Abstract
In the face of budgetary constraints, legislative discussions in Iowa have focused on fiscal savings through an increased probation/parole supervisor to officer ratio, resulting in a reduced number of supervisory staff. Ramifications of this change, given the concurrent implementation of evidence-based practices (EBP), are unknown, given the lack of existing research on rubric for span of control decisions within community corrections agencies. Interviews with stakeholders in both Iowa and a national convenience sample led to a development of factors that should be considered in the future, including an agency’s level of task complexity, the workforce skill level, and the work environment, such as the dynamic nature of assigned tasks. Participants perceived high span of control ratios in a typical community corrections environment would challenge the initial implementation of an effective EBP approach. Policy and practical implications are discussed.
Despite the fiscal constraints of the economic climate, community supervision agencies across the country are forging ahead in their efforts to improve public safety and offender accountability by implementing evidence-based policies and practices (EBP) within their organizations. Led by the efforts of the National Institute of Corrections, the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), and others, current probation and parole practices have evolved from their former ineffectual emphasis on deterrence strategies in offender supervision (McGuire, 2002) toward increasingly empirically supported offender supervision practices. Officers are progressively using supervision tactics such as motivational interviewing, advanced risk/needs offender assessments, and graduated sanctions (Andrews & Bonta, 2003; Bundy, 2004; Clark, Walters, Gingerich, & Meltzer, 2006; Hartzler & Espinosa, 2011; Madson, Loignon, & Lane, 2009; Miller & Rollnick, 1991; National Institute of Corrections, 2007). Moreover, agencies are focusing on improving the quantity and quality of service linkages with community agencies.
Concurrent with the growth in new and more effective practices is the rising need for budgetary cutbacks; yet there is a lack of research to guide decision makers in factors to consider when balancing human resource decisions, organizational growth in effective practices, and fiscal conservation. Recently, the Iowa Community Based Correctional System (the state’s probation and parole agency) was faced with responding to legislative discussions that focused on reduced funding for supervisory staff within their organization. The proposed reduction aimed to decrease the probation supervisor–probation officer span of control ratio from its current ratio of 7:1 to upward of 14:1, while maintaining their implementation of EBP. Based on the experience of this jurisdiction and other community correction experts, this study aimed to identify a series of factors deemed important for consideration in proposed modifications to span of control. To date, there is a shortage of both theoretical speculation and empirical research on the importance of span of control for community corrections in general and more specifically for agencies that have implemented an EBP approach or other significant organizational changes.
Some limited theoretical discussion of span of control exists within the policing literature as well as areas in the management literature; however, there has been no research to our knowledge that has focused on the span of control within the dynamic environment of community supervision agencies. This is an especially important area of knowledge that requires study, given the increased use of EBP in community corrections, as it has led administrators to question numerous organizational aspects of their agency including staffing patterns. This study begins to fill this significant void in the literature using a case study approach and in-depth interviews with stakeholders in the state of Iowa and a convenience sample of national stakeholders to gain insight into span of control determinants. Specifically, this article begins by presenting a brief review of the limited theoretical literature on the span of control concept that helped form the basis of the proposed determinants. These determinants should be considered in selecting an appropriate span of control ratio for community corrections agencies that are involved in significant organizational change or growth. This review is followed by a methodological description of the study and results from interviews with national and state of Iowa stakeholders. Results are framed by theoretical factors presented in the existing literature as they apply to community supervision agencies. Finally, we contextualize our findings by discussing the potential consequences associated with increasing the span of control ratio in EBP community supervision environments as a response to fiscal constraints.
Background
Defining Span of Control
The origin of the span of control terminology is attributed to British General Sir Ian Standish Monteith Hamilton (1853-1947) when he used it in reference to military application (Hamilton, 1921). Since that time, the term span of control has become a relatively common term used to describe the number of individuals, or resources, that a person can effectively supervise within a structured organizational, business, or military setting (Eastman & Eastman, 1971; Hanna & Gentel, 1971). Within a critical incident scenario, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has applied the span of control terminology more specifically to indicate the number of individuals that a supervisor can effectively manage in a crisis or emergency situation (Lane, 2006). Regardless of the setting, the underlying principle aims to maximize administrative efficiency (Souryal, 1977), while retaining effectiveness within the organization.
