Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

to alert them to probationer needs and direct them in

formulating problem-solving strategies. For example,

studies have shown that probation officers, especially

veterans, have stereotypes of offenders (“burglar,”

“white-collar criminal,” “gang member”) that affect

their decisions about supervision. The type of coun-

seling services delivered by officers typically follows

a didactic, instructional model. Officers are reluctant

to render treatment services because of their educa-

tional backgrounds, which have not prepared them to

conduct actual psychotherapy sessions. However, offi-

cers are increasingly likely to use cognitive behavioral

therapy, which is an evidence-based technique for

changing offender behavior.

Officers are faced with two limitations in selecting

an appropriate treatment: The time they spend counsel-

ing or advising an offender is restricted because of large

caseloads, and the choice of referrals is dictated by sit-

uations or factors outside the officer’s control (e.g., eco-

nomic conditions that limit the number of job referrals;

a lack of government funds, which limits openings in

drug treatment programs). Therefore, officers must be

highly selective in choosing probationerswho need

treatment most and are most likely to benefit from inter-

ventions. Offenders who take the initiative in request-

ing services or are younger, have shorter criminal

records, and display a positive attitude are generally

considered the best candidates for counseling and

adjunctive resources.

Probation officers can recommend an offender for

early termination if the offender is no longer a signifi-

cant risk to the community, has exhibited exemplary

behaviors (taken the necessary steps toward becoming

a functional member of society), and has shown that the

continuation of the sentence might disrupt the

offender’s pursuit of a noncriminal lifestyle (early ter-

mination can be recommended on the basis of an

offender’s request to leave the state for gainful employ-

ment). In contrast, officers can ask the court to extend

periods of supervision beyond the expiration of the

original sentence. Final authority in this matter rests

with the court. However, because judges are so depen-

dent on the information furnished by probation officers,

they generally concur with the officer’s request.

The prospect of early termination is an incentive

for good behavior and demonstrates to probationers

that cooperation and compliance with rules are

rewarded. A key factor in the decision to recommend

early termination is the regularity of the offender’s

reporting. If a probationer has been reporting regu-

larly, it increases the likelihood that his or her case

will be reviewed for early termination. The best pro-

bationers are those who routinely report at their

scheduled times. If a cancellation is unavoidable, they

promptly call their officers to inform them about the

extenuating circumstances that prevented their atten-

dance. The probationers who are frequently tardy,

periodically skip appointments, and call with unten-

able excuses for failing to report are evaluated nega-

tively. In fact, when queried about the progress of a

case, officers are likely to respond on the basis of a

quick tally of the number of times the particular indi-

vidual has missed a report day.

The final discretionary task of a probation officer is

the decision to initiate revocation proceedings. In

most circumstances, if offenders have perpetrated a

crime during the probation term, their sentence is

automatically revoked. However, if the violation does

not involve a new offense or the breaking of a serious

rule, the officer can evaluate the offender’s criminal

history, attitude, report behavior, and employment sta-

tus before filing a violation of probation petition to the

court. A probationer who is seen as having potential

for healthy change is often “given a pass” for minor

transgressions. The officer carefully screens and

selects the violations that are eventually brought to the

court’s attention.

Following the filing of a revocation petition, the

officer must decide whether or not to recommend

revocation and a sentence to prison or a continuance

or extension of the probation sentence. This determi-

nation is based on the same set of factors as the one

used to decide whether to file a violation-of-probation

petition. On occasion, officers will suggest a short

stay in jail when the probationer seems to have

promise but needs to be “jolted” by serving some

“hard time.” The court does not always follow the pro-

bation officer’s recommendations. Nonetheless, as in

the case of early termination, the court usually abides

by the officer’s suggested course of action.

Arthur J. Lurigio

See alsoBail-Setting Decisions; Parole Decisions;

Presentence Evaluations; Risk Assessment Approaches;

Sentencing Decisions; Sentencing Diversion Programs

Further Readings

Abadinsky, H. (2005). Probation and parole: Theory and

practice(7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Champion, D. J. (1998). Probation, parole, and community

corrections(3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

624 ———Probation Decisions

P-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 624