Community Corrections1
Moonpie
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
1 Corrections in the Community.
© 2011, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Chapter 1
It is hard to identify the benefits inmates gain from prison, but the harm done there is readily seen. If you want to increase the crime problem, incite men to greater evil, and intensify criminal inclinations and proclivities, then lock violators up in prison for long periods, reduce their outside contacts, stigmatize them and block their lawful employment when released, all the while setting them at tutelage under the direction of more skilled and predatory criminals. I know of no better way to gain your ends than these.
—Harry E. Allen
Crime is everywhere, in all nations great and small and, in this nation. In the United States, crime is a violation of criminal statutes passed by elected repre- sentatives. These statutes are enforced by a variety of social control agencies, including law enforcement, prosecution, court, and postadjudication compo- nents (e.g., prisons, probation, and parole). These varied agencies and actions, along with their philosophical bases and objectives, are usually called the “criminal justice system.”
No one imposed this specific set of agencies on the nation. We invented them ourselves and, if there is something amiss with an agency or mission, it can be changed. One fact about the American criminal justice system is that it
The Criminal Justice System
corrections
community corrections
criminal justice system
incarceration
intermediate sanctions
parole
prison
probation
Key terms
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 1: the Criminal Justice system2
is rapidly evolving and changing as a result of the volume of crime, emerg- ing national priorities, available funding, and changing political ideologies. Behaviors deemed particularly heinous in one epoch may become regulated, if not accepted, behavior in another. For example, the “Great Experiment” of prohibition attempted to protect our national character and youth, increase productivity, lessen collateral problems of idleness, and improve the moral fiber of those using alcohol. It was later abandoned as a national crusade; earlier twentieth century law enforcement efforts instead lapsed into strate- gies to regulate alcohol as a controlled substance, concerned only in large part with keeping alcohol out of the hands of youthful consumers and col- lecting taxes.
One component of the criminal justice system is corrections, defined ear- lier as “postadjudication processing of convicted criminal offenders.” This definition, if it were ever adequate, probably best fits the correctional scene of the early twentieth century, when the major sentencing options available to sentencing courts were committing the offender to prison or granting
probation. In fact, the study of postadjudication processing of criminal law offenders was, until about 1969, commonly referred to as “penol- ogy.” As shown in subsequent chapters, postadju- dication has become much more complex in the United States.
The field of corrections, like most of the justice sys- tem, has undergone rapid change in the past three decades. Programs have been developed to allow prosecutors to suspend prosecution of alleged crim- inals, provided they became and remained actively involved in seeking personal development and rehabilitation under the “deferred prosecution” program. Pretrial detention of accused law viola- tors is now rare due to the development of personal recognizance programs that reduced the impor- tance of bondsmen in the pretrial portion of the system. In addition, the tools of technology have grown greatly in the past two decades, expanding probation supervision into conventional proba- tion, intensive supervised probation, house arrest (with or without electronic monitoring or global position tracking), community service, day atten- dance centers, and restitution programs. There are even probation variations that combine serving a sentence in jail before probation begins, and several
Booking in local jail. Credit: Beth Sanders
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
3Corrections in the Community
probation programs that require a period of imprisonment prior to return to the community under probation supervision. These latter programs, inciden- tally, are part of the “intermediate sanctions” that have emerged in the past 25 years: offender control programs that fall somewhere between probation and imprisonment.
What has corrections become? How can we best define it at the present time? For us, corrections is the social control agency that provides societal protection through incarceration and community supervision and rehabilitation services to persons accused or convicted of criminal law violating behavior. This defi- nition includes restorative justice and pretrial diversion programs, as well as the more traditional probation and parole services. It also embraces interme- diate sanctions and alternative early release programs for inmates in prisons across the nation. In sum, corrections involves social control of persons whose behavior has brought them to the attention of the justice system. The missions, objectives, procedures, and even principles that govern our definition of cor- rections are continually changing. In this book, we hope to describe the recent developments and emerging dimensions that define community corrections today.
CorreCtions in the Community This book describes and explains corrections in the community, or “com- munity corrections.” This term refers to numerous and diverse types of supervision, treatment, reintegration, control, restoration, and support- ive programs for criminal law violators. Community corrections programs, as shown later, are designed for offenders at many levels of both juvenile and criminal justice systems. First, community corrections programs are found in the preadjudication level of the justice systems and include diver- sion and pretrial release programs, as well as treatment programs provided by private sector agencies, particularly for juveniles (Allen, Latessa, Ponder, & Simonsen, 2007; Maloney, Bazemore, & Hudson, 2001; Shaffer, Listwan, & Latessa, 2001; Travis & Petersilia, 2001).
As correctional clients enter the justice system, community corrections pro- grams have been developed and designed to minimize their further processing and placement into more secure settings. These preimprisonment programs include restitution, community services, active probation, intensive supervised probation, house arrest, and residential community facilities, such as halfway houses (please note that all of these programs are described in detail in later chapters). One assumption underlying this effort to minimize offender pen- etration into the justice system is that community corrections is more effective at reducing future crime and more cost-efficient. Community corrections is cer- tainly no less effective in reducing recidivism than is prison, and there is strong
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 1: the Criminal Justice system4
evidence that community correctional programs, if administered properly, can significantly reduce recidivism.1
Another assumption is that community corrections is more humane, although there is some contemporary debate over whether corrections should be humane rather than harsh.
Community corrections continues after incarceration (and in some cases is com- bined with incarceration)2 and among the many programs found at this level are split sentences (jail followed by probation), shock incarceration and shock probation, prison furlough programs, work and educational release, shock parole, and parole programs and services.3 The various points at which com- munity corrections programs have been developed are suggested in Figure 1.1, which identifies the flow of clients into and through the justice system.
The diagram of Figure 1.1 first appeared in President Lyndon Johnson’s Crime Commission report, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (1969). It outlined the basic sequence of events in the criminal justice process. Police, courts, and corrections were thus viewed as elements that were interrelated and interdepen- dent. The idea was to demonstrate the manner in which successful crime preven- tion was the goal of the entire system. Community corrections fits squarely into this goal: offenders whose criminal behavior is reduced or eliminated through programs in the community will commit fewer if any crimes in the future.4
Two major factors should be pointed out in Figure 1.1. First, the major ways out of the system are probation and parole, shown here as system outputs. The second conclusion is that the number of cases flowing through the system decreases as offenders are processed at the various decision points (prosecu- tor, court, sentencing, and release from prison). Figure 1.2 depicts the flow of offenders through the system for those arrested for Type 1 felony crimes in 2003.
1An extensive body of research has demonstrated that community correctional programs can have a substantial effect on recidivism provided certain empirically derived principles are met. For a summary of this research see Latessa and Lowenkamp (2007). 2For example, in Ohio, the state funds “community-based correctional facilities.” These facilities are operated by local community corrections boards, are designed to provide treatment, and often utilize local community services. They are, however, secure facilities. For descriptions of the Florida circumstances, see Lucken (1997). For a California example, see Wexler, Melnick, Lowe, and Hiller (1999). 3Some would argue that many so-called “community” correctional programs are essentially institutional correctional facilities because they are state run. However, we believe that state-operated programs can indeed be considered community correctional programs, provided they include some type of supervision in the community. For a different perspective on this issue, see Duffee (1990). See also Burke (1997) and Gendreau, Goggin, and P. Smith (2000). 4See Lowenkamp, Latessa, and Holsinger (2006), and Wilson, Gallagher, and MacKenzie (2000).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
5 C
o rre
ctio n
s in th
e C
o m
m u
n ity
Unsolved or Not Arrested
Released without Prosecution
Released without Prosecution
Charges Dropped or Dismissed
Charges Dropped or Dismissed
Entry into the System Prosecution and Pretrial Services Adjudication Sentencing and Corrections
Crimes Observed by the Police
Crime
Crimes Reported to the Police
Investigation Arrest Booking Preliminary
Hearing
Initial Appearance Bail or
Detention
Note: This chart gives a simplified view of caseflow through the criminal justice system. Procedures vary among jurisdictions. The weights of the lines are not intended to show the actual size of caseloads.
Juvenile Offenses
Nonpolice Referrals
Police Juvenile Unit
Release or Station Adjustment
Petty Offenses
Misdemeanors
Released
Intake Hearing Petition to Court
Information Arraignment
Felonies
Felonies Grand Jury
Refusal to Indict
Information
Arraignment
Charge Dismissed Acquitted
Trial
Guilty Plea
Charge Dismissed
Reduction of Charge
Acquitted
Trial
Guilty Plea
Adjudicatory Hearing
Released
Disposition
Sentencing
Appeal
Sentencing
Probation
Fine
Nonpayment
Probation
Revocation
Jail
Revocation
Juvenile Institution
Parole
Revocation
Out of System
Out of System
Habeas Corpus
Revocation
Parole
Out of System
Pardon and Clemency
Capital Punishment
Probation
Revocation
Penitentiary
Nonadjudicatory Disposition
FIGURE 1.1 What is the sequence of events in the criminal justice system? Source: Adapted from President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1969).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 1: the Criminal Justice system6
The percentage of offenders in each major correctional sanction can be found in Figure 1.3. Nonincarceration sentences were imposed for nearly 60% of offenders in 2009. Another 11.2% that were sentenced were released from
prison onto parole supervision. Together this rep- resents nearly five million offenders. Even a large part of those offenders sentenced to jail may be released onto probation as part of a split-sentence. It should be obvious that community corrections handles a large proportion of the offenders in the nation. For example, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2006) reported that one in every 32 adult resi- dents of the nation was under correctional control at the start of 2006. On the basis of 100,000 adult residents in the nation, 1884 were on probation, 347 on parole, 738 in prison, and 252 in jail (see Table 1.1). More than two of three offenders were living in the community on a given day in 2005.
2,320,900 Arrested 1,624,630 Adults Arrested
1,174,607 Adults Prosecuted
518,067 Adult Felony Complaints
696,270 Juveniles
451,049 Dismissed
24,144 Not Guilty
Total “Out:” 475,193 Adults 696,270 Juveniles
205,490 Pled Guilty to Misdemeanors
461,128 Pled Guilty
32,795 Guilty at Trial
Total “In” or Punished: 699,413 Adults
FIGURE 1.2 Outcomes for arrest for felony crime: 2003. Sources: Federal Bureau of Investigation (2004). Adapted from Silberman (1978).
Probation is a sentence imposed by the court that does not usually involve confinement and imposes conditions to restrain the offender’s actions in the community. The court retains authority to modify the conditions of the sentence or to resentence the offender if he or she violates the conditions. Parole is the release of an offender from confinement prior to expiration of sentence on condi- tion of good behavior and supervision in the community.
BoX 1.1 proBation and parole
FIGURE 1.3 Correctional populations in the United States, 2008.
Correctional populations in the United States, 2008
Probation 57.7%
Jail 10.6%
Parole 11.2%
Prison 20.5%
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
7Probation in America
A list of the incarceration rate for each state is shown in Table 1.2. Louisiana leads the nation with a rate of 853 per 100,000 and Maine has the lowest with 151.
proBation in ameriCa Nearly 60% of the adults under correctional care or custody are on proba- tion, the largest single segment of the community correctional system. As shown in Table 1.3, Texas had the largest number of its citizens on probation, but Massachusetts had the highest rate: 3620 per 100,000 adult residents. Six other states each had a rate of more than 2500. The lowest state rate was New Hampshire (443 per 100,000).
table 1.1 Number of Adults Under Correctional Supervision in 2008 and per 100,000 Residents
Total Rate per 100,000
Probation 4,270,917 1845 Parole 828,169 358 Prison 1,518,559 504 Jail 785,556 258 Total correctional population 7,403,201 3150
Source: Glase and Bonsczar (2009).
A state or federal confinement facility having custodial authority over criminal-law violating adults sentenced to confinement for usually more than 1 year.
BoX 1.3 prison
A jail is a confinement facility, usually administered by a local law enforcement agency, intended for adults but sometimes containing juveniles, that holds persons detained pending adjudication and/or persons committed after adjudication for sentences of 1 year or less. Jails are usually supported by local tax revenues and, as such, are particularly vulnerable to resource reductions. Additional categories of jail inmates include mentally ill persons for whom there are no other facilities or who are awaiting transfer to mental health authorities, parolees and probationers awaiting hearings, court-detained witnesses and persons charged with contempt of court, fed- eral prisoners awaiting pick up by marshals, and offenders sentenced to state departments of corrections for whom there is not yet space but who cannot be released (“holdbacks”).
BoX 1.2 Jail R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 1: the Criminal Justice system8
In all, it is clear that a great number of convicted persons are now being placed on probation. In most cases, probation agencies monitor the offender’s compliance with the conditions of probation release (restitution, community service, payment of fines, house arrest, drug/alcohol rehabilitation, etc.). The crucial roles that pro- bation plays in community corrections and the justice system become even more apparent when institutional and parole population figures are examined.
the u.s. prison population Because the rate of parole in a given state is affected by the size of the prison population, it is necessary to examine the size of the U.S. prison population before considering parole figures. A census of state and federal corrections institutions is conducted at midyear and year-end by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Harrison and Beck, 2006). At midyear 2009, the number of people
table 1.2 Ranking of States by Prison Incarceration Rates, 2008 (Inmates per 100,000 Residents)
1. Louisiana 853 2. Mississippi 735 3. Oklahoma 661 4. Texas 639 5. Alabama 634 6. Arizona 567 7. Florida 557 8. Georgia 540 9. South Carolina 519 10. Arkansas 511 11. Missouri 509 12. Kentucky 492 13. Virginia 489 14. Michigan 488 15. Nevada 486 16. Idaho 474 17. California 467 18. Colorado 467 19. Delaware 463 20. Ohio 449 21. Indiana 442 22. Tennessee 436 23. Alaska 430 24. South Dakota 412 25. Connecticut 407 26. Maryland 403
27. Pennsylvania 393 28. Wyoming 387 29. Wisconsin 374 30. Oregon 371 31. Montana 368 32. North Carolina 368 33. Illinois 351 34. Hawaii 332 35. West Virginia 331 36. New Mexico 316 37. New York 307 38. Kansas 303 39. New Jersey 298 40. Iowa 291 41. Washington 272 42. Vermont 260 43. Nebraska 247 44. Rhode Island 240 45. Utah 232 46. North Dakota 225 47. New Hampshire 220 48. Massachusetts 218 49. Minnesota 179 50. Maine 151 51. Federal System 60
U.S. Total: 504
Source: Sabol, West, and Cooper (2009).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
9The U.S. Prison Population
incarcerated in prison was 1,617,478, an all-time high (West, 2010). These fig- ures are even more dramatic when you consider that an estimated 8% of black males in their late twenties were in prison (West, 2010). See Figure 1.4 for the number of persons under correctional supervision in 2000 and 2008.
These figures are important to the parole rates in part because they represent the source of clients for the parole system. Prisoners enter the parole system by a parole board decision or by fulfilling the condition of mandatory release. Typically, at some time between their minimum and maximum sentences,
table 1.3 Community Corrections among the States, End of Year, 2008
10 states with the largest 2008 community corrections populations
Number supervised
10 states with the highest rates of supervision
Persons supervised per 100,000 adult U.S. residents*
10 states with the lowest rates of supervision
Persons supervised per 100,000 adult U.S. residents*
Probation
Texas 427,080 Massachusetts 3620 New Hampshire 443 California 325,069 Rhode Island 3251 West Virginia 579 Florida 279,760 Minnesota 3202 Utah 582 Ohio 260,962 Ohio 2973 Nevada 684 Pennsylvania 186,973 Indiana 2727 Maine 718 Massachusetts 184,308 Delaware 2563 Kansas 770 Michigan 175,591 Texas 2401 New York 789 Illinois 144,904 Colorado 2358 North Dakota 845 Indiana 131,291 Michigan 2304 Virginia 896 New Jersey 128,737 Washington 2240 Iowa 998
Parole
California 120,753 Arkansas 920 Maine 3 Texas 102,921 Oregon 754 Florida 31 Pennsylvania 72,951 Pennsylvania 751 North Carolina 48 New York 52,225 Louisiana 742 South Carolina 57 Illinois 33,683 Texas 579 Massachusetts 63 Louisiana 24,636 Missouri 459 Nebraska 63 Georgia 23,448 South Dakota 446 Rhode Island 63 Michigan 22,523 California 438 Virginia 75 Oregon 22,195 Wisconsin 418 North Dakota 77 Missouri 20,683 Kentucky 375 Delaware 82
Note: This table excludes the District of Columbia, a wholly urban jurisdiction; Georgia probation counts, which included probation case-based counts for private agencies; and Idaho probation counts in which estimates for misdemeanors were based on admissions. Source: Glaze and Bonczar (2009). *Rates are computed using the U.S. adult resident population on January 1, 2009.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 1: the Criminal Justice system10
inmates are released from prison and placed on parole. Mandatory releasees enter parole supervision automatically at the expiration of their maximum terms (minus sentence reductions for time credit accumulated for good time, jail time, and other “gain” procedures). Traditionally, this has been the manner in which a parole system operated under the indeterminate sentencing model presently in force in one-half of the states. The “abandon parole” movement began in 1976, and a number of states have changed their statutes to remove the authority of the parole board to release offenders before the expiration of their sentences. This issue is discussed in more detail in the chapters that follow.
parole in ameriCa Adults on parole at the beginning of 2008 are found in Table 1.1 and totaled 828,169, the highest number ever on parole. Table 1.3 shows that the parole rate ranged from a high of 920 in Arkansas to a low of three in Maine. Maine abolished parole in the late 1970s, which explains the low rate; only those sen- tenced to parole before 1976 continue to be supervised.
In sum, parole statistics reveal the relationship between the size of the prison pop- ulation and the number of parolees. These figures indicate that both prison and parole populations increased dramatically from 1995 through 2008 (see Figure 1.4). Changes in sentencing options and sentence length have also meant that prisoners were actually serving longer sentences in 2008 than they were in 1995.
summary This brief consideration of statistics from major components of the correc- tional system (probation, prisons, and parole) demonstrates their crucial linkage within the criminal justice system. Imagine what would happen if
FIGURE 1.4 Correctional populations in the United States: 1995, 2000, and 2008.
Probation
Jail
Prison
Parole
0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000
1995 2000 2008
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
11Review Questions
probation and parole were abolished completely and all convicted persons were required to serve their full prison terms; if this had happened in 2004, the prison population could have been nearly seven million! Naturally, the prison system is not equipped to handle such a large number of inmates, nor would it be good social policy to attempt such a foolish venture.
We do not wish to suggest that all offenders could and should be released to community corrections. At least 15–25% of the prison population are too dan- gerous or pose too great a threat to community safety to allow their immediate release, even onto “intensive supervised parole” (Allen et al., 2007).
It is the function of probation and its many variants (the so-called “interme- diate punishments”), as well as parole, to determine how the population of convicted persons can be managed in a fashion consistent with not only the capacity of the prison population but also the goals of societal protections and offender rehabilitation and reintegration.
In short, the examination of corrections in the community is the theme of this text. We consider such key issues as what are the best methods for classifying and supervising offenders? What background, education, and training should various community corrections agents possess? How effective are community corrections programs in terms of public safety? And at what cost? What are the recent innovations in community corrections and intermediate punishments? How effective are these compared to incarceration? The consideration of these (and other) issues will provide readers with the opportunity to form their own opinions and ideas concerning the proper use of community correctional programs and how to coordinate these in the criminal justice system.
review Questions 1. What is corrections in the community? 2. What is meant by the funnel effect and how does it occur? 3. If probation and parole were abolished completely, what effect would this
have on the prison system? 4. Develop an argument for increased use of community corrections. 5. How are offenders generally released from prison? 6. Describe the current distribution of offenders across the main
components of the criminal justice system.
reCommended readings Allen, H. E., Latessa, E. L., & Ponder, B. (2010). Corrections in America: An introduction. (12th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. (2006). Correctional contexts: Contemporary and classical readings. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 1: the Criminal Justice system12
referenCes Allen, H. E., Latessa, E. L., Ponder, B., & Simonsen, C. E. (2007). Corrections in America. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Allen, H. E., Latessa, E. L., & Ponder, B. (2010). Corrections in America: An introduction (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Burke, P. B. (1997). Policy driven responses to probation and parole violations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Duffee, D. E. (1990). Community characteristics: The presumed characteristics and argument for a new approach. In D. E. Duffee & E. F. McGarrell (Eds.), Community corrections: A community field approach. Cincinnati: Anderson.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2004). Crime in the United States. 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (2000). Generating rational correctional policies. Corrections Management Quarterly, 4(2), 52–60.
Glaze, L. E., & Bonsczar, T. (2009). Probation and parole in the United States, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Glaze, L. E., & Palla, S. (2005). Probation and parole in the United States, 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Harrison, P., & Beck, A. (2006). Prison and jail inmates in midyear 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Latessa, E. J., & Lowenkamp, C. (2007). What works in reducing recidivism. St. Thomas Law Journal, 3, 521–535.
Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. (2006). The risk principle in action: What we have learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs. Crime & Delinquency, 51(1), 1–17.
Lucken, K. (1997). The dynamics of penal reform. Crime, Law and Social Change, 26(4), 367–384.
Maloney, D., Bazemore, G., & Hudson, J. (2001). The end of probation and the beginning of commu- nity justice. Perspectives (Gerontological Nursing Association (Canada)), 25(3), 22–31.
President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. (1969). The challenge of crime in a free society. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Sabol, W. J., West, H. C., & Cooper, M. (2009). Prisoners in 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Shaffer, D. K., Listwan, S., & Latessa, E. (2001). A description of Ohio’s drug courts. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research.
Silberman, C. (1978). Criminal violence, Criminal Justice. New York: Random House.
Travis, J., & Petersilia, J. (2001). Reentry reconsidered: A new look at an old question. Crime & Delinquency, 47(3), 291–313.
West, H. C. (2010). Prison inmates at midyear 2009: Statistical tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Wexler, H., Melnick, G., Lowe, L., & Hiller, M. (1999). Three-year reincarceration outcomes for amity in-prison therapeutic community and aftercare in California. The Prison Journal, 79(3), 337–351.
Wilson, D. B., Gallagher, C., & MacKenzie, D. (2000). A meta-analysis of corrections-based edu- cation, vocation, and work programs for adult offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(4), 347–368.
Chapter 1: the Criminal Justice system
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Corrections in the Community.
© 2011, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 13
Chapter 2
How could “nothing works” prevail and punishment be promoted when, at a minimum, the research evidence suggested that at least some programs appeared to be working for some offenders under some circumstances? The evidence was not consistent with the myths of sociological criminology.
—D.A. Andrews and James Bonta
The importance of evaluating correctional programs has never been more pro- nounced, especially given the current economic crisis. With vast sums of money being spent on corrections, the public is demanding programs that work. The critical questions considered in this chapter are as follow. What works? What do we know about program effectiveness? What harm is done when we fail to develop effective programs? Moreover, this chapter provides an evidence- based framework for discussing research and practice on community correc- tions throughout this book.
One of the most important areas of contemporary concern for corrections officials is the design and operation of effective correctional intervention pro- grams. This is particularly relevant as there is consistent evidence that the
What Works in Correctional Intervention?
cost-effectiveness
length of follow-up
parole conditions
principles of effective intervention
shock probation
Key terms
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
14 Chapter 2: What Works in Correctional Intervention?
public supports rehabilitation programs for offenders (Applegate, Cullen, and Fisher, 1997). Survey research also reveals strong support for public protec- tion as an important goal of corrections (Applegate et al., 1997). As a result, disagreements are not uncommon about what the best methods are to achieve these goals. On one side are advocates for more punitive policies, such as an increased use of incarceration, “punishing smarter” strategies (e.g., boot camps), or simply increasing control and monitoring of offenders. The limits of these approaches have been outlined and debated by others (Currie, 1985; Bennett, DiIulio, & Walters, 1996).
As Cullen and Applegate (1998) imply, the most disheartening aspect of these “get tough” policies is their dismissal of the importance of programming designed to rehabilitate offenders. Cullen and Applegate further question whether this rejection of rehabilitation is sound public policy. As many states have found, simply locking up offenders and “throwing away the key” has proven to be a very expensive approach to crime control. This approach is also very limited, as the vast majority of offenders will one day return to society. Many will return at best unchanged, and at worst with many more problems and intensified needs for service (Petersilia, 1992). For those advocating inca- pacitation, one must also ask what should be done with offenders while they are incarcerated? Some scholars, such as Cullen and Applegate, do not believe that incapacitation and rehabilitation are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, because the vast majority of offenders are supervised in the community at dif- fering degrees of intensity, it is even more important that we develop programs that work toward reducing recidivism.
Many of the “intermediate sanctions” that have been developed over the past few years are but a few examples of “programs” that often fail to live up to their expectations, particularly in terms of reductions in recidivism (Latessa, Travis, & Holsinger, 1997; Petersilia, 1997). While programs such as boot camps, Scared Straight, and other “punishing smarter” programs remain popular, there is little evidence that they will lead to reductions in recidivism. Figure 2.1 shows some of the results from various studies. Unfortunately, evidence seems to indicate that in some cases, punishing smarter programs actually lead to increases in recidivism rates. One of the main problems with such approaches is that they only send a message about what the offender should not do; these approaches do not teach them the skills that they need to address high-risk situations in the future.
