Adult probation

SIGNIFICANCE: By the end of the twentieth century, probation was the most commonly used punishment in the U.S. criminal justice system.

In 2021, according to Bureau of Justice Statstics, nearly 3 million people were on probation in the United States, compared with approximately 1.8 million persons in local, state and federal correctional facilities. The number of Americans on parole was the lowest it had been in thirty-six years.

Most people on probation have committed relatively minor crimes, such as driving with a suspended license, committing petty theft or larceny, or possessing small amounts of drugs or other controlled substances. The offenders have typically been released to the community under the supervision of a probation officer and are usually required to meet briefly with the officer once a week or perhaps only once a month for counseling.

Probationers must usually meet a series of requirements. Sometimes probationers must stay away from certain persons, such as wives or children they may have harassed or threatened, or from particular places, such as street corners at which drugs are sold. Judges may also order that probationers stay free of drugs or alcohol or that they find and hold a job. Employers generally do not need to be told that a job applicant is on probation. Breaking any of these conditions can lead to imprisonment for violating probation procedures.

According to the Federal Register in 2021, the average cost of probation nationwide each year per offender compares favorably with the average $43,836 a year it costs to keep someone in prison. According to the National Institute for Corrections, prisons and jails in the United States cost about $80 billion per year. In many states, some of the costs of probation are recovered by requiring probationers to pay part of the cost of their supervision. This cost-effectiveness is one reason that the number of persons on probation has increased dramatically in recent years.

History and Goals of Probation

Probation comes from the Latin probatus, which means “tested” or “proved.” In the early United States, persons convicted of crimes were eligible for a suspended sentence if they promised to behave well and offered proof that they could observe the laws. The modern system began in Boston in 1841, when John Augustus, a businessman and advocate of rehabilitation, began bailing out convicted offenders, found them jobs, and gave the court monthly reports on their progress toward a better life. Augustus gained the release of more than two thousand prisoners using this method, most of whom were effectively rehabilitated. In 1878 Massachusetts became the first state to allow judges to choose probation as an alternative to a prison sentence.

By 1940 all American states allowed probation for juvenile offenders and all but six permitted adult probation. Not until the 1980s, however, did all states and the federal government provide for adult probation. The first statistics on probation were collected in 1976, when it was reported that nearly 1,000,000 adults were found to be on probation and 457,528 persons were in prison in the United States.

Probation began as an alternative to imprisonment and was justified as a method of rehabilitation that would save many people, especially nonviolent criminals, from the horrors and potential violence of prison life. Because prisons did not seem to do a very good job of reforming convicts and always seemed to be terribly overcrowded, judges would have an alternative to sending people to the penitentiary. The goal was to reduce crime by allowing offenders an opportunity to prove their goodness in society. The principal goal was rehabilitation, reforming the guilty party, rather than simply punishment, retribution, or revenge.

Central to probation is the notion that persons found to be “good risks” can be placed on probation and that they will not commit more crimes if they are given supervision and counseling. The philosophy of probation is that convicted persons can become law-abiding again. All they need is to be provided with treatment programs, employment, and other services. The focus is not on the harm done by the criminal but on the future reduction of criminal behavior, which can be achieved through proper treatment and supervision.

Violations of probation can be controlled by the ever-present threat that violators will be sent to prison if they break the rules. The idea of probation challenges the “just deserts” school of criminal justice, which proclaims that the purpose of the system is to make those convicted of crimes pay for the damage they have done by undergoing imprisonment. The goal of this method of the criminal justice system is to punish offenders, not to rehabilitate them.

Probation Decisions

The decision to place a convicted person on probation is one alternative available at a sentencing hearing. The judge is usually informed of the details of the offense in each case and makes the decision to place a person on probation after considering a variety of factors. These include the defendant’s prior criminal record, social history, and family and employment record. This information is usually provided by a probation officer assigned to investigate the case. Normally, probation is given only in felony cases, not in cases involving misdemeanors.

Probation is granted by the judge in most cases if the probation officer recommends it. Two key factors are involved in this decision: the seriousness of the crime and the report on the person’s prior criminal record. In most cases the seriousness of the crime is the single most important factor. Generally, persons convicted of having committed nonviolent crimes are much more likely to receive probation than those who have committed violent or drug-related criminal acts. The judge’s decision is also influenced by the likelihood of rehabilitation. Persons considered “good risks” are very likely to receive probation, especially if their crimes did not involve violence.