As the terminology has become accepted nomenclature, the ongoing challenge has been the identification of the appropriate span of control within various organizations. In 1937, Graiciunas attempted to identify the mathematical complexities associated with the span of control concept by representing it with a statistical formula. He argued that with an increasing number of subordinates, a geometric increase in the number of other relationships that need to be managed also occurs—it is not a direct one-to-one increase. Specifically, Graiciunas argued that not only do supervisors manage their direct subordinates but they also oversee the relationship among the individual subordinates. For example, when a supervisor has four subordinates, 11 relationships exist (one direct/single relationship, three cross relationships, and seven direct groups). Thus, with each additional subordinate added, an exponential number of new relationships that may require supervisor response also develops. Accordingly, span of control is a complex issue that must be carefully considered before any modifications are implemented so that a span of control ratio does not reach a level of complexity that is too difficult for a supervisor to control (Bianchi, 2010).
Existing Span of Control Ratios in U.S. Probation Jurisdictions
With the implementation of EBP, it has become essential that agencies work carefully to determine the necessary and appropriate staffing patterns, which includes identifying an appropriate span of control to efficiently fulfill their EBP mission with fidelity. Unfortunately, information-based policy or evidence-based knowledge related to appropriate levels of span of control is limited. To our knowledge, only two studies have considered staffing levels within community supervision agencies and none have linked these ratios to the tasks involved with supervisory roles. The most comprehensive assessment of span of control was completed by Cunniff and Shilton (1991) who ascertained the supervisor to probation officer ratio in 25 jurisdictions across the United States. The ratios were calculated in a straightforward manner dividing the total number of probation officers in the agency by the total number of supervisors in the agency. Unfortunately, this method overlooked variation in specialized versus general caseloads and other factors that could directly affect true span of control ratios; however, the results do provide a crude snapshot of span of control as it existed circa 1991 in a select number of agencies in the United States. As indicated in Table 1, the ratio ranged from a low of 5:1 in Dallas, Denver, and Nassau Counties and New York City to a high of 14:1 in Jefferson County (Kentucky). The average ratio across the 25 jurisdictions was 7:1.
Ratios of Probation Officers to Supervisors
Source: Adapted from Cunniff and Shilton (1991).
Although informative, this study occurred prior to the bulk of the EBP movement. Interestingly, an updated but informal data collection on the same topic by the APPA occurred in 2006 and demonstrated findings similar to the Cunniff and Shilton study.
Once again, an examination of the tabular data, as presented in Table 2, does not provide significant guidance, given the absence of significant discussion of supervisory roles and responsibilities. The challenges with making generalizations between jurisdictions are highlighted by Cushman and Sechrest (1992) who found a prevailing assumption existed when conducting interviews such that probation agencies, people on probation, and the agency programs were all assumed to be “pretty much the same.” Despite these overall assumptions, Cushman and Sechrest noted that their results indicated that “nothing could be further from the truth. There are truly important differences on all three of these dimensions” (p. 27). The question that remains for community supervisors, as it relates to span of control ratios, is the identification of appropriate variants both between and within jurisdictions that should be used in determining appropriate span of control ratios.
Ratio of Supervisor to Line Staff, as Reported to American Probation and Parole Association in January 2006
Theoretical Factors Directing the Determination of Appropriate Span of Control
Extant literature within the span of control area for police organizations as well as other industries has existed for decades; however, literature specifically addressing span of control within correctional organizations remains wanting. Consequently, this lack of evidence creates difficulty for developing or adapting information-based public policy. Decision makers must therefore rely on the theoretical conjecture regarding span of control in general to guide their policies. Across fields, the term span of control has been applied in a variety of ways depending on theoretical interpretation of the concept. It has been used to identify work group size, reporting structure, closeness of contact, employee support, and scope of a role (Meyer, 2008). In community corrections and policing organizations, span of control has traditionally referred to the organizational reporting structure between first-line officers and their immediate supervisors. Within these parameters, the theoretical literature suggests that, in terms of the reporting structure Graiciunas proposed, span of control should be limited to 4-5 individuals if the supervisor is to maintain control. While Graiciunas left the concept of “control” open to interpretation, Bianchi (2010) recently argued that, in addition to what is meant by control, a second concept underlie Graiciunas’s argument. Bianchi argued that the nature of the supervisory relationship is also important.
