NCJ Number
74010
Date Published
1980
Length
168 pages
Annotation
Because of trends in the correction and rehabilitation of youthful offenders which affect the safety of parole agents and other aspects of their job performance, the California Youth Authority commissioned this survey of parole staff to reexamine its basic role, philosophy, and policies regarding the function of the Parole Services Branch.
Abstract
The survey included interviews with rank-and-file parole agents, supervisory staff, clerical and miscellaneous staff, and with a sample of parolees. Areas of exploration concerned topics specifically related to safety issues as well as assessments of the work-role climate and services delivered, and the identification of communication and other problems, and training and equipment needs. Parolee interviews covered their attitudes about parole, relationships with their parole agents, and attitudes about arming parole agents with weapons. A total of 373 staff members completed self-administered questionnaires, and 93 parolees were interviewed. In interpreting the data, normative data gathered in employee surveys conducted since 1975 were also used to compare California Youth Authority employees with employees at similar levels of responsibility. Findings indicate that two-thirds of all parole agents attested to job satisfaction, although parole agents with 5 to 9 years service were most likely to be dissatisfied with their jobs, and parole agents in certain regions were less satisfied than in others. Staff members found deficiencies in job training and promotion policies and opportunities, and agents and supervisors perceived increased danger, lack of administrative support, and inadequate training as the major barriers to effective job performance. Most employees felt that management should delegate more authority, speed up communications with staff, and offer training in basic management skills. Most parole staff remarked on the necessity for training in self-defense techniques and in crisis intervention; half agreed with introducing a policy permitting agents to carry firearms, although almost half of all supervisors disagreed. Tables and footnotes are included. Appendixes present the study's methodology, comparison data, verbatim comments from parole staff, a list of Parole Services Branch job classifications and regions, and the questionnaries. (Author abstract modified)