In a study funded by the National Institute of Justice, Sherman and colleagues (1998) summarized what does not work in reducing recidivism.
n Correctional boot camps using traditional military basic training n Drug prevention classes focused on fear and other emotional appeals,
including self-esteem, such as DARE
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
15What Works in Correctional Intervention?
n School-based leisure-time enrichment programs n “Scared Straight” programs in which juvenile offenders visit adult
prisons n Shock probation, shock parole, and split sentences adding time to
probation or parole n Home detention with electronic monitoring n Intensive supervision n Rehabilitation programs using vague, unstructured counseling n Residential programs for juvenile offenders using challenging experiences
in rural settings
Despite the punitive movement, increasing evidence shows that correctional treatment can be effective in reducing recidivism among offenders (Andrews et al. 1990; Cullen & Gendreau, 1989; Gendreau & Andrews, 1990; Redondo, Sanchez-Meca & Garrido, 1999; Van Voorhis, 1987). Nonetheless, some scholars remain unconvinced (Antonowicz & Ross, 1994; Lab & Whitehead, 1988; Logan & Gaes, 1993). The debate surrounding treatment effectiveness has been ongoing since Martinson’s proclamation that “nothing works,” with many still clinging to this mantra, despite evidence to the contrary. Primary among the reasons for disbelief in the potential effectiveness of cor- rectional programming is the failure to measure outcome properly and the lack of quality programs.
Gendreau (1996) examined hundreds of correctional and rehabilitation pro- grams that attempt to intervene with offenders. His results indicated that 64 percent of the offender rehabilitation studies (that had control groups)
% Recidivism increased
% Recidivism reduced
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4 Fines Drug
testing ISP Juvenile
boot camps *Not shown: restitution/electronic monitoring = 3%, Scared Straight = 4%
FIGURE 2.1 Effects of punishing smarter programs on recidivism.* Sources: Gendreau, Goggin, and Cullen (2000); Aos, Phipps, Barnoski, Lieb (1999).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 2: What Works in Correctional Intervention?16
reported reductions in favor of the treatment group; in fact, the average reduc- tion in recidivism was 10 percent. Others have subsequently conducted simi- lar studies (Lipsey & Wilson, 1997) and have come to the same conclusion: rehabilitation can be effective in reducing recidivism. For example, Figure 2.2 is based on a landmark meta-analysis (or quantitative review of the litera- ture) conducted by Lipsey in 1999. Figure 2.2 shows the expected recidivism rates when various programming characteristics are factored into probation.
Gendreau and Paparozzi (1995) also found that when rehabilitation pro- grams incorporated at least some of the eight principles of effective interven- tion, those programs reduced recidivism in the range of 25–70 percent, with the average about 50 percent. The principles of effective intervention are as follows:
1. Programs should have intensive services that are cognitive-behavioral in nature, that occupy 40–70 percent of the offender’s time in a program, and that are from 3–9 months in duration. Cognitive-behavioral programs incorporate elements of cognitive theories, behavioral theories, and social learning theories (see Spiegler & Guevremont, 2009).
2. Programs should target the criminogenic needs of high-risk offenders, such as antisocial attitudes, peer associations, personal and emotional factors (e.g., aggression, deficits in self-control), substance abuse, family and marital problems, and education/employment deficits.
3. Programs should incorporate responsivity among offender, therapist, and program. Simply said, treatment program should be delivered in a manner that facilitates the offender’s learning new prosocial skills and addresses potential barriers.
400 10 20 30 50
Routine probation (P)
P+minimal program
P+best intervention type (B)
P+B+good implementation (I)
P+B+I+over 6 months duration
FIGURE 2.2 Expected recidivism with various intervention characteristics for noninstitutionalized juvenile offenders. Source: Lipsey (1999).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Parole Effectiveness 17
4. Program contingencies and behavioral strategies are enforced in a firm but fair manner; positive reinforcers outnumber punishers by at least 4:1.
5. Therapists relate to offenders in interpersonally sensitive and constructive ways and are trained and supervised accordingly. Treatment is systematically delivered by competent therapists and case managers.
6. Program structure and activities disrupt the delinquency network by placing offenders in situations (with people and in places) where prosocial activities predominate.
7. Provide relapse prevention in the community by such tactics as planning and rehearsing alternative prosocial responses, anticipating problem situations, training significant others (family and friends) to provide reinforcement for prosocial behavior, and establishing a system for booster sessions.
8. A high level of advocacy and brokerage as long as the community agency offers appropriate services.
Similarly, Gendreau (1996) lists those interventions that have not been found to be effective in reducing recidivism:
n Talking cures n Nondirective, relationship-oriented therapy n Traditional medical model approaches n Intensive services directed to low-risk offenders n Intensive services oriented to noncriminogenic needs (or factors
unrelated to future criminal behavior)
One example of a program that was not effective in reducing recidivism is found in Table 2.1. In a review of substance abuse treatment, Lightfoot (1997) identified effective and ineffective types of treatment. Interestingly, the types of effective and ineffective treatment models for substance abusers mirror find- ings from studies of other offender types. Taxman (2000) made similar conclu- sions after reviewing the research on substance abuse treatment. Her findings are summarized in Table 2.2.
parole effeCtIveness What is actually known about the effectiveness of probation and parole, and other community correctional alternatives, and what should be future research priorities? The next section summarizes what is generally con- cluded about selected topic areas of interest in parole effectiveness. This discussion of topic areas is basically organized along the general flow of criminal justice decision points as they relate to parole; however, most of
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 2: What Works in Correctional Intervention?18
table 2.1 Review of Drug Treatment Effectiveness by Lightfoot (1997)
What treatment types were effective in quasi-experimental and/or controlled studies: n Social-learning based treatments n Aversion therapy: Electrical/chemical counter-conditioning n Covert sensitization n Contingency management/contingency contracting n Broad spectrum therapies n Individualized behavior therapy n Community reinforcement n Behavior self-control thinking n Relapse prevention
What treatment types showed no clear evidence of effectiveness from controlled studies: n Acupuncture n Education n Lectures n Bibliotherapy n Self-help n Alcoholics anonymous n Narcotics anonymous n Al-Anon n Adult children of alcoholics n Psycho-therapy n Supportive n Confrontational n Pharmacotherapies
Source: Lightfoot, L. (1997).
table 2.2 Review of Drug Treatment Effectiveness by Taxman (2000)
What treatment types were successful at reducing recidivism? n Directive counseling n Behavior modification n Therapeutic community n Moral reasoning n Social competency cognitive behavior models n Emotional skill development n Cognitive skills n Behavioral skills
What treatment types showed no clear evidence of effectiveness of reduced recidivism? n Nondirective counseling n Reality therapy n Psychosocial education n 12-step or other self-help groups n Psychoanalytical
Source: Taxman (2000).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Parole Effectiveness 19
the findings also pertain to probation, particularly those on supervision and innovative programs.
Institutional factors
Several aspects of the institutional experience are thought to be related to parole and its effectiveness, such as length of time incarcerated, prison behav- ior, institutional programs, and parole conditions imposed as conditions of release.
time served
Early research that examined the effects of the amount of time served in prison on parole has generally concluded that the shorter the amount of time served, the greater the likelihood of successful parole (Eichman, 1965; Gottfredson, Gottfredson, & Garofalo, 1977).
Similarly, Smith, Goggin, and Gendreau (2002) conducted a meta- analysis of the prison literature. Results included a total of 27 studies comparing community-based offenders (e.g., probationers) to inmates, as well as 23 stud- ies comparing prisoners who served longer sentences to prisoners who served shorter sentences. Results indicated that offenders who were imprisoned had recidivism rates approximately 7 percent higher than community-based offenders, and inmates who served longer sentences had a recidivism rate that was 3 percent higher than inmates with shorter sentences (Smith et al. 2002) (see Figure 2.3).
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
Incarceration vs. community Incarceration: more vs. less
FIGURE 2.3 Percent increase in recidivism by type of sanction. Source: Smith et al. (2002)
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 2: What Works in Correctional Intervention?20
Most researchers, however, have concluded that longer prison terms have an adverse effect on parolee chances of success, implying that the nega- tive aspects of prisonization seem to intensify with time. For example, in his study of shock probationers, Vito (1978) concluded that even a short period of incarceration has a negative impact. The question that remains unanswered by this research is: Are there any characteristics of inmates who have served more time that are also associated with an unfavorable parole outcome?
prison programs
Does participation in prison programs have an effect on recidivism? Existing research on the effectiveness of institutional programs and prison behavior has been limited in its scope. Most such programs are analyzed in relation to institutional adjustment, disciplinary problems, and impact of program participation on the parole-granting process. The few evalua- tions that included a parole period usually show little if any positive effects with regard to recidivism. A study by Smith and Gendreau (2007), how- ever, examined the relationship between program participation and recidi- vism in a Canadian sample of 5469 federal offenders. Results indicated that programs targeting criminogenic needs reduced postrelease recidivism by 9 percent for moderate risk offenders and 11 percent for high-risk offenders. German correctional researchers evaluated the effectiveness of social ther- apy programs across eight prisons, and the results were remarkably similar (Egg, Pearson, Cleland, & Lipton, 2000). The overall average reduction in recidivism for what is generally described as moderate- to high-risk adult incarcerates was 12 percent.
Most research that has examined prison behavior has not found a relationship between prison behavior and success on parole (Morris, 1978; von Hirsch & Hanrahan, 1979). However, a study by Gottfredson, Gottfredson, and Adams (1982) found that there is some relation between institutional infractions and infractions while on parole, after controlling for prior record (Finchamp, 1988). French and Gendreau (2006) also examined the relationship between participation in prison-based programs and misconducts/postrelease recidi- vism using meta-analytic techniques. Prison-based programs targeting crimi- nogenic needs reduced misconducts by 26 percent and reduced postrelease recidivism by 14 percent (French & Gendreau, 2004). Overall, however, there has not been a great deal of attention given to the relationship among insti- tutional programs, prison behavior, and subsequent success or failure on parole.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Parole Effectiveness 21
Work and education programs
Two areas that have received some attention are work and education programs for offenders. Although the literature on education programs is inconclusive, evidence does seem to suggest that educational programs can affect inmate behavior and recidivism positively (Ayers, Duguid, Montague, & Wolowidnyk, 1980; Eskridge & Newbold, 1994; Linden & Perry, 1982; Roberts & Cheek, 1994). A study by MacKenzie and Hickman (1998) examined 12 correctional education programs for adult offenders. Of the 12 studies, eight produced results, suggesting that correctional education may have a positive impact on the rate of recidivism. They also concluded that while there were some incon- sistencies in the findings, the preponderance of evidence suggested that voca- tional education programs were effective in reducing recidivism.
Likewise, the literature on work programs does not convincingly demonstrate reduced recidivism (Vito, 1985b; Zeisel, 1982). Gendreau and Ross (1987; MacKenzie and Hickman, 1998), however, provide some principles that should be followed with regard to work programs: (1) they must enhance practical skills, (2) develop interpersonal skills and minimize prisonization, and (3) ensure that work is not intended as punishment alone.
In a study that reviewed the available research on corrections-based education, vocational, and work programs, Wilson, Gallagher, Coggeshall, Mackenzie (1999) looked at 33 studies. The majority of the studies they reviewed reported that edu- cation or work programs had reduced recidivism, with the average reduction
Schumaker and associates (1990) reported on the effects of in-prison vocational and academic coursework for 760 inmates followed on parole for 12 months. Their employment information and criminal activity rates (technical violations and new arrests) were gathered. The vocational/ academic groups generally had the lowest criminal activity rates and the highest employment rates. Those who had earned a General Education Diploma had the lowest criminal activity rate, and the control group who did not participate in vocation/academic programming had the highest criminal activity rate. Stevens and Ward (1997) tracked North Carolina inmates who had earned their associate and/ or baccalaureate degrees while imprisoned and found that prison inmates who earned their degrees tended to become law-abiding citizens significantly more often that inmates who did not advance their education.
Sources: Schumaker, Anderson, and Anderson (1990). Stevens and Ward (1997).
BoX 2.1 voCatIonal and aCademIC IndICators of parole suCCess
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 2: What Works in Correctional Intervention?22
between 4 and 14 percent. Despite these promising findings, the researchers did not believe the research provided sufficient evidence of the effectiveness of these programs. This was attributed to a lack of high-quality studies.
therapeutic Communities
In recent years, prison-based therapeutic communities (TCs) have made a resur- gence (see Box 2.2). This is due in part to increased federal funding. Although there is a great deal of variation in how therapeutic communities operate, the essential ingredient is the principle that all staff and offenders provide thera- peutic experiences. TCs are more common in prisons, but many operate in community-based facilities, such as halfway houses.
A number of studies have shown that TCs can have an appreciable effect on recidivism rates, especially when community follow-up aftercare is provided (see Knight, Simpson, & Hiller, 1999; Martin, Butzin, Saum, & Inciardi, 1999; Wexler, Melnick, Lowe, & Peters, 1999). Figure 2.4 shows results from one such program operating in Delaware.
faith-Based programs
One of President George W. Bush’s initiatives was the expansion of faith-based programs in human service. While faith-based programs have a long history in corrections, there has been surprisingly little empirical research conducted on their effectiveness, and results are mixed. Religious programs in prisons may help inmates cope; however, research indicates that offenders who had poor coping skills prior to prison have poor coping skills in prison (Porporino & Zamble, 1984). Since 1985, 23 studies have explored the relationship between
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 Comparison Dropout Treatment Treatment
& Aftercare
FIGURE 2.4 Therapeutic community treatment: arrest rates after a 3-year follow-up (percent arrested). Source: Martin et al. (1999).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Parole Effectiveness 23
religion and deviance in the general population. Eighteen of those studies show evidence that religiosity reduces deviance (i.e., people of strong faith are generally less criminal than nonbelievers); however, this does not appear to translate well into correctional programming.
Only two studies have examined effects of religious participation on insti- tutional adjustment and infractions. In 1984, Johnson studied 782 inmates in Florida. Results indicated no differences in disciplinary problems or insti- tutional adjustment for religious and nonreligious inmates. In 1992, Clear, Stout, and Dammer studied nonrandom sample of 769 inmates in 20 prisons in 12 states. They concluded that a prisoner’s religious participation had a sig- nificant and positive relationship to prison adjustment. They also found that other factors, such as age and race of offender, played a role.
Similarly, only three studies have examined religion and postrelease behav- ior. In 1987, Johnson and colleagues studied inmates released from four adult male prisons in New York. One group participated in Prison Fellowship Program (PFP); one did not. Results from this research indicated that the level of participation influenced prison adjustment; however, the direction was not always as anticipated:
n Participants with a high level of involvement PFP were less likely to commit infractions than low or moderate participants.
n However, high-PFP participants received more serious infractions. n High-PFP participants were significantly less likely to be rearrested
during the follow-up, but this relationship was strongest for whites and nonsignificant for African Americans.
Young, Gartner, and O’Connor (1995) followed a group of 180 federal inmates trained as volunteer prison ministers who attended special seminars and a matched control group. Overall, the seminar group had a significantly
Therapeutic communities, or TCs as they are commonly known, are eclectic in nature and offer an intense self-help model that focuses on the whole person. Staff and offenders are intimately involved in the treatment process. Confrontation and accountability are key ingre- dients of a TC. Offenders who engage in appropriate behavior are given “pull-ups” (positive reinforcement) by other offenders and staff, while those who engage in behavior detrimen- tal to them or others are given “haircuts” (confronted about their behavior). One of the criti- cisms leveled at TCs is their use of shaming and other degrading sanctions. For example, some TCs have been known to have offenders wear diapers like a baby, sit in chairs for long periods of time, wear dunce hats, and other punishments designed to change the behavior of the participant.
BoX 2.2 therapeutIC CommunItIes
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 2: What Works in Correctional Intervention?24
lower rate of recidivism and maintained a higher survival rate than the con- trol group. Seminars were most effective with lower-risk subjects, whites, and women.
A more recent study by Sumter (1999) followed inmates from the Clear, Stout, Kelly, Hardyman, Shapiro. (1992) study. There were no differences in the recidi- vism rates between “religious” and “nonreligious” inmates; furthermore, regard- less of how many times they attended chapel, inmates who had a greater religious orientation in terms of values were less likely to recidivate. Sumter also found that offenders who attended religious programs upon release were less likely to recidivate; however, no relationship existed between attending inside and out- side prison. Participation in religious programs was certainly no panacea: 66 per- cent of “religious” prisoners experienced one or more arrests in the follow-up period. Sumter concluded that religion as a correctional program is complicated and multifaceted—as personal as it is social—and becomes more complicated in a prison setting. Inmates embrace religion for a number of reasons, some hearten- ing (spirituality and coping mechanism) and some cynical (get snacks, time out of cell, more freedom, looks good for parole). What we do know is that prisons distort everything. What may seem like a quest for spiritual awakening on the sur- face can simply be a way to get around the strictures of confinement. Related to this is the fact that we have little understanding of precisely how religion works or what the best definition of “religious” might be (conversion, weekly service attendance, number of books read in Bible study, punitive vs. redemptive orien- tation, or frequency of participation in such religious rites as attending church, participation in services, tithing, frequency of prayer, or proselytizing.) Regardless of the findings on faith-based correctional programs, most of us would agree that pursuit of religious understanding is a basic human right—prisoners who wish to engage in spiritual expression should be encouraged to do so, but this is true regardless of what the research finds. It does not mean that faith-based programs will have a significant effect on recidivism rates.
Given all the contradictions from the research, it is often difficult to deter- mine what, if any, effects prison-based treatment has on offender behavior. In a large study conducted by researchers in Washington State (Aos et al.1999), the research examined all the available studies and conducted a meta- analysis to determine effect sizes on recidivism. As can be seen in Figure 2.5, they found that Life Skills programs produced no reductions in recidivism, but subsidizing jobs for offenders age 27 and over produced reductions of 24 percent.
parole Conditions
Offenders who are granted parole are required to follow rules and con- ditions. Failure to do so can lead to reincarceration. With regard to the
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Parole Effectiveness 25
imposition of parole conditions, a nationwide survey of 52 parolee field supervision agencies, Allen and Latessa (1980) found 49 had residency requirements as a condition of parole and 47 had an employment require- ment. The Travis and Latessa (1984) survey found similar results. Despite the widespread requirement of parole conditions, the literature produced only three studies that were directly related to the imposition of these conditions and parole effectiveness. Although two studies (Beasley, 1978; Morgan, 1993) showed a relationship between stability of residency and parole success, the lack of research in this area makes generalization difficult.
One of the most important conditions of parole is the requirement to report regularly to a parole officer and not to leave a prescribed area, such as the county, without permission. Offenders who fail to report or whose where- abouts are unknown are called absconders. A study by Williams, McShane, and Dolny (2000) found that 27 percent of parolees in California were listed as absconders, and another study conducted by Schwaner (1997) in Ohio found 11 percent. Absconders have problems with alcohol abuse, have been convicted of a property crime, and have a history of prior parole vio- lation and absence of suitable housing (Buckholtz & Foos, 1996). Despite these high numbers of absconders, there has been little research on this subject.
parole release
Primarily in response to the supporters of determinate sentencing, research- ers have increasingly turned their attention to evaluating the success of parole supervision.
25
20
15
10
5
0 Subsidized Paroles*
Voc. Ed. T.C. Fin. Support Paroles
*This effect was for inmates over 27 years of age. There was no effect for younger adults.
FIGURE 2.5 Washington state study of the average effect sizes of prison programs (average percent reduction in recidivism). Source: Aos, et al. (1999).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 2: What Works in Correctional Intervention?26
Critics of parole supervision rely on two basic arguments to support their views. The first is that parole supervision simply is not effective in reducing recidivism (Citizens’ Inquiry on Parole and Criminal Justice, 1975; Wilson, 1977). The second, more philosophical argument is that supervision is not “just” (von Hirsch & Hanrahan, 1979). A more plausible conclusion is that the evidence is mixed; that parole supervision is effective in reducing recidivism rates among parolees (Flanagan, 1985).
Several studies have compared parolees to mandatory releases, but they have failed to control for possible differences in the selection of the groups (Martinson & Wilks, 1977). Other studies controlled for differences have reported favorable results (Gottfredson, 1975; Lerner, 1977), whereas other studies have reported less positive results (Jackson, 1983; Nuttal et al., 1977; Waller, 1974). In one study, Gottfredson, Mitchell-Herzfeld, and Flanagan (1982:292) concluded “much of our data does indicate an effect for parole supervision, an effect that varies by offender attributes, and an effect that appears not to be very large.” The existing evidence seems to be in favor of parole supervision, although there is no clear consensus as to its effectiveness.
Even the most outspoken critics of parole agree that the agencies responsi- ble for the task of supervision are often understaffed and that their officers are undertrained, underpaid, and overworked. They are inundated with exces- sively large caseloads, workloads, and paperwork. Community services are either unavailable or unwilling to handle parolees; as a consequence, parole officers are expected to be all things to all people. As indicated in Chapter 7, they are also expected to perform the dual roles of surveillance–police officer and rehabilitator–treatment agent.
Some evidence suggests that by shortening the amount of time on parole, we could save a considerable amount of money and time while not seriously increasing the risk of failure. Most data seem to indicate that the majority of failures on parole occur during the first 2 years (Flanagan, 1982; Hoffman & Stone-Meierhoefer, 1980) and drop significantly thereafter. There is also some evidence that early release into the community and from parole incurs no higher risk to the community and, in fact, is justifiable on cost con- siderations (Holt, 1975), a conclusion echoed by MacKenzie and Piquero (1994). It is also important to note that easing the offender back into the community through community residential centers and furlough programs can facilitate the early release process. The definition and purpose of com- munity residential centers and furloughs are found in Boxes 2.3 and 2.4, respectively.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Parole Effectiveness 27
A Washington State (1976) 10-year follow-up of parolees found that the first year of parole was critical, with more than one-half of those paroled return- ing to prison during this time period. In this study, there were more failures in the second 6 months after release than in first. It was also found that those convicted of murder and manslaughter were less likely to recidivate and that property offenders—especially those convicted of burglary, auto theft, and forgery—had the highest failure rate. As expected, younger parolees did signifi- cantly worse than those 40 years of age or older. Blacks did slightly worse than whites after the first 6 months, and Native Americans did significantly worse than all other groups.
It is important to note that many of the failures on parole supervision are a result of technical violations (TVs), that is, failure to abide by the conditions imposed by the parole board. TVs can range from a positive drug test to fail- ure to report as directed. Some states have reported that the reincarceration rates for parolees have dropped; Texas reported their high of 50 percent in 1992 declined to 31 percent in 1997 and Pennsylvania reported a decline from 50 percent in 1994 to 39 percent in 1996. Reasons offered for these
Community residential centers (also known as halfway houses) are residential facilities where probationers, furloughees, and parolees may be placed when in need of a more structured set- ting. The primary purpose of a halfway house is to limit an offender’s freedom while encouraging reintegration into society through employment, education, treatment, habilitation, restitution, training, compliance with financial sanctions, and other activities designed to rehabilitate the offender and deter future crime (Ohio Community Corrections Organization, 1993).
BoX 2.3 CommunIty resIdentIal Centers
Furlough is a phased reentry program designed to ease the offender’s transition from prison to the community. Furloughs include escorted or unescorted leaves from confinement, granted for designated purposes and time periods (funerals, dying relatives, etc.), before the formal sen- tence expires. Used primarily for employment, vocational training, or education, furlough in effect extends the limits of confinement to include temporary residence in the community dur- ing the last months of confinement. Furloughees are frequently required to reside in commu- nity residential centers. Furloughs allow parole boards to observe the offender’s behavior in the community and may lead to faster release from parole supervision for those adjusting favor- ably. Because furloughees are closely screened and supervised in the community, failure rates appear to be low. For example, Ohio reports a nine percent return to prison rate for calendar 1992 (Ohio Community Corrections Organization, 1993).
BoX 2.4 furloughs
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 2: What Works in Correctional Intervention?28
declines are not known, but possible explanations include an older parole population and lower-risk offenders being sent to prison. Figures 2.6 and 2.7 illustrate the reason for failure for probationers and parolees.
Studies of parole success by type of offense indicate repeatedly that those who commit murder are among the best parole risks (Neithercutt, 1972). Reasons for this conclusion vary; the explanation offered most frequently is that most murderers tend to be first offenders who have committed crimes of passion. Another reason cited is age; because most convicted murderers spend a great amount of time incarcerated, they tend to be older (and more mature) when released, usually after the high-crime-risk years of 16–29 (see Table 2.3).
In a study of murderers who had been given a death sentence and then had that sentence commuted when Furman v. Georgia was overturned, Vito, Wilson, and Latessa (1991) found that 43.5 percent of death row inmates in Ohio were paroled and that 25 percent were returned to prison (recidivated). These results
73% 10%
17% New sentence
Same sentence
Other/unknown*
*Absconder: 7%; unknown: 12%; death: 2%; detainer or warrant: 2% all other: 49%.
Note: Detail may not total due to rounding.
FIGURE 2.6 Probationers returned to custody during 2005. Source: Bureau of Justice (2006).
47%
7%
22%
20%
New sentence
Absconder
PV/other
Miscellaneous*
*Transferred: 2%; death: 2%; other: 3%.
FIGURE 2.7 Parolees returned to prison during year 2005. Source: Bureau of Justice (2006).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Parole Effectiveness 29
were very similar to those found in Texas, where 19 percent of the paroled Furman cases recidivated (Marquart & Sorensen, 1988), and in Kentucky, which had a 29 percent failure rate (Vito & Wilson, 1988). Overall, studies examin- ing murderers were found to generate consistent findings and conclusions over time.
A study by Austin (2001:331) examined the important issue of prisoner reen- try. He concluded “it is not clear that parolees, in the aggregate, pose as large a public safety problem as some believe.”
