Community corrections have changed dramatically over the last half-century. Due to a rapid and overwhelming increase in the incarcerated population, largely based on policy changes, we have witnessed an immense increase in the use of sanctions at the community level; this includes probation. Probation is a form of a suspended sentence in that the jail or prison sentence of the convicted individual is suspended for the privilege of serving conditions of supervision in the community. We will discuss probation in further detail in the coming sections. One thing to note is it has only been within the most recent 15 years that we have seen a decrease in community corrections (figure 9.2).

As noted in the Bureau of Justice’s article, the number of individuals on probation hovers around 3 million, with another million in some form of community-level control, for a total of about 4 million under community supervision, probation, or parole (Kaeble, 2021). Because of the sheer volume of these intermediate sanctions, it is important to put this in perspective of jails and prisons. In figure 9.3, you can see this breakdown more clearly.

The figure 9.3 graphic does not include the volume of people in the community corrections outside of regular probation or parole (which is about another million) (Kaeble, 2021). Still, it sheds light on just how much probation is used. It is important to understand that most individuals under correctional control are not in prisons and jails in the United States. The majority of people within correctional control fall under sanctions like probation, intensive supervision probation, post-prison supervision, parole, boot camps, drug courts, and transitional housing, among others. This section will discuss the history and effectiveness of some forms of intermediate sanctions used in the United States, as well as the inequities that affect some populations as a result.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, there was a fundamental shift in corrections. This is largely due to the “Nothing Works” dogma in rehabilitation. Many reforms were made toward the housing of individuals. Some liked this idea because they did not trust the government’s attempts at rehabilitation. Others were pleased as there was more of an emphasis placed on control. Rooted in deterrence theory and, to a lesser extent, incapacitation, intermediate sanctions promised greater control over the growing incarcerated population at a reduced cost. Because of these promises, such programs were quickly welcomed across the nation. However, upon review, we can see that these approaches failed to fulfill these promises to their full extent.

Probation

Probation is arguably the oldest, and certainly the largest, of the intermediate sanctions. Its roots stem from concepts of common law from England, like many of our other legal/correctional practices. In early American courts, a person could be released on their own recognizance if they promised to be responsible and pay back what they owed. In the early 1840s, John Augustus, a Boston bootmaker, regularly attended court and began to supervise these individuals as a Surety. A Surety was a person who would help these individuals in court, making sure they repaid these costs to the courts. We would consider John Augustus as the Father of Probation for his work in the courts in Boston in the 1840s and 1850s. Augustus, pictured in Figure 9.4, would take in many of these individuals, providing options like work and housing to help ensure these individuals would remain crime-free and pay back society. He continued this practice for nearly two decades, effectively becoming the first probation officer. For a more lengthy historical discussion of probation, see The History of Probation [Website].

Probation is a form of a suspended sentence in that the jail or prison sentence of the convicted individual is suspended for the privilege of serving conditions of supervision in the community. Conditions of probation often include reporting to a probation officer, submitting to random drug screenings, not associating with known felons, paying court costs, restitution, and damages, attending treatment/programming, and other conditions. Probation lengths vary greatly, as do the conditions of probation placed on an individual. Almost all individuals on probation will have at least one condition of their probation. Some have many conditions, depending on the seriousness of the conviction. In contrast, others have just a blanket condition that is imposed on all in that jurisdiction or for that conviction type. To review a list of state-mandated conditions of probation for Oregon, see ORS 137.540—Conditions of probation [Website].

Juvenile probation departments were established within all states by the 1920s, and by the middle of the 1950s, all states had adult probation.

Probation officers usually work directly for the state or federal government but can be assigned to local or municipal agencies. Many counties have a community justice level structure where probation offices operate. Within these offices, probation officers are assigned cases (caseload) to manage. The volume of cases in a probation officer’s caseload can vary from just a few clients, if they are high-need or high-risk clients, to several hundred individuals. It depends on the jurisdiction, the local office’s structure, and the probation officers’ abilities.

The role of the probation officer (PO) is complex and sometimes diametrically opposing. A PO’s primary function is to enforce compliance of individuals on probation. This is done through check-ins, random drug screenings, and enforcement of other conditions that are placed on the individuals. Additionally, the PO may go out into the field to serve warrants, do home checks for compliance, and even make arrests if need be.

