Failing to Maintain Contact With Probation: Discovering the Reasons Why

Monitoring Probation Conditions

The number of conditions individuals must follow on supervision varies based on probation jurisdictions. However, in many sites in the United States, the number of legal obligations individuals are ordered to complete during their supervision terms is high (Corbett Ronald, 2015) unlike in Europe which often limits the number of conditions (McNeill et al., 2025). Setting too many conditions could set people up to fail supervision for a couple of reasons. First, individuals on probation often have high needs and limited resources. Requiring many conditions and requiring them to be done all at once may overwhelm individuals. Second, some conditions, such as “avoiding disreputable places or characters” or “avoiding places that serve alcohol,” may be too broad to enforce.

POs can seek a sanction or revoke the probation sentence if there is a violation. The consequence for a violation often depends on the severity of the violation (Jones & Kerbs, 2007; Ruhland & Scheibler, 2021). Violating one’s conditions does not mean the individual will automatically be revoked (although they could). They may receive an alternative to incarceration, such as community service or increased reporting to their PO. The response to a violation depends on the sanctions or services available in the community (Ruhland & Scheibler, 2021). Without resources, POs have fewer options to provide community-based alternatives to incarceration. The response to violations may also be influenced by the orientation of the PO (whether they are more law enforcer or social worker-minded) and what the PO deem as appropriate responses based on their orientation.

Condition to Maintain Contact

One of the benefits of probation is that individuals can serve a sentence in the community and the public is still protected (Canton, 2009). However, keeping tabs of individuals under community supervision is critical for public safety. Thus, maintaining contact and notifying their PO of any changes is a standard condition under probation. While a common condition, missed contacts are also a regular violation for people under supervision. A study of moderate and high-risk individuals on probation found that most of the individuals had at least one miss contact with probation while on supervision (Zettler & Medina, 2019). Failing to maintain contact or also known as absconding can present safety risks. A person may have lost contact with their PO because they are engaging in risky or unhealthy behavior, such as drugs or excessive alcohol use. This could be a safety risk to the individual and to the community. Individuals who fail to maintain contact could also be engaging in criminal activity, which is also a public safety concern. Understanding why people abscond could help reduce arrests and revocations. Having a miss contact with one’s PO was found to increase the odds of rearrest while on probation (Zettler & Medina, 2019). Having a missed contact with probation also increased the odds of receiving a jail sanction (Zettler & Martin, 2020).

However, not all failures to maintain contact may be safety threats. It is plausible that individuals forget to update their place of residence and contact information or do not fully understand the requirements of their probation conditions. So, what might look like absconding may instead be a lack of understanding of their supervision conditions. Nevertheless, even if there is a misunderstanding of the conditions, it could still put one’s freedom at risk because not having contact with probation is a violation. Thus, it could result in a revocation. Further, missing contact with one’s PO could be an early warning sign that the individual may not successfully complete the supervision terms (Zettler & Martin, 2020; Zettler & Medina, 2019). For these reasons, concerns over public safety, and because individuals could face incarceration for not keeping in contact with their PO, learning more about why individuals on probation did not maintain contact with their PO is an important area that requires further study. Quantitative research highlights the prevalence or odds of absconding (Lowder et al., 2022; Zettler & Medina, 2019), but there is limited research on why people absconding directly from those who abscond.

Absconding

A study on non-compliance found that failures to appear were common and repetitive failure to appears was a predictor of probation revocations (Lowder et al., 2022). Further the motivation for this current qualitative study emerged from a quantitative study (hereinafter referred to as “Phase One study”) that was implemented as part of a national initiative of Arnold Ventures and the CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance (Mitchell, Hanrath, & Harbinson, 2021) that focused on exploring the causes of probation revocations and identifying ways to reduce them. In Phase One, researchers followed 3,0005 individuals on probation over a two period and found that 40% of these individuals had one or more probation violation. Specifically, the Phase One study found in the county of study for this site, that failure to maintain contact with the PO—which is often referred to as absconding in other jurisdictions—was the second most predominant reason for a revocation after a violation for a new criminal offense (41% of revocations). The research in Phase One found that failure to appear violations accounted for 29% of probation violations and 23% of revocations. Failure to maintain contact was more common for felony convictions, accounting for just over a third (36%) of violations by those on felony probation compared to just under a quarter (24%) of violations by those on misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor probation. Thus, these findings led to the impetus for this current study because to reduce the occurrence of this violation it is critical to understand why individual’s stop reporting to their PO and how this information can be used to prevent future violations of this nature.

