Professional Lives of Community Corrections Officers: The Invisible Side of Reentry

Faith E. Lutze

• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN:
  9781452242262
• Edition: 1
• eBook ISBN:
  9781483322469
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

One of the first contemporary works to bring together research focused on community corrections officers, Professional Lives of Community Corrections Officers: The Invisible Side of Reentry, by Faith E. Lutze, helps readers understand the importance of community corrections officers to the success of the criminal justice system. The author brings the important work of these officers out from the shadows of the prison and into the light of informed policymaking, demonstrating how their work connects to the broader political, economic, and social context. Arguing that they are "street-level boundary spanners" who are in the best position to lead effective reentry initiatives built on interagency collaboration, the author shows how community corrections officers can effectively lead a fluid response to reentry that is inclusive of control, support, and treatment. This supplement is ideal for community corrections or probation and parole courses to supplement core textbooks.

ONE

THE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS

The imprisonment binge that began in the early 1980s had an unparalleled effect on the ability of both institutional and community corrections to manage an ever increasing offender population. In the frenzy to build more prisons, little forethought was given to the increase in offenders being sentenced to community sanctions or those who would eventually be released from prison and supervised in the community. Interestingly, but maybe not surprisingly with all of the focus on prison expansion, little attention was given to probation and parole officers and the complex task bestowed on them to prevent people from committing crime who are oftentimes living in dysfunctional families within stressed communities and being released from prisons inadequately prepared to cope with the transition to the community. Even as greater attention has shifted to prisoner reentry in recent years, most of the focus has been on offenders and very little on probation and parole officers, also known as community corrections officers (CCOs).

Little is known about the professional lives of CCOs in spite of the tremendous responsibility bestowed on them, a responsibility that for the most part cannot be passed off on to other parts of the system. Police officers make arrests and pass offenders on to the jail and prosecutor, judges pass offenders on to the prison, and prisons pass offenders on to community corrections. This leaves community corrections officers “holding the bag” so to speak, responsible for all the wrongs, systemic and individual, that the offender has passed through or committed. CCOs are the professionals who must deal with the entirety of the offender by developing an ongoing professional relationship that includes not just the individual but the offender’s family and peers, employers, treatment professionals, educators, housing providers, and others important to supporting reentry efforts. For community corrections officers, the environment that offenders return to is not some abstract place but instead one that includes real people, real poverty, real violence, real hardship, and real threats to all involved. Failure means a new victim, more harm to the community, and being held personally and professionally accountable. When offenders violently and publicly reoffend, it is not the prison or other social institutions held accountable for failure, it is the community corrections officer whose work is portrayed and criticized throughout the media. Yet when CCOs do their jobs well and offenders are successfully reintegrated into society without returning to prison, they remain invisible actors within the system and outside of the public discourse.

In spite of their responsibility and the important work community corrections officers conduct as part of the justice system, no systemic social science review has been given concerning how they manage their responsibility and the effect it has on the way they engage their work within the agency, with the offender, and within the community. Therefore, this book provides an in-depth analysis of what it means to be a probation and parole officer in the United States during a period of unprecedented growth in community corrections and change in offender supervision. Importantly it explores how CCOs believe offenders should be supervised, how they perceive the institution in which they work, how they coordinate with and use other agencies to assist in reintegrating offenders, and how they define the communities in which they work. Finally, this book presents the complex role CCOs play in spanning the professions that deliver control, sanctions, treatment, and support to bring about change in the lives of ex-convicts.

Traditionally, the working philosophy and tasks of CCOs have been conceptualized and measured along a continuum with law enforcement at one end and social work at the other. CCOs who subscribe to a law enforcement philosophy to guide their work focus on monitoring, surveillance, compliance, enforcing technical violations, sanctions, revocation, and rearrest—in other words, they focus on criminal risk and police ex-offenders to assure compliance with court-ordered conditions. Those who adhere to a social work philosophy focus on ex-offender needs and connect the offender to sources of social support, life skills, and rehabilitation or treatment—in other words, they focus on criminogenic needs and prevention strategies to assure compliance with court-ordered conditions. Based on existing research and interviews with CCOs, I argue that the professional roles of CCOs are dynamic and exist beyond the simple binary roles of law enforcement and social work. I conclude that CCOs are instead “street-level boundary spanners” who work to bridge the power and resources of corrections, police, social work, treatment, and the community to supervise and reintegrate ex-offenders. Thus, they are not, as traditionally presented, merely the end player of a long criminal justice system process but instead are the keystone to engineering the support necessary to guide ex-offenders toward successful reintegration. Failing to understand their unique role in the criminal justice system and ignoring the complex historical, political, social, and economic context in which they work results in a profession that is misunderstood, oftentimes disrespected, overburdened, and underused in its power to enhance the success of the entire system.

