Journal: What is a label...….Assignment: Community-Based Corrections Plan

p.104

55 PROBATION

©Rich Pedroncelli/AP/Corbis

Media Library

CHAPTER 5 Media Library

AU D I OAU D I O

After Thousands of Inmates Re- leased Early, Probation Officers Will Be Watching

W E BW E B

History of Probation

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

1 .1 . Discuss how probation impacts the jail and prison systems of a jurisdiction.

2 .2 . Describe briefly the history of probation.

3 .3 . Compare different means by which probation agencies are organized.

4 .4 . Identify the qualifications and characteristics of most probation officers.

5 .5 . List some of the reasons probation would be revoked.

V I D E OV I D E O

Presentence Investigation

A New Probation Program in Hawaii Beats the Statistics

S AG E J O U R N A L A RT I C L E L I N KS AG E J O U R N A L A RT I C L E L I N K

Racial Disparity in Probationers’ Views About Probation

What Matters Most in Probation Supervision: Staff Characteristics, Staff Skills or Program?

p.105

G e t t h e e d g e o n yo u r s t u d i e s :G e t t h e e d g e o n yo u r s t u d i e s : e d g e . s a g e p u b . c o m / h a n s e r 2 ee d g e . s a g e p u b . c o m / h a n s e r 2 e

• Take a quiz to find out what you’ve learned.

• Review key terms with eFlashcards.

• Watch videos that enhance chapter content.

PROBATION OFFICERPROBATION OFFICER STRESSSTRESS

Jillian Jackson, a consultant in organization efficiency and human resources, was recently hired to address problems with poor morale within a very large probation agency.

Recently, it had been discovered that recidivism rates in the agency’s jurisdiction were higher than average, much to the dismay of the administration and the chief judge of the criminal court. Nobody really knew what to do; extensive budget cuts had been made during the past 3 years and, on top of that, the jail and prison systems were full beyond capacity most of the time. It was also clear that the types of offenders on the caseloads had issues that were often more serious and complicated than offenders in the past. And even

though the number of offenders was not rising, it was not going down either.

Jillian examined the small group around her. It consisted of eight probation officers who had been brought together as a focus group to discuss workplace stress. Jillian had asked these officers for feedback and thought at first that they might be hesitant to speak out. Boy, was I wrong, she thought to herself.

She motioned to one of the officers, Darrel Hayes, a somewhat gruff-appearing, barrel-chested man who, though professional, spoke with a commanding presence.

Once acknowledged, Hayes said, “I can have somebody’s file pulled because they are a higher-risk person and I want to focus on his supervision and service needs, and then the 16 stupid things that I shouldn’t have to be dealing with at all come walking in the door. At the end of the day, I realize that the one person I really should’ve been spending time with didn’t get any time. That frustrates me because, let’s face it, those are the cases that potentially are going to blow up in your face.”

Jillian responded, “Yes, Mr. Hayes, I can see how this would get pretty frustrating.” Another officer, Zora Gonzales, raised her hand, and Jillian indicated for her to speak.

“I often feel intense pressure because you have such a responsibility to the community,” Gonzales said. “These high- risk offenders pose such a potential threat to public safety that you feel pressure to find the right treatment for this person and to make sure that they’re getting something out of it.”

“So if you all were able to spend more time with the more risky offenders to ensure that they received the programming that they needed, you would feel much better about your role in maintaining public safety and be able to use some of the tools that are designed to prevent some of these recidivism problems?”

“Yeah, exactly!” said Hayes. Gonzales and four other officers nodded their heads as well.

Jillian asked, “Have you guys ever made all of this known to the chief judge and other external officials?”

Jason Booker replied, “Naw, I don’t think any of us are really prone to talking about this stuff beyond our own group here . . . especially not to people outside of our organization. They don’t understand, and they’ll also probably worry even more that we don’t have a handle on things.”

Nodding in agreement with Booker, Susan Grundstrom added, “You know, Ms.

Jackson, most probation officers’ lives are kind of chaotic due to the size of our caseloads and the nature of who we have to deal with. It’s hard not to reduce everything to self-preservation, routing people without getting in-depth, just to survive. On a personal level, I think most officers stay pretty closed up—like police officers. What do you do—go home and tell your husband about the child abusers and rapists you saw in the office today? It’s difficult for officers not to carry their work home, and yet difficult not to be able to talk about it there.”

Jillian considered Grundstrom’s words. After a moment she said, “I think that we’re going to have to work on the agency’s idea of communication and collaboration with outside partners, and I think this is going to require many partners coming together to ensure that programs and supervision are paired up correctly, comprehensively, and consistently with these high risk- offenders. The agency staff simply can’t do everything.”

And I think that this is going to require much more work than anyone in this administration realizes, she then thought to herself.

p.106

INTRODUCTION

Probation, as implemented by county and state jurisdictions around the nation, is the most common sanction administered in the United States. For this reason, if nothing else, attention should be given to it. However, probation is specifically important to corrections because it is, by its very nature, an option that facilitates the process of correcting offenders. In addition, probation impacts the jail and prison systems through revocation processes and by acting as a filtering device as offenders are inputted into the jail and prison systems. Since space in incarceration faculties can often be scarce, probation alleviates overcrowding problems at the front end of the criminal justice system. Thus, probation serves as an important tool for jurisdictions that operate local jails.

It is with this in mind that we will examine the use of probation and how this sanction greatly impacts the inmate flow within correctional institutions. This is particularly true within the jail setting, and it is therefore appropriate that our discussion of probation occurs just after our discussion of jail facilities and the issues that impact jail systems. Now that you, the reader, have a better understanding of jail facilities and the issues inherent to their operation, the following discussion related to probation

and jail population flow should be clear.

When we speak of probation we are referring to its use as a control valve mechanism that mitigates the flow of inmates sent directly to the jail. However, probation is also a sentence whereby people are given a less restrictive sanction with the understanding that they will be incarcerated if they do not comply with the terms of this type of supervision within the community. We will talk later in this chapter about the common terms and conditions of probation sentences, but for now we will focus more on the history of probation and the role that it has played, systemically, in the correctional system.

We b L i n kWe b L i n k History of Probation CLICK TO SHOW

A BRIEF HISTORY OF PROBATION

Probation is a uniquely American invention (see Focus Topic 5.1). At its inception, probation was used as an alternative to incarceration in the United States. John Augustus, a cobbler and philanthropist of Boston, is often recognized as the Father of Modern Probation. During the time that Augustus provided his innovative contribution to the field of community corrections, the temperance movement against alcohol consumption was in full

N YC D e p a r t m e n t o f P r o b a t i o nN YC D e p a r t m e n t o f P r o b a t i o n

PHOTO 5.1 John Augustus was a

volunteer of the court in the Boston area

during the mid-1800s. He is regarded as

the Father of Modern Probation.

swing. Augustus, aware of many of the issues associated with alcoholism, made an active effort to rehabilitate prior alcoholics who were processed through the police court in Boston.

While acting as a volunteer of the court, Augustus observed a man being charged for drunkenness who would have, in all likelihood, ended up in the Boston House of Correction if it were not for Augustus’s

intervention. Augustus placed bail for the man, personally guaranteeing the man’s return to court at the prescribed time. Augustus helped the man to find a job and provided him with the guidance and support that was necessary so that the defendant was able to become a functioning and productive member within the community. When the court ordered the return of the offender three weeks later, the judge noticed a very substantial improvement in the offender’s behavior. The judge was so impressed by this outcome that he granted leniency in sentencing (Augustus, 1972/1852; Barnes & Teeters, 1959). From this point in 1841 until his death in 1859, Augustus continued to bail out numerous offenders, providing voluntary supervision and guidance until they were subsequently sentenced by the court. Students should recall that corrections, as used in this text, is intended to do more than simply punish the offender but instead seeks to reform the offender. This is just as true with the use of probation as it would be with any other form of correctional sanction. While probation may act as a valve that mitigates the flow of inmates into the jailhouse, this is not and should not be its primary purpose. Rather, consistent with the earlier presented definition of corrections, probation should place primary emphasis on correcting criminal human behavior. Issues related to jail logistics and other such concerns should be secondary. This

was the original intent when administering probation since Augustus was primarily concerned with the malicious treatment of offenders and the desire for revenge that could easily disrupt society.

p.107

FOCUS TOPIC 5.1 Historical Developments inHistorical Developments in Probation in the United StatesProbation in the United States

1841: John Augustus becomes the Father of Probation.

1869: First official probation program developed in Massachusetts (the home of probation).

1901: New York creates the first statute officially establishing adult probation services.

1925: Federal probation is authorized by Congress.

