Probation Under Quarantine: The Impact of COVID-19 on Probation in Alameda County

ABSTRACT

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic rapidly changed how organizations had to operate to decrease public health risk. Consequently, COVID-19 had substantial impacts on probation organizations, their staff, and the clients they serve. The current study examines how this pandemic affected one California probation agency. Using administrative data (n = 36 months) and staff surveys (n = 216), the study found that COVID-19 affected population trends, changed the composition of probation client populations, caused wide-ranging challenges for clients, and affected staff’s wellbeing and work experiences. In particular, shifts to virtual work were a dramatic change for the agency. Lessons learned from this study can assist agencies to best support staff and clients as the pandemic continues, as well as inform future responses to public health crises and other disruptive emergencies. Experiences with virtual work can also guide future consideration of the use of virtual technology within probation spaces.

KEYWORDS:

• Community corrections
• COVID
• probation
• reentry/reintegration

Acknowledgment

We thank Danielle Rudes and Faye Taxman for their review of this publication, and the Alameda County Probation Department staff for their time participating in this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Contact the first author for more information about the survey and its scales.

2. Probation staff did not have access to respondent information, so reminders were sent out to all staff, while GMU researchers were able to send reminders specifically to staff who had not yet responded.

3. The weight was calculated by dividing the population proportion by the sample proportion. This weight was then applied to the data through the SPSS weighting function. The Human Resources department could not provide any statistics on other demographic characteristics of the employees of the agency to determine how our sample compared to the full employee population.

4. AB 1950 was signed into law October 2020. This law reduced the maximum probation term to one year for misdemeanors and two years for felonies (with some exceptions for violent and serious felonies). As a result, 2,357 clients were terminated completely from their formal probation cases by the end of November 2021.

5. To address significant budget cuts caused by the pandemic, the Court implemented a hiring freeze in May 2020 and began to furlough staff one day per month from July 2020 through the end of the year.

6. All eligible individuals released from prison on or after October 1, 2011 after serving a prison term for a felony are released to supervision by a County Probation Department due to the implementation of AB109 in California with a few exceptions. Only individuals serving a current term of life, those with violent or serious felony offenses, per Penal Code Sections 667.5(c) and 1192.7(c), and those classified as High-Risk Sex Offenders or Mentally Disordered Offenders are released to Parole, rather than Probation supervision following release.

7. This rule excluded those sentenced to life without parole or awaiting the death penalty who would not be eligible for release to County probation departments.

8. This rule excluded those incarcerated for domestic violence and other violent crimes.

9. This rule excluded those sentenced to life without parole or awaiting the death penalty and high-risk sex offenders.

10. The probation agency’s risk assessment process changed soon before the pandemic started; therefore risk scores cannot be reliably compared across this time period.

11. While the survey asked specifically about challenges related to the pandemic, it is unclear whether the rates of these challenges markedly differed from before the pandemic.

12. Due to a statistically significant Levene statistic, the Welch F-statistic is reported.

13. Due to a statistically significant Levene statistic, the Welch F-statistic is reported. Adult Probation staff also perceived more difficulties related to forming positive relationships compared with the Juvenile Facilities staff.

14. Due to a statistically significant Levene statistic, the Welch F-statistic is reported.

15. Due to a statistically significant Levene statistic, the Welch F-statistic is reported.

16. Due to a statistically significant Levene statistic, the Welch F-statistic is reported.

17. Due to a statistically significant Levene statistic, the Welch F-statistic is reported.

18. Due to a statistically significant Levene statistic, the t-test for non-equal variances is reported.

19. Due to a statistically significant Levene statistic, the t-test for non-equal variances is reported.

20. Due to a statistically significant Levene statistic, the t-test for non-equal variances is reported.

21. Gender analyses compare men to women, because respondents who identified as transgender or as an “other” gender had too small of a sample size to permit analysis.

22. For a small subset of questions which restricted respondents only to those who service clients, sample sizes fell to n = 4–7 for certain staff type/division groups and n = 8–19 for some age groups.

Additional information

Funding

Research was partially supported by Alameda County under contract 19990. Views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the project funders.