MISSION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS

Community corrections has historically been driven by a rehabilitative philosophy focused on addressing offenders’ needs, providing treatment, and integrating the person into conventional law-abiding society. Originally “parole officers” were viewed as mentors and friends who developed a relationship with offenders in order to guide them toward a better life free from alcohol and vice instead of going to jail (Augustus, 1852; Rothman, 1980). These origins would eventually morph into a more formal and professional relationship in which the parole officer still developed a friendly relationship with parolees but also functioned as a counselor, psychologist, or investigator, focused on diagnosing offender needs and professionally guiding the offender’s reintegration into the community (Caplan, 2006; Rothman, 1980).

Parole from prison as we know it today formally emerged during the Progressive Era (1890–1920). During the Progressive Era criminal behavior was considered a disease that could be cured with appropriate treatment delivered in suitably designed prison environments and followed by support when discharged from prison on to parole (Pisciotta, 1994; Rafter, 1985; Rothman, 1980). The duration of the treatment or sentence depended on the individual’s progress toward being cured from a life of crime. As outlined in the Declaration of Principles (1870), the state has an ongoing responsibility to ex-offenders beyond the confines of the prison reformatory:

More systematic and comprehensive methods should be adopted to save discharged prisoners, by providing them with work and encouraging them to redeem their character and regain their lost position in society. The state has not discharged its whole duty to the criminal when it has punished him, nor even when it has reformed him. Having raised him up, it has the further duty to aid in holding him up. And to this end it is desirable that state societies be formed, which shall co-operate with each other in this work. (emphasis added; Declaration of Principles, 1870, as reprinted in Pisciotta, 1994, p. 159)

Progressive Era reformers realized that release from prison was a challenging transition and if not supported, the treatment administered in prison could quickly be sabotaged in the community. Reformers also recognized the need for the development of “state societies” to cooperate in providing the resources necessary to assure success—an awareness that former inmates needed multiple forms of aid. There was an early consciousness that for prison reformatories to be successful there must be continuity in care that spanned from the prison into the community.

Although originating from lofty ideals that recognized the difficult challenge transitioning from prison to the community could pose, parole has been one of the most highly criticized of the Progressive innovations (Rothman, 1980). Oftentimes the general public and policymakers blame parole for the coddling of offenders and being too lenient in reducing prison sentences. Rothman (1980, p. 161) insightfully asks,

How did a procedure take hold and perpetuate itself right down through the 1960s while suffering from such popular disdain? Clearly parole, by being last in line in criminal justice practices, did pay for all the inadequacies in the system. . . . It was the parole board that broke down prison walls and therefore deserved all blame for whatever happened next. (emphasis added)

Therefore, in its traditional form, parole as an assessment of an offender’s success along a continuum of self-reflection, remorse, and change came under severe criticism and was used as an example of the ultimate failure of the medical model of corrections. Political and public sentiments, and therefore the guiding philosophy of corrections, shifted for the first time since the discovery of the asylum from rehabilitation to punishment (Cullen & Gilbert, 1982; Cullen & Jonson, 2012). This philosophical shift also served to relieve policymakers and the state from taking full responsibility for the reform of offenders and redirected responsibility on to the offender alone. Relieving the state of the responsibility to reform laid the groundwork to abandon rehabilitation and to shift contemporary supervision tactics to surveillance, monitoring compliance, sanctions, and revocation. Ex-offenders may be directed toward rehabilitation, but the responsibility is theirs alone to succeed or fail no matter the conditions in which they live or the integrity of the programs in which they participate.

To place the entire blame for success or failure solely on the offender, the most powerless of those involved in the criminal justice system, may work well in the abstract, but it conflicts with the professional reality of CCOs put in the vicarious position of having to share the responsibility of reform and reintegration with offenders if they are to be successful in reducing recidivism and protecting the community. Although CCOs may not be held accountable for the rate of overall failure of those on their caseloads, when an offender’s failure becomes public through cases sensationalized through the media, it is community corrections and the CCO that are criticized and not the failures of prisons, police, courts, social services, public education, or broader public health initiatives also responsible for the well-being of communities. CCOs are challenged to pursue the goal of community safety within a context of competing and shifting political, economic, and social expectations about how offenders should be managed. It is the political, organizational, and social realities that require CCOs to become street-level boundary spanners if they are to successfully negotiate holding offenders accountable, participating in effective case management, and establishing meaningful long-term reintegration.

DEMAND FOR COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS WORK: OFFENDER NEEDS AND CCO RESPONSIBILITY

It is important to consider the multiple and systemic conditions in which CCOs function. Their work is influenced by four primary contexts: (1) political and public punitiveness, (2) the demands placed on the agencies employing CCOs, (3) the individual needs of offenders, and (4) the community context where supervision takes place. Each of these contexts interacts to influence CCOs’ professional well-being and their capacity to effectively implement desired outcomes related to offender change and long-term success.