1927: Forty-nine states implement juvenile probation (all but Wyoming).

1943: Presentence investigation reports are formally created by federal probation system.

1956: Mississippi is the 50th state to formally establish adult probation.

1965: The birth of “shock probation” occurs in the state of Ohio.

1974: The American Probation and Parole Association is founded in Houston, Texas.

1979: Various risk/needs assessments are developed by the state of Wisconsin.

1983: Intensive supervised probation is born in Georgia.

1983: Electronic monitoring of offenders first starts in New Mexico.

1995: Global Positioning System technology for probation begins to be used in Florida.

While Augustus was aware that jail and prison conditions were barbaric in many cases, his actual goal was not necessarily to spare individuals from the misery of jail but to attempt to reform offenders. He selected his candidates with due care and caution, generally offering aid to first-time offenders. He also looked to character, demeanor, past experiences, and potential future influences when making his

decisions. Thus, whether you use the word reform, rehabilitate, or reintegrate, it is clear that the initial intent of probation was to provide society with people who were more productive after sentencing than they had been prior to it. This intent stood on its own merit and purpose, regardless of jail or prison conditions that might have existed, thereby establishing the original mission of community corrections as a whole. Nevertheless, in contemporary corrections, probation often plays the role of a control valve that handles inmates that the jail facility cannot hold. We will talk about this more in the section that follows.

CONTEMPORARY PROBATION: WHEN THE JAIL IS FULL

In many cases, probation sentences are meted out at the county level of government. This is the same level of government that tends to administer jail facilities. Thus, probation is typically administered by the same courthouse that oversees the jail facility in a given jurisdiction. As a result, these two justice functions—probation and jailing—tend to work in tandem with one another. However, this is not to imply that coordination and communication between jail administrators and probation administrators is optimal; in many cases these two functions operate in a manner

that is disjointed, despite the fact that the same courthouse may impact both probation and jail agencies.

While jails and probation agencies may (or may not) have a collaborative relationship, it is undeniable that the district attorney (the office that prosecutes criminals) will have a close working relationship with the local sheriff or sheriffs in the region as well as city police chiefs who collectively oversee law enforcement activities. These activities result in the flow of criminals before the courthouse and ultimately require that a judge sentence an offender to one of three likely options: community supervision (usually probation), a jail sentence (sometimes with additional community supervision requirements), or a prison sentence (if incarceration is to exceed a year in duration).

A u d i o L i n kA u d i o L i n k After Thousands of Inmates Released Early, Probation Officers Will Be Watching CLICK TO SHOW

p.108

Because the majority of offenders tend to commit crimes that are petty, nonserious, or nonviolent, this means that they will tend to qualify for jail or probation. Those offenders who do commit serious crimes will, naturally, be sentenced to prison and

then are therefore the concern of state prison system authorities. However, the bulk of the offender population will remain at the county level, and it is in this manner that the jail population develops. In many instances, the jail facility will fill quite quickly with offenders who commit crimes, particularly in large urban areas of the nation. The use of probation becomes a critical tool to monitor and alleviate the flow of inmates into the jail.

Thus, as noted previously, one function of probation is to act as a control valve mechanism that mitigates the flow of inmates sent directly to the jailhouse. Without the use of probation sanctions, jails would simply collapse in their operation because the current jail facility structure throughout the United States could not even come close to containing the total offender population. This problem is exacerbated when state prison systems are full and jail facilities are required to keep inmates who, legally speaking, should be housed within a state prison facility. This demonstrates how the jail facility can feel pressure from inmate flow from the front end and the back end of its operational system.

Despite the tendency to use probation as a control valve mechanism for jailhouse admissions, the total number of offenders who are on probation has continued to decline since 2009. As can be seen in Table

5.1, in 2009 the total number of individuals on probation around the nation was 4,198,200, with a steady decline since then to 3,864,100 in 2014. One reason for this is that crime rates around the country are down. Additionally, such a decline also occurs when corrections departments are looking for ways to reduce their community supervision populations and provide incentives in programming to reduce overall sentences, including probation.

There is one noteworthy exception to this decline in probation rates, however: the state of California. As students may recall from Chapter 4, California passed what is known as the Public Safety Realignment (PSR) policy, which was designed to reduce the number of offenders in the state prison system to 110,000. Since this policy was implemented, entries to probation have increased nearly 15%, from an estimated 149,000 offenders in 2010 to 295,475 in 2014. Thus, one way of keeping the state’s prison population from growing larger seems to be the more frequent use of probation.

Lastly, it would appear that a handful of states stand way in front in relation to the number of probationers who are supervised therein. Indeed, five states (see Table 5.2) have populations that are well above 200,000 probationers. All other states have less than 200,000 each, with

only about six them having over 100,000. The state of Michigan comes in 6th in terms of the size of the probation population, with 180,583 probationers. Thus, the top five states account for approximately 1.6 million out of the nearly 4 million probationers around the country.

CHARACTERISTICS OF PROBATIONERS

When we use the term probationers, we are referring to those criminal offenders who have been sentenced to a period of correctional supervision in the community in lieu of incarceration (Hanser, 2010b). Among this population, the percentage of females in the adult probation population increased slightly over the past decade, climbing from 22% in 2000 to 25% in 2014 (see Table 5.3). Overall, women are becoming a larger portion of inmates in the correctional system; they account for about 7.4% of the total state and federal prison population. However, women comprise a much larger segment of the probation population than the prison population. Additionally, women account for slightly more than 10% of the nation’s prisoner population housed in community- based facilities, which are institutions that permit half or more of all inmates to leave the facility unaccompanied on a regular basis (Stephan, 2008, p. 4). This demonstrates that it is much more frequent for women to be given some type

of community involvement or contact when sentenced for a criminal offense, even when they are serving time at a state or federal facility.

Table 5.1: U.S. Adult Residents on Probation, 2009–2014

SOURCE: Kaeble, D., Maruschak, L.M., Bonczar, T. P.

(2015). Probation and Parole in the United States,

2014. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Table 5.2: Top Five State Probation Populations in 2014

SOURCE: Kaeble, D., Maruschak, L.M., Bonczar, T. P.

(2015). Probation and Parole in the United States,

2014. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

p.109

Table 5.3: Characteristics of Adults on Probation, 2000, 2013, & 2014

SOURCE: Kaeble, D., Maruschak, L.M., Bonczar, T. P.

(2015). Probation and Parole in the United States,

2014. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.

Counts based on most recent data and may differ

from previously published statistics. See Methodolo-

gy. Characteristics based on probationers with known

type of status.

… Not available.

aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, unless

specified.

bIncludes violent and property offenses in 2000 be-

cause those data were not collected separately.

p.110

When considering race, in 2014 over half (54%) of all probationers were Caucasian, 30% were African American, and 13% were Hispanic or Latino, which is similar to the percentages in 2000. Table 5.3 shows these racial breakdowns. As we will see in later chapters, this is different from prison populations, where African Americans have a higher representation and Caucasians a lower one.

It can also be seen in Table 5.3 that the percentage of probationers supervised for a felony offense increased from 52% in 2000 to 56% in 2014. Nearly 19% of all probationers were on supervision for a violent offense, 28% were on supervision for a property offense, and 25% were on supervision for a drug offense. Another 16% were on probation for a public order offense, most of which were driving while intoxicated (DWI) or driving under the influence (DUI) charges. The remaining 11% of probationers had unclear categories due to data reporting problems.

It is important to point out that additional programming, such as involvement in substance abuse counseling, drug court supervision, or DWI classes, is required in

order to complete supervision for many of the nearly 39% of probationers on supervision for drugs, DWI, or DUI offenses. This is important because this shows probation sentences are often paired with therapeutic programming rather than just acting as a release valve for jail and prison populations.

THE ADMINISTRATION OF PROBATION

Earlier in this chapter, it was noted that in many cases, probation is administered through the same jurisdiction that also oversees the jailhouse. While this is true in many cases, there are other means by which probation is administered. Indeed, the specific means by which probation operates can vary if it is not the county level of government that oversees the probation sanctioning process. Correctional systems, including community supervision components, can differ greatly from state to state. Thus, a bit more discussion on the organizational aspects of probation administration is provided since this greatly impacts the operations of probation services within a given jurisdiction.

The Probation Agency

When examining the means of operation within a probation agency, one key characteristic to consider is the degree of

centralization that exists within that agency. Indeed, adult probation in one state may be administered by a single central state agency, by a variety of local agencies, or by a combination of the two. When considering local levels of administration, agencies may operate at the county or even municipal level. However, these supposedly smaller jurisdictions should not be underestimated. Consider, for example, the probation departments in New York City, where felony and misdemeanor caseloads are larger than those of many entire state systems.

