with your clients face to face and motivational interviewing. These things are lacking because we don’t have as much face-to-face contact. I worry about some clients, especially my mentally ill clients, like how are they doing? I can’t see them. The hardest part is the lack of personal connection with clients.
As highlighted, limited face-to-face contact including virtual supervision and phone contacts presented unique obstacles for POs to build rapport with their clients. Officers felt they could not adequately assess the well-being of their clients or implement key practices such as risk assessments and motivational interviewing in a virtual setting. It was challenging for some POs to believe they could develop a strong and quality relationship with their clients, especially those newer to supervision.
Officers also discussed how the shift to remote work also created challenges for them personally outside of their work. Some POs noted increased difficulties balancing work and life responsibilities, now that both activities primarily took place in the home. For some officers, having to work at home necessitated a new separation between work life and home life, which was not always easier, and expressed the need to enforce stricter boundaries to help manage stress. One PO shared their strategy for coping with this shift by stating, “I work during work hours and then I put work away and focus on being at home.”
Despite these struggles, many POs discussed improvements associated with their jobs as a result of virtual supervision. One of the biggest positive aspects of this shift was in the corresponding increased flexibility associated with remote work. A positive result stemming from increased flexibility and time in the workday was that POs schedules were more flexible, allowing them more opportunities to contact clients and work around their schedules. PO Wright described this increase in flexibility as a benefit for clients: Normally, office visits happen at certain times and are made by appointment. Now, I tell my clients that they call me whenever they have time. This is really convenient for them.
In addition, officers were particularly enthusiastic about the use of virtual supervision with lower risk clients, who required less assistance. For example: I do think that for the low-level cases, it [remote check-ins] is working. We can talk on the phone or Google Hangouts, and I know they are doing okay. I know them enough to know that if they are not getting what they need they will tell me.
Officers shared this sentiment, noting how working from home allowed greater opportunity to balance their time to better align with client schedules. For example, Officer Seaver suggested, Being able to work from home and make phone calls that better align with my probationers time. Like, if we want offenders to be employed, then we should try to do everything we can to help them maintain their employment. And specifically, having them do reporting via facetime has been really favorable for those that are employed.
Officers also articulated that working at home represented a major shift in their daily routines, including how they got ready for work and the flexibility it provided in performing their role responsibilities. Many POs expressed working remotely saved them a great deal of time and allowed them to work more efficiently during work hours. Saving transportation time allowed POs flexibility to better manage their workday. Officers appreciated the reduction of travel and transportation requirements that came with remote work. One PO noted, “For all the staff here, the commute into the office is deplorable at best, so for many of us getting to work at home has actually served to improve our quality of life.”
Programs and Services for Clients
In addition to changes in how POs met and communicated with their clients, officers also described significant changes surrounding client programs and services. Many individuals on community supervision participate in some form of mental health, substance use, or additional program as a condition of their probation term. Community supervision officers help to monitor compliance with these conditions and work with treatment providers to coordinate care, while some POs are actually trained to deliver programs themselves. Other POs also mentioned how treatment providers stopped taking clients or were unable to provide services to existing clients during the pandemic. For some POs, trying to link clients to effective treatment or even provide treatment during the pandemic was challenging. For example, one PO noted: I co-facilitate a cognitive behavior group and at the time of when things were starting to shut down . . . we had some clients who were close to graduating and didn’t want them to miss that opportunity, so we had to figure out how to use telehealth and virtual communication with the treatment providers and that turned into a nightmare . . . To make it easier to manage, we separated the clients into two groups, I would meet virtually with one group from 6:30 to 7:15pm and then the other group of maybe three to five clients from 7:15 to 8:00 pm . . . I know some missed out of these treatment opportunities and it was really cumbersome to try and get people in the virtual group. It can be little bit scary when this is a time when treatment providers are not taking clients and they don’t have access to services they need.
Despite working to fill-in gaps in service provisions, some POs expressed frustration and concern for individuals on their caseload who now had limited options for managing behavioral health issues.
