MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By NORVAL MORRIS, MICHAEL TONRY

Across the country prisons are jammed to capacity and, in extreme cases, barges and mobile homes are used to stem the overflow. Probation officers in some cities have caseloads of 200 and more--hardly a manageable number of offenders to track and supervise. And with about one million people in prison and jail, and two and a half million on probation, it is clear we are experiencing a crisis in our penal system. In Between Prison and Probation, Norval Morris and Michael Tonry, two of the nation's leading criminologists, offer an important and timely strategy for alleviating these problems. They argue that our overwhelmed corrections system cannot cope with the flow of convicted offenders because the two extremes of punishment--imprisonment and probation--are both used excessively, with a near-vacuum of useful punishments in between. Morris and Tonry propose instead a comprehensive program that relies on a range of punishment including fines and other financial sanctions, community service, house arrest, intensive probation, closely supervised treatment programs for drugs, alcohol and mental illness, and electronic monitoring of movement. Used in rational combinations, these "intermediate" punishments would better serve the community than our present polarized choice. Serious consideration of these punishments has been hindered by the widespread perception that they are therapeutic rather than punitive. The reality, however, Morris and Tonry argue, "is that the American criminal justice system is both too severe and too lenient--almost randomly." Systematically implemented and rigorously enforced, intermediate punishments can "better and more economically serve the community, the victim, and the criminal than the prison terms and probation orders they supplant." Between Prison and Probation goes beyond mere advocacy of an increasing use of intermediate punishments; the book also addresses the difficult task of fitting these punishments into a comprehensive, fair and community-protective sentencing system.

Oxford University Press, Sep 12, 1991, 294 pages

By Erin Harbinson, Kelly Lyn Mitchell, Courtney Hougham, and Danette Buskovick

This report details a collaboration between the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (the Robina Institute) and Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation (DOCCR) to examine whether probation conditions are aligned with evidence-based practices in corrections, specifically the risk-needs-responsivity (RNR) principles (i.e., Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990) for community supervision, and to explore the effect of alignment on supervision outcomes. This project was conceived in order to test whether there is a need to bridge the sentencing process with the RNR principles followed by DOCCR. Research suggests that in order to reduce re-offending, probation conditions should reflect RNR principles and that over-supervising low risk individuals can increase recidivism (Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Holsinger, 2006). But because sentencing often occurs before the risk assessment has been completed, the probation conditions imposed at sentencing may not relate to the probationer’s risk and needs, or may require a higher degree of contact and intervention by the corrections department than suggested by the probationer’s risk to reoffend. Since Hennepin prepares a presentence investigation (PSI) for some cases and administers a pre-screener for others, this practice provides a natural “experiment” to explore how assessment might influence conditions. The project explored the relationship between the sentencing process and RNR principles by asking the following three questions: 1. How well do the risk/needs of offenders align with probation conditions? 2. Does the timing of assessment impact this alignment? 3. Are supervision outcomes improved when conditions are aligned with risk/needs? Key Findings The key findings from this study were as follows: • Most people on probation were assigned a similar number of conditions and similar types of conditions; there was not much variation. • The average number of probation conditions assigned to people on probation increases with risk, but only slightly. This increase ranged from less than one condition to one condition per increase in risk level. • People who received a PSI have on average approximately 5 more conditions assigned at each risk level when compared to people who did not receive a PSI. • A majority of the supervision conditions people were assigned did not target their criminogenic needs. Ø However, most people who had identified needs in the drugs and alcohol domain were assigned probation conditions that aligned with that need, though alignment was better when a PSI was conducted before sentencing Ø The majority of people who had identified needs in the family/marital, leisure and recreation, companions (criminal vs. anticriminal), and antisocial pattern were not assigned probation conditions that align with those needs. Ø When a PSI was not administered, the majority of people who had identified needs in pro-criminal attitudes and orientation were not assigned probation conditions that align with that need; when a PSI was administered, a more substantial proportion of individuals with this need were assigned such a condition. Ø When there is better alignment between needs and supervision conditions, it appears to be associated with the administration of a PSI, and to be driven by the assignment of conditions to address the domains for alcohol and drugs, education and employment, and pro-criminal attitude and orientation. • Improved alignment of supervision conditions with risk and needs did not significantly reduce the likelihood of reconviction one year out, however, more research is needed on measuring alignment since this non-significant finding might be due to the small variation in the number of conditions by risk level.

Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice University of Minnesota Law School 2020. 36p.

By Dafna Gozani, Laura Ridolfi and Snna Wong

Probation is the most common court ordered outcome imposed on youth in juvenile court in California. Too often, youth are placed on probation for an unspecified amount of time, while under the microscope of overly burdensome and confusing probation conditions. Youth needlessly spending years on probation limits their potential and wastes precious resources. This report provides key data and explores the harmful outcomes of excessive probation programs, highlights promising approaches, and provides policy recommendations.

Oakland, CA: National Center for Youth Law and W. Haywood Burns Institute, 2021. 15p.

