You are on page 1of 35

The Parole and Probation Administration (Filipino: Pangasiwaan ng Parol at Probasyon), abbreviated as PPA, is an agency of the Philippine government

under the Department of Justice responsible for providing a less costly alternative to imprisonment of first-time offenders who are likely to respond to individualized community-based treatment programs. HISTORY Probation was first introduced in the Philippines during the American colonial period (1898 1945) with the enactment of Act No. 4221 of the Philippine Legislature on August 7, 1935. This law created a Probation Office under the Department of Justice. On November 16, 1937, after barely two years of existence, the Supreme Court of the Philippines declared the Probation Law unconstitutional because of some defects in the law's procedural framework. In 1972, House Bill No. 393 was filed in Congress, which would establish a probation system in the Philippines. This bill avoided the objectionable features of Act 4221 that struck down the 1935 law as unconstitutional. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives, but was pending in the Senate when Martial Law was declared and Congress was abolished. In 1975, the National Police Commission Interdisciplinary drafted a Probation Law. After 18 technical hearings over a period of six months, the draft decree was presented to a selected group of 369 jurists, penologists, civic leaders and social and behavioral scientists and practitioners. The group overwhelmingly endorsed the establishment of an Adult Probation System in the country. On July 24, 1976, Presidential Decree No. 968, also known as Adult Probation Law of 1976, was signed into Law by the President of the Philippines. The startup of the probation system in 1976-1977 was a massive undertaking during which all judges and prosecutors nationwide were trained in probation methods and procedures; administrative and procedural manuals were developed; probation officers recruited and trained, and the central agency and probation field offices organized throughout the country. Fifteen selected probation officers were sent to United States for orientation and training in probation administration. Upon their return, they were assigned to train the newly recruited probation officers. The probation system started to operate on January 3, 1978. As more probation officers were recruited and trained, more field offices were opened. There are at present 204 field offices spread all over the country, supervised by 15 regional offices. The Organization The Probation Administration was created by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 968, The Probation Law of 1976, to administer the probation system. Under Executive Order No. 292, The Administrative Code of 1987 which was promulgated on November 23, 1989, the Probation Administration was renamed Parole and Probation Administration and given the

added function of supervising prisoners who, after serving part of their sentence in jails are released on parole pardon with parole conditions Effective August 17, 2005, by virtue of a Memorandum of Agreement with the Dangerous Drugs Board, the Administration performs another additional function of investigating and supervising first-time minor drug offenders who are placed on suspended pursuant to Republic Act No. 9165. Mission To rehabilitate probationers, parolees and pardonees and promote their development as integral persons by utilizing innovative interventions and techniques which respect the dignity of man and recognize his divine destiny. Mandate The Parole and Probation Administration is mandated to conserve and/or redeem convicted offenders and prisoners who are under the probation or parole system. Goals The Administration's programs sets to achieve the following goals:

Promote the reformation of criminal offenders and reduce the incidence of recedivism, and Provide a cheaper alternative to the institutional confinement of first-time offenders who are likely to respond to individualized, community-based treatment programs.

Functions To carry out these goals, the Agency through its network of regional and field parole and probation offices performs the following functions:

to administer the parole and probation system to exercise supervision over parolees, pardonees and probationers to promote the correction and rehabilitation of criminal offenders.

Major Rehabilitation Programs RESTORATIVE JUSTICE (RJ) is a philosophy and a process whereby stakeholders in a specific offense resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offense and its implications for the future. It is a victim-centered response to crime that provides opportunity for those directly affected by the crime - the victim, the offender, their families and the community to be directly involved in responding to the harm caused by the crime. Its ultimate objective is to restore the broken relationships among stakeholders.

The Restorative Justice process provides a healing opportunity for affected parties to facilitate the recovery of the concerned parties and allow them to move on with their lives. The VOLUNTEER PROBATION AIDE (VPA) PROGRAM is a strategy by which the Parole and Probation Administration may be able to generate maximum citizen participation or community involvement. Citizens of good standing in the community may volunteer to assist the probation and parole officers in the supervision of a number of probationers, parolees and conditional pardonees in their respective communities. Since they reside in the same community as the client, they are able to usher the reformation and rehabilitation of the clients hands-on. In collaboration with the PPO, the VPA helps pave the way for the offender, victim and community to each heal from the harm resulting from the crime done. They can initiate a circle of support for clients and victims to prevent further crimes, thereby be participants in nationbuilding The THERAPEUTIC COMMUNITY (TC) is a self-help social learning treatment model used in the rehabilitation of drug offenders and other clients with behavioral problems. TC adheres to precepts of right living - Responsible Love and Concern; Truth and Honesty; the Here and Now; Personal Responsibility for Destiny; Social Responsibility (brothers keeper); Moral Code; Work Ethics and Pride in Quality. The Therapeutic Community (TC) is an environment that helps people get help while helping themselves. It operates in a similar fashion to a functional family with a hierarchical structure of older and younger members. Each member has a defined role and responsibilities for sustaining the proper functioning of the TC. There are sets of rules and community norms that members commit to live by and uphold upon entry. The primary therapist and teacher is the community itself, consisting of peers, staff/probation and parole officers and even Volunteer Probation Aides (VPA), who, as role models of successful personal change, serve as guides in the recovery process. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 968 July 24, 1976 ESTABLISHING A PROBATION SYSTEM, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES WHEREAS, one of the major goals of the government is to establish a more enlightened and humane correctional systems that will promote the reformation of offenders and thereby reduce the incidence of recidivism; WHEREAS, the confinement of all offenders prisons and other institutions with rehabilitation programs constitutes an onerous drain on the financial resources of the country; and WHEREAS, there is a need to provide a less costly alternative to the imprisonment of offenders who are likely to respond to individualized, community-based treatment programs;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree the following: Section 1. Title and Scope of the Decree. This Decree shall be known as the Probation Law of 1976. It shall apply to all offenders except those entitled to the benefits under the provisions of Presidential Decree numbered Six Hundred and three and similar laws. Section 2. Purpose. This Decree shall be interpreted so as to: (a) promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individualized treatment; (b) provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence; and (c) prevent the commission of offenses. Section 3. Meaning of Terms. As used in this Decree, the following shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed thus: (a) "Probation" is a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer. (b) "Probationer" means a person placed on probation. (c) "Probation Officer" means one who investigates for the court a referral for probation or supervises a probationer or both. Section 4. Grant of Probation. Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant and upon application at any time of said defendant, suspend the execution of said sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best. Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. An application for probation shall be filed with the trial court, with notice to the appellate court if an appeal has been taken from the sentence of conviction. The filing of the application shall be deemed a waver of the right to appeal, or the automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal. An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable. Section 5. Post-sentence Investigation. No person shall be placed on probation except upon prior investigation by the probation officer and a determination by the court that the ends of justice and the best interest of the public as well as that of the defendant will be served thereby.

Section 6. Form of Investigation Report. The investigation report to be submitted by the probation officer under Section 5 hereof shall be in the form prescribed by the Probation Administrator and approved by the Secretary of Justice. Section 7. Period for Submission of Investigation Report. The probation officer shall submit to the court the investigation report on a defendant not later than sixty days from receipt of the order of said court to conduct the investigation. The court shall resolve the petition for probation not later than five days after receipt of said report. Pending submission of the investigation report and the resolution of the petition, the defendant may be allowed on temporary liberty under his bail filed in the criminal case; Provided, That, in case where no bail was filed or that the defendant is incapable of filing one, the court may allow the release of the defendant on recognize the custody of a responsible member of the community who shall guarantee his appearance whenever required by the court. Section 8. Criteria for Placing an Offender on Probation. In determining whether an offender may be placed on probation, the court shall consider all information relative, to the character, antecedents, environment, mental and physical condition of the offender, and available institutional and community resources. Probation shall be denied if the court finds that: (a) the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution; or (b) there is undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will commit another crime; or (c) probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed. Section 9. Disqualified Offenders. The benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those: (a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years; (b) convicted of any offense against the security of the State; (c) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of not less than Two Hundred Pesos; (d) who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree; and (e) who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable pursuant to Section 33 hereof. Section 10. Conditions of Probation. Every probation order issued by the court shall contain conditions requiring that the probationer shall:

(a) present himself to the probation officer designated to undertake his supervision at such place as may be specified in the order within seventy-two hours from receipt of said order; (b) report to the probation officer at least once a month at such time and place as specified by said officer. The court may also require the probationer to: (a) cooperate with a program of supervision; (b) meet his family responsibilities; (c) devote himself to a specific employment and not to change said employment without the prior written approval of the probation officer; (d) undergo medical, psychological or psychiatric examination and treatment and enter and remain in a specified institution, when required for that purpose; (e) pursue a prescribed secular study or vocational training; (f) attend or reside in a facility established for instruction, recreation or residence of persons on probation; (g) refrain from visiting houses of ill-repute; (h) abstain from drinking intoxicating beverages to excess; (i) permit to probation officer or an authorized social worker to visit his home and place or work; (j) reside at premises approved by it and not to change his residence without its prior written approval; or (k) satisfy any other condition related to the rehabilitation of the defendant and not unduly restrictive of his liberty or incompatible with his freedom of conscience. Section 11. Effectivity of Probation Order. A probation order shall take effect upon its issuance, at which time the court shall inform the offender of the consequences thereof and explain that upon his failure to comply with any of the conditions prescribed in the said order or his commission of another offense, he shall serve the penalty imposed for the offense under which he was placed on probation. Section 12. Modification of Condition of Probation. During the period of probation, the court may, upon application of either the probationer or the probation officer, revise or modify the conditions or period of probation. The court shall notify either the probationer or the probation

officer of the filing such an application so as to give both parties an opportunity to be heard thereon. The court shall inform in writing the probation officer and the probationer of any change in the period or conditions of probation. Section 13. Control and Supervision of Probationer. The probationer and his probation program shall be under the control of the court who placed him on probation subject to actual supervision and visitation by a probation officer. Whenever a probationer is permitted to reside in a place under the jurisdiction of another court, control over him shall be transferred to the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of that place, and in such a case, a copy of the probation order, the investigation report and other pertinent records shall be furnished said Executive Judge. Thereafter, the Executive Judge to whom jurisdiction over the probationer is transferred shall have the power with respect to him that was previously possessed by the court which granted the probation. Section 14. Period of Probation. (a) The period of probation of a defendant sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than one year shall not exceed two years, and in all other cases, said period shall not exceed six years. (b) When the sentence imposes a fine only and the offender is made to serve subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, the period of probation shall not be less than nor to be more than twice the total number of days of subsidiary imprisonment as computed at the rate established, in Article thirty-nine of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Section 15. Arrest of Probationer; Subsequent Disposition. At any time during probation, the court may issue a warrant for the arrest of a probationer for violation of any of the conditions of probation. The probationer, once arrested and detained, shall immediately be brought before the court for a hearing, which may be informal and summary, of the violation charged. The defendant may be admitted to bail pending such hearing. In such a case, the provisions regarding release on bail of persons charged with a crime shall be applicable to probationers arrested under this provision. If the violation is established, the court may revoke or continue his probation and modify the conditions thereof. If revoked, the court shall order the probationer to serve the sentence originally imposed. An order revoking the grant of probation or modifying the terms and conditions thereof shall not be appealable. Section 16. Termination of Probation. After the period of probation and upon consideration of the report and recommendation of the probation officer, the court may order the final discharge of the probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation and thereupon the case is deemed terminated.

The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspend as a result of his conviction and to fully discharge his liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for which probation was granted. The probationer and the probation officer shall each be furnished with a copy of such order. Section 17. Confidentiality of Records. The investigation report and the supervision history of a probationer obtained under this Decree shall be privileged and shall not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone other than the Probation Administration or the court concerned, except that the court, in its discretion, may permit the probationer of his attorney to inspect the aforementioned documents or parts thereof whenever the best interest of the probationer make such disclosure desirable or helpful: Provided, Further, That, any government office or agency engaged in the correction or rehabilitation of offenders may, if necessary, obtain copies of said documents for its official use from the proper court or the Administration. Section 18. The Probation Administration. There is hereby created under the Department of Justice an agency to be known as the Probation Administration herein referred to as the Administration, which shall exercise general supervision over all probationers. The Administration shall have such staff, operating units and personnel as may be necessary for the proper execution of its functions. Section 19. Probation Administration. The Administration shall be headed by the Probation Administrator, hereinafter referred to as the Administrator, who shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines. He shall hold office during good behavior and shall not be removed except for cause. The Administrator shall receive an annual salary of at least forty thousand pesos. His powers and duties shall be to: (a) act as the executive officer of the Administration; (b) exercise supervision and control over all probation officers; (c) make annual reports to the Secretary of Justice, in such form as the latter may prescribe, concerning the operation, administration and improvement of the probation system; (d) promulgate, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, the necessary rules relative to the methods and procedures of the probation process; (e) recommend to the Secretary of Justice the appointment of the subordinate personnel of his Administration and other offices established in this Decree; and (f) generally, perform such duties and exercise such powers as may be necessary or incidental to achieve the objectives of this Decree.

Section 20. Assistant Probation Administrator. There shall be an Assistant Probation Administrator who shall assist the Administrator perform such duties as may be assigned to him by the latter and as may be provided by law. In the absence of the Administrator, he shall act as head of the Administration. He shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines and shall receive an annual salary of at least thirty-six thousand pesos. Section 21. Qualifications of the Administrator and Assistant Probation Administrator. To be eligible for Appointment as Administrator or Assistant Probation Administrator, a person must be at least thirty-five years of age, holder of a master's degree or its equivalent in either criminology, social work, corrections, penology, psychology, sociology, public administration, law, police science, police administration, or related fields, and should have at least five years of supervisory experience, or be a member of the Philippine Bar with at least seven years of supervisory experience. Section 22. Regional Office; Regional Probation Officer. The Administration shall have regional offices organized in accordance with the field service area patterns established under the Integrated Reorganization Plan. Such regional offices shall be headed by a Regional Probation Officer who shall be appointed by President of the Philippines in accordance with the Integrated Reorganization Plan and upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. The Regional Probation Officer shall exercise supervision and control over all probation officer within his jurisdiction and such duties as may assigned to him by the Administrator. He shall have an annual salary of at least twenty-four thousand pesos. He shall, whenever necessary, be assisted by an Assistant Regional Probation Officer who shall also be appointed by the President of the Philippines, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Justice, with an annual salary of at least twenty thousand pesos. Section 23. Provincial and City Probation Officers. There shall be at least one probation officer in each province and city who shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon recommendation of the Administrator and in accordance with civil service law and rules. The Provincial or City Probation Officer shall receive an annual salary of at least eighteen thousand four hundred pesos. His duties shall be to: (a) investigate all persons referred to him for investigation by the proper court or the Administrator; (b) instruct all probationers under his supervision of that of the probation aide on the terms and conditions of their probations;

(c) keep himself informed of the conduct and condition of probationers under his charge and use all suitable methods to bring about an improvement in their conduct and conditions; (d) maintain a detailed record of his work and submit such written reports as may be required by the Administration or the court having jurisdiction over the probationer under his supervision; (e) prepare a list of qualified residents of the province or city where he is assigned who are willing to act as probation aides; (f) supervise the training of probation aides and oversee the latter's supervision of probationers; (g) exercise supervision and control over all field assistants, probation aides and other personnel; and (h) perform such duties as may be assigned by the court or the Administration. Section 24. Miscellaneous Powers of Provincial and City Probation Officers. Provincial or City Probation Officers shall have the authority within their territorial jurisdiction to administer oaths and acknowledgments and to take depositions in connection with their duties and functions under this Decree. They shall also have, with respect to probationers under their care, the powers of police officer. Section 25. Qualifications of Regional, Assistant Regional, Provincial, and City Probation Officers. No person shall be appointed Regional or Assistant Regional or Provincial or City Probation Officer unless he possesses at least a bachelor's degree with a major in social work, sociology, psychology, criminology, penology, corrections, police science, administration, or related fields and has at least three years of experience in work requiring any of the abovementioned disciplines, or is a member of the Philippine Bar with at least three years of supervisory experience. Whenever practicable, the Provincial or City Probation Officer shall be appointed from among qualified residents of the province or city where he will be assigned to work. Section 26. Organization. Within twelve months from the approval of this Decree, the Secretary of Justice shall organize the administrative structure of the Administration and the other agencies created herein. During said period, he shall also determine the staffing patterns of the regional, provincial and city probation offices with the end in view of achieving maximum efficiency and economy in the operations of the probation system. Section 27. Field Assistants, Subordinate Personnel, Provincial or City Probation Officers shall be assisted by such field assistants and subordinate personnel as may be necessary to enable them to carry out their duties effectively.