As an officer, and really an overall department, we just were trying to keep people out of the jail as best we could. But it comes at cost and it is a real problem for drug cases who lost contact with treatment providers or counseling . . . it has become much more about the short game and if I have someone who I have no confidence they are going to be able to make it without a little push, it becomes really difficult because services are completely off the table; we are not putting people in jail or hospitals unless it is a serious life threatening event.
In this example, the PO discussed concerns surrounding limited options for supervising and responding to noncompliance for individuals with substance use issues. Despite PO perceptions that clients may need additional treatment or to be placed in a facility, the COVID-19 pandemic made access to these treatment options limited.
Courts and Jails
Many challenges faced by POs in their work during the pandemic stemmed from changes within the court systems and jails. Due to a range of factors, such as court backlogs, lack of prioritization of probation violation hearings, and reduced use of incarceration to prevent COVID-19 spread, responding to noncompliance on supervision was challenging for officers. One PO described these challenges: We can’t sentence [probationers] to jail for drug use, absconding, failing to meet with us. We used to be able to if someone wasn’t on track with drugs or wasn’t coming to meetings. We now verbally admonish, give them homework, things to think about their behavior. We are asking them to write essays, write down what it is that you did and what you would/should do differently. But you’re not allowed to incarcerate at all.
This finding was reiterated among POs in our sample, who often discussed the impacts of court closures, reluctance or refusal of courts to use jail, or for reluctance of jails to accept individuals for supervision violations. As a result, POs felt their options for holding clients accountable were severely limited, with one PO noting, “we all have our hands tied.” An additional example from an interview with PO Prince highlights this finding: I cannot hold my clients accountable when court is taking so bloody long. Currently, the court is only hearing about 10 court cases a week, I don’t even want to know what the backlog will be . . . and this is all just criminal to the clients and really everyone involved. I do know that in our county we are the highest volume court in the state, and I am truly guessing but we are probably only seeing a tenth of cases. Which means people are not being processed by the court.
As a result of changes in court procedures, officers often felt they could not carry out traditional aspects of their job. In response to these challenges, POs reported shifting both how they responded to individual behavior and how they thought about their role, as detailed below.
Changes to PO Routines and Role Orientations
With the changes to PO’s regular routines coupled with the limitations placed on them to conduct their job as they had pre-pandemic, officers were forced to come up with new, creative ways for doing their jobs. In particular, they had to determine how they should respond to client need for treatment and noncompliance, especially given the lack of access to preexisting options. Officer Terry described how these limitations in community-based resources actually forced officers in his agency to shift their supervision approach: Since COVID hit, we’ve been forced, everybody, and some of my colleagues very reluctantly, we’ve been forced on the side of the spectrum to be agents of change. The single most noticeable change has been that I’ve been shifting more into a harm reduction approach in working with people. Harm reduction is basically, you don’t work with zero tolerance on a behavior. Rather, what you do is that you recognize they are engaging in self-harming behavior and the plan is to recognize they are doing this and struggling so you come up with a plan to help them reduce the self-harming behavior and reduce the adverse impact it has on other people.
Since the pandemic, many POs have shifted from a law enforcement and/or compliance/monitoring perspective to a strategy more closely linked to that of a counselor or social worker. Zero-tolerance was no longer a feasible approach to take to the job. In his interview, Officer Terry discusses how even those who took a “law and order” role or identified as an “enforcer of change rather than agent of change” pre-COVID had to make these adjustments to a harm reduction approach, which he believed was a beneficial change. He goes on to explain: Pre-COVID, it was like ‘well, let’s just throw this person in jail!’ Our tolerance was a lot lower for that. Right now, I can tell you exactly how many people are in our county jail and I gotta keep an eye on that number. And if that number kicks up, the blowback is to figure out who we can get released onto the streets. Everybody in the community, we’re having to use jail as a limited resource.
