Probation is a disposition within the criminal justice system whereby an offender serves a term of supervision in the community under the authority of a probation agency. Probation is typically served in lieu of sentence to jail or prison. Unlike parole, probation is generally a sentence unto itself rather than a period of supervision completed after a prison term and is often conceptualized as a type of diversion from incarceration.
Probation is the most common criminal disposition in many nations, including the United States and Canada; for example, as of 2015, 3.8 million of the approximately 7 million adults in the U.S. criminal justice system were on probation. Although probation has been used informally in the United States for more than 150 years, it has undergone substantial philosophical changes over the past few decades.
This article provides a brief history of probation and discusses the overarching philosophies, practices, and innovations in probation. The primary focus of this article is adult probation in the United States, but some discussion of probation in other contexts is provided. The entry concludes with a discussion of the future of probation.
Historical Roots of Probation
Probation in the United States is generally traced back to the practices of John Augustus (1785– 1859), a Boston business owner and member of the Washington Total Abstinence Society. The society, in addition to promoting abstinence from alcohol, advocated for the kind treatment of people with alcohol problems. Augustus sought to extend kindness toward first-time offenders at the local courthouse, where he paid bail for men struggling with alcohol abuse whom he deemed good candidates for rehabilitation. Augustus rehabilitated his first offender in 1841, and over the next several years, he rehabilitated nearly 2,000 people. Augustus was quite successful in his efforts—it is reported that only 10 of the men he rehabilitated had further entanglement with the criminal justice system. Around the same time, Matthew Davenport Hill (1792–1872) was working toward a similar goal in England, though his focus was juvenile offenders. Hill is viewed as the originator of probation in England.
In the United States, Massachusetts legally formalized probation in 1878, and a handful of other states followed suit in the late 1800s. Probation proliferated across the states in the early 1900s, and federal probation was created in 1925. As of 2017, all 50 states have formal probation. In the United States, probation is most often operated at the state level, though in a minority of states probation is run at the county level. In countries such as Canada and England, there is a national body overseeing probation, but the operation of probation is carried out by province- or county-level agencies. Although parole is different from probation in that it is typically reserved for offenders reentering society after a prison term, probation and parole are run within the same agency in many states. Furthermore, although adolescent offenders are typically processed in the juvenile justice system (separately from adults), in many U.S. states, the juvenile and adult systems are overseen by the same agency.
The dominant philosophy in U.S. probation agencies throughout most of the 20th century echoed the rehabilitative goals of Augustus. Probation officers functioned much like social workers and worked to change the criminal behavior of their clients using a therapeutic, human services approach. However, the philosophy of probation shifted multiple times since 1970. From the decade between 1971 and 1980, probation followed a brokerage model, whereby probation officers moved away from direct service provision to their clients toward facilitation of referrals and services within community-based social services agencies. Political changes brought about an about-face in the last two decades of the 20th century. Given public perceptions that probation was too soft on offenders, agencies moved toward a heavier use of sanctions and punishments. Since the beginning of the 21st century, probation has shifted its focus on rehabilitation and use of practices supported by research evidence, as described in the following section.
Current Practices and Innovations in Probation
The primary objectives in contemporary probation practice are the assessment and supervision of probationers. Many probation agencies conduct presentence investigation reports, whereby a probation officer gathers information on the offender and his or her current offense to aid the court in making decisions regarding appropriate sentencing and placement into community programming aimed at rehabilitating the offender. Assessment can also inform the type and intensity of programming once the offender is assigned to probation. Many well-validated risk assessment tools exist to help agencies measure each offender’s risk of recidivism—the likelihood that the offender will commit a new crime or otherwise do poorly on community supervision.
The other primary function of probation agencies is supervision of probationers while they complete their probation term. Probationers are generally assigned to a probation officer’s caseload, and the officer becomes responsible for monitoring the probationer’s compliance with the terms of probation. In addition to abiding by all state and local laws, probationers are required to meet the conditions of their probation supervision to successfully complete their supervision term. Standard conditions of probation vary by jurisdiction but typically include maintaining adequate employment or attending school full-time, paying restitution or fines, avoiding drug use and excessive alcohol use, and maintaining an appropriate residence. Probationers may also have a curfew and be unable to travel outside their home jurisdiction without prior permission from their probation officer. In addition, probationers who are judged to be in need of substance abuse or mental health treatment may be mandated to attend such treatment as a requirement of probation. Probation officers monitor probationers’ compliance with these probation terms and respond to violations with verbal or written warnings; persistent or serious violations may lead to the probation officer filing a violation report with the court whereby the judge may temporarily or permanently revoke probation, which can result in incarceration.
