Broken Windows or Broken Logic Supervising Offenders in

Broken Windows or Broken Logic? Supervising Offenders in the Community

Broken Windows Probation l 3 Million In Our Midst – – “Hundreds and thousands of violent crimes are committed each year by people on probation” The public wants to reduce violent crime now l 2/3 of probationers commit another crime within three years of their sentence In 1991 (nationally), 6, 400 murders, 7, 400 rapes, 11, 400 assaults, 17, 000 robberies – Conditions not “rigorously enforced” – Absconders run amok –

Why is Probation “Broke(N)? ” l Funding Levels – – – l 2/3 of the people, 1/3 of the corrections dollar $20 -50 K per year for prison, $200 for probation Caseloads of 100 -500 offenders Bad Practices – – – Drug testing that is scheduled in advance Supervision in Office (doesn’t manage risk) Average of one contact per month

The Solution: Placing Public Safety First l Supervise in neighborhood, not office – – l Rationally allocate Resources – – l More “surveillance, ” ability to monitor and control “Meaningful” supervision occurs at all hours Better risk and need assessment Supervision based on Geography Enforce violations quickly/strongly – “Deterrent Effect, ” Track down absconders

More Goals l Develop partners in the Community – – l Work with police, victims, schools, neighborhood groups, inform public… PO’s act like “C. O. P. s” (attend “neighborhood meetings, adopt “placed-based” supervision Establish “Performance Based Initiatives” – Good research with clearly measured outcomes

Structural Issues in Re-thinking l l Case Assignments, Job Responsibilities Job Description and Training Caseload, Resource, Technical Support Community Involvement and Support

Fixing “Broken Windows” l General Criticisms: – l Ignores single most consistent finding in probation literature: treatment works, surveillance and control does not “Community Supervision” – Publicity stunt to get funding l – Is this based on any evidence? Short-term thinking

Improve Public Safety l P. O. s should be asked to do LESS, not more – l l Cannot be held responsible for community safety —focus on offender Develop sanctioning strategies that do not result in a significant # of offenders in jail Treatment is the only known way to improve safety

Supervise in Community? l Location, location only for houses – – – Any evidence this will work? (not really) How monitor P. O. s? “Supervision” becomes main role of P. O. l – “Monitor and Control” emphasis Union/staff resistance to hours/job

Rationally Allocate Resources l Council focuses on existing $ – Improve assessment? l l – Cost of this? Treatment availability, cost, quality? Shift (back) to “place-based” supervision l l Generalist vs. Specialist There are reasons for the “specialist”

Strong Enforcement of Conditions l Past decade? Increase in number and type of conditions – – Use better judgment with conditions Develop system of graduated sanctions l l Council still relies on incarceration as a “general deterrent” to others…support for this is weak Probation Based “Absconder Units” – – $ for this? What to do when we catch them? Why do probationers abscond?

Partners in the Community l Operation Night Light – – – Allows probation to appear more “police-like” Appear “tougher” IRONY can be pretty ironic sometimes l l COP envisions police acting as “resource brokers” Dumja Vu – Council claims that “ONL” reduced homicide l l Exaggerated claims unsupported by sound research Ends ($) justify the means (use crappy research as “evidence”

Final Comments on BW’s l Council ignores the fact that over 70% of offenders placed on probation will complete their term without new arrest – More effective than: l l JAIL Prison Intermediate Sanctions Core technology of probation? Individual Offender Change

Supervision Models l l l Casework Era Brokerage Model Justice Model “Supervision and Control” Integrated – l Control and Treatment are not incompatible Pg. 117 = Martinson Blasphemy

Probation Officer Work Styles l l The “Law Enforcer” The “Time Server” The “Therapeutic Agent” The “Synthetic”

Caseloads and Workloads l “Average Caseload” not that important – – – Most jurisdictions have different levels Specialized Caseloads (sex offenders, drugs, etc. ) “Regular” l l – “Intensive” l l l Parole = 67 Probation = 124 Parole = 38 Probation = 25 Assigning Cases: “workload standard”