In order to summarize, we have selected data from a national study of parole recidivism (Beck, 1987). These data confirm two important points with regard to parole effectiveness: (1) recidivism rates vary depending on the definition of recidivism and (2) the type of offense and age are important factors in deter- mining parole success (Table 2.4). Other findings included the following:
n Approximately 10 percent of the persons paroled accounted for 40 percent of the subsequent arrest offenses.
n About one-fifth of the subsequent arrests occurred in states other than the original paroling state.
n An estimated 37 percent of the parolees were rearrested while still on parole.
n Recidivism rates were highest in the first 2 years after an offender’s release from prison. Within 1 year, 32 percent of those paroled had been arrested; within 2 years, 47 percent had been rearrested.
n Recidivism was higher among men, blacks, and persons who had not completed high school than among women, whites, and high school graduates.
table 2.3 Age of Parolees and Likelihood of Failure
Age at time of prison release
Rate of return to prison by years after release from prison
Years
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18–24 years old 21% 34% 41% 45% 48% 49% 50% 25–34 12 21 28 33 37 41 43 35–44 7 14 18 22 26 30 34 45+ 2 4 6 8 10 11 12 All ages 14 23 29 34 37 40 42
Source: Adopted from Beck (1987).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 2: What Works in Correctional Intervention?30
n Almost three-quarters of those paroled for property offenses were rearrested for a serious crime compared to about two-thirds of those paroled for violent offenses.
n Approximately one-third of both property offenders and violent offenders were rearrested for a violent crime upon release from prison.
n The longer the parolee’s prior arrest record, the higher the rate of recidivism—more than 90 percent of parolees with six or more previous adult arrests were rearrested compared to 59 percent of the first-time offender.
table 2.4 Failure Rates of Parolees
Percent of Young Parolees Who within 6 Years of Release from Prison Were
Rearrested Reconvicted Reincarcerated
All Parolees: 69% 53% 49%
Sex: Male 70% 54% 50% Female 52 40 36
Race: White 64% 49% 45% Black 76 60 56 Hispanic 71 50 44 Other 75 65 63
Education: Less than 12 years 71% 55% 51% High school graduate 61 46 43 Some college 48 44 31
Paroling offense: Violent offense 64% 43% 39% Murder 70 25 22 Robbery 64 45 40 Assault 72 51 47
Property offense 73 60 56 Burglary 73 60 56 Forgery/fraud 74 59 56 Larceny 71 61 55
Drug offense 49% 30% 25%
Source: Adopted from Beck (1987).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
31Probation Effectiveness
n The earlier the parolee’s first adult arrest, the more likely the chances for rearrest—79 percent of those arrested and charged as an adult before the age of 17 were rearrested compared to 51 percent of those first arrested at the age of 20 or older.
n Time served in prison had no consistent impact on recidivism rates— those who had served 6 months or less in prison were about as likely to be arrested as those who had served more than 2 years.
proBatIon effeCtIveness As with parole, the quality of probation research is dubious. Unlike parole, which is found on state and federal levels, probation still remains primarily a local governmental function. Facts are that (1) probation can be found at local, state, and federal levels; (2) there are municipal and county probation depart- ments; and (3) probation serves both misdemeanants and felons. These, com- bined with the problems discussed previously, make research in probation very difficult to conduct. Indeed, much of the research has been limited to only the several probation departments to which researchers have been welcome. This event gives us a limited sense of the true picture of probation.
As with parole, the research on probation effectiveness is divided into sec- tions. However, unlike our presentation of parole, the research on proba- tion is divided into five groups: studies that (1) compare the performance of offenders receiving alternative dispositions; (2) simply measure probation outcome without comparison with any other form of sanction; (3) measure
If the current average sentence remained the same for violent offenders and the required policy were to be to serve 85 percent of the current sentence, the predicted times served would be increased by: n for new admissions, 26 months n for prisoners now present, 84 months n for releases, an average of 33 months longer in prison Based on current sentences, the estimated time predicted to be served (months) would be:
Percent of sentence served Prison admissions Prisoners present Prison releases
Current 62 100 43
75% 78 162 67
85% 88 188 76
100% 104 216 89
BoX 2.5 estImated tIme to serve
Source: Greenfield (1995).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 2: What Works in Correctional Intervention?32
probation outcome and then attempt to isolate the characteristics which tend to differentiate between successful and nonsuccessful outcomes; (4) examine the cost-effectiveness of probation; and (5) examine probation combined with therapeutic drug courts.
probation versus alternative dispositions
To examine the effectiveness of probation compared to other dispositions, we looked at six studies. Three of the studies compared recidivism rates of indi- viduals placed on probation with individuals sentenced to incarceration. Babst and Mannering’s (1965) study compared similar types of offenders who were imprisoned or placed on probation. The sample consisted of 7614 Wisconsin offenders who were statistically comparable in original disposition, county of commitment, type of offense committed, number of prior felonies, and mari- tal status. Parolees were followed for 2 years, and probationers were followed for 2 years or until discharge from probation, whichever came first. Violations were defined as the commission of a new offense or the violation of proba- tion/parole rules. Findings of this study showed that, for offenders with no prior felony convictions, the violation rate was 25 percent for probationers and 32.9 percent for parolees. For offenders with one prior felony conviction, viola- tion rates were 41.8 percent for probationers and 43.9 percent for parolees; for offenders with two or more felonies, rates were 51.8 percent for probationers and 48.7 percent for parolees. With respect to the difference in violation rates for first offenders (which was statistically significant at the .05 level), Babst and Mannering note that this finding could be a result of the fact that parolees are a more difficult group to supervise or could actually show that, at least for first offenders, incarceration does more harm than good.
Another study done in Wisconsin (Wisconsin Division of Corrections, 1965) compared the performance of burglars who had no previous felony convictions, sentenced to prison, or placed on probation. While this study also attempted to investigate the characteristics associated with successful and nonsuccessful probationers and parolees, we simply report at this point that the violation rate (based on a 2-year follow-up, using the same definition of violation rate as Babst and Mannering described earlier) for burglars placed on probation was 23 percent, whereas that for burglars who were incarcerated and then placed on parole was 34 percent. Thus, it appears that, as with the Wisconsin study, probation was more successful than parole.
The Pennsylvania Program for Women and Girl Offenders, Inc. (1976) com- pared recidivism rates among all women placed on state probation or released on state parole during a 2-year period. Recidivism was defined as any technical violation of probation or parole or any new criminal charge. Findings showed that, overall, women placed on probation had a 35.6 percent recidivism rate.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
33Probation Effectiveness
When only women with no prior convictions were considered, probation- ers had a 24 percent recidivism rate and parolees had a 23.1 percent rate. Differences between these rates were not statistically significant.
Vito (1978) compared regular probationers with shock probationers (who served at least 30 days in prison). He found that shock probationers had a 40 percent higher probability of failure than those released to regular supervision. Vito and Allen (1981:16) concluded:
… the fact of incarceration is having some unknown and unmeasurable effect upon (the more unfavorable) performance of shock probationers. ... It could be that the negative effects of incarceration are affecting the performance of shock probationers.
Whereas these four studies compared probation with some form of incarcer- ation, a California study (California Department of Justice, 1969) compared violation rates among offenders placed on probation, offenders sentenced to probation following a jail term, and offenders given straight jail sentences. The study examined the performance of a cohort of offenders, all of whom had an equal exposure of one full year in the community. For the probation group, cohort status was gained on the date of the beginning of the proba- tion period; for the group receiving jail sentences, cohort status began on the date of release from jail. To evaluate the relative effectiveness of these dispositions, three violation levels were used: “none” or no known arrest for a technical violation or a new offense, “minor” or at least an arrest and per- haps a conviction resulting in a jail sentence of less than 90 days or proba- tion of 1 year or less, and “major,” signifying at least a conviction resulting in a jail sentence of not less than 90 days or a term of probation exceeding 1 year. Because each case was followed for only 1 year, the final outcome of a violation occasionally did not occur until after the year was over. If it could be inferred that the disposition or sentence was the result of an arrest that did occur within the follow-up year, the action was included in the vio- lation rate.
The findings of this study are illustrated in Table 2.5. Those offenders receiving jail sentences without the benefit of probation services have the worst record of recidivism.
These studies illustrate that, as a disposition, probation appears to be more effective than incarceration, even for a short period of time. This may be due, in part, to the fact that probationers immediately return to the community, their jobs, and their families.
Finally, an Alaska study (Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, 1976) utilized an experimental design to compare the performance of misdemeanant
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 2: What Works in Correctional Intervention?34
offenders receiving probation supervision with offenders officially on proba- tion but not required to report to the probation unit. The groups were cre- ated by random assignment to the experimental group (under supervision) or the control group (no supervision) and were followed for periods ranging from 2 months to slightly more than 2 years. Performance was assessed by means of recidivism, defined as the conviction for a new offense. Findings of the study showed that 22 percent of experimental group members and 24 of control group members had been convicted of new offenses during the follow- up period.
Given the paucity of research and the caution with which recidivism data must be approached, it is nearly impossible, not to mention inappropriate, to attempt to draw any definitive conclusions from these studies about the effectiveness of probation compared to other alternative dispositions. Nonetheless, it appears from the limited research that has been conducted that the following tentative conclusions can be reached. Of studies that compared probation to incarcera- tion, it tentatively appears that probation may have a significant impact on first offenders. It may also be suggested that the severity of violations appears to increase in proportion to the severity of the disposition. It does not appear that the provision of probation supervision for misdemeanants is more effec- tive than an unsupervised probation period.
probation outcome
A number of studies reported recidivism rates only for probationers. Thirteen of these were reviewed, but one should remember that definitions of failure, follow-up periods, and types of offenders differ significantly from one study to another. Table 2.6 includes the author, types of instant offenses committed by the probationers in the study, and the definition of failure used in the study, the length of follow-up, and failure rates.
These summary descriptions illustrate many of the problems associated with attempting to assess probation effectiveness. The type of offenders constituting
table 2.5 Violation Levels of Sentenced Offenders in California
Violations
Sentence None Minor Major
Probation only 64.7% 23.7% 11.6%
Jail, then probation 50.3% 31.7% 18.0%
Jail only 46.6% 29.5% 23.9%
Source: California Department of Justice (1969).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
35Probation Effectiveness
the samples (as represented by instant offenses) varies, as do the definitions used in each study to characterize failure. Four studies computed failure rates while offenders were on probation, and the length of follow-up periods ranged from several months to many years.
table 2.6 Studies Reporting Recidivism Rates for Probationers
Study Instant offense Failure Follow-up Failure rate (%)
Caldwell (1951) Internal revenue laws (72%)
Convictions Postprobation 5½–11½ years
16.4
England (1955) Bootlegging (48%) and forgery
Convictions Postprobation 6-12 years
17.7
Davis (1955) Burglary, forgery, and checks
Two or more violations (technical and new offense)
To termination 4–7 years
30.2
Frease (1964) Unknown Inactive letter, bench warrant, and revocation
On probation 18–30 months
20.2
Landis et al. (1969) Auto theft, forgery, and checks
Revocation (technical and new offense)
To termination 52.5
Irish (1972) Larceny and burglary Arrests or convictions Postprobation Minimum 4 years
41.5
Missouri Div. Probation & Parole (1976)
Burglary, larceny, and vehicle theft
Arrests and convictions
Postprobation 6 months–7 years
30.0
Kusuda (1976) Property Revocation To termination 1–2 years
18.3
Comptroller General (1976)
Unknown Revocation and postrelease conviction
Postprobation 20 months average
55.0
Irish (1977) Property Arrests Postprobation 3–4 years
29.6
Petersilia (1985) Felony probationers Arrests Tracked over 40 months
65.0
McGaha, Fichter, and Hirschburg (1987)
Felony probationers Arrests Tracked over 40 months
22.3
Vito (1986) Felony probationers (excluding drug offenses)
Arrests Tracked over 40 months
22.0
Maxwell, Bynum, Gray, and Combs (2000)
Felony probationers Revoked Tracked over 30 months
47.0
Source: Adapted and updated from Allen, Carlson, and Parks (1979).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 2: What Works in Correctional Intervention?36
Most of the studies reviewed here stated that their purpose was to assess “pro- bation effectiveness”; however, unlike the five studies examined earlier, none of these studies defined a base (such as a failure rate for comparable parolees or offenders on summary probation) against which to compare findings in order to support a claim that probation is an effective alternative for rehabili- tating offenders.
In a study of 1700 probationers in Michigan, Maxwell and colleagues (2000) found that only 24 percent of probationers had no technical violations dur- ing a 30-month follow-up period. Results are summarized in Figure 2.8. Treatment-related violations, such as dirty urine or failing to attend treat- ment programs, accounted for the largest proportion of violations, fol- lowed by failure to appear. Only 13 percent of the violations were for a new crime.
MacKenzie, Browning, Skroban, and Smith (1999) studied the impact of pro- bation on the criminal activities of offenders. They concluded that probation alone had an effect on property and dealing crimes. Probation was not sig- nificantly associated with reductions in personal crimes of forgery and fraud offenses. The conclusion reached by the authors was that “probation may be more effective than previously thought.”
In one of the more critical studies of probation effectiveness, Petersilia (1985) examined 1672 felony probationers from two counties in California over a 40-month period. She found that more than 67 percent were rearrested and 51 percent were convicted for a new offense. Petersilia concluded that felony probationers posed a significant risk to the community. Critics of the Petersilia study quickly pointed out that two urban counties in California are not representative of the rest of the states or the country. Two replication studies,
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Treatment Related
Failure to Report
New Crime
FIGURE 2.8 Michigan study of probationer recidivism (percentage). Source: Maxwell et al. (2000).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
37Probation Effectiveness
one in Kentucky (Vito, 1986) and one in Missouri (McGaha et al. 1987), found quite different results. In both Kentucky and Missouri, felony probationers were rearrested at about one-third of the rate as those in California.
One suggested reason for these differences is the effects of budget cuts on pro- bation staffs in California. Caseloads of more than 300 are commonplace, and there is virtually no enforcement of probation conditions (Snider, 1986). Despite these reasons, it is important to note that the effectiveness of felony probation is still very much in debate.
Morgan (1993) studied 266 adult felony probationers in Tennessee to deter- mine factors associated with favorable probation outcome and those that would predict success. She found that only 27 percent of the probationers failed and that females, married probationers, and those with higher levels of education were most likely to succeed. Factors significantly related to probation failure were prior felonies, prior probation, prior institutional commitment, and pro- bation sentence length (the longer the sentence, the more likely the failure).
The review of these studies demonstrates that little progress has apparently been made in recent years toward an adequate assessment of probation. Conclusions drawn by the authors of these studies, however, appear to sug- gest that an unwritten agreement or rule of thumb exists that probation can be considered to be effective and that a failure rate above 30 percent indicates it is not effective. This tendency is suggested by the comments in Table 2.7.
State courts in 32 counties across 17 states sentenced 79,000 felons to probation in 1986. Within 3 years of sentencing, while still on probation, 43 percent were rearrested for a felony. An esti- mated 18 percent of the arrests were for a violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, or aggravated assault); 33 percent were for a drug offense (drug trafficking or drug possession). Of each 100 felony probationers tracked for 3 years: n 26 went to prison n 10 went to jail n 10 absconded These findings are based on a follow-up survey of felons on probation using a sample that represented a fourth of the total 306,000 felons sentenced to probation in 1986. The survey used state criminal history files and probation files to obtain information. It was not based on a nationally representative sample; 39 percent of the follow-up cases were from a single state (California). Nevertheless, based on 12,370 sample cases representing 79,043 felons placed on probation in the counties and states studied, the follow-up represents the largest survey of its kind ever done.
BoX 2.6 proBatIoners rearrested for a felony WIthIn three years
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics National Update (1994).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 2: What Works in Correctional Intervention?38
probation outcome and statistics
In addition to measuring the effectiveness of probation, a number of studies have also attempted to isolate characteristics that could be related to offender rehabilitation. Table 2.8 presents a summary of the major factors that were found in each study to be statistically correlated with failure. Keeping in mind the methodological differences among the studies in terms of definition of failure and specification of follow-up period, it appears that the one character- istic found to be associated most commonly with failure is the probationer’s previous criminal histories. Other factors frequently cited are the youthfulness of the probationer, marital status other than married, unemployment, and educational level below the eleventh grade.
Factors such as employment and education are dynamic factors that are cor- related with outcome. Because these areas can be addressed during super-
table 2.7 Evaluations of Effectiveness of Probation
Year Author Failure rate Comments
1951 Caldwell 16% [P]robation is an effective method of dealing with federal offenders …
1955 England 18% A reconviction rate of less than one-fifth or one-quarter … is an acceptable performance for a probation service.
1976 Missouri 30% Probation is an effective and efficient way of handling the majority of offenders in the State of Missouri.
1976 Comptroller 55% [P]robation systems we reviewed were achieving limited success in protecting society and rehabilitating offenders.
1977 Irish 30% [S]upervision program is effectively accomplishing its objective.
1985 Petersilia 65% Felony probation does present a serious threat to public safety.
1986 Vito 22% Felony probation supervision appears to be relatively effective in controlling recidivism …
1987 McGaha et al. 22% In Missouri, it does not appear that the current use of felony probation poses a high risk to the security of the community.
1991 Whitehead 40% [C]alls for drastically reduced use of probation for felony offenders are only partially in order.
1994 Morgan 27% [I]nadequate employment and unemployment are major impediments to achieving successful probation adjustment and … outcome.
1997 Mortimer and May
18% Electronic monitoring and probation orders yield comparable success rates.
Source: Adapted and updated from Allen et al. (1979), Petersilla (1985), Vito (1986), McGaha et al. (1987), Whitehead (1991), Morgan (1993), and Mortimer and May (1997).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
table 2.8 Studies Reporting Factors Related to Probationer Recidivism
Study
Previous criminal history Youth
Status other than married
Not employed
Low income (below $400)
Education below 11th grade
Abuse of alcohol or drugs
Property offender
On-Probation maladjustment
Imposition of conditions
Caldwell (1951)
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
—a
England (1955)
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
—a Significant correlation
Davis (1955)
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Frease (1964)
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
—b Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Landis (1969)
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Irish (1972)
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
—a
MO Div. of Prob. & Parole
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
—c Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Kusuda (1976)
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
—b —a Significant correlation
—a
Comptroller General (1976))
—a
Irish (1977)
Significant correlation
—a Significant correlation
Petersilia (1985)
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Benedict (1998)
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
Significant correlation
aIn these studies, instant and postprobation offenses committed by probationers were predominantly “property”; however, a correlation between property offenses and recidivism was not investigated. bCorrelation only with income between $100 and $400; those who make less than $100 and those who made above $400 both had an equal probability of success. cCorrelation only with income between $100 and $700; those who made less than $100 or above $700 both had an equal probability of success. Source: Adapted from Allen et al. (1979).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 2: What Works in Correctional Intervention?40
vision, one can reasonably view these factors positively; we have a clear indication of offender needs, and they can be improved. However, a ques- tion remains as to whether probation and parole officers are addressing these needs adequately. When probation and parole agencies fail to meet offender needs that are correlated with outcome, the result is often higher failure rates.
Cost-effeCtIveness While the public has demanded tougher sentences, it has become increas- ingly apparent that the cost associated with more incarceration and prison construction is astronomical. Estimates place the cost of constructing a max- imum-security prison at approximately $80,000 per bed, and the annual cost of maintenance and housing inmates at more than $21,000 (Camp & Camp, 2000). Despite the opening of 371 new prisons since 1991 and constructing an additional 558,000 beds since 1992 (Camp & Camp, 2000), the acute shortage of prison space has made incarceration a scarce resource. Many states are faced with severe budget deficits, and legislators and the public are reluctant to vote for new prison construction. However, ample evidence also shows that once prisons are built they are filled. In addition, 19 states are under court order to increase services or reduce or limit their prison populations or the population in a specific prison (American Correctional Association, 2000). Because of the increasingly high cost associated with incarceration, researchers have begun to focus on the cost-effectiveness of alternatives.
Shock probation (also known as “reconsideration of sentence” or “shock therapy”) is a program allowing sentencing judges to reconsider the offender’s original sentence to imprisonment and then recall the inmate for a sentence to probation within the community under conditions deemed appropriate. It is presumed that a short term of incarceration would “shock” the offender into abandoning criminal activity and into pursuit of law-abiding behavior. It can be seen as an alternative disposition for sentencing judges who wish to control probationer behavior through deterrence and tourniquet sentencing. It is a last-ditch program used by some judges in the difficult decision of how best to protect the public while maximizing offender reintegration. In more recent years, it has become a “front end” solution to prison overcrowding. Vito (1985a) found reincarceration rates to range from 10 to 26 percent across many studies; Boudouris and Turnbull (1985) found a rearrest/revocation rate of 39 percent in Iowa over a lon- ger follow-up period. The latter also found that sex and substance abuse offenders were most responsive to shock incarceration and that the cost savings of sentencing offenders to shock probation would be substantial.
BoX 2.7 shoCK proBatIon
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
41Cost-Effectiveness
In light of these factors, and in addition to research aimed at measuring effec- tiveness in terms of recidivism, there have been attempts to demonstrate cost- effectiveness of probation. Typically, with criminal justice agencies, costs are usually divided into three types: processing, program, and client-centered. Processing costs include monies spent in identifying and selecting individ- uals for a given program. Program costs are expenditures associated with incarceration and include direct costs, such as loss of earning, and indirect costs, such as psychological effects upon of alienation/prisonization, social stigma, and other detrimental effects upon the prisoner’s marriage and fam- ily (Nelson, 1975).
Similarly, benefits generated by probation could include savings to society through the use of diversion, wages, and taxes generated by the participants, and reduced crime or recidivism rates (Vito & Latessa, 1979). In addition, there are the costs associated with failure, such as the monetary loss and grief expe- rienced by the victims.
Studies that provided the most thorough financial comparisons were those that treated the cost–benefit analysis as their primary focus and considered direct and indirect costs and benefits.
In one of the most comprehensive studies of probation costs, Frazier (1972) attempted to develop realistic cost information on probation and incarcera- tion for the purpose of comparison. A number of estimates were used to com- pare the indirect costs associated with incarceration. These factors included the average wage and average months employed per year, average taxes paid on gross wages, and the cost of welfare support for children whose wage-earn- ing parent had been incarcerated. These figures were based on data collection from a representative sample of 115 inmates and were then extended to the
Morgan reviewed the probation outcome literature through 1991 and concluded that probation is effective as a correctional alternative. Failure rates ranged from 14 to 60 percent for a group that had already committed crime; success rates vary from 40 to 86 percent. Factors associated more frequently with failure on probation included age, sex, marital status, low income, prior criminal record, and employment status. Those most likely to fail were unem- ployed or underemployed young males with a low income and prior criminal record. The recon- viction offenses of those who failed were more likely to be minor misdemeanors rather than felonies. Probationers who were adequately employed, married with children, and had lived in their area for at least 2 years were most often successful when placed on probation.
Source: Morgan (1993).
BoX 2.8 proBatIon as a CorreCtIonal alternatIve
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 2: What Works in Correctional Intervention?42
entire inmate population in Texas for 1970. The authors concluded that if 3000 inmates were diverted, a 1-year savings of $5,715,000 could be generated, and this, in 1970 dollars.
There have been several other cost–benefit analyses, however, that tend to include cost comparisons as part of a large research effort, and thus are plagued by errors of omission and incomplete costs or benefit identifica- tions (Erwin, 1984; Latessa, 1985, 1986; Pearson, 1985; System Sciences, 1982; Wetter, 1985). Despite their limitations, these studies also support the contention that probation is a cost-effective alternative to incarceration. In one study that included cost-effectiveness as part of a larger research effort, Latessa et al. (1997) compared the cost of four correctional options [regular probation, intensive supervised probation (ISP), community-based correc- tional facilities (CBCFs), and prison]. Figure 2.9 shows the average cost per offender by for supervision through discharge. This shows that probation and ISP are clearly less expensive alternatives to residential and institutional options. They went on to conclude:
n Compared to incarceration, placement in ISP or CBCF program produces savings and revenues between $4500 and $5000 per offender when compared to imprisonment.
n Intensive supervised probation and CBCF programs were more expensive than regular probation, but substantially less expensive than imprisonment.
n If only half of the offenders served in the community had been incarcerated, the state realized a savings of $49 million.
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
Probation Community based correctional facility
Prison Prison and parole
FIGURE 2.9 Average cost of supervision through discharge in Ohio. Source: Latessa (2006).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
43Summary
n Offenders in the ISP and CBCFs paid more than $3.4 million in court costs, fines, and restitution and $1.7 million in the value of community service and labor over a 3-year period.
In a review of seven cost–benefit analysis studies conducted on correctional alternatives, Welsh and Farrington (2000) found that for each dollar spent on programs, the public received a return of $1.13 to $7.14 in various savings. Likewise, Cohen (1998) determined the monetary value of saving a high-risk youth at between $1.7 and $2.3 million. Aos and associates (1999) calculated the cost savings from selected correctional programs based on expected reduc- tions in recidivism rates (see Table 2.9).
summary There are now several meta-analytic reviews of the correctional treatment liter- ature conducted by different authors, and the results have been replicated with remarkable consistency. These findings are collectively referred to as the “what works” literature, and have been summarized into the “principles of effective intervention” with offender populations. In general, these meta-analyses have been very critical of the “nothing works” doctrine proposed by Martinson and others (Whitehead & Lab, 1989). Furthermore, the results have not supported the use of intermediate sanctions (e.g., electronic monitoring, house arrest, restitution, etc.) and other more punitive approaches. At the same time, there are certain strategies and programs that are well supported by the literature.
table 2.9 Cost Savings from Selected Correctional Programs
Juvenile boot camps Taxpayers receive $0.42 for every dollar spent In-prison vocational education Taxpayers receive $2.30 for every dollar spent Adult basic education Taxpayers receive $1.71 for every dollar spent In-prison therapeutic communities Taxpayers receive $0.76 for every dollar spent Sex offender treatment programs Taxpayers receive $0.25 for every dollar spent Life Skills programs Taxpayers receive $0.00 for every dollar spent Job counseling and job search for inmates leaving prison
Taxpayers receive $2.84 for every dollar spent
Drug courts Taxpayers receive $1.69 for every dollar spent Subsidized jobs for inmates leaving prison
Taxpayers receive $0.67 for every dollar spent
Adult intensive supervision programs Taxpayers receive $0.39 for every dollar spent Case management substance abuse programs
Taxpayers lost $0.15 for every dollar spent
Adopted from Aos et al.(1999)
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 2: What Works in Correctional Intervention?44
Specifically, programs (including probation and parole agencies) that incorpo- rate elements of the risk, need and responsivity framework into their interven- tions have produced larger average reductions in recidivism.
revIeW QuestIons 1. What are some of the indicators of effectiveness used in correctional
research? 2. List the three major ways that research studies are summarized. 3. List some of the factors that are related to successful outcomes for
parolees. 4. Describe the principles of effective intervention. 5. Describe what does not work to reduce recidivism in offender
populations. 6. What factors are important for parole and probation agencies to consider
in order to achieve meaningful reductions in recidivism?
reCommended readIng Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct. (4th ed). New Providence, NJ:
LexisNexis Matthew Bender.
referenCes Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. (1976). Misdemeanants probation project. Juneau,
AK: Division of Corrections.
