Probation officers’ discretionary decisions in responding to probation violations: The case of Lithuania

Abstract

This paper investigates Lithuanian probation officers’ discretionary decisions on probation violations under strict legal regulation. Based on a quantitative survey, this paper analyses hypothetical discretionary decisions according to the type of violation committed by the probationer. The relationship between discretionary decisions and variables such as the probationer’s risk level and sociodemographic characteristics are also analysed. The study revealed that, despite strict legal regulations, which generally require severe action for probation violations, probation officers tend to make more lenient decisions. The study also found that violation type, offender risk level, and probation officer’s age are potential predictors of discretionary decisions.

Keywords

probation discretionary decisions probation officers probationer probation rules violation

Introduction

Among European countries, Lithuania is known for its repressive penal policy, one of the most rooted legacies of the Soviet period (Sakalauskas, 2014). In 2017, the rate of prisoners in Lithuania was 232 per 100,000 inhabitants, the largest number among all countries in the European Union (Eurostat, 2020). Statistics on persons serving community sanctions and measures (CSM) or under probation are similar, with an average of 275 per 100,000 inhabitants per year between 2007 and 2015, again one of the highest among European countries (Nikartas, 2018).

Recently, among possible sanctions for violation of probation conditions, imprisonment has been frequently employed. Compared to 2015, the number of appeals to courts for probation revocation in 2016 and 2017 increased by 37% and 40%, respectively. Although the courts dismissed more than half of the judgements, 3252 people were imprisoned because of probation violations over these 7 years (Prison Department, 2013-2019) (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Appeals of Probation Services to Courts for the probation revocation in 2013–2019 in Lithuania (abs. numb.). (Prison Department, 2013-219.)

Penal populism and, consequently, strict legal regulation is one of the main factors behind the increase in the number of people imprisoned for probation violations. In cases of breach of probation conditions without justifiable reasons, probation law obliges probation officers to apply to the court for the revocation of probation, which in practice means imprisonment (Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, 2012). In 2016, in response to a murder case where a probationer killed four women, new amendments to the Lithuanian Probation Law were introduced to limit the discretion of probation officers. The most significant change was that probation officers must apply to the court within one working day after the probation violation was committed. These restrictions deprived probation officers of the ability to assess circumstances, personalize, and adapt measures proportionate to the offence and the personality of the offender.¹ Probation officers are statutory and uniformed officials, subject to the same statute as police and other law enforcement agencies.² Their activities are characterized by high subordination and hierarchy; hence, a wide interpretation of the law is not allowed. Subordination, in this case, means not only obedience to a superior but also obedience to the letter of the law. The statutory officers’ authority in this respect differs from that of judges who make decisions, compared to probation officers who must follow not only the law but also the principles of the law along with their own inner beliefs.

Thus, it is particularly interesting to study how probation officers make discretionary decisions in the context of this rigorous and punitive environment. The article discusses the results of a survey aimed at analysing how probation officers tend to respond to typical probation violations. The study attempts to categorize probation officers’ hypothetical decisions according to probation violation type and relationships between discretionary decisions and sociodemographic variables of probation officers.

Legal framework

Based on the Law on Probation of the Republic of Lithuania, persons under probationary supervision are (1) persons for whom the court has imposed a custodial sentence, postponing its enforcement, or (2) persons conditionally released from prisons. In both cases, the court determines the probation conditions – obligations that the probationer must perform during the prescribed term of probation. Probation conditions may include the following obligations: (a) comply with curfews; (b) remain in the city/district of the place of residence unless permission of the institution supervising the sentenced person is obtained; (c) avoiding visiting certain areas or communicating with certain persons or groups of persons; (d) avoiding the use of psychoactive substances; (e) avoiding the use of or acquiring specific goods or engaging in certain activities; (f) starting work or study or continuing work or education; (g) making restitution payments; (h) apologizing to the victim of the crime; (j) providing the victim with assistance while he or she is being treated; (k) performing community service hours; (l) attending behaviour correction programme meetings; (m) participating in addiction treatment or rehabilitation (with agreement); and (n) educating and caring for their underage children. Additionally, probationers must abide by the general rules of probation (e.g. the obligation to work or officially register in an employment agency within 14 days, not commit administrative misdemeanours³, or to carry out measures imposed by the probation officer⁴).

In case of violations, probation officers make discretionary decisions that may include applying administrative probation measures (e.g. warning, intensification of supervision, application of additional measures) or appealing to a court for additional measures, extension of the probation period, or revocation of probation (imprisonment). According to the Probation Law, in all cases where the probationer fails to fulfil the probation conditions imposed by a court without justifiable reason, the probation officer must submit a request to the court for the revocation of probation. When probation conditions are not fulfilled for justifiable reasons (e.g. disease, care of children, work, a car accident), the court can extend the probation period. In cases where the probationer fulfils the conditions of probation but commits administrative misdemeanours or fails to comply with general rules of probation, he or she may be subject to additional obligations (probation conditions), which can be imposed only by a court at the request of the probation officer. Where, after the imposition of additional obligations, the probationer commits an administrative misdemeanour repeatedly or repeatedly fails to comply with the general rules on probation, the probation officer must submit a request to the court for the revocation of the probation.