Generally, probation systems can be separated into six categories, with states having more than one system in operation simultaneously (Allen & Sawhney, 2010; Hanser, 2010b). The six categories of operation are as follows:

1 .1 . J u ve n i l e :J u ve n i l e : Includes separate probation services for juveniles that are administered through county or municipal governments or on a statewide basis.

2 .2 . M u n i c i p a l :M u n i c i p a l : Independent probation agencies that are administered through lower courts or through the municipality itself.

3 .3 . C o u n t y :C o u n t y : The probation agency is governed by laws and/or guidelines established by the state that empower a county to operate its own

probation agency.

4 .4 . S t a t e :S t a t e : One agency administers a centralized probation system that provides services throughout the state.

5 .5 . S t a t e c o m b i n e d P& P :S t a t e c o m b i n e d P& P : Probation and parole services are administered together on a statewide basis by a single agency.

6 .6 . Fe d e ra l :Fe d e ra l : Probation is administered nationally as a branch of the courts.

p.111

CROSS-NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE 5.1 The Histor y ofThe Histor y of Probation in EnglandProbation in England

1876: Hertfordshire printer Frederic Rainer, a volunteer with the Church of England Temperance Society (CETS), writes to the society of his concern about the lack of help for those who come before the courts. He sends a donation of five shillings (25 pence) toward a fund for practical rescue work in the police courts. The CETS responds by appointing two

missionaries to Southwark court with the initial aim of “reclaiming drunkards.” This forms the basis of the London Police Court Mission (LPCM), whose missionaries work with magistrates to develop a system of releasing offenders on the condition that they keep in touch with the missionary and accepted guidance.

1880: Eight full-time missionaries are in place, and the mission opens homes and shelters, providing vocational training and developing residential work.

1886: The Probation of First Offenders Act allows for courts around the country to follow the London example of appointing missionaries, but very few do so.

1907: The Probation of Offenders Act gives LPCM missionaries official status as “officers of the court,” later known as probation officers. The act allows courts to suspend punishment and discharge offenders if they enter into a recognizance of between one and three years, one condition of which is supervision by a person named in the “probation order.”

1913: Progress seems to be occurring, as reported at the National Association of Probation Officers first

annual meeting: “Of 137 prisoners, 17 had been sent for sentence as ‘incorrigible rogues’ and 12 others were awaiting punishment. There were only nine women. There has been a steady diminution in the number of cases ever since the new method of dealing with offenders under the Probation of Offenders Act was adopted 4 years ago. Of those who had been dealt with in that way, very few had offended again.”

1918: With juvenile crime increasing during and after World War I, the Home Office concedes that probation should not be left to philanthropic or judicial bodies and that state direction is needed. The influential Molony Committee of 1927 stimulates debate about the respective roles of probation officers, local government, and philanthropic organizations. It encourages the informal involvement of probation officers in aftercare from both Borstal and reformatory schools.

1938: The Home Office assumes control of the probation service and introduces a wide range of modernizing reforms. The legal formula of “entering into a recognizance” is replaced by “consent to probation.” Requirements for psychiatric treatment are also introduced, and it is made mandatory

for female probationers to be supervised by women officers. The LPCM concentrates on hostels for “probation trainees” and branches out into homes for children in “moral danger,” sexually abused children, and young mothers.

1948: The Criminal Justice Act incorporates punitive measures such as attendance centers and detention centers, but the stated purpose of the probation order remains intact and is reaffirmed as “advise, assist, and befriend.”

1970s and 1980s: Partnerships with other agencies result in cautioning schemes, alternatives to custody, and crime reduction, while changes in sentencing result in day centers, special program conditions, the probation order as a sentence, and risk of custody and risk of reconviction assessment tools.

2000: The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act renames the probation service as the National Probation Service for England and Wales. It creates the post of director general of probation services within the Home Office and makes chief officers statutory officeholders and members of local probation boards.

2004: The government publishes Reducing Crime, Changing Lives, which proposes to improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and the correctional services in particular. The National Offender Management Service is established with the aim of reducing reoffending through more consistent and effective offender management.

2007: The probation service in England and Wales is 100 years old.

Q U E S T I O N :Q U E S T I O N : Discuss the commonality of early religious involvement in corrections, and explain how that affected correctional thought in England. Explain whether this religious emphasis has continued or if it appears to have diminished over time. Is this the same as or different from developments in the United States? Explain your answer.

SOURCE: Adapted from Probation

Board Association of England and Wales.

(2007). Probation centenary, 1907–

2007. Retrieved February 2, 2011, from

http://www.probationcente-

nary.org/contactus.htm

For more information about probation in

the United Kingdom, visit

http://www.probationcente-

nary.org/contactus.htm.

©iStockphoto.com/Signature Collection

PHOTO 5.2 During the completion of

the PSI report, the probation officer will

often make several inquiries of the

offender during a face-to-face interview.

In many cases, the administration of probation may be determined by the seriousness of the offense. For instance, felony offenses may be supervised by state-level personnel while misdemeanor cases may be supervised by local governmental probation agencies. For instance, in Michigan, adult felony probation is administered through the state department of corrections while adult misdemeanor probation is administered through the local district courts.

p.112

Juvenile probation adds a whole new dimension of organizational considerations. Over half of all juvenile probation agencies are administered at the local level. Juvenile probation may be provided through a separate agency or through a subdepartment of the large adult probation system. In over a dozen states, juvenile probation services are split, with the juvenile court administering services in urban jurisdictions and the state administering such services in rural areas. Lastly, some states have a statewide office of juvenile probation that is located in that state’s executive branch (Allen & Sawhney, 2010; Hanser, 2010b).

The Presentence Investigation

The presentence investigation report is a file that includes a wide range of background information on the offender. This file will typically include demographic, vocational, educational, and personal information on the offender as well as records on his or her prior offending patterns and the probation department’s recommendation as to the appropriate type of sentencing and supervision for the offender. According to the Michigan Department of Corrections, “A probation file may also consist of other reports written by counselors, psychologists, and case workers. Therefore, a large amount of personal and confidential information is maintained by the probation officer which

should not be disclosed arbitrarily” (2003, p. 33). In many respects, the presentence investigation (PSI) report is the initial point of assessment, and it will often be utilized when the offender is first brought into a prison facility. In other words, the PSI report is not just used in probation sentences; it also is used when offenders are imprisoned. While writing the PSI report, a probation officer may review sentencing recommendations with the offender and even perhaps with the offender’s family. Note that this is separate from any other arrangements that might be made throughout the plea-bargaining process between the offender’s counsel and the prosecutor’s office. In some cases, probation officers may also be required to testify in court as to their findings and recommendations.

The primary purpose of the PSI report is to provide the court with the necessary information from which a sentencing decision can be derived. The PSI is conducted after a defendant is found guilty of a charge (whether by pleading or by court finding) but prior to sentencing. This information in the PSI report, along with a sentencing recommendation, will aid the judge, who must ultimately fashion a sentence as well as any corollary obligations attached to that sentence.

V i d e o L i n kV i d e o L i n k Presentence Investigation

CLICK TO SHOW

The PSI report also tends to serve as a basic foundation for supervision and treatment planning throughout the offender’s sentence, both when on probation and later if the offender is incarcerated. Quite often this document will serve as a reference point for placing the offender in a variety of programs. This can happen when the offender is on supervision or in a jail or detention facility.

Among other things, the PSI report will contain information related to the character and behavior of the offender. This means that the probation officer’s impressions of the offender can greatly impact the outcome of the PSI. The PSI is typically conducted through an interview with the offender. Because the PSI report information is largely obtained from the interview process, it is naturally important that probation officers have good interviewing skills. This cannot be overstated given the fact that probation officers are in contact with persons on a routine basis where they must collect and record information. While procedures do vary from region to region, a sentencing phase will be conducted at some point during the processing of a criminal conviction. At this point, the defense counsel can have an impact on the overall process for the offender. Defense counsel

©iStockphoto.com/Deborah Cheramie

PHOTO 5.3 The judge of the court is the

final authority on rulings related to

probation sentencing and conditions. The

judge will usually work closely with

probation officers who deal with

offenders from his or her court of

jurisdiction.

will usually challenge any inaccurate,

incomplete, or misleading information that ended up in the PSI report. This function of the defense counsel is actually quite critical since the PSI report will be used to classify the offender if he or she should be incarcerated and will also be used in future decisions regarding supervision issues within the community. Thus, verification of the PSI report’s validity is crucial to the welfare of the defendant and keeps from creating scenarios that make an already bad situation worse.

p.113

From the standpoint of the probation officer, the two most important sections of the PSI report are the evaluation and the recommendation. There is typically a high degree of agreement between the probation officer’s recommendations and the judge’s decision when sentencing, and this means that the PSI report is very important in helping to determine the offender’s fate.

