Probation supervision is marked by the dual roles of surveillance and casework. A key feature of supervision that aligns with the goals of community safety through surveillance is the use of officer–probationer contacts. The current study explores the relationship between missed probation contacts and rearrest while on supervision in a surveillance-driven context. Logistic regression analyses modeled the effects of missed contacts on rearrests using probation data from a large supervision agency (n = 3,809). Analyses included the overall percentage of missed contacts and missed contacts above/below the median and mean percentage of missed contacts to subsequent rearrests while on supervision. Overall, the percentage of missed contacts increased the likelihood of rearrest while on probation. Furthermore, the percentage of missed probation contacts that significantly predicted rearrest was lower than expected (4.17%). The results suggest that missing contacts while on probation has a negative impact on probation success. Implications of these findings are discussed.
AhlmanL. C.KurtzE. M. (2009). The APPD randomized controlled trial in low risk supervision: The effect of low risk supervision on rearrest. Philadelphia, PA: Adult Probation and Parole Department.
2.
AosS.MillerM.DrakeE. (2006). Evidence-based adult corrections programs: What works and what does not. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
3.
BarnesG. C.AhlmanL.GillC.ShermanL. W.KurtzE.MalvestutoR. (2010). Low-intensity community supervision for low-risk offenders: A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 159-189.
4.
BarnesG. C.HyattJ. M. (2012). Using random forest risk prediction in the Philadelphia probation department. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
5.
BarnesG. C.HyattJ. M.AhlmanL. C.KentD. T. L. (2012). The effects of low-intensity supervision for lower-risk probationers: Updated results from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 200-220.
6.
BarnoskiR.AosS. (2003). Washington’s Offender Accountability Act: An analysis of the Department of Corrections’ risk assessment. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
7.
BerkR.ShermanL.BarnesG.KurtzE.AhlmanL. (2009). Forecasting murder within a population of probationers and parolees: A high stakes application of statistical learning. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 172, 191-211.
8.
BlombergT.BalesW.ReedK. (1993). Intermediate punishment: Redistributing or extending social control?Crime, Law and Social Change, 19, 187-201. doi:10.1007/BF01915555
9.
BonczarT. P. (1997). Characteristics of adults on probation, 1995. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
10.
BontaJ.RuggeT.ScottT. L.BourgonG.YessineA. K. (2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 248-270.
11.
BorkM. V. (1995). Five-year review of United States probation data, 1990-1994. Federal Probation, 9, 27-33.
12.
ChampionD. J. (1996). Probation, parole and community corrections (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
13.
ClearT. R.LatessaE. J. (1993). Probation officers’ roles in intensive supervision: Surveillance versus treatment. Justice Quarterly, 10, 441-462.
14.
CohenR. L. (1995). Probation and parole violators in state prison, 1991. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
15.
CrewsA. D.SeiterR. P. (2004). Social worker or cop? Measuring the supervision styles of probation & parole officers in Kentucky and Missouri. Journal of Crime and Justice, 27(2), 27-57.
CullenF. T.JonsonC. L. (2012). Correctional theory: Context and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
EllsworthT. (1990). Identifying the actual and preferred goals of adult probation. Federal Probation, 54(2), 10-15.
19.
GendreauP.LittleT.GogginC. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What Works!*. Criminology, 34, 575-607.
20.
GirardL.WormithJ. (2004). The predictive validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Ontario Revision on general and violent recidivism among various offender groups. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 150-181.
21.
GrattetR.NguyenV.BirdM.GrossJ. (2018). Probation’s changing role in California: Challenges and opportunities for hybrid supervision. Federal Probation, 82, 20-25.
22.
GrayM. K.FieldsM.MaxwellS. R. (2001). Examining probation violations: Who, what, and when. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 537-557.
23.
HarrellA.RomanJ. (2001). Reducing drug use and crime among offenders: The impact of graduated sanctions. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 207-232.
24.
HawkenA.KleimanM. (2009). Managing drug involved probationers with swift and certain sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
25.
HealyD. (2012). Advise, assist and befriend: Can probation supervision support desistance?Social Policy & Administration, 46, 377-394.
26.
HuebnerB.BergM. (2011). Examining the sources of variation in risk for recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 28, 146-173. doi:10.1080/07418820903365213
27.
HyattJ. M.BarnesG. C. (2017). An experimental evaluation of the impact of intensive supervision on the recidivism of high-risk probationers. Crime & Delinquency, 63, 3-38.
28.
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, 233-253.
29.
KaebleD.BonczarT. P. (2017). Probation and parole in the United States, 2015. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus15.pdf
30.
KaebleD.MaruschakL. M.BonzcarT. P. (2015). Probation and parole in the United States, 2014. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
31.
KlockarsC. (1972). A theory of probation supervision. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 64, 549-557.
32.
LanganP. A.CunniffM. A. (1992). Recidivism of felons on probation, 1986-89 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
33.
LanganP. A.LevinD. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
34.
