Prior research has explored factors associated with probation outcomes, but few studies have examined pathways of noncompliance leading to probation failure. We conducted social sequence analysis to identify trajectories of compliance and noncompliance in a sample of 4,389 probationers in Monroe County, Indiana. Our findings showed full compliance was the most common probation trajectory and a single failure to appear (FTA) the most common pattern of noncompliance. In addition to a new offense during probation, repeated patterns of FTA and substance use noncompliance were associated with higher revocation rates. Recurrent patterns of technical violations, particularly for substance use, may function as an important pathway to revocation. Supervision strategies that intervene to address recurrent noncompliance may help agencies reduce revocation rates.
BaberL. M.JohnsonJ. L. (2013). Early termination of supervision: No compromise to community safety. Federal Probation, 77(2), 17–22.
2.
BohmertM. N.DeMarisA. (2018). Cumulative disadvantage and the role of transportation in community supervision. Crime and Delinquency, 64(8), 1033–1056. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128716686344
3.
Boman Jh4. T. H.MowenT. J.WodahlE. J.MillerB. L.MillerJ. M. (2019). Responding to substance-use-related probation and parole violations: Are enhanced treatment sanctions preferable to jail sanctions?Criminal Justice Studies, 32(4), 356–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601x.2019.1664506
4.
CaudyM. S.TangL.WooditchA.TaxmanF. S. (2014). Short-term trajectories of substance use in a sample of drug-involved probationers. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 46(2), 202–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2013.07.006
ClearT. R.RoseD. R.WaringE.ScullyK. (2003). Coercive mobility and crime: A preliminary examination of concentrated incarceration and social disorganization. Justice Quarterly, 20(1), 33–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820300095451
7.
CorbettR. P.Jr. (2015). Burdens of leniency: The changing face of probation. Minnesota Law Review, 99(5), 1697–1734.
8.
CornwellB. (2015). Social sequence analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.
9.
DeHartD.ShapiroC.CloneS. (2018). “The pill line is longer than the chow line”: The impact of incarceration on prisoners and their families. The Prison Journal, 98(2), 188–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885517753159
DematteoD.MarloweD. B.FestingerD. S.ArabiaP. L. (2009). Outcome trajectories in drug court: Do all participants have drug problems?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(4), 354–368.
12.
DohertyF. (2015). Obey all laws and be good: Probation and the meaning of recidivism. Georgetown Law Journal, 104(2), 291–354.
13.
DrawbridgeD. C.TodorovicK.WintersG. M.VincentG. M. (2019). Implementation of risk-need-responsivity principles into probation case planning. Law and Human Behavior, 43(5), 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000351
14.
FlanneryD. J.KretschmarJ. M. (2012). Fugitive safe surrender: Program description, initial findings, and policy implications. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(3), 437–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00821.x
15.
GabadinhoA.RitschardG.MüllerN. S.StuderM. (2011). Analyzing and visualizing state sequences in R with TraMineR. Journal of Statistical Software, 40(4), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v040.i04
16.
GalvinM. A.DavidsonK. M.KleimanM. (2022). Substance involvement and probation outcomes: Evidence from a cohort study. Journal of Drug Issues, 52, 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220426211062560
GrayM. K.FieldsM.MaxwellS. R. (2001). Examining probation violations: Who, what, and when. Crime and Delinquency, 47(4), 537–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128701047004003
19.
HicksW. D.HolcombJ. E.AlexanderM. A.ClodfelterT. A. (2020). Drug testing and community supervision outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(4), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819898219
20.
HuebnerB. M.CobbinaJ. (2007). The effect of drug use, drug treatment participation, and treatment completion on probationer recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues, 37(3), 619–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/002204260703700307
21.
JalbertS. K.RhodesW.FlygareC.KaneM. (2010). Testing probation outcomes in an evidence-based practice setting: Reduced caseload size and intensive supervision effectiveness. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49(4), 233–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509671003715987
22.
JannettaJ.BreauxJ.HoH.PorterJ. (2014). Examining racial and ethnic disparities in probation revocation (p. 15). Urban Institute.
23.
JonesC. G. A.KempR. I. (2011). The relationship between early-phase substance-use trajectories and drug court outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(9), 913–933. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811411887
24.
KaufmanL.RousseeuwP. J. (2005). Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis (1st ed.). Wiley-Interscience.
25.
KlingeleC. (2013). Rethinking the use of community supervision criminal law. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 103(4), 1015–1070.
26.