Allen, H., Carlson, E., & Parks, E. (1979). Critical issues in adult probation. Washington, DC: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.
Allen, H., & Latessa, E. (1980). Parole effectiveness in the United States: An assessment. San Jose, CA: San Jose State University Research Foundation.
American Correctional Association. (2000). Directory. Laurel, MD: ACA.
Andrews, D., Zinger, I., Hoge, R., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed Meta-Analysis. Criminology, 28, 369–404.
Antonowicz, D., & Ross, R. (1994). Essential components of successful rehabilitation programs for offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 38, 97–104.
Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., & Lieb, R. (1999). the comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce crime: A review of national research findings with implications for Washington State. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Applegate, B., Cullen, F., & Fisher, B. (1997). Public support for correctional treatment: The continuing appeal of the rehabilitative ideal. The Prison Journal, 77, 237–258.
Austin, J. (2001). Prisoner reentry: Current trends, practices, and issues. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 314–334.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
45References
Ayers, D., Duguid, S., Montague, C., & Wolowidnyk, S. (1980). Effects of the University of Victoria Program: A post-release study. Ottawa, CN: Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada.
Babst, D., & Mannering, J. (1965). Probation versus imprisonment for similar types of offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2, 60–71.
Beasley, W. (1978). Unraveling the process of parole: An analysis of the effects of parole residency on parole outcome. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, GA.
Beck, A. (1987). Recidivism of young parolees. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report.
Benedict, W., Huff-Corzine, L., & Corzine, J. (1998). ‘Clean up and go straight’: Effects of drug treatment on recidivism among felony probationers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(2), 169–187.
Bennett, W., DiIulio, J., Jr., & Walters, J. (1996). Body count: Moral poverty and how to win America’s war against crime and drugs. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Boudouris, J., & Turnbull, B. (1985). Shock probation in Iowa. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation, 9(4), 53–67.
Bucholtz, G., & Foos, R. (1996). Profiling parole violators at large. Columbus, OH: Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
Bureau of justice statistics national update. (1996). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, p. 10.
Bureau of justice statistics (2006). Probation and parole in the United States, 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 5–6 (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ppus05htm).
Bureau of justice statistics (2006). Probation and parole in the United States, 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 7 and 9 (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ppus05htm).
Caldwell, M. (1951). Review of a new type of probation study made in Alabama. Federal Probation, 15(2), 3–11.
California Department of Justice. (1969). Superior court probation and/or jail sample: One year fol- low-up for selected counties. Sacramento, CA: Division of Law Enforcement, Bureau of Criminal Statistics.
Camp, C., & Camp, G. (2000). The 2000 corrections yearbook: Adult corrections. Middletown, CT: Criminal Justice Institute.
Citizens’ Inquiry on Parole and Criminal Justice. (1975). Prison without walls: Report on New York parole. New York: Praeger.
Clear, T. R. (1994). Harm in American penology: Offenders, victims, and their communities. Albany State University of New York Press.
Clear, T. R., Stout, B., Kelly, L., Hardyman, P., & Shapiro, C. (1992). Prisoners, prisons and religion: Final report. New Jersey: School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University.
Cohen, M. (1998). The monetary value of saving a high-risk youth. Quantitative Criminology, 14, 5–32.
Comptroller General of the United States. (1976). State and county probation: Systems in crisis, report to the congress of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Cullen, F., & Applegate, B. (1998). Offender rehabilitation. Brookfield, MA: Ashgate Darthmouth.
Cullen, F., & Gendreau, P. (1989). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: Reconsidering the “nothing works” debate. In L. Goodstein, & D. MacKenzie (Eds.), American prisons: Issues in research and policy (pp. 23–44). New York: Plenum.
Currie, E. (1985). Confronting crime: An American dilemma. New York: Pantheon.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 2: What Works in Correctional Intervention?46
Davis, G. F. (1955). “A Study of adult probation violation rates by mean of the cohort approach.” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 55 (March 1964): 70-85.
Egg, R., Pearson, F. S., Cleland, C. M. and Lipton, D.S. (2000). “Evaluations of Correctional Treatment Programs in Germany: A Review and Meta-analysis.” Substance Use and Misuse, 35:1967-2009.
Eichman, C. (1965). “The Impact of the Gideon Decision Upon Crime and Sentencing in Florida: A Study of Recidivism and Socio-Cultural Change.” Unpublished master’s thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
England, R. (1955). A study of postprobation recidivism among five hundred federal offenders. Federal Probation, 19(3), 10–16.
Erwin, B. (1984). Georgia’s intensive supervision program: First year evaluation. Atlanta, GA: Department of Offender Rehabilitation.
Eskridge, C., & Newbold, G. (1994). Corrections in New Zealand. Federal Probation, 57(3), 59–66.
Flanagan, T. (1982). Risk and the timing of recidivism in three cohorts of prison releasees. Criminal Justice Review, 7, 34–45.
Flanagan, T. (1985). Questioning the ‘other’ parole: The effectiveness of community supervision of offenders. In L. Travis (Ed.), Probation, parole and community corrections (pp. 167–184). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Frazier, R. (1972). Incarceration and adult felon probation in texas: A cost comparison. Unpublished master’s thesis. Huntsville, TX: Institute of Contemporary Corrections and the Behavioral Sciences, Sam Houston State University.
Frease, D. (1964). Factors related to probation outcome. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Institutions, Board of Prison Terms and Paroles.
French, S. and Gendreau, P. (2006). “Reducing prison misconducts: What works!” Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(2):185–218.
French, S. A., & Gendreau, P. (2006). Reducing prison misconducts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 185–218.
Fulton, B., Latessa, E., Stichman, A., & Travis, L. (1997). The state of ISP: Research and policy impli- cations. Federal Probation, 61(4), 65–75.
Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand the evaluating the supply. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. (1990). Tertiary prevention: What the meta-analysis of the offender treatment literature tells us about ‘what works’. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 32, 173–184.
Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. (2001). The correctional program assessment inventory. (5th ed.). Saint John, CN: University of New Brunswick.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, F., & Andrews, D. (2000). The effects of community sanctions and incarceration on recidivism. FORUM, 12(2), 10–13.
Gendreau, P., & Paparozzi, M. (1995). Examining what works in community corrections. Corrections Today, (February), 28–30.
Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s. Justice Quarterly, 4, 349–407.
Gottfredson, D. (1975). Some positive changes in the parole process. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society of Criminology.
Gottfredson, D., Gottfredson, M., & Adams, M. (1982). Prison behavior and release performance. Law and Policy Quarterly, 4, 373–391.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
47References
Gottfredson, D., Gottfredson, M., & Garofalo, J. (1977). Time served in prison and parolee out- comes among parolee risk categories. Journal of Criminal Justice, 5, 1–12.
Gottfredson, M., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., & Flanagan, T. (1982). Another look at the effectiveness of parole supervision. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18, 277–298.
Greenfield, L. (1995). Prison sentences and time served for violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Hoffman, P., & Stone-Meierhoefer, B. (1980). Reporting recidivism rates: The criterion and follow- up issues. Journal of Criminal Justice, 8, 53–60.
Holt, N. (1975). In rational risk taking: Some alternatives to traditional correctional programs. Proceedings: Second national workshop on corrections and parole administration, Louisville, Kentucky.
Irish, J. (1972). Probation and its effects on recidivism: An evaluative research study of probation in Nassau County, New York. New York: Nassau County Probation Department.
Jackson, P. (1983). The paradox of control: Parole supervision of youthful offenders. New York: Praeger.
Johnson, B. R. (1984). Hellfire and corrections: A quantitative study of florida prison inmates. Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University.
Johnson, B. R., Larson, D. B., & Pitts, T. C. (1987). Religious programs, institutional adjustment, and recidivism among former inmates in prison fellowship programs. Justice Quarterly, 14, 501–521.
Knight, K., Simpson, D., & Hiller, M. (1999). Three-year reincarceration outcomes for in-prison therapeutic community treatment in Texas. The Prison Journal, 79, 337–351.
Kusuda, P. (1976). Probation and parole terminations. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Division of Corrections.
Lab, S., & Whitehead, J. (1988). An analysis of juvenile correctional treatment. Crime & Delinquency, 28, 60–85.
Landis, J., Mercer, J., & Wolff, C. (1969). Success and failure of adult probationers in California. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 6, 34–40.
Latessa, E. (1985). The incarceration diversion unit of the Lucas County Adult Probation Department report number six. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
Latessa, E. (1986). The cost effectiveness of intensive supervision. Federal Probation, 50(2), 70–74.
Latessa, E. (2006). Cincinnati: Cincinnati division of criminal justice, University of Cincinnati.
Latessa, E., Travis, L., & Holsinger, A. (1997). Evaluation of Ohio’s community corrections act pro- grams and community based correctional facilities. Cincinnati, OH: Division of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati.
Lerner, M. (1977). The effectiveness of a definite sentence parole program. Criminology, 15, 32–40.
Lightfoot, L. (1997). In treating substance abuse and dependence in offenders: A review of methods and outcome. Paper presented at the International Community Corrections Association meeting, Cleveland, OH.
Lightfoot, L. (1997). “What works in drug treatment.” Presented at the International Community Corrections Association annual meeting.
Linden, R., & Perry, L. (1982). The effectiveness of prison education programs. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation, 6, 43–57.
Lipsey, M. (1992). Juvenile Delinquency Treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T. Cook, H. Cooper, D. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L. Hedges, R. Light, T. Louis, & F. Mosteller (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation (pp. 83–127). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 2: What Works in Correctional Intervention?48
Lipsey, M. (1999). Can intervention rehabilitate serious delinquent? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 564, 142–166.
Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (1997). Effective Interventions for serious juvenile offenders. In R. Loeber, & D. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and Violent Juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interven- tions (pp. 313–345). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Logan, C., & Gaes, G. (1993). Meta-analysis and the rehabilitation of punishment. Justice Quarterly, 10, 245–263.
MacKenzie, D., Browning, L., Skroban, S., & Smith, D. (1999). The impact of probation on the criminal activities of offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36(4), 423–453.
MacKenzie, D., & Hickman, L. (1998). What works in corrections? An examination of the effectiveness of the type of rehabilitation programs offered by Washington State Department of corrections. Report to the State of Washington Legislature Joint Audit and Review Committee. College Park, MD: Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland.
MacKenzie, D., & Piquero, A. (1994). The impact of shock incarceration programs on prison crowding. Crime & Delinquency, 40, 222–249.
Marquart, J., & Sorensen, J. (1988). Institutional and post-release behavior of furman-commuted inmates in Texas. Criminology, 26, 667–693.
Martin, S., Butzin, C., Saum, C., & Inciardi, J. (1999). Three-year outcomes of therapeu- tic community treatment for drug-involved offenders in delaware. The Prison Journal, 79, 294–320.
Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1977). Save parole supervision. Federal Probation, 42(3), 23–27.
Maxwell, S., Bynum, T., Gray, M., & Combs, T. (2000). Examining probationer recidivism in Michigan. Corrections Compendium, 25(12), 1–4. 18–19.
McGaha, J., Fichter, M., & Hirschburg, P. (1987). Felony probation: A re-examination of public risk. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 1–9.
Missouri Division of Probation and Parole. (1976). Probation in Missouri, July 1, 1968 to June 30, 1970: Characteristics, performance, and criminal reinvolvement. Jefferson City, Missouri.
Morgan, K. (1993). Factors influencing probation outcome: A review of the literature. Federal Probation, 57(2), 23–29.
Morris, N. (1978). Conceptual overview and commentary on the movement toward determi- nacy. In Determinate sentencing: Proceedings of the special conference on determinate sentencing. Washington, DC: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.
Mortimer, E., & May, C. (1997). Electronic monitoring in practice. London: U.K: Home Office.
Neithercutt, M. (1972). Parole violation patterns and commitment offense. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 9, 87–98.
Nelson, C. W. (1975). Cost-benefit analysis and alternatives to incarceration. Federal Probation, 39(4), 45–50.
Nuttal, C. P., Associates. (1977). Parole in England and Wales. Home Office Research Studies No. 38. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Ohio Community Corrections Organization. (1993). Ohio’s community corrections bench book. Columbus, OH: OCCO.
Pearson, F. (1985). New Jersey’s intensive supervision program: A progress report. Crime & Delinquency, 31, 393–410.
Pennsylvania Program for Women and Girl Offenders, Inc. (1976). Report on recidivism of women sentenced to state probation and released from SCI Muncy 1971-73. Philadelphia, PA.
Petersilia, J. (1985). Probation and felony offenders. Federal Probation, 49(2), 4–9.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
49References
Petersilia, J. (1992). California’s prison policy: Causes, costs, and consequences. The Prison Journal, 72, 8–36.
Petersilia, J. (1997). Probation in the United States. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 22, (pp. 149–200). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Porporino, F., & Zamble, E. (1984). Coping with imprisonment. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 264(4), 403–421.
Redondo, S., Sanchez-Meca, J., & Garrido, V. (1999). The influence of treatment programmes on the recidivism of juvenile and adult offenders: An european meta-analytic review. Psychology, Crime and Law, 5, 251–278.
Roberts, R., & Cheek, E. (1994). Group intervention and reading performance in a medium secu- rity prison facility. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 20, 97–116.
Schumaker, R., Anderson, D., & Anderson, S. (1990). Vocational and academic indicators of parole success. Journal of Correctional Education, 41, 8–13.
Schwaner, S. (1997). They can run, but can they hide? A profile of parole violators at large. Journal of Crime and Justice, 20(2), 19–32.
Sherman, L., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1998). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief.
Smith, P., & Gendreau, P. (2007). The relationship between program participation, institu- tional misconduct and recidivism among federally sentenced adult male offenders. Forum on Corrections Research, 19: 6–10.
Smith, P., Goggin, C., & Gendreau, P. (2002). The effects of prison sentences and intermediate sanc- tions on recidivism: General effects and individual differences. A Report to the Corrections Research Branch. Ottawa, Ontario: Solicitor General of Canada.
Snider, R. M. (1986). The high risks of felony probation. California Lawyer, (March), 33–37.
Spiegler, M. D., & Guevremont, D. C. (2009). Contemporary behavior therapy (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Stevens, D., & Ward, C. (1997). College education and recidivism. Journal of Correctional Education, 48(3), 106–111.
Sumter, M. T. (1999). Religiousness and post-release community adjustment. Doctoral Dissertation. Florida State University.
System Sciences. (1982). Executive summary national evaluation program—Phase II intensive evaluation of probation. Bethesda, MD.
Taxman, F. (2000). Unraveling ‘what works’ for offenders in substance abuse treatment services. National Drug Court Institute Review, II, 2.
Travis, L., & Latessa, E. (1984). A Summary of Parole Rules—Thirteen Years Later: Revisited Thirteen Years Later. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 591–600.
Van Voorhis, P. (1987). Correctional effectiveness: The high cost of ignoring success. Federal Probation, 51(1), 56–62.
Vito, G. (1978). Shock probation in Ohio: A comparison of attributes and outcomes. Unpublished doc- toral dissertation, Columbus: Ohio State University.
Vito, G. (1985a). Developments in shock probation: A review of research findings and policy implications. Federal Probation, 48(2), 22–27.
Vito, G. (1985b). Putting prisoners to work: policies and problems. Journal of Offender Counseling Services and Rehabilitation, 9, 21–34.
Vito, G. (1986). Felony probation and recidivism: Replication and response. Federal Probation, 50(4), 17–25.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 2: What Works in Correctional Intervention?50
Vito, G., & Allen, H. (1981). Shock probation in Ohio: A comparison of outcomes. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 25, 70–75.
Vito, G., & Latessa, E. (1979). Cost analysis in probation research: An evaluation synthesis. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 1, 3–4.
Vito, G., & Wilson, D. (1988). Back from the dead: Tracking the progress of Kentucky’s Furman- commuted death row population. Justice Quarterly, 5, 101–111.
Vito, G., Wilson, D., & Latessa, E. (1991). Comparison of the dead: Attributes and outcomes of Furman-Commuted death row inmates in Kentucky and Ohio. In R. M. Bohm (Ed.), The death penalty in America: Current research (pp. 101–111). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co.
von Hirsch, A., & Hanrahan, K. (1979). The question of parole: Retention, reform, or abolition. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Waller, I. (1974). Men released from prison. Toronto, CN: University of Toronto Press.
Washington Department of Social and Health Sciences. (1976). Who returns? A study of recidivism for adult offenders in the State of Washington. Olympia, WA.
Welsh, B., & Farrington, D. (2000). Correctional intervention programs and cost-benefit analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 115–133.
Wetter, R. (1985). Descriptive analysis of the intensive supervision program. Frankfort, KY: Office of Administrative Services Planning and Evaluation Branch, Kentucky Corrections Cabinet.
Wexler, H., Melnick, G., Lowe, L., & Peters, J. (1999). Three-year reincarceration outcomes for amity in-prison therapeutic community and aftercare in California. The Prison Journal, 79, 321–337.
Whitehead, J. (1991). The effectiveness of felony probation: Results from an Eastern State. Justice Quarterly, 8, 525–543.
Whitehead, J., & S. Lab (1989). “A Meta-Analysis of Juvenile Correctional Treatment.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 276–295.
Williams, F., McShane, M., & Dolny, H. M. (2000). Predicting parole absconders. The Prison Journal, 80, 24–39.
Wilson, D., Gallagher, C., Coggeshall, M., & MacKenzie, D. (1999). Corrections-based education, vocation, and work programs. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3(4), 8–18.
Wilson, R. (1977). Supervision (the other parole) also attacked. Corrections Magazine, 3(3), 56–59.
Wisconsin Division of Corrections. (1965). A comparison of the effects of using probation versus incar- ceration for burglars with no previous felony convictions. Madison.
Young, M., Gartner, J., & O’Connor, T. (1995). Long-term recidivism among federal inmates trained as volunteer prison ministers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 22(1/2), 97–118.
Zeisel, H. (1982). Disagreement over the evaluation of the controlled experiment. American Journal of Sociology, 88, 378–389.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Corrections in the Community.
© 2011, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 51
Chapter 3
Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
—Edmund Burke
CONteMpOrarY SeNteNCING praCtICeS Historically, the American criminal justice system was an adversarial combat between the State and the accused defendant in a criminal trial. The accused denied committing the alleged offense, and the trial jury was charged with determining the fact of innocence or guilt. If the accused was found guilty, the presiding judge, using all available information and guided by the presentence
Sentencing and Community Corrections
community service
day reporting centers
determinate sentence
deterrent
electronic monitoring
fine
fixed sentence
incapacitation
indeterminate
sentence
intensive supervised
probation
intermediate sanctions
jail
mandatory release
overcrowding
parole
parole boards
plea bargaining
prison
restitution
retribution
selective
incapacitation
sentencing disparity
split sentence
time credits
tourniquet sentencing
War on Drugs
work release
KeY terMS
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 3: Sentencing and Community Corrections52
investigation report ordered previously from the court’s investigators, would then impose sentence on the guilty in the interest of justice and to achieve some recognizable correctional objective. Such objectives could include pun- ishment, rehabilitation, reintegration, retribution, reparation, or deterrence.
Perhaps this model typified the justice system a half-decade ago, but it is atypical of sentencing practices in the 2000s. Some 1,132,290 persons were convicted of a felony offense in State courts in 2006, including 197,030 for a violent felony (Rosenmerkel, Durose, and Farole, 2009). A large number of convictions were for drug possession and trafficking, about 33 percent of the total number of fel- ony convictions and almost two times the number of convictions for all crimes of violence totaled together (murder, robbery, rape, and aggravated assault). Federal courts convicted 78,009 persons of a felony in 2006. That number rep- resents only 6 percent of the combined state and federal convictions in that year. See Table 3.1 for the types of sentences imposed by state courts.
Determination of guilt, however, is seldom decided by a jury. Instead, most of those convicted (95%) pled guilty for considerations, and the judge usually complied with the negotiated plea struck by the prosecutor and defense coun- sel. Only 5 percent of the total convicted cases were found guilty through trial, and 60 percent of those were convicted by the judge in a bench trial (Durose and Langan, 2005). A definition of plea bargaining is found in Box 3.1.
Regardless of the avenue of conviction, 69 percent of those convicted felony offenders were sentenced to incarceration (either prison or jail). The remaining 31 percent were sentenced to probation. Of course, probation is the umbrella
table 3.1 Types of Felony Sentences Imposed in State Courts in 2006 (percent)
Crime Nonincarceration Incarceration Sentences
Probation Jail Prison
Murder 3 2 93 Sexual assault 16 18 64 Robbery 13 14 71 Aggravated assault 25 30 43 Burglary 24 24 49 Larceny 28 34 34 Motor vehicle theft 15 41 42 Drug trafficking 29 26 41 All 27 28 41
Source: Rosenmerkel, et al. (2009).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
53The Development of Parole and the Indeterminate Sentence
under which many other community-based alternatives reside. Before we look at sentencing options it is important to examine overall sentencing approaches.
the DeVeLOpMeNt OF parOLe aND the INDeterMINate SeNteNCe A basic tenet underlying sentencing in the nineteenth century was a belief in the perfectibility of humans. The American Revolution engendered a great deal of interest and enthusiasm for reform. The emerging nation threw off the dread yoke of British imperialism, including the harsh and widely hated British laws in place throughout the colonies that relied so heavily on the death penalty. In its place, a more rational system of “corrections” arose—the ideal of certain but humane punishment believed to most certainly deter offenders from criminal careers. American entered the “Progressive Era” in which “rational men” would be able to pursue their best interests and maximize gain and reward while avoiding penalties or pain. This famous principle (“hedonistic calculus”) was accepted wholeheartedly as a guiding objective in the question being asked by concerned citizens, lawmakers, and public officials: “Who are offenders and what shall we do with them?” Under British codes, they were seen as inherently evil and thus to be punished, killed, or disabled. Under the Progressive Era, the answer that emerged was quite different: They are people out of touch with God and, given a chance to change by thinking about their crime and relationship with God and fellow humans, they will opt to repent and change. Prison was the answer to the policy question of what to do with offenders, and America embraced prisons with its general zeal for humanitarianism and enthusiasm, building huge “fortress” prisons that emphasized reform and repentance. The American penitentiary (“place to do penance”) was a contribution to correc- tions throughout the world.
Yet in the emerging penitentiary and later reformatory movements there remained the philosophical quandary: What to do with the reformed offender who continued to be held in prison years after actual reformation. Sentencing codes were determinate or “flat” and inmates were expected to serve their sentences to the day. In this philosophical environment, correctional administrators began to innovate.
The exchange of prosecutorial and/or judicial concessions, commonly a lesser charge, the dismissal of other pending charges, a recommendation by the prosecutor for a reduced sentence, or a combination thereof, in return for a plea of guilty.
BOx 3.1 pLea BarGaINING
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 3: Sentencing and Community Corrections54
In the British outpost of Australia, offenders who had been sentenced to exile by transportation to Australia occasionally continued their violent criminal behavior. Transported felons were failures because they had committed crimes in England; when they continued their miscreant behavior in Australia, they were shipped to Norfolk Island, onto a bleak and inhospitable shore some 1000 miles to the east. These “double failures” of Australia who were sub- sequently sentenced to death thanked God, but those sentenced to Norfolk Island sank into the deepest depression and sadness. Such was the place that Captain Alexander Maconochie inherited when he was posted as managing officer in 1842.
Maconochie quickly determined that the violence, treachery, and staff–inmate confrontations had to stop and seized upon what is now known as the “mark” system (also known now as a form of token economy). Assembling the inmates, he promised that there was hope of freedom if any inmate could amass 100 marks (credits). Each inmate was to be billed for food, clothing, and tools; marks were to be assigned for quantity and quality of work. Through hard work and frugal living, inmates could save marks; when an inmate amassed 100 marks, he was free from correctional control, to marry and live on the island, and conduct himself in proper behavior. Assault and violence imme- diately declined with this innovative and constructive management approach, but the Royal Marines assigned to prison officer duty thought Maconochie was too lenient and molly coddled offenders. Maconochie was quickly removed, and Norfolk Island slid rapidly back into the slough of despair it was before Maconochie’s innovative management.
Fortunately, Maconochie’s ideas spread: imprisonment could be used to pre- pare an offender for a productive life and eventual return to the community under what could be seen as an “indeterminate sentence.” The implications of this demonstration were that sentence length should not be an arbitrary or “flat” sentence but one related to the reform and rehabilitation of the inmate. Sir Walter Crofton in Ireland used Maconochie’s concepts when he developed what became known as the “Irish” system.
