Drivers of Probation Revocation in Pulaski County,Arkansas

Abstract

Probation has received relatively little research attention. In this exploratory two-study inquiry, we first analyzed quantitative data to identify factors driving probation revocation in Pulaski County, Arkansas, among 10,260 individuals (mostly male and African American) between 2015 and 2019 (Study 1). We found individuals with felony histories were significantly more likely to be revoked (aOR 17.2 for one or two convictions; aOR 25.1 for three or more convictions). Other predictors include lower education, younger age at first sentence, unemployment, and substance use. In Study 2, we conducted 20 in-depth qualitative interviews with 12 key stakeholders and 8 individuals with probation experience. We found that client financial instability, substance use and mental health disorders, stakeholder risk avoidance, officer caseload, and lack of accessible resources/services contributed to probation revocation. We conclude with recommendations for changes to probation policy and practice, including officer training, alternatives to incarceration, service expansion, and community engagement.

Keywords

probation revocation criminal justice criminal justice system quantitative methods qualitative methods statistics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arkansas Division of Community Correction. (2020). Annual reports. https://doc.arkansas.gov/parole-board/resources/publications/

The Associated Press. (2015). Arkansas Parole Board adopts changes for parole violators. Public Radio from UA Little Rock. https://www.ualrpublicradio.org/local-regional-news/2015-08-27/arkansas-parole-board-adopts-changes-for-parole-violators

Bonczar

(1997). Characteristics of adults on probation, 1995. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/bjs/cap95.pdf

Bonta

Andrews

D. A.

(2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, 6, 1–22.

Bonta

Rugge

Scott

Bourgon

Yessine

(2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 248–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509670802134085

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2021). Key statistics: Total correctional population. https://bjs.ojp.gov/data/key-statistics#total-correction-population

Christopher

P. P.

Pinals

D. A.

Stayton

Sanders

Blumberg

(2015). Nature and utilization of civil commitment for substance abuse in the United States. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 43(3), 313–320.

Cobbina

J. E.

Morash

Kashy

D. A.

Smith

S. W.

(2014). Race, neighborhood danger, and coping strategies among female probationers and parolees. Race and Justice, 4(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368713517397

Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2017). Arkansas’s justice reinvestment approach: Enhancing local mental health services for people in the criminal justice system. https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Arkansas-JR-Approach_MAY2017.pdf

10.

Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2018). Action item 2: Promote success on supervision and use proportionate responses to respond to violations. https://50statespublicsafety.us/part-3/strategy-2/action-item-2/#graphic-1

11.

Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2019). Confined and costly: How supervision violations are filling prisons and burdening budgets. https://csgjusticecenter.org/publications/confined-costly/

12.

Coviello

D. M.

Zanis

D. A.

Wesnoski

S. A.

Palman

Gur

Lynch

K. G.

McKay

J. R.

(2013). Does mandating offenders to treatment improve completion rates? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 44(4), 417–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2012.10.003

13.

DeMichele

(2007). Probation and parole’s growing caseloads and workloads allocation: Strategies for managerial decision making. https://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/SMDM.pdf

14.

DeMichele

Payne

B. K.

(2007). Probation and parole officers speak out-caseload and workload allocation. Federal Probation, 71, 30–35.

15.

Deterding

N. M.

Waters

M. C.

(2021). Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 708–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799377

16.

Diaz

C. L.

Rising

Grommon

Northcutt Bohmert

Lowder

E. M.

(2022). A rapid review of literature on factors associated with adult probation revocations. Corrections. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2022.2136116

17.

Doherty

F. T.

(2016). Obey all laws and be good: Probation and the meaning of recidivism. Georgetown Law Journal, 104(2), 292–354. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2726740

18.

Doleac

(2018). Strategies to productively reincorporate the formerly-incarcerated into communities: A review of the literature. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3198112

19.

Farabee

Prendergast

Anglin

M. D.

(1998). The effectiveness of coerced treatment for drug-abusing offenders. Federal Probation, 62(1), 3–10.