There is limited research to fully understand why individuals on probation fail to maintain contact or abscond. Some may do so because they are engaging in criminal activity. But, as other researchers have suggested, it is likely not the most serious criminal activity given that the individuals often have not met the criminal legal system while on the run (Mayzer et al., 2004). Others point to absconding due to the individual engaging in activities that may not be criminal but could violate their conditions. These could include engaging in substance use that would result in a positive urine analysis (UA) or avoiding probation because they cannot pay the monetary sanctions (Gu et al., 2023). One study found that violations for drugs and curfew were related to increases in absconding (Powers et al., 2018). A different study that used a sample of individuals on probation to analyze who was more likely to abscond found that individuals who were males, non-white, and non-married were more likely to abscond. This study also found that individuals who had absconded had a high number of violations for failed UAs, failure to pay fines and restitution, and failure to complete drug and alcohol treatment and community service (Mayzer et al., 2004).

Substance Use and Probation

Substance use may explain why people abscond or do not report to their PO. This could be because individuals are concerned with having an unclean UA and a subsequent violation. However, it could also be that substance use takes priority and leads to individuals neglecting other responsibilities, such as probation. A qualitative study conducted by Phelps and Seligman (2024) noted that many of the research participants wrestled with substance use. One interviewee, in this study, who had a failure to maintain contact violation reported that they were using drugs and simply forgot to call their PO. For some individuals, the drug test and the fear of the results may be a reason why individuals abscond. For others, however, regular drug testing may be the motivator for sobriety, and probation may even be a way for them to access treatment or other supportive services to help them maintain their sobriety. It may serve as a vehicle for individuals to “get and stay sober” (Piehowski & Phelps, 2022, p. 499). Probation habitually balances a delicate dance with being a lifeline for accessing treatment and other resources, yet at the same time, POs are offering these services through coercive care (Phelps & Ruhland, 2021; Piehowski & Phelps, 2022). Even if an officer is sympathetic to the struggles of addiction, there is always the threat of revocation (Piehowski & Phelps, 2022). Thus, this threat may create too much pressure and lead some to abscond even when their PO shows concern and care.

PO and Client Relationship

There is extensive literature on PO orientation and how this interacts with the success of individuals on probation. Prior debates questioned whether officers should be more law-enforcement than social work-oriented (Clear & Latessa, 1993; Whetzel et al., 2011). A law-enforcement orientation is primarily concerned with enforcing conditions and providing surveillance. A social work orientation weighs treatment and rehabilitation over punitive enforcement (Klockars, 1972). For brevity, these are simplistic dichotomies of the two roles. Where research has primarily settled is that officers should embody both roles, known as synthetic officers (Klockars, 1972; Miller, 2013). Further, POs and programs within probation should be “fair, firm, and caring” (Kennealy et al., 2012; Skeem & Manchak, 2008), which can be measured by constructs that illustrate relationship quality. One study of individuals on probation who had mental illnesses used scales from the Dual-Role Relationship Inventory. Scales include “Caring and Fairness,” “Trust,” and “Toughness” (Kennealy et al., 2012). Relationship quality, including trust in one’s PO, may be important to client success. However, the quality of the relationship and whether one trusts their PO can vary by demographic characteristics. A study found that older individuals on probation and those who reported more alcohol use and greater family/peer alcohol use were less likely to see their PO as trustworthy and more likely to see their officer as harsh (Sloas et al., 2020). It could be that individuals on probation who have experienced more challenges are less likely to view their officer as caring. Further, the balance between care and the coercive nature of probation may cause some individuals to flee when challenges arise because the threat of revocation outweighs any care the officer may have. In some instances, even if the officer may care, they may have limited options to address violations given the limited alternatives to incarceration (Ruhland & Scheibler, 2021).

Participants

This study occurred in one urban county in a Midwest state. We used purposive sampling because wanted to use a pre-specified set of criteria (Rubin, 2021) of individuals who had a violation for failure to maintain contact. To generate our sample, the county identified a sample of 533 individuals with a probation violation, including an allegation of failure to maintain contact filed with the court between October 1, 2019, and September 1, 2022. The individuals may also have had other allegations of technical violations of probation, but people who had allegations of new criminal behavior were excluded. Individuals with a new crime allegation were omitted because the court case may not have been resolved at the time of the interview. Given the time frame of the violation, we wanted to interview individuals who were actively on probation or recently discharged. However, we also wanted to interview people whose violation was far enough in the past that the court would have already handled it, so we would not put anyone in the position of talking about an active case. All interviews occurred in 2022 through 2023.

The partnering probation department successfully recruited people to participate in focus groups for a previous study by texting invitations, so we also used that strategy to recruit people for these interviews. The collaborating department wanted to ensure that its POs were not involved in the recruiting process, so the authors of this study texted the potential participants. The study criterion was that individuals had to be 18 years or older, had a violation for failure to appear between 2019 and 2022, had a cell phone number that could receive texts, and spoke English (as we did not have interpreters).

