WK5READINGONLY1.pdf

p.104

55 PROBATION

©Rich Pedroncelli/AP/Corbis

Media Library

CHAPTER 5 Media Library

AU D I OAU D I O

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

W E BW E B

History of Probation

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

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

2 .2 . Describe briefly the history of
probation.

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

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

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

V I D E OV I D E O

Presentence Investigation

A New Probation Program in
Hawaii Beats the Statistics

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

Racial Disparity in Probationers’
Views About Probation

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

p.105

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

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

• Review key terms with eFlashcards.

• Watch videos that enhance chapter
content.

PROBATION OFFICERPROBATION OFFICER
STRESSSTRESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p.106

INTRODUCTION

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

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

and jail population flow should be clear.

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

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

A BRIEF HISTORY OF PROBATION

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

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

PHOTO 5.1 John Augustus was a

volunteer of the court in the Boston area

during the mid-1800s. He is regarded as

the Father of Modern Probation.

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

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

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

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

p.107

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

1841: John Augustus becomes the
Father of Probation.

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

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

1925: Federal probation is
authorized by Congress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1983: Intensive supervised
probation is born in Georgia.

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

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

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

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

CONTEMPORARY PROBATION: WHEN THE
JAIL IS FULL

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

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

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

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

p.108

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHARACTERISTICS OF PROBATIONERS

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

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

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

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

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

2014. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Table 5.2: Top Five State Probation
Populations in 2014

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

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

2014. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

p.109

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

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

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

2014. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

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

Counts based on most recent data and may differ

from previously published statistics. See Methodolo-

gy. Characteristics based on probationers with known

type of status.

… Not available.

aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, unless

specified.

bIncludes violent and property offenses in 2000 be-

cause those data were not collected separately.

p.110

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

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

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

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

THE ADMINISTRATION OF PROBATION

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

The Probation Agency

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

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

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

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

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

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

probation agency.

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

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

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

p.111

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE: Adapted from Probation

Board Association of England and Wales.

(2007). Probation centenary, 1907–

2007. Retrieved February 2, 2011, from

http://www.probationcente-

nary.org/contactus.htm

For more information about probation in

the United Kingdom, visit

http://www.probationcente-

nary.org/contactus.htm.

©iStockphoto.com/Signature Collection

PHOTO 5.2 During the completion of

the PSI report, the probation officer will

often make several inquiries of the

offender during a face-to-face interview.

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

p.112

Juvenile probation adds a whole new
dimension of organizational
considerations. Over half of all juvenile
probation agencies are administered at the
local level. Juvenile probation may be
provided …