Abstract
With few exceptions, parole officers, but not probation officers, have been abolished in the federal judicial system since 1984 but both are present at city, county, and state levels (Hoffman, 2003). Generally, to become a parole officer or probation officer, the individual needs a 4-year bachelor’s degree or a graduate degree from college. In their involvement in the criminal justice system operation, their primary task is to exercise direct supervision of persons discharged from incarceration following completion of a prison sentence or released on recommendation of a parole board (parole officers) or those who have been sentenced to noncustodial sanctions or have not yet been sentenced to incarceration (probation officers). In the forensic field, they also compile, at the request of a judge, presentence investigative reports for defendants. In so doing, they must become well acquainted with the defendant’s personality, his or her crime, trustworthiness, and proclivity to reoffend, which is of the utmost importance.
Both parolees and probationers are under the supervision of a general parole or probation officer. The supervision is strict and continuous, and is often a source of concern for them. Frequently, depending on the criminal pedigree of the offender, it is also worrisome and stressful for the parole officer. At present, included in the responsibilities of the parole officers, and at times the probation officers, is the supervision of offenders previously civilly committed as sex offenders and then discharged or on supervised parole. Such supervision may extend even throughout the released offender’s lifetime and these cases are generally assigned to officers having more experience who often have been trained in a police academy. Some officers work with other particular groups of ex-detainees, such as those on electronic monitoring (global positioning system [GPS] monitoring), drug users, mentally ill individuals, or those with a history of violent behavior. The agents/officers, who do not wear uniforms but have a badge or other credential. Parole officers may carry firearms. They are looked upon as similar to police officers. Both probation and parole officers may rearrest or suggest to the court the reincarceration of a person who violates the conditions of parole or probation.
The job is demanding and the agents, whether probation or parole, feel a great responsibility toward the court that assigned the supervision to him or her and toward the public at large, particularly because the parolee/probationer may reoffend at any time. They must have the capacity to work with diverse people and to manage any untoward behavior. So the agent’s personality should be well rounded, well integrated, calm, and capable of withstanding stress and of making a split-second decision. Parole and probation officers seem to be, on the surface, the “Cinderellas” of the justice system, while in reality they are at the core of the system. They do silent, methodical, essential, but often unrecognized, work, and they are major contributors to the success of the judicial system with its large number of supervised people, more than 7 million at the end of 2010 (Glaze, 2011). They take the brunt of long, at times traumatic, exposure to unpleasant situations for the benefit of these communities and for the smooth functioning of courts.
In this issue, Margaret Severson and Carrie Pettus-Davis discuss the stressful work found in the postrelease supervision of sex offenders. Their detailed exploration reports the viva voce words of the officers, describing the impact their contact with offenders has on them, their statements about the exorbitant stress they undergo—stress that impinges on their life, their family’s life, and even their dreams. The authors report the officers’ claim that they often receive little support from their supervisors and they describe at length the depth of their often-traumatic contact with the offenders they supervise. Central to the officers’ theme that the authors describe is the symptomatology of “secondary trauma,” which may affect the officers. The interesting factor is that these agents and supervisors, even though seasoned workers, show in their statements the great amount of stress they have been exposed to that has broken down their defenses and partially disintegrated their egos. That calls for better training, better supervision, and better and more effective management.
The reader will gather an insightful understanding of these silent judicial collaborators. Severson and Pettus-Davis should be thanked for making us aware of the level of stress and the secondary trauma symptoms associated with the work of these highly dedicated, often underappreciated, workers.