Although administrative measures are not established in the law as sanctions for probation violations, they are applied in practice. These are, in particular, measures to be taken in cases of non-compliance with the duties assigned by the probation officer, such as failing to arrive at the probation service on time or to undertake the measures prescribed by the probation officer (e.g., behavioural correction programmes). A warning is usually issued in cases of minor first-time violations, particularly in the presence of justifiable reasons. Intensification of supervision is also applied as an additional measure to sanctions imposed by the court (except revocation of probation) or in cases when a court refuses the probation officer’s appeal.

Literature review

A wide range of literature has identified various factors affecting probation officers’ discretionary decisions. On the one hand, researchers emphasize the correlation between offenders’ characteristics and discretionary decisions. Numerous empirical studies reveal that legal factors (e.g. type of offence and conviction history) and extra-legal factors (e.g. offender’s social-demographical characteristics and geographical features) are important in predicting the decisions made by criminal justice practitioners (Anderson and Spohn, 2010; Ishoy and Dabney, 2018; Kochel et al., 2011; Novak et al., 2011; Schulenberg, 2015; Steen and Opsal, 2007). On the other hand, empirical evidence indicates that probation officers’ discretionary decisions are related to social-demographical characteristics of officers, such as sex and age (Jones and Kerbs, 2007; Kerbs et al., 2009; Slabonik and Sims, 2002), organizational attributes, such as caseload (McCleary, 1978; Petersilia and Turner, 1990), and geographical location of work (Chiricos and Crawford, 1995; Michalowski and Pearson, 1990; Vigorita, 2001; Weidner and Frase, 2001, 2003).

Few studies have examined the differentiation of hypothetical probation officers’ decisions based on the types of probation violations. Jones and Kerbs (2007) and Kerbs et al. (2009) found that probation officers tend to make different decisions in various cases of probation or criminal offences. Probation officers tend to apply administrative measures for probation violations involving avoiding work (intentional unemployment), failing to attend meetings with the probation officer or failing to perform community service. In situations where the probationer violates the law, such as vandalism, theft or drink driving, cannabis use, and violations of curfew, probation officers usually appeal to the court.

It is important to note that most discretionary decisions research is conducted in Anglo-Saxon countries. Quantitative discretionary decisions research is lacking in Continental, and especially in Eastern Europe. Therefore, we believe that the results of our study will provide new insights into the factors influencing the discretionary decisions of probation officers in the country of the Eastern European region, which is characterized by specific legal, social, historical, and political contexts (Nikartas, 2020).

Methodology

We conducted a quantitative survey between 2017 and 2018 across the Lithuanian Probation Service and its territorial units. The research was funded by the Lithuanian state budget under the Lithuanian Law Institute’s long-term research programme of 2016–2018: ‘Towards a Balanced Criminal Policy and Effective Crime Prevention: Research on the Possibilities of Strengthening Public Security in the Context of Human Rights Protection’. The preparation of this paper was funded by the continuous research programme of 2019–2023: ‘Research on effective punishment and other forms and means of state response to criminal acts’.

The survey sample consisted of 129 probation officers with experience in supervising adult offenders under probation. The non-probability purposive sampling method was used to select participants for the study. The request to participate in the research and a link to the online survey were sent to the official e-mails of probation officers available at the time (except for officers unavailable due to reasons such as vacation and parental leave). Some of the participants were contacted directly by visiting probation service departments situated in Panevėžys and Vilnius cities. Anonymity was ensured by avoiding specific questions that could identify any of the persons involved. The study was conducted with the approval of the Lithuanian Regional Probation Services authorities.

Respondents

The questionnaire was completed by 70% of the probation officers contacted. In terms of the characteristics of participants, 94 women and 31 men (4 persons did not specify gender), aged from 24 to 55 years, participated in the research. The sample structure corresponds to the general structure of the probation officer population, which is dominated by female officers.⁵ The working experience of participants ranged from 6 months to 24 years (average 9 years), and 52% of respondents were located in the biggest cities (Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaipėda, Šiauliai, Panevėžys).

Instruments

A Probation Officers’ Discretionary Situations Questionnaire (PODSQ) was developed for this study. PODSQ is a projective methodology designed to identify the measures that probation officers tend to apply to probationers who violate probation conditions (when the decision is at the probation officer’s discretion). We created this questionnaire based on Jones and Kerb’s (2007) methodology and the Probation Law (2012) of the Republic of Lithuania. The PODSQ consists of 13 vignettes (situations), which provide some information about the probationer, their behaviour during probation, and their probation conditions. Probation officers were asked to indicate what measures they would apply to the probationer in a particular situation (Table 1).

Table 1.