As PO Terry noted, officers, regardless of their previous role orientation, had to work with clients to try to reduce their risks without access to many of the typical options available to them (e.g., programming, employment, and violations). Officer Kent describes this in the quote below: Probation is a little different now where it is more evidence-based and our clients rely on us and look to us for help and support when they are having a crisis. They want to come into our office after all these months and just unpack everything that has been going on. I’ve seen a lot more mental health and counseling sessions and just helping them cope and become more independent from us.
In this way, POs described the pandemic as forcing change to align with a more helping approach where officers not only had to help clients navigate limited community resources to address their needs but also had to serve in a more direct social service role as well. Officer Terry provided an example of one of the ways he had adapted to this approach: . . . I have a plan with a guy right now that when he drinks alcohol, he doesn’t leave his apartment. That’s a harm reduction plan I’m doing with him. It’s pretty typical of what we’re shifting into. I’m comfortable doing it. A lot of my colleagues aren’t.
Several POs provided additional accounts of how the onset of the pandemic pushed many officers toward a social work orientation, largely attributable to concern over their client’s well-being. Officer Muntean provided the following representative example:
I will tell you that people have struggled more than ever before with substance use, emotional problems, and financial struggles. We were more like social workers, and I’ve never been a social worker, but I was making sure my clients had a stable way of life. Other officers provided similar examples, noting the exacerbation of challenges for their clients during the pandemic. As a result, it was common for POs to prioritize the stability of their clients, making sure they had even just their basic needs met. This became a priority over control-oriented functions of the job. Officer Styles captured the shifting PO orientations with the following example: I feel like I am playing more of a counselor role, asking my clients like why did you fall off, was it because you lost your job, had something go wrong with family. Let’s talk about this, here might be some solutions to these problems . . . And now, I am a little more willing to write letters to employers vouching for my client to help them and let employers know they have been doing well and staying in compliance.
For some POs, they questioned the pre-COVID reliance on incarceration and punitive-based responses and reconsidered the future of supervision. Officer Cleveland described how she hoped this changing philosophy persisted even after the pandemic ended. For example, she noted: I think one aspect is that some people who work in supervision are just so quick to arrest somebody rather than work with them and come up with other alternatives to try and help [them] change their behavior. I really hope this changes in the future that as officers we know we have alternatives to use and provide clients with more opportunities to help them change. I hope that is the mentality moving forward especially for the officers who try and rely more on sanctions and incarceration.
Officer Munson shared this sentiment: I think we really have to ask ourselves as officers and really as a system, what is the goal here, it’s not all just about punishment. I think a lot of what I see is the shifting of how we interact with our clients.
With this increased emphasis on a social work orientation, POs often found themselves frustrated with the limited community-based options to help address client needs, which they perceived to be elevated during the pandemic. This led POs to becoming more involved in trying to help their clients. Where they might have provided a recommendation or referral in the past, they now had to actively engage in problem-solving with their clients to address needs with very little available resources. For most POs, they saw this shift as necessary, and perhaps their only option to intervene with clients. Even those who expressed reluctance toward this approach, were forced to embrace it due to a lack of available alternatives—both therapeutic (e.g., community-based treatment) and punitive (e.g., arrest and jail).
As illustrated above, COVID-19 and its corresponding protocols drastically limited the options POs had to manage client noncompliance. For example, while POs previously utilized arrest as a means for responding to noncompliance, the onset of the pandemic limited the number of individuals who could be taken into custody to reduce jail and prison populations. Officers who aligned with a law enforcement role were forced to change their approach, especially when responding to noncompliance. Rather than issuing violations that would not be processed by the courts, POs discussed shifting toward the use of preventive measures by trying to address challenges facing their clients (e.g., employment, housing, and access to treatment were three common needs). When noncompliance did occur, POs who previously might have issued a violation reported using strategies like assigning homework and engaging in cognitive behavioral exercises. Their focus often was on helping clients make more prosocial life choices, given the lack of available external resources at their disposal. Officer Long described this shift by stating: We are moving toward teaching people how to do life different, so they don’t break the law. Working with them on what is socially acceptable activity sounds like common sense. Some clients have no idea what that means though.