The nature of the supervisory relationship, in turn, could be defined in a variety of ways. Here, we argue that a concrete manner of viewing supervisory relationships are by assessing the responsibilities of supervisors as well as their subordinates. As a general guideline, Hattrup and Kleiner (1993, p. 2) suggested that “if workers are involved in work of a trivial or routine nature, the supervisor will tend to require less application of control than if they perform work of greater significance or complexity” (see also Meyer, 2008). Hattrup and Kleiner also suggested that a supervisor’s control could more effectively be implemented over a broader span of subordinates in a stable work environment as compared with one that is experiencing change or exists under dynamic conditions. Other theorists agreed that task complexity should influence span of control ratios. As Bianchi (2010, p. 22) noted in reference to complexity, “We are really speaking about the capability of a manager to face different levels of diversity and in studies on jobs, there is a negative relationship between the number of subordinates and the complexity of the job.”
In various other labor fields, when span of control is viewed as a reporting structure, the classical perspectives initially offered by Fayol on span of control point to a finite number of factors to consider in making a determination of appropriate ratios. Many of these same factors remain relevant in the contemporary workforce as noted by numerous authors, including process complexity, such as the nature of the task, the nature of instructions provided, the time involved, and the amount of authority delegated; workforce skill level, including the ability of the subordinates and the ability of the supervisor; and work environment, including the geographical area involved and the harmony of the subordinates (see Hanna & Gentel, 1971; Lane, 2006; McManus, 2007; Schroeder, Lombardo, & Strollo, 1995).
Using bounded rationality guided by prior theoretical discussions of span of control, this study aims to fill a knowledge gap in determining whether these same factors are applicable within community supervision agencies. Specifically focusing on correctional agencies that have applied EBP concepts within their organization, we aimed to test whether the theoretical concepts discussed in related areas of literature apply to community corrections and therefore should be considered by policy makers and administrators in determining an appropriate span of control in community supervision agencies. By engaging in multiple focus groups both within the state of Iowa and a national convenience sample of selected administrators and other staff members from community supervision agencies, this study used a conceptual framework based on existing literature in related fields to guide group discussion on staffing patterns and span of control issues in EBP environments.
Method
Participants
Participants were composed of 62 community supervision personnel ranging in rank between chief probation officers and probation/parole officers. Forty-six of the participants were employed within the state of Iowa, whereas the balance of the participants represented a range of other community supervision jurisdictions across the country.
Procedure
Data were collected through a series of focus groups with all available employees during a 4-day site visit to two judicial districts in Iowa. The focus groups were organized by position (e.g., first-line supervisors, probation officers, administrators, and upper-level management). Subsequently, a convenience sample of participants from multiple jurisdictions across the United States formed a second series of focus groups. Participants in this latter group were selected to participate if they (a) registered and planned to attend the 2010 APPA Winter conference and (b) were from jurisdictions that were known to be in the process of establishing, or already had established, EBP guidelines in their agencies. Focus group questions were aimed at gathering data on similarities and differences across jurisdictions that were related to the theoretical concepts of span of control defined as reporting structure. Reporting structure was operationalized through an examination of the duties of staff. Specifically, prompts were given during focus groups to discuss how the role and duties of supervisors has evolved with the implementation of EBP and the extent and type of interactions that typically occurs between supervisors and their staff.
Results
Based on data gathered through focus groups with 62 community corrections supervisors and line staff, this study found that many of the factors that have been suggested to be theoretically linked to effective span of control decisions in other labor fields were applicable within community supervision environments as well. This section of the article will describe the typical role and responsibilities of supervisors within EBP community supervision environments and contrast that role and associated responsibilities with the theoretical concepts that were noted earlier as key components in span of control decision-making processes.
The Role of the Probation Supervisor Within an EBP Environment
Although jurisdictions varied on EBP implemented in their organization and their stage of change toward an active EBP organization, it was evident that the role of staffing within correctional supervision organizations was perceived to be critical aside from EBP, given the state of fiscal conservation across the country. Participants noted that the roles of both probation officers and their supervisors have significantly evolved with the implementation of EBP, with a general sense that supervisors’ duties had significantly increased. Duties of front-line probation officers were also perceived as having increased in responsibilities. Probation officers were now required to be more engaged with clients, necessitating a higher level of direct interaction to implement supervision techniques. Some of the techniques noted include relationship building, motivational interviewing, and adhering to risk, needs, and responsivity principles of treatment. Consistently, participants viewed this shift in the role of probation officers aligned with added oversight by the probation officer supervisory staff to ensure fidelity of these new practices. Thus, the role of supervisors was critical as it pertained to training and guiding their unit staff on a daily basis.
One director adamantly claimed that the success of the jurisdiction’s probation department was dependent on their first-line supervisors. In efforts to reorganize probation in this particular urban county, the director invested large amounts of resources toward leadership development of their mid-managers (first-line supervisors). These supervisors were responsible for not only traditional supervision responsibilities of the probation officers within their “team” but also the different committees that focused on performance evaluation processes, probation officer training, offender assessment processes, and so on. The first-line supervisors chaired different agency committees, formed committee membership, and were responsible for some implementation activities.