Section 28. Probation Aides. To assist the Provincial or City Probation Officers in the supervision of probationers, the Probation Administrator may appoint citizens of good repute and probity to act as probation aides. Probation Aides shall not receive any regular compensation for services except for reasonable travel allowance. They shall hold office for such period as may be determined by the Probation Administrator. Their qualifications and maximum case loads shall be provided in the rules promulgated pursuant to this Decree. Section 29. Violation of Confidential Nature of Probation Records. The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six months and one day to six years and a fine ranging from hundred to six thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who violates Section 17 hereof. Section 30. Appropriations. There is hereby authorized the appropriation of the sum of Six Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos or so much as may be necessary, out of any funds in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to carry out the purposes of this Decree. Thereafter, the amount of at least Ten Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos or so much as may be necessary shall be included in the annual appropriations of the national government. Section 31. Repealing Clause. All provisions of existing laws, orders and regulations contrary to or inconsistent with this Decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Section 32. Separability of Provisions. If any part, section or provision of this Decree shall be held invalid or unconstitutional, no other parts, sections or provisions hereof shall be affected thereby. Section 33. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect upon its approval: Provided, However, That, the application of its substantive provisions concerning the grant of probation shall only take effect twelve months after the certification by the Secretary of Justice to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that the administrative structure of the Probation Administration and of the other agencies has been organized.

The Early History of Probation The Brehon Laws in Ireland, from very early times, placed great emphasis on the local management of offenders, especially in their family and community groupings. British Common Law uses the principle of release on recognizance or binding over (promising to be of good behaviour) from very early times. It is not clear at which precise stage the idea arises to combine personal supervision with binding over. Early 19th Century There was little evidence of anything like probation, however, until the early nineteenth century. It emerges as a system in a number of jurisdictions around the same time, both in Europe and North America. 1820:The introduction in Britain of personal supervision starts with a number of experimental measures by Warwickshire magistrates in 1820, particularly with young offenders. 1841: Probation is first named by a Boston shoemaker, John Augustus, who works with the Washington Total Abstinence Society. Beginning in 1841, he visits Boston police court and does pre-trial enquiries on drunken offenders initially, but later with other offenders too. This evolves into what becomes known as the Massachusetts scheme. This first systematic example of probation supervision, begun in 1869, was seen as highly successful. 1876: Frederick Rainer, a printer from Hertfordshire (England), wants to help the large numbers of individuals appearing for alcoholrelated offending before the London police courts. He gives a donation to the Church of England Temperance Society to fund a response. The Society appoints a police court missionary, whose task is to interview drunks in the court cells, evaluate which of them is likely to respond to help, and suggest to the court a plan for putting the offender on the straight and narrow. The missionary undertakes to supervise and support the offender through rehabilitation. 1900: By 1900 the number of police court missionaries has grown to 119, with a number working in towns and cities outside London and catering to an increasing variety of offenders. 1881: The House of Lords rejects a Bill which would provide for the release of certain offenders under supervision while on bail. 1887: The Probation of First Offenders Act,1887 allows courts to release certain (relatively minor) offenders on probation. This Act provides for friendly supervision by some authority to whom the offender would has to report, who in turn reports to the court. However, no formal machanism for the supervision of the probationer is set up. It is left to the court missionaries and other volunteers to do their best without legal sanctions to enforce co-operation. 1907: The Probation of Offenders Act,1907 introduces a structured statutory provision for supervision of offenders, provision for the appointment of Probation Officers and their payment from local funds. The 1907 Act forms the basis and bedrock of probation practice in both Britain and Ireland as we know it. 1914: The Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914 amends and updates the 1907 Act, by strenghtening the way it operates and provides for the recognition of voluntary probation societies.

A gift of five shillings from London printer Frederic Rainer to the Church of England Temperance Society in 1876 launched what was to be come the National Probation Service for England. Rainer hoped that the money would be used to rescue people who fell into crime through drunkenness, regarded as the main social evil of the time and the cause of most petty crime. That year the society appointed its first special missionary, George Nelson, to Southwark Police Court. The role of the missionary was to deflect petty criminals from the capitals overflowing prisons at a time when jail was the punishment for first offenders men, women & children. Over 30 years later, by which time the Society had 124 missionaries and 19 mission women, the Probation of Offenders Act 1907 laid the foundations of the modern service.

The Act enabled courts to release offenders on probation, introduced a probation order and probation officers, specified officers duties, gave powers to convict and sentence for breach of probation and established Probation Rules. By 1908, 763 out of 1,043 courts had a probation officer. A departmental committee, followed by an Act in 1925, recommended the appointment of fulltime officers, proper training and a caseload of 50 60. Each petty sessional division became a probation area and the regulation of conditions and duties led to higher uniform standards. The pioneers of this most flexible and humane of penal measures can hardly have envisaged the remarkable development which has resulted in some 1,100 whole-time professional probation officers now being employed in England and Wales with upwards of 46,000 probationers of all ages under their supervision. Home Secretary Gwilym Lloyd George, October 20, 1954, speaking in London at the opening session of the United Nations European Seminar on Probation. Change accelerated over the next 50 years. Probations work with juvenile offenders diminished in the 1960s, to be balanced by an increase in work with offenders inside or leaving prison. The 1970s saw the introduction of one of probations greatest successes community service (now unpaid work). By the 1980s drug treatment was top of the governments agenda and the probation service pioneered the notion of getting offenders into treatement as a way of reducing offending. he 1990s were a decade of great change. The 1991 Criminal Justice Act introduced the concept of National Standards and the early release of prisoners on licence. Change continued into the new millennium with the establishment of the National Probation Service under its first Director General, Eithne Wallis, in 2001. The 54 probation services were reduced to 42 probation areas, each managed by a probation board.

This was followed, three years later by the establishment of the National Offender Management Service to oversee both prisons and probation. More recently, as of April 2010, the publication of the Offender Management Bill will turn boards into trusts and open the provision of services to the voluntary and private sectors. In 2007, the National Probation Service celebrated a century of cutting crime.

HISTORY OF PROBATION The origins of what is today known as probation can be traced to early English practices, and experienced a gradual development until the 19th century. During the 1880s, significant contributions were made by several other countries. In the 1870s, it began to receive acceptance in the USA. However, essentially it developed from the beginning of the twentieth century, although for various reasons - and in varying degrees - throughout Europe and North America. Probation has its origins in two distinct traditions, common and civil law, but its historical development was also influenced by the development of the juvenile justice system, positivism in criminology and ideologies of control outside of the criminal justice system. In the historical perspective, probations evolution reflects tensions between care, control and custody, discretion and individualism versus legalism, and Rehabilitation/reintegration as opposed to repression. From the 1800s to the present day, probation officers have tried in various ways to reform, remake, remould and restructure the lives of offenders into good, honest, law abiding citizens. It was after the Second World War, however, that the majority of strides were made that led to the development of the complex and modern probation service structures that now exist. It was a time of great optimism in the efficacy of social work with offenders to achieve the perfectibility of man and probation officers in the 1960s were part of a criminal justice system which was moving towards the rehabilitative ideal. (Whitehead 1990: 6) Casework was the social work method by which the rehabilitation of offenders was attempted. In later years, probation officers resorted to other techniques, including group work, community work, task-centred work, family therapy, behavioural contracts, transactional analysis, reality therapy, behaviour modification and social skills, to name a few. Twenty-five years ago, the probation service stood at the very heart of penal policy and penal practice. It epitomised the progressive programmes of penal practice that had been developing since the 1890s and particularly since 1945, and which had become established as the central plank of official policy in the 1960s. It was the exemplar, the paradigm of the welfarist approach to dealing with crime and offenders. It emphasised rehabilitation, resettlement, individualised social case-work, reintegration - a social welfare approach to social problems. The problem of crime was understood as a problem of individuals and families

in need of help and support, of communities that were disorganised and disadvantaged. The focus of attention was not the crime itself - the instant offence being a matter of mostly legal concern - but instead the personal and social problems that underlay criminal behavior. Crime was a presenting symptom, a trigger for intervention, rather than the focal point for the probation officers action.

The probation service was the lead agency carrying forward a progressive programme of crime control through social intervention. It was at the forefront of the effort to rationalise and humanise penal practice to use expertise, social work techniques, criminological knowledge, and trained clinical judgement to deal with crime. As such, it was part of, and drew support from a wider political project - the project of the welfare state, with its concerns for solidarity through state provision, integration, inclusiveness, and with the distinctive social rationality - a style of reasoning, or a habit of thought that looked for social causes and social solutions to deal with any problem that emerged in the field of government. Probation was also part of the wider structure of institutions and power relations that gave enormous authority and prestige to professional expertise. The professional society (as Harold Perkin has described 20th century Britain) reached its hey day in the 1960s with the expansion of the personalised social services and the creation of an extensive social work network, in which the probation service featured as a long-established, highly skilled agency, deriving authority from the court-based functions as well as its social work credentials.