Granting Probation

According to Neubauer (2007), the public perceives the judge as the principal decision maker in criminal court. But the judge often is not the primary decision maker in regard to an offender’s sentencing and/or the granting of probation. This is not to say that the judge does not have ultimate authority over the court, nor does it mean to imply that judges have diminished importance when presiding over their court. Rather, Neubauer demonstrates the collaborative nature of the various courtroom actors when processing offender caseloads. Throughout this process, judges will often voluntarily defer to the judgment of other members of the court, namely prosecutors, defense attorneys, victim’s rights groups, and the probation agency.

During a typical day in criminal court, judges may accept bail recommendations offered by the district attorney, plea

agreements that are struck by the defense and the prosecution, and even sentences recommended by a probation officer (though there is some debate as to the actual weight given to the probation officer’s recommendation, at least in some courts). The main point is that though judges do of course retain their power over the courtroom, they often share influence over the adjudication process with a variety of courtroom actors (Neubauer, 2007). This is an informal process that often takes place amongst participants who, after working together for a time, know each other in both a professional and a more informal sense (Neubauer, 2007).

There are some challenges that can emerge when judges do not allow the input of other courtroom actors. For instance, jail overcrowding may be worsened if the judge is not receptive to the input of the sheriff and/or the police chief who will administer the local county or city jail. Or probation officer caseloads can become too burdensome to ensure public safety if the judge does not consider the recommendations of the chief probation officer.

When defense attorneys and their defendants seek to have probation considered as a sentencing option, it may behoove the defense counsel to consider the specific judge who presides over the court as well as the dynamics of a given

courtroom. Because of this, in larger court jurisdictions a technique of judge selection may be common (Neubauer, 2007). Through a process of implementing motions of continuances and motions for a change of judge, defense attorneys may maneuver to have their case heard by a judge who is expected to be the most receptive to the offender’s plight. Though judges do strive to adhere to common guidelines in decisions and rulings, the fact of the matter is that they do tend to differ in terms of the sentences that are given, including the granting of probation and/or the conditions attached to a probation sentence (Neubauer, 2007). An understanding of these tendencies can aid the defense in achieving a more favorable outcome for the offender.

p.114

Conditions of Probation

As one can tell, the dynamics of sentencing in the courtroom can allow for some degree of leeway in the final decision- making process. Further illustrating the fluid nature of this process, consider that the setting of conditions during probation can be, at least in part, agreed upon prior to the judge’s actual formal sentencing. Though the bargaining process may impact the final outcome of the probationer’s sentence, the length of probation, and the conditions of that probation, the judge is

always free to require additional conditions as he or she sees fit.

The conditions that may be required are quite lengthy, but some of the more commonly required ones are:

1 . 1 . Refrain from associating with certain types of people (particularly those with a conviction) or frequenting certain locations known to draw criminal elements.

2 . 2 . Remain sober and drug free; restrictions include using or being in possession of alcohol or drugs.

3 . 3 . Obey restrictions on firearm ownership and/or possession.

4 . 4 . Obey requirement to pay fines, restitution, and family support that may be due.

5 . 5 . Be willing to submit to drug tests as directed by the probation officer and/or representatives of the probation agency.

6 . 6 . Maintain legitimate and steady employment.

7 . 7 . Refrain from obtaining employment in certain types of vocations (e.g., an embezzler would be restricted from becoming a bookkeeper, or a computer hacker would be restricted from working with automated systems).

8 . 8 . Maintain a legal and legitimate residence with the requirement

©iStockphoto.com/chapin31

PHOTO 5.4 Bars, nightclubs, and other

entertainment for late night party-goers

are also places that are often frequented

by the criminal population.

that the probation officer is notified

of any change in residence prior to making such a change.

9 . 9 . Obey the requirement that permission be requested to travel outside of the jurisdiction of the probation agency and/or to another state.

1 0 .1 0 . Refrain from engaging in further criminal activity.

V i d e o L i n kV i d e o L i n k A New Probation Program in Hawaii Beats the Statistics CLICK TO SHOW

Many of the conditions listed above may be statutorily authorized by state legislators as a means of validating their application to probation sentences. This is

reflective of the fact that most legislators desire some degree of uniformity and consistency in the supervision requirements and process (del Carmen et al., 2001; Hanser, 2010b). Some states have only a few such requirements, while others have an extensive list that clearly requires judges and probationers to structure probation sentences according to a certain prescribed template of conditions. Further, and related to the use of discretionary conditions imposed by judges, some legislators may also clearly note that judges are to be given deference in assigning specialized conditions on certain types of offenders; this is especially true with sex offenders and/or substance abuse offenders (these offenders, the terms and conditions of their supervision, and their therapeutic programming will be discussed in later chapters of this text).

PROBATION OFFICERS

No chapter on the probation process would be complete without a thorough discussion of the job and function of probation personnel. As we have seen from the chapter vignette, the job of a probation officer is quite stressful and challenging and does not pay nearly as well as many other professions (see Figure 5.1 for information on annual salaries for probation officers throughout various areas of the United States). Further still,

the qualifications for probation officers tend to be fairly high, at least in relation to the demands and pay that are associated with the position. This is truly an unfortunate paradox within the criminal justice arena since it is the probation officer who supervises the lion’s share of offenders in the correctional system.

p.115

Figure 5.1: Annual Mean Wage of Probation Officers, May 2014

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014). Occupa-

tional employment statistics. Washington, DC:

Author.

Because of the stress involved with probation work, there is a great deal of turnover in the field. Naturally, this can have negative effects on the correctional system since personnel with expertise are hard to keep. This can impact the service delivery that agencies are able to provide,

and, in some respects, is likely to affect outcomes among offenders on community supervision. Indeed, it may be likely that the prognosis for recidivism can be affected (at least in part) by the longevity of the probation officer and his or her demeanor on the job.

Thus, the content of this chapter is more than a simple introduction to work in the field of probation. This chapter also presents an aspect of the corrections field that is critical for students and other persons in society to understand: the important role played by probation personnel in the security of a community. Citizens should be grateful for these personnel since it is they, just as much as police, who are largely responsible for keeping society safe from known criminals. Interestingly, most probation agencies pay lower salaries—starting, midcareer, and managerial—than do police agencies in their same region.

Demographics of Probation Officers: Gender

One interesting aspect of probation work is the fact that a large portion of probation staff tends to be female, with exact proportions of female and male officers being dependent on the area of the United States. This is substantially different from fields such as law enforcement, where male officers tend to predominate and

women tend to consist of less than 12% of the entire policing community (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013). This is perhaps partly due to the nature of probation as compared to law enforcement. Indeed, even among police officers, women have been found to be highly effective in defusing conflict situations and/or providing less contact- prone means of response. The National Center for Women and Policing (2003) notes that female police officers tend to be inherently more suited to facilitate cooperation and trust in stressful contact situations and that they are less prone to use excessive force. Likewise, there tend to be fewer citizen complaints against female officers. These same characteristics would seem to be well suited to probation work given the fact that probation has a reintegrative and supportive role with offenders on the officer’s caseload.

p.116

© Joan Barnett Lee/ZUMA Press/Corbis

PHOTO 5.5 Work in the field of

probation often requires that officers

work together, both in the office and in

the field.

Demographics of Probation Officers: Race

Probation officers also tend to be Caucasian. This can be an important issue when one considers the fact that a disproportionate amount of minority representation can be found on most client caseloads. Given the lack of minority representation among probation officers, it is likely that diversity-related training is all the more necessary and important in cultivating a rapport between community supervision personnel and those on community supervision. An abundance of literature has examined issues related to therapist-client interactions when the two are of different racial and/or ethnic groups. Generally, the prognosis in mental health research does not tend to be as good as when there is a degree of matching or when specific training and consideration are given for racial or cross-cultural issues. Since community corrections has a reformative element, it is not unreasonable to presume that such observations could also be equally true among probation officers and their probationers.

Demographics of Probation Officers: Education

Most probation officers have a college degree. This means that this group is, as a whole, a bit more educated than much of the general workforce. It may perhaps be true that this can mitigate some of the cross-cultural differences, and this also may help to lessen job dissatisfaction and stress since higher-educated persons tend to, on the whole, be motivated by more than external reward. Though this is obviously not always the case, less emphasis on money does tend to correlate with better-educated workforce members. Somewhat supporting this is the fact that several studies have found that probation work in general tends to be more enriching and challenging, requiring more of an emphasis on problem-solving skills that are likely to mesh well with high-functioning and educated persons. From this, it is clear that probation work is becoming more professionalized and has been likened to an art form since probation officers must be skilled at matching security and treatment issues with the particular offender’s needs (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). This, as well as the helping aspects of the profession (despite its supervisory components), is likely to appeal to educated females who seek a professional track in their lives.

