We examined probation outcomes in a sample of more than 2,400 discharged adult probationers in Illinois. We grouped predictor variables into three major categories (probationer characteristics, offense type, and sentence characteristics), and studied three different probation outcomes (rearrest, technical violations, and revocations). Logistic regression analyses showed that different predictors were related to different outcomes and replicated many of the results of previous research. Age, income, prior adult convictions, histories of drug abuse and dependence, and supervision setting were significant predictors of all three outcomes. Race, education, conviction offense, offense class, and sentence length predicted some of the outcomes, but not all three.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BairdC. S. (1981). Probation and parole classification: The Wisconsin model. Corrections Today, 43, 36–41.
2.
BohnstedtM., & GeiserS. (1979). Probation/parole level of supervision source book. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
3.
ClearT. R. (1988). Statistical predictions in corrections. Research in Corrections, 1, 1–40.
4.
ClearT. R. (1995). The design and implementation of classification systems. Federal Probation, 59, 58–61.
5.
ClearT. R., & GallagherK. W. (1985). Probation and parole supervision: A review of current classification practices. Crime and Delinquency, 31, 423–443.
6.
CuniffM. A. (1986). A sentencing postscript: Felony probationers under supervision in the community. Washington, DC: National Association of Criminal Justice Planners.
7.
FarringtonD. P., & TarlingR. (1985). Criminological prediction: An introduction. In FarringtonD. P. & TarlingR. (Eds.), Prediction in criminology (pp. 3–17). Albany: State University of New York Press.
8.
GlaserD. (1962). Prediction tables as accounting factors for judges and parole boards. Crime and Delinquency, 8, 239–258.
9.
GoldkampJ., & GottfredsonM. R. (1985). Policy guidelines for bail: An experiment in court reform. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
10.
GottfredsonD. M. (1967). Assessment and prediction methods in crime and delinquency. Task force report: Juvenile delinquency and youth crime. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
11.
GottfredsonS. C., & GottfredsonD. M. (1980). Screening for risk: A comparison of methods. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 7, 315–330.
12.
GottfredsonS. C., & GottfredsonD. M. (1986). The accuracy of prediction models. In BlumsteinA.CohenJ.RothJ. A., & VisherC. A. (Eds.), Research in criminal careers and career criminals (pp. 68–74). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
13.
GottfredsonS.C.WilkinsL.T., & HoffmanP.B. (1978). Guidelines for parole and sentencing: A policy control method. Lexington, MA: Heath.
14.
HaganJ., & BumillerK. (1983). Making sense of sentencing: A review and critique of sentencing research. In BlumsteinA.CohenJ.MartinS. E., & TonryM. (Eds.), Sentencing research: The search for reform (pp. 47–63). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
15.
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. (1999). National and state trends in probation. The Compiler, 18, 4–5.
16.
KratcoskiP. C. (1985). The functions of classification models in probation and parole: Control or treatment-rehabilitation?Federal Probation, 49, 49–56.
17.
KressJ. M. (1980). Prescription for justice: The theory and practice of sentencing guidelines. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
18.
LatessaE. J., & AllenH. E. (1999). Corrections in the community. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.
19.
McGahaJ.FichterM., & HirschburgP. (1987). Felony probation: A reexamination of public risk. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 11, 1–9.
20.
MorganI. D. (1994). Factors associated with probation outcome. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 341–353.
21.
PetersiliaJ. (1985). Probation and felony offenders. Federal Probation, 49, 4–9.
22.
PetersiliaJ. (1998). Probation and parole. In TonryM. (Ed.), The handbook of crime and punishment (pp. 563–588). New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
PetersiliaJ., & TurnerS. (1987). Guideline-based justice: Prediction and racial minorities. In GottfredsonD. M. & TonryM. (Eds.), Prediction and classification (pp 151–182). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
SimsB.M., & JonesM. (1997). Predicting success or failure on probation: Factors associated with felony probation outcomes. Crime and Delinquency, 43, 314–327.
25.
SteinD. (1999). A study of probationers convicted of DUI offenses. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Criminal Justice, Loyola University, Chicago.
26.
WhiteheadJ. T. (1991). The effectiveness of felony probation: Results from an eastern state. Justice Quarterly, 8, 525–543.
27.
WilkinsL. T.KressJ. M.GottfredsonD. M.CalpenJ. C., & GelmanA. (1978). Sentencing guidelines: Structuring judicial discretion—Report on the feasibility study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
28.
WilliamsL. M., & FarrellR. A. (1990). Legal response to child sexual abuse in daycare. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 284–302.
