Institutional Myths of the Probation Field: An Inhabited Institutionalist Approach to Understanding Condition-Setting and Violation Practices

Abstract Probation is common globally, and many probation clients receive violations. Research on violations focuses on client characteristics or probation officer (PO) decision-making without considering the influence of the courtroom workgroup of judges, prosecutors and defence attorneys. Based on interviews with 94 POs in a statewide US probation agency, we analyse POs’ perceptions of their interactions with the courtroom workgroup using an inhabited institutionalist framework. We find that social interactions foster institutional myths leaving POs feeling disempowered during condition-setting but authoritative at violation hearings. This shapes how POs use violations: to modify conditions they deem inappropriate. Our findings suggest that probation violations are not deployed solely in response to clients’ behaviour, but in response to social interactions with the courtroom workgroup.