Probation and Parole

Dan Phillips

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780789037848
• eBook ISBN: 9781317993476
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

Probation and Parole Departments must provide for the protection of society as well as the rehabilitation of the offending individual. Probation and Parole: Current Issues presents leading authorities offering various broad and specific aspects of the controversial topic along with the latest research. This handy source provides illustrative examples of current hot button issues and can be used as an excellent core or complement textbook for a probation and parole class. Issues discussed range broadly from mental health considerations to rehabilitation options. The book provides wide multi-national perspectives of the issues, including research and comparisons on juvenile recidivism between the United States and Australia. This crucial work provides a detailed look at the research on individuals in the system, the programs for those citizens that are successful, and those methods that may be ineffective. A study is also presented with data on the positive impact of Assertive Community Treatment workers who provide mental health treatment in the community. The book is extensively referenced and includes several figures and tables to clearly present data.

This book is a useful resource for educators, students, and anyone in the probation and parole field. It was published as a special issue of the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation.

The Emerging Paradigm in Probation and Parole in the United States

KIMORA

INTRODUCTION

There is an emerging paradigm in probation and parole in the United States. That new outlook encompasses a realization that these two forms of supervision of offenders must meet the challenges of an increasing number of parolees and probationers. There are now 7 million Americans incarcerated or on probation or parole, an increase of more than 280 percent since 1980 (The Sentencing Project, 2007). The number of people on parole and probation is astounding: 1,344,883 offenders are on probation in this country and 477,704 are on parole (Manza, 2004). Policy changes advocated by several leaders in the areas of probation and parole are examined.

THE EMERGING PARADIGM IN PROBATION

Recidivism continues to be the primary outcome measure for probation, as it is for all corrections programs. The American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), representing U.S. probation officers nationwide, argues that recidivism rates measure just one probation task while ignoring others. The APPA has urged its member agencies to collect data on other outcomes, such as the following: amount of restitution collected, number of offenders employed, amounts of fines and fees collected, hours of community service performed, number of treatment sessions attended, percentage of financial obligations collected, rate of enrollment in school, number of days of employment, educational attainment, and number of days drug free (Schmalleger & Smykla, p. 133, 2007).

Advocates of measures other than recidivism tell us that probation should be measured by what offenders do while they are in probation programs, not by what they do after they leave (Schmalleger & Smykla, p. 133, 2007).

To implement credible and effective probation programs, several steps appear necessary. Joan Petersilia, director of the UCI Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, a research and policy center funded by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, offers us five suggestions:

1. Implement High-Quality Programs and Enforce Them. Experienced probation officers tell us that besides using the techniques and strategies of coercion and threats of incarceration to induce offenders to comply with the conditions of probation supervision, we should not neglect to reward cooperative behavior and compliance. That is the practice in drug courts nationwide, for example. Reclassifying offenders, reducing their level of supervision (e.g., face-to-face contacts and drug testing), and advocating early termination are used to encourage offenders to comply and cooperate (Tonry, p. 149–200, 1997).

2. Invest in Adequate Resources in Treatment and Surveillance. When probationers receive both surveillance (e.g., unannounced contact and random drug tests) and treatment, recidivism can decline by one-third. (Institute for Court Management, 2001). Probation can become more effective by giving some offenders more intensive supervision and treatment and others less and by targeting the effort to offer precise services and meet objectives by using a standardized assessment of probationer risks and needs. This approach can help probation staffs determine more reliably which clients need intensive supervision, special services, or routine probation. When appropriate interventions (e.g., residential drug treatment, outpatient treatment, urine monitoring) are used with drug-involved clients, scarce treatment resources are utilized more effectively to reduce recidivism and relapse. However, treatment, surveillance, and classifying probationers to appropriate levels of supervision cost money. Adequate funding will be available only if the public believes that new supervision conditions are punitive as well as effective in reducing crime (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2007).