Sample of a situation to be evaluated in the questionnaire.

The probationer has the obligation (imposed by the court) to start work. The probationer is registered with an employment service, but within 3 months of the start of the probation period, they do not show any initiative or effort to work, although they are physically fit and able to work. The probationer has not committed any other violations. The probationer was convicted of theft. The risk of repeated crime is low.

What would your decision be in this situation?

a) Do nothing;

b) Issue a warning to the probationer and not take additional measures;

c) Issue an official written warning to the probationer and not apply additional measures;

d) Apply administrative measures available to the probation service (for example, establish more intensive care for the client, such as more frequent visits to the probation service or more frequent visits by the probation officers to the residential premises, provide additional measures in the individual supervision plan);

e) Appeal to the court requesting the imposition of additional obligations;

f) Appeal to the court requesting the revocation of probation;

g) Other (please write):………………………………………………… ……………………………………………

Would the decision change if the probationer’s risk was moderate?

• Yes

• No.

• I don’t know/ it’s hard to say

If yes, what decision would you make: <…>

To assess the reliability of the scale, the overall internal consistency of the scale was calculated, and the questionnaire was found to be reliable (Cronbach α = 0.95).

The validity of this instrument was examined through expert evaluations. Experts who were working in the probation field at the time of the study and had at least 5 years of probation work experience were selected. Five experts were selected: two of them responsible for territorial probation units (carrying out control and supervision of probation officers’ work), and three probation officers who supervised adult offenders during their probation. According to experts, the vignettes in the PODSQ were typical and consistent with the situations that probation officers practically face. Experts also provided feedback on the PODSQ that was used to revise the questionnaire.

Data analysis

The average of each situation (vignette) estimate was obtained, forming three variables: a) estimate of discretion when crime risk is low, b) estimate of discretion when crime risk is moderate, and c) estimate of general discretion (the average value of discretion when crime risk is low and moderate). To evaluate the strictness of the probation officers’ discretionary decisions, estimates were compared with the central value of the PODSQ which reflects the answer – ‘apply the measures available to the probation service (probation officer)’ (Table 2).

Table 2.

Estimates of probation officers’ answers regarding the strictness of decisions.

The strictness of discretion decisions	Type of decision	Estimate
Lenient discretion decisions	Do nothing	1
Lenient discretion decisions	Issue a warning to the probationer and not take additional measures	2
Moderate discretion decisions	Apply administrative measures available to the probation service	3
Strict discretion decisions	Appeal to the court requesting the imposition of additional obligations	4
Strict discretion decisions	Appeal to the court requesting the revocation of probation	5

Results

The study results show that the general discretion rate (t = 6.399, df = 128, p < 0.001) and discretion rates when crime risk was low (t = 3.807, df = 128, p < 0.001) or moderate (t = 8.213, df = 128, p < 0.001) were higher than the central value (Table 3). The majority of survey participants tended to make stricter decisions when the probationer’s crime risk was either low or moderate.

Table 3.

Tendencies of probation officers’ discretionary decisions (when crime risk was low or moderate).

Scale	M (SD)	T	df	P
General discretion	3.24 (0.42)	6.399	128	<0.001
Low risk:
Discretion	3.15 (0.45)	3.807	128	<0.001
Pre-trial investigation of a new criminal offence	2.56 (0.66)	−7.533	127	<0.001
Administrative misdemeanour	2.75 (0.59)	−4.850	128	<0.001
Probation condition and probation officer obligation violation	3.08 (0.57)	1.533	128	0.128
Probation condition violation	3.38 (0.58)	7.462	128	<0.001
Multiple violations	3.87 (1.04)	9.370	126	<0.001
Moderate risk:
Discretion	3.33 (0.45)	8.213	128	<0.001
Pre-trial investigation of a criminal offence	2.68 (0.74)	−4.807	124	<0.001
Administrative misdemeanour	2.93 (0.66)	−1.281	127	0.202
Probation condition and probation officer obligation violation	3.36 (0.68)	5.993	124	<0.001
Probation condition violation	3.56 (0.53)	11.806	127	<0.001
Multiple violations	4.02 (1.02)	11.227	123	<0.001

Note. M – mean, SD – standard deviation. Statistically significant differences are highlighted in bold.

The analysis also revealed some tendencies related to the strictness of applied probation measures depending on the specifics of the situations. Probation officers tended to make less strict decisions than the central value in situations with an administrative misdemeanour when the probationer’s crime risk was low, and in situations with a pre-trial investigation of a criminal offence when the probationer’s crime risk was low or moderate. Officers tended to make decisions similar to the central value in situations with violation of probation conditions and probation officer obligations when crime risk was low, and in situations with an administrative misdemeanour when crime risk was moderate. Additionally, probation officers tended to make stricter decisions than the central value in situations with violation of probation conditions and repeated violations when crime risk was either low or moderate, and in situations with violation of probation conditions and probation officer obligations when crime risk was moderate (Table 3).