Participants

Of the 533 people in the sample, we were able to attempt contact with 504 individuals. Of those, 30 people expressed interest in being interviewed, however, ultimately only 20 participants followed through and participated in the interviews. The remaining 474 individuals did not return our text messages or were the wrong numbers. The text message did not identify the individuals as being on probation in case it was the wrong number. The text message was a vague messaging that introduced who we were, stated we were conducting interviews, and they could contact us if they were interested. This study was approved by the [name of the IRB].

As shown in Table 1, the individuals who completed the interviews were primarily male, white, and over 40. Most in our sample had earned a high school diploma or GED or had completed some college classes. Most were employed full-time at the interview, though the sample seemed to be split between people with modest incomes—many less than $10,000 per year—and people with more sustainable incomes of $40,000 or more. Many individuals were on probation for driving while intoxicated (DWI) offenses. This group’s most common probation terms were one, two, and five years. The majority of those interviewed had been on probation multiple times. Six people indicated they had been on probation so many times that they had lost count or were unsure of the number.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Sample Demographics (n).

Descriptive statistics	Frequencies
Gender
Male	14
Female	6
Race
American Indian	2
Asian	2
Black	2
Multiracial/other	2
White	12
Hispanic ethnicity	3
Born in the U.S.	18
Education
Some high school	1
High school diploma/GED	8
Some college	6
Associates or Bachelor’s	3
Graduate school	1
Unknown	1
Employment
Full-time	12
Part-time	3
Seasonal/temporary	2
Not employed	3
Income
Less than $10,000	6
$10,000 to 19,000	2
$20,000 to 29,000	2
$30,000 to 39,000	1
$40,000 to 40,000	2
$50,000 or more	7
Offense type
DWI	9
Drug	3
Person	3
Property	3
Disorder	1
Weapon	1
Length of probation
1 year	5
2 years	6
3 years	1
5 years	7
Unknown	1
Number of times on probation
One	3
Two	7
Three to Four	2
Five to Six	2
Multiple (unsure)	6

Compared to the data sample in the Phase One study, the people we interviewed in this study included more people who were white and fewer people who were Black. Yet, the interviews included people who identified with other races and ethnicities in similar proportions as in the Phase One study. Additionally, the average age of those we interviewed was a little older than the average age in the Phase One sample; 38 in this sample compared to 34 in the Phase One study. Therefore, the experiences shared with us may not reflect the reasons that younger people fail to maintain contact with their PO. We discuss the limitations further below.

Procedures and Materials

All interviews were conducted by the authors of this study. Both interviewees identify as female, one identifies as Black (first author), and the other identifies as White (second author). Both authors have experience researching topics of community supervision, including probation. The authors have conducted several studies in collaboration with probation departments across the country. Further, both authors have direct experience working in correctional agencies. This experience informed the development of the interview questions and the analysis of the data. Before the interview commenced, verbal consent was obtained. All interviews took place virtually, through Zoom and were audio recorded. The semi-structured interview questions asked participants about their ordered probation conditions, about their experiences on probation, why they failed to report and if they had other violations, and about the quality of the relationship with their PO. Follow up questions and probes were asked based on the interviewee’s responses. The interview length averaged approximately 60 min. All audio files were transcribed. Participants received a $50 gift card for participating in the interview.

Analysis

The authors of this paper conducted the qualitative analysis. The primary purpose of this research was to understand why individuals failed to maintain contact with probation. Thus, identifying these reasons primarily directed the analysis. We used an inductive coding method. We used a phenomenological approach, coding data that captured participant’s lived experiences and meanings regarding their failure to maintain contact with probation. In a phenomenological analysis, researchers view the world through the participants’ eyes (Daly, 2007, p. 219). We used NVivo to code and organize our analysis. We conduct the following steps to achieve intercoder agreement (Creswell & Poth, 2018). First, before coding all the transcripts, we were read a handful of the same transcripts. Second, we then developed a list of codes and defined them. Third, once the codes and definitions were agreed up, wherein we split the transcripts and independently coded them. Fourth, we then met together to discuss our observations and coding. Finally, we generated a list of codes identifying the reasons for failure to maintain contact and then grouped similar codes to form our themes. After the themes were developed, we re-reviewed the transcripts to see if other information fell under the codes and themes. The following section presents the results that emerged from this analytical process. The names of the interviewees are pseudonyms to protect their confidentiality.

Struggles With Substance Abuse leading to Failure to Maintain Contact

Substance abuse was a contributing factor to why individuals absconded from their probation. Some who struggled with substance abuse were not at a point where they were ready to stop using. For these individuals, they understood they had a problem with drugs or alcohol but were not ready to change. April never even started probation because of her addiction and, at the time, from her perspective, “chose” drugs rather than the requirements of probation. April, who was sentenced to probation on a 5th degree drug possession charge, said,

So, I was an IV heroin and meth addict and like I said, homeless, living on the street and in no contact with my family for a couple of years actually. And jumping around from place to place sometimes like friends’ houses or sometimes living in a homeless encampment and, or sometimes sleeping on the [train]. . . And that’s what I chose to do instead of being compliant and being reunited with my family again, I wanted to use drugs more.

