Policy-Driven Responsesto Probation and Parole Violations

by

Peggy B. BurkeSenior Associate

Center for Effective Public PolicySilver Spring, Maryland

March 1997

This document was developed through funding from the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Pointsof view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position orpolicies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Copyright 1997 Center for Effective Public Policy

The National Institute of Corrections reserves the right to reproduce, publish, translate, orotherwise use, and to authorize others to publish and use, all or any part of the copyrightedmaterial contained in this publication.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

INTRODUCTION: A GROWING INTEREST IN PROBATIONAND PAROLE REVOCATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Community Corrections Dilemma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Prison and Jail Crowding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Workload.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Responding to Violations in a Timely Fashion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Consistency and Equity in Handling Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A Window on Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A Reemerging Interest in Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . 1

. . . . . . 1

. . . . . . 1

. . . . . . 3

. . . . . . 3

. . . . . . 3

. . . . . . 4

. . . . . . 4

WHY SO MUCH INTEREST NOW? . . . . . . . . . . . .._.................................... 4

WHO SETS POLICY ON RESPONSES TO VIOLATIONS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

INNOVATIONS AT WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Systematic Review of Current Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Mapping--Qualitative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8The Current Norms--Policy Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Statistical Information--Quantitative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Assessment of Violation Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Assessing Violations and Violators--Adding Risk to the Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13“Staffings” and Administrative Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Citations vs. Warrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Providing for the Delegation of Authority to Impose Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Specifying a Range of Intermediate Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Explicit Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Clarity of Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24From the Bottom Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Additions to the Probation/Parole Tool Bag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24System Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

IMPACT: A VARIETY OF MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27South Carolina Department of Probation; Parole, and Pardon Services--

Impact on Risk to the Community, Court Resources, and Jail Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Missouri Board of Probation and Parole--Impact on Prison Admissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Macomb County Probation, Michigan Department of Corrections--Impact on Jail Use . . . . . . . 30North Carolina Department of Correction--Impact on Revocation Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1Adult Probation Department of the Superior Court of Arizona, Pima County--

Impact on Reducing Delay in Responding to Violators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Adult Probation Department of the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County--

Crafting Innovative Responses to Probation Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

i i i

New York City Department of Probation--Impact on Outcomes with Youthful,High-RiskViolators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Illinois Administrative Office of the Courts, Utah Department of Corrections,and Virginia Department of Corrections--Impact on Statewide Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Adult Probation, First Circuit, Judiciary, State of Hawaii--IntegratingSupervision and Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

C O N C L U S I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6

ENDNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................................ 37

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

LIST OF EXHIBITS1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.

10.11.12.13.14.

15.16.17.18.19.20.

Agencies Receiving NIC Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Admissions to Prison for Revocation vs. New Court Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Probation and Parole Supervision Location by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Illustrative “Map” of the Violations Process in an Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Examples of Traditional Policy Language Regarding Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Examples of Results of Statistical Analysis of Violation Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Illustrative Violation Severity Scale #l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Illustrative Violation Severity Scale #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Illustrative Risk Assessment Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Possible Outcomes of “Staffings” and Administrative Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Probation Citation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Statutory Language on Intermediate Sanctions for Violations and Delegation of Authority . . . . 21Illustrative Range of Sanctions Authorized at Various Levels of Decisionmaking . . . . . . . . . . . 22Illustrative Policy Indicating the Level at Which Decisions Should Be Made

Given Various Combinations of Risk, Severity, and Behavior Risk of Violators . . . . . . . . . 23Typical “New Generation” Policy Language Regarding Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Impact of Violation Policy: Reducing Risk to the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Impact of Violation Policy: Reducing Prison Admissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Impact of Violation Policy: Reducing Jail Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1Impact of Violation Policy: Reducing the Revocation Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Impact of Violation Policy: Reducing Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

APPENDICES

A. Sanction Purpose Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40B. Violation Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41C. Violation Staffing Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42D. Summary of Violation Decision Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43E. Available Community Sanctions and Consideration Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44F. Attachment to Standard Conditions of Probation Allowing Imposition

of Intermediate Sanctions for Certain Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

iv

FOREWORD

For probation and parole to be effective sanctions, reasonable controls must be placed onoffenders. They take the form of either general or special conditions of supervision. Probationand parole officers, courts, and parole boards have always responded to violation of conditions ofsupervision in good faith, but the responses were often inconsistent and not guided by agencypolicy or sanctioning philosophy. The typical decision was either to return the offender tosupervision with little or no change or to revoke supervision and incarcerate the offender--andnothing in between. In some jurisdictions, more admissions to prisons annually are for probationand parole violations than for all new offenses committed.