Only a few studies have been done on the revocation of parole. Decisions to end probation and send people to prison follow no particular pattern or set of rules. There seems to be no consistent standard in revocation hearings. Judges are often inconsistent in arriving at these decisions. Generally, however, revocation depends on the nature of the probation violation. Failure to appear at meetings with parole officers is considered particularly grave. Revocation also depends on the probationer’s age, prior record, and employment history. For example, the failure to find or retain a job can lead to revocation. However, any decision to revoke probation must be made by a judge, not simply by a probation officer.

Intensive Probation

One alternative to sending a violator to prison for violating probation is to order more intensive probation. This method can also be applied in cases in which a convicted person has committed a serious or violent crime. Intensive probation provides much closer supervision of offenders and is more than three times more expensive than regular probation. Offenders in intensive programs are required to contact parole officers very frequently, sometimes as often as once a day or at least once a week.

At one point, Georgia, a state with a large investment in intensive probation, required that serious nonviolent offenders have five face-to-face contacts with probation officers every week. The failure rate in this program was about 16 percent, or about one-half the failure rate for regular probationers. Prisoners on either type of probation are extremely unlikely to commit violent crimes, because most have never been convicted of violent crimes. Less than 1 percent of violent crimes in the United States are committed by probationers.

Probation Officers

The major problem with the probation system is the huge caseloads carried by most probation officers. Experts consider thirty cases per officer the best possible situation. However, the average officer in the United States has at least two hundred cases each month. Such huge caseloads prevent many officers from getting actively involved with their clients. Instead, all probationers receive the same treatment, regardless of whether they have been convicted of income tax evasion or armed robbery. Few probationers can get the individual attention they need to remain successfully employed and motivated. The problem seems not to be the idea of probation but the way the system works. There is too little money and too few probation officers to do an effective job.

Another problem since the 1980s has been the fundamental belief on the part of many criminal justice practitioners, from police officers to judges, that probation does not reduce crime. A majority of the U.S. public seems to accept this view. This has led to a major shift in how judges determine sentences. During the 1960s and 1970s, probation officers and judges believed that their mission was to reform and rehabilitate persons under their supervision and authority. Probation was supposed to help people convicted of crimes work their way back into society through employment opportunities and counseling. Probation officers saw their job as helping their clients overcome drug or alcohol dependency while meeting their family obligations.

During the 1980s, however, a much harsher form of criminal justice was instituted, with “just deserts” being the most prominent philosophy. In this view, punishment rather than rehabilitation was the goal, and parole officers responded by focusing their attention on catching probation violators and reporting them to the courts for confinement. New technologies and monitoring devices have made this practice more common. Electronic monitoring devices attached to probationers’ leg or ankle enable officers to know where a subject is every minute of the day. House arrest is much more possible with such new devices, many of which have been available only since the mid-1990s. Nevertheless, probation is primarily reserved for people convicted of nonviolent crimes. The costs of normal, nonintensive probation are still about one-thirtieth the cost of imprisonment, and a majority of probationers do not commit additional crimes. Probation is a system that works well to reduce future criminal activity by providing rehabilitation for offenders. It has been shown to be the best sentencing alternative to imprisonment.

Bibliography

Abadinsky, Howard. Probation and Parole. 12th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, 2012. Print.

Carter, Robert M., and Leslie T. Wilkins, eds. Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections. New York: Wiley, 1976. Print.

Bonczar, Thomas P., Danielle Kaeble, and Laura Maruschak. Probation and Parole in the United States, 2014. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Office of Justice Programs, 19 Nov. 2015. Web. 24 May 2016.

Ciaramella, C.J. and Lauren Krisai. "The US Prison System Has Become a Quagmire." Reason, Mar. 2023, reason.com/2023/01/26/the-u-s-probation-system-has-become-a-quagmire/. Accessed 9 July 2024.

Henrichson, Christian, and Sarah Galgano. A Guide to Calculating Justice-System Marginal Costs. New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2013. PDF file.

Hussey, Frederick A., and David E. Duffee. Probation, Parole, and Community Field Services: Policy, Structure, and Process. New York: Harper, 1980. Print.

Lipton, Douglas, Robert Martinson, and Judith Wilks. The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment: A Survey of Treatment Evaluation Studies. New York: Praeger, 1975. Print.

Kaeble, Danielle, and Thomas P. Bonczar. "Probation and Parole in the United States, 2015." Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2 Feb. 2017, www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5870. Accessed 30 Jan. 2018.

"Number of US Adults on Probation or Parole Continues to Decrease." The Pew Charitable Trusts, 7 Feb. 2024, www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/12/14/number-of-us-adults-on-probation-or-parole-continues-to-decline. Accessed 9 July 2024.

Petersilia, Joan, ed. Community Corrections: Probation, Parole, and Intermediate Sanctions. New York: Oxford UP, 1998. Print.