Crofton reasoned that if penitentiaries were places where offenders reflect on their crimes and would decide to stop their criminal activities (“repent”), then there should be some mechanism or scheme to detect when the reform had occurred, as well as releasing the offender when this had happened. Crofton established a three-stage system, each of which would bring the convict closer to freedom within the community. Phase One consisted of solitary confine- ment and tedious work, such as picking oakum (separating coconut fibers for the purpose of making rope). After six months, the convict could be assigned to public works on a team, each member of which was responsible for the
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
55The Development of Parole and the Indeterminate Sentence
behavior of every other team member (an early use of “peer pressure”). Anyone who misbehaved would cause all team members to be returned to Phase One. The last phase was assignment to a transitional prison permitting unsupervised day work outside the prison. If the inmate’s behavior was good and he could find employment in the community, he was given a “ticket of leave,” in effect extending the limits of confinement to include placement in the county on “conditional pardon.” While the ex-inmate could not leave the county and was required to produce his “ticket” upon demand by law enforcement agents, he was nonetheless free of correctional control for the duration of his sentence. Of course, if his conduct was bad, the ticket could be revoked and the offender returned to prison (Phase One). In effect, Crofton established conditional liberty in the community, what now would be called parole.
By 1870, prison crowding in the United States had become so massive and the related management problems so complex that a conference was deemed necessary. Prison administrators, wardens, religious leaders, concerned leaders, and innovators met in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1870 in the first meeting of what would become the American Correctional Association. Spurred on by Crofton and empowered by eloquent oratory by Zebulon Reed Brockway, the assem- bly adopted standards and principles that addressed new types of buildings to be constructed, as well as an early release system. In 1876, Brockway initiated parole in the nation by the ticket of leave system. New York quickly passed enabling legislation and parole became a reality.
Other states responded by changing their sentencing structures as well by autho- rizing parole as a mechanism for releasing reformed offenders. The resultant sentencing system was the indeterminate sentence, the dominant sentencing structure in the United States until the mid-1970s.
Under the indeterminate sentencing system, the sentencing judge pronounces a minimum and maximum period of incarceration, such as from 3 to 5 or 5 to 10, or 1 to 20 years, and so on. Correctional personnel were expected to assist the offenders in changing their behavior and preparing for eventual return to the community, and the parole board was to monitor offender behavior and change. The actual decision on parole readiness and release was detailed to a parole board, charged with protecting society and releasing offenders onto community correc- tional supervision. The actual conditions of parole were set by the parole board, which retained authority to return nonadjusting offenders to the prison for further treatment and punishment. In essence, the sentencing judge shares sentence length determination with the executive branch in which parole boards are located.
BOx 3.2 INDeterMINate SeNteNCING
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 3: Sentencing and Community Corrections56
rapID ChaNGe IN SeNteNCING By 1930, most states and federal courts were operating under the indeterminate sentencing structure. The wide range of sentence lengths reflected the domi- nant rehabilitation goal of the correctional system and the belief that once the offender had been rehabilitated, the parole board would detect the change and then order parole release.1 Using their authority of discretionary release, parole boards actually determined the length of the sentence served.
Following a very long period of relative inactivity (1930–1974), American sentencing laws and practices began to undergo rapid change, a fundamental restructuring of the sentencing process. The causes have been identified (Allen, Latessa, Ponder, and Simonsen, 2007):
1. Prison uprisings (such as at Attica in New York and others in California, Florida, New Mexico, and Oklahoma) indicated that inmates were particularly discontented with the rhetoric of rehabilitation and the reality of the prison environment.
2. The abuse of discretion caused concerns about individual rights, as prosecutors, judges, and parole boards were immune from review and some practiced arbitrary uses of discretion.
3. Court orders and decisions led to a movement that demanded accountability in official decision making and outcomes.
4. The rehabilitation ideal was challenged, both empirically and ideologically, which undermined the rationale of the indeterminate sentence’s “parole after rehabilitation” corollary.
5. Experimental and statistical studies of judicial sentencing found substantial disparity and both racial and class discrimination. Such inconsistencies and disparities fostered the conclusion that sentencing practices were unfair. (Sentencing disparity occurs when offenders committing the same crimes under the same circumstances are given different sentences by the same judge.)
1Some historians argue that the noble ideals of rehabilitation never really were implemented and that the “convenience” of punishment won out over the “conscience” of rehabilitation. See Rothman, D. (1980). Conscience and Convenience: The Asylum and Its Alternatives in Progressive America. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. See also Irwin, J., V. Schiraldi, and J. Ziedenberg (2000). “America’s One Million Non-violent Prisoners.” Social Justice, 27(2):135–147.
The process by which those accused of a crime are released prior to trial. Mechanisms for release include posting bond, or release on recognizance (a promise to return to stand trial).
BOx 3.3 pretrIaL reLeaSe
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
New Goals 57
6. Crime control and corrections became a political football, useful for those seeking election to public office. Such political opportunists led the general public to believe that lenient judges and parole boards were releasing dangerous offenders back into the community, with little concern for public safety.
NeW GOaLS Although corrections in the 1970s generally reflected the utilitarian goal of reha- bilitation, other discussions from the reform movement brought additional cor- rectional goals to the forefront in the 1980s, such as the incapacitation of persons likely to commit future crimes and its variant of selective incapacitation, in which the highest-risk offenders would receive much longer sentences in order to pre- vent any more criminal activity. The specific deterrence of sentenced offenders— and the general deterrence of those contemplating committing a crime—was legitimized as a social policy goal. One emerging example of this new goal is the “three-strikes” policy many states have adopted, particularly in California, man- dating long-term incarceration (at least 25 years) for those persons convicted of a serious or violent third felony. In addition, retribution as a goal became attrac- tive, inasmuch as it would impose deserved punishment. (Such a “just deserts” strategy looks backward to the offender’s personal culpability, focuses on the nature of the act, and considers the harm done.)
Sentencing disparity is the divergence in the types and lengths of sentences imposed for the same crimes, with no evident reason for the differences. It is also known as unequal treatment of similarly situated offenders.
BOx 3.4 SeNteNCING DISparItY
Deterrence is the prevention of criminal behavior through the threat of detection, apprehen- sion, and punishment. As a policy, deterrence programs can be directed against individuals or the general society. Individual or specific deterrence is designed to prevent a person from committing a crime and can take such forms as punishment, persuasion, deprivation of liberty, or even death. “Scared Straight” programs that fleetingly mix hardened convicts with impressionable juveniles are believed by some to be a specific deterrent. A societal deterrence program reminds potential offenders of what may happen to them if they commit legal violations. Driving automobiles while intoxicated, for example, is believed to be prevented or discouraged by a well-planned and coordinated television advertisement, linked to staunch enforcement by local policing agencies and mandatory loss of driving privileges or short periods of incarceration in jail. The death penalty is frequently cited as a general deterrent.
BOx 3.5 DeterreNCe
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 3: Sentencing and Community Corrections58
reFOrM OptIONS As a result of the reform movement, sentencing practices were changed in the belief that such practices would limit disparity and discretion and establish more detailed criteria for sentencing or new sentencing institutions. These contradictory options included:
1. abolishing plea bargaining; 2. establishing plea-bargaining rules and guidelines; 3. setting mandatory minimum sentences; 4. establishing statutory determinate sentencing; 5. setting voluntary or descriptive sentencing guidelines or presumptive
or prescriptive sentencing guidelines; 6. creating sentencing councils; 7. requiring judges to provide reasons for their sentences; 8. setting parole guidelines to limit parole board discretion; 9. abolishing parole; 10. adopting or modifying good-time procedures; and 11. routinizing appellate review of sentences (Allen, Latessa, and Ponder,
2007:68–69).
Those options represent only the principal steps designed to limit unbridled discretion under the guise of making sentencing fairer, enhancing justice, and lessening discrimination.
reFOrM eFFeCtS Over the past three decades, dramatic changes in sentencing structures and practices thus became evident. Discretionary release by a parole board was abolished in at least 18 states, and parole sentencing guidelines had been established in one-half of the others. See Table 3.2 for a list of states that have abolished or severely limited parole board release. In 1987, the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines were promulgated, and fewer federal offenders are paroled by the U.S. Parole Commission. Across the country, more offenders are now released on mandatory than under discretionary parole. See Figure 3.1 for the percentage of offenders released from prison by method of release.
Discretionary parole release means that the parole board opted to release an offender before the maximum sentence was met. Mandatory release means the offender had to be released because the maximum sentence (or its equivalent) had been attained. Both imply parole supervision in the community.
BOx 3.6 parOLe reLeaSe
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Determinate Sentencing 59
DeterMINate SeNteNCING Critics have identified several unwarranted and unwanted problems with indeterminate sentencing, as well as parole board decision making. Reformers, neoclassical theorists, politicians, and organized political action groups with punitive agendas coalesced to attack rehabilitation and parole. The primary substitute for the indeterminate sentence is the determinate sentence, a throwback to the tradition of “flat time” in our earlier history. A determinate sentence is a fixed period of incarceration imposed on the offender by the sen- tencing court. The ideology underlying determinate sentencing is retribution, just deserts, incapacitation, and selective incapacitation.2
Travis and Petersilia (2001) found that 18 states have created sentencing commis- sions whose guidelines have restricted judicial sentencing discretion, that legislation
2DeClan Roche (1999). “Mandatory Sentencing: Trends and Issues.” Australian Institute of Criminology, 138(1):1–6.
table 3.2 States That Abolished or Severely Limit Parole Board Release
State Year
Arizona 1994 Arkansas 1994 California 1976 Delaware 1990 Florida 1983 Illinois 1978 Indiana 1977 Kansas 1993 Maine 1976 Minnesota 1980 Mississippi 1995 New Mexico 1979 North Carolina 1994 Ohio 1996 Oklahoma 2000 Oregon 1989 South Dakota 1996 Virginia 1995 Washington 1984 Wisconsin 2000
Source: Association of Paroling Authorities International (2005). Paroling Authorities Survey. www.apaintl.org.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 3: Sentencing and Community Corrections60
table 3.3 Truth-in-Sentencing Requirements by State
Meet Federal 85% requirement
50% of minimum requirement
100% of minimum requirement
Other requirements
Arizona Missouri Indiana Idaho Alaska California New Jersey Maryland Nevada Arkansas Connecticut New York Nebraska New Hampshire Colorado Delaware North Carolina Texas Kentucky Dist. of Col. North Dakota Massachusetts Florida Ohio Wisconsin Georgia Oklahoma Illinois Oregon Iowa Pennsylvania Kansas South Carolina Louisiana Tennessee Maine Utah Michigan Virginia Minnesota Washington Mississippi
Source: Ditton and Wilson (1999).
Figure 3.1 Releases from state prison by method of release (1980–2008). Source: Glaze and Bonczar (2009).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1984 1992 2000 2008
Discretionary Parole Expiration of Sentence
Mandatory Parole Other Conditional
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Sentencing Guidelines 61
creating mandatory minimum sentences had been enacted in all 50 states, and that 40 states now have sentencing laws requiring inmates to serve at least 50 percent of their sentences in prison. Of those 50 states, 27 (and the District of Columbia) have statutes requiring offenders to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence in prison. See Table 3.3 for a list of truth-in- sentencing requirements by state.
SeNteNCING GUIDeLINeS Sentencing guidelines for structuring the penalty decisions of judges work by providing decision makers with criteria and weights on which the sanction decision should be based (Hoffman & DeGostin, 1975). By explicitly stating factors deemed relevant to the sentence decision and by providing guidance to the sentencer, these guidelines ensure a greater degree of uniformity in crimi- nal penalties. Explicit sentencing guidelines then work to limit the effect of extralegal factors on the sentencing decision.
Such a sentencing structure limits judicial control over sentencing, as the leg- islature heavily influences the sentence length. Whether there are unforeseen problems in presumptive sentencing remains to be proved, but California’s prison population problems may well be due to a corollary of presumptive sentencing: abolition of parole board early release authority that has been used to control prison overcrowding in the past (California is now the largest single prison system in the world).
Mandatory prison-term statutes now exist in all states. Those statutes apply for certain crimes of violence and for habitual criminals, and the court’s discretion in such cases (regarding, e.g., probation, fines, and suspended sentences) has been eliminated by statute. In some states, imposition of a prison term is con- strained by sentencing guidelines, such as those shown in Figure 3.2. Guidelines are usually set by a governor’s commission, including a cross section of the state population. As noted by a major study (Coleman and Guthrie, 1988:142):
A sentencing commission in each state monitors the use of the guidelines and departures from the recommended sentences by the judiciary. Written explanations are required from judges who depart from guideline ranges. The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission states that “while the sentencing guidelines are advisory to the sentencing judge, departures from the presumptive sentences established in the guidelines should be made only when substantial and compelling circumstances exist.” Pennsylvania sentencing guidelines stipulate that court failure to explain sentences deviating from the recommendations “shall be grounds for vacating the sentence and resentencing the defendant.” Furthermore, if the court does not consider the guidelines or inaccurately or inappropriately applies them, an imposed sentence may be vacated upon appeal to a higher court by either the defense or the prosecution.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 3: Sentencing and Community Corrections62
Offender: _________________________________ Docket number: ___________
Judge: ___________________________________ Date: _____________________
Offense(s) convicted of: ________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Crime score: A. Injury
0 = No injury 1 = Injury 2 = Death __________ +
B. Weapon 0 = No weapon 1 = Weapon 2 = Weapon present and used __________ +
C. Drugs 0 = No sale of drugs 1 = Sale of drugs __________ =
Offender score: A. Current legal status
0 = Not on probation/parole, escape 1 = On probation/parole, escape __________ +
B. Prior adult misdemeanor convictions 0 = No convictions 1 = One conviction 2 = Two or more convictions __________ +
C. Prior adult felony convictions 0 = No convictions 2 = One conviction 4 = Two or more convictions __________ +
D. Prior adult probation parole revocations 0 = None 1 = One or more revocations __________ +
E. Prior adult incarcerations (over 60 days) 0 = None 1 = One incarceration 2 = Two or more incarcerations __________ =
Guideline sentence: ____________________________________
Actual sentence: _______________________________________
Reasons (if actual sentence does not fall within guideline range): ____________
______________________________________________________________________
Crime score
Offender score
Figure 3.2 Sentencing guidelines. Source: Kress, et al. (1978).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
63Three-Strikes Laws
The range and particular format for sentencing guidelines can include such things as specifically worded statutes and grids with a range of judicial options. Similarly, parole guidelines are sometimes closely prescribed, and sometimes wide discretion is afforded to the parole board. The amount of flexibility in such decisions can directly enhance or detract from the efforts to relieve crowded prison conditions. Because most parole decisions are not based on time but on perceived “risk to the community,” tighter and tighter criteria make it difficult to manage prison population size by such decisions.
three-StrIKeS LaWS No discussion of sentencing changes would be complete without exploring “three-strikes” sentencing laws. Although sentence enhancement statutes exist in most states (such as habitual or repeat offender laws), legislation that specifically identified a group of repeat offenders for lengthy incapaci- tation began to bloom in 1993 when Washington became the first state to enact three-strike legislation. Currently 26 states and the federal government have enacted so-called three-strikes laws, all designed to remove offend- ers convicted of repeated serious offenses from society for a long period of time, if not for life. In California, for example, the minimum sentence under three-strikes legislation is 25 years, with no “good time” credit. Time served
Crime score
4-5 4-6 years 5-7 years 6-8 years 8-10 years
3 3-5 years 4-6 years 6-8 years 6-8 years
2 2-4 years 3-5 years 3-5 years 4-6 years
1 Probation Probation 2-4 years 3-5 years
0 Probation Probation Probation 2-4 years
0-1 2-4 5-7 8-10
Offender score
The sentencing judge first determines the crime score, typically concerned with the actual crime, injury, weapon used, and drug sale. Points are assigned as above under “Crime Score.” Second, the judge scores the offender’s prior behavior, using those items identified under “Offender Score.” Determining the guideline sentence entails finding the grid cell that corresponded to the crime and offender score, and then imposing a sentence that falls within the sug- gested range.
Figure 3.2—Cont’d
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 3: Sentencing and Community Corrections64
will be no less than 25 years. As one might expect, some unusual cases have arisen in California. For example, one defendant was given a 25-years-to-life sentence for shoplifting golf clubs (with previous convictions for burglary and robbery with a knife). In one particular notorious case, Kevin Weber was sentenced to 26 years to life for stealing four chocolate chip cookies after two previous convictions (Ellingwood, 1995). California also has a two-strikes law that doubles the presumptive sentence. In 2000, California voters did support an amendment to scale back punishment that provides drug treatment instead of life imprisonment for most convicted of possess- ing drugs; however, in 2004 voters rejected an amendment that would have required the third felony to be either “violent” or “serious” in order for a 25-years-to-life sentence. See Table 3.4 for a list of states that have enacted some sort of three-strikes sentencing laws.
table 3.4 States That Have Some Sort of a Three-Strikes Sentencing Law
State Year adopted
Arkansas 1995 California 1994 Colorado 1994 Connecticut 1994 Florida 1995 Georgia 1994 Indiana 1994 Kansas 1994 Louisiana 1994 Maryland 1994 Montana 1995 Nevada 1995 New Jersey 1995 New Mexico 1994 North Carolina 1994 North Dakota 1995 Pennsylvania 1995 South Carolina 1995 Tennessee 1994 Utah 1995 Vermont 1995 Virginia 1994 Washington 1993 Wisconsin 1994
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
65Three-Strikes Laws
While the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of using prior con- victions as aggravating factors in determining a sentence, there are many critics of three-strikes legislation, there is little evidence that three-strikes laws are contributing significantly to reductions in crime rates, and there is no reason to believe that this sentencing effort will be appreciably different from other attempts to limit discretion.3
This review of the changes in sentencing practices and their consequences in the last decade clearly shows the shifts that have taken place. Although discre- tion in determining sentence length has been somewhat removed from the sentencing judge and parole board, it was reduced by legislatures through their enactment of new sentencing structures. In turn, in many jurisdictions, the prosecutor’s discretion was increased.4 The prison population has continued to climb as increasingly more offenders are committed and serve increasingly longer sentences (Wooldredge, 1996). For the predicted prison population of inmates age 50 or older in California, see Figure 3.3.
Let’s now look at some of the other sentencing options that exist.
3King, R., and M. Mauer (2002). State Sentencing and Corrections Policy in an Era of Fiscal Restraint. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project (www.sentencingproject.org/policy/pub9091.pdf). 4Austin, J., J. Clark, and P. Hardyman (1999). “The Impact of ‘Three Strikes and You’re Out.” Punishment and Society, 1(2):131–162; Burt, G., S. Wong, and S. vander Van (2000). “Three Strikes and You’re Out.” Federal Probation, 64(2),3–6.
4.2
8.2
12.3
17.1
19.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
1994 1999 2005 2010 2020
Figure 3.3 Predicted prison population age 50 and over under California’s three-strikes law (percent). Source: Jones, and Austin (1995).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 3: Sentencing and Community Corrections66
SeNteNCING OptIONS In the plea bargaining process, defense counsel may negotiate sentence outcome to avoid incarceration of the accused. Thus, the decision to incarcerate may, in part, depend on the outcome of negotiated justice. The two major incarceration outcomes are imprisonment in a penal facility or in a jail. The major alternative to incarceration is probation and such other intermediate punishments as week- end confinement, house arrest, electronic monitoring, fines, restitution and work centers, intensive supervised probation, and so on. These are discussed here.
If the decision is to place the offender on probation or other intermediate pun- ishment, usually as a condition of probation, the offender is typically super- vised by an officer of the local probation department. Conditional freedom under probation requires the probationer to meet certain conditions of behav- ior, as noted in Chapter 4. If the probationer is in danger of substantively vio- lating these conditions or is determined to be in need of additional service or more intensive supervision, the supervising officer may request that the judge increase the conditions of supervision to include additional restrictions or pro- gram participation. The intent of this practice, often called tourniquet sentenc- ing, is to lessen the risk of failure and recidivism and assist the probationer to decide to conform to court expectations. The implicit alternative to noncon- forming behavior is incarceration, frequently in the local jail, for a period of time to be imposed by the judge. To understand tourniquet sentencing, it is necessary to examine the jail and its roles as a hub of community corrections.
the JaIL The local detention facility, usually administered by a county law enforce- ment agency, is generally known as the “jail.” There are nearly 3400 jails across the nation, housing more than 800,000 persons in the beginning of
Tourniquet sentencing is tightening or increasing the conditions of probation to encourage the client to conform to legal and supervisory expectations. A probation officer requests the court to order additional restrictions or to mandate participation in identified programs. The correc- tional objective is reintegration or avoidance of criminal activity. One example of tourniquet sentencing is the probationer convicted of indecent exposure who continues to consume alco- hol. The court may order participation in substance abuse treatment, as well as house arrest with electronic monitoring, or that the probationer takes Antabuse (disulfiram), a medication that generally sickens the person who imbibes alcohol.
BOx 3.7 tOUrNIqUet SeNteNCING
Source: The term “tourniquet sentencing” is attributed to Judge Albert Kramer, District Judge, Quincy, MA. Klein, A. (1980). Earn It: The Story So Far. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
The Jail 67
2006 (Harrison & Beck, 2006). Jails incarcerate a wide variety of persons. Jails receive individuals pending arraignment and hold them awaiting trial, conviction, and sentencing. They also readmit probation, parole, bail-bond violators, and absconders, as well as temporarily detain juveniles pending transfer to juvenile authorities. Further, they hold mentally ill persons pend- ing their movement to appropriate health facilities, as well as individuals for the military, for protective custody and contempt, and for the court as wit- nesses.5 In addition, jails release convicted inmates to the community upon completion of sentence and transfer inmates to state, federal, and other local authorities. They temporarily incarcerate convicted felons sentenced to pris- ons but for whom there are no bed spaces (Beck, 1995) and relinquish custody of temporary detainees to juvenile and medical authorities (Beck & Karberg, 2001). Finally, they sometimes operate community-based programs as work release programs and other alternatives to incarceration and hold inmates sentenced to short terms (generally under one year)(see Table 3.5). It is small wonder that there were more than 25 million entries to and exits from local jails in 2009.
table 3.5 Persons Under Jail Supervision, 2009
Confinement status and type of program Number
Total 837,833 Held in Jail 767,620 Supervised outside of a jail facility a 70,213 Weekender program 11,212 Electronic monitoring 11,834 Home detentionb 738 Day reporting 6492 Community service 17,738 Other pretrial supervision 12,439 Other work programsc 5912 Treatment programsd 2082 Other 1766 aExcludes persons supervised by a probation or parole agency. bIncludes only persons without electronic monitoring. cIncludes persons in work release programs, work gangs, and other work alternative programs. dIncludes persons under drug, alcohol, mental health, and other medical treatment. Source: Minton (2010).
5The “material” witness detained in jails to ensure presence at trial is a seldom-studied actor in the justice system; hence, little is known about this category of jail inmate.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 3: Sentencing and Community Corrections68
NON-JaIL SeNteNCING OptIONS Sentencing judges make decisions to incarcerate offenders in jails or prisons or to place them on probation with its numerous ancillary programs (“in” or “out” decisions). If the decision is to retain the offender in the commu- nity under probation or its supplemental programs, the judge increasingly has a large number of supervision and control strategies from which to pick, known as intermediate sanctions (Allen et al., 2007; Gowdy, 1993). Selected programs are not capriciously imposed but are designed to achieve a cor- rectional objective, such as community protection, reintegration, and treat- ment and rehabilitation. Court officers, usually probation officers, oversee the implementation of, and offender compliance with, court conditions. If the offender appears to be failing at technical conditions (such as no alco- hol or attending treatment programs), the judge may tighten the require- ments by imposing mandatory daily attendance. In extreme cases, a request for medical intervention (e.g., methadone maintenance for heroin addicts) may be issued. If these conditions are not met or are insufficient for the par- ticular client, the court may further increase the conditions of control by imposing weekend confinement in jail or house arrest. If these are insuffi- cient, the judge may order a short term of jail incarceration to be followed by additional control programs, such as house arrest with electronic monitor- ing. In extreme cases, the court may order an interlock device installed in the offender’s vehicle, as well as intensive supervision. Tightening the conditions and restraints is commonly called “tourniquet sentencing” (see Box 3.7). We turn now to a brief description of major ancillary control (“probation-plus”) programs.
Intermediate Controls
Intermediate punishments are explored in greater detail in Chapter 10. For our purposes, the major intermediate control programs are listed with brief descrip- tions. The reader will notice that each increases the level of “penal harm” and crime control. For many offenders, such preventive control is necessary for them to begin to deal with their rehabilitation needs.9 The discussion moves from least to most punishment approaches. For a sample of sanctions ranging from most to least restrictive, see Figure 3.4.
Fines
The penalties courts impose on offenders require specific sums of money be paid, cash payments of a dollar amount. Judges may impose fines based on a fixed schedule published and used throughout the court or on an individual basis.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Non-jail Sentencing Options 69
Most Restrictive
Least Restrictive
R E
S ID
E N
T IA
L N
O N
R E
S ID
E N
T IA
L
Prison
Jail
Work Release
Halfway House
House Arrest/ Electronic Monitoring
Intensive Supervision
Day Reporting
Probation
Community Service
Financial Sanctions
Pretrial Diversion
Figure 3.4 Sample of sanctions.
A broad correctional ideology stressing acquisition of legitimate skills and opportunities by criminal offenders, and the creation of supervised opportunities for testing, using, and refining those skills, particularly in community settings.
BOx 3.8 reINteGratION
Incapacitation is a crime prevention strategy based on specific deterrence that would disable the potential offender from committing another crime by isolating the instant offender. The most common form of incapacitation is imprisonment.
BOx 3.9 INCapaCItatION
Rehabilitation is a change in behavior of the offender produced by treatment and services. Offender chooses to refrain from new crimes rather than being unable to do so.
BOx 3.10 rehaBILItatION
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 3: Sentencing and Community Corrections70
Community Service
Community service or work orders represent court-ordered nonpaid work for a specified number of hours that offenders must perform, usually for some charitable organization or public service, such as a volunteer hospi- tal orderly, doing interstate and street cleaning, performing maintenance or repair of public housing, or providing service to indigent groups (Anderson, 1998; Caputo, 1999). Professionals such as dentists or doctors can be ordered to provide free services for the indigent, welfare recipients, or pro- bationers, whereas sports stars may be required to speak to youth groups or at schools.
