PROBATION AND PAROLE OFFICER SAFETY IN THE MIDDLE ATLANTIC REGION William H. Parsonage Joe A. Miller The Pennsylvania State University Introduction Worker safety in probation and parole has only recently emerged as a research topic. While the victimization of police officers has been the subject of considerable research, it was not until 1989 that the first published research addressing the victimization of probation and parole workers appeared. The purpose of that exploratory study was to generate information about the extent and nature of victimization experienced by probation and parole staff members. In late 1989, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) commissioned the first author to write a monograph on Worker Safety In Probation And Parole. The NIC, as further evidence of its concern for worker safety, provided support for presentations at the annual meetings of the Middle Atlantic States Correctional Association and the American Probation and Parole Association. At the request of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, the NIC provided a short-term technical assistance grant to support the second year Probation and Parole Worker Victimization Survey in Pennsylvania. Also in late 1989, the Middle Atlantic States Correctional Association (MASCA) secured a NIC technical assistance grant to support an expansion of the Pennsylvania research to its entire eight-state region. A major purpose of the expanded research was to initiate development of a comprehensive database characterizing the victimization of probation/parole workers in the Middle Atlantic Region. Ten research questions were articulated to guide that inquiry. 1. How extensive is the victimization of probation and parole workers in the MASCA region? 2. Do the kinds and rates of victimization vary according to the specific roles of workers? 3. What kinds of victimizations occur? 4. Does victimization experience vary by worker characteristics? 5. Who victimizes probation and parole workers? 6. In what contexts do victimization events occur? 7. How do workers deal with these events? 8. What are the aftermaths of victimizations? 9. How much victimization of workers can be prevented? 10. To what extent do workers endorse various proposed policy initiatives in terms of their utility in reducing victimization? This article summarizes the research conducted under the auspices of the MASCA organization, involving the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. "Hazardous Incident" and "Victimization": Some Working Definitions It is important to define the terms "hazardous incident," "victim," and "victimization." A "hazardous incident" is considered to be a situation that has the potential to result in a physical assault or other illegal act affecting the well-being of the worker. The definition of "victim," as applied to probation/parole workers, is a more difficult issue. The popular image of a "victim" is that of a completely innocent person who is harmed in the course of ordinary life circumstances. Police, corrections, probation, and parole workers against whom crimes and hazardous acts are committed have often been thought of in a different way. It is as though they cannot be afforded the status of "victim" because they "knew what they were getting into," or because in the conduct of their jobs they are expected to be able to deal with potentially dangerous persons and situations. Indeed, to assist them in that process, administration of justice workers are provided with special training, preparation, and resources to deal with hazardous situations. Despite this preparation and competence, however, a correctional, police, or probation officer who is killed, physically assaulted, intimidated, or otherwise threatened with harm while on duty is as much a victim as anyone else. Crime victims are people who suffer because of illegal acts against them. Defining "victimization" is also complex. A number of variables must be taken into account. A victimization is "a specific criminal act as it affects a single victim." In a practical sense, however, an act is a victimization when it is perceived as such. How the event is interpreted by the officer-- as an offense or as expected behavior which is just part of the job--will depend on that perception. Events, in order to be victimizations, must be identified behaviorally as such by those experiencing them. Victimizations must also be seen as transactions involving perpetrators and victims. Various victimologists have created typologies characterizing levels of offender-victim responsibility in crime events, demonstrating that the contributions of each participant can vary greatly. Thus, different factors, including the roles of participants, their relationships, and other contributing circumstances, need to be taken into account in understanding the nature of victimization events and how to respond to them appropriately. While the offenses against probation/parole workers that one usually hears about are incidents of serious physical assault, the spectrum of threatening events to which they are exposed is quite diverse. As a term or concept, victimization should not be limited to one terrible incident, such as an assault or a hostage