Some POs felt trapped in their abilities to complete traditional job roles (e.g., violating clients) while continuing to protect the safety of the public, which often led to frustration. However, the severely limited access to therapeutic or punitive responses to noncompliance forced adaptations. Officers’ ability to formally respond to noncompliance coupled with the lack of community-based resources, further pushed officers toward a direct, social work orientation.
Supervision Strategies and Client Risk Level
While the previous section outlines the major changes in supervision strategies during the pandemic and the impacts of those changes on PO understanding of their roles, we wanted to understand next how POs made decisions about supervising clients with varying characteristics. As a result, we asked POs to describe how they applied changes in supervision practice to different groups of clients. Overall, the majority of officers discussed how the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic largely impacted all individuals across the field of community corrections similarly, especially in the context of office closures and health mitigation strategies. Officer Johnson described this finding: Essentially the process ends up being the same. The agency as a whole is trying to achieve limiting our exposure and limiting the public’s exposure . . . nobody was allowed in the office. Probationers weren’t coming into the office.
However, while officers reported agency-wide office closures, reduced contacts, and use of remote supervision, there was some variation in how POs supervised clients of different risk levels
2
during the pandemic. For example, POs explained they prioritized contacts with higher-risk individuals much more so when compared to lower-risk individuals. Some POs described this as a limited change for lower-risk clients, as they did not meet frequently pre-pandemic. Officer Stevens discussed this finding: For my caseload, the people that are not out of the county [low risk clients], it has not really affected them as much. They might be your cases that owe restitution, so we try to keep minimal contact because they are low risk.
For clients assessed as higher risk, changes to meeting frequency and modalities were more pronounced. Officer McQueen described her experience in meeting less frequently with higher-risk clientele: I carry a moderate/high/very high-risk substance abuse caseload. So, I was previously meeting with them every two weeks face to face, so that [meeting less frequently] was a huge change.
PO Long further discussed this finding as she noted they had drastically reduced their level of intervention with low-risk cases unless it was an emergency: Anybody who has low-risk offenders isn’t making contact with those clients unless they’re in crisis. We have 300 cases in low right now. They are not doing check-ins with their people unless they are getting in trouble . . . For the higher-risk people, everyone in the office is making a lot of contact with those people and giving them something to do. We are giving them programs online to do, virtual classes, and making sure they do those.
To appropriately monitor compliance, POs felt they needed to keep higher-risk clients busy to keep them out of trouble during the pandemic. In some agencies, this corresponded to official changes in policy. Officer Kent described these changes in his office: For high risk, our requirements say we have to see them twice a month in person and a home visit every 90 days. So, we had to make some adjustments to where virtual visits can count as a face-to-face visit. The only sense that is constricted is we can’t smell them. But we can certainly assess visuals, like eyes, skin, and mannerisms, virtually. We utilize more of our training in terms of being alerted to deception. Just yesterday, I got one of my guys on an impromptu zoom call which is the beauty of it. I don’t have to let them get all together to come see me. I’ll now do random calls which gives me benefit of managing my caseload and I can call them immediately and if they know I’m calling and they don’t answer, then that’s a violation.
In this example, PO Kent describes the challenge of reduced sensory feedback associated with virtual visits (i.e., inability to smell substances) and an increased need to train officers on detecting dishonesty. However, he also described how officers were now able to do “surprise” Zoom calls as a technique to identify whether his high-risk clients were engaging in noncompliance. Officers justified this need to get creative with virtual contacts as they experienced increased challenges with making remote contacts with higher-risk populations. PO McQueen described her experience with these changes for higher-risk clients. She notes: The Zoom and phone meetings were going really well, but as time progressed people [high risk] stopped calling or answering me and then we started having positive [drug/alcohol] screens where these people had been clean for quite some time prior to.