Percentage analysis of the discretionary decisions structure revealed that about 70% of probation officers tended to opt for more lenient measures than required by law. Respondents tended to make the most lenient decisions in criminal offence commitment situations – only about 2% chose to appeal to a court for probation revocation. Situations with several violations of probation conditions received the most severe solutions – 31.78% when the risk was low and 38.76% when the risk was moderate tended to appeal to a court for probation revocation (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Differentiation of discretionary decisions of probation officers based on the type of violation (percentage).

Decision Type of violation	Do nothing	Warning	Applying probation (administrative) measures	Appeal to court to change probation obligations	Appeal to court on probation revocation	N/A
Low risk
Pre-trial investigation into a new criminal offence	6.98%	34.50%	48.84%	3.49%	1.94%	4.26%
Administrative misdemeanour	3.10%	35.27%	46.90%	13.18%	1.55%	–
Probation condition and probation officer obligation violation	–	16.67%	64.34%	12.02%	6.20%	0.78%
Probation condition violation	0.13%	30.62%	28.94%	6.20%	31.01%	3.10%
Multiple violations	–	15.50%	13.95%	37.21%	31.78%	1.55%
Moderate risk
Pre-trial investigation into a new criminal offence	6.20%	26.74%	48.84%	6.59%	2.71%	8.91%
Administrative misdemeanour	3.10%	26.36%	41.09%	22.09%	1.94%	5.43%
Probation condition and probation officer obligation violation	–	8.14%	53.49%	17.83%	10.47%	10.08%
Probation condition violation	0.26%	22.09%	27.65%	8.01%	34.24%	7.75%
Multiple violations	–	11.63%	13.18%	32.56%	38.76%	3.88%

Statistically significant differences in discretion rates between low and moderate crime risk were found (Table 5). Probation officers tended to make stricter discretionary decisions when the probationer’s crime risk was moderate compared to decisions when the risk was low (t = −6.601, df = 128, p < 0.001). Similar results were found comparing the strictness of decisions depending on certain situations: pre-trial investigation of a new criminal offence (t = −3.548, df = 124, p = 0.001); administrative misdemeanour (t = −4.501, df = 127, p < 0.001); probation condition and probation officer obligation violation (t = −6.019, df = 124, p < 0.001); probation condition violation (t = −5.030, df = 127, p < 0.001); and multiple violations (t = −3.129, df = 123, p = 0.002).

Table 5.

Comparison of probation officers’ discretionary decisions when crime risk is low or moderate.

	Low risk	Moderate risk
Scale	M (SD)	M (SD)	t	df	P
Discretion	3.15 (0.45)	3.33 (0.45)	−6.601	128	<0.001
Conditions & officer obligation violation	3.06 (0.56)	3.36 (0.68)	−6.019	124	<0.001
Condition violation	3.39 (0.58)	3.56 (0.54)	−5.030	127	<0.001
Administrative misdemeanour	2.75 (0.59)	2.92 (0.66)	−4.501	127	<0.001
Pre-trial investigation	2.56 (0.67)	2.68 (0.74)	−3.548	124	0.001
Multiple violations	3.90 (1.03)	4.02 (1.02)	−3.129	123	0.002

Note. M – mean, SD – standard deviation. Statistically significant differences are highlighted in bold.

Table 6 shows that probation officers’ discretionary decisions when crime risk was low correlated with decisions when crime risk was moderate (r = 0.771, p < 0.001). Similar tendencies were found on analysing probation officers’ decisions in consideration of different probation conditions violations (r from 0.609 to 0.899, p < 0.001). This suggests that probation officers who applied stricter probation measures when probationers’ crime risk was low also tended to apply stricter probation measures when risk was moderate.

Table 6.

Correlation coefficients between probation officers’ discretionary decisions of low and moderate crime risk.

Scale	R
Discretion	0.771*
Conditions & officer obligation violation	0.609**
Condition violation	0.773**
Administrative misdemeanour	0.754**
Pre-trial investigation	0.871**
Multiple violations	0.899**

Note. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

A comparison of the discretionary decisions estimates between different categories of violations revealed that probation officers tended to apply different types of measures depending on the specifics of the situation (see Table 7). According to the level of the severity of the measures applied in certain situations, the probationer’s violations can be listed as follows: 1) pre-trial investigation of a criminal offence, 2) administrative misdemeanour, 3) failure to comply with court obligations (probation conditions) and obligations imposed by the probation officer (e.g. the obligations set in the individual plan); 4) failure to comply with court obligations (probation conditions); and 5) multiple violations (violation of probation conditions, obligations applied by a probation officer and administrative misdemeanour). Such tendencies were the same when probationers’ crime risk was low (p = 0.003 or p < 0.001) or moderate (p = 0.001, p < 0.001).

Table 7.

Comparison of probation officers’ discretionary decisions considering different violations.

