and parole agencies to work to diminish recidivism by utilizing scientific or “ state-of-the-art ” procedures to bring about offender behavior change ( Taxman et al ., 2004 ). Judy Sachwald ( 2004 ), Director of Maryland Probation and Parole , promotes a similar argument by incorporating a model of supervision rooted in scientific exploration and knowledge of offender behavior . She suggests that probation and parole agencies should “ do it , tell it , and sell it ,” with the “ it ” referring to shaping policies , operations , and professional development within agencies around scientific principles related to evidence-based practices .
There is no doubt that evidence-based practices designed to reduce risk of re-offending are infusing the community corrections field with more scientific approaches . These approaches rely on risk assessments to allow probation and parole agencies to differentiate and typologize offenders based upon their relative level of risk to re-offend . This strategy allows for addressing criminogenic needs — anti-social behavior , anti-social personality , anti-social values and attitudes , criminal peer groups , substance abuse , and dysfunctional family relations — through an integrated approach of surveillance , treatment , and enforcement . Although community corrections officers have numerous challenges to overcome , there are few issues more central to the organization and function of probation and parole practice and success than workload allocation issues . These issues form the base from which all other supervisory functions flow .
To gain a better understanding of how workload and caseload issues are viewed by probation and parole officers , this study focuses on how a group of probation and parole officials describe their concerns about workload . Focusing on the workload allocation concerns of probation and parole officials is important for at least four reasons . First , because they have experiences that others may not have had , probation and parole officers are in a position to provide insight into the way that broader influences have shaped workload allocation issues . Researchers and policy makers could use conjecture to understand these workload allocation issues , but such conjecture could be misleading and potentially ignore real concerns of probation and parole officials .
Second , probation and parole officials are in positions that have evolved a great deal over the past two decades . Much of the criminal justice overcrowding research has focused on the occurrence of prison overcrowding . However , this prison overcrowding research should lead naturally to research on the expanded use of community-based corrections . Ignoring the perceptions and experiences of probation and parole officials has resulted in shifting the overcrowding problem , rather than addressing it . By considering how these efforts to offset overcrowding have influenced probation and parole , a more complete picture of strategies to deal with overcrowding will appear .
Third , and on a related point , the growth in community-based corrections requires that policy makers and researchers determine how this growth is perceived by probation and parole officials . Identifying the most costeffective community corrections supervision strategies is essential to U . S . justice system policy and practice . Despite the relative lack of research into community corrections effectiveness , the U . S . justice system depends , more than ever , upon well executed and fiscally constrained community supervision strategies . Since the 1980s , correctional populations have grown about threefold , with nearly 7 million adults ( about 3.2 percent of the adult population ) under community supervision or incarcerated ( BJS , 2004a ). This growth places a significant burden on government budgets , as local , state , and federal direct expenditures for corrections totaled $ 36 billion in 1982 and climbed to $ 167 billion by 2001 ( BJS , 2004b ). One area of the justice system especially affected by this 366 percent growth is community corrections services .
Fourth , asking probation and parole officers about their perceptions gives them a voice in the research and policy-making process . Providing individual voices in the policy-making process will give a sense of empowerment to those who have chosen to use their voices to effect change . In turn , those who feel empowered will be more likely to work towards organizational goals . Indeed , the community corrections field must inform the judiciary and releasing authorities as well as policymakers of the effect of growing caseloads of higher-risk offenders with more imposed conditions .