April goes on to say that being sober was not something she wanted at that time. Rose, who was on probation for check fraud, also struggled with addiction and was not ready to change. She was unable to focus on probation because the addiction created a situation of living on “survival mode.” Rose said,

I was just high out of my mind at that point in my life to where I was like, I don’t need to deal with that shit right now. I’m more worried about being in survival mode and making sure I had something to eat and somewhere to stay that night. . . dealing with my [PO] at the time was not realistic to me. Even though it should have been because he probably would’ve helped me get to those things, you know? Using, you don’t think like that, you know, you’re thinking, fuck that, I’m not trying to be in the system. You know, people don’t look at POs like they’re there to help. They look at them like they’re there to put you in jail. So that’s kind of what I rolled with.

Martin, was on probation for domestic assault, admitted that at the time, he did not want to be sober. To pass his UA’s, he would sober up a few days before meeting with his PO. Martin was not engaging in treatment, and he did not like when his PO would talk about what he needed to do to address his addiction. Martin also admitted to not regularly checking in with his PO. Martin said, “I’m supposed to call him and check in with him, and if I get arrested or something, I’m supposed to let him know right away. And I never did. I was not good about calling him.” When Martin was finally violated, he explained that he had checked himself into treatment. He called his PO and left a message telling him where he was, but according to Martin the PO said he never got the message and hence the PO issued a warrant for failure to maintain contact.

While some individuals avoid probation because they felt they were not ready to give up their substance use, other interviewees said they tried to quit but struggled to do so. Individuals in this category tried to engage in treatment but relapsed and consequently avoided their PO for fear they would be violated for their relapse. Robert was on probation for a 5th degree drug possession charge, he attended the ten hours of treatment each week as part of his supervision conditions. However, Robert struggled with attending treatment with his full-time job. When he was pulled over for a DWI, Robert dropped out of contact with his PO because he feared the repercussions. He said,

She [PO] was already not happy with me because I was failing a lot of UAs. I just thought it was going to be bad, and I was just going to be violated. I was probably going to end up serving the rest of my time out in prison for that. . . I figured I’d just try to wait it out, which was obviously not the right decision.

Kyle, who was on probation for third-degree drug possession, similarly feared the consequences for failing a UA and subsequently ignored his PO until he got arrested on a warrant. At one point during the interview Kyle said he felt like his PO was “on his side,” but regardless of him feeling this way, his response was “to go on the run” when he failed the drug test. For both Robert and Kyle, substance use was a cause of their failure to maintain contact, but their fear of what would happen because of their use also played a significant role in their failure to maintain contact.

Finally, on this theme, some interviewees struggled with substance abuse because of other unaddressed underlining issues. One male participant, William, spoke about the intersection of drug use and mental health. William said he suffered from multiple mental health issues, including anxiety and ADHD. He reported he used drugs and alcohol “trying to self-medicate because I didn’t have consistency with mental health.” William said he “would go. . .commit other crimes to be able to try to supply my drug habit.” He felt that the probation department did not have the mental health resources to help him. According to William he tried to bring his mental health struggles to the attention of his PO, but he did not feel acknowledged. William said,

I would explain to them . . . I needed to find doctors. . .to get consistent medication that I needed to be on. . . But they wouldn’t even listen to what I was saying in the past.

A combination of using drugs and not feeling heard by his PO, made him not care about probation and as a result he did not maintain contact with his PO. Eventually William was admitted to treatment court, and it was here where he felt his mental health issues were finally identified and addressed, and that in turn led to his sobriety. Skye also struggled with alcohol and used it deal with the physical pain from a broken back she suffered from an abusive relationship. She explained her situation, “I drank because of the pain.” Skye also used substances to cope with the abusive relationship and her anxiety from this relationship.

For some individuals on probation substance abuse was a significant factor for why they absconded. But the reactions to the substance abuse differed. For some they were not in the contemplation or even the pre-contemplation stage of change where they believed that they needed to address their addiction. At this stage in their lives, they wanted to use and that was their priority not probation. Other participants feared the consequences from their PO because they struggled with sobriety even though they were trying to remain sober. The fear of sanctions or incarceration made them flee rather than trust that their PO would be a support or a resource to help them with their relapse. For a third group they were using drugs or alcohol to self-medicate which affected their ability to check-in with their PO. From the quotes above the participants with substance abuse also mentioned struggles with homelessness, balancing employment or getting proper treatment which leads us to our next theme.