3. Demonstrate That Probation Is Tough on Crime. Policymakers say they send large numbers of persons to prison because the public wants to be tough on crime. But there is a groundswell of evidence that tough punishment may no longer equate with prison (Petersilia and Turner, 1993). Some offenders see probation as more punitive and restrictive than prison. For example, researchers in Texas and Oregon gave offenders the choice of serving a prison term or serving probation with mandatory drug testing, community service, employ ment, counseling and frequent visits with a probation officer. In Oregon, 25 percent of those eligible for probation chose prison. In Texas, many offenders described common prison terms as less punitive than even only three to five years on probation. Prison was more attractive than the pressures of close supervision. The public must be convinced that probation sanctions can be just as punitive as prison. Of course, the choice of probation or prison should be for the judge to make, not the offender (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2007).

4. Target Drug Offenders. Drug offenders are prime candidates for tough probation programs. Research has revealed that different risks and needs of traffickers, addicts, and low-level users (Fields, 1999). Even if drug offenders are coerced into treatment by the court, there is evidence that treatment can reduce both later drug use and later crimes. The largest study of drug treatment outcomes found that criminal justice clients stayed in treatment longer than clients without involvement in the justice system and had higher than average success rates (Gerstein & Harwood, 1990). Indeed, offenders in outpatient drug treatment programs have significantly lower rates of arrest and relapse if they stay in treatment for more than three months than if they drop out earlier (Tims & Ludford, 1984).

The new knowledge is resulting in different laws and punishment strategies for different kinds of drug offenders. Many Americans prefer prison sentences for drug traffickers but are willing to accept something other than prison for other drug offenders. Nationally, seventeen states have either reformed their drug laws or are considering it. In 1996, the people of Arizona led the way in drug reform by passing the Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act. The centerpiece of the act is the diversion of persons convicted of possession or use of a controlled substance. The act requires drug offenders to be placed on probation and participate in appropriate drug treatment. In the second year of operation, 62 percent of probationers complied with treatment. Probation supervision and community treatment cost approximately $1.1 million. Based on prison costs of almost $53 per day, Arizona saved an estimated $6.7 million in incarceration. Four years later, 61 percent of California voters passed Proposition 36-the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act. This act allows first- and second-time nonviolent drug offenders convicted of possession, use, or transportation of drugs substance abuse treatment instead of incarceration. As of February 2002, of the 4,329 defendants sentenced to drug treatment in Los Angeles County from July 1, 2001, to December 31, 2001, 69 percent were still receiving treatment. Judges and county officials say they are pleased with the program, and preliminary reports are that the program is working. Similar ballot initiatives are being considered across the country (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2007).

5. Make Probation Researcha Priority. With so many people under probation supervision today, probation research should be a priority. The suggestion is to incorporate research on causes and effective interventions into local probation programs. Furthermore, local probation departments need to conduct research into their programs to see what works best in reducing recidivism (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2007). It would also be useful for probation research to asses the value of revoking probation for persons who commit technical violations (which are failures to fulfill the conditions of probation-attending counseling, paying restitution, contacting the probation officer) instead of committing new offenses. Judges need assurance that probationers will be held accountable for their behavior, and the public schools need assurance that probation sanctions are punitive. More research is needed on the relationship of technical violations to criminal behavior. For example, what types of conditions are imposed? How do those conditions manage offenders, encourage rehabilitation, and protect the community? What are the trends in the number of technical violators and the effect on jails and prisons? What innovative programs, policies, and statutes have emerged in other jurisdictions to deal with technical violators? (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2007).

THE EMERGING PARADIGM IN PAROLE AND PROBATION

The last three years have witnessed a number of state legislative developments focused on sentencing reform. The growth of reentry programs across the country has accelerated over recent years. This momentum indicates both an acknowledgment of the value of pre-release transitional planning, as well as the role that its absence in recent decades has played in contributing to high recidivism rates (King, 2007).