LatessaE.TravisL.FultonB.StichmanA. (1998). Evaluating the prototypical ISP: Final report. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati & American Probation and Parole Association.
35.
LinJ.GrattetR.PetersiliaJ. (2010). “Back-end sentencing” and reimprisonment: Individual, organizational, and community predictors of parole sanctioning decisions. Criminology, 48, 759-795. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00201.x
36.
LowenkampC. T. (2004). Correctional program integrity and treatment effectiveness: A multi-site, program-level analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cincinnati, OH.
37.
LowenkampC. T.BechtelK. (2007). The predictive validity of the LSI-R on a sample of offenders drawn from the records of the Iowa Department of Corrections data management system. Federal Probation, 71, 25-29.
38.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2002). Evaluation of Ohio’s community based correctional facilities and halfway house programs. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
39.
MayzerR.GrayM. K.MaxwellS. R. (2004). Probation absconders: A unique risk group?Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 137-150.
40.
McReynoldsV. (1987). Variables related to predicting absconding probationers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas at Austin.
41.
MillerJ. (2015). Contemporary modes of probation officer supervision: The triumph of the “synthetic” officer?Justice Quarterly, 32, 314-336.
42.
MinorK. I.WellsJ. B.SimsC. (2003). Recidivism among federal probationers—Predicting sentence violations. Federal Probation, 67, 31-36.
43.
MorganK. D. (1994). Factors associated with probation outcome. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 341-353.
44.
MorrisN.TonryM. (1990). Between prison and probation: Intermediate punishments in a rational sentencing system. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
45.
OhlinL.PivenH.PappenfortD. (1956). Major dilemmas of the social worker in probation and parole. National Probation and Parole Association Journal, 11, 211-225.
46.
OlsonD. E.LurigioA. J. (2000). Predicting probation outcomes: Factors associated with probation rearrest, revocations, and technical violations during supervision. Justice Research and Policy, 2, 73-86.
47.
OlsonD. E.LurigioA. J.SengM. (2000). A comparison of female and male probationers: Characteristics and case outcomes. Women & Criminal Justice, 11, 65-79. doi:10.1300/J012v11n04_05
48.
PaparozziM.GendreauP. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85, 445-466.
49.
ParentD. G.WentworthD.BurkeP.NeyB. (1994). Responding to probation and parole violations. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
50.
PetersR. H.MurrinM. R. (2000). Effectiveness of treatment-based drug courts in reducing criminal recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 72-96.
51.
PetersiliaJ. R. (1985). Probation and felony offenders. Federal Probation, 46, 4-9.
52.
PetersiliaJ. R. (2000). When prisoners return to the community: Political, economic, and social consequences: Sentencing & corrections: Issues for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
53.
PetersiliaJ. R.TurnerS. (1993). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole: Results of a nationwide experiment. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
54.
PurkissM.KiferM.HemmensC.BurtonV. S. (2003). Probation officer functions: A statutory analysis. Federal Probation, 67, 12-23.
55.
RhineE. E. (1997). Probation and parole supervision: In need of a new narrative. Corrections Quarterly, 1, 71-75.
56.
SimsB.JonesM. (1997). Predicting success or failure on probation: Factors associated with felony probation outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 43, 314-327.
57.
SkeemJ. L.ManchakS. (2008). Back to the future: From Klockars’ model of effective supervision to evidence-based practice in probation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 220-247.
58.
StalansL. J.YarnoldP. R.SengM.OlsonD. E.ReppM. (2004). Identifying three types of violent offenders and predicting violent recidivism while on probation: A classification tree analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 253-271.
59.
SteinmetzK. F.HendersonH. (2015). On the precipice of intersectionality: The influence of race, gender, and offense severity interactions on probation outcomes. Criminal Justice Review, 40, 361-377.
60.
SteinmetzK. F.HendersonH. (2016). Inequality on probation: An examination of differential probation outcomes. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 14, 1-20.
61.
Stevens-MartinK.LiuJ. (2017). Fugitives from justice: An examination of felony and misdemeanor probation absconders in a large jurisdiction. Federal Probation, 81, 41-51.
62.
TaxmanF. S.ByrneJ. M. (1994). Locating absconders: Results from a randomized field experiment. Federal Probation, 58, 13-23.
TonryM.LynchM. (1996). Intermediate sanctions. Crime and Justice, 20, 99-114. doi:10.1086/449242
65.
VitoG. (1987). Felony probation and recidivism: Replication and response. Federal Probation, 50(4), 17-25.
66.
WehrmanM. M. (2010). Race, concentrated disadvantage, and recidivism: A test of interaction effects. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 538-544.
67.
WhetzelJ.PaparozziM.AlexanderM.LowenkampC. T. (2011). Goodbye to a worn-out dichotomy: Law enforcement, social work, and a balanced approach (a survey of federal probation officer attitudes). Federal Probation, 75(7), 7-12.
68.
WhiteheadJ. (1991). The effectiveness of felony probation: Results from an eastern state. Justice Quarterly, 8, 525-543.