The National Institute of Corrections has for several years assisted agencies in developing asystem of explicit, policy-driven responses to violations of probation and parole. Eachjurisdiction has taken a somewhat different approach to problems it identified. This report sharessome of what was learned concerning the violation process, potential impact of changes, andsome of the tools developed to introduce more policy-driven consistency in responses.

We hope this information will encourage other jurisdictions to evaluate current probation and/orparole violation practices and will provide practical guidance as to how changes can beimplemented in an effective manner.

Morris L. Thigpen, DirectorNational Institute of Corrections

March 1997

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Over the past 7 years, the National Institute of Corrections has funded a program of technicalassistance for both paroling authorities and probation agencies. The goal of the assistance was tosupport agencies interested in developing policy-driven intermediate sanctions as responses tothe technical violation of probation and parole. Interest in the topic has been very strong. Overthe course of five projects, 61 applications were received from probation and parole agencies.Resources allowed 19 to participate. At the same time as these projects, other probation andparole agencies focused on this issue as well, some completely independently, and othersdrawing upon the experiences of the NIC-supported effort.

Interest in the issue of violation and revocation springs from many sources. These include:

l The responsibility to protect public safety by appropriately managing the risk posed byoffenders who do not comply with the conditions of their probation or parole,

l Crowded prisons and jails,l Overburdened court and parole board dockets,l The desire for more consistency in handling violations, andl The desire to intervene in offenders’ lives in ways that truly affect future criminality.

Given the degree of interest in the field and the extensive innovation and experimentation takingplace, the National Institute of Corrections concluded that a report summarizing current practicewould be helpful to practitioners.

The goals of this report are to:

. Synthesize the experience of probation and parole agencies from across the country that haveexperimented with innovative approaches to policy regarding violations and revocations,

l Identify critical learnings or issues emerging from this experience,l Document the impact of these innovative approaches to the degree possible from the

experiences of the agencies and from the existing literature, andl Consider the future implications of these changes for community corrections.

No original research was attempted as part of the development of this report. Rather, the intentwas to glean whatever is possible from the experiences of operating agencies as they have madeand studied changes in their practice.

The author would like to express appreciation to the National Institute of Corrections, and inparticular to Kermit Humphries, for providing the opportunity to be involved with its technicalassistance efforts and to gather the experiences of many practitioners in the form of this report.Thanks are also due to the many individuals working in probation and parole agencies around the

nation who labored so hard on these difficult issues and who shared their experiences with theircolleagues by providing information for this document.

vii

INTRODUCTION:A GROWING INTEREST IN PROBATION ANDPAROLE REVOCATIONS

Recent years have revealed a flurry of activity amongcommunity supervision agencies to revise and refinetheir handling of violations and revocations. Theinterest stems from a number of concerns key tocommunity corrections.

technical violations that do not involve, of themselves,new criminal behavior. The National Institute ofCorrections (NIC) received 61 applications fromprobation/parole agencies interested in this issue andwas able to work with 19 of them over the last 8years. Exhibit 1 identifies agencies that participatedin five NIC projects to develop a policy-directedrange of intermediate sanctions for violators.

Prison and Jail CrowdingThe Community Corrections Dilemma

On any given day in 1995, roughly 3.8 millionindividuals in this country were under some sort ofcorrectional supervision in the community--onprobation, parole, or some other type of communitycorrections supervision.’ That is more than doublethe total number of offenders in American prisonsand jails.

Probation and parole agencies are asked to superviseand manage these individuals safely and economically.Every judge, prosecutor, parole board, probationagency, and parole agency knows that ultimately thesafety of our communities and the credibility of thecriminal justice system are at stake.

The fact that community supervision case loads vastlyoutnumber incarcerated offenders makes the task ofprobation and parole agencies even more challenging.The fiscal and operational reality is that not everyindividual on probation and parole can--or should--beremoved from the community at the first sign of aproblem. It is important to know which of thoseproblem probationers and parolees need to be quicklyremoved from the community. At the same time, it isjust as important to know which problem probationersand parolees can safely continue in the communitywith some other response. If jails and prisons arefilled with merely non-compliant offenders, there willbe no room for the dangerous offenders.

