Probation Journal, Ahead of Print.
This article aims to explore the roles that Lithuanian probation officers associate with their profession, the differences between their ideal and actual roles, and the conflicts they encounter in their daily work with probation clients. The research was conducted using both quantitative and qualitative methods, including a survey of 129 individuals and interviews with 20 probation officers. Results from the survey showed that Lithuanian probation officers tend to associate their profession with control and balancing roles. Interviews revealed that probation officers associate their ideal roles with control or resocialisation functions but accept these contrasting roles as a professional necessity. The study also found that probation officers face a high workload related to paperwork, which suggests an actual role as a bureaucrat. Nevertheless, this role is not desired by the officers and is rejected. Additionally, the study revealed that probation officers experience internal conflicts related to the different expectations of their clients and the management of the probation service. This article argues that the organisation’s attitude and requirements influence the gap between the ideal and actual roles of probation officers and orient their actual roles towards bureaucratic and control functions.