Political and Public Punitiveness

Social, political, and legal movements in the 1970s brought about crucial changes in sentencing and incarceration rates that some have referred to as an American “imprisonment binge” (Austin & Irwin, 2003). Prior to the 1970s, the “war on poverty” provided the framework to explain many social ills and focused state power and resources on institutions that provided support for those in need of food, housing, education, and health care. Soon after the political upheaval of the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, and the Vietnam War protests, however, the United States shifted its attention to what was perceived as a permissive generation out of control and thus a need to reestablish public order. Those participating in social change movements were often presented as drug users and irresponsible young adults. During this same period, crime rates were at record highs, with the rate of violent crime committed by people aged 15 to 24 among the highest (Austin & Irwin, 2003). The social context was ripe to easily connect crime to drug and alcohol abuse, and the connection set the political stage to argue that both crime and drugs needed to be addressed through the criminal justice system and not the social welfare or health care systems. In addition, the media fueled public fears about race, crime, and public disorder with continuous reports and displays of young men of color participating in violence within cities. Politicians capitalized on these fears by linking crime to a weak and lenient criminal justice system.

Very rapidly, emphasis shifted from the helping institutions that fought the “war on poverty” to the coercive institutions of the criminal justice system (police, courts, and corrections) to fight the “war on crime” and the “war on drugs.” Redefining social ills as based in crime versus poverty quickly shifted domestic policy toward using the full coercive power of the criminal justice system to address social and political challenges. As a result, prison populations escalated beyond what most could have imagined and created an increasing demand for community corrections officers and their services.

For instance, prison populations in the United States remained fairly stable from 1925 to 1973, with approximately 106 people per 100,000 adults in the general population sentenced to prison each year (SCJS, 2010c). As of 2008, the number of people sentenced to state or federal prisons increased to 504 people per 100,000 adults in the general population (SCJS, 2010c). The U.S. prison population leads the world with an incarcerated population of approximately 1.5 million adults per year, equating to nearly 25% of the world’s prison population (Cullen & Jonson, 2012). In addition to prison, approximately 736,000 adults are confined in county jails and detention centers, bringing the total number of people incarcerated each year to approximately 2.5 million (Glaze & Parks, 2012; SCJS, 2010a). At the current rate of incarceration, about 1 in 107 adults is housed in a prison or jail in the United States (Glaze & Parks, 2012). Even though many were astonished when the prison population reached 1 million in 1995 and prison trajectories were continuing upward, only a few scholars expressed concern about what would happen when the vast majority of this population was released from prison and returned to the community (Irwin & Austin, 1997; Petersilia, 2003; Travis, 2005). This concern has now become a reality with approximately 736,000 offenders released from prison each year, which equates to approximately 2,015 offenders per day (SCJS, 2010b).

New releases from prison occur through a number of mechanisms such as sentence completion, the parole board, good time or earned credits (mandatory parole), and prison population reduction strategies. Therefore, not all offenders released from prison are supervised. In addition, many convicted offenders (including felons) never go to prison but are sanctioned in the community through probation and other intermediate sanctions. Thus, community supervision caseloads are often inclusive of both probation and parole populations. The number of parolees has increased from approximately 220,000 offenders in 1980 to 850,000 offenders in 2011, or 3.6 times the 1980 level (SCJS, 2010a). The number of probationers has also increased significantly, from approximately 1.1 million in 1980 to 4 million in 2011, or nearly 4 times the 1980 level. This means approximately 1 in 50 adults is under probation or parole supervision.

Greater punitiveness by policymakers also went beyond the use of prisons to the use of civil sanctions to further punish offenders. Numerous laws restrict those with a felony record from receiving public assistance. For instance, those convicted of a felony drug offense may not reside in federally funded public housing, receive funding for public education, be licensed by the state for certain occupations, or vote in public elections (Mele & Mi...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Brief Contents
• Detailed Contents
• Preface
• Chapter 1. The Professional Responsibility of Community Corrections Officers
• Chapter 2. Beyond Law Enforcement and Social Work: Achieving Balanced and Integrated Supervision
• Chapter 3. CCOs and Their Relationship With the Community
• Chapter 4. Working Within Community Corrections Agencies
• Chapter 5. Expanding the Expertise of Community Corrections Officers: Embracing Evidence-Based Practice
• Chapter 6. Community Corrections Officers and Interagency Collaboration
• Chapter 7. Investing in Community Corrections Officers as Street-Level Boundary Spanners
• Index
• About the Author
• Advertisement