Within these EBP organizations, it was also determined that supervisors were actively involved in leadership activities including strategic planning, data evaluation, making decisions from a “big picture” perspective as well as enhanced supervision activities to include coaching and staffing cases with their probation officers (i.e., case discussion and decision making through a team process). Strong, developed leadership was perceived by participants to provide much of the critical infrastructure from which EBP can become a part of the organization. A number of participants commented that training, organizational processes, and decision making using data (evidence-based decision making) should be the more critical focus of staffing in EBP organizations, as compared with a specific number of supervisory ratios.
As one participant noted, organizations in the public, private, and not-for-profit sectors are becoming more and more concerned with producing quality outcomes, whether to enhance competitiveness and profit, to reduce error and harm, or to accomplish good and added value for consumers of their “product.” To do this, a great deal of attention must be paid to the role of front-line supervisors. Prior literature noted earlier in this study supported participant comments that supervisors “play a pivotal role in any organization’s attempt to improve efficiency and effectiveness” through the application of evidence-based knowledge to the process of work.
According to multiple participants, to be successful in their role, supervisors must master a set of skills that even 10 years ago were not considered a part of their competences. These skills include, among others, transformational leadership, strategic thinking, change management, communication, collaboration, coaching and mentoring, motivating staff, and relationship building. Each of these skills takes time to master and to apply. As one participant noted, “Supervision is no longer just telling people what to do and then monitoring whether they do it; it has become the art and science of human and behavioral encouragement, support, and feedback.”
Application of Theoretical Span of Control Factors to an EBP Probation and Parole Environment
Although data gathered from focus group interviews determined that the nature of the supervisory positions has evolved to include new approaches and a deeper level of supervisor interaction with their unit, the very nature of the probation and parole environment itself was perceived by focus group participants to be extremely complex and dynamic. To facilitate presentation of findings, this study next applies the specific theoretical concepts discussed earlier in this article to the data collected herein. In review of extensive notes taken by the researchers, four themes stemming from the theoretical literature on span of control also appeared to dominate discussion by focus group participants: time investment, task complexity, workforce skill level, and contributing work environment. 1
Time investment
The topic that was most passionately discussed by focus groups (both supervisory and nonsupervisory rank) was the perception that supervisors had an insufficient amount of time to get the “job done right” despite their efforts and/or desires. This fact was recognized as increasingly apparent as their organizations have implemented various new methods, policies, and practices associated with EBP ideals. In fact, the most common phase used by supervisors to describe their daily routine was that they were always busy “putting out fires.” Moreover, it was apparent that participants perceived significant collaboration to exist between line staff and others outside of the supervisor’s direct span of control, as it would be theoretically defined by Graiciunas and others. Supervisory and nonsupervisory staff indicated examples of required collaborations that included meetings with community partners and stakeholders, both internal and external to the organization. These required collaborations were perceived to consume a significant amount of time. Consequently, participants suggested the extent of collaborations are especially relevant and should be considered as a primary factor in determining an appropriate span of control or reporting structure.
Internally, more recent expectations of front-line probation and parole officers are that they develop much more in-depth relationships with clients/offenders as compared with the past, which requires more training and more supervisor interaction in discussing case management options. As a result, the role of the supervisor is becoming increasingly time-consuming and complex. Administratively, EBP models that were currently being implemented at the participant’s various agencies placed a tremendous focus and need on data entry and analysis. Agencies viewed data entry and analysis as a critical component for effective assessment of front-line probation and parole officers. Data and related performance assessments used by the agencies took many forms including quality assurance and direct observation of officer–client interactions. Specifically, the recent EBP model of supervision placed an emphasis on strong report writing directly related to effective offender case management as well as on individual probation officer case reviews. Iowa supervisors, for example, were responsible for completing monthly reports on data/performance measurements. Each of these assessment tasks were perceived to require significant time investment.
