REVIEW RELATED LITERATURE

This section contains relevant attempts at improving correctional success and

the probationer’s perspective under surveillance. According to Seymour and Costello

(2020), acknowledge that while their study focused largely on the social factors and

context of people’s lives and experiences, this did not overlook the importance of

cognitive behavioral and other offence-focused work, essential in probation

supervision, in developing the person’s thinking and coping skills and supporting

their journey towards change and desistance. The role of criminal justice

interventions in desistance processes has been extensively researched. There are

now valuable findings on the influence of probation upon behavioral change.

Persons who present to the Probation Service with no fixed abode (NFA) can pose

unique challenges for a Probation Officer in terms of assessment of risk and needs,

responsive, effective management and meaningful supervision. Persons supervised

by the Probation Service presenting to the homeless services often have complex

needs and can struggle to change their behavior, sustain change and integrate back

into society. Persons assessed as at high risk of reoffending present with particular

needs that require a high level of intervention. They are often on the margins of their

communities and find it difficult to navigate the services and structures that are there

to assist them. Challenges such as poor mental health, addiction, unemployment,

literacy problems, loneliness, isolation and shame can prevent them from accessing

and receiving the services and assistance they require. It is quite a problem to

address these challenges without the foundation of a home and the security and

stability that go with it. The work completed during probation can have long lasting

impact, and the quality of the supervisory relationship has been cited as crucial in

promoting change. Probationers’ perceptions of their probation officers has the

potential to encourage desistance, if these involve engagement and genuine concern

for the people supervised. Building a good rapport with probation officers has been

cited as an element of effective practice which could encourage behavioral change.

What is more, the impact of probation supervision on processes of desistance can

also emerge with time and impact behaviors long after the meetings have taken

place. Considering all these findings, it is relevant to analyze desister’ perspectives

on probation and accounts of relationships with their probation officers to better

understand how desistance unfolds within a punitive criminal justice setting.

Research has explored processes of desistance from crime and provided

explanations for change, accounting for structural and individual levels factors.

Mechanisms of change have been thoroughly mapped out. At present, factors

influencing how people stop offending structural influences and individual processes

are widely known. Structural factors refer to socio-economic contexts pertaining to

social norms, availability of opportunities, and scope for change. National Economic

and Social Forum (NESF) report (2019) and the work of Chapman and Hough

(2019), remains true today despite the ever-changing face of homelessness.

Effective probation supervision must incorporate and work in partnership with other

services including housing and employment agencies to reduce the risk of re-

offending amongst probation clients. One of the most effective ways of promoting an

offender’s reintegration is to reduce the risk of marginalization in the first place

assisting individuals to remain in the community increases their likelihood of

abstaining from offending in the long-term. Community-based sanctions provide such

an opportunity to the offender if the content of the sanction is targeted to his/her

hygienic needs. Failure to provide appropriate intervention to meet these needs often

results in an unsuccessful outcome for the offender and service provider. Probation
placement is community based rehabilitation practice, committed to promoting

effective actions aimed at fostering harmony between the probationer, victim and the

community. These endeavors administered within the community contribute to

community safety, crime reduction and penal decongestion. The above are seen in

the light of public protection which is the underlying and shared responsibility of all

criminal justice agencies. It plays a significant role towards reestablishing the life of

probationer back to the society. It provides a safe environment for improvement. The

purpose of rehabilitating offenders in controlled environment is reflected in the

proscribed admission numbers which must be confirmed prior to committal. Upon

completion of the sentence period the offenders are physically escorted home and

proper handing over is facilitated between the field office and the family members. A

necessary part of the rehabilitation effort to increase correctional success is

predicting the offenders' needs while in custody. These evaluation methods were

studied to make a successful transition from living in custody to becoming a

contributing member of society when released. Through this evaluation process,

offenders are questioned to determine their background and need to develop

programming specific to the offender based on their needs. Criminal justice

professionals have implemented various inmate programs nationwide to determine

the offender’s likelihood of reoffending when released from custody.