Pair No	Vignette	Low risk				Moderate risk
Pair No	Vignette	M (SD)	t	df	p	M (SD)	t	df	p
1	Conditions & officer obligations:	3.08 (0.57)	−5.586	128	<0.001	3.37 (0.68)	−3.284	123	0.001
	Conditions	3.38 (0.58)				3.57 (0.52)
2	Conditions & officer obligations:	3.08 (0.57)	5.221	128	<0.001	3.37 (0.68)	6.066	123	<0.001
	Administrative	2.75 (0.59)				2.94 (0.66)
3	Conditions & officer obligations:	3.07 (0.58)	7.329	127	<0.001	3.37 (0.69)	8.269	120	<0.001
	Pre-trial investigation	2.56 (0.66)				2.68 (0.73)
4	Conditions & officer obligations:	3.07 (0.58)	−8.222	126	<0.001	3.38 (0.68)	−6.223	120	<0.001
	Multiple	3.87 (1.04)				4.01 (1.02)
5	Conditions:	3.38 (0.58)	10.561	128	<0.001	3.56 (0.53)	−6.223	120	<0.001
	Administrative	2.75 (0.59)				2.93 (0.66)
6	Conditions:	3.39 (0.58)	12.033	127	<0.001	3.57 (0.53)	12.506	124	<0.001
	Pre-trial investigation	2.56 (0.66)				2.68 (0.74)
7	Conditions:	3.37 (0.57)	−6.451	126	<0.001	3.56 (0.51)	−5.852	123	<0.001
	Multiple	3.87 (1.04)				4.02 (1.02)
8	Administrative:	2.75 (0.59)	3.063	127	0.003	2.94 (0.66)	3.536	124	0.001
	Pre-trial investigation	2.56 (0.66)				2.68 (0.74)
9	Administrative:	2.74 (0.59)	−11.850	126	<0.001	2.94 (0.65)	−11.322	123	<0.001
	Multiple	3.87 (1.04)				4.02 (1.02)
10	Pre-trial investigation:	2.56 (0.67)	−12.714	125	<0.001	2.66 (0.75)	−13.386	120	<0.001
	Multiple	3.88 (1.03)				4.07 (0.98)

Note. M – mean, SD – standard deviation. Statistically significant differences are highlighted in bold.

Discretionary decisions considering different violations were compared to examine measures that probation officers take in relation to their intention to change their decision when the risk of crime increases. As shown in Table 8, the analysis showed that probation officers’ discretion was stricter among officers who tended to change their decision, in comparison with those who did not, when probationers’ crime risk was moderate (t = −2.450, df = 127, p < 0.05). The analysis of vignettes revealed that probation officers who tended to change their decisions, in comparison with officers who did not, applied less strict measures when the probationer’s crime risk was low in situations with violation of probation conditions (t = 2.537, df = 127, p < 0.05). In addition, officers who tended to change their decisions, in comparison with those who did not, applied stricter measures when the probationer’s crime risk was moderate in situations with pre-trial investigation of a criminal offence (t = −3.016, df = 123, p < 0.05); administrative misdemeanour (t = −3.575, df = 126, p < 0.05), or violation of probation conditions and probation officer obligations (t = −4.848, df = 123, p < 0.05). Other types of violations were not related to the probation officers’ tendency to change the decision (p from 0.972 to 0.069). Thus, it can be stated that probation officers tended to apply similar measures in these situations regardless of the risk of crime.

Table 8.

Comparison of probation officers’ discretionary decisions by their tendency to change decision (when crime risk was low or moderate).

	Decision changed	The decision did not change
Scale	M (SD)	M (SD)	t	df	p
General discretion	3.26 (0.43)	3.22 (0.42)	−0.591	127	0.556
Low risk:
Discretion	3.10 (0.47)	3.20 (0.43)	1.312	127	0.192
Pre-trial investigation of a criminal offence	2.67 (0.70)	2.45 (0.62)	−1.833	126	0.069
Administrative misdemeanour	2.75 (0.62)	2.74 (0.56)	−0.111	127	0.912
Probation condition and probation officer obligation violation	3.08 (.,66)	3.08 (0.49)	−0.036	127	0.972
Probation condition violation	3.25 (0.54)	3.51 (0.60)	2.537	127	0.012
Multiple violations	3.73 (0.94)	4.00 (1.13)	1.466	125	0.145
Moderate risk:
Discretion	3.42 (0.46)	3.23 (0.42)	−2.450	127	0016
Pre-trial investigation of a criminal offence	2.87 (0.79)	2.48 (0.65)	−3.016	123	0.003
Administrative misdemeanour	3.13 (0.66)	2.73 (0.59)	−3.575	126	<0.001
Probation condition and probation officer obligation violation	3.64 (0.72)	3.10 (0.52)	−4.848	123	<0.001
Probation condition violation	3.57 (0.49)	3.54 (0.58)	−0.342	126	0.733
Multiple violations	3.95 (1.00)	4.10 (1.04)	0.794	122	0.428

Note. M – mean, SD – standard deviation. Significant differences are highlighted in bold.

