Most individuals under supervision in the criminal justice system are monitored in the community on probation or parole (Buehler & Klucklow, 2024). A significant proportion have mental health challenges necessitating treatment from a mental health professional (Brooker et al., 2020; Crilly et al. 2009). In many cases, individuals may be required to participate in treatment programming or take psychiatric medications as a condition of their supervision. In such instances, probation and parole officers (POs) must work with various types of behavioral health professionals (BHPs; e.g., social workers, counselors, psychologists, chemical dependency professionals) to monitor treatment compliance. However, POs and BHPs who go beyond these “check-ins” to actively partner to provide the best support to the individual on supervision are likely to create significant beneficial effects across multiple domains.
Yet, POs and BHPs operate in two different contexts—one that is therapeutic and emphasizes client-centered and client-led change and one that emphasizes public safety and is more compliance driven (Van Deinse et al., 2019). As such, when POs and BHPs work together, little guidance exists for doing so in a way that helps both parties achieve their goals and professional mandates. How POs and BHPs communicate and collaborate—the interpersonal process of their interactions—is foundational to supporting their shared clients’ success. This study in a 2025 article from Sarah M. Manchak and colleagues, published in Psychological Services, identifies some key ingredients necessary for POs and BHPs to work together successfully.
Leveraging insights from 18 POs and 21 BHPs, Manchak et al. (2025) identified seven interpersonal strategies for PO–BHP collaboration and communication. The 39 professionals each participated in one of six focus groups in which they were asked to discuss their experiences working with individuals from the other profession—what has worked or not worked in the past; what challenges exist; and how these experiences affected their respective clients. After providing time and space for participants to provide unprompted information, researchers then asked targeted questions about five process features identified in prior literature as important to collaboration and communication in other contexts: (1) communication, (2) shared values and perspectives, (3) cross-training, (4) trust, and (5) respect.
After the focus groups ended, the researchers systematically coded transcripts for the five a priori and any emergent themes. Findings offer nuanced guidance for POs and BHPs, specifically, that (1) communication and information-sharing should be timely, frequent, clear, and thorough; (2) shared values should first emphasize the client’s best interests; (3) cross-training should focus on each profession’s perspectives; (4) trust should be intentionally fostered and can come only from shedding preconceived biases about the other; and (5) respect is built when each party recognizes the relative importance of each professional’s goals and role in the client’s life. Two emergent themes suggest that, in the context of PO–BHP communication and collaboration, both parties (1) must make an equitable contribution to the professional relationship and clients’ progress and (2) must engage in consensus-driven vs. unilateral decision-making.