In this professionalised context, social problems - including the problems of crime, delinquency, resettlement and family breakdown - were problems that required professional, social solutions, and more and more trained social workers. (Garland 1997: 3) The 1970s and 1980s saw the emergence of results from Martinsons famous 1975, and often misquoted and misinterpreted, nothing works article, The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment. The movement and philosophy underpinning it that followed created a shift towards deterrence and humane containment as the motivation in sentencing. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a justice model emerged as did the concept ofjust deserts. Incapacitation or the deprivation of liberty, became the methodology followed by alternatives to imprisonment (Erwin 1990) and in the 1990s, another correctional philosophy evolved; a combination or amalgamation of all the previous philosophies, but one that relies heavily on risk control techniques within crime reduction strategies. Governments are now attempting to indirectly affect crime through non-state agencies and their citizens using terms such as crime prevention, partnerships, mobilization of communities, and restorative justice. Regardless of the rhetoric, ever within this divulging of state responsibility, probation and parole can only be viewed as a form of control. The effect of attack on the value of probation, and many of its, then core values, led to a fundamental shift in direction that created a malaise that was recognized by many, especially the practitioners.

Over the course of the last two decades, and at an accelerating pace over the last five years, the field of crime control and criminal justice has been reconfigured in important ways. The probation service is deeply implicated in that transformation, though its relation to the process has been problematic.

The probation service was the lead agency carrying forward a progressive programme of crime control through social intervention. It was at the forefront of the effort to rationalise and humanise penal practice to use expertise, social work techniques, criminological knowledge, and trained clinical judgement to deal with crime. As such, it was part of, and drew support from a wider political project - the project of the welfare state, with its concerns for solidarity through state provision, integration, inclusiveness, and with the distinctive social rationality - a style of reasoning, or a habit of thought that looked for social causes and social solutions to deal with any problem that emerged in the field of government. Probation was also part of the wider structure of institutions and power relations that gave enormous authority and prestige to professional expertise. The professional society (as Harold Perkin has described 20th century Britain) reached its hey day in the 1960s with the expansion of the personalised social services and the creation of an extensive social work network, in which the probation service featured as a long-established, highly skilled agency, deriving authority from the court-based functions as well as its social work credentials. In this professionalised context, social problems - including the problems of crime, delinquency, resettlement and family breakdown - were problems that required professional, social solutions, and more and more trained social workers. (Garland 1997: 3) The 1970s and 1980s saw the emergence of results from Martinsons famous 1975, and often misquoted and misinterpreted, nothing works article, The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment. The movement and philosophy underpinning it that followed created a shift towards deterrence and humane containment as the motivation in sentencing. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a justice model emerged as did the concept of just deserts. Incapacitation or the deprivation of liberty, became the methodology followed by alternatives to imprisonment (Erwin 1990) and in the 1990s, another correctional philosophy evolved; a combination or amalgamation of all the previous philosophies, but one that relies heavily on risk control techniques within crime reduction strategies. Governments are now attempting to indirectly affect crime through non-state agencies and their citizens using terms such as crime prevention, partnerships, mobilization of communities, and restorative justice.

Regardless of the rhetoric, ever within this divulging of state responsibility, probation and parole can only be viewed as a form of control. The effect of attack on the value of probation, and many of its, then core values, led to a fundamental shift in direction that created a malaise that was recognized by many, especially the practitioners. Over the course of the last two decades, and at an accelerating pace over the last five years, the field of crime control and criminal justice has been reconfigured in important ways. The probation service is deeply implicated in that transformation, though its relation to the process has been problematic. The service gives the impression of being caught up in a current that is sweeping it away from its bearings and it is caught between trying to resist and trying to swim with the tide. This is a strange position for the service to find itself in. After half a century of being in the vanguard of progressive change, the probation service now appears as a conservative force, straining to hold on to a framework that is fast disappearing. (Garland 1997: 1) Independent of the philosophical orientation, debate and controversy, probation has, nonetheless, proven useful as a non-custodial sanction, one that offers assistance and guidance as well as punishment. Increasingly, once again, probation is viewed as a realistic public policy option the imposition of a cheap, efficient and cost-effective, non-custodial punishment for offenders whose crimes are not deemed to justify the imposition of higher level and more expensive custodial options. The early diversion of offenders from incarceration is becoming an increasing factor in departmental planning of programs and services for offenders. Offenders are selectively targeted at the pre-sentence stage of the judicial process in which courts are encouraged to use prisons as the penalty of last resort and to promote the use of community based alternatives. In an international context of rising crime, however, there is also the necessity of developing a non-prisoncentric penal framework (Hamai et al. 1995: 105). Thus, there is a growing recognition that probation must once again form a vital and dynamic part of an integrated criminal justice strategy that includes crime prevention, policing, victim recognition and support, and the management of offenders. probation is not a thing to be taken or left but a set of ideas and possibilities to be used creatively and strategically to solve local problems of criminal justice [It is] a framework into which locally feasible and desirable solutions may be fitted into. (Harris 1995: 207) The promotion of community sanctions or alternatives to incarceration on the basis or arguments that they are too exclusively economic or short term, especially if they rely on partial or simplistic data, can be disastrous over the long term ... more generally speaking, there is risk of losing sight of the values, the less tangible, but more fundamental objectives, which should be at the heart of our philosophy and our policy in the field of criminal justice ... Community sanctions should not be considered primarily alternative

solutions to incarceration, but as measures having value in themselves and seeking objectives other than those sought by imprisonment (Landreville 1995: 56) CASE FOR PROBATION The arguments in favour of probation and other ... non-custodial sanctions are essentially the mirror image of the arguments against imprisonment. First, they are considered more appropriate for certain types of offences and offenders. 9 Second, because they avoid prisonisation, they promote integration back into the community, promote rehabilitation, and are therefore, more humane. Third, they are generally less costly than sanctions involving imprisonment. Fourth, by decreasing the prison population, they ease prison overcrowding and thus facilitate the administration of prisons and the proper correctional treatment of those who remain in prison. (Zvekic 1994) Independent of the relevant research on both effectiveness and cost-benefit, it must be clearly kept in mind that probation is every bit as effective and considerably cheaper as imprisonment and additionally, ... reliance on imprisonment as the normal punishment has clear humanitarian, ethical, and social costs (ibid.). While little material exists on exactly what probation costs, in Canada, research done on the parole system indicated that in 1992/93, it cost approximately $10,951 per year to keep an individual under supervision while costs of federal penitentiary incarceration averaged $52,953 per year (Correctional Service of Canada 1993). Even when community penalties are compared en bloc to imprisonment, community penalties have re-conviction rates no lower than prison, and at a fraction of the cost. Some community-based programmes aim to achieve the equivalent of prisons incapacitative effect, reducing or eliminating offending for the duration of the treatment. Electronic monitoring is one example. In a sense, some treatment programmes for drug-dependant offenders are another. American research suggests that the later are substantially cost-effective, and that the benefits accrue mainly during the period of treatment. (Rydell and Everingham 1994, in Hough 1997: 1) FUNCTIONS OF PROBATION Probation as a sentencing disposition is a method of dealing with specially selected offenders and consists of the conditional suspension of punishment while the offender is placed under personal supervision and is given individual guidance or treatment (United Nations 1951: 4). The probationer acquires a status due to the limited rights and special duties to which he or she is subjected. Probation may also refer to a system (private or public) which administers the delivery of specific services , and is commonly considered a subsystem of a broader system of criminal justice. Probation may as well refer to a process that encompasses a variety of operational activities, including investigatory and supervisory practices. Probation in a larger context is a method of punishment with a sociopedagogic basis characterized by a combination of supervision and