By Sino Esthappan and Janine Zweig

Probation plays a critical role in the juvenile justice (JJ) system, but the absence of clear intended outcomes for youth who are justice involved might contribute to the unnecessary use of judicial dispositions to probation and out-of-home placement, as well as to high rates of recidivism. In this brief, we describe findings from a developmental evaluation of the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s (the Foundation’s) expansion of the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative® to the deep end of the JJ system. Through its deep-end work, the Foundation aims to safely and significantly reduce the use of out-of-home placements for youth, especially youth of color. The findings in this brief build on those presented in Keeping Youth Out of the Deep End of the Juvenile Justice System: A Developmental Evaluation Overview of the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Deep-End Reform, which provides an overview of the evaluation of the deepend reform and its findings (appendix A provides details on the methods used for the evaluation). Qualitative and quantitative data collection occurred between April 2014 and August 2018. In addition, the Foundation provided additional supports to two deepend sites—Lucas County, Ohio, and Pierce County, Washington—as part of their probation transformation focus (the Foundation details the rationale for this work in a 2018 report)

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2020. 11p.

By Kathryn Bird and Melena Ward

Probation services in England and Wales are delivered through the Probation Service, which is responsible for protecting the public and reducing reoffending, both by delivering and enforcing the punishments and orders of the court and by supporting rehabilitation through empowering people on probation to reform their lives. The Probation Service is a statutory criminal justice agency and is part of Her Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service (HMPPS) working together to supervise adult individuals at all levels of risk. People under the age of 18 who are serving sentences in the community are supervised by Youth Offending Teams, which are coordinated by local government authorities and overseen by the Youth Justice Board (a non-departmental public body). The Probation Service’s operations are divided into twelve Probation Regions (eleven in England and one in Wales), each of which is overseen by a Regional Probation Director (RPD) who works closely with other local and national partners to deliver effective supervision and can commission rehabilitative services from external voluntary and private sector providers.

Utrecht: CEP, Confederation of European Probation 2021. 54p.

By Beth M. Huebner, Lee Ann Slocum, Andrea Giuffre, Kimberly Kras, and Bobby Boxerman

This project focuses on the St. Louis County Jail which is managed by the Department of Justice Services and serves as the central detention facility for the region. St. Louis County, Missouri provides an ideal location to study the jail-probation nexus. St. Louis County is a large and diverse community. Sixty-eight percent of the population is white and 25% Black, with a small (less than 3%) Hispanic and Latinx population. The county poverty rate of 9.7% is slightly lower than the national average. The Missouri Department of Corrections (MoDOC) is a centralized system, and the St Louis County offices supervise 2,481 clients on probation. The data used in this report include administrative data from the years 2010-2020 that were provided by Justice Services. The process and outcome analyses are also informed by data collected from qualitative interviews with individuals on probation (n=47) and local criminal justice stakeholders (n=17).

Safety & Justice Challenge, 2023. 13p.

By Kelly Lyn Mitchell, Lily Hanrath, Erin Harbinson

Ramsey County Community Corrections (RCCC) and the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice partnered to participate in the Reducing Revocations Challenge, a national initiative of Arnold Ventures and the CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance dedicated to understanding the drivers of probation revocations and identifying ways to reduce them when appropriate. The study involved two broad questions. First, what is the pathway to revocation for people on probation in Ramsey County? Second, what are the drivers of revocations in Ramsey County? Drawing from three sources of information—a legal and policy review, data regarding a cohort starting probation in 2016, and interviews with criminal justice system stakeholders—the primary goals were to identify the factors driving revocations and to collaborate with other stakeholders and members of the community to identify changes in policy and practice that can reduce probation revocations and lead to better outcomes for individuals on probation while protecting public safety

St. Paul, MN: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Minneapolis, MN2022. 70p.

By Kelly Lyn Mitchell, Lily Hanrath, Erin Harbinson

Ramsey County Community Corrections (RCCC) and the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice partnered to participate in the Reducing Revocations Challenge, a national initiative of Arnold Ventures and the CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance dedicated to understanding the drivers of probation revocations and identifying ways to reduce them when appropriate. The study involved two broad questions. First, what is the pathway to revocation for people on probation in Ramsey County? Second, what are the drivers of revocations in Ramsey County? Drawing from three sources of information—a legal and policy review, data regarding a cohort starting probation in 2016, and interviews with criminal justice system stakeholders—the primary goals were to identify the factors driving revocations and to collaborate with other stakeholders and members of the community to identify changes in policy and practice that can reduce probation revocations and lead to better outcomes for individuals on probation while protecting public safety

St. Paul, MN: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice,

Minneapolis, MN2022. 70p.

By Peggy B. Burke

For probation and parole to be effective sanctions, reasonable controls must be placed on offenders. They take the form of either general or special conditions of supervision. Probation and parole officers, courts, and parole boards have always responded to violation of conditions of supervision in good faith, but the responses were often inconsistent and not guided by agency policy or sanctioning philosophy. The typical decision was either to return the offender to supervision with little or no change or to revoke supervision and incarcerate the offender--and nothing in between. In some jurisdictions, more admissions to prisons annually are for probation and parole violations than for all new offenses committed. The National Institute of Corrections has for several years assisted agencies in developing a system of explicit, policy-driven responses to violations of probation and parole. Each jurisdiction has taken a somewhat different approach to problems it identified. This report shares some of what was learned concerning the violation process, potential impact of changes, and some of the tools developed to introduce more policy-driven consistency in responses.

Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy 1997. 53p.