As noted in the quote above, initial efforts to maintain contact with high-risk clients seemed to become less effective over time during the pandemic. Regardless, across the sample, it was clear that POs focused their time and energy on those clients they perceived to be at higher risk. For those who were in compliance and formally assessed as low risk, infrequent contacts often became more infrequent. Officers described their approach to focusing on higher risk, including prioritizing any adapted in-person contacts for this population, based on a need to monitor substance use and mental health, assist with higher levels of needs (e.g., housing and food instability), and a need to ensure they were in compliance (e.g., where they were supposed to be).
Discussion
This study highlights the experiences of POs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Officers noted significant changes to the way they conducted their job on a daily basis. These changes included a shift to remote work coinciding with forced changes in supervision approach. That is, as a result of limited options to respond to client behavior (e.g., treatment, drug testing, and violations), POs shifted their approach to that of a change agent aligned with a social work approach. While these changes in supervision were often applied at the agency level to promote COVID-19 safety protocols, at the individual level, POs focused their efforts on high-risk populations, while intervening and making contact on a much smaller and less frequent scale with all other clients.
In general, officers in this study identified necessary adaptations to their work that align with many reform efforts suggested in past literature. For example, perhaps one of the most interesting findings from this study is the discussion surrounding the shift to a social work orientation. Past literature suggests POs often align with different role orientations in their work—law enforcer, social worker, and/or resource broker (Klockars, 1972; Skeem & Manchak, 2008). However, the research on role orientations suggests that hybrid approaches are also common whereby POs integrate elements of various roles (Miller, 2015). Research on PO role orientations suggests the most effective officers are those who act as agents of change (Bourgon et al., 2012) and can effectively integrate a social work orientation with their law enforcement duties (Paparozzi & Gendreau, 2005; Skeem et al., 2007). This study found that with the limited ability to monitor compliance and respond to noncompliance, POs were left with little choice but to place greater emphasis on a social work approach.
In addition, with limited availability to make contacts with clients and access community-based resources, POs discussed how they had to focus their efforts on higher risk and higher needs clients. This approach to the job aligns with core correctional practices and the Risk, Need, Responsivity (RNR) model, which emphasizes the intensity of supervision and delivery of correctional interventions to the highest-risk individuals (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). While previous research suggests at times POs resist doing less with lower-risk clients (Viglione & Taxman, 2018), during the pandemic POs often felt they had no choice but to do so, allowing them to focus their efforts on those at greater risk. Officers in our study experienced firsthand that by doing less with their lower risk, they had more time to intervene with their higher-risk cases. This is an important finding of this study that should inform future research. That is, if POs during the pandemic widely adopted strategies supported by evidence (i.e., Risk, Needs, Responsivity model that they previously resisted; Viglione & Taxman, 2018), we need to further explore both the PO and client experiences with these changes as well as the impacts on client outcomes. As agencies move more and more back to “pre-pandemic” operations, it is paramount to learn from experiences during the pandemic to identify strategies to promote possibly more effective practices moving forward.
In line with these findings, when POs focused their efforts on higher-risk individuals, they discussed implementing a change agent role. That is, with options to monitor and enforce conditions limited or at times removed, POs used a social work-aligned approach. While some officers were hesitant to make this switch, most discussed eventually having to shift toward this approach. This suggests that external forces—albeit in the case of COVID-19 a pretty large external force—can influence change within a correctional agency. As stated earlier, future work should further examine both the impact of these changes but also the mechanisms by which such changes can be sustained post-pandemic.
