| Chapter 15
Covering Community Corrections: Probation, Parole and Beyond
By Jenifer Warren
Violations
Probationers and parolees frequently violate one or more conditions of their supervision in the community. Many infractions lead to increased supervision or some loss of privileges. In some cases, they start a process that can lead to a revocation and, in some cases, an arrest and subsequent term in prison.The first step is a hearing, either in court (probationers) or before a parole board or other administrative body (parolees). The accused have the right to testify on their own behalf, and usually may present witnesses and have an attorney present.
In recent decades, violators have been a key driver of prison populations in many states. More than 230,000 parole violators nationwide were admitted to prison in 2005, accounting for more than one-third of all admissions. Half the inmates in U.S. jails are there because they failed while on community supervision.
Readmissions to custody are administrative decisions that do not require the higher standard of legal proof of a new crime.
Statistics show probationers most often face revocation for absconding, or failing to stay in contact with their probation officer, and for committing a new offense. Other reasons include failure to pay fines or restitution, failure to attend or complete a drug or alcohol treatment program, failure to complete community service, or association with people involved in crime.
As for parolees, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, estimates that as many as 80 percent are, at one time or another, in violation of some condition of their supervision. Those violations run the gamut from “technical” to serious, and whether they warrant a violation is often in the eye of the beholder.
As a result, patterns of violations and revocation decisions vary widely from state to state, and even from county to county. In many states, agents and officers operate with few firm criteria and little policy to guide them, creating widespread interpretation and discretion on the job. One agent’s standards may differ from another’s, leading to wildly varying rates within a single state. Obviously, this opens the door to questions of fairness—and a potentially rich vein of stories for journalists.
In the past, some probationers and parolees were sent back to custody for any violation, including flunking a drug test. A Bureau of Justice Statistics survey said that up to 16 percent of “at-risk” parolees in some agencies were reincarcerated for a single failure. Because a majority of criminals have some kind of drug problem, incarceration for violations like this has created a revolving door within some correctional systems, with offenders shuttling in and out of custody and making little or no progress toward rehabilitation.
Progressive probation and parole programs have adopted “graduated sanctions” models in which convicts are imprisoned only after committing an escalating series of violations. The idea is to use a version of the “carrot and stick” approach, giving offenders the opportunity to enjoy a gradual relaxation of restrictions if they can avoid new violations. Some reformers advocate giving probation/parole officers the power to impose swift, certain sanctions for violations as they occur instead of allowing an infraction record to accumulate until it virtually requires an offender’s return to prison.
One program that employs this strategy effectively in Hawaii is called HOPE – Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement. Created in 2004 by Circuit Court Judge Steven Alm, HOPE has essentially put some teeth into the rules of probation. Those who fail to comply with frequent but random drug tests, office visits and treatment requirements receive an immediate sanction, typically a few days in jail. Those with legitimate jobs can serve the time over the weekend to avoid work disruption. Those who cannot abstain from drugs are placed in residential treatment.
Early results of a controlled trial were encouraging, showing that HOPE probationers were less than half as likely to test positive for drugs or miss appointments. Says Judge Alm: “Our approach has brought integrity back to the probation system. Offenders know from the outset what the expectations are, and they know there will be consequences if they don’t meet those expectations.”
Community Corrections Programs
Housing and work arrangements for probationers and parolees can follow a wide range of models. Many are allowed to live at home if they have stable family arrangements. Depending on their conditions of release, they may be under house arrest (not allowed to leave except by permission) or are able to come and go freely. Some must appear at daily reporting centers.
Others live in community group homes often known as “halfway houses,” connoting halfway status between prison and freedom. They typically report to jobs, classes or drug treatment during the day and return to the halfway house for their overnight stay. (In the other direction, those who commit several violations may be sent to “halfway back” facilities as a threat to returning to custody.)
Advocates claim wide public support for these kinds of sanctions because they are less expensive than a prison cell and more likely to get a former inmate back on the right course. At the same time, corrections agencies have difficulty finding locations for such programs because of local “not in my backyard” opposition.
The Prisoner Re-entry Movement
As recently as a decade ago, the word re-entry was unheard of in the correctional world. Now, it is a staple in the industry’s lexicon, defining an entire movement that reflects the fact that that the vast majority of prisoners will eventually leave prison and return home.
Even former President George W. Bush, whom no one could describe as soft on street crime, acknowledged this reality—and the responsibility of society to accept those who have served their time. In his 2004 State of the Union address, Bush surprised more than a few onlookers by including some sympathetic words for ex-convicts.
“America is the land of second chances,” Bush said, “and when the gates of prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.”
He proposed to spend federal funds to help state and local programs that facilitate successful prisoner re-entry into society. Despite wide bipartisan support, it took more than three years for Congress to approve the idea. The pioneering Second Chance Act, signed by Bush in 2007, authorized more than $330 million over two years to help government agencies and nonprofit groups work with inmates returning home. For the first time in memory, Washington was moving to help ex-convicts transition to life on the outside, not erect barriers in their path. Even with the bill’s passage, it took at least a year more to appropriate money, and even then it was likely to be a modest amount by Washington standards when divided among the 50 states.
The federal legislation came as some state prison administrators were embracing an expanded mission, one that includes prisoner reintegration. In 2005, the California Legislature even changed the name of its prison agency to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (italics added) and defined an additional goal for managers – to achieve prisoners’ “successful reintegration back into society.”
A few states, notably Arizona, said they would start to prepare inmates for re-entering society as soon as they arrived in prison. Among other states paying more attention to inmate re-entry with special programs have been Kansas, Massachusetts and Michigan.
The shift was more than a little noteworthy. In earlier years, prison officials and policymakers spent little energy on what became of prisoners once they were released. As criminologist Petersilia put it, “We spent the last decade debating who should go to prison, for how long, and how we might pay for it, and we paid virtually no attention to how we would cope with prisoners after they left prison.”
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"
|