As probation in the United States has moved toward a rehabilitative approach, there has been increased attention paid to probation practices that have research supporting their effectiveness in decreasing the rate of reoffense and technical violations for probationers. The most widely supported model of correctional supervision is known as the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model. The RNR model was developed by Donald Andrews and James Bonta and provides a set of principles to guide offender rehabilitation. The risk principle specifies that agencies should measure the recidivism risk of every offender entering their agency, preferably with the use of a structured risk assessment tool, and this risk information should be used to inform the intensity of programming for offenders. Specifically, high-risk offenders should receive the most intensive programming and more frequent supervision, whereas lower risk offenders should receive only minimal programming. The need principle directs agencies to identify criminogenic needs—changeable risk factors that can reduce an offender’s risk of recidivism when successfully addressed in treatment. For example, substance abuse is a criminogenic need because substance abuse increases the likelihood that a probationer will continue to offend. If substance abuse is successfully treated, the probationer will be at a lower risk of reoffending. Finally, the responsivity principle provides guidance on how to implement programming with offenders in two ways. General responsivity prescribes the use of psychological methods that are known to affect behavior change, such as cognitive behavioral techniques. Specific responsivity calls for the consideration of the individual needs of an offender in correctional programming. For example, probation officers should attend to the motivation level of an offender when working with him or her. The RNR model also directs agencies to use core correctional practices, a set of principles guiding how probation officers interact with the offenders they supervise; officers should build high-quality relationships with offenders and use a skill-building approach in supervision. Effective use of RNR and core correctional practices can dramatically increase the likelihood that probationers can remain crime free.
It is important to note that RNR is a set of principles, not a program. However, many programs have been designed for use in probation agencies built around the principles of RNR. For example, the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute developed a structured training program for probation agencies called Effective Practices in Community Supervision that has been shown to increase officers’ use of core correctional practices during supervision with their supervisees. Another program with substantial research support is the Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision that was developed by the Corrections Research Division of Public Safety Canada. Researchers continue to seek innovative ways to improve the implementation of these programs; for example, few studies have examined the use of coaches—specially trained probation officers who review supervision meetings conducted by their colleagues and provide feedback on the use of core correctional practices—with promising results.
A number of innovations have emerged in probation agencies to meet the unique needs of specific subgroups of offenders. For example, gender-specific programming has emerged to meet the unique needs of female offenders, who often have extensive histories of abuse and substantial mental health needs. Gender-specific programs integrate treatment for post-traumatic stress into probation supervision. Specialty caseloads have been developed in many agencies, whereby a probation officer with specialized training supervises a caseload composed of a specific subtype of offenders. Many varieties of specialty caseloads have been developed, some based on specific types of offenses (e.g., domestic violence, driving while intoxicated) and others based on specific types of offenders (e.g., offenders with mental illness, military veterans). Notably, the specific features of these caseloads may be unique to the agency where they are housed, and although some of these programs have demonstrated promising results, more research is needed to fully understand whether and how these caseloads work to reduce recidivism. Other innovations include police–probation partnerships, whereby police officers work with the probation agency to deter crime and enforce curfews, and neighborhood-based supervision, whereby probation officers are assigned to offenders in specific neighborhoods and spend time in the community.
The Future of Probation
Probation is likely to remain a widely used criminal justice disposition in the United States and elsewhere given its cost-effectiveness. Depending on the jurisdiction and intensity, probation in the United States costs between US$5 and US$10 per day per offender, compared with the US$75 per day or more it costs to incarcerate the same offender. Faced with budget crises, many states in the United States have sought to downsize their prison populations through changes in sentencing guidelines and more widespread support of rehabilitation programs. Given that probation can produce meaningful changes in offenders’ behavior for substantially less money, it is likely that it will remain the primary mechanism for supervising offenders.
Although the face of probation can be difficult to predict given the influence of public opinion and changes in the political climate, it is reasonable to predict that probation will continue to develop toward more of a casework model than a punitive one. Decades of research conclude that rehabilitative approaches consistent with RNR in probation yield improvements to public safety as well as cost savings, whereas punishment-based approaches can backfire and increase recidivism. As the field continues to innovate, it is likely that additional advances will be made in agencies’ abilities to reap these benefits through improvements in staff training and implementation efforts.
References:
- Alarid, L. F. (2016). Community-based corrections (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
- Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis.
- Kennealy, P. J., Skeem, J. L., Manchak, S. M., & Eno Louden, J. (2012). Firm, fair, and caring officer-offender relationships protect against supervision failure. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 496–505. doi:10.1037/h0093935
- Manchak, S. M., Skeem, J. L., Kennealy, P. J., & Eno Louden, J. (2014). High-fidelity specialty mental health probation improves officer practices, treatment access, and rule compliance. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 450–461. doi:10.1037/lhb0000076
- S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2014). Correctional populations in the United States, 2013 (NCJ Publication No. 248479). Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus13.pdf
- Viglione, J., Rudes, D. S., & Taxman, F. S. (2015). Misalignment in supervision: Implementing risk/needs assessment instruments in probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 263–285. doi:10.1177/0093854814548447