| Chapter 15
Covering Community Corrections: Probation, Parole and Beyond
By Jenifer Warren
Caseloads
Not all parolees and probationers are alike, and their level of supervision depends on the risk they pose to the community, their need for treatment and other factors. The average probation officer has about 100 offenders per caseload, while parole agents average about 60 parolees under their watch, the American Probation and Parole Association reports.
Higher-risk offenders, such as those convicted of driving under the influence, sex crimes, domestic violence or those who need extensive treatment for mental illness, are often placed on “specialized caseloads” that increase the supervision level. Probationers on a regular caseload might be required to undergo a face-to-face meeting as rarely as once a year, while offenders on specialized lists may receive two to four visits per month, sometimes more.
Probationers and parolees formerly reported in to a central location, but officers are more likely these days to visit their charges in the community, whether at their residences, work places, or other agreed-on locations.
In Washington, D.C., for example, officers are instructed to make half of their contacts in the community. Often, these are spot checks, in which a probation/parole officer will visit a convict unannounced, sometimes in the company of a police officer in case of trouble. Even if the offender is not home, the officer takes the opportunity to inspect his living arrangements and interview anyone else present.
The American Probation and Parole Association suggests a caseload of 50 probationers per probation officer for general supervision of moderate- and high- risk offenders, and caseloads of 20 to 1 for intensive supervision. But fiscal woes have starved probation departments, preventing most jurisdictions from realizing that goal. Thus, the quality of supervision invariably suffers.
Take San Francisco, where the caseload ratio for “general” probationers has periodically climbed as high as 400 to 1, says Jeanne Woodford, the county’s former chief probation officer. Aside from an annual address and background check, often done by telephone, she said, officers have virtually no contact with the offenders they are supposed to oversee, some of whom have been convicted of violent crimes. “When probation functions correctly, with small, intensive caseloads, it can do a tremendous job,” Woodford said. “But that’s the exception today. Probation is very, very broken.”
After several high-profile crimes by probationers and parolees in South Carolina, the Charleston Post and Courier published a series of articles in 2008 detailing how an average caseload of 109 was leaving officers very little time to check on the convicts assigned to them.
It was a similar story in North Carolina, where the Raleigh News & Observer found that 580 probationers had committed murders between 2000 and 2008. After the University of North Carolina’s student body president was killed in 2008 by a probationer, the Justice Department’s National Institute of Corrections was called in to audit the system. The agency found that local probation officers, with caseloads ranging from 90 to 140, were not keeping close track of the convicts who had been assigned to them.
Probation and parole officials are stretched further by various expansions of their duties. Sex offender laws, in particular, have added a host of new responsibilities, including DNA testing, mental health screening, GPS monitoring, risk assessment, and registration checks.
Big Brother Helps Out
Technology has delivered innovations designed to make the job of supervising offenders in the community easier. Drug testing, for instance, has become quicker and cheaper. And with the vast majority of offenders struggling with substance abuse, it is a staple of most offenders’ probation or parole programs.
In some states, offenders must submit to random breath tests for alcohol through detectors installed in their homes. Also popular are “ignition interlocks” that prevent a person from starting the engine if alcohol is detected in their system. Another device checks an offender’s eye to detect signs indicating use of a controlled substance. And some offenders are equipped with bracelets that detect movement during sleep. This technology was spawned by studies showing that normal sleep patterns are disrupted by drug and alcohol abuse in predictable ways. If the bracelet senses an inconsistency, the offender is ordered to produce a urine sample for testing.
Many parole and probation agencies still use old-style electronic monitoring bracelets to conduct “passive” as well as “active” tracking that sends a continuous signal to a computer at a monitoring center. Meanwhile, the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites is exploding within the field, especially for use in tracking sex offenders and gang members. First developed by the Department of Defense in the 1970s, GPS gives agents increasingly detailed information about an offender’s whereabouts, such as whether he wanders into territory that is off limits. While such an alert may not allow police the time to catch a criminal red-handed, GPS tracking can be a deterrent, and can supply information for possible use in later prosecutions.
This new wave of “techno-corrections” is changing the way offenders are monitored on the streets, and represents a big target for enterprising journalists.
Among the possible stories meriting a look:
- How does GPS monitoring work, and what does the evidence say about its effectiveness in safeguarding society from paroled sex offenders, gang members and other notorious criminals?
- What are the costs of such tracking?
- Are manufacturers of the monitoring devices funneling campaign contributions to lawmakers in states considering expansion of the technology?
- Does such “big brother” tracking give the public a false sense of security?
- Where has it been successfully used, and what defines success?
- What is life like for those under surveillance? How does it affect an offender’s habits?
Continue to the next page in "Chapter 15: Covering Community Corrections: Probation, Parole and Beyond" >>>
<<< Return to the previous
page in "Chapter 15: Covering Community Corrections: Probation, Parole and Beyond"
|