Struggles With Basic Needs Leading to Failure to Maintain Contact

Previous research has demonstrated that individuals in the criminal legal system, including on community supervision regularly struggle with obtaining their basic needs (Harding et al., 2022). Of the 20 people we interviewed, all but four stated they struggled with at least one basic need, and twelve mentioned struggles in multiple areas. Housing was the area of greatest need with ten people calling this out. The majority who struggled with housing described themselves as being homeless at some point while they were on probation, while others talked about their criminal record as creating a barrier to obtaining housing. Often the homelessness was not just about having the financial resources, but it was also connected to the collateral consequences that bars individuals from obtaining adequate housing. The housing challenges can push people to violate. William describes this point further,

Like trying to find landlords that’ll work with people with criminal backgrounds. . .Because that’s one big piece that a lot of times causes people to go back to criminal activity or not comply with their probation is being homeless. Bouncing around in the streets, trying to find somewhere to lay their head or even to eat doesn’t work.

Six people noted that they struggled with transportation while on probation. For example, William was living in a shelter and often relied on the transportation services the shelter provided to get to probation appointments. Others relied on public transportation or rides from friends and family. Two individuals admitted to driving without a license. One interviewee, Callen, had a car but it was not working properly and consequently it made it difficult to meet with his PO at the department.

Five people indicated that they were unemployed at some point during probation, and six people indicated that they received food stamps. For most of the individuals who reported struggles with basic needs, there were also co-occurring issues (i.e., substance use, relationship conflicts) that seemed to interconnect with their failure to maintain contact. But given the high number of interviewees who reported these issues, it is fair to say that the lack of basic needs likely served as additional stressors while they were on probation. For a small number of interviewees, the lack of basic needs was the catalyst for their failure to maintain contact.

Hudson lacked a phone, and this led to his violation. According to Hudson, he was supposed to call the probation department to get his supervision established. He left a message, but never heard back from a PO, and then his phone stopped working. As Hudson put it, “it did worry me sick at times that, you know, I couldn’t make these connections.” Hudson received subsequent letters from the probation department, some of which were aimed at getting him to check in for a UA. At the time, Hudson was also struggling with homelessness. He changed residences three times in the space of a year. Homelessness made it hard for Hudson to have contact with the probation department.

Similarly, Molly dropped out of contact with probation because she was homeless and unable to afford the fee for the automated phone check-in. During the probation orientation session, she expressed concern that she would not be able to pay the fee. Molly was told she could check-in for free at the downtown probation office, but for her that was unrealistic because she lived in another county and could not afford the transportation to get downtown. Molly said she was able to make three phone calls to probation without paying the fee before being locked out of the system due to an outstanding balance. Since she was unable to complete the check-ins, she stopped trying to make contact, and a warrant was issued for her arrest. For Molly, this felt like probation set her up to fail. Molly said, “I mean, they set me up for failure really. If I said I couldn’t do it and you said I had to do it, we should have worked something out.”

Another interviewee, Aiden, dropped out of contact after experiencing multiple stressors. He was going through a divorce, and as a result, was experiencing homelessness and financial difficulties. He was not able to pay for his phone service, which was one reason why he did not call in to meet with his PO. Throughout these difficulties, Aiden never told his PO about the stressors he was experiencing. He described,

It was probably one of the worst times in my life . . . going through the divorce and everything . . . I don’t think I ever told him [PO] that I was homeless . . . I told him basically that I just lost my phone, which was true. I didn’t have the money to keep paying for the service . . . I was without a phone for a good month or two there.

Almost all the individuals who reported a lack of basic needs and other life stressors also reported that they did not seek help from their POs to address those needs. Rather, than seek help many chose instead to cease contact. One explanation for not seeking help from their PO could be because of what Rose said under the substance abuse theme that “you don’t look at POs like they’re there to help.” Most indicated in the interviews, however, that they felt their PO would have helped them if they had asked, and at least two said they had even been offered help. But some interviewees gave conflicting answers on this point of POs helping. For example, Lara at one point in the interview seemed to have the viewpoint that her PO would not have cared whether she was struggling with basic needs. But at another point in the interview, Lara also said she never used her PO as a leverage of help.

I mean, I’m sure if it came down to it when I need help, yes [PO would help] . . .I’m sure if I didn’t know how to get up on my way, I’m sure she probably would direct me. I’m sure she probably would like, "Oh, yeah. This is the resources."

This exchange exemplified by Lara indicates that people struggling with basic needs may find it difficult to ask for help. Like with those struggling with substance abuse, another explanation for not seeking their POs help may be individuals are unsure when their PO would assist or admonish them. For example, having a permeant residence or known address is generally a condition of probation. If one is homeless, the individual on supervision may be unsure if their PO will help them find housing or sanction them for not having a stable address. Thus, this uncertainty could lead individuals to not seek help from their PO. Openly communicating with their PO around their hardships appears to be impediment, leading to avoidance and thus, a violation for failing to maintain contact.