However, at the same time, a probation officer is trying to help individuals on probation succeed. This is done by trying to help individuals get jobs or schooling, enter into substance or alcohol programs, and offer general support. This is why the job of the PO is complex, as they are trying to be supportive but also have to enforce compliance. Many equate this to being a parent. Recently, there has been a movement within probation to have probation officers act more like coaches and mentors rather than just disciplinarians.

Another primary function of a probation officer is to complete pre-sentence investigation reports on individuals going through the court process. A pre-sentence investigation report or PSI is a psycho-social workup on a person headed to trial. It includes basic background information on an individual, such as age, education, relationships, physical and mental health, employment, military service, social history, and substance abuse history. It also has a detailed account of the current offense, witness or victim impact statements of the event, and prior offenses (criminal records), which are tracked across numerous agencies. The PSI also has a section that is devoted to a plan of supervision or recommendations, which are created by the PO. These usually list the conditions of probation recommendations if probation is to be granted.

An article published by the Office of Justice Programs noted that judges use this information during sentencing discussions and hearings and will usually follow these recommendations (Norman Ed.D. & Wadman, 2000). Thus, many of the conditions of probation conditions are prescribed by the PO. There has been criticism of allowing POs to complete the PSIs as the defense counsel has little to no input in the content of the report or the recommendations. Due to this, some entities hire professionals outside of the criminal justice system (social workers, psychiatrists, etc.) to compile the investigative reports.

Individuals on Probation

As stated, several million people are on probation, serving various lengths of probation and under numerous types of conditions. Additionally, the convictions which place individuals on probation vary, to include misdemeanors and felonies. Individuals serve their probation at the state level or federal level.

Probation is a privilege, but it most certainly comes with conditions. Due to how cheap probation is, relative to jail or prison, and the ability for lower-risk individuals to maintain connections within their community, millions of people will be on probation in the United States at any given time.

Other important factors that help to decide if a person warrants probation are found within the PSI and other risk and need assessments (RNA). RNAs are instruments used to determine the level of risk and need a person has to recidivate or commit new crimes. If the person is prosocial, has an education, a job, and a family, these are all considered as ties to the community, making them lower risk than those who don’t have these ties. These ties to the community could weaken or break if a person were incarcerated. Providing an alternative to incarceration and instead imposing a sanction while allowing the person to stay in the community is often the approach utilized within probation and other intermediate sanctions. To learn more about RNAs, check out the National Institute of Justice’s article on Redesigning Risk and Needs Assessment in Corrections [Website].

Probation Effectiveness

There are mixed reviews about probation. Recently, the Bureau of Justice Statistics listed the successful completion rate at about 43 percent in 2020 (Kaeble, 2021). In 2008–2013, this number was reported to be higher, upwards of 65 percent (Huberman & Bonczar, 2014). There are a host of reasons listed for unsuccessful completion, which include incarcerated on a new sentence or charge, placement for the current sentence or charge, absconding (fleeing jurisdiction), discharged to warrant or detainer, other unsatisfactory reason, death, or some other unknown or not reported reason.

Unsuccessful completion can often include a concept called tourniquet sentencing. Tourniquet sentencing occurs when the restriction levels of a sanction are increased, due to non-compliance, in order to force compliance. There have been disparities in how the revocations and sanctions are imposed, as outlined in this study titled, Examining Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Probation Revocation [Website]. You can choose to take a more in-depth look by visiting the link.

Intensive Supervised Probation

Intensive Supervision Probation (ISP) began in the late 1950s and early 1960s in California. The basic premise was to allow caseworkers (POs) to have smaller caseloads and increase the level of treatment across individuals. Many promised multiple success measures. If an individual was revoked because of a technical violation due to an increase in control, they were not seen as a failure. They were seen as a success because of the way the public was served by the recidivism. However, this went directly against the notion that ISPs could save money. Over time, the earlier forms of ISPs become less popular.

In the 1980s, a newer model of the ISP was created in Georgia. More emphasis was placed on the control aspect rather than on treatment. Further, less emphasis was placed on the reduction of money saved.

ISP and regular probation are similar, except for the frequency of contacts with POs, the increases in surveillance and monitoring, and usually the volume of conditions. Rather than meeting a PO once a month in regular probation, a person on ISP would likely be meeting with their PO weekly or even more frequently. Additionally, individuals on ISP normally submit drug screens weekly. The increased conditions of supervision more frequently include more substance abuse treatment, either in the form of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), Narcotics Anonymous (NA), or some other residential or outpatient substance abuse treatment programs. Thus, the core difference concerns increased surveillance and control over the individual on ISP.