The relationships between discretion rates and sociodemographic characteristics of probation officers were analysed. The statistical analysis revealed that general discretionary decisions (t = 1.017, df = 123, p = 0.311) and decisions when probationers’ crime risk was low (t = 1.550, df = 123, p = 0.124) or moderate (t = 0.371, df = 123, p = 0.711) were not related to probation officers’ gender. These findings suggest that male and female probation officers tended to apply similar measures. The strictness of probation officers’ discretionary decisions in cases of certain violations was not related to their gender (p from 0.801 to 0.124) except for violation of probation conditions and probation officer obligations when probationers’ crime risk was low (t = 2.103, df = 123, p = 0.037). These results show that women tended to apply stricter measures compared to men in these cases.

Probation officers’ age correlated with general discretion (r = 0.226, p < 0.05) and discretion when the probationer’s crime risk was low (r = 0.194, p < 0.05) or moderate (r = 0.229, p < 0.05). These results provide information that older probation officers tended to apply stricter probation measures compared to younger probation officers. Accordingly, probation officers’ age correlated with the strictness of their decisions in certain cases. Older probation officers, compared to younger officers, tended to make stricter decisions when probationers violated probation conditions (r = 0.222, p < 0.05), and committed multiple violations (r = 0.227, p < 0.05) when the probationer’s crime risk was low. Accordingly, older probation officers, in comparison with younger officers, tended to make stricter decisions when probationers violated probation conditions (r = 0.216, p < 0.05), and violated probation conditions and probation officer obligations (r = 0.279, p < 0.01) when the probationer’s crime risk was moderate. The analysis also revealed that probation officers’ discretionary decisions in situations with other types of violations were not related to age. Thus, probation officers tended to make similar decisions in those cases.

Probation officers’ work experience showed no correlation with general discretion (r = −0.139, p < 0.05) and discretion when the probationer’s crime risk was low (r = −0.157, p < 0.05) or moderate (r = −0.104, p < 0.05). These results indicate that the strictness of general discretionary decisions and decisions with different crime risk (low or moderate) is similar among probation officers with various levels of experience. However, probation officers’ work experience was related to their discretionary decisions in situations with a pre-trial investigation of a criminal probationer’s offence when crime risk was moderate (r = −0.230, p < 0.05). These results suggest that probation officers who had less work experience tended to make stricter decisions in situations with a pre-trial investigation of a criminal offence when the probationer’s crime risk was moderate. The analysis also revealed that probation officers with different work experiences tended to make similar decisions in situations with other types of violations regardless of the probationer’s crime risk.

We did not find statistically significant correlations between probation officers’ discretionary decisions and variables such as the workplace (metropolitan cities and rural area), education, and education field.

Discussion and suggestions for future research

The following assumptions and insights related to the socio-legal context of Lithuanian probation officers’ discretionary decisions can be drawn from our results.

Probation officers tend to resist the formal requirements of the law when making discretionary decisions regarding probationer violations

The study results show that roughly 70% of respondents tended to choose lenient decisions (administrative measures and warnings) in situations of probation rule violations. This is particularly interesting as the Probation Law obliges probation officers to appeal to the court for probation revocation in any case of violation of probation conditions without justifiable reasons. This finding suggests that officers, despite strict regulation of their discretionary decisions, are trying to individualize cases of probation violations following the aims and principles of probation.⁶ Such an attitude presumes resistance to the formal requirements of the Probation Law.

Probation officers’ resistance was researched by Persson and Svensson (2011). Their study of pre-sentence reports in Sweden revealed that there was an obvious discrepancy between guidelines and practise. This can be explained as a result of professional resistance, which emerges in the conflict between organizational and professional logic. Referring to this study, we assume that in situations of violations of probation rules, Lithuanian probation officers face a dilemma of a conflict between their professional knowledge and formal requirements of the law.

The phenomenon of resistance can also be explained by pragmatic motives. Laurinavičius and Ustinavičiūtė (2018) in their qualitative research of the Lithuanian probation officer’s discretion note that the effectiveness of the Lithuanian probation service is evaluated on the basis of the ratio of successful/unsuccessful probation sentences. This suggests that probation officers, in the exercise of their discretion, seek to strike a balance between the formal requirements for a rigorous response to probation violations and the need for a high evaluation of their work.

These assumptions should be further investigated through future research. However, our study results indicate that the professional and pragmatic attitudes of probation officers can be considered a relevant factor of resistance against formal and unjust requirements.