S AG E J o u r n a l A r t i c l e L i n kS AG E J o u r n a l A r t i c l e L i n k

Racial Disparity in Probationers’ Views About Probation CLICK TO SHOW

Tasks and Nature of Work for Probation Officers

Probation officers supervise offenders who are placed on some form of probation and tend to spend more time monitoring the activities of these offenders than anything else. Probation officers most frequently maintain this supervision through personal contact with the offender, the offender’s family, and the offender’s employer. In addition to making contact with the offender through a combination of field visits and/or officer interviews, probation officers make routine contact with the offender’s therapist(s), often having therapeutic reports either faxed or delivered to their office. These reports, which provide the clinician’s insight as to the offender’s emotional progress and/or mental health, can be very important to the probation officer’s assessment of the offender’s progress.

Working Conditions

The daily working conditions for probation officers can be quite safe when in the office but can be fairly dangerous when conducting field visits. Some of the

offenders on a probationer’s caseload may themselves be more dangerous than their arrest record or actual conviction may indicate. Further, these offenders may still (in violation of their probation) continue to maintain contact with other associates who are more prone to violence than is the probationer. In many instances, the probation officer may have to conduct fieldwork in high-crime areas.

p.117

CORRECTIONS AND THE LAW 5.1 Gagnon v. ScarpelliGagnon v. Scarpelli (1973)(1973)

Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) was the second substantive ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court related to the rights of offenders who violate the terms and/or conditions of their probation or parole agreement. The prior ruling, Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972), occurred a year prior to the ruling in Gagnon, but was specific to parole. Because this chapter addresses the sanction of probation, emphasis is on the Gagnon ruling, but students should

understand that Gagnon was based upon a similar ruling in Morrissey that addressed the rights of parolees who face the possibility of revocation.

The case involved Gerald Scarpelli, a man serving a probation sentence in the state of Wisconsin for armed robbery. While Scarpelli had been sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment, the judge suspended his sentence and ordered him to serve 7 years of probation instead. After the probation sentence began, Scarpelli was arrested for burglary in Illinois. Scarpelli’s probation was revoked by the Wisconsin Department of Public Welfare subsequent to his confession to police that he was involved in the burglary. The confession in question was later challenged by Scarpelli as being made under duress. After the revocation proceedings, Scarpelli was incarcerated.

After serving 3 years of imprisonment, Scarpelli challenged the revocation of his probation on the basis that he should have been provided a hearing. The state of Washington, noting the legitimacy of the rationale of the revocation, contended that no such right to a hearing existed and, therefore, the revocation of Scarpelli’s probation was constitutional.

The Supreme Court held, in an 8-1 decision, that a probationer’s sentence can only be revoked after a preliminary revocation hearing and final revocation hearing. Justice Lewis Powell, in delivering the opinion of the Court, held that Scarpelli was indeed entitled to a hearing regarding his probation status. The Court also noted that the use of legal counsel may be required, depending on whether the offender is being tried for a new offense where information from the probation revocation proceeding may be used as evidence in later criminal proceedings.

When considering the right to a revocation proceeding, the Court determined that the probation sentence of an individual cannot be revoked without a hearing. If a probationer commits a violation of his or her probation, that probation sentence can be revoked only after a final violation hearing is held. The Court explained:

When the view of the probationer or parolee’s conduct differs in this fundamental way from the latter’s own view, due process requires that the difference be resolved before revocation becomes final. Both the probationer or parolee and

the State have interests in the accurate finding of fact and the informed use of discretion—the probationer or parolee to insure that his liberty is not unjustifiably taken away and the State to make certain that it is neither unnecessarily interrupting a successful effort at rehabilitation nor imprudently prejudicing the safety of the community.

In noting the need for legal counsel when a probationer is arrested and given new charges within the period of probation, the Court indicated that counsel should be provided on a case- by-case basis. Justice Powell wrote for the majority and clarified:

The differences between a criminal trial and a revocation hearing do not dispose altogether of the argument that under a case-by-case approach there may be cases in which a lawyer would be useful but in which none would be appointed because an arguable defense would be uncovered only by a lawyer. Without denying that there is some force in this argument, we think it a sufficient answer that we deal here, not with the right of an accused to counsel in a criminal prosecution, but with the more limited due process right of one who is a probationer or parolee only because

he has been convicted of a crime.

This point should not be taken lightly, and it is unlikely that the average person can understand the true contextual feeling that is associated with such an experience when conducting casework. Often, members of the community may display negative nonverbal behavior toward the probation officer and may be evasive if the officer should happen to ask questions about the offender in the offender’s neighborhood. In fact, in most cases, persons living next to the probationer may not disclose anything because they are also at cross-purposes with the law. In addition, family members are not always happy to have the probation officer visit the home and, while complying with the requirement, may openly resent the intrusion. Lastly, from time to time, the probation officer may make unannounced visits only to find the probationer in the company of unsavory sorts and/or engaging in acts that are violations of probation conditions (e.g., drinking, carrying a firearm, discussing various criminal opportunities). All of these issues can lead to some dangerous situations. This is even truer when one considers that most probation officers do not carry a firearm. Thus, it is safe to say at this point that there is a personal security concern when meeting probationers on their own

LUCY NICHOLSON/REUTERS/Newscom

PHOTO 5.6 Fieldwork is an important

aspect of probation supervision. This

requires that officers talk with the

offender and others who know the

offender in settings outside of the office.

turf.

p.118

Probation Officers in the Role of Law Enforcers and Brokers of Services

Probation officers tend to approach their jobs from different vantage points, much of which has to do with their own perceptions of their particular role in the community corrections process. Daniel Glaser (1964) conducted seminal research on the orientation by which community supervision officers approach their job. Though Glaser focused on parole officers, his contentions apply equally well to

probation officers. Thus, Glaser’s work will be utilized in this chapter to provide a general framework for probation officers and the informal roles that they play when supervising their caseloads. Basically speaking, Glaser contended that officers tend to operate at differing points along two spectrums: offender control (law enforcers) and offender assistance (brokers of services). These two spectrums work in seeming contradiction with one another, as they each tend to put officers at cross-purposes when trying to balance their job as reformer and public safety officer. This means that four basic categories emerge that describe the officer’s general tendency when supervising offenders.

Paternal officers use a great degree of both control and assistance techniques (Glaser, 1964). They protect both the offender and the community by providing the offender with assistance as well as praise and blame. This type of officer can seem inconsistent at times. These officers are ambivalent to the concerns of the offender or the community; this is just a job that they do. Indeed, these officers may be perceived as being noncommittal due to taking the community’s side in one case and the offender’s in another. These officers tend not to have a high degree of formal training or secondary education, but they tend to be very experienced and thus are able to weather the difficulties

associated with burnout within the field of probation.

Punitive officers (pure law enforcers) see themselves as needing to use threats and punishment in order to gain compliance from the offender. These officers will place the highest emphasis on control and protection of the public against offenders, and they will be suspicious of offenders on their caseload. This suspiciousness is not necessarily misplaced or unethical, however, as this is part and parcel of the supervision of offenders, but these officers may in fact never be content with the offender’s behavior until they find some reason to award some form of punitive sanction. In other words, the view is that those on the caseload are doing wrong, but they are just not getting caught. Naturally, relations between this officer and those on his or her caseload are usually fairly impaired and sterile.

The welfare worker (pure broker of services) will view the offender more as a client rather than as a supervisee on the caseload. These individuals believe that, ultimately, the best way they can enhance the security and safety of the community is by reforming the offender so that further crime will not occur. These officers will attempt to achieve objectivity that is similar to that of a therapist and will thus avoid judging the client. These officers will be most inclined to consider the needs of

their offender-clients and their potential capacity for change. These officers view their job more as a therapeutic service than as a punitive service, though this does not mean that they will not supervise the behavior of their caseload. Rather, the purpose of their supervision is more likened to the follow-up screening that a therapist might provide to a client to ensure that he or she is continuing on the directed trajectory that is consistent with prior treatment goals.

