. The evolution of community corrections has often seen what Carl B. Klockars calls the “classical dilemma of corrections (Klockars, 1972).” In time, we have come to see this dilemma represented as the law-enforcement-social casework dichotomy. This dichotomy is one that is rooted in what was observed as competing roles in the supervision and rehabilitation process used by community correctional officers. The dichotomy was presented as either “law enforcement” which was deep rooted in the legal requirements of supervision, or “social worker” in nature which was centered in assisting the offender in doing well in community adjustment. (Module 3 lecture, Manchak). The dichotomy as it failed to include a combination of both domains has recently
…show more content…
Research has shown that a strong dual relationship protects against recidivism whether offenders have a mental illness or not (Skeem et al, 2007). Furthermore, Skeem et al (2007) have found that the protective factor of sound dual role relationships is not credited to “Pre-existing positive offender traits or low risk levels.” Evidence on officer orientation and dual role relationships such as that found by Klockars and Paparoozi/Gendreau; substantiates the effectiveness of synthetic probation officers over other typologies. Thus, balance is key in success of community correctional programs. To conclude, relationships that are distinguished by therapeutic partnership (“social work”) and procedural justice (“law enforcement”) are presently the best protection available against failure in community …show more content…
Although both probation and parole officers ultimately see their role as one that is fixed in public safety, the interplay of their approach to corrections; known as their prospective typology combined with their “orientation” shapes the outcome of supervision strategies. The ability of community correctional officers to use discretion in their supervision process allows for the variance that is observed in the way community correctional officers assume different roles in the rehabilitation process. Superficially it may appear that community correctional officers may have little impact on offenders outcomes in supervision, however this is not the case. As argued by Gendreau and Andrews (2001) officers with a set of effective characteristics of agents of change coupled with the strategic use of the core correctional practices can have a positive impact on offender outcomes while on probation or parole. These core correctional practices include: “effective reinforcement disapproval, use of authority, quality of interpersonal relationships, cognitive restructuring, anti-criminal modeling, structured learning/skill building and problem solving techniques (Latessa & Smith, 2015)”. Unfortunately, as noted in the course textbook, current probation and parole practices are geared towards people processing and thus fail to be rooted in the focus of extended behavioral changes (Latessa & Smith,
Research has shown that a strong dual relationship protects against recidivism whether offenders have a mental illness or not (Skeem et al, 2007). Furthermore, Skeem et al (2007) have found that the protective factor of sound dual role relationships is not credited to “Pre-existing positive offender traits or low risk levels.” Evidence on officer orientation and dual role relationships such as that found by Klockars and Paparoozi/Gendreau; substantiates the effectiveness of synthetic probation officers over other typologies. Thus, balance is key in success of community correctional programs. To conclude, relationships that are distinguished by therapeutic partnership (“social work”) and procedural justice (“law enforcement”) are presently the best protection available against failure in community …show more content…
Although both probation and parole officers ultimately see their role as one that is fixed in public safety, the interplay of their approach to corrections; known as their prospective typology combined with their “orientation” shapes the outcome of supervision strategies. The ability of community correctional officers to use discretion in their supervision process allows for the variance that is observed in the way community correctional officers assume different roles in the rehabilitation process. Superficially it may appear that community correctional officers may have little impact on offenders outcomes in supervision, however this is not the case. As argued by Gendreau and Andrews (2001) officers with a set of effective characteristics of agents of change coupled with the strategic use of the core correctional practices can have a positive impact on offender outcomes while on probation or parole. These core correctional practices include: “effective reinforcement disapproval, use of authority, quality of interpersonal relationships, cognitive restructuring, anti-criminal modeling, structured learning/skill building and problem solving techniques (Latessa & Smith, 2015)”. Unfortunately, as noted in the course textbook, current probation and parole practices are geared towards people processing and thus fail to be rooted in the focus of extended behavioral changes (Latessa & Smith,