20.

Farrington

Welsh

(2005). Randomized experiments in criminology: What have we learned in the last two decades? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 9–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-004-6460-0

21.

Feeley

M. M.

Simon

(1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449–474. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01112.x

22.

Flores

A. W.

Travis

L. F.

Latessa

E. J.

(2004). Case classification for juvenile corrections: An assessment of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI). University of Cincinnati. https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/ccjr/docs/reports/project_reports/NIJYLSI.pdf

23.

Fox

Harrison

Hothersall

Smith

Webster

(2021). A rapid evidence assessment of the impact of probation caseloads on reducing recidivism and other probation outcomes. Probation Journal, 69(2), 138–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505211025595

24.

Grattet

Petersilia

Lin

Beckman

(2009). Parole violations and revocations in California: Analysis and suggestions for action. Federal Probation, 73, 2–11.

25.

Gray

M. K.

Fields

Maxwell

S. R.

(2001). Examining probation violations: Who, what, and when. Crime & Delinquency, 47(4), 537–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128701047004003

26.

Harten

(2013, June). Board of corrections makes parole changes, launches probe. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2013/jun/21/corrections-board-makes-changes-launches-investiga/

27.

Hipp

Petersilia

Turner

(2010). Parolee recidivism in California: The effect of neighborhood context and social service agency characteristics. Criminology, 48, 947–979. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00209.x

28.

Jacobs

Skeem

(2020). Neighborhood risk factors for recidivism: For whom do they matter? American Journal of Community Psychology, 67, 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12463

29.

Jalbert

S. K.

Rhodes

Kane

Clawson

Bogue

Flygare

Kling

Guevara

(2011). A multi-site evaluation of reduced probation caseload size in an evidence-based practice setting. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/multi-site-evaluation-reduced-probation-caseload-size-evidence

30.

Jermstad

(2019). Inherently unstable: The history and future of reliance on court-imposed fees in the state of Texas. Federal Probation, 83(1), 50–61.

31.

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. (n.d.). Variable selection. In Biostatistics (pp. 124–133). Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. http://www.biostat.jhsph.edu/~iruczins/teaching/jf/ch10.pdf

32.

Kaeble

Alper

(2020). Probation and parole in the United States 2017-2018. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus1718.pdf

33.

Kobrin

(2017). Promoting wellness for better behavioral and physical health. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. https://mfpcc.samhsa.gov/ENewsArticles/Article12b_2017.aspx

34.

Kubrin

C. E.

Stewart

E. A.

(2006). Predicting who reoffends: The neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 44(1), 165–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00046.x

35.

Langan

P. A.

Cunniff

M. A.

(1992). Recidivism of felons on probation, 1986-89. U.S. Department of Justice. https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/recidivism-felons-probation-1986-89-0

36.

The Lawyers’ Committee. (2019). Too poor to pay: Arkansas fines & fees toolkit. https://lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/CJP-AR-Toolkit-FINAL.pdf

37.

Lewis

(2007). Stepwise versus hierarchical regression: Pros and cons [Paper]. University of North Texas. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED534385.pdf

38.

Lunze

Idrisov

Golichenko

Kamarulzaman

(2016). Mandatory addiction treatment for people who use drugs: Global health and human rights analysis. BMJ, 353, Article i2943. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2943

39.

Martin

K. D.

Sykes

B. L.

Shannon

Edwards

Harris

(2018). Monetary sanctions: Legal financial obligations in US systems of justice. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 471–495. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-091915

40.

Mayzer

Gray

M. K.

Maxwell

S. R.

(2004). Probation absconders: A unique risk group? Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2003.12.004

41.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2020). Treatment and recovery. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugs-brains-behavior-science-addiction/treatment-recovery

42.

O’Connor

Joffe

(2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406919899220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220

43.

Paparozzi

M. A.

Gendreau

(2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85(4), 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885505281529

44.