assistance. It is applied under a free system (no fee) to offenders selected according to their criminal personality, the type of crime, and their receptiveness, in relation to a system whose aim is to give the offender the chance to modify his/her approach to life in society and to take a place in the social environment of choice without the risk of violating a social penal norm again. (Cartledge et al. 1981, in Harris 1995: 3-4) 10 There is not a unified notion of what constitutes probation but there are clear indications that almost all probation systems and practices tend to adjust and match developments of time and place in terms of culture, economics, politics and criminal justice philosophies while preserving some key features of its origin and, in virtually all cases, the professional identity and orientation of probation officers. Probation across the world is in a state of flux and in some cases, a state of crisis, albeit to varying degrees and for varying reasons. The further development or introduction of probation, as the case may be, into a criminal justice system must build on existing social structures and supports by working to enhance what is already there. Probation is not an external solution to internal problems of criminal justice, penology or governance, but a possible framework into which locally feasible and desirable solutions may be fitted. For probation to be effective or where there is a planned introduction of probation as an effective and cost-efficient non-custodial sanction, the following legislative and legal pre-conditions should either exist or be established either in law, policy and procedures or in professional rules of practice.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PROBATION AND PAROLE: HISTORY, GOALS, AND DECISION-MAKING Over five million people are under the supervision of the criminal justice systems in the United States. Approximately, 1.6 million are incarcerated in local, state, and federal institutions. The remaining, or almost 70 percent of those under the responsibility of the criminal justice system, are being supervised in the community on probation or parole. This means that at any one time a large number of U.S. citizens are in the community under correctional supervision. For example, nearly 2 percent or 3.8 million adult men and women in the United States were being supervised in the community on federal or state probation or parole in 1995 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997). While probation and parole are both considered community corrections and involve supervision in the community, they differ in other respects. Probation is a sentencing option available to local judges. Convicted offenders are released by the court to serve a sentence under court-imposed conditions for a specified period. It is considered an alternative to incarceration. In most cases the entire probation sentence is served under supervision in the community. The court retains the authority to supervise, modify conditions, cancel probation and resentence if the probationer violates the terms of probation. The responsible agency for overseeing probation can be either state or local. There are currently more than two thousand separate probation agencies in the United States. In contrast to probation, parole is the early release of inmates from correctional institutions prior to the expiration of the sentence on the condition of good behavior and supervision in the community. It is also referred to as supervised release, community supervision, or after-care. The parole board is the legally designated paroling authority. The board has the authority to release on parole adults (or juveniles) who are committed to correctional institutions, to set conditions that must be followed during supervision, to revoke parole and return the offender to an institution, and to discharge from parole. Thus, probation is a front-end decision that is made

prior to incarceration in a jail or prison, while parole is a back-end decision to release inmates from jail or prison. Community corrections include traditional probation and parole as well as other sanctions such as intensive supervision, restitution, community service, correctional boot camps, and fines. Frequently these alternative punishments or intermediate sanctions come under the jurisdiction of the agencies responsible for the administration of probation and parole. Origins of probation and parole Despite the differences between probation and parole, there are many similarities between the two types of community corrections. Both were initially developed as methods to mitigate the severity of punishment.

The origin of probation. Probation as it is known today can be traced to the use of several judicial practices exercised in English and later, American courts. "Release on recognizance" or bail, for example, allowed defendants who agreed to certain conditions of release to return to the community to await trial. After setting bail, judges sometimes failed to take further action (Abidinsky). Thus, similar to modern-day probation, defendants were released to the community conditionally. If they failed to meet the condition of release, they were faced with the threat of revocation. And in some instances, they were spared further contact with the criminal justice system. In English courts, judicial reprieve empowered judges to temporarily suspend either the imposition or execution of a sentence in order to permit a defendant to appeal to the Crown for a pardon (Abidinsky; Allen et al.). Although suspension was intended to be temporary, further prosecution of such cases was sometimes abandoned (Allen et al.). Judges in the United States exercised a similar power, enabling them to suspend the sentence of a convicted defendant if justice had in any way been miscarried. The use of judicial power to suspend a sentence was extended to cases in which there existed no miscarriage of justice. Sentences were suspended seemingly to give defendants another chance. Documentation of this practice in Boston dates back to 1830. Such suspensions were challenged near the turn of the twentieth century in a New York state court (1894) and later in the Supreme Court (1916). Both courts held that absent a legislative directive judges did not possess the authority to suspend sentences. During roughly the same time period, a shoemaker-philanthropist in Boston, named John Augustus, began the practice of bailing offenders out of court and assuming responsibility for them in the community. Bailing hundreds of offenders between the years 1841 and 1859, John Augustus is most often credited as being the founder of probation in the United States. Augustus bailed the offenders out after conviction. As a result of this favor and with further acts of friendliness such as helping the offender obtain employment and aiding the offender's family in other ways, the offender was indebted to Augustus and was willing to abide by agreements. After a period of supervision in the community, the bailed offenders returned to court armed with

Augustus's sentencing recommendations. Due to his efforts John Augustus's charges were typically spared incarceration. John Augustus's probation bears much resemblance to probation as it is practiced today. Augustus took great care in deciding which prisoners were promising candidates for probation. He considered the person's "character," age, and factors that would impact the offender after release. In dubious cases, he required the offender to attend school or to be employed. Thus, Augustus's activities provided the origins for the presentence investigation as well as common conditions of present-day community supervision such as education or employment. Not long after John Augustus published an account of his work in 1852, the Massachusetts legislature in 1878 passed a bill authorizing the city of Boston to hire a probation officer (Abidinsky). The practice of probation spread through the state of Massachusetts and was later adopted by numerous states around the turn of the twentieth century. Between 1897 and 1920, for example, twenty-six states and the District of Columbia passed adult probation statutes (Champion). By 1927, all states except Wyoming had adopted some type of probation law for juveniles. However, probation was not available for all adult offenders in the United States until 1956. Regardless of whether the origins of probation are traced to judicial reprieve or to the work of John Augustus, it is clear that the guiding philosophy of probation was rehabilitation. John Augustus leaves no room for doubt, stating: "It became pretty generally known that my labors were upon the ground of reform, that I confined my efforts mainly to those who were indicted for their first offence, and whose hearts were not wholly depraved, but gave promise of better things . . ." (Augustus). Probation implies "forgiveness" and "trial," or a period during which offenders may prove themselves capable of obeying the law and abiding by society's norms. Court opinions as well as state statutes generally affirm that the overarching purpose of probation is rehabilitation (Brilliant). Origins of parole. Prior to the mid-nineteenth century most offenders were sentenced to flat or determinate sentences in prison. Under this type of sentencing, an offender received a specific amount of time to serve in prison for a specific crime. This created a major problem when prisons became crowded. Governors were forced to issue mass pardons or prison wardens had to randomly release offenders to make room for entering prisoners. Credit for developing early parole systems is usually given to an Englishman, Captain Alexander Maconochie, and an Irishman, Sir Walter Crofton. In 1840, Maconochie was appointed governor of the notorious English penal colony at Norfolk Island off the coast of Australia. At the time, English criminals were being transported to Australia and those sent to Norfolk Island were considered "twice condemned"; they had been shipped to Australia from England and from Australia to the island. Conditions were so bad that, allegedly, men who received reprieves from the death penalty wept. The first thing Maconochie did was to eliminate the flat sentence structure used in Norfolk at the time of his arrival. Instead of requiring convicts to serve their sentences with no hope of release until the full sentence had been served, Maconochie initiated a "mark system" whereby a convict could earn freedom by hard work and good behavior in the prison. The earned marks could be used to purchase either goods or a reduction in sentence.

Prisoners had to pass through a series of stages beginning with strict imprisonment through conditional release to final freedom. Movement through the stages was dependent upon the number of marks accredited. Like Maconochie, Sir Walter Crofton believed the length of the sentence should not be an arbitrary period of time but should be related to the rehabilitation of the offender. After becoming the administrator of the Irish Prison System in 1854, Crofton initiated a system incorporating three classes of penal servitude: strict imprisonment, indeterminate sentences, and tickets-of-leave. This indeterminate system or Irish system, as it came to be known, permitted convicts to earn marks to move from solitary confinement to a return to the community on a conditional pardon or ticket-of-leave. Zebulon Brockway, a Michigan penologist, is usually credited with initiating indeterminate sentences and parole release in the United States. Similar to Maconochie and Crofton, Brockway believed inmates should be able to earn their way out of prison through good behavior. Thus, they should receive a sentence that could vary in length depending upon their behavior in prison. In his opinion, this had two advantages. First, it would provide a release valve for managing prison populations. Second it would be valuable in reforming offenders because they would be earning release by demonstrating good behavior. Brockway had the opportunity to pioneer this proposal into practice in 1876 when he was appointed superintendent of Elmira Reformatory for youthful offenders in New York. Inmates at Elmira were graded on their conduct, achievement, and education. On the basis of their behavior in the reformatory, they were given parole. Volunteer "guardians" supervised the parolees and submitted written reports documenting their behavior in the community. A condition of the parole was that the offender report to the guardian each month. Thus, by the turn of the century the major concepts underlying parole were in place in the United States: (1) a reduction in the sentence of incarceration based on good behavior in prison; (2) supervision of the parolee in the community; and (3) indeterminate sentences. By 1901, twenty states had parole statutes and by 1944, every jurisdiction in the United States had some form of parole release and indeterminate sentencing. Changing goals of community corrections Over the past thirty years, there have been major changes in the theoretical model guiding the practice of community supervision. During the twentieth century, most of the focus of probation and parole had been on the rehabilitation aspects of community supervision. However, since the 1960s, major changes have occurred in correctional philosophy and this has had a dramatic impact on the goals of community supervision. Rehabilitation model. As described earlier, probation and parole were originally conceived in humanitarian termsas a second chance or an opportunity for reform. Not surprisingly, the enactment of many community supervision statutes coincided with the Progressive period (19001920) in correctional history. Progressive reformers dismissed penal policies of the previous century as prohibitively rigid and advocated the adoption of the "medical model" (or