Probation officers tend to apply lenient measures in cases of criminal offences

Our survey revealed that when assessing situations related to criminal offences, probation officers were mostly inclined to choose administrative measures. This may seem unexpected, as criminal offence is dangerous to the community and is perceived as warranting severe punishment. Probation officers’ lenient attitude towards crime situations contradicts Jones and Kerbs (2007), who found that probation officers usually took one of the toughest decisions – appealing to the court. These studies have methodological differences; thus, it is difficult to compare results.⁷ However, we think that different assessments of Lithuanian and US probation officers may be related to the fact that Lithuanian Probation Law does not directly establish the pre-trial investigation of a criminal offence as a violation of probation. Lithuanian case law could be a factor, as the presumption of innocence usually guides courts in such situations. They do not assess the pre-trial investigation as a violation of probation conditions until the offender is found guilty. Probation officers likely make discretionary decisions taking into account the fact that the courts generally do not recognize the pre-trial investigation of crime as an essential reason for probation revocation.

Probation officers are inclined to choose rigorous decisions (appeals to the court for probation revocation) in cases of technical probation violations that are related to risks to community safety.

Although all technical violations of probation conditions are the same from a legal point of view, in this study, probation officers assessed types of violations of probation conditions very differently. Officers tended to take rigorous discretionary decisions in cases such as breach of curfew, failing to inform the probation officer about change of residence without providing reasonable justification, and use of psychotropic substances. However, violations such as avoidance of community service or starting work were evaluated much more leniently. This suggests that such a different assessment is related to the perception of danger to the community. Violations of curfew and use of psychotropic substances may be perceived as creating a higher risk of criminal offence. It would be expedient to carry out additional (e.g. qualitative) research to identify and interpret situations of specific probation violations.

The survey further revealed that probation officers tended to respond more rigorously to violations of probation conditions that were related to the criminal offence for which the probationer was convicted. In this context, the results are similar to those of Steen and Opsal (2007). They found that probation officers take into account circumstances that indicate the likelihood of a return to the previous criminal lifestyle when making decisions. One such circumstance could be the link between the nature of the probation violation and the type of previous offence, such as a probationer who was convicted for drug possession is found to have traces of use during drug testing.

Probation officers tend to change their discretionary decisions, taking into account the level of risk of repeat offences

The results of this study revealed that the severity of probation officers’ discretionary decisions varies according to the level of risk of repeat offences. In situations of moderate risk for a repeat offence, probation officers were inclined to make more rigorous decisions (i.e. appeal to the court for a change in probation conditions or the revocation of probation) compared with low risk of a repeat offence.

Similarly, Ricks et al. (2016) found that probation officers tend to intensify supervision according to when the risk of a repeat offence increases. On the other hand, Bonta et al. (2008) showed that probation officers devote equal time to dealing with probationers with low and moderate risk of a repeat offence. Although the intensity of the probation officer’s work cannot be equated with discretionary decision-making, these variables could be related as they are directed to individual decisions taken by probation officers when working with clients. However, the results of these studies are not one-sided, nor can they be compared to the results of this study as different issues are analysed. Thus, it would be expedient to further research the peculiarities of the decisions made by probation officers and the specifics of their work, taking into account the level of risk of a repeat offence.

Probation officers who make stricter decisions when the risk of a repeat offence is low are also inclined to make more rigorous decisions when the risk is higher (moderate).

Although we failed to find studies that analyse this issue, some assumptions can be made that could help explain the results of this study. In principle, these results could be linked to various aspects, such as the uncertainty of the conditions for exercising discretionary powers, the probation officer’s approach and attitude towards convicted persons (Jones and Kerbs, 2007), and the risk of a repeat offence (Ricks et al., 2016). For this reason, to better understand why some probation officers tend to make tougher decisions when working with probationers, further research is needed.

Age is directly related to probation officers’ discretionary decisions strictness

In general, older probation officers were more inclined to make severe decisions compared with younger probation officers. Thus, it could be presumed that older probation officers are more responsive to probation violations than younger officers. We did not find empirical studies that analysed the relationship between the age of probation officers and their discretionary decisions. However, it might be assumed that differences in attitudes between probation officers of different generations are present. Although these or other similar assumptions are not analysed in this study, future studies should examine the reasoning behind probation officers’ decision-making, taking into account various circumstances. This would provide a clearer understanding of the correlation between probation officers’ discretionary decisions and their age.

Study limitations

One of the key limitations of the survey is methodology, as the questionnaire was compiled by the authors of this study and was used for the first time. This fact should be taken into account when evaluating the results obtained. It should also be noted that in vignettes (descriptions of hypothetical probation violations), several circumstances of probationer behaviour were presented. Such types of vignettes were chosen on the basis of real situations in practise, where the case of probation violation involves a number of circumstances that are important for decision-making.

On the other hand, when a number of facts are presented in the situation, it restricts researchers from identifying the factors that may be most/least important to probation officers when making discretionary decisions. For this reason, future studies should conduct qualitative or quantitative analyses after adjusting the vignettes of the discretionary decisions of probation officers. This would provide an opportunity to obtain more detailed information on the potential factors of probation officers’ discretionary decisions.

