in California. The agents initiated this civil action because of increasing .
discrepancies between policy and role that were similar to those currently .
facing Colorado probation officers. Before the court decided to allow .
officers to arm themselves while on duty, the agents frequently either .
refused to carry out mandated enforcement policies or carried firearms .
without authorization (Abadinsky, 1987). .
More recently, state probation officers in Maine have suspended any and all .
home visits until they are permitted to carry firearms. As a group, these .
officers currently feel that they are not adequately equipped to ensure their .
own safety (Maine probation, 1996). Regarding a similar situation in the .
State of Oklahoma, one author wrote, "Officers were confused as to why a .
position that required a college degree, . . . peace officer status, and .
daily office and field contact with felony offenders did not carry with it .
the trust involved in allowing officers to carry. . . handguns" (Jones & .
Robinson, 1989). .
In 1993 the Federal Probation and Pretrial Officers Association set out to .
survey dangerousness to officers nationally. Before this undertaking, there .
had not been a nationwide study that determined the extent of assaults or .
critical incidents directed at probation or parole officers. The association .
sought data from all states and territories and all jurisdictions, both .
juvenile and adult, for whom probation, pretrial services, and parole .
officers worked. A total of 955 agencies were solicited for information and .
459 (48 percent) responded. .
The primary goal of the research was to identify the types and numbers of .
serious assaults, or attempted serious assaults, against officers that .
occurred in the line of duty or because the perpetrator was aware of the .
official status of the officer. The survey inquired about all such incidents .
from 1980 to 1993. No information was sought regarding nonphysical incidents .