LatessaE.LovinsB.MakoriosM. (2013). Validation of the Indiana risk assessment system: Final report. Center for Criminal Justice Research, School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati
27.
LewisK. R.LewisL. S.GarbyT. M. (2013). Surviving the trenches: The personal impact of the job on probation officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-012-9165-3
28.
LipskyM. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell SAGE Foundation.
29.
LovinsB. K.Brusman LovinsL. A.LatessaE. J. (2022). Reimagining probation reform: Applying a coaching model to probation departments. In JeglicE.CalkinsC. (Eds.), Handbook of Issues in Criminal Justice Reform in the United States (Vol. 291, p. 305). Springer International Publishing.
MorashM.KashyD. A.SmithS. W.CobbinaJ. E. (2019). Technical violations, treatment and punishment responses, and recidivism of women on probation and parole. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(5), 788–810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417723425
MowenT. J.WodahlE.BrentJ. J.GarlandB. (2018). The role of sanctions and incentives in promoting successful reentry: Evidence from the SVORI data. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(8), 1288–1307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818770695
34.
OlsonD. E.LurigioA. J. (2000). Predicting probation outcomes: Factors associated with probation rearrest, revocations, and technical violations during supervision. Justice Research and Policy, 2(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.3818/jrp.2.1.2000.73
PhelpsM. S. (2017). Mass probation and inequality: Race, class, and gender disparities in supervision and revocation. In J. T. Ulmer & M. S. Bradley (Eds.), Handbook on punishment decisions (pp. 43–65). Routledge.
40.
PhelpsM. S. (2020). Mass probation from micro to macro: Tracing the expansion and consequences of community supervision. Annual Review of Criminology, 3(1), 261–279. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041352
41.
RodriguezN.WebbV. J. (2007). Probation violations, revocations, and imprisonment: The decisions of probation officers, prosecutors, and judges pre- and post-mandatory drug treatment. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403406292956
42.
RuhlandE.HolmesB.PetkusA. (2020). The role of fines and fees on probation outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(10), 1244–1263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820918877
43.
RuhlandE.ScheiblerE. (2022). Probation officer discretion in monitoring and violating supervision conditions. Probation Journal, 69, 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505211041578
44.
SigurdssonS. O.RingB. M.O’ReillyK.SilvermanK. (2012). Barriers to employment among unemployed drug users: Age predicts severity. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 38(6), 580–587.
45.
SloasL.LerchJ.WaltersS.TaxmanF. S. (2020). Individual-level predictors of the working relationship between probation officers and probationers. The Prison Journal, 100(6), 709–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885520968242
46.
SteinmetzK. F.HendersonH. (2016). Inequality on probation: An examination of differential probation outcomes. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 14(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2015.1030527
47.
Stevens-MartinK.OyewoleO.HipolitoC. (2014). Technical revocations of probation in one jurisdiction: Uncovering the hidden realities. Federal Probation, 78(3), 16–20.
48.
StuderM. (2013). Weighted cluster library manual: A practical guide to creating typologies of trajectories in the social sciences with R. LIVES Working Papers, 24. https://doi.org/10.12682/lives.2296-1658.2013.24
49.
StuderM.RitschardG. (2016). What matters in differences between life trajectories: A comparative review of sequence dissimilarity measures. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), 179(2), 481–511.
50.
TaxmanF. S.PerdoniM. L.HarrisonL. D. (2007). Drug treatment services for adult offenders: The state of the state. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 239–254. S
51.
TrotterC. (2013). Reducing recidivism through probation supervision: What we know and don’t know from four decades of research. Federal Probation, 77, 43.
52.
Van DeinseT. B.CuddebackG. S.WilsonA. B.BurginS. E. (2018). Probation officers’ perceptions of supervising probationers with mental illness in rural and urban settings. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(2), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-017-9392-8
53.
WhiteheadJ. T. (1991). The effectiveness of felony probation: Results from an eastern state. Justice Quarterly, 8(4), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829100091201
54.
WodahlE. J.GarlandB.CulhaneS. E.McCartyW. P. (2011). Utilizing behavioral interventions to improve supervision outcomes in community-based corrections. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(4), 386–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810397866
55.
WodahlE. J.GarlandB. E.MowenT. J. (2017). Understanding the perceived value of incentives in community supervision. Corrections, 2(3), 165–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2017.1291314
56.
WooditchA.TangL. L.TaxmanF. S. (2014). Which criminogenic need changes are most important in promoting desistance from crime and substance use?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(3), 276–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813503543
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