Vandala (2019) found that providing offenders education while they are in

custody changes their behavior and attitude, increases their self-esteem and self-

confidence, increases their employment skills, improves their cognitive skills,

promotes growth, and can transform the offenders into law-abiding citizens. The

education program does not have to be a traditional academic program, but this

same advantage was also found in offenders that participated in vocational

education programs. When offenders from impoverished areas are in custody,

providing them with the knowledge and skills to navigate public assistance resources

when released can help their successful reintegration into society. However, one of

the challenges these offenders face would be the federal ban because of the 1996

welfare reform that banned drug offenders from receiving public assistance when

they are released from custody if the offender had a felony drug conviction. As a

result of this 41 policy, many social programs designed to assist a person in getting

reestablished when they experience hard times are not available for these offenders

if they have a felony drug conviction. The need for rehabilitation is not a new topic; it

was a concept developed from the first penitentiary in the 1700s. In fact, at the time,

there was a focus on ensuring the offenders received an education as a part of the

mission of corrections. Providing the offenders’ rehabilitation, whether in custody or

when they are released, will also help alleviate the strain on correctional facilities by

reducing the number of offenders that recidivate back into the system. Providing

vocational rehabilitation when the offenders are released could be a successful

alternative to providing the offenders with programming while in custody. Criminal

justice leaders need to adapt case management strategies to identify the individual

learning styles of the offenders to be suited more specifically to the programming

needs of the offenders. While this rehabilitation was focused on community based

vocational programs, the study’s findings can be used to hypothesize the offenders’

chances of success when they complete a vocational program. The remaining

sections of this research examined the different parts of inmate programming and

the potential impact on improving correctional success. Some sections outlined the

predictive tools used to determine what skills the offender needs and the likelihood of

the offender becoming successful when released. Other sections focused on the
methods of intervention provided to the offenders after the assessment and how

these interventions can lead to a successful life outside of custody for the offender.

In fact, several recent studies have shown that a better working relationship predicts

better probation outcomes. While the benefits of a strong working relationship have

been empirically supported, the existing literature does not identify the

characteristics of individuals who express a stronger working relationship. The

current study adds to this understudied area by examining characteristics of

probationers and their perceptions of their PO. The concept of a working relationship

between a probation officer and supervisee (probationer) is a relatively new way to

explain some of the successes or failures of those under community supervision. A

good working relationship between probationers and POs creates an atmosphere

whereby the business of supervision can occur. Trust between the probationer and

PO can help facilitate the goals and purpose of supervision, affect the degree to

which the individual is compliant with the conditions of supervision, and advance

progress in addressing offending behavior. In a good working relationship, officers

exert their authority as a legitimate figure. A trusting relationship can ease the pain of

having to exercise enforcement procedures because the officer and probationer

have a common agreement as to the conditions and requirements of supervision.

While the role of the officer as an authority figure is maintained, a good working

relationship helps to facilitate probationer compliance with conditions and to make

progress on difficult issues. One example of efforts to build working relationships

was the Maryland Proactive Community Supervision (PCS) project. The objective of

the PCS model was to empower individuals under community supervision by

positioning officers as change agents. Moving from compliance-driven supervision to

change-oriented supervision (under various names such as evidence-based

supervision practices or a Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) framework) requires

repositioning the officer as a facilitator of change. The process is supported with a

toolkit focused on engaging individuals to help reduce dynamic risk factors and

increase productive, healthy behaviors. This toolkit includes assessment tools to

identify factors that drive criminal behavior, examples of case plans, and strategies

for coordinating with treatment services. Important to sustaining this working

relationship are supervision officers who “greet offenders with proper salutations,

shake hands with the offender upon entrance and exit, and maintain eye contact with

the offender during all personal conversations”. In this model, the supervision officer

engages in a hybrid of social work and enforcement roles, with an emphasis on

supporting probationers to make progress in various behavioral areas. In the PCS

model, a good working relationship included having the officer explain the

components of the case plan, with probationers selecting their case plan items. The

negotiated case plan is then utilized to assess whether the individual is progressing

or is incompliance (Benazeth, 2020).

Furthermore, strengthening offender compliance and increase successfully

completion levels of community sentences and avoid further offending. Providing the

probationer’s with the opportunity to change and redirect their lives more

purposefully and contribute towards social economic development. Working towards

reconciliation between the victims, the community and the offender. Promoting safer

communities and building public confidence in probationary measures.

REFERENCES:

National Economic and Social Forum (NESF) (2019,) Re-integration of Prisoners Forum Report No.
22, Dublin: National Economic and Social Forum.

Vandala, N. G. (2019). The transformative effect of correctional education: A global perspective.

Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1677122
Benazeth V (2020) Desistance et institutions: le paradoxe d’un effet limit ´ e de l’intervention ´
insitutionnelle sur les processus de desistance. In: Gaı ´ ¨a A, de Larminat X and Benazeth V
(eds) Comment Sort-on de la Delinquance? Comprendre le Processus de D ´ esistance ´ .
Villeneuve-d’Ascq: Medecine & Hygi ´ ene, collection D ` eviance et Soci ´ et ´ e