"treatment" model) in conjunction with indeterminate sentencing. Deviant behavior was thought to be different for each offender. These individual differences were related to the particulars of an offender's life history either due to faulty environmental conditions or maladapted psychological mechanisms (Rothman). As a result, an attempt was made to individualize criminal justice procedures. In the presentence report the probation officer (social worker-expert) would diagnose the problems and this would be used to individualize the sentence. Correctional practice was dominated by the rehabilitative ideal through much of the 1960s. During this period community supervision officers assumed the responsibility of changing offenders. Attention focused on the offender, not the offense, in an attempt to prevent future crimes. Officers possessed considerable discretion, as well as the power to utilize coercive means if deemed necessary, to further the process of rehabilitation (O'Leary). Consistent with the medical model, the presentence reports contained the "diagnosis" and prescribed the "treatment" necessary for a "cure." After sentencing, classification systems were used to identify and plan for the appropriate management and treatment of the offender. Parole boards would determine when the offender was "cured" and ready for release. It was the job of the supervising officer to counsel probationers and parolees as well as to ensure that the suggested interventions were in fact being realized. The philosophy of the Progressive movement remained largely unchallenged until the early 1970s at which time it became the target of fierce attack. The assumptions of rehabilitation as a preeminent goal for sentence were questioned (Thomson). Critics such as Fogel (1975) and von Hirsch (1976) argued that the indeterminate sentences based on perceived offender characteristics and coerced involvement in rehabilitative programs were unethical and immoral. In addition, empirical evidence widely disseminated in the mid-1970s cast doubt on the efficacy of rehabilitation (Thomson). In 1975, for example, Lipton, Martinson, & Wilks's evaluation of correctional treatment programs was published, leading to the oft-quoted, though overstated, claim that "nothing works." The demise of the rehabilitative ideal in theory resulted in modifications of probation practice, although by no means the wholesale abandonment of rehabilitative orientations. Empirical research argued that treatment programs were effective under certain conditions, for example, appropriate target groups, and properly implemented programs was published not long thereafter (see Ross & Gendreau) but such research did not overcome the popular cry of the period that "nothing works." Neo-classical models The immediate theoretical successors to the rehabilitation model of community supervision were grounded in the neoclassical assumptions of "volition, equity, proportionality, and fairness" (Thomson). Neoclassical models such as the "just deserts" model or the justice model emphasized the proportionality between crime and punishment, diverting attention from the offender back to the offense. Proponents opposed to the individualization of penal sanctions raised fundamental questions about the equity of the rehabilitation model. For example, Kay Harris, a justice model advocate, posed the question of whether it was fair to sentence one offender to three years of probation with the requirement to abstain from alcohol, earn a high

school diploma, and obtain employment, while another offender guilty of the same offense but of higher socioeconomic status is given a shorter term with no special conditions. In contrast to the rehabilitation model, offenders sentenced under a neoclassical sentencing scheme are punished for what they have done in the past, not for what they are likely to do in the future. The idea was to develop a system in which the exact, fair and just penalty for a crime is clearly articulated in advance and uniformly applied to all (O'Leary). Models of community supervision that fall under the rubric of neoclassicism include just deserts, retribution, commensurate deserts, and the justice model (Thomson). Another important critique of the rehabilitative model articulated by justice model proponents is the tendency of the rehabilitative model to treat persons as if they were objects (Harris). The justice model views punishment as a kind of debt owed by offenders because of the crime they have committed; the treatment model sees it as a means of influencing offenders' future behavior. While neoclassical reformers joined by other anti-Progressive groups have been largely successful in replacing indeterminate sentencing schemes with determinate ones, their impact on the actual practice of community supervision has been far less profound. Most supervising officers continue to do what they had always done. There were, however, changes in the sentencing process. Many jurisdictions passed laws to eliminate parole and return to the early flat or determinate sentences. Furthermore, to eliminate discretion and disparity many jurisdictions developed sentencing guidelines to be used by judges to determine appropriate sentences for offenders. Using the severity of the crime and the history of past convictions, the guidelines gave judges recommendations about the appropriate length of sentences. Incapacitation/control models. The reluctance to implement models of probation grounded in neoclassical ideals may be attributed to several factors that contributed instead to the adoption of incapacitation or control models of community supervision in the 1980s. For example, according to David Rothman the neoclassical schemes were unpersuasive because they failed to address crime control concerns. The argument in support of the justice model focused on equity of sentences not on controlling crime in the community. Further, the exploding prison populations and skyrocketing correctional costs led to increasing numbers of felons being released early from prison or placed on probation caseloads (Petersilia, 1990). As a result, feelings of vulnerability to crime were intensified. Empirically, one well-known study of felons sentenced to probation in California revealed that 65 percent of the sample (N=1,672) were rearrested and 51 percent were convicted of new crimes during a forty-month follow-up period (Petersilia and Turner). Replications of the study in other jurisdictions produced results that proved less cause for alarm, however (e.g., Clear et al.). Nevertheless, the movement to more effectively control offenders during community supervision gained considerable momentum throughout the 1980s. Ultimately, the preeminent philosophical rationale for sentencing shifted from the neoclassical assumptions of the 1970s to a preference for incapacitation and control limited by the principle of just deserts. The just desert model failed to address crime control concerns and most likely this led to its demise as a widely accepted sole purpose of sanctioning. Another old-fashioned

purpose for sentencing emergedthe notion of incapacitation. From this perspective, sanctions are used to control offenders so they cannot continue to commit crimes. Ideally, offenders would be locked away in prisons so they would be unable to commit crimes. One obvious by-product of the new sentencing philosophy has been the reemergence of intensive supervised probation and parole programs (ISP). First implemented in the 1960s, the early ISPs were attempts at discovering the caseload size that would maximize the intensity of supervision. Intensity was assumed to be related to successful outcome. The second wave of ISPs surfaced in the mid-1980s despite the less than enthusiastic findings of the earlier movement. Without doubt, the new ISPs clearly demonstrate the shift toward control-oriented probation. The Texas ISP manual is particularly illustrative with its focus on more surveillance, more control, and more contacts than traditional supervision. The emphasis of this ISP program is on offender control. Similarly, Harland and Rosen (1987) delineate the primary goals of ISP programs as minimizing the risk that probationers will reoffend or breach other conditions of their release, by restricting their opportunity and propensity to do so. ISP's goals are primarily incapacitation and deterrence through the intensive regulation and monitoring of offenders' whereabouts and conduct, and corresponding increased threat of detection and strict enforcement of consequences in event of violations. The shift in the philosophy/practice of community supervision came at a time when the institution of probation was considerably demoralized (Tonry). Not only was probation publicly perceived as merely a "slap on the wrist" (as it has been by some since the days of John Augustus), faith in the ability of community supervision to rehabilitate had slowly eroded. The reemergence of ISPs and the control philosophy in general, therefore, seemed to have given probation and parole administrators a chance to rebuild the credibility, influence, and material resources for probation and parole (Tonry). Probation and parole decision-making Probation and parole agencies have always been responsible for two functions. First, the agencies must assist with the decision process. For probation officers this is the investigative aspect of their work and it involves assisting the court in the decision to sentence to probation in lieu of a prison sentence. For parole, the decision must be made to release an inmate from prison. The second responsibility of both agencies is to provide supervision for those offenders who are judged suitable for release to the community. The decision to grant probation. The majority of individuals convicted of a crime are not given a prison sentence. Fifty-four of every one hundred felony arrests result in a conviction. Of those convicted, twenty-two are given a probation sentence, eighteen a jail sentence and fourteen are sent to prison (Boland, Mahanna, and Stones). Community corrections officials are critical players in these sentencing decisions. They must assess the level of risk offenders present to the public safety and make recommendations to the court about the appropriate sentence. Probation officers often begin the investigative process during the pretrial period by examining an offender's background and history to assist in determining whether a defendant can safely be