When evaluating the results of the study, it is also important to consider that probation officers assessed hypothetical situations. As noted by Maguire et al. (2015), the vignette instrument lacks ecological validity. This means that real situations could be treated differently, especially given that probation officers have much more in-depth information than in vignettes.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Simonas Nikartas

Notes

References

Anderson

Spohn

(2010) Lawlessness in the federal sentencing process? A test for uniformity and consistency in sentence outcomes. Justice Quarterly 27(3): 363–393.

Bonta

Rugge

Scott

, et al. (2008) Exploring the Black Box of Community Supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 47(3): 248–270.

Chiricos

Crawford

(1995) Race and imprisonment: a contextual assessment of the evidence. In: Hawkins

D. F.

(Eds.) Ethnicity, Race and Crime: Perspectives Across Time and Place. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Deveikytė

(2008) In van Kalmthout A M and Durnescu I Probation in Europe. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

Eurostat (2020) Crime and criminal justice statistics. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/crim_pris_cap/default/bar? https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/crime/data/database (accessed 21 September 2020).

Ishoy

Dabney

(2018) Policing and the focal concerns framework: exploring how its core components apply to the discretionary enforcement decisions of police officers. Deviant Behavior 39(7): 878–895.

Jones

Kerbs

(2007) Probation and parole officers and discretionary decision-making: responses to technical and criminal violations. Federal Probation 71(1): 9–15.

Kerbs

Jones

Jolley

(2009) Discretionary decision making by probation and parole officers – the role of extralegal variables as predictors of responses to technical violations. Criminal Justice 25(4): 424–444.

Kochel

Wilson

Mastrofski

(2011) Effects of suspect race on officers’ arrest decisions. Criminology 49(2): 473–512.

10.

Laurinavičius

Ustinavičiūtė

(2018) Breach of community punishment in Lithuania In: Boone

Maguire

(eds) The Enforcement of Offender Supervision in Europe. London: Routledge.

11.

Maguire

Beyens

Boone

, et al. (2015) Using vignette methodology to research the process of breach comparatively. European Journal of Probation 7(3): 241–259.

12.

McCleary

(1978) Dangerous Men: The Sociology of Parole. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

13.

Michalowski

Pearson

(1990) Punishment and social structure at the state level: a crosss-sectional comparison of 1970 and 1980. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 27(1): 52–78.

14.

Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (2009) Explanatory note to the draft Probation Law of the Republic of Lithuania No. 10538. Available at: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAK/TAPIS.15560?jfwid=-1dg81x9tfu (accessed 22 September 2020).

15.

Nikartas

(2018) More probation, fewer prisoners? Is the expectation of reducing the rate of imprisonment justified? Jurisprudencija 25(2): 380–401.

16.

Nikartas

(2020) Privatization of criminal justice in Eastern Europe. In: Bean

(ed) Criminal Justice and Privatisation: Key Issues and Debates. London: Routledge.

17.

Novak

Brown

Frank

(2011) Women on patrol: an analysis of differences in officer arrest behavior. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 34(4): 566–587.

18.

Persson

Svensson

(2011) Signs of resistance? Swedish probation officers’ attitudes towards risk assessments. European Journal of Probation 3(3): 95–107.

19.

Petersilia

Turner

(1990) Intensive Supervision for High Risk Offenders: Three California Experiments. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

20.

Prison Department under Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (2013–2019) Reports on the number of persons under the supervision of the Lithuanian Probation Service. Available at: http://kaldep.lt/lt/kalejimu-departamentas/administracine_informacija/ataskaitos/metu.html (accessed 17 April 2020).

21.

Ricks

Louden

Kennealy

(2016) Probation officer role emphases and use of risk assessment information before and after training. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 34: 337–351.

22.

Sakalauskas

(2014) What proclaims the increasing punitiveness in Lithuania? Kriminologijos studijos 2(2): 95–136.

23.

Schulenberg

(2015) Moving beyond arrest and reconceptualizing police discretion: an investigation into the factors affecting conversation, assistance, and criminal charges. Police Quarterly 18(3): 244–271.

24.

Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (2012) Probation law of the Republic of Lithuania. Available at: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.415894/asr (accessed 25 September 2020).

25.

Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (2015) Code of administrative misdemeanours of the Republic of Lithuania. Available at: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/b8d908c0215b11e58a4198cd62929b7a/asr (accessed 16 November 2020).

26.

Slabonik

Sims

(2002) Controlling discretion in bureaucratic agencies: a survey of adult probation officers. Corrections Compendium 27(9): 1–5, 22–23.

27.

Steen

Opsal

(2007) “Punishment on the installment plan”: individual-level predictors of parole revocation in four states. The Prison Journal 87(3): 344–366.

28.

Vigorita

(2001) Prior offense type and the probability of incarceration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 17(2): 167–193.

29.

Weidner

Frase

(2001) A county-level comparison of the propensity to sentence felons to prison. International Journal of Comparative Criminology 1(1): 1–22.

30.

Weidner

Frase

(2003) Legal and extralegal determinants of intercounty differences in prison use. Criminal Justice Policy Review 14(3): 377–400.