The passive agent tends to view his or her job as just that, a job. These officers tend to do as little as possible, and they do not have passion for their job. Unlike the punitive officer and the welfare officer, they simply do not care about the outcome of their work so long as they avoid any difficulties. These individuals are often in the job simply due to the benefits that it may provide as well as the freedom from continual supervision that this type of career affords.

p.119

TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT 5.1

The Use of GPSThe Use of GPS Tracking and HomeTracking and Home ConfinementConfinement

Global Positioning Systems (GPS) use a series of satellites to

monitor and locate offenders. The Florida Department of Corrections first initiated this program to track probationers in real time at any point during the day or night (Champion, 2002). This system is far superior to any other program of supervision because it ensures that probation officers have near-instantaneous notification of an offender’s violation of his or her community supervision. With this system, supervision officers can even tell which street the offender is on within any part of the country. Further, GPS can be programmed to detect areas of inclusion or exclusion within the limits of offender travel. This means that if an offender enters a certain area that is restricted, the supervision officer is instantly notified (Champion, 2002).

Community supervision programs utilize military-type technology to keep track of offenders. GPS devices use 24 military satellites to determine the exact location of a coordinate. By using the satellite monitoring and remote tracking, offenders can be tracked to their exact location. GPS

tracking used with offenders is joined with an ankle or wrist device that sends a signal to a tracking device that houses a microtransmitter and antenna, which send a signal to the GPS. The tracking device is capable of being placed in an offender’s bag, and the offender must remain within 100 feet of the receiver. After receiving the signal, a continuous report is sent to a computer that tracks the whereabouts of the offender. The GPS tracking device allows supervising officers to place location restrictions on the offenders so that certain places are off-limits. For example, sex offenders may be excluded from being within the vicinity of a schoolyard or church. If the offender enters a prohibited area, an alarm will sound. On the flip side, officers are allowed to program the offender’s schedule for work and religious services and regular day-to-day whereabouts so that it can be easier to detect and verify where and when the offender does what he or she is supposed to. In some cases the system can send notification via pager or telephone that the offender is near the victim or any other excluded location. The advantage of such a program is that the offender’s whereabouts are known in a more real-time manner.

There are some disadvantages to the

use of GPS tracking. GPS offender tracking devices, like other satellite devices, often lose their signal during bad weather or when in an area densely populated with trees. Another frequent drawback cited is the expense. Due to the extensive nature of the parties involved, GPS tracking is very expensive, and, in this day of drastic budget cutbacks in community corrections, many agencies are not willing to provide funding for such contemporary and often unnecessary devices. Some have suggested that a way to cut back on the operational costs of GPS devices is for an agency to request the offender’s whereabouts every 30 minutes or so as opposed to every minute. Others have suggested that GPS devices be reserved for the most serious offenders within the community, such as child molesters and rapists. Across the country, approximately 150,000 offenders are being supervised by electronic monitoring devices.

In reality, it is not likely that officers would best be served using one consistent type of approach rather than using each orientation when appropriate. Thus, the community supervision process can be greatly impacted by the approach taken by

the community supervision officer. Further, agencies can transmit a certain tendency toward any of these orientations through policies, procedures, informal organizational culture, or even daily memos. The tone set by the agency is likely to have an effect on the officer’s morale and his or her approach to the supervision process.

Some agencies may be very clear about their expectations of community supervision officers. In this case, if the agency has a strict law-and-order flavor, the officer may be best served by utilizing the approach of a punitive officer to ensure that he or she is a good fit with agency expectations. In another agency, the emphasis might be on a combined restorative/community justice model coupled with community policing efforts designed to reintegrate the offender. In an agency such as this, the officer may find that a welfare worker approach is the best fit for that agency and that community. Thus, the culture of the community service organization will have a strong impact on the officer’s orientation, and, if the officer’s personal or professional views are in conflict with the organizational structure, the likelihood of effective community supervision is impaired. This is important because it is another indicator of the stress encountered among most community supervision workers.

p.120

Figure 5.2: Probation Officers Employed in Each State, May 2014

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014). Occupa-

tional employment statistics. Washington, DC:

Author.

Qualifications for Probation Officers

Some basic background qualifications for probation officers are listed in the Occupational Outlook Handbook (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). These qualifications vary by state, but generally a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice, social work, or a related field is required for initial consideration. This was not always the case in times past (some states allowed for less education when combined with experience), but it is increasingly becoming the norm in most states. Some employers may even require previous experience in

corrections, casework, or a treatment- related field, or a master’s degree in criminal justice, social work, psychology, or a related discipline.

Entry-level probation officers should be in good physical and emotional condition. Most agencies require applicants to be at least 21 years old and, for federal employment, not older than 37 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). In many jurisdictions, persons who have been convicted of a felony may not be eligible for employment in this occupation (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). Familiarity with the use of computers is typically expected given the increasing use of computer technology in probation and parole work (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). Probation officers should have strong writing skills because they are required to prepare many reports. In addition, a graduate degree in a related field such as criminal justice, social work, counseling, or psychology can aid an employee in advancing into supervisory positions within the agency (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011).

S AG E J o u r n a l A r t i c l e L i n kS AG E J o u r n a l A r t i c l e L i n k What Matters Most in Probation Su- pervision: Staff Characteristics, Staff Skills or Program? CLICK TO SHOW

According to the Occupational Outlook

Handbook, applicants are usually administered a written, oral, psychological, and physical examination. Given the concern with job stress that is inherent in this field of work, it is no surprise that changes in screening mechanisms during the hiring phase have been observed (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). Indeed, hiring and selection procedures may include psychological interviews and personality assessments to identify those most able to handle the stress and psychological challenges of probation and parole work (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). This demonstrates that agencies are aware of the unique challenges with this type of work and wish to identify those persons hearty enough to withstand the pressures that are inherent therein. This is a wise and prudent move on the part of agencies from a liability standpoint, a public safety standpoint, and an employee- agency relations standpoint. Effective recruitment and selection at the forefront can prevent a host of problems potentially encountered by supervisors and agency leaders in the future. Students are encouraged to examine Figure 5.2 to get an idea of the number of probation officers who are employed in each state.

p.121

Table 5.4: Recommended Caseload Sizes When Considering Type of Offender Case

SOURCE: Burrell, B. (2006). Caseload standards for

probation and parole. Washington, DC: National Insti-

tute of Corrections.

Caseload Management

The job of a probation officer is stressful and places numerous and diverse demands upon the professional working in such a role. The workload can be difficult to quantify since much of the time that is allocated to various functions may not always be easy to truly understand or operationalize. Nevertheless, the need to quantify expectations has resulted in an analysis of community supervision caseloads. The main considerations involved with such a formal analysis are the number of offenders and the type of offenders on one’s caseload. It should be

clear that if community supervision officers are stretched too thin among the various offenders being supervised, the safety of the public is compromised. Table 5.4 provides an overview of the recommended caseload for probation officers, depending on the type of offenders being supervised.

During the past 2 decades, the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) has attempted to identify the ideal caseload for community supervision officers. The first official attempt to address this issue occurred in the early 1990s, when a paper issued by the APPA recommended that probation and parole agencies examine staffing needs and caseload size within their own organizations (American Probation and Parole Association, 1991; Burrell, 2006). Though this seemed to be a reasonable recommendation, it has been much harder to implement than might initially have been imagined. The quest to determine the ideal caseload size has been a tricky one that has been complicated by multiple factors that are difficult to resolve and/or include in any specific equation.

When considering prior attempts to reduce caseloads, a consensus model has slowly emerged throughout the nation (Burrell, 2006). This is the result of input from experienced and thoughtful practitioners in the field of community

supervision (Burrell, 2006). Though not necessarily ideal for all agencies, these generally agreed-upon recommendations provide a baseline from which other agencies can operate, comparing and modifying their own operations against the backdrop of the consensus that has emerged. Table 5.4 provides the recommended maximum number of offenders per type of offender category. Classifying offenders on these relevant criteria is critical since it ensures that offenders are correctly matched with the level of supervision necessary to optimize their potential for completing their community supervision requirements (Burrell, 2006; Hanser, 2007).

The “evidence suggests that staff resources and services should be targeted at intensive and moderate-to high risk cases, for this is where the greatest effect will be had. Minimal contacts and services should be provided to low risk cases” (Burrell, 2006, p. 7). This reallocation of staff would shift supervision to higher-risk offenders and away from those who are low risk (Burrell, 2006). It is in this manner that community supervision caseloads can be structured to optimize overall public safety and also support the reintegrative aspects that serve as the basis of any correctional system that truly seeks to correct criminal behavior.