Restitution
This court-ordered condition of probation requires the offender to repair the financial, emotional, or physical damage done (a reparative sentence) by mak- ing financial payment of money to the victim or, alternatively, to a fund to provide services to victims. Restitution programs may also be ordered in the absence of a sentence to probation (Seiter, 2000). Restitution is usually a cash payment by the offender to the victim of an amount considered to offset the loss incurred by the victim (medical expenses, insurance deductibles, time lost from work due to victim’s injuries, etc.). Payments may be made in installments in most jurisdictions, and sometimes services benefiting the victim directly or indirectly may be substituted for cash payments.
Probation
Probation is the conditional freedom granted by a judicial officer to an alleged offender, or adjudicated adult or juvenile, as long as the person meets certain conditions of behavior. Unsupervised probation resembles sursis, or “no action by the court as long as there are no further incidents” but, generally, proba- tion includes the requirement to report to a designated person or agency over a period of time.
Philosophically, this term generally means “getting even” with the perpetrator. Social revenge suggests that individuals cannot exact punishment, but that the state will do so in their name. Retribution assumes that offenders will fully chose to commit the evil acts, are responsible for their own behavior, and should receive the punishment they deserve. The just-deserts move- ment in sentencing reflects the retribution philosophy. For many, it provides a justifiable ratio- nale for the death penalty.
BOx 3.11 retrIBUtION
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Non-jail Sentencing Options 71
Day-Reporting Centers
Certain persons on pretrial release, probation, or parole may be required to appear at a day-reporting center on a frequent and regular basis in order to participate in services or activities provided by the center or other community agencies. Failure to report or participate is a violation that could cause revocation of pretrial release, conditional release, or community supervision.
Reports on the national scene indicate that offenders in these programs must not only report to their centers physically, but also provide a schedule of planned activities and participate in designated activities (McDevitt, Domino, & Baum, 1997).
Intensive Supervised Probation
These are court-ordered programs of community supervision by probation officers working with very small caseloads to provide intensive supervision. Such programs are usually linked to impromptu (and scheduled) alcohol and other drug testing, curfews, restitution, volunteer sponsors, probation fees, and other punitive intrusions (Anderson, 1998; Maxwell & Gray, 2000).
This doctrine of isolating the offender, or causing “social disablement,” proposes “adopting a policy of incarcerating those whose criminal behavior is so damaging or probable that nothing short of isolation will prevent recidivism.” This “nothing-else-works” approach would require correctly identifying those offenders who should receive long-term imprisonment and diverting others into community corrections. Thus, we would be able to make maximum use of prison cells, a scarce resource, to protect society from the depredations of such dangerous and repeti- tive offenders. The “three strikes and you’re out” approach is a continuation of this theme. Current correctional technology does not permit our correctly identifying those who require incapacitation. Rather, the evidence is that we would probably incarcerate numerous noneli- gibles (a “false positive” problem) and release to lesser control many of those eligible (a “false negative” problem). Whatever benefits might accrue to this sentencing doctrine have thus far eluded corrections.
BOx 3.12 SeLeCtIVe INCapaCItatION
A parole board is any correctional person, authority, or board that has the authority to release on parole those adults (or juveniles) committed to confinement facilities, to set conditions for behavior, to revoke from parole, and to discharge from parole. Parole boards also recommend executive clemency through pardon or sentence commutation (shortening), as well as set policies for supervision of parolees.
BOx 3.13 parOLe BOarD
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 3: Sentencing and Community Corrections72
House Arrest
House or home arrest is a more intensive program that requires the offender to remain secluded in his or her own home except for work, grocery shop- ping, community service, or other minor exceptions. Alcohol and other drug use or possession in the residence is a violation of house arrest and can result in increased intervention.6 Frequently, house arrest may be intensified by requiring the offender to wear an electronic device that signals a computer that the offender is at home or by requiring electronic breath analyzer testing to determine any alcohol use. House arrest can be used as an alternative to parolees with nonviolent technical violations (Stanz & Tewksbury, 2000).
Electronic Monitoring
This program requires an offender to wear a bracelet or anklet that will emit an electronic signal, confirming via telephone contact that the offender is located at a specific, required location. Strict curfews are required, and restrictions on visitors may be imposed. Some monitoring systems have the capability of emitting signals that can be picked up by cellular listing posts within a com- munity to signal to a computer monitor that the offender is moving within the community (not at home). Frequently, the electronic monitoring system is buttressed by scheduled probation officer visits, drug testing, and other surveil- lance options. Electronic monitoring is used with both pretrial releasees and for convicted offenders on community release. In either case, clients pay for at least part (if not all) of the cost of leasing the monitoring equipment.
6Technical violators among those on intermediate sanctions can be a large component of the offenders. See F. Taxman (1995). “Intermediate Sanctions: Dealing with Technical Violators.” Corrections Today, 57(1):46-57. See also Marciniak, L. (2000). “The Addition of Day Reporting to Intensive Supervised Probation.” Federal Probation, 64(2):34-39.
A fine is a penalty imposed on a convicted person by the court, requiring that he or she pay a specified sum of money. The fine is a cash payment of a dollar amount assessed by the judge in an individual case or determined by a published schedule of penalties. Fines may be paid in installments in many jurisdictions in the nation.
BOx 3.15 FINe
A jail is a confinement facility, usually administered by a local law enforcement agency, intended for adults, that holds persons detained pending adjudication and/or persons committed after adjudication for sentences usually of one year or less.
BOx 3.14 JaIL
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Non-jail Sentencing Options 73
Global Positioning Systems
Modern technology has advanced to the point where some offenders can be tracked using a global positioning systems. These devices are gaining use for sex offenders and domestic violence offenders and allow a probation officer to track the whereabouts of the offender to make sure that they are not in an area prohibited by the court.
Community Residential Centers
Formerly known as halfway houses, community residential centers are non- confining residential facilities for adjudicated adults or juveniles or for those subject to criminal or juvenile proceedings. They are intended as an alternative to jail incarceration for persons in danger of failing on probation or who need a period of readjustment. Increasingly, correctional and victim services (such as services and treatment for battered women, drunk drivers, drug abusers, mentally ill sex offenders, etc.) are offered in these 24-hour facilities.
Split Sentences
Frequently, sentencing judges impose a short term of incarceration in the local jail to be followed by a term of probation. For example, the split sentence (jail plus probation) is the most frequently imposed sentence for felony convictions in California (Lundgren, 2001).
A variation on “jail plus” is weekend confinement. To lessen the nega- tive impacts of short-term incarceration and allow offenders to retain cur- rent employment, as well as keep their dependents off welfare rolls, some
A prison is a confinement facility, usually administered by a state agency, having custodial authority over adults sentenced to confinement for more than 1 year.
BOx 3.16 prISON
Intermediate sanctions, ranging in severity from day fines to shock incarceration (“boot camps”), are interventions that fill the sentencing gap between jails and prisons, at one extreme, and probation at the other. Lengthy incarceration periods may be inappropriate for some offenders; for others, probation may be too inconsequential and may not provide the degree of public supervision necessary to ensure public safety. By expanding sentencing options, intermediate sanctions enable the criminal (and juvenile) justice system to tailor pun- ishment more closely to the nature of the crime and the criminal, to maximize offender compli- ance with court objectives, and to hold offenders strictly accountable for their actions.
BOx 3.17 INterMeDIate SaNCtIONS
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 3: Sentencing and Community Corrections74
jurisdictions permit sentences to be served during nonworking weekends. Such weekend confinement allows offenders to check into the jail facility on Friday after work and to leave Sunday morning, sometimes early enough to attend religious services. A “weekender” serving his or her sentence over a number of months would generally be credited with 3 days of confinement per weekend. Some jurisdictions have so many “weekenders” that specific buildings are set aside for their short-term detention. In larger jurisdictions in which sufficient numbers of offenders work on weekends but not every day during the ordinary work week, those buildings operate all week but at reduced staffing levels.
SUMMarY The primary mission of the correctional system is protection of the public. Programs must be designed with that objective in mind or they will be doomed to early failure and public rejection. What seems to be needed is a system that offers as many alternatives to incarceration as are possible for the individuals who appear to have some hope of benefiting from them and who will pres- ent little, if any, danger to the community. The residual population may be required to remain in more secure institutions until new treatments can be found for them. The prison, in a modified form, has a valuable place in a cor- rectional system for the estimated 15 to 20 percent of the convicted offenders who require this level of control. For most convicted offenders, however, the use of either partial or total alternatives to imprisonment is a more reasonable and less costly response than is incarceration.
Prisons should be the “last choice” of sentencing judges faced with the dif- ficult decision of how to manage offenders before them and how best to attain the correctional objective being sought. Judges are increasingly turn- ing to “tourniquet sentencing” as a promising strategy for determining those sanctions.
Whatever good prisons do is difficult to measure, but the damage done is detected easily. If our objective is the protection of society from criminal recid- ivism, long-term strategies must be developed. If we are determined to control offenders and lower the costs of overincarceration, it will become necessary to develop a system of community corrections that includes extensive program alternatives and increasing levels of control over the offender in the arms of the law. Developing an effective community corrections program will require formulating social policy that requires handling local problems in the com- munity, setting priorities for control of crime, and making resources available to develop and maintain the proposed system. Probation is one of the major elements in such a system.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
75References
reVIeW qUeStIONS 1. Compare past sentencing practices to more contemporary ones. 2. What is the difference between a determinate and an indeterminate sentence? 3. What alternatives to incarceration can help alleviate jail crowding? 4. What are sentencing guidelines? 5. How is the jail the center of community corrections? 6. What are the main purposes of imprisonment? 7. What are alternatives to “bricks and mortar” as a solution to prison
overcrowding? 8. How do prisons eventually contribute to the workloads of community
corrections? 9. Does your state use determinate or indeterminate sentencing? 10. What is a split sentence? 11. What are some of the causes given for rapid changes in the U.S.
sentencing laws?
reCOMMeNDeD reaDINGS Clear, T. (1994). Harm in American penology: Offenders, victims, and their communities. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Irwin, J., & Austin, J. (1997). It’s about time: America’s imprisonment binge. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Petersila, J. (2003). When prisoners come home. New York: Oxford Press.
Rothman, D. (1980). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its alternatives in progressive America. Boston: Little, Brown.
Travis, J. (2000). But they all come back: Rethinking prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. www.ncjrs.org/pdf files1/nij/181413.pdf.
reFereNCeS Allen H., Latessa, E., Ponder, B., & Simonsen, C. (2007). Corrections in America. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall Allen.
Allen, H. E., Latessa, E. L., & Ponder, B. (2010). Corrections in America: An introduction (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Anderson, D. C. (1998). Sensible justice: Alternatives to prison. New York: New Press.
Beck, A. (1995). Profile of jail inmates: 1989. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Beck, A. (2000). State and federal prisoners returning to the community: Findings from the bureau of justice statistics. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/sfprc.pdf (July 20, 2001).
Beck, A., & Harrison, P. (2001). Prisoners in 2000 (p. 3). Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/poo.pdf.
Beck, A., & Karberg, J. (2001). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2000. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Caputo, G. (1999). Why not community service? Criminal Justice Policy, Review, 10(4), 503–519.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 3: Sentencing and Community Corrections76
Coleman, S., & Guthrie, K. (1988). Sentencing effectiveness in preventing crime. St. Paul, MN: Criminal Justice Statistical Analysis Center.
Ditton, P., & Wilson, D. (1999). Truth in sentencing in state prisons (p. 2). Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/tssp.htm.
Durose, M. R., & Langan, P. A. (2007). Felony sentences in State Courts, 2004. U.S. Department of Justice (NCJ 215646).
Ellingwood, K. (1995). Three-time loser gets life in cookie theft. Los Angeles Times, 28 October 1995, 1.
Glaze, L. E., & Bonczar, T. P. (2009). Probation and parole in the United States, 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Gowdy, V. (1993). Intermediate sanctions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Harrison, P., & Beck, A. (2006). Prisoners in 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice. www.ojp .usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p00.pdf.
Hoffman, P., & DeGostin, L. (1975). An argument for self-imposed explicit judicial sentencing standards. Journal of Criminal Justice, 3, 195–206.
Jones, M. A., & Austin, J. (1995). The 1995 NCCD national prison population forecast. (p. 11) San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
Kress, J., Calpin, J. C., Gelman, A. M., Bellows, J. B., Dorworth, B. E., & Spaid, O. A. (1978). Developing sentencing guidelines: Trainers handbook. Washington, DC: National Institute of Criminal Justice.
Lundgren, D. (2001). Crime and delinquency in California, 2000: Advance release. Sacramento, CA: Department of Justice.
Maxwell, S., & Gray, K. (2000). Deterrence. Sociological Inquiry, 70(2), 117–136.
McDevitt, J., Domino, M., & Baum, K. (1997). Metropolitan day reporting center: An evaluation. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Minton, T. D. (2010). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Rosenmerkel, S., Durose, M., & Farole, D. (2009). Felony sentences in state courts, 2006: Statistical tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Seiter, R. (Ed.). (2000). Restorative justice. Corrections Management Quarterly, 4(3), 1–85.
Stanz, R., & Tewksbury, R. (2000). Predictors of success and recidivism in a home incarceration program. The Prison Journal, 80(3), 326–344.
Travis, J., & Petersilia, J. (2001). Re-entry reconsidered: A new look at an old question. Crime & Delinquency, 47(3), 291–313.
Wooldredge, J. (2006). Research note: A State-level analysis of sentencing policies and inmate crowding in state prisons, crime delinquency July 1996 vol. 42 no. 3 456–466.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Corrections in the Community.
© 2011, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 77
Chapter 4
I can forgive, but I cannot forget, is only another way of saying, I will not forgive. Forgiveness ought to be like a canceled note—torn in two, and burned up, so that it never can be shown against one.
—Henry Ward Beecher
In many respects, probation is a way of giving an offender another chance. Probation represents one of the unique developments within the criminal jus- tice system; it provided a mechanism to divert offenders from further involve- ment with the correctional system, which was a crucial aspect of the rise of the rehabilitation model in this country. Any study of probation must begin with an analysis of its predecessors. This chapter begins with a historical review that will help explain how probation, both for adults and for juveniles, developed into its current forms and practices. The second portion of this chapter focuses on the granting of probation and how it exists today.
Probation is a conditional sentence that avoids incarceration; in other words, it is an alternative disposition available to the court. While probation is an out- come of the offender’s conviction in a criminal court, it neither confines him
Probation
Cesare Beccaria
concurrent sentencing
conditions of probation
consecutive sentencing
individualized justice
John Augustus
Killits decision
presentence
investigation report
probation
probationer fees
restitution
revocation
sentencing hearing
shock probation
split sentence
victim impact
statements
Key terms
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 4: probation78
or her in an institution nor allows the offender’s release from court authority. Supervision by a probation officer is almost always a condition of release.
As indicated by the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (1973), probation can also refer to other functions, activ- ities, and services. It is a status, given to the convicted offender, that falls some- where between that of free citizen and incarcerated felon (or misdemeanant). As a subsystem of criminal justice, it refers to the agency or organization that administers the probation process. As a process, it refers to those activities that include the preparation of reports for the court, the supervision of probation- ers, and providing of services for those probationers. These activities are under- taken by the probation officer as a part of his or her regular duty. Finally, as Reed (1997) notes that probation can serve to lower prison populations.
The rationale for the use of probation has been clearly stated by Dressler (1962:26):
. . . the assumption that certain offenders are reasonably safe risks in society by the time they appear in court; it would not facilitate their adjustment to remove them to institutions, and the move might well have the opposite effect. Meantime, the community would have to provide for their dependents. And the effect of such incarceration upon the prisoner’s family would be incalculable. If, then, the community would not be jeopardized by a defendant’s presence, and if he gave evidence of ability to change to a law-abiding life, it served both society and the individual to give him the chance, conditionally, under supervision and guidance.
Probation is thus clearly tied to the correctional goals of rehabilitation and reinte- gration, providing potential benefits to the offender as well as to the community.
Founders oF probation John Augustus of Boston is commonly recognized as the originator of proba- tion, but there were other contributors to its development both before and after his unique contribution.
Dressler (1962:12–13) cites the 1841 activities of Matthew Davenport Hill of Birmingham, England. In Warwickshire, Hill observed that, in the case of
Probation is a sentence not involving confinement that imposes conditions and retains author- ity in the sentencing court to modify the conditions of sentence or to resentence the offender if the offender violates the conditions. Such a sentence should not involve or require suspension of the imposition or execution of any other sentence.
box 4.1 deFinition oF probation: adults R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Founders of Probation 79
youthful offenders, magistrates often imposed token sentences of one day with the special condition that the defendant remain under the supervision of a guardian. This experiment represented a mitigation of the punishment; no other conditions were imposed and there was no provision for revocation. When Hill became a magistrate, he modified this procedure; he suspended the sentence and placed the offender under the supervision of a guardian, under the assumption that “there would be better hope of amendment under such guardians than in the [jail] of the county.” Hill’s program has some of the same elements as Augustus’s method: selected cases, suspended sentences, and if the defendant got into trouble again no sanctions were levied. Hill was not unwill- ing to take action against repeaters, however: “That the punishment should be such as to show that it was from no weakness, from no mistaken indulgence, from no want to resolution on the part of the court to perform its duty” that the previous sentence had been suspended. Hill also demonstrated his concern for the safety of the community by requesting that the superintendent of police investigate the conduct of persons placed under a guardian’s supervision.
In this country, one of the earliest proponents of leniency was Judge Peter Oxenbridge Thatcher of Boston. By 1836, Massachusetts passed legislation promoting the practice of releasing petty offenders upon their recognizance with sureties at any stage of the proceedings.1
It is a court volunteer, John Augustus, who is most often given credit for the establishment of probation in the United States. Augustus first appeared in police court in Boston when he stood bail for a man charged with drunkenness and then helped the offender find a job. The court ordered the defendant to return in 3 weeks, at which time he demonstrated great improvement. Instead of incarcerating this individual, the judge imposed a one-cent fine and ordered the defendant to pay costs.
From this modest beginning, Augustus proceeded to bail out numerous offend- ers, supervising them and offering guidance until they were sentenced. Over an 18-year period (from 1841 until his death in 1859), Augustus “bailed on probation” 1152 men and 794 women (Barnes & Teeters, 1959:554). He was motivated by his belief that “the object of the law is to reform criminals and to prevent crime and not to punish maliciously or from a spirit of revenge” (Dressler, 1962:17). Augustus obviously selected his candidates carefully, offer- ing assistance “mainly to those who were indicted for their first offense, and whose hearts were not wholly depraved, but gave promise of better things.” He also considered the “previous character of the person, his age and influences by which he would in the future be likely to be surrounded and, although these
1Sureties refer to cash, property, or bond posted by an offender to be forfeited if he or she fails to conform to such conditions as to appear in court for trial or to avoid further criminal behavior over a specified time period. It can also refer to a pledge by another responsible person to assure that the accused will appear or behave properly.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 4: probation80
points were not rigidly adhered to, still they were the circumstances which usually determined my action” (United Nations, 1976:90). In addition, Augustus pro- vided his charges with aid in obtaining employment, an education, or a place to live and also made an impartial report to the court. The task was not without its frustrations, as Augustus noted (Barnes and Teeters, 1959:554):
While it saves the country and state hundreds and I might say thousands of dollars, it drains my pockets instead of enriching me. To attempt to make money by bailing poor people would prove an impossibility. The first two years of my labor I received nothing from anyone except what I earned by my daily labor.
His records on the first 1100 individuals whom he bailed out revealed that only one forfeited bond (Dressler, 1962). It is also important to note that vir- tually every basic practice associated with probation was initiated by Augustus, including the idea of a presentence investigation, supervision conditions, case work, reports to the court, and revocation of probation supervision (Probation in the United States, 1997). When Augustus died in 1859, he was destitute—a most unfitting end for a humanitarian visionary.
philosophiCal bases oF probation Probation emerged in the United States during the nineteenth century, a period of considerable social turmoil and conflict. It was a development widely influ- enced by certain thoughts, arguments, and debates in Europe. In a larger sense, probation is an extension of Western European philosophical arguments about the functions of criminal law and how offenders should be handled and punished. The punishment philosophy generally advocated by the kings, emperors, and other rulers of Europe focused on the crime and attempted to treat all crimes equally. They viewed the purposes of criminal law as to punish, to deter others, and to seek revenge and vengeance for violations of the “king’s peace.” Widespread use of the death penalty, torture, banishment, public humiliations, and mass executions resulted from “disturbing the king’s peace.”
In the eighteenth century, French philosophers created a controversy by focus- ing on liberty, equality, and justice. Famous French philosophers and lawyers attempted to redefine the purpose of criminal law in an effort to find some way to make the criminal justice system of their time more attuned to the humani- tarian ethos of the Age of Enlightenment. A major figure of the time was Cesare Beccaria, a mildly disturbed Italian genius who only left his country once when invited to visit Paris to debate the French philosophers.
When Beccaria (1764) published his classic work, An Essay on Crimes and Punishments, he established the “Classical School” of criminology, which
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
The Growth of Probation 81
attempted to reorient the law toward more humanistic goals. This would include not torturing the accused in order to extract confessions, no secret indictments and trials, the right to defense at a trial, improvement of the conditions of imprisonment, and so on. His work focused on the offense and not on the offender. He believed that punishment should fit the crime. His work was widely read throughout Europe and even attracted the attention of Catherine the Great, the Russian empress, who invited Beccaria to revise Russian criminal law. Unfortunately, he never took her up on her offer.
The philosophical ferment of the period quickly spread to England and, from there, to the colonies. When the United States emerged from the Revolutionary War, the remaining vestiges of the harsher English penal codes were resound- ingly abandoned. What emerged was a constitutional system that incorporated the major components of the humanitarian philosophy, along with a populace imbued with the belief in the inherent goodness of humankind and the ability of all persons to rise to their optimal level of perfectibility.
The difference between the earlier approach to handling offenders (harsh pun- ishments openly administered, and corporal and capital punishments) and the emerging reformation emphasis of the last decade of the eighteenth cen- tury was primarily in (1) the way offenders were viewed and (2) the focus and intent of the criminal law. Prior to the Revolutionary War, offenders were seen as inherently evil, deserving punishment so that they might “get right with God.” After the Civil War, Americans had generally recognized that human- kind was not basically evil. The focus shifted to dealing with individual offend- ers rather than focusing on the crime that had been committed. The Civil War further added to the movement toward democracy, the rise of the reformation movement, and the further individualization of treatment and punishment. Eventually the following question arose: Do all offenders need to be impris- oned in order for them to repent and stop their criminal behavior? It was in this philosophical environment that Massachusetts began to answer the question, and the concern was juvenile probation.
the Growth oF probation Influenced by Augustus’s example, Massachusetts quickly moved into the forefront of probation development. An experiment in providing services for children (resembling probation) was inaugurated in 1869, under the auspices of the Massachusetts State Board of Health, Lunacy, and Charity (Johnson, 1928). A statute enacted in that year provided that, when com- plaints were made in court against a juvenile under 17 years of age, a writ- ten notice must be furnished to the state. The state agent was then given an opportunity to investigate, to attend the trial, and to safeguard the interest of the child.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 4: probation82
Despite the early work of Augustus and others with adult offenders, proba- tion was supported more readily for juveniles. It was not until 1901 that New York passed the first statute authorizing probation for adult offenders, more than 20 years after Massachusetts passed a law for juvenile probation (Lindner and Savarese, 1984). Although the development of probation for adults lagged that of juveniles, by 1923, most states had a law authorizing probation for adults, and by 1956 all states had adopted adult and juvenile probation laws. Historical data on select states can be found in Table 4.1. Surprisingly, it was the federal government that resisted probation.
probation at the Federal level Although probation quickly became almost universal in the juvenile justice system, no early specific provision for probation was made for federal offend- ers, either juvenile or adult. As a substitute, federal courts suspended sentence in instances in which imprisonment imposed special hardships. However, this practice was quickly called into question by several sources.
The major question was a legal one: Did federal judges have the constitutional authority to suspend a sentence indefinitely or did this practice represent an encroachment upon the executive prerogative of pardon and reprieve and was it, as such, an infringement upon doctrine of separation of powers? This issue was resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Killits decision (Ex parte U.S. 242 U.S. 27-53, 1916). In a case from the northern district of Ohio, John M. Killits sus- pended the 5-year sentence of a man who was convicted of embezzling $4700 from a Toledo bank. The defendant was a first-time offender with an otherwise good background and reputation who made full restitution for this offense. The bank officers did not wish to prosecute. The government contended that such action was beyond the powers of the court. A unanimous opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Edward D. White, held that federal courts had no inherent power to suspend sentence indefinitely and that there was no reason “to continue a prac- tice which is inconsistent with the Constitution, as its exercise in the very nature of things amounts to a refusal by the judicial power to perform a duty resting upon it and, as a consequence thereof, to an interference with both the legisla- tive and executive authority as fixed by the Constitution.” However, instead of abolishing this probationary practice, the Killits decision actually sponsored its further development. Interested parties interpreted the reversal of the “doctrine of inherent power to suspend sentences indefinitely” to mean that enabling leg- islation should be passed that specifically granted this power to the judiciary.