released on his own recognizance or bail. The report from the officer is frequently the primary source of information the court uses in this decision. At this point the court may defer adjudication or offer pretrial diversion and require probation supervision. Once an offender is convicted, the probation officer prepares a presentence investigation report (PSI). The PSI is the major source of information on which courts base sentences. The primary function of the PSI report is to provide the sentencing court with timely, relevant, and accurate data about the offender. Such information is used to determine the sentence and classify offenders as to risk and therapeutic needs. The information is used to plan programming in institutions and in the community, to set conditions of supervision, and for release planning. In determinate-sentencing jurisdictions the statutes specify similar sentences for offenders convicted of similar offenses. The PSI in these jurisdictions places the emphasis on offensebased reports where the dominant focus is on the offense and the offender's culpability in the offense. Where the court uses sentencing guidelines to determine the appropriate sentences the emphasis of the report is on providing verifiable information on the defendant's criminal record and aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Unlike the PSI provided by the indeterminatesentencing jurisdictions, the primary focus is on the crime and not the criminal. Typically, the PSI includes information on the seriousness of the crime, the defendant's risk for recidivism, the defendant's circumstances (living arrangement, employment, family), the legally permissible sentencing options, and a recommended sentence. Today with the increased concern with victim issues, the PSI may contain a victim impact statement that describes the impact of the offense on identifiable victims or the community. Over 90 percent of all felony cases are eventually resolved through negotiated pleas so the major decision of the court is whether or not to imprison the offender. The PSI is critically important in this regard. Research has shown that the judge's knowledge of the case is limited to the information contained in the PSI. Furthermore, there is a high correlation between the recommendations provided by the probation officer in the PSI and the judge's sentence. Such recommendations are accepted between 65 and 95 percent of the time. Eighty percent of all adults convicted of misdemeanors and 60 percent of all adults convicted of felonies are sentenced to probation or a combination of probation and jail. Thus, two-thirds of all convictions result in a sentence of probation. Research shows that people are less likely to be given probation if they: have more conviction counts, have more prior convictions, were on probation or parole at the time of arrest, were drug addicts, or used a weapon in the crime or seriously injured victims (Petersilia and Turner). For those who receive probation, the court must also decide how to impose the sentence. Commonly, the judge gives a jail or prison sentence and then suspends the sentence in favor of probation. The jail or prison term is held in abeyance to be used if the offender fails to abide by the conditions of probation. About 50 percent of all probations sentences are suspended in this way (Latessa and Allen, 1997). The judge also imposes conditions that the probationer is required to follow during the community supervision.

Parole Release. The parole board (or parole commission), an administrative body, is empowered to decide whether inmates shall be conditionally released from prison prior to the completion of their sentence. The board is also responsible for determining whether to revoke parole and to discharge from parole those who have satisfactorily completed the terms of their sentence. In most jurisdictions, once the parole board makes the decision to grant parole, the responsibility for supervision in the community is turned over to parole officers who are supervised by the department of corrections. The decision to grant parole is usually based on a review of the individual offender's case file (including the PSI) and an interview with the inmate. Eligibility for parole is determined by statutory requirements and is usually based on the completion of the minimum sentence less any good-time credits earned during incarceration. Technically, parolees are still prisoners who can be recalled to serve the remainder of their sentence in prison if the parole board decides they have not fulfilled the terms of their release. Parole boards have traditionally had great leeway in deciding when to grant parole. During the hearing stage when the board met with the inmate they were expected to observe whether the prospective parolee demonstrated his or her rehabilitation, a willingness to accept responsibility, and self-understanding. Decisions were not based on formally articulated criteria or policies but on subjective and intuitional judgments of the individuals on the board. Few courts have reviewed parole decision-making and those that have appear to agree with the contentions of paroling authorities that to impose even minimal due-process constraints on the decision-making process would interfere with the board's goals of diagnosis and prediction (Cromwell and Del Carmen). Most parole boards appear to accept an incapacitation or a modified justice model when making release decisions (Petersilia, 1998). They reported that the single most important factor they considered in the release decision was the nature of the current offense (Runda, Rhine, and Wetter). Following this they considered any history of prior violence, prior felony convictions, and possession of a firearm during the crime. These indicators of dangerousness were used to determine how much time an offender should serve prior to parole. Board members did not consider any factors related to rehabilitation or program participation to be important to consider in making parole decisions. Critics of parole release decisions characterize the system as arbitrary and capricious. This is one of the reasons some jurisdictions have abolished parole. Other jurisdictions have instituted guidelines to be used to structure decisions without completely removing discretion. The parole guidelines used by the U.S. Parole Commission for making parole release decisions served as a model for parole guidelines developed in many other jurisdictions. The commission developed a system for decision-making based on the seriousness of the offense and the risk of recidivism. An actuarial device, the Salient Factor Score, was used to determine the potential risk of a parole violation. Decision-makers then use the guidelines to determine the customary time to be served for a range of offenses based on the severity of the offense. Decision-makers may deviate from the guidelines but they are required to explain the specific factors considered in the decision to override the score. Other jurisdictions have developed "risk assessment" or prediction instruments to assist parole boards in making decisions about release.

The move toward the justice model of corrections and the use of incapacitation has led to questions about the viability of parole, but for different reasons. Justice advocates argue that the indeterminancy inherent in the parole system is unfair because the board must make decisions based on what will occur in the future. Furthermore, they assert it is impossible to tell when an offender is rehabilitated. Incapacitation advocates also argue against parole. From their point of view, a sentence to prison prohibits an offender from committing more crimes in the community; parole release does not. Both of these perspectives have been influential in changing sentencing in many jurisdictions, and in the past thirty years sentencing changes have dramatically affected the use of parole. Prior to 1975 sentencing codes of every state had some form of indeterminancy. Since then, every state in the nation has revised, replaced, or seriously considered determinate sentencing and the abolishment of parole (Petersilia, 1998). This has led to a dramatic decline in the percent of state prisoners released through discretionary parole (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1996). In 1977 over 70 percent of offenders released from prison were released on parole. By 1994, this was reduced to 37 percent. An increasing percent of the releases were through mandatory release and expiration of sentence.

Recent trends Increasing rate of revocations. There is some evidence that both the number and rate of revocations have increased and these have had a significant impact on prison and jail populations (Parent et al.). For example, in 1988 more than 60 percent of Oregon's prison admissions were due to probation or parole revocations. Furthermore, two-thirds of the prison admissions in Texas in 1989, and 60 percent of California's prison admissions, were violators (Parent et al.). Parent and colleagues note that while the increase in probation/parole populations alone might account for the increase in revocations, interviews with practitioners reveal that in some states the rate of revocations has increased as well. Increased rates of revocations have been attributed to many factors including: (1) the shift toward control-oriented practices of community supervision; (2) the law-enforcement background of new probation/parole officers (as opposed to the social work background of the past); (3) an increase in the number of conditions of probation; (4) improvement in the methods of monitoring violations; (5) the more serious offender placed on community supervision caseloads; and (6) an increase in probation and parole caseloads (Parent et al.). Empirical data on technical violations. While data collected over time is not readily available, the largest follow-up study of felony probationers in the United States revealed that a substantial proportion of probationers fail to successfully complete their sentence (Langan and Cunnif). For example, within a three-year follow-up period, 62 percent of a sample of 79,000 felony probationers had been either arrested for another felony or had violated a condition of probation resulting in a disciplinary hearing (Langan and Cunnif). Thirty percent of those had both been arrested and had a disciplinary hearing, 13 percent had only been arrested, and 19 percent had only a disciplinary hearing. Furthermore, 46 percent of the sample were ultimately incarcerated. Of those probationers who were incarcerated, 35 percent were incarcerated for committing only a technical violation (Langan and Cunnif).