situation. Also anxiety-producing are the series of uncontrollable, unpredictable, and unpleasant incidents (e.g., threats and intimidation attempts) that cumulatively may result in "burnout," post-traumatic stress disorder, or learned helplessness. The range of victimization events, therefore, must be considered in the development of a practical understanding of the overall phenomenon, impact on workers, cost to agencies, and effective methods for prevention and intervention. In defining "victimization" in the MASCA survey, it was decided to pursue an "inclusionary course" that would involve field workers in the process of establishing what they thought constituted victimization and, ultimately, in the creation of operational definitions. Thus, victimization was defined in its broadest sense as-- hazardous incidents in which people working in probation and parole agencies have been assaulted or threatened in connection with their work. Examples of hazardous incidents affecting staff safety would include: physical assault or harm; threat of physical assault or harm; assault or threat of harm to a worker's family members; harm or threat of harm to one's property; extortion; harm or threat of harm to a worker's reputation; or psychological intimidation. How we refer to criminal or threatening behavior that is directed toward probation/parole workers--whether we call it "hazardous events" or "victimizations"--has important implications for the way the problem will be addressed. Many, including the authors, want to be certain that the use of the term "victim" in no way characterizes probation and parole workers as weak, incompetent, ill-trained, or blundering people. Nor should the occurrence of such an event necessarily be viewed as the consequence of an error of omission on the part of an agency. Professional competence does not, unfortunately, immunize people from the dangerous or unwarranted acts of others. The decision to use "victim" and "victimization" has been made for lack of other terms to characterize adequately the real nature and seriousness of the problem with which we are dealing-- crimes against workers in the line of duty. Methodology The researchers constructed the survey instrument in consultation with a Research Advisory Committee comprised of representatives from adult and juvenile probation and parole systems in each MASCA jurisdiction. MASCA distributed 15,072 questionnaires to the total parole and probation work-force in the region. There were 6,940 (46%) usable returns, a very good response rate for a lengthy and detailed questionnaire (Table 1). Although administrative and clerical staff members were included in the survey, only findings relating to officers/agents are reported in this article. For various reasons, there was only a 17% response from agencies in the Washington, D. C. area. Because of the possibility of errors in data interpretation resulting from low returns, the District was omitted from the final report. It was considered prudent to include only those MASCA jurisdictions with much higher response rates. Table 1 RESPONSE RATES -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questionnaires Number Response State Distributed Returned Rate (pct) Connecticut (CT) 473 259 55 Delaware (DE) 189 81 43 Maryland (MD) 1,737 777 45 New Jersey (NJ) 3,725 2,185 59 New York (NY) 6,248 2,153 34 Pennsylvania (PA) 2,561 1,399 55 Vermont (VA) 139 86 62 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Findings Victimization Rates The survey of probation and parole workers in the MASCA region clearly indicates the presence of occupational risk, ranging from job-related physical assault to less severe incidents of intimidation and harassment. Consider the following: 62% of all the responding officer/agent experienced some kind of victimization during their careers. 35% reported at least one such event during the 12 months immediately preceding the survey. In the light of the offender population supervised, it is also important to look at these same statistics from a reverse angle. 38% of all the responding officers/agents reported no victimization against them during their entire careers. 65% experienced no hazardous incidents during the past 12 months. Thus, sizable numbers of probation and parole staff apparently deal effectively with hazardous situations without experiencing events they regard as victimizing (Table 2). Table 2 OFFICER/AGENT VICTIMIZATION RATES BY MASCA JURISDICTIONS (Percentages) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CT DE MD NJ NY PA VT MASCA Career Victim Rates 71 59 65 56 65 62 84 62 Victim of Assault 30 15 15 12 14 26 33 16 Victim of Intimidation 70 57 64 55 64 61 84 61 Past-Year Victim Rates 56 43 37 34 33 29 65 35 Victim of Assault 16 12 5 5 4 7 12 6 Victim of Intimidation 55 43 37 33 33 28 65 34 Base N* 191 68 520 128 1599 723 51 4390 * Note: Here and elsewhere, Base N indicates the total number of respondents on which the column percentages are based. ------------------------------------------------------------------ It is also important to examine the types of past-year victimization events (Table 3) Across the region, those who were physically assaulted represented less than 6% of the respondents. The rates ranged