PROBATION REVOCATION

This discussion is intended to present the use of revocation as a sanction and a component of the probation process in circumstances where offenders are not able to complete their initially given probation sentence. Previous research demonstrates that roughly 33% of all probationers fail to complete the initial requirements of their probation (Heberman & Bonczar, 2015). However, some areas of the nation are more prone to probation revocation than others. Certain counties and/or communities may be more criminogenic in nature and will therefore tend to have more offending as well as more serious offenders processed through the local justice system. In such areas, it should not be surprising that probation departments will generate higher rates of revocation proceedings.

p.122

Generally, revocation proceedings are handled in three stages. First, the prelimi- nary hearing examines the facts of the arrest to determine if probable cause exists for a violation. Second, the hearing stage allows the probation agency to present evidence of the violation while the offender is given the opportunity to refute the evidence provided. Though the agency (or the local government) is not obligated to provide an attorney, the offender does

have the right to obtain legal representation, if he or she should desire. Third, the sentencing stage is when a judge requires either that the offender be incarcerated or, as in many cases where the violation is minor, that the offender continue his or her probation sentence but under more restrictive terms.

Lastly, it is not uncommon for offenders to have some sort of hearing or proceeding throughout their term of probation. The longer the period of probation, the more likely this is to happen. Many offenders do eventually finish their probation terms. For those offenders who do, termination of the sentence then occurs (see Table 5.5 for additional data on completion rates and other details on probationers around the country). During 2013, 66% of the 2,131,300 probationers who exited supervision were discharged because they either completed their term of supervision or received an early discharge. These offenders are free in society without any further obligation to report to the justice system. It is at this point that their experience with community corrections ends, presuming that they lead a conviction-free life throughout the remainder of their days.

Table 5.5: Offenders Who Completed Probation and Those Who Did Not

SOURCE: Herberman, E. J., & Bonczar, T. P. (2015).

Probation and parole in the United States, 2013.

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.

Percents based on most recent data and may differ

from previously published statistics. Percents based

on probationers with known type of exit. Reporting

methods for some probation agencies changed over

time. See Methodology.

— Less than 0.5%.

aIncludes probationers who were incarcerated for a

new offense and those who had their current proba-

tion sentence revoked (e.g., violating a condition of

supervision).

bIncludes probationers discharged from supervision

who failed to meet all conditions of supervision, in-

cluding some with only financial conditions remain-

ing, some who had their probation sentence revoked

but were not incarcerated because their sentence

was immediately reinstated, and other types of unsat-

isfactory exits. Includes some early terminations and

expirations of sentence.

cIncludes, but not limited to, probationers who were

discharged from supervision through a legislative

mandate because they were deported or transferred

to the jurisdiction of Immigration and Customs En-

forcement; were transferred to another state through

an interstate compact agreement; had their sentence

dismissed or overturned by the court through an ap-

peal; had their sentence administratively closed, de-

ferred, or terminated by the court; were awaiting a

hearing; and were released on bond.

dCounts rounded to the nearest 100. Calculated as

the inverse of the exit rate times 12 months. Includes

estimates for nonreporting agencies.

p.123

Court Decisions on Revocation

Essentially, there are two primary cases that established due process rights for probationers. The first was Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), which dealt with revocation proceedings for parolees, not probationers. However, this case was followed by another Supreme Court case, Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973), which extended the rights afforded to parolees under Morrissey to offenders on probation as well.

The Morrissey court ruled that parolees facing revocation must be given due process through a prompt informal inquiry before an impartial hearing officer. The Court required that this be through a two- step hearing process. The reason for this two-step process is to first screen for the reasonableness of holding the parolee since there is often a substantial delay

between the point of arrest and the revocation hearing. This delay can be costly for both the justice system and the offender if it is based on circumstances that do not actually warrant full revocation. Specifically, the Court stated that some minimal

inquiry should be conducted at or reasonably near the place of the alleged parole violation or arrest and as promptly as convenient after arrest while information is fresh and sources are available. . . . Such an inquiry should be seen as in the nature of a “preliminary hearing” to determine whether there is probable cause or reasonable ground to believe that the arrested parolee has committed acts that would constitute a violation of parole conditions. (p. 485)

The Court also noted that this would need to be conducted by a neutral and detached party (a hearing officer), though the hearing officer did not necessarily need to be affiliated with the judiciary, and this first step did not have to be formal in nature. The hearing officer is tasked with determining whether there is sufficient probable cause to justify the continued detention of the offender.

After the initial hearing is the revocation hearing. Interestingly, the Court was quite specific on how the revocation hearings

were to be conducted (del Carmen et al., 2001). During this hearing, the parolee is entitled to contest the charges and demonstrate that he or she did not violate any of the conditions of his or her parole. If it should turn out that the parolee did, in fact, violate his or her parole requirements but that this violation was necessary due to mitigating circumstances, it may turn out that the violation does not warrant full revocation. The Morrissey Court specified additional procedures during the revocation process, which include the following:

1 .1 . Written notice of the claimed violation of parole.

2 .2 . Disclosure to the parolee of evidence against him or her.

3 .3 . An opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence.

4 .4 . The right to confront and cross- examine adverse witnesses.

5 .5 . A “neutral and detached” hearing body, such as a traditional parole board, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers.

6 .6 . A written statement by the fact finders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking parole.

The Morrissey case is obviously an example of judicial activism, much like Miranda v. Arizona (1966), that has greatly impacted the field of community

corrections. The Court’s clear and specific

guidelines set forth in Morrissey have created specific standards and procedures that community supervision agencies must follow. Rather than ensuring that revocation proceedings include a just hearing and means of processing, the Court laid out several pointed requirements that continue to be relevant and binding to this day.

The next pivotal case dealing with revocation proceedings and community supervision is Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973). In the simplest of terms, the Court ruled that all of the requirements for parole revocation proceedings noted in Morrissey also applied to revocation proceedings dealing with probationers. However, this case is also important because it addressed one other key issue regarding revocation proceedings. The Court noted that offenders on community supervision do not have an absolute constitutional right to appointed counsel during revocation proceedings. Such proceedings are not considered to be true adversarial proceedings and therefore do not require official legal representation.

p.124

Common Reasons for Revocation

There are a number of reasons that offenders may have their probation

AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

PHOTO 5.7 The probation officers are

taking this probationer into custody due

to his continued use of drugs and alcohol

while on community supervision.

revoked. Perhaps the most frequent reason that revocation hearings are initiated is due to a probationer’s failure to maintain contact with his or her probation officer (Glaze & Bonczar, 2011). Of those probationers who experience a disciplinary hearing, the most frequent reason tends to be absconding or failing to contact their probation officer (Glaze & Bonczar, 2011). Other reasons may include an arrest or conviction for a new offense, failure to pay fines/restitution, or failure to attend or complete an alcohol or drug treatment program (Glaze & Bonczar, 2011). Among probationers who have revocation hearings initiated against them, almost half are generally permitted to continue their probation sentence. For those who are allowed to continue, they will almost

always have additional conditions imposed upon them, and their type of supervision will typically be more restrictive (Glaze & Bonczar, 2011).

Further complicating the picture is that some conditions of probation result in what are often called technical violations. Technical violations are actions that do not comply with the conditions and requirements of a probationer’s sentence, as articulated by the court that acted as the sentencing authority. Technical violations are not necessarily criminal, in and of themselves, and would likely be legal behaviors if the offender were not on probation. For instance, a condition of a drug offender’s probation may be that he or she stay out of bars, nightclubs, and other places of business where the selling and consumption of alcohol is a primary attraction. Another example might be if a sex offender is ordered to remain a certain distance from schools. For most citizens, going to nightclubs and/or setting foot on school grounds is not a violation of any sort, and neither of these acts is considered criminal. However, for the probationer, this can lead to the revocation of probation.

Any number of other behaviors can be technical violations. Additional examples might include the failure to attend mandated therapy, failure to report periods of unemployment, or failure to

complete scheduled amounts of community service. Though these violations are substantially different from those that carry a new and separate criminal conviction, they still can lead to a revocation (Hanser, 2010b) and are important in demonstrating whether the offender is making genuine progress in the corrections process. Excessive technical violations would seem to indicate that reform is not a priority for an offender.

CONCLUSION

This chapter illustrates the importance of probation as a sanction within the correctional system. Whether one is considering community- or institution- based corrections, the use of probation affects the overall correctional system quite significantly. This is especially true when one considers the impact that probation has on the jail facility. Without probation, jail facilities would be even more overcrowded than they already tend to be. The true purpose of probation, however, is to facilitate the reformation of offenders. This has been the case since its earliest inception, when John Augustus first established this sanction in the United States. Thus, students should consider probation to have reformative value. This means that the purpose of probation is consistent with this text’s definition of corrections, whereby the ultimate goal is

to correct criminal tendencies among the offender population.

p.125

APPLIED THEORY 5.1 CriticalCritical Criminology andCriminology and Probation Super visionProbation Super vision

The basic tenet of critical criminology is that inequality in power and material wealth help to create conditions that lead to crime. Critical criminologists contend that capitalism and the effects of the market economy are particularly prone to generating criminal behavior, largely due to the extreme inequality that impoverishes a large amount of the population. Thus, criminal behavior, according to conflict criminologists, has its etiology in the disparities between the rich and the poor, with the rich using their power and influence to dominate, subordinate, and exploit the poor.