At the federal level, the National Probation Association (then headed by Charles Lionel Chute) carried on a determined educational campaign and lobbied for federal legislation. These efforts did not go unopposed, however. For example, prohibitionists feared that the growth of probation would take the sting out of
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Probation at the Federal Level 83
table 4.1 States with Juvenile and Adult Probation Laws: 1923
Year enacted
State Juvenile Adult
Alabama 1907 1915 Arizona 1907 1913 Arkansas 1911 1923 California 1903 1903 Colorado 1899 1909 Connecticut 1903 1903 Delaware 1911 1911 Georgia 1904 1907 Idaho 1905 1915 Illinois 1899 1911 Indiana 1903 1907 Kansas 1901 1909 Maine 1905 1905 Maryland 1902 1904 Massachusetts 1878 1878 Michigan 1903 1903 Minnesota 1899 1909 Missouri 1901 1897 Montana 1907 1913 Nebraska 1905 1909 New Jersey 1903 1900 New York 1903 1901 North Carolina 1915 1919 North Dakota 1911 1911 Ohio 1902 1908 Oklahoma 1909 1915 Oregon 1909 1915 Pennsylvania 1903 1909 Rhode Island 1899 1899 Tennessee 1905 1915 Utah 1903 1923 Vermont 1900 1900 Virginia 1910 1910 Washington 1905 1915 Wisconsin 1901 1909
Source: Adapted from Johnson (1928, pp. 12–13).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 4: probation84
the provisions of the Volstead Act.2 As Evjen (1975:5) has demonstrated, letters from judges to Chute clearly denounced the practice of probation.
What we need in this court is not a movement such as you advocate, to create new officials with resulting expense, but a movement to make enforcement of our criminal laws more certain and swift . . . In this county, due to the efforts of people like yourselves, the murderer has a cell bedecked with flowers and is surrounded with a lot of silly people. The criminal should understand when he violates the law that he is going to a penal institution and is going to stay there. Just such efforts as your organization is making are largely responsible for the crime wave that is passing over the country today and threatening to engulf our institutions.
Objections also arose from the Justice Department. For example, Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty wrote that he hoped “that no such mushy policy will be indulged in as Congress turning courts into maudlin reform associa- tions . . . the place to do reforming is inside the walls and not with lawbreakers running loose in society.” A memorandum from the Justice Department further revealed this sentiment against probation: “It is all a part of a wave of maudlin rot of misplaced sympathy for criminals that is going over the country. It would be a crime, however, if a probation system is established in the federal courts.”
Approximately 34 bills to establish a federal probation system were introduced in Congress between 1909 and 1925. Despite such opposition, a bill passed on its sixth introduction to the house. The bill was sent to President Coolidge who, as a former governor of Massachusetts, was familiar with the functioning of probation. He signed the bill into law on March 4, 1925. This action was followed by an appropriation to defray the salaries and expenses of a limited number of probation officers, to be chosen by civil service (Burdress, 1997; Lindner and Savarese, 1984; Meeker, 1975). Table 4.2 highlights some of the significant events in the development of probation.
probation today Because probation is a privilege and not a right, it is essentially an “act of grace” extended by the sentencing judge who presided over the trial (although a few states permit the jury that determined guilt to award or recommend pro- bation). Of all the principal groups of offenders under correctional control in America—probationers, jail inmates, prison inmates, and parolees—the largest group is probationers. Figure 4.1 shows how the number of adults on probation has grown over the past 20 years, from just under two million in
2The Volstead Act authorized the enforcement of anti-alcohol legislation—the “Great Experiment” of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Probation Today 85
table 4.2 Significant Events in the Development of Probation
Date Event
Middle ages Parens patriae established to protect the welfare of the child in England 1841 John Augustus becomes the “Father of Probation” 1869 Massachusetts develops the visiting probation agent system 1875 Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children established in New York, paving the way for the
juvenile court 1899 The first juvenile court in America was established in Cook County (Chicago) Illinois 1901 New York passes the first statute authorizing probation for adults 1925 Congress authorizes probation at the federal level 1927 All states but Wyoming have juvenile probation laws 1943 Federal Probation System formalizes the presentence investigation report 1954 Last state enacts juvenile probation law 1956 Mississippi becomes the last state to pass authorizing legislation to establish adult probation 1965 Ohio is the first state to create “shock probation,” which combines prison with probation 1967 In re Gault decided by the U.S. Supreme Court 1969 Jerome Miller is appointed Youth Commissioner in the State of Massachusetts and begins to
decarcerate state institutions 1971 Minnesota passes the first Community Corrections Act 1973 National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals endorses more extensive
use of probation 1974 Congress passes the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act establishing the Federal Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Restorative justice and victim/offender mediation programs begin in Ontario, Canada
1975 The state of Wisconsin receives funding from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to develop a case classification system. Four years later, the Risk/Needs Assessment instruments are designed and implemented
1980 American Bar Association issues restrictive guidelines to limit use of preadjudication detention 1982 “War on Drugs” begins 1983 Electronic monitoring of offenders begins. Georgia establishes the new generation of Intensive
Supervised Probation program 1984 Congress passes Sentence Reform Act to achieve longer sentences, “just deserts,” and equity in sentencing 1989 President Bush displays clear plastic bag of crack on prime time television 1994 American Bar Association issues proposals to counteract the impact of domestic violence on children 1998 National Institute of Corrections begins national correctional training on implementing community
restorative justice programs 2000 American Probation and Parole Association issues monograph: Transforming Probation through
Leadership: The Broken Windows Model 2001 Evaluation of sex-offender notification on probation in Wisconsin finds high cost to corrections in
terms of personnel, time, and budgetary resources 2003 Evaluation of strategies to enforce drug court treatment by aggressive probation officer involvement
results in significant drop in drug use in Maryland 2008 Evaluation of strategies to more fully integrate the principles of effective intervention into face-to-face
interactions between probation and parole officers and offenders
Source: Compiled by authors.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 4: probation86
1985 to more than four million in 2008. The United States Bureau of Justice Statistics (2006) found that nearly 60% of all convicted offenders were on pro- bation, 11% were on parole, 20% were in prison, and about 10% were in jail. Numerically, at the beginning of 2008, there were over four million probation- ers supervised by at least 20,000 probation officers. Although the average case- load size varies tremendously from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it is estimated that the average caseload is about 180 offenders per officer. It is estimated that about 50% of offenders on probation are for felonies, with the other half for misdemeanors.
Table 4.3 illustrates the most serious offense for offenders on probation in 2008. So, what is probation, why it is used so frequently, and what is the process by which so large a proportion of offenders are placed on probation?
table 4.3 Adults on Probation in 2008: Most Serious Offense
Offense Percent
Sex offense 1.6 Domestic violence 2.0 Other violent offense 6.4 Property offense 13.5 Drug law violations 15 Driving under the influence 7.2 Other traffic offenses 1.9 Other 5.1 Unknown/not reported 47
Source: Glaze and Bonczar (2009).
Figure 4.1 Adults on probation: 1985–2008 (in millions). Source: Glaze and Bonczar (2009).
0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000
2008
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Objectives and Advantages of Probation 87
objeCtives and advantaGes oF probation As stated earlier, both state and federal jurisdictions enacted statutes that per- mit the granting of probation, as well as define certain categories of offenses for which probation may not be granted. These acts could include all crimes of violence, crimes requiring a life sentence, armed robbery, rape or other sex offenses, use of a firearm in a crime, or multiple-convicted offenders.
However, despite the existence of legislatively defined exclusion, granting pro- bation is a highly individualized process that usually focuses on the criminal rather than the crime. The following are the general objectives of probation:
1. Reintegrate amenable offenders. 2. Protect the community from further antisocial behavior. 3. Further the goals of justice. 4. Provide probation conditions (and services) necessary to change
offenders and to achieve the aforementioned objectives.
While probation granting is individualized, judges and corrections personnel generally recognize the advantages of probation:
1. Use of community resources to reintegrate offenders who are thus forced to face and hopefully resolve their individual problems while under community supervision.
2. Fiscal savings over imprisonment. 3. Avoidance of prisonization, which tends to exacerbate the underlying
causes of criminal behavior. 4. Keeping offenders’ families off local and state welfare rolls. 5. A relatively successful process of correcting offenders’ behavior
(60–90% success rates have been reported).3
6. A sentencing option that can permit “selective incapacitation.”
Probation, the most frequent disposition for offenders and widely recognized for its advantages (Dawson, 1990), has also received strong endorsement from numerous groups and commissions, including the prestigious National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (1973), the General Accounting Office (1982), and the American Bar Association (ABA) (1970). The National Advisory Commission recommended that proba- tion be used more extensively, and the ABA endorsed probation as the pre- sumed sentence of choice for almost all nonviolent felons. Others have argued
3While some dispute the effectiveness of probation (Petersilia, 1985), other researchers (McGaha, Fichter, & Hirschburg, 1987; Vito, 1986) have found probation generally to be effective. This issue is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 4: probation88
(Finn, 1984) that universal use of probation would reduce prison populations. It is important to remember that prison space is a limited and, some would say, scarce resource. The economics of corrections are such that probation is essen- tial if the system is going to manage its finite resources effectively (Clear, Clear, & Burrell, 1989). Figure 4.2 illustrates the cost per offender for probation super- vision. Even when we consider specialized supervision (e.g., intensive, elec- tronic), daily supervision still averages less than $4 per day. When is probation an appropriate sentence and how is it granted?
GrantinG probation Sentencing is a complicated process, and sentencing judges frequently find that the disposition of the case (sentence) has already been determined—by the prosecutor, not by the judge. This is because, prior to the determination of guilt, the prosecuting attorney and defense counsel have engaged in plea bargaining. During this interaction, any (or even all) of the following trial ele- ments may have been negotiated.
1. The defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser crime but one that was present in the illegal behavior for which the penalty is considerably more lenient.
Selective incapacitation refers to a crime control policy of identifying high-risk offenders for incarceration on the premise that, while imprisoned, such offenders would be incapable of committing further criminal acts and may be deterred from illegal behavior when released.
box 4.2 seleCtive inCapaCitation
Figure 4.2 Average daily cost per probationer by supervision type. Source: Camp and Camp (2003:206).
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
Intensive Electronic Special Overall Regular
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Granting Probation 89
2. The frequency of the crime (“number of counts”) to which the defendant will plead guilty.
3. The number of charges that will be dropped. 4. Whether the prosecutor will recommend that the defendant receives
probation or be sentenced to incarceration in jail or prison. 5. The recommended length of time (months or years) of incarceration. 6. If sentence will be consecutive or concurrent.
It appears that the judiciary tends to accept and acquiesce to the negotiation outcomes (Dixon, 1995; Glaser, 1985). However, in many cases, judges still decide the sentence, one alternative of which may be probation.
The process of granting probation begins after the offender either pleads guilty (frequently for favorable personal considerations) or is adjudicated guilty following a trial. For those offenders whose crime falls within the list of proba- tion-eligible offenses or in those states where mandated by law, a presentence investigation will be ordered. One of the major functions of a presentence investi- gation report is to assist the court in determining the most appropriate sentence.
Based on observations of the defendant at trial—including demeanor, body language, evidence of remorse, and behavior—as well as the recommendation in presentence reports and the prosecutor’s recommendation for sentence, judges attempt to determine the appropriate sentence for a particular individ- ual. Judges are aware that individualized justice demands that the sentence fit not only the crime but also the criminal.4
As one might expect, probation tends to be granted more prevalently for nonviolent offenders. Table 4.3 shows that, in general, offenders convicted of nonviolent crimes (e.g., drug law violations) were more likely to receive probation than those convicted of violent offenses (e.g., sexual assault).
4Some evidence shows that sentencing is in part influenced by judges’ personal goals, such as potential for promotion to a higher court (Cohen, 1992; Macallair, 1994).
If the offender is to be sentenced for more than one crime and receives a concurrent sentence, the offender would start serving time for all his or her crimes beginning on the day of arrival in prison. If a consecutive sentence is imposed, the offender generally must serve the minimum sentence for the first crime before beginning to serve time for the second offense. Offenders obviously prefer the concurrent over the consecutive sentence option because they would be eligible for release from prison much earlier.
box 4.3 sentenCinG: ConCurrent or ConseCutive?
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 4: probation90
A number of factors can influence the sentencing decision, such as the nature of the offense, the demeanor of the offender, the harm done the victim, judi- cial and community attitudes, and many other considerations. Many of these factors are brought forth in a document called the presentence investigation report (PSI).
Perhaps, the most important criterion is the recommendation of the probation officer who composes the PSI. The role of the presentence report recommen- dation is a major factor, for the extent of concurrence between the probation officer’s recommendations and the judge’s sentencing decision is quite strong. Liebermann, Schaffer, and Martin (1971) found that, when probation was rec- ommended, judges followed that recommendation in 83% of the cases; Carter (1966) found an even stronger agreement: 96 percent of the cases. Liebermann and colleagues (1971) also found that when the recommendation was for imprisonment, the judge agreed in 87% of the cases. Macallair (1994) found that defense-based disposition reports for juveniles that recommended proba- tion alternatives consistently lowered commitments to state correctional facili- ties. So what is the PSI?
the presentenCe investiGation report One of the primary responsibilities of probation agencies is investigation. This includes gathering information about probation and technical violations, facts about arrest, and, most importantly, completing the PSI for use in sentencing hearings.
The concept of the PSI developed with probation.5 Judges originally used pro- bation officers to gather background and personal information on offend- ers to “individualize” punishment.6 In 1943, the Federal Probation System formalized the PSI as a required function of the federal probation process. The PSI can have a great deal of significance in the sentencing process, as 80-90% of defendants plead guilty and the judge’s only contact with the offender is during sentencing (The Presentence Report, 1970). The judge’s knowledge of the defendant is usually limited to the information contained in the presentence report. As Walsh concludes (1985:363), “judges lean heavily on the professional advice of probation.”
In a study of the acceptance of the PSI recommendation, Latessa (1993) examined 285 cases in Cuyahoga County, Ohio (which includes the city of Cleveland). He found that judges accepted the recommendation of the
5For a thorough discussion of early development of the PSI, see The Presentence Report (1970). 6See Sieh (1993).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
The Presentence Investigation Report 91
probation department in 85% of the cases when probation was recommended and in 66% when prison was the recommendation.
As mandatory minimum sentences have become more popular some juris- dictions report that fewer PSIs are being prepared. However, for others the PSI remains an important function for probation. For example, in terms of the agency workload, almost one-half (45%) of agencies that conduct pre- sentence investigations reported that more than 25% of their workloads were devoted to these reports.
At the federal level, federal sentencing guidelines have increased the importance of the presentence investigation and the role and responsibility of the probation officer (Dierna, 1989; Jaffe, 1989; McDonald & Carlson, 1993; Steffensmeier & Demuth, 2000).
Functions and objectives
The primary purpose of the PSI is to provide the sentencing court with succinct and precise information upon which to base rational sentencing decisions. Judges usually have a number of options available to them: they may suspend sentence, impose a fine, require restitution, incarcerate, impose community supervision, and so on. The PSI is designed to aid the judge in making the appropriate decision, taking into consideration the needs of the offender as well as the safety of the community.
Over the years, many additional important uses have been found for the pre- sentence report. Basically, these functions include7:
1. Aiding the court in determining sentence. 2. Assisting correctional authorities in classification and treatment in
release planning. 3. Giving the parole board useful information pertinent to consideration
of parole. 4. Aiding the probation officer in rehabilitation efforts during probation. 5. Serving as a source of information for research.
In those jurisdictions in which probation and parole services are in the same agency, the PSI can be used for parole supervision purposes.
A PSI includes more than the simple facts about the offender, as is seen later. If it is to fulfill its purpose, it must include all objective historical and factual
7These functions are adapted from the Administrative Office of the U.S. courts (1978). The Presentence Investigation Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. See also Marvell (1995).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 4: probation92
information significant to the decision-making process, an assessment of the character and needs of the defendant and the community, and a sound recom- mendation with supporting rationale that follows logically from the evalua- tion (Bush, 1990). A reliable and accurate report is essential, and the officer completing the report should make every effort to ensure that information contained in the PSI is reliable and valid. Information that has not been vali- dated should be indicated.
Content
The PSI is not immune from a lack of consistency across jurisdictions, but there seem to be some common elements that illustrate the uses and content of the PSI. A survey of 147 probation agencies across the nation (Carter, 1976) revealed that the cover sheets contained 17 pieces of identical information in more than 50% of the agencies surveyed. Information that appears most often across the various jurisdictions is included in Table 4.4.
While content requirements for a presentence investigation vary from jurisdic- tion to jurisdiction, there appear to be some common areas that are included and generally consist of the following:
1. Offense Official version Defendant’s version Codefendant information Statement of witnesses, complainants, and victims
2. Prior record Juvenile adjudications Adult record
table 4.4 Common Elements Contained in Presentence Reports
1. Name of defendant 10. Plea 2. Name of jurisdiction 11. Date of report 3. Offense 12. Sex 4. Lawyer 13. Custody or detention 5. Docket number 14. Verdict 6. Date of birth 15. Date of disposition 7. Address 16. Marital status 8. Name of sentencing judge 17. Other identifying numbers 9. Age
Source: Carter (1976).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
The Presentence Investigation Report 93
3. Personal and family data Defendant Parents and siblings Marital status Employment Education Health (physical, mental, and emotional) Military service Financial condition Assets Liabilities
4. Evaluation Alternative plans Sentencing data
5. Recommendations
Basically, these areas reflect the recommendation of Carter (1976: 9), who states that “in spite of the tradition of ‘larger’ rather than ‘shorter,’ there is little evidence that more is better.” At a minimum, the PSI should include the five basic areas outlined earlier. This permits flexibility by allowing for expan- sion of a subject area and increased detail of circumstances as warranted. However, a subsection may be summarized in a single narrative statement.
Carter believes it is not necessary to know everything about an offender. Indeed, there is some evidence that in human decision making, the capacity of individuals to use information effectively is limited to five or six items of information. Quite apart from questions of reliability, validity, or even rele- vance of the information are the time and workload burdens of collecting and sorting masses of data for decision making. The end result may be information overload and impairment of efficiency.
A sample outline of a PSI from the Montgomery County Adult Probation Department (Dayton, Ohio) is shown in Figure 4.3. A thorough PSI is not complete without a plan of supervision for those individuals selected for probation. If this type of information is developed while preparing the PSI, supervision can begin on day 1, not several weeks into the probation period. During development of the PSI, special attention is also given to seeking innovative alternatives to traditional sentencing dispositions (jail, fines, prison, or probation). More recently, there has been increased attention given to the victim (Roy, 1994; Umbreit, 1994). Many probation depart- ments now include a section pertaining to the victim as part of their PSI report. An example of a victim statement from the Montgomery County is presented in Figure 4.4. This section includes an assessment of the harm
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 4: probation94
Prosecutor: Defense Attorney:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I. Case Information _______________________________
A. Case No.: C. Jail Status: Referred: Amount of Bond: Disposition: Days in Custody:
B. Name D. Urinalysis Ordered Yes___ No___ Alias(es): Urine(s) Collected: Address: Result(s) Positive:
Result(s) Negative: Phone: Probation Officer:
Date of Birth: E. Codefendant Status:
Social Security No.: F. Restitution:
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ II. Charge Information __________________________________
A. Current Adjudicated Charge(es)/ O.R.C./Penalty:
D. Other Pending Cases/Detainers:
E. Prior Felonies: B. Indicated Charge:
F. Repeat Offender Status:
C. Original Jurisdiction: G. Eligibility for Conditional Probation:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ III. Client Information ______________________________
A. Physical Sex________ Race______ Height_________ Weight_______ Eyes_______ Hair________ Present Health ________________________
B. Social Marital Status _________________________ No. of Dependents _____________________ Custody of Children if Sentenced _________ ____________________________________ Employment Status _____________________ Last Grade Completed ___________________ Social Service Involvement _______________ Past _________________________________ ________________________________________ Present ________________________________ ________________________________________ Limitations:
Rec. Bailiff________ Date/Time_______
Figure 4.3 The Montgomery County Common Pleas Court Adult Probation Department presentence report. Source: The Montgomery County Adult Probation Department.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
The Presentence Investigation Report 95
Part I. The Offense
Part II. Criminal Record Section
A. Juvenile
B. Adult
Part III. Employment/Other Pertinent Data
Part IV. Recommendation Reasons:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Respectfully Submitted, ____________________________
Team Supervisor___________________________
Figure 4.3—Cont’d
Judge:
Case No.:
Name of Defendant:
Disposition Date:
A. Economic Loss
B. Physical Injury
C. Change in Personal Welfare or Familial Relationships
D. Psychological Impact
E. Comments
Figure 4.4 Victim impact statement. Source: The Montgomery County Adult Probation Department.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 4: probation96
done to the victim and may include their comments concerning the offense and offender.
evaluation and recommendation
Two of the most important sections of the PSI are the evaluation and the rec- ommendation. Although the research evidence is mixed, there appears to be a high correlation between the probation officer’s recommendation and the judge’s decision (Hagan, 1975; Walsh, 1985). There is also some evidence that the sections most widely read by the judge are the PSI evaluation and recommendation.
The evaluation should contain the probation officer’s professional assessment of the objective material contained in the body of the report. Having gathered all the facts, the probation officer must now consider the protection of the community and the need of the defendant.
First, the probation officer should consider the offense. Was it situational in nature or indicative of persistent behavior? Was violence used? Was a weapon involved? Was it a property offense or a personal offense? Was there a motive?
Second, the community must be considered. For example, does the defendant pose a direct threat to the safety and welfare of others? Would a disposition other than prison deprecate the seriousness of the crime? Is probation a sufficient deterrent? What community resources are available?
Finally, the probation officer has to consider the defendant and his or her special problems and needs, if any. What developmental factors were significant in contrib- uting to the defendant’s current behavior? Was there a history of antisocial behav- ior? Does the defendant acknowledge responsibility or remorse? Is the defendant motivated to change? What strengths and weaknesses does the defendant possess? Is the defendant employable or supporting any immediate family? The probation officer should also provide a statement of sentencing alternatives available to the court. This does not constitute a recommendation, but rather informs the court which services are available should the defendant be granted probation.
A sound recommendation is the responsibility of the probation officer. Some alternatives may include the following:
anger management programs restitution cognitive behavioral groups fine probation mandatory drug treatment work release house arrest/electronic monitoring incarceration community service split sentence psychiatric treatment shock probation day fines
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
The Presentence Investigation Report 97
halfway house victim mediation family counseling shock incarceration day reporting no recommendation
If commitment were recommended, the probation officer would indicate any problems that may need special attention on the part of the institutional staff. In addition, if the defendant were considered a security risk, the investigator would include escape potential, as well as any threats made to or received from the community or other defendants.
Regardless of the recommendation, the probation officer has the responsibility to provide supporting rationale that will assist the court in achieving its sentencing goals.
Factors related to sentencing decisions
As mentioned previously, the PSI involves a great deal of a probation department’s time and resources. The presentence report is the primary comprehensive source of information about the defendant available to the sentencing judge. Although most judges agree that the PSI is a valuable aid in formulating sentencing decisions, there appear to be some differ- ences of opinion about the value of the recommendations section of the report.8
Several studies have attempted to identify those factors that appear to be of pri- mary importance to sentencing judges. Carter’s 1976 survey found that the two most significant factors were the defendant’s prior criminal record and the cur- rent offense. An earlier study by Carter and Wilkins (1967) found that the most important factors for judges in making a decision to grant probation included the defendant’s educational level, average monthly salary, occupational level, resi- dence, stability, participation in church activities, and military record. But, again, when factors were ranked according to their importance in the sentencing deci- sion, the current offense and the defendant’s prior record, number of arrests, and number of commitments were ranked most important. Welch and Spohn (1986) also concluded that prior record clearly predicts the decision to incarcerate; how- ever, their research suggests that a wide range of indicators have been used to determine “prior record,” but that the safest choice to use is prior incarceration.
In another study, Rosecrance (1988:251) suggests that the PSI report serves to main- tain the myth that criminal courts dispense individualized justice. His conclusions
8For example, in Cincinnati, Ohio, a single probation department serves both the municipal court and the court of common pleas, yet each court requires a different PSI. The court of common pleas does not permit probation officer recommendations to be included in the report, but the municipal court requires one.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 4: probation98
are “that present offense and prior criminal record are the factors that determine the probation officer’s final sentencing recommendation.” Rosecrance (1985) also believes that probation recommendations are designed to endorse prearraigned judicial agreements and that probation officers structure their recommendations in the “ball park” in order to gain judicial acceptance. Rogers (1990) argues, how- ever, that the presentence investigation individualizes juvenile justice.
In another study, Latessa (1993) examined both the factors that influenced the probation officers recommendation, as well as the actual judicial decision. He found that offenders were more likely to be recommended for prison if they were repeat offenders, committed more serious offenses, there was a vic- tim involved, and they had a prior juvenile record. Factors that influenced the actual sentencing decision included the recommendation, drug history, mental health history, seriousness of offense, and having been incarcerated previously in a state prison. Latessa concluded that in this jurisdiction sentencing factors are based mainly on offense and prior record factors and on other relevant information, such as the presence of a victim. It is important to note that demographic factors, such as race, sex, and age, did not play a factor in either the recommendations or the decisions of the judges.
Conditions oF probation When probation is granted, the court may impose certain reasonable conditions on the offender, which the probation officer is expected to monitor in the super- vision process. These must not be capricious and may be both general (required of all probationers) and specific (required of an individual probationer). General conditions include obeying laws, submitting to searchers, reporting regularly to the supervising officer, notifying the officer of any change in job or residence, and not being in possession of a firearm, associating with known criminals, refrain- ing from excessive use of alcohol, or not leaving the court’s jurisdiction for long periods of time without prior authorization. A partial list of services provided by probation jurisdictions can be found in Figure 4.5.