The manner in which the theoretical concepts of time investments as, pertinent for span of control, applied to community corrections environments can be illustrated by a final example—the individual perspectives of the supervisor roles as portrayed by themselves. Data from this subset of participants indicated that supervisors consistently cited their desire to provide more individual attention to their line staff team members, especially on coaching and mentoring. Unfortunately, supervisors expressed they were consumed with tasks that were primarily administrative in nature. As a result of limited individualized contact, some supervisors felt relatively unable to hold their staff accountable for quality EBP and follow through with some of the practices and principals that they themselves should be practicing. Moreover, they felt that they did not have enough time to handle critical human resource issues with their staff, such as grievances and investigations, and that the nature of the organizational shift work and extended hours increased supervisors’ sense of responsibility, leaving them feeling as if they were always on duty. Thus, data demonstrated that stakeholders viewed the current role of community corrections supervisors within EBP environments as requiring significant time investments with the staff they supervise. This finding suggests that time investment is an appropriate theoretical factor to consider in span of control decisions, and specifically among the participants in this study who were involved in the implementation stage of EBP, a relatively low span of control was a perceived need.
Task Complexity
When questioned about the supervisor responsibilities, participants cited examples of how supervisors in community corrections agencies have experienced a shift in their responsibilities with the ongoing changes in their agencies primarily due to implementation of EBP ideals. Participants specifically noted that the position now has added significant roles, tasks, and expectations to the supervisor workload, significantly increasing the complexity of tasks required. As noted earlier, front-line staff are expected to develop a much more in-depth relationship with clients/offenders, which requires more training and more supervisor interaction with the officers discussing case-management options. Beyond this aspect, audits and staff evaluations were two other specific functions that were highlighted as new complexities to the supervisor position. As a result of EBP implementation at the organizational level, the usage of personnel evaluations were significantly expanded. Several supervisors noted that the evaluations increased the need for providing ongoing feedback about the evaluation process and results as well as the need for coaching and mentoring in the areas of the officer’s weakness. Due to the increased frequency of evaluation and required feedback cycle, supervisors felt a heightened level of “responsivity” to their staff than prior to EBP implementation. Furthermore, participants perceived that even simple tasks (i.e., basic supervisor–staff interactions) have increased in complexity because supervisors must model EBP, including motivation interviewing (MI), in all interactions with their staff. These factors were perceived to have added to the task complexity of the supervisors with their direct supervision staff members.
Some participants expressed that their jurisdictions were implementing a greater number of new programs with the onset of EBP, creating a higher workload for supervisors and staff and a higher need for coaching and mentoring as these programs come on line. Furthermore, the Iowa focus group participants pointed out that their supervisors are responsible for supervising both probation and parole officers. Such an organizational structure adds an additional level of complexity, given that probation and parole have different rules, laws, and processes governing each offender and potentially a different focus from a case-management perspective. One participant, for example, indicated that with an active focus on least restrictive sanctions, especially within probation, each unit deals with a different level of offender, which is very different from past years, thereby involving a higher level of knowledge and skills and much more training for both officers and supervisors.
Atypical supervisor positions such as managing probation and parole or even extending to specialized caseloads have some similarities, but varying supervisor responsibilities should be recognized across organizations. Varying responsibilities will likely depend on the unit structures, number of offenders under supervision, specialized units (e.g., sex offender units), specialized programs (e.g., drug court involved), and other factors. Some participants expressed that their supervisors have difficulty to keep up with the activities with which the officers are engaged because their units were so broad. This varying range of activities carries with it an expectation that the supervisors must be proficient experts in many different areas, making their job significantly complex. The varying caseload types and associated complexity of supervision roles is a point to consider in an organization that is inherently a learning organization. Thus, as a probation officer’s role grows in complexity (knowledge and skills), there is a direct correlation to the capability of the supervisor and their competence in providing the appropriate and necessary level of guidance, direction, and oversight. Participants clearly demonstrated that the theoretical concept of task complexity applied in consideration of factors for span of control. Participants viewed the role and responsibility of supervisors to be increasingly complex with the implementation of EBP and, consequently, any shift in span of control ratios should consider the complexities of specific staff members prior to that change.
Workforce Skill Level and Capabilities of Staff
As evident from the description of the staff roles earlier in the results discussed herein and the time intensive, complex issues for which supervisors are responsible, the work environment within probation and parole appeared to be dynamic as well. Distinct from a work environment in which an employee knows what to expect each day, supervisors stated that much of their day-to-day focus is driven by crisis management and suggested that “no day is ever the same.” The complexity of the process, or more specifically the complexity of the “task” assigned to probation and parole officers and their supervisors, is perceived to have increased with the implementation of EBP approaches. At the same time as task complexity increased, it was perceived that the resulting workload was also dependent on the skill of the officers that were under their supervision. Officers agreed that as they gained the initial skills required, especially in a new area of supervision or tasks, their involvement with their supervisor declined over time. This finding suggests that perhaps as stability in a probation or parole department increased, including agencies that were oriented as learning organizations, the demands on the supervisors decreased. It remained true, however, that with the improved quality-control mechanisms in place with EBP at the organizational level, despite high skill levels of officers, the critical nature of ongoing feedback was still recognized as important. The support system integrity, to this end, is directly related to the span of control or span of support as alluded to in an earlier section.