In contrast, however, Clear and colleagues' evaluation of 7,501 felony and misdemeanant probationers terminated from six probation agencies revealed that approximately onequarter of the probationers committed violations, half of which were violations of technical conditions of supervision. Further, they found that most violators misbehaved only once. Therefore, the majority of probationers successfully completed their sentence without incident. In short, their study seemed to refute the assumption that due to early release and diversion from prison, the probation population has become increasingly dangerous. The recidivism rates for parolees are even higher than the rates of probationers. Beck and Shipley (1989) examined the recidivism rates of 108,580 men and women who were released from jail in eleven states. They found that 62 percent had been rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within three years of release and 41 percent had been returned to prison. Innovative responses. In response to the observation that increasing numbers of offenders are having parole revoked during community supervision, many jurisdictions are reexamining their revocation procedures (Parent et al.). A major development is the structuring of discretionary decision-making, consistent with the general trend in criminal justice. The goal of the structure is to give officers concrete guidance so that their choices become more certain and uniform without removing all discretion. Structure is incorporated into the decision-making by written policy giving the goals of revocation and specifying which violations are serious enough to result in revocation procedures. Behaviors that warrant alternative sanctions are also identified. Thus, agencies make it clear to officers that violations are a routine part of supervision that can be responded to in a variety of ways. Some jurisdictions have expanded the range of sanctions available to officers so that officers are not forced to choose between sanctions that are too harsh (a return to prison) and sanctions that are too lenient. Other jurisdictions have developed intermediate sanctions specifically for probation or parole violators. For example, Georgia has developed a correctional boot camp for technical violators of supervision. The violators are required to complete ninety days in the boot camp before returning to the community. Research assessing the effectiveness of community corrections As noted above the recidivism rates for those on probation and parole are relatively high. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics 43 percent of the felony probationers and 62 percent of the parolees will be rearrested within three years after beginning community supervision. The question is whether community supervision has any impact on reducing criminal activities. That is, would these offenders commit more crime if they were not being supervised in the community. Most research examining the effectiveness of probation and parole focuses on the effectiveness of increasing some component or condition of supervision, particularly the effectiveness of increasing different types of control. Disappointingly, the majority of these studies demonstrate no impact of the increased control; the recidivism rates for those who had the increased supervision or control over their behavior was approximately the same as the rates for the comparison groups (MacKenzie). In fact, frequently those who had more conditions requiring control had higher technical violation rates.

Several studies do give more hopeful signs. Most of the research examining the effectiveness of probation and parole has focused on the control aspects of community supervision; however, a few studies have examined the effectiveness of combining treatment and surveillance. The results of these studies are promising (MacKenzie). In several studies, the offenders who received increased supervision as well as increased treatment had lower recidivism than others who were not given the supervision and treatment. Many of these studies are exploratory and have not been replicated but they do present a hopeful sign that combinations of treatment and control may be effective in lowering recidivism. Another indication that community supervision may have a positive impact on offenders comes from a self-report study completed by MacKenzie and her colleagues (1998). They asked offenders to report on their criminal activities during the year before arrest and during probation. Self-report criminal activity is important to study because few of the crimes committed result in an official record of arrest. The researchers found that the criminal activities of the offenders declined dramatically when the pre-arrest period was compared to the probation period. This suggests probation was effective in reducing the criminal activities of these offenders. Similarly, behaviors that constituted a violation of conditions of probation such as heavy drinking or illegal drug use were associated with increased criminal activity. The researchers found no evidence that increases in the intrusiveness of conditions, the agent's knowledge of misbehavior, or how the agent responded to misbehavior were associated with changes in criminal activity. Thus, while probation appears to be effective in reducing criminal activities and the violations of conditions signaled criminal activities, little else done during probation had a crime reduction effect. The studies of the effectiveness of combinations of treatment and supervision and the findings from the self-report study of probation provide some encouragement that community supervision has the potential to be a valuable addition to the arsenal of activities criminal justice systems can employ to reduce crime in the community.

Origin of Probation

The origin of probation can be traced to English criminal law of the Middle Ages. Harsh punishments were imposed on adults and children alike for offenses that were not always of a serious nature. Sentences such as branding, flogging, mutilation, and execution were common. During the time of King Henry VIII, for instance, no less than 200 crimes were punishable by death, many of which were minor offenses. This harshness eventually led to discontent in certain progressive segments of English society that were concerned with the evolution of the justice system. Slowly but resolutely, in an effort to mitigate these inhumane punishments, a variety of measures were devised and adopted. Royal pardons could be purchased by the accused; activist judges could refrain from applying statutes or opt for a lenient interpretation of them; stolen property could be devalued by the court so that offenders could be charged with a lesser crime. Also, methods such as benefit of clergy, judicial

reprieve, sanctuary, and abjuration offered offenders a degree of protection from the enactment of harsh sentences. Eventually, the courts began the practice of "binding over for good behavior," a form of temporary release during which offenders could take measures to secure pardons or lesser sentences. Controversially, certain courts began suspending sentences. In the United States, particularly in Massachusetts, different practices were being developed. "Security for good behavior," also known as good aberrance, was much like modern bail: the accused paid a fee as collateral for good behavior. Filing was also practiced in cases that did not demand an immediate sentence. Using this procedure, indictments were "laid on file" or held in abeyance. To mitigate unreasonable mandatory penalties, judges often granted a motion to quash based upon minor technicalities or errors in the proceedings. Although these American practices were precursors to probation, it is the early use of recognizance and suspended sentence that are directly related to modern probation. Modern Probation As a young professional in England, Hill had witnessed the sentencing of youthful offenders to one-day terms on the condition that they be returned to a parent or guardian who would closely supervise them. When he eventually became the Recorder of Birmingham, a judicial post, he used a similar practice for individuals who did not seem hopelessly corrupt. If offenders demonstrated a promise for rehabilitation, they were placed in the hands of generous guardians who willingly took charge of them. Hill had police officers pay periodic visits to these guardians in an effort to track the offender's progress and keep a running account. John Augustus, the "Father of Probation," is recognized as the first true probation officer. Augustus was born in Woburn, Massachusetts in 1785. By 1829, he was a permanent resident of Boston and the owner of a successful boot-making business. It was undoubtedly his membership in the Washington Total Abstinence Society that led him to the Boston courts. Washingtonians abstained from alcohol themselves and were convinced that abusers of alcohol could be rehabilitated through understanding, kindness, and sustained moral suasion, rather than through conviction and jail sentences. In 1841, John Augustus attended police court to bail out a "common drunkard," the first probationer. The offender was John Augustus ordered to appear in court three weeks later for sentencing. He returned to court a sober man, accompanied by Augustus. To the astonishment of all in attendance, his appearance and demeanor had dramatically changed. Augustus thus began an 18-year career as a volunteer probation officer. Not all of the offenders helped by Augustus were alcohol abusers, nor were all prospective probationers taken under his wing. Close attention was paid to evaluating whether or not a candidate would likely prove to be

a successful subject for probation. The offender's character, age, and the people, places, and things apt to influence him or her were all considered. Augustus was subsequently credited with founding the investigations process, one of three main concepts of modern probation, the other two being intake and supervision. Augustus, who kept detailed notes on his activities, was also the first to apply the term "probation" to his method of treating offenders. By 1858, John Augustus had provided bail for 1,946 men and women. Reportedly, only 10 of this number forfeited their bond, a remarkable accomplishment when measured against any standard. His reformer's zeal and dogged persistence won him the opposition of certain segments of Boston society as well as the devotion and aid of many Boston philanthropists and organizations. The first probation statute, enacted in Massachusetts shortly after this death in 1859, was widely attributed to his efforts. Following the passage of that first statute, probation spread gradually throughout the United States. The juvenile court movement contributed greatly to the development of probation as a legally-recognized method of dealing with offenders. The first juvenile court was established in Chicago in 1899. Formalization of the intake process is credited to the founders of the Illinois juvenile court. Soon after, 30 states introduced probation as a part of the juvenile court procedure. Today, all states offer both juvenile and adult probation.

Probation in New York

The administrative structure of probation varies widely from state to state. In some states, probation and parole are combined. There are state-administered probation systems and locallyadministered systems. In New York, probation is locally administered under the general supervision of the state. The New York State Probation Commission was created in 1907. Until the late 1920s, the Commission coordinated probation work in various parts of the state, encouraging statewide development of probation services, planned and promoted standards of practice, and guidelines for monitoring local probation services. In 1917, a State Division of Probation was established within the NYS Department of Corrections, and in 1928 the Office of the Director of Probation was created. The State's Division of Probation remained within the Department of Corrections until 1970, when it was organized as a separate state agency within the Executive Department. The Director of the NYS Division of Probation then became a gubernatorial appointee, directly accountable to the governor. As a result of additional statutory changes, local probation departments, which prior to the early 1970s were responsible to the judiciary, followed the NYS Division of Probation's lead. In 1974,

all local probation directors were made accountable to their respective chief county officials, or, in the case of New York City, the mayor. In 1984, the Classification/Alternatives Law expanded the authority of the state division. The name was changed to the New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives. At present, the New York City Department of Probation is second only in size to its counterpart in Los Angeles County.

You might also like