Specific conditions are generally tailored to the needs of the offender or philoso- phy of the court. For reintegration or other such purposes, the court may impose conditions of medical or psychiatric treatment; residence in a halfway house or residential center; intensive probation supervision, electronic surveillance, house arrest, community service, and active involvement in Alcoholics Anonymous; participation in a drug abuse program; restitution or victim compensation; no use of psychotropic drugs (such as cocaine or marijuana); observing a reasonable curfew; no hitchhiking; staying out of bars and poolrooms (particularly if the probationer is a prostitute); group counseling; vocational training; or other court- ordered requirements. Such required conditions are specifically designed to assist the probationer in the successful completion of probation. An example of stan- dard conditions of probation from federal courts is presented in Figure 4.6.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Conditions of Probation 99
Figure 4.5 Percentage of probation agencies offering specific services. Source: Camp, and Camp (2003, p. 215).
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Family counseling
Individual counseling
Job development
Substance abuse
treatment
Figure 4.6
PROB 7A (Rev. 10/89) Conditions of Probation and Supervised Release
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
Name _____________________________________ Docket No. ____________________________
Address ___________________________________
Under the terms of your sentence, you have been placed on probation/supervised release (strike
one) by the Honorable _________________________ , United States District Judge for the District of
__________________________ . Your term of supervision is for a period of ______________________ ,
commencing ______________________ .
While on probation/supervised release (strike one) you shall not commit another Federal, state,
or local crime and shall not illegally possess a controlled substance. Revocation of probation and
supervised release is mandatory for possession of a controlled substance.
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:
As a condition of supervision, you are instructed to pay a fine in the amount of _________________________________ ; it shall be paid in the following manner _______________________________________ .
As a condition of supervision, you are instructed to pay restitution in the amount of _________________ to _________________________ ; it shall be paid in the follow- ing manner ______________________________ .
The defendant shall not possess a firearm or destructive device. Probation must be revoked for possession of a firearm.
The defendant shall report in person to the probation office in the district to which the defendant is released within 72 hours of release from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.
The defendant shall report in person to the probation office in the district of release within 72 hours of release from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 4: probation100
It is the order of the Court that you shall comply with the following standard conditions:
(1) You shall not leave the judicial district without permission of the Court or probation officer.
(2) You shall report to the probation officer as directed by the Court or probation officer, and shall submit a truthful and complete written report within the first 5 days of each month.
(3) You shall answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer and follow the instructions of the probation officer.
(4) You shall support your dependents and meet other family responsibilities.
(5) You shall work regularly at a lawful occupation unless excused by the proba- tion officer for schooling, training, or other acceptable reasons.
(6) You shall notify the probation officer within 72 h of any change in resi- dence or employment.
(7) You shall refrain from excessive use of alcohol and shall not purchase, pos- sess, use, distribute, or administer any narcotic or other controlled substance, or any paraphernalia related to such substances, except as prescribed by a physician.
(8) You shall not frequent places where controlled substances are illegally sold, used, distributed, or administered.
(9) You shall not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity, and shall not associate with any person convicted of a felony unless granted permission to do so by the probation officer.
(10) You shall permit a probation officer to visit you at any time at home or else- where, and shall permit confiscation of any contraband observed in plain view by the probation officer.
(11) You shall notify the probation officer within 72 h of being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer.
(12) You shall not enter into any agreement to act as an informer or a special agent of a law enforcement agency without the permission of the Court.
(13) As directed by the probation officer, you shall notify third parties of risks that may be occasioned by your criminal record or personal history or characteristics, and shall permit the probation officer to make such notifications and to confirm your com- pliance with such notification requirement.
The special conditions ordered by the Court are as follows:
Upon a finding of violation of probation or supervised release, I understand that the Court may (1) revoke supervision or (2) extend the term of supervision and/or modify the conditions of supervision.
Figure 4.6—Cont’d
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Conditions of Probation 101
probation Fees
As part of the conditions of probation, many jurisdictions have included proba- tion fees as part of the probation experience. These fees are levied for a variety of services, including the preparation of presentence reports, electronic moni- toring, ignition interlock devices, work-release programs, drug counseling and testing, and regular probation supervision (Lansing, 1999; Ring, 1988). Fees range anywhere from $10 to $120 per month, with the average estimated to be about $32 per month. The imposition of supervision fees has increased dra- matically over the years (Baird, Holien, & Bakke, 1986; Camp & Camp, 2003; Lansing, 1999). In addition, some states, such as Ohio, now require probation officers to assist in collecting child support payments from parents under pro- bation supervision.
Critics of probation fees argue that it is unfair to assess a fee to those most unable to pay. Others argue that probationer fees will result in a shift from treatment and surveillance to fee collection, which in turn will turn probation officers into bill collectors.
Others, however, believe that probation fees can be a reasonable part of the pro- bation experience (Wheeler, Macan, Hissong, & Slusher, 1989; Wheeler, Rudolph, & Hissong, 1989). Harlow and Nelson (1982:65) point out that successful fee programs serve a dual purpose: “both an important revenue source and an effec- tive means of communicating to the offender the need to pay one’s own way.”9
It appears that probation fees are rapidly becoming a fixture in probation. Not only is it a means of raising revenue and offsetting the costs of supervision, treatment, and surveillance but it can also be used as a form of punishment (or to promote responsible behavior depending on your viewpoint).
These conditions have been read to me. I fully understand the conditions, and have been provided a copy of them.
(Signed) ___________________________ ___________ Defendant Date
___________________________________ ___________
U.S. Probation Officer/Designated Witness Date
Figure 4.6—Cont’d
9For a description of the Texas Program, see Finn and Parent (1992).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 4: probation102
restitution and Community service
Two more recent but related trends in conditions the court may impose are restitution and community work orders. Restitution requires the offender to make payment (perhaps monetary) to a victim to offset the damages done in the commission of the crime. If the offenders cannot afford to repay at least a part of the loss suffered by the victim, it is possible to restore the vic- tim’s losses through personal services. Probation with restitution thus has the potential for being a reparative sentence, and Galaway (1983) argues that it should be the penalty of choice for property offenders. Restitution can lessen the loss of the victim, maximize reconciliation of the offender and commu- nity, and marshal community support for the offender, perhaps through enlisting a community sponsor to monitor and encourage the offender’s compliance. A good example of this can be seen in California, where in 1982 voters passed a victim’s bill of rights. Part of this initiative was a crime victim restitution program that enables the court to order offenders to repay victims and the community through restitution or community service (see van Dijk- Kaam & Wemmers, 1999).
Community work orders as conditions of probation appear to be used increas- ingly in conjunction with probation, particularly if there are no direct victim losses or the nature of the crime demands more than supervised release. Examples of community work orders would include requiring a dentist con- victed of driving while intoxicated to provide free dental services to a number of indigents or ordering a physician to provide numerous hours of free medi- cal treatment to jail inmates, perhaps on Saturday mornings. Juveniles may frequently be ordered to work for community improvements through litter removal, cutting grass, painting the homes of the elderly or public buildings, or driving shut-ins to market or to visit friends and relatives. Both restitution and community work orders can serve multiple goals: offender punishment, community reintegration, and reconciliation. The four reasons cited most commonly for using community service are as follows:
1. It is a punishment that can fit many crimes. 2. The costs of imprisonment are high and are getting higher. 3. Our jails and prisons are already full. 4. Community service requires an offender to pay with time and energy.
Another increasingly popular probation program is day reporting, a slightly structured nonresidential program often using supervision, volunteers, sanc- tions, and services coordinated from a central location. Providing offenders with access to treatment services, day attendance centers can help reduce jail and prison overcrowding, hold offenders accountable for their behavior, and help them address such risk factors as unemployment, addiction, and lack of education (see Williams & Turnage, 2001).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Alternative Probation Procedures 103
alternative probation proCedures In addition to the most frequent procedures described earlier, there are six other variations of granting probation that need to be discussed before we con- sider the legal process of revoking probation of those who cannot or will not abide by court-imposed conditions of liberty in the community:
1. Prosecutorial probation 2. Court probation without adjudication 3. Shock probation 4. Intermittent incarceration 5. Split sentences 6. Modification of sentence
While probation is imposed most frequently by a trial judge after a guilty plea or trial, it may also replace the trial completely, in which case it is called “pro- bation without adjudication.” In practice, the process embraces two separate programs: one operated by the prosecutor (a form of deferred prosecution) and the other by the judge in those limited number of jurisdictions in which state legislation permits a bifurcated process (determining guilt, followed by adjudication as a felon). Both result in probation but are vastly different.
deferred prosecution probation
Part of the broad power accorded a prosecutor in the United States is the abil- ity to offer the accused deferred prosecution. In those programs in which the prosecutor grants deferred prosecution, the accused will generally be asked to sign a contract accepting moral (but usually not legal) responsibility for the crime and agreeing to make victim restitution, to undergo specific treat- ment programs (substance abuse, methadone maintenance, anger manage- ment, etc.), to report periodically to a designated official (usually a probation officer), and to refrain from other criminal acts during the contract period. If these conditions are satisfied, the prosecutor dismisses (nolle pros) the charge. If the accused does not participate and cooperate actively in the program the prosecutor can, at any time during the contract period, carry the case forward to trial. Deferred prosecution can, although it is infrequent, lead to a unique probation organization within the office of the prosecutor.
probation by withholding adjudication
This process refers to a judge’s optional authority available in those states (such as Florida) where statutes permit a bifurcated process: first determine guilt and then declare the defendant a convicted felon. By refraining from declaration of a guilty felon, the judge can suspend the legal process and place the defendant on probation for a specific time period, sometimes without supervision being
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 4: probation104
required (a “summary” or nonreporting probation). Thus the judge gives the offender a chance to demonstrate his or her ability and willingness to adjust and reform. The offenders know that they can still be returned to court for adjudication of guilt and sentencing, and frequently imprisonment.
The advantages of this option fit squarely in the general philosophy of probation and may be of particular use in intimate-partner assaults (Canales- Portalatin, 2000). Not only is treatment in the community emphasized but the collateral benefits are also considerable (Allen, Friday, Roebuck, & Sagarin, 1981:361–362):
(The judge) places him or her on probation without requiring him to register with local law enforcement agencies as a previously convicted felon; without serving notice on prospective employers of a previous conviction; without preventing the offender from holding public office, voting, or serving on a jury; without impeding the offender from obtaining a license that requires “reputable character”; without making it more difficult than others to obtain firearms; in short, without public or even private degradation.
shock probation
In 1965, Ohio became the first of at least 14 states that enacted an early release procedure generally known as “shock probation.” Shock probation combined the leniency of probation with a short period of incarceration in a penal insti- tution. The assumptions and features underlying this innovative program were described by the then-director of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (Allen & Simonsen, 2001:226). They were as follows:
1. A way for the courts to impress offenders with the seriousness of their actions without a long prison sentence.
2. A way for the courts to release offenders found by the institution to be more amenable to community-based treatment than was realized by the courts at time of sentence.
3. A way for the courts to arrive at a just compromise between punishment and leniency in appropriate cases.
4. A way for the courts to provide community-based treatment for rehabilitable offenders while still observing their responsibilities for imposing deterrent sentences where public policy demands it.
5. [A way to afford] the briefly incarcerated offender a protection against absorption into the “hard rock” inmate culture.
Critics have argued that shock probation combines philosophically incompat- ible objectives: punishment and leniency. Other criticisms (Reid, 1976) are that the defendant is further stigmatized by the incarceration component of
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Alternative Probation Procedures 105
shock probation, and the existence of a shock probation sentence may encour- age the judiciary to rely less on probation than previously. As noted in Chapter 2, the most damaging criticism was presented by Vito and Allen (1981) when they concluded that the negative effects of incarceration were affecting the performance of shock probationers.
Vito (1984:26–27) has drawn some conclusions about shock probation based on his long-term work in this area as follows:
1. The level of reincarceration rates indicates that the program has some potential.
2. If shock probation is utilized, it should be used with a select group of offenders who cannot be considered as good candidates for regular probation.
3. The period of incarceration must be short in order to achieve the maximum deterrent effect while reducing the fiscal cost of incarceration.
4. In this time of severe prison overcrowding, the use of shock probation can only be justified as a diversionary measure to give offenders who would otherwise not be placed on probation a chance to succeed.
Although shock probation has been in use for more than 40 years, it is not a widely used disposition, and the overall effects and effectiveness remain unknown.
Combining probation and incarceration
There are a number of alternatives to placing an offender on probation, other than shock probation, that include a period of incarceration (Parisi, 1980). The U.S. Department of Justice (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997) notes:
Although the courts continue to use (probation) as a less severe and less expensive alternative to incarceration, most courts are also given discretion to link probation to a term of incarceration—an option selected with increasing frequency.
Combinations of probation and incarceration include the following:
Split sentences: where the court specifies a period of incarceration to be followed by a period of probation (Parisi, 1981). Modification of sentence: where the original sentencing court may reconsider an offender’s prison sentence within a limited time and change it to probation. Intermittent incarceration: where an offender on probation may spend weekends or nights in jail (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 4: probation106
probation revoCation The judge usually imposes the conditions that must be observed by the offender while on probation and has absolute discretion and authority to impose, modify, or reject these conditions. Some examples of conditions a judge might impose are routine urine testing to detect drug use and abuse, participation in a sub- stance abuse program if the probationer has an alcohol or other drug problem, driving limits, restitution to victims of the probationer (but probation may not be revoked if the offender cannot make payments because of unemployment: Bearden v. Georgia, 1983),10 and not leaving the court’s jurisdiction without prior approval. Many cases have challenged the conditions that courts might impose, but case law has determined any condition may be imposed if it is constitutional, reasonable, clear, and related to some definable correctional goal, such as reha- bilitation or public safety. These are difficult to challenge and leave the court with broad power and tremendous discretion in imposing conditions. Such discretion has contributed to the volume of civil rights lawsuits (del Carmen, 1985).
Once placed on probation, offenders are supervised and assisted by probation officers who are increasingly using existing community agencies and services to provide individualized treatment based on the offender’s needs. Assuming that the offender meets the court-imposed conditions, makes satisfactory prog- ress in resolving underlying problems, and does not engage in further ille- gal activities, probation agencies may request the court to close the case. This would terminate supervision of the offender and probation. Probation may also be terminated by completion of the period of maximum sentence or by the offender having received “maximum benefit from treatment.” Table 4.5
table 4.5 Adults on Probation in 2008: Status of Supervision
Status Percent
Active 71 Residential/other treatment program 1 Financial conditions remaining 1 Inactive 8 Absconder 8 Supervised out of jurisdiction 3 Warrant status 6 Other 2
Source: Glaze and Bonczar (2009).
10461 U.S. 660 (1983).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Probation Revocation 107
shows the various ways that adult offenders terminated probation in 2008. Fortunately, most offenders completed their term of probation successfully.
In supervising a probationer, officers should enforce the conditions and rules of probation pragmatically, considering the client’s particular and individual needs, legality of decisions they must make while supervising clients (Watkins, 1989), the clarity of anticipation by probationer of assistance from the super- vising officer (and expectations of the probationer), and the potential effects of enforcing rules on a client’s future behavior and adjustment (Koontz, 1980). Because many clients have alcohol and other drug problems, they must be tested for substance abuse.
Probationers vary in their ability to comply with imposed conditions, some of which may be unrealistic, particularly those that require extensive victim res- titution or employment during an economic period of high unemployment (Smith, Davis, & Hillenbrand, 1989). Some probationers are also indifferent or even hostile, unwilling, or psychologically unable to cooperate with their probation supervisor or the court. Others commit technical violations of court orders that are not per se new crimes but are seen as harbingers of future ille- gal activity. In these circumstances, probation officers must deal with technical probation violations.
Probation officers, charged with managing such cases, may determine that tech- nical violators need a stern warning or that court-imposed conditions should be tightened (or relaxed, depending on individual circumstances). These determinations may lead to an offender’s reappearance before the court for a warning or redefinition of conditions. Judges and probation officers, ideally, collaborate in such cases to protect the community or increase the probabil- ity of successful reintegration. Offenders are frequently returned to probation, and supervision and treatment continue.
If the warning and new conditions are not sufficient, the offender repetitively violates conditions of probation, or is arrested for an alleged new crime, a pro- bation revocation hearing may be necessary. If the probationer is not already in jail for the alleged new crime, a warrant may be issued for his or her arrest. Reasons for failure on probation in 2007 can be seen in Figure 4.7.
A technical violation refers to an infraction of a court order, often in the form of a probation condition. It is generally not considered a new crime per se, but can be used by the probation officer to bring an offender back in front of the judge. An example of a technical violation would be failure of a probationer to meet with his or her probation officer as scheduled. Technical vio- lations can lead to the revocation of probation and the imposition of incarceration or another sanction.
box 4.4 teChniCal violation oF probation
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 4: probation108
It is also clear that technical violations can be a major source of failures on probation and that rates can vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
A probation revocation hearing is a serious process, posing potential “grievous loss of liberty” for the offender. Both probation officers and judges vary con- siderably as to what would constitute grounds for revoking probation and resentencing to imprisonment. Punitive probation officers may contend that technical violations are sufficient for revoking probation; judges may believe that the commission of a new crime would be the only reason for revocation.
revocation and legal issues
Probation is a privilege, not a right (del Carmen, 1985). This was decided in United States v. Birnbaum (1970).11 Once granted, however, the probationer has an interest in remaining on probation, commonly referred to as an entitlement. The due process rights of probationers at a revocation hearing were generally ignored until 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding state pro- bationers’ rights to counsel at such a hearing (Mempa v. Rhay, 1967). This case
48.1
13 2.73.2
0.5
7.7
24
0.5
Successful
Discharged to warrant or detainerUnknown/not reported
Other unsuccessful
Death
Other
Absconder
Incarceration
Figure 4.7 Reason for failure on probation during 2007. Source: Glaze and Bonczar (2009).
11421 F.2d 993, cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1044 (1970).
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Probation Revocation 109
provided right to counsel if probation were revoked under a deferred sentencing statute, but this decision did not specify that a court hearing was required. That issue was resolved in Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973), a landmark case in due process procedures in probation. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that probation cannot be withdrawn (revoked) unless certain basic elements of due process are observed. If a court is considering removing the offender from probation (through a “revoca- tion” hearing), the following rights and procedures must ensue: the probationer must (1) be informed in writing of the charge against him or her, (2) have the written notice in advance of the revocation hearing, and (3) attend the hearing and be able to present evidence on his or her own behalf. The probationer also has a right (4) to challenge those testifying against him or her, (5) to confront witnesses and cross-examine them, and (6) to have legal counsel present if the charges are complicated or the case is so complex that an ordinary person would not be able to comprehend the legal issues.12
The probation officer is responsible for seeing that conditions imposed by the court are met and, if not, calling violations to the attention of the court. As such, the probation officer functions both as a helper and as a supervisor of the probationer. Legal liability is greater for the probation officer than the court; although an agent of the court, the probation officer does not enjoy the absolute immunity from liability that the court enjoys.
Some areas of potential liability for the probation officer include acts taken or protective steps omitted. For example, a probation officer may be liable for failing to disclose a probationer’s background to a third party if this results in
12411 U.S. 778, 93 S. Ct. 1756 (1972).
Probation officers supervise clients assigned by sentencing courts and, during the period of community release, may find that certain probationers refuse to abide by the court-imposed rules or that their clients’ personal circumstances change so markedly that additional court direction may be needed. If the client has difficulty accepting the legitimacy of community control, probation officers may recommend additional surveillance or treatment options. These range from imposing house arrest to electronic monitoring or daily surveillance by the officer. Clients may also be required to reside in a residential setting, such as a halfway house, or appear daily at a day reporting program until their behavior or circumstances change. Increasing the requirements for conformity to court-ordered liberty is frequently referred to as “tourniquet sentencing.” Conditions may be relaxed as behavior improves.
box 4.5 modiFiCations oF Conditions oF sentenCe
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 4: probation110
subsequent serious injury or death. Case decisions have generally held that the probation officer should disclose the past behavior of the probationer if able to reasonably foresee a potential danger to a specific third party. This would include an employer hiring a probationer as an accountant in a bank when the instant crime was embezzlement or hiring a child molester to work in a grade school position. Insurance for certain liabilities can be obtained from the American Correctional Association.13
As a counselor to probationers, probation officers are often faced with the prob- lem of encouraging their clients to share their problems and needs. Frequently, during the monthly contact, a probationer will reveal involvement in crimi- nal activities. Under these noncustodial circumstances, probation offers are required to warn the probationer against self-incrimination through Miranda warnings14 or the evidence cannot be used in a court of law. Any discussion with a probationer under detention circumstances must be preceded by Miranda warnings. Litigation is so extensive within the probation area that the proba- tion officer must frequently take an active role as a law enforcement officer rather than a helper, a sad development from the original role John Augustus initiated and correctional personnel usually pursue.
summary This chapter began by tracing historical, philosophical, and legal devel- opments in the field of probation over the past two centuries. While John Augustus is given credit as the “father” of probation, we have seen that many others played an important part in developing and shaping probation. Probation continues to serve the bulk of adult offenders. This chapter also described court options and procedures for placing offenders on probation, as well as some issues in supervising offenders. It should be obvious that probation requires a judge to weigh the “individualization” of treatment as well as the “justice” or “just deserts” associated with the crime that was committed. In addition, this chapter examined the presentence investiga- tion report. Because the PSI is one of the primary responsibilities of proba- tion agencies, its importance is highlighted by the fact that the vast majority of defendants plead guilty and that their only contact with the judge is dur- ing sentencing.
13The current mailing address for the American Correctional Association is 4380 Forbes Boulevard, Lanham, MD 20706-4322 (www.corrections.com/aca). 14Miranda warnings: (1) that the suspect has the right to remain silent; (2) that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him; (3) that he has a right to the presence of an attorney; and (4) that if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Recommended Readings 111
Finally, the imposition of conditions, and the probation officer’s monitoring of offender’s behavior, is an important part of the probation process. Accordingly, revoking probation is not an action that is taken lightly, as it often results in the incarceration of the offender. Granting probation and supervising probation clients are complicated procedures requiring considerable skill and dedication, issues that are also raised in granting parole.
review Questions 1. How did philosophical precursors of probation contribute to its
development? 2. Why was probation established much earlier for juvenile offenders than
for adult offenders? 3. Define probation? 4. Should probation be the disposition of choice for most nonviolent
offenders? 5. What are the general objectives of probation? 6. Describe the advantages of probation? 7. How is justice individualized? 8. What functions does the presentence investigation serve? 9. What is the potential value of a victim impact statement? 10. Identify and define five supervision conditions that might be included in
the PSI recommendation? 11. List five conditions of probation generally required of all probationers? 12. What are three grounds for revoking probation and sentencing to
incarceration? 13. List five possible sentencing recommendations that can be made? 14. Explain why probation revocation rates might be higher in rural versus
urban areas?
reCommended readinGs del Carmen, R. (1985). Legal issues and liabilities in community corrections. In L. F. Travis (Ed.),
Probation, parole and community corrections (pp. 47–70). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. This chapter does an excellent job of summarizing the legal issues surrounding probation, includ- ing release, conditions, and supervision.
Dressler, D. (1962). Practice and theory of probation and parole. New York: Columbia University Press. A cogent and well-documented analysis of the historical development of probation.
Evjen, V. (1975). The Federal Probation System: The struggle to achieve it and its first 25 years. Federal Probation, 39(2), 3–15. A very thorough description of the rise of the federal probation system.
Gowdy, V. (1993). Intermediate sanctions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. An excellent overview of the range of and issues surrounding intermediate punishments.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
Chapter 4: probation112
Johnson, H., Wolfe, N., & Jones, M. (2008). History of criminal justice (4th ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis Matthew Bender. This book provides a history of criminal justice and probation and examines the philosophy of individualized justice.
Lindner, C., & Savarese, M. (1984). The Evolution of Probation: Early Salaries, Qualifications and Hiring Practices; The Evolution of Probation: The Historical Contributions of the Volunteer; The Evolution of Probation: University Settlement and the Beginning of Statutory Probation in New York City; and The Evolution of Probation: University Settlement and Its Pioneering Role in Probation Work. Federal Probation, 48(1–4). This four-part series examines the early rise of probation in the United States.
Rothman, D. (1980). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its alternatives in progressive America. Boston: Little, Brown. Chapter 3 provides a critical assessment of the early use of probation and development of the presentence investigation.
reFerenCes Allen, H., Friday, P., Roebuck, J., & Sagarin, E. (1981). Crime and punishment. New York: The Free
Press.
Allen, H., & Simonsen, C. (1989). Corrections in America. New York: Macmillan.
Allen, H., & Simonsen, C. (2001). Corrections in America. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
American Bar Association. (1970). Project standards for criminal justice: Standards relating to proba- tion. New York: Institute of Judicial Administration.
American Correctional Association. (2001). Probation and parole directory 2000-2003. Lanham, MD: ACA.
Baird, C., Holien, D., & Bakke, J. (1986). Fees for probation services. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
Barnes, H., & Teeters, N. (1959). New horizons in criminology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bearden v. Georgia. 461 U.S. 660 (1983).
Beccaria, C. (1764). Essay on crimes and punishments (H. Paulucci, Trans., 1963). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Black’s Law Dictionary (1994), 5th ed., St. Paul, MN: West.
Burdress, L. (Ed.). (1997). The Federal Probation and Pretrial Services System. Federal Probation, 61(1), 5–111.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1997). Correctional populations in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001). National Correction Population Reaches New High, Grows by 126,400 during 2000 to Total 6.5 Million Adults. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pdy.ppus00.pdf.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006). Probation and Parole in the United States, 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Bush, E. L. (1990). Not ordinarily relevant? Considering the Defendant’s Children at Sentencing. Federal Probation, 5(1), 15–22.
Camp, C., & Camp, G. (1997). The corrections yearbook. South Salem, NY: The Criminal Justice Institute.
Camp, C., & Camp, G. (2003). The corrections yearbook adult corrections 2002. Middletown, CT: The Criminal Justice Institute.
Canales-Portalatin, D. (2000). Intimate partner assailants. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(8), 843–854.
R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U
- cover
- CommunityCorrections_Unit1Read