Officers in this study emphasized the utility of remote work. Remote work provided flexibility for both clients and POs that previously was not possible. For example, POs discussed how it was easier to schedule meetings with clients who worked around their obligations (e.g., work and family) and that clients could now more easily contact them if they needed assistance. Officers also noted the benefit of remote work for promoting work-life balance. The reduction of travel time allowed many POs to devote more quality work time to their job while simultaneously allowing them to better manage their home life. Officers in other studies similarly noted the perceived benefit of remote work that POs preferred having as an option (Martin & Zettler, 2022; Sirdfield et al., 2022). Given the challenge of retention of staff in the correctional field, this is a critical finding for agencies to consider. The work of POs is often associated with increased job stress, burnout, and turnover (Alward & Viglione, 2023; Gayman & Bradley, 2013; Lee et al., 2009; Lewis et al., 2013; White et al., 2015), and the findings of this study and others like it suggest adding remote work as an option may help mitigate some of these negative outcomes. While future research should examine this directly, given the noted benefits perceived by POs and clients, this seems like a worthwhile advancement to maintain in the field to some degree. There has been a great deal of attention on the fact that individuals are leaving professions of all kinds in pursuit of those providing more flexibility and options for remote work (Leider et al., 2023; Parker & Horowitz, 2022). The field of corrections would benefit to learn from these trends and from studies like the current one and others (e.g., Martin & Zettler, 2022; Sirdfield et al., 2022) that document the positive experiences with remote work.
This study also underscores the need for increased community-based resources—an issue that existed prior to COVID-19 and was only worsened by the pandemic (Dominey, 2019; Lockwood et al., 2023). For example, previous research found less than 10% of individuals under community supervision have access to necessary treatment programs in the community (Taxman et al., 2007). The pandemic further compounded this issue, with POs left with limited options for treatment and resources for clients, which frustrated many officers in this study. The pandemic brought to light just how challenging access to services is for individuals under supervision. Officers in our study discussed how they had to adapt to provide some direct assistance to clients that normally would be provided by a treatment provider. This is not a sustainable solution—POs are already tasked with many job responsibilities, and most are not trained clinicians. While a complex issue to fix, this is an area that must receive attention moving forward.
Limitations
Data used in this study are cross-sectional and were collected early in the pandemic. Thus, the current findings do not account for changes in PO experience over the course of the pandemic. It is possible that experiences may have changed as POs adapted to the “new normal,” or they may have worsened as problems compounded. Future research should examine how the experiences of POs changed as the pandemic progressed and, importantly, as agencies began to shift back to pre-pandemic operations. This line of questioning is also critical for thinking about and informing how the field may be permanently altered as a result of the pandemic. In addition, this sample is primarily made up of POs who supervise adult caseloads. While general responsibilities are similar, juvenile POs often interact with many additional individuals linked to their clients (e.g., parents and teachers) and community institutions (e.g., schools). Studies should consider if and how differences exist between the experiences of POs who supervise juveniles compared to adult caseloads. Finally, this study utilized convenience sampling, which may limit the overall representativeness of findings. It is possible that POs who were more significantly impacted by the pandemic were less likely to participate. Future research should expand on this work by including a more representative sample of POs across the United States.
Conclusion
This study provides a detailed account of PO experiences working during the pandemic, with a focus on identifying their supervision approach. While the pandemic has undoubtedly caused challenges and rapid shifts in the field, findings from this study identify several issues that can contribute to an ongoing conversation around reform and change in the field of community supervision. First, this study suggests that even POs who hold punitive orientations can be forced into using a hybrid/social work technique in their job. We need to further understand how they implemented this approach, how they felt this approach worked (especially those resistant), and whether/how to sustain this shift beyond the pandemic. Second, POs in this study illustrated that they could do less with lower-risk clients. Similarly, we need to understand how they felt using this approach, how lower-risk clients fared, and how this type of reallocation of resources can also be sustained beyond the pandemic. Third, this study supports the findings of other studies, finding the beneficial impacts of remote work. This is a critical area for the field of community corrections to consider as a means to improve the supervision experience for both clients and officers, especially during a time that is particularly challenging for hiring and retention. Finally, this study continues to highlight the need for additional resources and tools for community supervision agencies to access. That is, there is a dire need for more community-based treatment programs, but POs also need access to more tools in their toolkit to respond to client behavior beyond the use of punishment-oriented sanctions. As the world generally starts to shift back to pre-pandemic life, it is a critical time to consider these findings and the impact of the pandemic on the field to continue to identify strategies for improving supervision.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note:
This study was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation (#2030344). The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of community corrections agency staff to share their experiences during an extraordinarily difficult time.
