Making the Decision to Extend Probation Supervision at a Local Agency

Abstract

The response to a probation violation is often a shared decision between the probation officer and the supervising judge. The result of this decision is a range of possible outcomes. One violation outcome examined here was extended supervision lengths in lieu of incarceration. This decision has been overlooked by prior research but is important to ensure equitable treatment of probationers. This study examined behavioral and organizational factors that resulted in extended supervisions for 6,034 probationers within a large county agency. On average, supervision extensions for these probationers lasted approximately 2 months (62.08 days). The decision-making framework partially explains these extensions because officers had access to poor client behavior indicators. The practical and policy implications of these findings are discussed.

Criminal Justice Debt During the Prisoner Reintegration Process: Who Has It and How Much?

“…By way of example, recent evidence suggests that debt burdens among former prisoners can have the effect of keeping people under community supervision for longer terms, putting them at heightened risk of detection for violations and a return to incarceration (Dewan, 2015; Nagrecha et al, 2015). Although there has been some research on the factors associated with extensions of community supervision more broadly (Medina, 2017), the effect of owing debt to supervision agencies on supervision term lengths remains ripe for future studies of community supervision and reentry. Moreover, given the emphasis on raising revenue among criminal justice agencies, debtors may be subjected to heightened supervision, and rigorous evaluations have found that increases in supervision intensity is associated with increases in discovery of technical violations (Grattet & Lin, 2016; Hyatt & Barnes, 2017).…”

A Preliminary Evaluation of the Supervision With Immediate Enforcement Probation Program for Adult Gang–Affiliated Offenders in Texas

“…There are important implications from this study of the efficacy of SWIFT in improving probation compliance. There continues to be lively debate within the field regarding the efficacy of intensive supervision programs, as scholarship indicates that these programs frequently result in more technical revisions, higher costs, and more recidivism (see Hyatt & Barnes, 2017) that may result in “backdoor sentencing” (see Medina, 2017). With the rise of such problem-solving courts such as HOPE that target various subpopulations of offenders, rigorous evaluations that explore the efficacy of programming for challenging correctional populations are an important charge for scholars in helping practitioners direct scarce community resources (Boots et al, 2016; Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & MacKenzie, 2012).…”

Are Supervision Practices Procedurally Fair? Development and Predictive Utility of a Procedural Justice Measure for Use in Community Corrections Settings

“…A review of the decisions that supervising officers frequently make about compliance in supervision settings and how officers go about making the decisions illustrates the value of perceived fairness in a community supervision context (Medina, 2016). Rudes (2012), in her 3-year ethnographic study of parole offices in California, described how parole officers would exert their power to address noncompliance (e.g., partner with police to conduct raids on residences, pile on charges to make behavior appear more severe).…”