Miscommunication With PO Leading to Failure to Maintain Contact

Communication strains may have also severed as an underlining reason the individuals on probation did not seek support and then ultimately failed to maintain contact with their PO. The communication barriers may be as direct as not contacting their PO by phone (as noted above) or with POs not being available. Yet, communication barriers can also be nebulous with differences related to culture and gender between the PO and the individual on community supervision.

Sometimes the failure to maintain contact was as simple as forgetting to check in. Luke was on probation in multiple counties at once. He said he never had a violation in this county, but he also indicated that he would forget to check in with his PO due to his hectic schedule. Luke admitted,

I have got to find time to meet up with him next week because my schedule is so packed up and I forget the dates. He calls and says, "Hey, we’re going to meet in 2 weeks. Put this on your calendar." Then 2 weeks later happens and then you forget about it. There is a lot that can happen in your life.

Thus, Luke supposed the failure to maintain contact violation was likely due in part to the difficulty he experienced trying to keep track of work, treatment, and check-ins with multiple POs. He described one instance where when he checked into inpatient treatment in one county, and this caused another county to perceive him as being out of contact. He thought the violation was in one of the other counties for which he was also on probation, so it is unclear if this is the incident that led to a failure to maintain contact violation in this county. Luke was stymied by the lack of communication between the different probation agencies. Luke thought it would be nice if there was one person who could keep all parties informed, “That would be very nice to have one person’s information. . .have them be more in contact with each other.”

Carrie, who was on probation for a DWI, had been assigned to inpatient treatment and had a similar experience as Luke regarding a lack of streamlined communication among POs. Carrie talked to one PO before entering treatment and thought that person kept tabs on her while she was in treatment. However, she had also been told that her assigned PO was on military leave. Once she completed treatment, she did not know how to get in contact with her PO, so she called the general number several times and left messages. Carrie said,

I didn’t hear anything back from them at all. They didn’t send a letter, they didn’t call. And I had tried calling the general number a couple of additional times just to find out like, hey, "who’s my PO?" My intent, of course, was to continue to keep in contact with them at least monthly to let them know what I was doing because I assumed—nobody told me, but I just assumed that kind of is part of the conditions of probation. But like I said, I never got ahold of anyone.

Carrie never heard anything further until she was arrested on a warrant two years later despite her previous contact efforts. Carrie expressed frustration because,

They had my phone number, they had my email address, they had my home address. They could have contacted me, you know, to get the information, you know, to find out where things were at, what I’d done . . . It was frustrating because there was no communication. I didn’t know who to send information in, you know, to at that time, to let probation know that I was doing the things I was supposed to do as a part of my probation agreement.

Communication strains also occurred because of cultural and gender differences between the individual on supervision and their PO. As an example, we share Lara and Callen’s experiences. Lara self-identified as Native American. Her reservation and family were a source of support. Lara left the state without permission because she was experiencing homelessness and wanted to live with her family on her tribe’s reservation in another state. However, she did not feel that her PO would be receptive to the idea of her moving to another state, so she just left. Lara explained why she absconded,

I had a living situation that all my family members lived . . . up north we call it. The reservation we call up north. At the time when I was on probation, they say you couldn’t leave the state and whatever . . . To be brutally honest, I was like, ‘You know what? They are not going to approve [me to move]’. . . I already knew that they weren’t going to approve because it’s a different state . . . I wasn’t planning on doing anything else. I just had to move. That’s just how it went, and I knew that she wasn’t going to understand like the first time. I just stopped talking. Then I was thinking in my mind once I get back to . . . if I ever live back in the [county], I will obviously go and tell them and get it squared away later.

At other points in the interview, Lara also described her struggles with race and culture and how that influenced her involvement in criminal activity. However, she explained that she did not discuss race and culture with her PO because despite Lara talking about it in the interview, she did not feel it was relevant in the relationship with her PO. Conversely, Lara did believe her race and culture was relevant in why she left probation and moved to the reservation.

In addition to race and culture, there may also be gender barriers that impede communication and lead to failure to maintain contact violations. Callen left the state because he wanted to attend his child’s wedding and another child’s graduation. But although it appears he may have been given permission to travel briefly for those purposes, he dropped out of contact with his PO for more than a year. On one level, this might have been a misunderstanding. According to Callen, he asked for and was granted permission to leave the state. He also thought his PO put him on administrative probation and he did not have to “talk to this lady no more.” Callen was unaware there was a warrant for his arrest. But on another level, there was some gendered dynamics at play in Callen’s relationship with his PO (who was a woman). Through Callen’s quote we can see how gender influenced his relationship with his PO.

She just didn’t want to cooperate with me. She just wanted to flex her muscles like . . . Do you know what I’m saying? She was the general boss. I mean, that’s why before I even got on probation, I tried to ask them can I get a man. It seems like females seem like today like to flex their muscles a little harder when they have a male client. . . . I had a male before and males are not like that because first of all we’re both men . . . It’s like we know what another man is going through . . . if he comes in automatically and start doing what he got to do, I can tell from him like, "Okay. This man, he ain’t got time to be playing games. He wants me to be off probation." I wouldn’t give them a hard time.

