This study examines the impact of probation on the criminal activities of offenders using self-report and official records. In comparison to the year before arrest, the number of offenders self-reporting criminal activity declined, as did the rate of offending among those who continued to offend. Investigations of the different crime types revealed that the crime reduction effect of probation was mainly a result of its effect on property and dealing crimes. Probation was not significantly associated with reductions in person or forgery/fraud offenses. A Linear Structural Relationships (LISREL) analysis of the agent-response model investigated the impact of probation on self-reported criminal activities and probation violations during the first 6 months of probation. The analysis indicated that probation violations were associated with criminal activity. However, increases in the intrusiveness of conditions, in the agent's knowledge of misbehavior, or in how the agent responded to misbehavior were not associated with either criminal activity or violations of conditions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allison, Paul D.
1984. Event History Analysis: Regression for Longitudinal Event Data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
2.
Blumstein, A.
, J. Cohen, J. Roth, and C. Visher. 1986. Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals.”Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3.
Clear, T. R.
, P. M. Harris, and S. C. Baird. 1992. “Probationer Violations and Officer Response.”Journal of Criminal Justice20:1-12.
4.
English, K.1993. “Self-Reported Crime Rates of Women Prisoners.”Journal of Quantitative Criminology9:357-382.
5.
Erwin, B.
1987. Evaluation of Intensive Probation Supervision in Georgia. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Corrections.
6.
Gendreau, P.
1996. “The Principles of Effective Intervention with Offenders.” Pp. 117-130 in Choosing Correctional Options that Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply, edited by A. T. Harland. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
Horney, J.
, and I. H. Marshall. 1991. “Measuring Lambda Through Self-Reports.”Criminology29:471-495.
8.
Horney, J.
, and I. H. Marshall. 1992. “An Experimental Comparison of Two Self-Report Methods for Measuring Lambda.”Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency29:102-121.
9.
Horney, J.
, D. W. Osgood, and I. H. Marshall. 1995. “Criminal Careers in the Short Term: Intra-Individual Variability in Crime and Its Relation to Local Life Circumstances.”American Sociological Review60:655-673.
10.
Langan, P. A.
, and M. A. Cunnif. 1992. Recidivism of Felons on Probation, 1986-1990. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.
11.
MacKenzie, D. L.
1997. “Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention.” Pp. 9.1-9.61 in Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising, edited by L. W. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S. Bushway. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice.
12.
MacKenzie, D. L.
, and L. Hickman 1998. “What Works in Corrections?” (Unpublished report to the State of Washington Legislature Joint Audit and Review Committee).
13.
MacKenzie, D. L.
, and C. Souryal. 1997. “Probationer Compliance with Conditions of Supervision.” Pp. 352-359 in Correctional Contexts: Contemporary and Classical Readings, edited by J. W. Marquart and J. Sorensen. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Co.
14.
Maguire, K.
, and A. L. Pastore, eds. 1997. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics [Online]. Available: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook
15.
Nagin, D. S.
1998. “Deterrence and Incapacitation.” Pp. 345-368 in The Handbook of Crime and Punishment, edited by Michael Tonry. New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
Palmer, T.
1996. “Programmatic and Nonprogrammatic Aspects of Successful Intervention.” Pp. 131-182 in Choosing Correctional Options that Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply, edited by A. T. Harland. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
Parent, D. G.
, D. Wentworth, P. Burke, and B. Ney. 1992. Responding to Probation and Parole Violations. Unpublished report, Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
18.
Petersilia, J.
1998. “Probation and Parole.” Pp. 563-588 in The Handbook of Crime and Punishment, edited by Michael Tonry. New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
Petersilia, J.
1985. “Probation and Felony Offenders.”National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
20.
Petersilia, J.
, and S. Turner. 1990. Intensive Supervision for High Risk Probationers: Findings from Three California Experiments. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
21.
Petersilia, J.
, and S. Turner. 1993. Evaluating Intensive Supervision Probation/Parole: Results of a Nationwide Experiment. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
22.
Sampson, R. J.
, and J. H. Laub. 1993. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
Shover, N.
1985. Aging Criminals. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
24.
Spelman, W.
1994. Criminal Incapacitation. New York: Plenum Press.
25.
Visher, C.
1986. “The RAND Inmate Survey: A Reanalysis.” In Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals,” edited by A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, J. Roth, and C. Visher. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
26.
Whitehead, J. T.
1989. “The Effectiveness of Felony Probation: A Replication and Extension of Three Studies.” Paper presented at the 1989 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Boston.
27.
Wright, R.
, S. H. Decker, A. K. Redfern, and D. L. Smith. 1992. “A Snowball's Chance in Hell: Doing Fieldwork with Active Residential Burglars.”Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency29:148-161.
28.
Zimring, F. E.
, and G. Hawkins. 1995. Incapacitation: Penal Confinement and the Restraint of Crime. New York: Oxford University Press.