Though it is not necessarily the role

of the community supervision officer to right the wrongs of society, it may be useful if such practitioners remain aware of the economic structures that impact society and may also impact how offenders see their plight. Most high-crime areas of the United States are impoverished, consisting of populations that have great difficulty competing in the legitimate economy. Many of these high-crime regions offer few legitimate employment opportunities, which can be a problem when offenders return to them once released on community supervision. Due to the lack of monetary resources in the community, other social services and opportunities will be likewise limited. Populations in these areas also tend to have less access to education, medical care, and other services that impact the quality of life for community members.

In such communities, there may exist a culture of poverty, with little legitimate hope of breaking out of the economically debilitating circumstances. Further, such areas may be labeled and stereotyped, which reinforces the notion that poverty-ridden communities are criminogenic and even normalizes this so that youth in such

communities accept it as their lot in life. Incidentally, this portrayal is often perpetuated by rich and powerful media moguls, recording companies, and executive decision makers, all of whom fit within the upper-class and affluent society. Thus, the poor are again victimized as they are corralled into believing in and accepting a fundamentally unfair system and are, at least indirectly, taught through the media that a life of crime is perhaps their most viable option. It is due to this that police and other government agents are seen as being in league with “the man,” who serves as a nefarious and obscure mastermind behind the lower class’s woes. This can lead to parents teaching children to fear and/or be disrespectful to police and other agents of the criminal justice system. In many cases, the community and offender may also hold the community supervision officer to be a party to such inequalities. This can result in resentment between the probationer and the community supervision officer and can also create a chasm between the community and the agency.

Community supervision officers and correctional treatment providers cannot single-handedly repair these

communities, nor can they necessarily change the subculture of resentment and mistrust that may exist in them. But they can encourage involvement in community development and stabilization projects, and they can be cognizant of the serious obstacles that face probationers and parolees who come from such communities. Agencies must work with persons in such communities who are receptive to forming multiagency partnerships, citizen volunteer groups, and the like. Above and beyond all else, agencies and agency members must emphasize a sense of respect for the community. This may help to take the sting out of the intergenerational resentment and distrust that may exist in such communities, allowing agency members to slowly change community attitudes and culture over the years that follow.

SOURCE: Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R.

(2006). Criminological theory: Past to

present (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Roxbury.

This chapter also highlights the importance of the presentence investigation and the report it generates for judges who sentence offenders and for later issues that may arise during an

offender’s sentence. The PSI report is even used in institutional settings when making early release, treatment-planning, and custody-level decisions. Due to the impact the PSI report can have on the correctional process as a whole, probation officers tend to spend a significant amount of time constructing these reports and/or referring to the information contained therein.

Probation officer qualifications and standards of training were also discussed. It is clear that the job of probation officer is not an easy one. This job requires a degree in most cases but pays little in comparison to other professions. Further, the work is stressful given the high caseloads that tend to exist for many probation officers. Qualifications and characteristics of probation officers demonstrate that this area of correctional employment may be quite different from institutional corrections and that this dimension of the correctional system has been underappreciated.

Lastly, revocation procedures were covered in detail. Leading cases related to revocation for probation and the corresponding procedures for revocation were discussed. The process of revocation is structured to ensure that capriciousness does not occur when determining whether an offender should or should not remain on probationary status. The issue of

technical violations, as opposed to those related to new criminal convictions, was also touched on, illustrating that the types of infractions can vary considerably depending on the offender and the particular circumstances involved.

p.126

Wa n t a b e t t e r g ra d e ?Wa n t a b e t t e r g ra d e ?

Get the tools you need to sharpen your

study skills. Access practice quizzes,

eFlashcards, video, and multimedia at

edge.sagepub.com/hanser2e

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1 .1 . Who is the father of probation, and how did he initially implement the practice of probation?

2 .2 . How does probation impact the jail and prison systems of a jurisdiction?

3 .3 . Discuss the means by which probation agencies might be organized.

4 .4 . Why is the presentence investigation report so important?

5 .5 . Identify and discuss the qualifications and characteristics of most probation officers.

6 .6 . Discuss the importance of Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) and Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973).

7 .7 . How does critical criminology dovetail with probation supervision?

Te s t y o u rTe s t y o u r

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o fu n d e r s t a n d i n g o f

c h a p t e r c o n t e n t . Ta kec h a p t e r c o n t e n t . Ta ke

t h e p ra c t i c e q u i z .t h e p ra c t i c e q u i z .

KEY TERMS

Global Positioning System (GPS), 119

Hearing stage, 122

Passive agent, 118

Paternal officer, 118

Preliminary hearing, 122

Presentence investigation report, 112

Probation, 106

Punitive officer, 118

Sentencing stage, 122

Technical violations, 124

Welfare worker, 118

R e v i e w ke y t e r m sR e v i e w ke y t e r m s

w i t h e F l a s h c a r d s .w i t h e F l a s h c a r d s .

APPLIED EXERCISE 5.1

You are a senior probation officer in a midsize agency located in the suburbs of a metropolitan environment. You are troubled today by a dilemma that confronts you. You have two probationers who both have multiple technical violations, and you find it difficult to come to a determination for them that seems fair.

The first probationer, Max, just failed his urinalysis and tested positive for alcohol. This is Max’s third technical violation since he is supposed to refrain from consuming alcohol as one of the conditions of his probation. Max is on probation for assault. The assault was mutual—he got into an altercation with another man in a nightclub and put the man in the hospital. While Max had no previous record of violent behavior, he did have a documented problem with alcohol. Other than the fact that Max continues to drink occasionally and has missed two prior appointments, Max fulfills the requirements of his

probation. He pays all of his fees, goes to work on time, attends his Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, makes most appointments, and so forth. Max is always apologetic and respectful when he has a lapse in his conditions, and you believe that he is genuinely trying to improve.

The second probationer is Joe, who has failed to report for three of his appointments with you. Joe is routinely late to his appointments when he does make them, and he tends to have a surly attitude. Joe does not seem to care much when he is late, and he makes no attempt to try to assuage your concerns regarding his status on probation. Joe is on probation for writing a couple of hot checks, and he contends that in most cases full prosecution for his crime would not really occur, especially since the checks were small and written to the university that he attended. You know that Joe is correct in his appraisal of the situation. His case just happened to come through the courthouse at a time when the district attorney and judges had agreed to crack down on insufficient funds charges at the request of numerous businesses in the area. Thus, Joe was a victim of circumstances, in some respects. Further, Joe tells you that he thinks that it is irrelevant if he is all “nicey-nicey” at the probation office. After all, others

have done far worse than him, and they get to stay on probation. As Joe puts it, “Hey, it ain’t like I’m some gangsta or something—or one of those people who have some drug problem.”

p.127

You have recently been told by your supervisor that you exercise too much leniency on the job and that you need to be a bit firmer with your caseload. Additionally, the jailhouse population is a bit low this year; the county recently voted in favor of a referendum to build more space in the facility, and your agency has been encouraged to utilize the space with those offenders who might benefit from a short stint in the jailhouse.

TO THE STUDENT: For this exercise, explain if you would put either of these offenders in jail for even a short period or if you would instead seek more restrictive conditions on their probation. If you choose to place them in jail, explain how this might affect their employment and/or educational pursuits. Also, explain whether you believe that the offender’s attitude should be relevant to your decision. Be sure to explain why you come to the conclusions that you do.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

You are a probation officer in a small rural agency. The chief probation officer explains to you that services have not been optimal and that many offenders are having difficulty finding employment. Further, many of them cannot travel the distances that are required to make their appointments. The local jail is full to capacity, and the state is not taking low-risk offenders. Your supervisor explains that this issue is not one of offenders purposefully failing to meet the conditions of probation but is instead one where they are simply unable to meet these conditions.

Your supervisor has established a steering committee made up of you, a member of the social services office, a person from city hall, a deputy from the sheriff’s office, and a representative from the regional hospital. She wants you to come up with some sort of action plan that will allow you to aid persons on community supervision in finding employment, making therapeutic and medical meetings, and meeting the conditions of their restitution requirements. She tells you she knows that it is a difficult task, particularly since your jurisdiction spans a large tri- county area with a total population of 25,000 people. Though resources are scant, she encourages you to take this

commission seriously and notes that she will provide any support that is possible. In the meantime, she has lightened your caseload to make your new task more manageable.

What would you do?