Organizational transition was noted as difficult in the most supportive environment, even with highly skilled staff willing to implement change. The dynamics of entering into an EBP model within probation and parole may mean that a complete shift in a staff member’s approach to their job must be employed. Participants noted that during earlier decades, the consensus of staff attitudes tended toward “trail ‘em, nail ‘em, and jail ‘em,” in which client supervision and monitoring were emphasized in their work environment. Many current staff members were hired with this perspective in mind, which may have instilled these values in them or aligned with their own personal values. With a paradigmatic shift in thinking and behavioral expectations toward EBP, probation and parole supervision has become much more than mere “supervision” of offenders. As a result, focus group participants who were in managerial roles emphasized that the role of a supervisor begins with a responsibility in working with staff to develop and insure staff buy-in with EBP ideals. Subgroups of staff exist in which some members refuse to align with an ideological shift in primary position functions, whereas other staff embrace new approaches. Within those staff who buy in to EBP, there is a significant range of officer ability to effectively perform within an EBP environment, resulting in some staff who are now ill suited for their positions. The varying perspectives on the role of probation/parole officers with clients that is possessed by staff, which may not be aligned with current EBP ideals, results in discord in the workplace and thus added challenges for supervisors. Given that many supervisors are still dealing with EBP buy-in and capability issues, the need for retaining a relatively low span of control ratios is underscored during implementation phases of organizational change.
In addition to buy-in, the implications for staff capabilities with the shift toward EBP are numerous. Participants noted that a key change in job functioning of probation/parole offices in an EBP environment is an expansion in the required versatility of an officer to an unprecedented level. Officers must now have both the knowledge and skill set to serve in multiple capacities, including a law enforcement officer, a social worker, and an educator. They must possess critical in-depth knowledge of mental health and substance abuse treatment issues as well as understand and be able to address workforce development issues and housing needs of their clients. In turn, a supervisor’s role is additionally affected by these staffing complexities both in their own skills and their supervisory responsibilities. Within their own skill set, the supervisor must possess an even higher level of competency in all the areas noted above than their officers. One of the fundamental responsibilities as a supervisor is to guide and mentor staff. To supervise effectively, a supervisor must possess the knowledge and skills that they want their officers to demonstrate.
Certainly, the new expectations of officers are supported by some level of training. Focus group participants noted that the amount of training has substantially increased for both the supervisor and the probation officer. Moreover, the expectation that the supervisor will be actively involved in training, coaching, and mentoring their staff is significant. Some supervisors emphasized that new probation officers only received a week of formal training and that most training occurred on the job and as such much of the training responsibility rested on supervisors. It is critical to recognize that as organizational changes in practice occur, much of the critical components in developing a skilled workforce is affected by supervisory capabilities. It follows that supervisors themselves have to continually go through training to develop their EBP knowledge and skills, so that they can be effective in modeling, teaching, and leading their staff.
Workforce development is not a static process. Unfortunately, as administrators are all too well aware, turnover can and does happen. This added dynamic influence on the existing function of the supervisory positions should not be undervalued or underestimated. As change does occur, supervisors also need to have time to effectively learn their probation officer personalities, strengths, and weaknesses. It was in this regard that some supervisors noted the importance of being able to “walk the halls” and “work the desk.”
Supervisors highlighted that they spend a significant amount of time with staff mentoring, building relationships, and reviewing reports to assist with case management (lots of report reviews) to promote consistency among staff and efficacy of EBP, yet more time is still needed. As a probation officer’s role grows in complexity (knowledge and skills), there is a direct correlation to the capability of the supervisor and their competence in providing the appropriate and necessary level of guidance, direction, and oversight. At the same time, as indicated earlier, both supervisors and staff do not perceive the time spent in this component of the job as insufficient, given existing span of control across agencies.
Work Environment—The Dynamic Role of Probation Officers and Supervisors
Existing organizational literature points to the nature of the work as a prime factor to consider when assessing appropriate span of control, specifically, the dynamic versus static nature of the job that is being performed as well as the job that is being supervised. Supervisors within work environments that are relatively static, such as factory or assembly line production, are typically able to handle a broader span of control with fidelity, whereas supervisors within dynamic work environments should have a lesser span of control due to the lack of consistency in daily activities and unanticipated events that may occur. Some examples in the existing literature of such dynamic environments include medicine (i.e., head nurse to nurses), military settings (i.e., rule of three), and policing.