The following are policy changes that state lawmakers can enact to institute sound, evidence-based criminal justice policies that can better meet the goals of sentencing while also controlling unnecessary and expensive growth in the use of incarceration (King, 2007).

1. Expand the Use of Drug Treatment as a Sentencing Option. While there has been a virtual explosion in the use of drug courts since the early 1990s, in far too many jurisdictions available treatment resources fall short of the need among the defendant population. Drug courts and other diversion options have shown success in reducing drug use and drug-related crime, and can therefore produce long-term cost savings while reducing inappropriate incarceration.

2. Expand Options to Reduce Probation and Parole Revocations. Many jurisdictions across the country have adopted programs and policies to reduce the number of violators sent back to prison, while addressing public safety concerns. Beginning in the late 1980s, the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole established a range of supervision strategies for violators-including electronic monitoring, residential centers, and intensive supervision-that led to fewer returns to prison while also reducing the rearrest rate among people under supervision (Burke, 1997). Similarly, the probation department in Macomb County, Michigan implemented a risk assessment system that resulted in greater use of intermediate sanctions for lower risk offenders, resulting in significant reduction of violators returned to prison (Burke, 1997).

3. Reconsider Policies Regarding Time Served in Prison. Over the past fifteen years, the amount of time offenders serve in prison has been steadily increasing. This is the case not only for long-term sentences but for shorter prison terms as well. Research has demonstrated that increasing the length of prison terms produces little in the way of increased deterrence of crime or reduced recidivism, yet contributes significantly to higher costs of corrections. Policymakers should examine time served in prison to determine if the goals of sentencing can be achieved through shorter prison terms for selected offenders.

4. Repeal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing. A broad range of scholarship has demonstrated that mandatory sentencing produces no impact on crime, but results in unnecessarily lengthy and unjust prison terms in many cases. Judges who wish to incarcerate serious offenders for long prison terms can readily do so under existing sentencing policy in every state. Mandatory sentencing only results in obligating judges to impose such terms on far less culpable offenders as well. The American Bar Association has recommended repeal of such policies, which would result in more rational sentencing practices.

5. Reconsider Life and Long Term Sentences. In states such as Louisiana and Michigan, parole boards have adopted policies of “life means life” for offenders who previously have been eligible for parole. Persons affected by these policies include those convicted of serious violent offenses, but also persons conv...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Notes on Contributors
• Preface
• Foreword
• 1 The Emerging Paradigm in Probation and Parole in the United States
• 2 Enfranchising Convicted Felons: Current Research on Opinions Towards Felon Voting Rights
• 3 Problems of Implementing Offender Programs in the Community
• 4 Offenders, Judges, and Officers Rate the Relative Severity of Alternative Sanctions Compared to Prison
• 5 The Lesser of Two Evils? A Qualitative Study of Offenders' Preferences for Prison Compared to Alternatives
• 6 Community Supervision of Undocumented Immigrants in the United States: Probation and Parole' Role in the Debate
• 7 From B. F. Skinner to Spiderman to Martha Stewart: The Past, Present and Future of Electronic Monitoring of Offenders
• 8 Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders: Identifying Unanticipated Consequences and Implications
• 9 Understanding the Decision to Pursue Revocation of Intensive Supervision: A Descriptive Survey of Juvenile Probation and Aftercare Officers
• 10 Recidivism Among Juvenile Offenders Following Release from Residential Placements: Multivariate Predictors and Gender Differences
• 11 Predicting Recidivism in Juvenile Offenders on Community-Based Orders: The Impact of Risk Factors and Service Delivery
• 12 Integrating into the Mental Health System from the Criminal Justice System: Jail Aftercare Services for Persons with a Severe Mental Illness
• 13 Prison Therapeutic Community Treatment for Female Offenders: Profiles and Preliminary Findings for Mental Health and Other Variables (Crime, Substance Use and HIV Risk)
• Index