Programs for Probationers Chapter 6 Programs for Probationers

Introduction After a determination of guilt in a criminal court, some offenders are sentenced to probation for a period of years There are several different types of probation programs There is standard probation and intensive supervised probation There are also options for shock probation, split sentencing and boot camps

Standard Probation Standard probation in many jurisdictions is no supervision at all When a judge sentences an offender to probation, there may or may not be any conditions attached Probationers are required to sign a form outlining the conditions of their probation Compliance with conditions is monitored by Probation Officers These officers are often so overworked, however, that they cannot possibly oversee all activities of their clients

Standard Probation Seamless Probation One problem with probation is fragmentation of services There are often no clear cut probation office objectives telling POs how to perform their jobs Caseloads are so high that many offenders slip through the cracks and do not have their probation revoked for infractions Problems are that monitoring all offenders equally and consistently is quite difficult and POs seldom have time to follow up with each offender to determine attendance at treatment

Standard Probation Federal and state probation orders Standard probation among the states is quite diverse, although the conditions are probably similar Federally, as a result of the United States sentencing guidelines, the use of probation has been drastically reduced Generally the conditions include paying fines and restitution, reporting periodically to the probation office, no possession of firearms, no leaving the jurisdiction without permission, refrain from use of alcohol and drugs and work at jobs or be enrolled in educational training

Intensive Supervised Probation ISP is an increasingly common method of supervising offenders who require closer monitoring Offenders are assigned to POs who arrange frequent contacts with their clients on a face-to- face basis These contacts may be weekly, a few times a week, or daily The logic is that the greater amount of contact will be an incentive for offender compliance

Intensive Supervised Probation Three conceptual models of ISP The Justice Model Punishment centered but not unfair, the penalty should fit the crime committed The limited risk control model Uses risk assessment devices to place the offender within an effective control range Is more flexible and provides for periodic reassessment or predicted offender behavior The traditional, treatment-oriented model Stresses rehabilitative measures seeking to reintegrate offender back into community

Intensive Supervised Probation The Georgia ISP program Five face-to-face contacts per week 132 hours of mandatory community service Mandatory curfew Mandatory employment Weekly check of local arrest records Routine alcohol and drug screens One probation officer and one surveillance officer to 25 probationers Probation officer determines individualized treatment

Intensive Supervised Probation The Idaho ISP program Two POs and a section supervisor responsible for supervising 25 high risk clients Phase I—seven face-to-face visits per week Phase II—four face-to-face visits per week Random day and night checks for curfew violations, and drug or alcohol abuse Between 1984 and 1992 the program processed 2, 487 clients About 63 percent of those had completed the program successfully

Intensive Supervised Probation The South Carolina ISP program Established in 1984 to alleviate prison overcrowding, goal for first year was 336 probationers As of 2005, 33,356 offenders processed Probationers pay $10 per week supervision fee POs with caseloads of no more than 35 Weekly face-to-face contacts as well as visits with neighbors, friends, employers

Shock Probation and Split Sentencing A brief application of the rigors of imprisonment that will deter criminal behavior Some question the term shock probation since offenders are actually incarcerated in jail or prison for a short period for shock value Judge initially sentences offender to jail for a period (30, 60, 90, or 120 days) Then the offender goes back before the judge where the judge imposes probation The shock of incarceration is supposed to be a deterrent against further offending

Shock Probation and Split Sentencing Split sentencing is where the judge imposes a combination sentence, a portion of which is incarceration and a portion of which is probation The judge may sentence the offender to one year of which 6 months is incarceration Other terms to describe these types of sentences are mixed sentence, intermittent confinement, and jail as a condition of probation

The Philosophy and Objectives of Shock Probation Deterrence Rehabilitation Creative Sentencing Punishment Offender Needs Offender Accountability Community Safety

The Effectiveness of Shock Probation If shock probation is supposed to deter offenders from future offending then it is modestly successful Recidivism rates tend to be under 30 percent This may be due to the fact that low-risk and non-violent offenders are often chosen for these sentences If shock probation is expected to alleviate jail and prison overcrowding then the results are mixed Offenders serve brief terms of confinement and are not occupying valuable long term prison space But they do occupy jail space

Boot Camps Boot Camps Defined Highly regimented, military-like, short term correctional programs where offenders are provided with strict discipline, physical training, and hard labor Length varies from 3 to 6 months During this time, participants engage in marching, work, and classes that are believed useful in rehabilitation

Boot Camps Rationale for Boot Camps Youthful and first time offenders will respond to short but intensive periods of confinement These youth will benefit from the military-like atmosphere These youth need relevant exposure to educational, vocational, drug treatment, and general counseling services The costs involved are less than traditional criminal justice sanctions

Boot Camps Goals of Boot Camps Rehabilitation/Reintegration Discipline Deterrence Ease of jail/prison overcrowding Vocational, educational, and rehabilitative services

Boot Camps The effectiveness of boot camps There seems to be considerable support in the literature if we use the 30 percent recidivism benchmark In 2002 there were between 50 and 100 different boot camps operating in the United States Little evaluation research has been made available however

Female Probationers and Parolees: A Profile In 2004 females accounted for 23 percent of all probationers On average, women are more likely to be sentenced to probation than men May be attributable to differential offending patterns Males are more likely to engage in violent offending, while females are more involved in passive offending Women on parole are distributed similar to their conviction patterns Female failure rate on parole and probation is similar to that for males, around 65 percent

Female Probationers and Parolees: A Profile Special programs and services for female offenders In 1992 the American Correctional Association formulated a national policy for female offenders These services should: Access to a range of alternatives to incarceration Acceptable conditions of confinement Access to work and programs designed to expand economic and social roles of women Facilitate maintenance of family ties Deliver appropriate programs and service Provide access to release programs

Female Probationers and Parolees: A Profile Criticisms of women’s prison and community programming Women’s prisons and programming do not compare favorably with men’s Some criticisms include: No adequate classification system Most women’s prisons are remotely located Women have less access to legal services The prisons do not adequately meet female medical needs Mental health treatment services and programs are inferior

Continuums of Sanctions Iowa’s five level continuum of sanctions Level I: Noncommunity-based corrections sanctions (Self Monitoring) Level II: Probation and parole options Level III: Quasi-incarceration sanction Level IV: Short-term incarceration Level V: Incarceration

Continuums of Sanctions Wichita County, Texas continuum of sanctions for those under supervision Verbal counseling Written reprimand Agreed modification of probation Adminsitrative hearing Violation report

The Probation Revocation Process What if prisoners violate one or more conditions of their probation First, the program violation must be detected Second, if detected, the PO must decide whether to report it Third, if reported it may or may not be serious enough to warrant a hearing by a judge Fourth, if serious enough to warrant a hearing, may not mean probation will be terminated Fifth, if probation is terminated it may or may not result in prison or jail confinement

Landmark Cases and Special Issues U.S. Supreme Court Cases Mempa v. Rhay (1967) Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) Bearden v. Georgia (1983) Black v. Romano (1985)