The full dynamics in a probation and parole environment has not been explored in this manner to date. Based on interviews with staff, it became evident very quickly that probation and parole departments are a very dynamic environment. Specifically, many supervisors described their district as a “very dynamic organization that is seemingly in constant change.” As a result, the role of supervisors especially in an EBP environment is also a very dynamic position as is the organization which should perhaps be viewed as a “learning organization” in which dynamism is the norm. In addition to an increase in the breadth of responsibility, supervisors are also required to have a significantly greater depth of involvement as discussed in the previous section.
As noted in the primary functions of a supervisor discussed above, a number of responsibilities have remained consistent from earlier decades when EBP was not in place. Consistent with earlier eras, administrative tasks such as maintaining current knowledge on changes occurring in laws and policies is important. Certainly, with the growth of EBP, knowledge of empirically supported practices has become critical. Although administrative responsibilities have not subsided, supervisors have experienced notable increases in administrative tasks more directly related to EBP. The majority of the time consumed with administrative tasks was perceived to be related to activities that focused on ensuring that quality EBP is in place and improving line staff skills sets as it relates to the officer-level responsibilities through the provision of feedback. Specifically, EBP places an emphasis on quality report writing directly related to effective offender case management as well as a strong focus on individual probation officer case reviews. Despite the time consumed by quality assurance–related tasks, supervisors agreed that quality assurance auditing was a critical function.
Another aspect of the supervisory role that cannot be underestimated is the dynamic aspect of the day-to-day roles of supervisors. The message was consistently expressed by supervisors who highlighted “no day is the same” and that they were constantly “putting out fires.” Staff discussed that they felt they were dealing with moving targets with respect to case staffing issues, working with officers on intermediate sanctions, and emergencies, while simultaneously assisting with case plan reviews, auditing files (checklist audit), and in-depth audits—a comprehensive review to insure that the officer is targeting the right needs of their clients, making appropriate referrals, using motivational interviewing techniques, and so forth. What became very evident throughout these discussions was that supervisors, due to their existing workload, spend much of their day in a reactive mode. Although supervisors are relatively successful in this role, it does not allow for a significant level of proactive activities associated with effective implementation and sustainment of an EBP model.
Discussion
Based on discussions with a wide range of community supervision stakeholders that ranged from upper-level administrators through line staff, focus group interviews were used to examine the relevancy of applying theoretical concepts discussed in the span of control literature to a community supervision environment. These concepts were examined through the discussion of current roles and responsibilities of officers and supervisors in community corrections agencies that implement an EBP organizational approach. Consistently across the focus groups conducted, regardless of geographical origin of the participant or their rank within their agency, responses indicated that many of the factors presented as relevant in other labor fields when deciding on extensiveness of spans of control are also applicable in community corrections. Specifically, participants emphasized the importance of considering the high level of time commitment and dynamic, complex tasks that are relegated to supervisory staff within an EBP environment. The ever changing nature of challenges that are presented in community corrections environments underscored the need for highly trained, highly skilled, adaptable staff at this level.
Participants noted that significant evolution of the supervisory role has occurred since the onset of EBP implementation and staffing patterns must account for these changes as well as the added duties, which are most prominent during the implementation phase of a paradigm shift. It was evident that the majority of stakeholders interviewed, including those lower in rank than supervisory staff, perceived that an increase in the span of control beyond current levels (in both Iowa and the other jurisdictions represented) would likely initially result in lower fidelity of EBP principles and poorer quality/limited supervision. This lack of fidelity would be due to the newness of the concepts to staff which requires significant supervisor–officer interaction, ongoing training, feedback as well as quality assurance to master these skills.
When considering the above discussion of the increased complexity of the supervisor position and seemingly negative connation associated with the increased workload, we would be remiss to neglect to share the overall perceptions of EBP held by focus group participants. An important perspective of many participants including line officers was that “EBP has made us more professional.” The majority of participants felt that an EBP model of supervision was in line with what the focus of their efforts should be, and many of the staff were able to convey anecdotal evidence of its effectiveness with clients or coworkers. In addition to client and workplace benefits, some staff noted that EBP has caused supervisors to become much more active within the community as indicated by comments such as “EBP has drawn us out of the office” and “we have become much more collaborative and connected to neighborhoods.” Also, because an EBP model expects staff to develop a much more in-depth relationship with clients/offenders, which requires more training and more supervisor interaction with officers including discussing case-management options, staff perceived supervisory relationships and the organization as a whole to be less “top down.” Moreover, the EBP approach causes staff to think and employ the knowledge in discretionary decisions and engage in a more balanced approach between enforcement and treatment.