Callen showed he had problems with his PO being a female and this seemed to obstruct how he saw their interactions and how he saw his requirements. The communication breakdown was in his perceptions and bias for how he saw his female PO relate to him. This perception and bias may have led him to be noncompliant because he saw her overstepping her authority.

Communication strains was a theme in of itself as well as constant presence in the prior two themes. Miscommunication is sometimes as simple as forgetting to contact their PO, but often the reasons are much deeper. The lack of communication for the interviewees was related to trusting that that their PO would help them with their needs rather than violate. Further, communication barriers may exist due to perceived cultural barriers.

Enhancing Relationship Quality

This finding indicates the importance of relationship building between the individual and their PO. If individuals on probation indeed perceived their PO as being “fair, firm, and caring” (Kennealy et al., 2012; Skeem & Manchak, 2008), they might be less fearful of revealing their struggles to stop using substances and they may maintain contact with their PO. Individuals on supervision may feel that their officer will be empathetic to their addiction (fair and caring) but also hold them accountable by connecting them to and insisting they attend treatment (firm). Future research may want to consider how a PO’s approach correlates with outcomes on absconding. Individuals on supervision may be more willing to be open with their PO if they feel they are someone they can be honest with. A qualitative study with individuals on probation found that it was easier for individuals to be more open and transparent when the PO was supportive and understanding (Sturm et al., 2022). Building trust and a working alliance was also seen as an important quality for achieving rehabilitation goals in a study of POs in Turkey. However, POs also reported wanting more training to gain skills that were important to develop trust and collaborative relationships (Erdem et al., 2018). Thus, more training may be needed for POs that focuses on relationship building among their clients.

Connecting Needs to Services

Individuals in this study also experienced challenges with homelessness, employment, and transportation that led them to deprioritize probation as they were consumed by attaining their needs. Employment instability is a predictor of absconding (Mayzer et al., 2004). Individuals under the criminal legal system often experience challenges meeting their needs, which can spiral into failure to maintain contact (Gu et al., 2023). When individuals’ lives are chaotic and they lack their basic needs, it may be difficult to focus on or prioritize compliance with probation conditions (Norman et al., 2021). A pain of probation is deprivation of autonomy from the number of conditions imposed, including regular appointments with their POs, their lack of ability to move around freely, and pressures to constantly inform their PO of any changes (Durnescu, 2010). Further, the limited income makes it difficult to pay their personal obligations and pay their probation fees (Harris, 2016; Ruhland, 2019). A few individuals in this study stopped reporting to probation because they could not afford the fee for the call-in service.

In addition to providing rehabilitation services to help with substance abuse, services are also necessary to aid people in obtaining basic needs. An additional step further beyond connecting to treatment and basic needs, POs may have to engage in concrete actions, such as sending regular text message reminders, printing out client’s weekly schedules, and making sure clients put their appointments on their schedules (Norman et al., 2021). Given the difficulty with balancing life stressors and schedules, some individuals on probation may benefit from this level of service from their PO. Given that POs primary function is to supervise conditions (Klockars, 1972), departments may want to consider partnering with caseworkers or other social service providers to provide to weekly case management for some high-need clients. To prevent absconding, it may be critical for probation to be firm in the supervision of conditions yet at the same time there may be a need to provide more hands on, intensive resources to some clients. Some places, like the Netherlands, utilize volunteers in their probation services. Volunteers could work with the PO to connect the individual to community services, give the individual on supervision the moral support they need to weather the challenges, and can help by providing more or additional communication on behalf of the PO (Boone et al., 2024).

Addressing Miscommunication

Miscommunication was another reason for absconding. POs have high caseloads and many competing obligations. Daily, they are tasked with conducting visits, meeting with clients, administering risk assessments, completing paperwork and case notes, reporting to judges, and more (DeMichele & Payne, 2018). Given the extraordinary caseloads and the number of daily tasks, it is not hard to imagine that miscommunications between POs and clients may have happened. Miscommunications may also result from the brevity of check-ins between officers and their clients. The contact time between a PO and their client may be brief (Meredith et al., 2020). They may run through a series of questions to make sure the individual is following their conditions, but the check-ins offer little time for in-depth, rehabilitative work. Brevity in communication can make it seem as if the PO is uncaring or unsupportive. Previous quantitative research has shown that perceptions of a PO’s supportiveness correlate with recidivism. Individuals who viewed their PO as supportive were less likely to recidivate than those who did not. Supportive rapport included measures of trust and respect in their PO (Chamberlain et al., 2017). Thus, this illustrates an extension of the importance of officers being fair and caring in their relationships with clients to prevent miscommunication and, ultimately, revocations and recidivism.