from a low of 4% in New York to a high of 16% in Connecticut, with a regional rate of 6%. By far, the greatest number of past-year victimizations across the region consisted of verbal threats and intimidation (or attempted intimidation). The regional rate was 34% (Table 3). Table 3 OFFICER/AGENT TYPES OF PAST-YEAR VICTIMIZATIONS (Percentages) -------------------------------------------------------------------- CT DE MD NJ NY PA VT MASCA Physical Assault Only 2 -- <1 1 <1 1 -- 1 Phy Assault & Intimid 15 12 5 4 4 6 12 5 Intimidation Only 39 31 32 29 29 22 53 29 Not a Victim Past Year 44 57 63 66 67 71 35 65 Base N 188 59 517 1278 1579 715 51 4455 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Correlates of Victimization Several worker characteristics were examined in relation to the likelihood of victimization, but only three proved to be significant. First, officers/agents who supervised parolees were more likely to be victimized than those carrying probation case- loads (Table 4). This does not minimize the seriousness of probation workers' experiences with hazardous incidents but probably relates to parolees' greater propensity for attempting assaultive or intimidating behavior. Second, with the exception of probation workers in Maryland, male officers/agents were somewhat more likely to face hazardous incidents than their female counterparts. Third, probation and parole workers holding second jobs were slightly more prone to victimization than those who did not. Of special interest was the finding that probation and parole workers who carry weapons or who have had unarmed self- defense training were more likely to be involved in hazardous incidents. Various explanations are possible: the type of individual who wants to be armed and/or trained in self-defense; the nature of the tasks given to those so armed and trained; the tendency for armed officers to be parole agents who are victimized more often; or, a combination of these and other factors. Whatever the case, the findings suggest the need for careful analysis before developing policies on arming probation and parole workers and training them in self-defense. Table 4 VICTIMIZATION EXPERIENCE OF OFFICERS/AGENTS ONLY IN THE MASCA REGION (Percentages) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Probation Parole Combined Total Career Victim Rates 60 75 70 62 Victim of Assault 13 32 23 15 Victim of Intimidatio 59 74 70 61 Past-Year Victim Rates 33 42 54 35 Victim of Assault 5 12 13 6 Victim of Intimidatio 32 41 54 34 Base N 3734 562 98 4394 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who Are The perpetrators? Most hazardous incidents were caused by probationers and parolees. The only notable exception was the involvement of a probationer or parolee's family member, which occurred most often when the client was a juvenile. (Table 5) The data in Table 6 also show that the offender was, in a majority of cases, under the victimized officer's direct supervision or under the supervision of another officer in the agency. Thus, the perpetrator was most often generally known to the victim. Table 5 PERPETRATORS IN MOST SERIOUS PAST-YEAR INCIDENTS AGAINST OFFICERS/AGENTS (Percentages) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CT DE MD NJ NY PA VT Client (Probationer Parolee) 79 73 74 67 69 69 89 Client's family member .6 14 15 9 12 12 11 Client's friend .4 -- 2 5 2 4 -- Court personnel -- -- -- 1 1 -- -- Bystander -- -- 2 5 2 -- -- Animal 1 -- 2 1 3 4 -- Other 2 4 3 7 9 4 -- Unknown 7 9 2 4 3 5 -- Base N 82 22 131 258 361 122 27 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 6 PERPETRATOR'S SUPERVISORY STATUS MOST SERIOUS PAST-YEAR VICTIMIZATION (Percentages) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- CT DE MD NJ NY PA VT Under PO's direct supervn 50 41 62 43 45 49 68 Under PO's agency supervn 24 41 8 16 15 19 14 Under other agency's supervn 4 4 5 5 4 6 -- Not under supervision 2 4 9 15 23 16 18 Unknown 10 9 15 19 13 10 -- Base N 81 22 130 258 361 122 28 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Context and Location of Incidents Announced and surprise field visits figured prominently as contexts in which incidents occurred. A significant number also took place while the offender was being arrested (Table 7). Table 8 shows that many victimizations apparently result from a series of events that occur in multiple situations and locations; in effect, they are episodic in character. For example, an incident that commences with an officer's or agent's visit to a client's home might culminate in an on-the-street confrontation or a class during a subsequent session at the agency office. This suggests that the most severe outcomes, physical assaults and injuries, may be prevented by strategic interventions into the recurring events. Table 7 CONTEXT FOR MOST SERIOUS PAST-YEAR VICTIMIZATION (Percentages) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CT DE MD NJ NY PA VT Announced or expected visit 32 32 50 35 41 20 33 Surprise visit 37 45 25 37 30 15 30 During arrest of the offender 24 41 4 11 14 18 22 During arrest of someone else -- 9 4 3 2 7 4 In response to offender's call .9 4 13 11 11 6 11 Response to offender family call 12 9 10 8 9 2 18 Context of domestic dispute 16 4 3 8 10 