Although appreciative of the many positive aspects of EBP, it is equally important to convey that supervisors especially felt that with all the organizational change and added job functions beyond primary job functions associated with EBP, they were maximized in their job responsibilities. Overwhelmingly, supervisors felt that at current span of control ratios (varying across jurisdiction), they already have workload issues with current responsibilities and workload driven by administrative and human resource issues (e.g., employee disciplinary, grievances, investigations). They voiced a passionate belief that a larger span of control would absolutely have negative ramifications because of less supervisory support, oversight, and accountability. At the same time, however, it would be anticipated that after allowing for some organizational growth followed by stability, the demands in terms of training of staff should decrease and officer capabilities/skill sets should increase.
Lack of Existing Policy Guiding Staffing in EBP Environments
Whereas some probation and parole organizations do have specific recommended policy related to the span of control, in other jurisdictions such a policy is absent or is meant only as a guideline. One example of such a policy in the state of Texas suggests that “a full-time supervisor should not supervise more than 10 community supervision officers” (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/cjad/PAC_Guidelines_2003.pdf). The intent of the limit is to ensure effective management ensues; however, it does allow some flexibility based on the experience of the field officer and other duties of the supervisor. To reiterate from an earlier point made by Cunniff and Shilton (1991), however, policy from one jurisdiction is not necessarily a good model for application to another jurisdictions, given the potential for between-agency variation. Evidence that documents the roles and responsibility of the supervising officers as well as the supervisory structure that may explain some of the variation in span of control ratios is absent in contextualizing these numbers. As Cushman and Sechrest (1992) explained that if the variation between agencies is not fully understood, replication of policy despite a lack of contextual knowledge is problematic, especially if solely viewed from a budgetary standpoint.
When considering jurisdictions that are engaged in EBP and are composed of specialized units, some generalities might apply. As noted by a chief probation officer of an urban jurisdiction who stated in reference to determining an appropriate span of control in an EBP environment,
Ultimately, how many probationers would your supervisor be responsible for—with medium and high caseloads, it should have a workable supervisory ratio. I would be very concern[ed] for any specialized caseloads especially sex offenders, serious mentally ill, domestic violence, or problem solving courts with a 1:16 ratio.
Conclusions
When an adequate number of supervision staff is lacking, the danger is that programs and practices that are initially well implemented may erode in quality over time. As one director we spoke with stated, “. . . EBP takes active supervision and some accountability or it slips.” McManus (2007) also discussed a number of other global issues that may result when span of control is inadequate including skill erosion, customer confidence erosion, and morale erosion or bad morale if employees are not supported with effective and adequate levels of supervision. Moreover, probation organizations are in a unique position in that individual officers may also be subject to civil liability suits against them as well as their organizations. One expert we communicated with, for example, conveyed that they were aware of two cases “. . . where the probation officer was sued for being negligent. In both cases, the attorneys hired an expert witness . . . and they wanted to know whether they knew or should have known what the evidence says they should have done.” This concern was reiterated by a chief probation officer who commented in reference to determining appropriate span of control that “perhaps another way of looking at this is liability that your jurisdiction may incur—failure to train, direct, supervise, entrust, discipline, and assignment to name but a few.”
If agencies expect to achieve significant modifications of criminal behavior and to reduce recidivism, they must ensure an adequate span of control exists between supervisors and the officers in their units. Agencies must be confident that their supervisors are able to devote the majority of their work day to collaborating with their staff in the actual conduct of their daily business in line with the organization’s desired goals, whether its quality EBP or otherwise. Participants emphasized that supervisors must be able to tutor their staff in the skills of case planning, building meaningful relationships with the offender, engaging offenders in accomplishing treatment plans, using rewards and sanctions, and reducing risk by addressing criminogenic needs. Working with human beings, especially offenders, to change their behavior is always a time-consuming process. Supervisors who cannot model such techniques with their staff because they are “stretched too thin” cannot in turn expect their officers to model such behavior with their correctional clients. Through this study, we have confirmed the concordant application of factors suggested to be important for consideration in span of control decision making between other labor fields and community corrections environments.
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
Support for this research was provided in part from the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.