It is also plausible that POs do not have much time to investigate why miscommunications happen or other underlying issues that may be contributing to absconding. While some individuals who stop reporting may be committing serious crimes, many probably are not, or else they would encounter law enforcement sooner (Gu et al., 2023). To decrease caseloads, departments may want to limit regular probation to medium and high-risk individuals. Individuals who are assessed as low risk could check in via telephone or kiosk systems and could be on probation for significantly shorter periods. This would help lessen caseloads and increase POs ability to monitor and provide services to those more likely to abscond probation. Probation may also want to consider a more direct partnership with community-based organizations or again volunteers that can assist with basic needs and substance abuse. Rather than just providing referrals, these direct partnerships could prevent individuals on supervision from falling through the cracks or never following through with the service.

The goals of probation can be multiple and convoluted (Lutze et al., 2012). Probation has long had a tension on whether its purpose is social work or law enforcement (Whetzel et al., 2011). Scholars have settled the debate by stating that it should integrate the two (Klockars, 1972; Miller, 2013). Studies have shown improved supervision outcomes when PO-client relationships have trust, supportiveness, respect, and empathy (Diaz et al., 2022). Nevertheless, from the viewpoints of those on probation, they may see the scales as tilting toward law enforcement over social work. In this study, when individuals struggled with substance use or basic needs, they commonly did not tell their PO. This could be because they feared the repercussions of their honesty. POs may care and want to help their clients, but this is mainly in the form of coercive care (Phelps & Ruhland, 2021). POs can connect individuals to resources, but they also have the authority to violate or request the courts revoke probation (Jones & Kerbs, 2007; Wooditch et al., 2016). It may be too great a risk for individuals to share when they are struggling because they may be unsure if they will receive support or a sanction. As an example, one study found that for some POs, substance use is perceived as a public safety concern that should be addressed with incarceration. In contrast, other POs see it as an addiction that should be addressed with treatment. (Ruhland & Scheibler, 2021). However, for people on probation, POs are likely a monolithic group that represents the system, which is largely perceived as having a law enforcement orientation. In the absence of a relationship with their PO, an individual may fall back on that perception and choose to stop reporting for fear of the consequences that could be imposed.

Because it is under the carceral system, probation may struggle to balance social work and law enforcement. The carceral system is inherently punitive. However, there are calls for probation to be adopt a strength-based orientation that includes looking more at the positive protective factors, rather than overly focusing on risks (Sturm et al., 2022). Previous studies have shown probation to be a lifeline for some individuals struggling with substance abuse (Phelps & Ruhland, 2021). So, it is possible that probation provides care and that POs that are firm, fair, and caring can have successful outcomes for individuals (Kennealy et al., 2012). There is also a move for POs to have an orientation of a coach rather than a referee. A coach understands there will be setbacks, but they are looking for the win. Thus, they will teach and prepare the individual so that they can be successful on probation. Referees are only concerned with enforcing the rules and have no stake in the outcome (Lovins et al., 2018). Moving to a coaching model may help individuals on probation experiencing multiple challenges be more successful and less likely to abscond.

Limitations

This study provides insights into why individuals stopped reporting to their PO. These insights are beneficial to understanding where gaps are and how to fill those gaps. However, a limitation of this study was that we may be missing the voices of individuals who stopped reporting because they were committing serious crimes. Individuals who may have been involved in serious criminal activities may have been more likely to decline participation or not follow up on the recruitment text. Thus, the interview sample could be skewed to those not committing serious crimes. Further we did not interview individuals who had a new crime violation and a failure to maintain contact violation because their criminal case may not have resolved. Future research may want to interview individuals who have both a failure to report and a new crime violation to explore how these two violations were connected to one another. Individuals may abscond because they are engaged in criminal activity, or they may become involved in criminal activity because they stopped reporting to probation and stopped receiving resources that were helping them abstain from crime. More research is needed to understand this connection. The recommendations for individuals who commit serious crimes and thus stop responding to probation may be even more complex.

Another study limitation is we could only contact individuals if we had their most recent cell phone number. Thus, we could be missing the voice of others for which we did not have current contact information. Even for individuals who we did have contact information, many did not return our text message. Thus, individuals may have not trusted the purpose of the interviews or were concerned about the confidentiality in being involved in such an interview. Future studies may want to consider conducting online surveys to potentially reach more people. Individuals may also feel more comfortable completing an online survey compared to a face-to-face interview.

As mentioned previously, our current study skews more white and older than we found in Phase One of this study. This is a particular limitation to fully exploring how communication and cultural barriers for individuals of other races and younger individuals may relate to failures to maintain contact. This could be an area for future research. Probation varies by location (Scott & Boyer, 2023). Thus, a final limitation of this study may be that findings differ in other jurisdictions. Future research may want to replicate this study and the interview questions to investigate if the findings are consistent in other probation departments for individuals who abscond.