The Pew Charitable Trusts. (2020). Policy reforms can strengthen community supervision: A framework to improve probation and parole. https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2020/04/policyreform_communitysupervision_report_final.pdf

45.

Phelps

M. S.

(2013). The paradox of probation: Community supervision in the age of mass incarceration. Law Policy, 35(1–2), 51–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12002

46.

Phelps

M. S.

(2017). Mass probation: Toward a more robust theory of state variation in punishment. Punishment & Society, 19(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474516649174

47.

Phelps

M. S.

(2018). Ending mass probation: Sentencing, supervision, and revocation. The Future of Children, 28(1), 125–146. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26641550

48.

Reynolds

Cowherd

Barbee

Fabelo

Wood

Yoon

(2009). A framework to improve how fines, fees, restitution, and child support are assessed and collected from people convicted of crimes. Council of State Governments Justice Center and the Texas Office of Court Administration. https://csgjusticecenter.org/publications/interim-report-a-framework-to-improve-how-fines-fees-restitution-and-child-support-are-assessed-and-collected-from-people-convicted-of-crimes/

49.

Rice

M. E.

Harris

G. T.

(2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 615–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7

50.

Rodriguez

Webb

(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, 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403406292956

51.

Rudes

(2012). Getting technical: Parole officers’ continued use of technical violations under California’s parole reform agenda. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2012.677572

52.

Ruhland

(2019). It’s all about the money: An exploration of probation fees. Corrections, 6(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2018.1564635

53.

Ruhland

Holmes

Petkus

(2020). The role of fines and fees on probation outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(10), 1244–1263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820918877

54.

Ruhland

Scheibler

(2021). Probation officer discretion in monitoring and violating supervision conditions. Probation Journal, 69(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505211041578

55.

Ryan

G. W.

Bernard

H. R.

(2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x02239569

56.

Skeem

J. L.

Manchak

(2008). Back to the future: From Klockars’ model of effective supervision to evidence-based practice in probation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47(3), 220–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509670802134069

57.

Smith

S. W.

Cornacchione

J. J.

Morash

Kashy

Cobbina

(2016). Communication style as an antecedent to reactance, self-efficacy, and restoration of freedom for drug- and alcohol-involved women on probation and parole. Journal of Health Communication, 21(5), 504–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1103329

58.

Stevens-Martin

K. D.

Liu

(2017). Fugitives from justice: An examination of felony and misdemeanor probation absconders in a large jurisdiction. Federal Probation, 81(1), 41–51.

59.

Stickels

J. W.

(2007). A study of probation revocations for technical violations in Hays County, Texas, USA. Probation Journal, 54(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550507073328

60.

Udwadia

F. R.

Illes

(2020). An ethicolegal analysis of involuntary treatment for opioid use disorders. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 48(4), 735–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110520979383

61.

Viglione

(2018). The risk-need-responsivity model: How do probation officers implement the principles of effective intervention? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(5), 655–673. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818807505

62.

Viglione

Rudes

D. S.

Taxman

F. S.

(2014). Misalignment in supervision: Implementing risk/needs assessment instruments in probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(3), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814548447

63.

Werb

Kamarulzaman

Meacham

M. C.

Rafful

Fischer

Strathdee

S. A.

Wood

(2016). The effectiveness of compulsory drug treatment: A systematic review. International Journal of Drug Policy, 28, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.12.005

64.

Whites-Koditschek

(2015). Corrections officials aim to roll back 2013 parole reforms. Public Radio from UA Little Rock. https://www.ualrpublicradio.org/local-regional-news/2015-06-24/corrections-officials-aim-to-roll-back-2013-parole-reforms

65.

Wodahl

E. J.

Boman

J. H.

IV Garland

(2015). Responding to probation and parole violations: Are jail sanctions more effective than community-based graduated sanctions? Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 242–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.04.010

66.

Wright

Logan

(2006). The political economy of up-front fees for indigent criminal defense. William & Mary Law Review, 47, 31–42. https://ssrn.com/abstract=805426

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.

0.00 MB

0.13 MB