IPS Effectiveness

While initial praise of the newer model for its increased control was evidenced by its rapid spread through the States, some researchers questioned its effectiveness. One of the largest studies of ISPs was conducted in conjunction with the RAND Corporation. They examined the effectiveness of ISPs in reducing recidivism and saving costs. In a random sample of 14 cities across nine states, they evaluated the reductions of recidivism against a sample of individuals on regular probation. Their findings suggested that there were higher amounts of technical violations, which were probably substance violations, but there were no significant differences between control-centered ISPs and regular probation as far as new arrests. Moreover, when looking at outcomes over three years, they found that recidivism rates were slightly higher for these ISPs (39 percent) vs. regular probation (33 percent) (Petersilia & Deschenes, 2004). Also, there were no substantive cost savings.

Other studies have produced similar findings regarding the effects of non-treatment oriented ISPs. While these findings might be better than prison recidivism rates, there were no reductions in prison overcrowding, defined as the number of individuals incarcerated exceeding the available prison bed space, meaning there was no impact on the number of individuals incarcerated and thus still insufficient resources, which was one of the goals of implementing ISP.

Boot Camps or Shock Incarceration

Another form of intermediate sanction may be seen in the creation of boot camps, also known as shock incarceration facilities. Developed in the 1980s in Georgia, boot camps were targeted to youths and adults and seen as a way to alter individuals through a “shock” effect. Essentially, boot camps are programs designed to change the recidivism rate through a physical change. Designed around a militaristic ideal, boot camps operated on the assumption that a regimen of strict physical exercise would teach structure and discipline to youths. Once again, because of a high level of face validity (this looks like it will work, so it must work), boot camps flourished in the 1980s and 1990s. To learn more about Boot Camps, watch this YouTube video (figure 9.5).

https://youtu.be/y60l2MVAd04

Boot Camps/Shock Incarceration Effectiveness

While there are some positive results, generally, boot camps fail to produce the desired reductions in recidivism, as noted in a research study published by the National Institute of Justice (Parent, 2018). For prosocial individuals, structure and discipline can be advantageous. However, when individuals of differing levels of antisocial attitudes, antisocial associates, antisocial temperament (personality), and antisocial (criminal history) are all mixed together, reductions in recidivism generally do not appear.

As discussed in the rehabilitation section, criminogenic needs are often not addressed within boot camps. They fail to reduce recidivism for several reasons. First, since boot camps fail to address criminogenic needs, they tend not to be effective. Second, because of the lower admission requirements of boot camps, individuals are generally “lumped” together into a start date within a boot camp. Therefore, high-risk individuals and low-risk individuals are placed together, building a cohesive group. Thus, lower-risk individuals gain antisocial associates that are high-risk. Finally, when boot camps emphasize the increase of physicality rather than behavioral change, it generally does not reduce aggressive behavior (antisocial personality & recidivism). A recent meta-analysis (a study of studies of a topic) published by the Campbell Systematic Reviews found this to be the case (Wilson et al., 2003). For more information on the status of boot camps, please see Practice Profile: Adult Boot Camps [Website].

Licenses and Attributions for Intermediate Sanctions

Open Content, Shared Previously

“The Role of Community Corrections” is adapted from “9.1 Diversion”, “9.2 Intermediate Sanctions”, “9.3 Probation”, “9.4 Boot Campus/Shock Incarceration”, “9.5 Drug Courts”, “9.6 Halfway Houses”, “9.8 House Arrest”, “9.9 Community Residential Facilities”, “9.10 Restorative Justice”, and “9.11 Parole” by David Carter in SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System by Alison S. Burke, David Carter, Brian Fedorek, Tiffany Morey, Lore Rutz-Burri, and Shanell Sanchez, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Modifications by Megan Gonzalez, revisions by Roxie Supplee, licensed CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 include minor updates for clarity.

Figure 9.2. Adults on Probation or Parole, 2005–2020 by Bureau of Justice Statistics/U.S. Department of Justice/Danielle Kaeble is in the Public Domain.

All Rights Reserved Content

Figure 9.3. Incarceration is just one piece of the much larger system of correctional control © Prison Policy Initiative. All Rights Reserved, Used with permission materials.

Figure 9.5. “Jail without Walls-How does that work?!” by Free Documentary is licensed under the Standard YouTube License.