It is not surprising, then, that parole and probationagencies are taking a new look at how they respondto violations of parole and probation--particularly

A quick look at statistics on admissions to prisonsuggests that concern about the impact of revocationson prison and jail populations is not an idle one. TheBureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports thatrevocations of parole and other conditional releaseaccounted for 120,545 or 28 percent of all admissionsto state prisons in 1989. That number grew to167,828 or 33 percent in 1994. That is a growth rateof almost 40 percent--far outstripping the growth incourt commitments, which grew only 8 percent duringthe same time period. (See Exhibit 2.)

In California in 1987, over 50 percent of admissionsto prison (3 1,58 1) were parole vio1ators.2 In Oregonin 1991, more than 80 percent of all prison admissionswere revoked community supervision cases.3 InNorth Carolina in 1993, 13 percent of prisonadmissions were reported as probation or paroleviolators--and 80 percent of these were technicalviolators.4 The percentages vary, and it is oftendifficult to sort out just what proportion of prisonadmissions are due to technical violations. In manyjurisdictions, however, violators comprise a significantenough portion of prison admissions to warrant acloser look.

The picture in jails is somewhat more difficult todocument. However, a review of jail populationpressure in numerous jurisdictions suggests thatoffenders awaiting parole or probation violationhearings or transfer to state institutions afterrevocation hearings contribute significantly to jailcrowding--and are a source of friction between localand state corrections agencies.

1

Exhibit 1. Agencies Receiving NIC Technical Assistance

PAROLE--1988-1989

New York Board of Parole

South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services

Tennessee Board of Paroles

Utah Board of Pardons and Paroles

PAROLE--1989-1991

Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles

New York Board of Parole

Tennessee Board of Paroles

I District of Columbia Board of Parole

IPROBATION--1991-1993

Office of Adult Probation, Connecticut Judicial Department

Sixth Judicial District, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Macomb County Probation, Michigan Department of Corrections

Adult Probation, Superior Court of Arizona in Pima County (Tucson)

IPROBATION--1993-1995

Adult Probation, Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County (Phoenix)

Multnomah County (Portland, Oregon), Department of Community Corrections

New York City Probation Department

Williamsburg and Virginia Beach, Virginia Department of Corrections

PROBATION AND PAROLE--1994-1996

Connecticut Board of Parole

Adult Probation, First Judicial Circuit, Honolulu, Hawaii

Adult Probation, Montgomery County (Dayton), Ohio

Division of Field Operations, Utah Department of Corrections

Milwaukee Probation and Parole, Wisconsin Department of Corrections

2

Workload

In addition to the burden that parole and probationviolators place on crowded jail and prison facilities,the handling of violators by supervision agencies, thecourts, and parole boards has drawn attention in andof itself. Particularly probation violators--who mustbe processed through crowded courtrooms and mayin some jurisdictions require multiple appearances forarraignment, violation, and dispositional hearings--cancomprise a significant portion of total court workload.Violation hearings are often not scheduled but simply“worked into” an already-crowded calendar, requiringprobation officers to use valuable time waiting in thecourthouse for a hearing to be called. In onejurisdiction participating in NIC’s projects, it wasestimated that the equivalent of a full-time judge,prosecutor, and courtroom staff and more than twofull-time probation officers was consumed by thevarious stages of the probation violation process.

Responding to Violations in a Timely Fashion

Given the due process requirements of handlingviolations, along with the general backlog found inmost courts and parole dockets, it can sometimes take

months from the time a violation occurs until someformal disposition occurs. In the case of a technicalviolation, the violation may be a positive drug test,failure to stay in treatment, or the loss of a job. Itstretches the bounds of common sense to imagine thata response several months later can achieve a desiredresult. If the intent is to deal more effectively with adrug problem, to get a person into a different ormore intensive treatment regime, or to insist onemployment, the formal violation process is a slowand ineffective tool. Many agencies have beenseeking to either streamline the formal hearingprocess or replace it with a more informal procedureto intervene quickly in the course of an offender’ssupervision.

Consistency and Equity in Handling Violations

Another reason often given for an interest in theviolation issue is the need and desire for a certainamount of consistency or equity in handlingviolations. In an agency with dozens or hundredsof probation or parole officers, there is clearlyopportunity for similar violations to be handled quitedifferently, even when everyone is operating in goodfaith. Differences in personal philosophy, supervision

Exhibit 2. Admissions to Prison for Revocation vs. New Court Commitments

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

1,989 1,994

Total Admissions New Court CommitmentsConditional Release Violators

Source: Criminal Justice Sourcebook, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1990 and 1995

3

style, and interpretations of agency policy cangenerate unintentional disparities in handlingviolations. Agency policymakers have cited suchdisparity as one of their key interests in looking moreclosely at the handling of violations. Indeed, amongthose jurisdictions that have completed an empiricallook at the practice of responding to violations, it iscommon to find considerable inconsistency in thehandling of violations. One offender may have arecord of numerous technical violations and still be onsupervision. Another may be revoked after a minortechnical violation. This raises questions of fairnessand can undermine the credibility of an agency.