2 7 During transport of offender 14 9 6 7 5 9 7 Other context 30 24 32 37 38 22 50 Base N 81 22 13 258 361 122 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 8 WHERE MOST SERIOUS PAST-YEAR VICTIMIZATION OCCURRED (Percentages) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CT DE MD NJ NY PA VT Over the phone 16 9 24 20 17 8 15 By letter or mail 1 -- 3 6 3 1 7 Message or report of others 14 9 9 9 11 3 18 Agency office 53 27 55 43 50 19 41 Client's home 24 32 14 15 21 26 18 Someone else's home 4 9 2 6 4 4 15 Prison or jail 10 4 7 12 11 10 22 Police station 4 4 -- 4 2 -- 30 Human service agency 6 -- 7 3 6 2 7 Courtroom 12 4 17 8 6 9 11 In vehicle 12 -- 4 9 5 2 7 Offender's employment site 4 9 1 3 2 1 -- Public facility 8 9 4 2 4 3 4 On the street 8 14 11 20 13 8 18 Apartment hall or elevator 12 -- 2 10 -- 1 7 Other location 8 4 8 9 -- 2 11 Base N 80 22 130 258 361 122 28 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aftermaths Specific aftermaths of the most serious past-year victimization events are shown in Table 9. Across the MASCA region, the percentage of victims physically injured ranged from 6% (MD) to 20% (CT). More common were emotional shakeup, fear on the job, reduced sense of trust, and other psychological results. With the exception of MD (50%), about one-forth of those experiencing hazardous incidents felt that they had gained an enhanced sense of self-confidence. Table 9 AFTERMATHS MOST SERIOUS PAST-YEAR VICTIMIZATION (Percentages) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CT DE MD NJ NY PA VT injured by incident 20 18 6 14 12 7 11 Chronic condition 1 4 1 1 1 1 -- Aggravation of old injury 3 -- 2 1 2 2 -- Stomachache, headache, etc. 13 9 17 12 14 6 15 Shaken up 73 18 73 65 62 33 71 Fear on the job 53 18 46 45 35 24 39 Reduced self confidence 19 4 19 18 17 8 25 Reduced trust in clients 54 27 49 51 48 45 54 Reduced sensitivity to clients 29 14 36 35 28 30 29 Less open with clients 29 9 26 27 26 15 21 Less open with co-workers 10 9 -- 7 -- -- 4 Thought about quitting job 20 9 30 23 15 17 18 Applied for transfer 5 4 10 4 3 3 4 Avoid contact w/threat clients 17 18 22 22 20 18 11 Increased use of medication 1 -- 5 3 4 2 4 Increased use of alcohol 3 -- 2 1 4 2 7 Disruption of personal life 29 4 40 25 27 7 43 Disruption of family life 16 9 -- 16 20 8 29 Enhanced sense self-confidence 23 50 22 24 24 26 25 Base N 80 22 131 258 361 122 28 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perceptions of Worker Safety A sizable majority of the officer/agent respondents felt that neither they nor their agencies could have done anything to prevent the incidents from occurring. On the other hand, there was fairly strong agreement that agencies could have prepared them better to cope with these types of situations (Table 10). To address the agency's role in officer/agent preparation, the survey questionnaire listed a number of safety-related policy initiatives and respondents were asked to rank order them from very useful to not useful at all. The results are displayed in Table 11. The first five policy options were held in high regard--i.e., as very useful or useful--by most of the respondents in each of the MASCA jurisdictions. Table 10 WHETHER MOST SERIOUS PAST-YEAR INCIDENT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED (Percentages) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CT DE MD NJ NY PA VT Could you have prevented incident? Yes 8 14 4 8 10 9 7 No 65 73 78 70 70 91 82 Don't know 27 14 17 22 20 -- 11 Could your agency had done anything to prevent the incident? Yes 19 27 23 29 23 19 18 No 51 50 60 46 58 81 79 Don't know 30 23 17 24 20 -- 4 Could the agency have done anything to better prepare personnel to cope with this type of situation? Yes 42 68 48 65 52 49 36 No 25 14 33 19 29 51 43 Don't know 33 18 19 16 19 -- 21 Base N 80 22 131 258 361 121 28 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 11 OFFICER/AGENT RANKINGS OF SAFETY RELATED POLICY INITIATIVES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Policy Initiatives CT DE MD NJ NY PA VT "Partner system" used "as needed" 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 Identify all "high risk" areas and inform P/P officers 2 2 1 1 2 4 2 Training in self-defense methods 5 3 4 3 3 2 4 P/P officer-police officer teams when making arrests 7 4 8 5 5 * 3 Training in "verbal judo" 6 5 5 6 4 7 5 "Panic buttons" on office phones 4 8 3 4 6 10 7 Distress signal devices to POs making home visits 9 10 7 7 8 13 10 Establish secure clerical areas for field offices 3 11 11 9 17 11 15 Provide all P/P officers with hand-held radios 8 9 12 10 7 6 11 Two-way communications devices in officer's automobile 10 7 6 12 13 5 9 Security officers for field offices to control entrance 17 15 9 8 14 19 22 Provide P/P officers with recent "mugshots" of releasees 13 6 10 15 15 3 8 Provide P/P officers with non-lethal, chemical agents 11 14 14 16 9 14 6 Provide POs firearms to be carried when necessary 15 21 21 20 10 8 12 Provide POs firearms to be carried while on duty 16 17 23 22 16 * 16 Establish a "law enforcement arrest authority" 12 12 15 13 11 9 13 Provide P/P officers with soft body armor 14 13 19 19 12 12 14 Increase the number of specialized case-loads 21 16 16 23 21 15 18 Police/security officer present at revocation hearings 22 22 17 14 20 16 21 P/P officers provide supervisors with daily schedule 18 19 18 17 19 17 17 P/P officers check in/out with centralized monitor 19 18 20 21 22 18 19 Provide secure jail areas for visits with clients 20 23 13 11 18 20 23 Police/security officer present at all summons hearings 23 20 22 18 23 21 20 Base N 190 68 520 1263 1591 723 51 *Item not included in the Pennsylvania survey questionnaire. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: Seeing Both the Good and Bad News The interpretation and application of the findings generated in this study should be kept in perspective. The fact that, across the MASCA region, 62% of all probation and parole workers reported having experienced some type of victimization during their careers and that 35% of all respondents reported at least one such event during the past 12 months evidences the existence of an important worker safety problem. But it is also impressive that approximately 38% of all respondents reported no victimization against them in their careers and 65% were not so offended during the past 12 months. It is apparent that the great majority of officers are able to function in their roles and deal effectively with hazardous situations without experiencing events they consider victimizations. The purpose of this research was to be informative and helpful to workers and agency administrators in their endeavors to enhance worker safety while on the job. While it is possible that the data presented here will be used by different individuals or interest groups to support varying positions, it is hoped that it will be used responsibly and with some "balance." All of the research pertaining to this topic that the authors could locate was conducted between 1987 and 1989. Parsonage, William H. and W. Conway Bushey, "The Victimization of Probation and Parole Workers in the Line of Duty: An Exploratory Study," Criminal Justice Policy Review, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1989. Parsonage, William H., Worker Safety In Probation And Parole, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, April 1990. Parsonage, William H. and W. Conway Bushey, "The Victimization of Probation and Parole Workers In The Line Of Duty," Middle Atlantic States Correctional Association meeting, Kiamesha Lake, New York, May, 1989. Parsonage, William H. and W. Conway Bushey, "Worker Safety in Probation and Parole", American Probation and Parole Association Meeting, Milwaukee, WS, July, 1989. William H. Parsonage and Joe A. Miller, Pennsylvania Probation and Parole Victimization Project: 1989 Report, The Pennsylvania State University, 1990; William H. Parsonage, Joe A. Miller, and Jeffrey Snipes, "The Dynamics of Probation/Parole Officer Victimization," paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice, 1990. Technical Assistance Grant 89C1102 from the National Institute of Corrections to the Middle Atlantic States Correctional Association, August, 1989. The research questions endorsed by the MASCA Advisory Committee and utilized in the current research were the same as those addressed in earlier Pennsylvania studies (Parsonage & Bushey, 1988; Parsonage & Miller, 1989). Criminal Victimization in the United States--1987, Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1988, p. 120. Karmen, Andrew, Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology (Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole, 1984), p. 85. Parsonage, William H., Ed., Perspectives on Victimology (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Research Progress Series in Criminology, 1979), p. 10. Agee, Gerald L. and Vicki L. Agee, "When Risk Becomes Reality," Corrections Today, August 1987, 49-53. The following definition of "victimization" was used in the 1988 and 1989 Pennsylvania studies, based on a review of pertinent literature and consultation with a group of administrators and officers representing state parole, adult and juvenile probation services--"any violence, threat of violence, intimidation, extortion, theft of property, damage to one's reputation or any other act which inflicts damage, instills fear or threatens one's sensibilities". The definition of victimization and the terms "hazardous incident" and "victimization" were matters discussed at an August 1989 meeting of the MASCA Research Advisory Committee. In order to maintain comparability between Pennsylvania data and data to be generated in the MASCA study, the basic elements of the definition of victimization used in the Pennsylvania studies were main- tained. The Committee suggested that the word victimization not be used in the questionnaire itself, preferring instead the use of "hazardous incident." The Advisory Committee members did not, however, challenge the concept of victimization as applicable to such incidents involving probation and parole workers. The researchers followed the advice of the Committee and used the term "hazardous incident" in the lead-in to the survey questions. Since the 1930's New York parole agents are required to be armed. In two of the participating states, the work classification used was "probation and parole officers." We have referred to this group as "combined."