1. Programs for Probationers
Chapter 6
Programs for Probationers

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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)