A Window on Supervision

Many of the agencies involved in the NIC projectsdiscovered that a thorough review of how ajurisdiction responds to violations cannot beundertaken without also reexamining the entireapproach to supervision. When is a violation seriousor dangerous enough to warrant revocation? Thatprobably depends on what is intended to beaccomplished with supervision. Why supervise?What is successful supervision? What is unsuccessfulsupervision? Where is the line drawn? When areresponses other than revocation appropriate?

This reexamination of violation responses fits wellwith the visioning work that many parole andprobation agencies are undertaking during the 1990s.As one agency director advises, prior to revampingviolation practice, “Make sure you have yourphilosophy in order. Understand what you want to doin supervision and what you want to achieve. Thatforms the basis for going forward. The rest of it isjust strategy. People have to know where they’regoing and what they want as outcomes.”

A Reemerging Interest in Treatment

Motivated by a primary concern for public safety anddiscouraged by the constant recycling of offendersthrough the system, many probation and parolepolicymakers are looking for better answers to thequestion, “What works?” Will revocation of

probation make a drug-using offender less likely to re-offend in the future? Or would some other interventionbe more effective? Many probation and paroleagencies are beginning to question the assumptionthat revocation will in fact “get the offender’sattention” and result in better performance in thefuture.

What policymakers are seeing and feeling on anindividual basis is echoed in the research literatureauthored by D.A. Andrews, James Bonta, PaulGendreau, and others. This literature, coming to bereferred to as the “what works” literature, highlightsthe results of literally hundreds of research studiesover the last few decades that confirm that officialpunishment (i.e., incarceration, supervision,surveillance, etc.) without treatment has not beendemonstrated to be a specific deterrent to futurecriminal behavior.5 This same literature also confirmsthat appropriate correctional treatment can beeffective in reducing future recidivism with certaintypes of offenders. Given this insight, policymakersare asking, “What types of interventions withtechnical violators will be most effective in reducingfuture crime?” And, “How can we make sure thatour agency policies support such interventions asresponses to technical violations of parole andprobation?”

WHY SO MUCH INTEREST NOW?

One might well ask why these issues are surfacing atthis time. They seem so critical that one would thinkthey would have been dealt with years ago. Tworeasons appear. First, the issues are being broughtto a head by the inexorable growth in workload andcorrectional populations. Correctional populationshave more than quadrupled in the last 15 years.Enormous resources are required to accommodateprison and jail admissions generated by even a smallrevocation rate among a population of 3.8 millionprobationers and parolees.

Second, for many years the major attention paid toviolations and revocation had to do with establishingthe procedures and protections mandated by the

4

Supreme Court in the early 1970s. In 1972, theSupreme Court in Morrissey v. Brewer (408 U.S.471) set the basic expectations about the proceduralsafeguards required to protect the liberty interests ofparolees. Those expectations were similarly set withprobationers in Gagnon v. Scarpdi (411 U.S. 778) in1973.

Until the late 1980s most attention regardingviolations was focused on procedural issues--timingof hearings, due notice, allowability of witnesses,representation, and the like. All of those related toestablishing guilt or innocence around the violationand protecting the offender’s rights to due processgiven the fact that their liberty was in jeopardy. Thereseemed to be very little interest in the dispositionalphase of the revocation process. In the literature onviolation and revocation from the 1970s and early198Os, almost no attention is placed on selecting theappropriate response. A popular college text onprobation and parole dispenses with violation andrevocation in a few pages with not a single referenceto any other disposition besides revocation andincarceration.6

The unspoken assumption seems to have’been that if aviolation occurred, there would either be revocationand incarceration or revocation and reinstatement.This parallels the sentencing decision of a court. Formany years, the sentencing judge’s options wereeither probation or prison. With the advent of greaterinterest in intermediate sanctions at the sentencingstage, it was inevitable that more systematicintermediate responses to violations would begin to beconsidered as well. If criminal behavior falls along acontinuum to which a continuum of sanctions isappropriate, so too might technical violations. This isa departure from the procedural preoccupations of thepast and offers innovations in several key dimensions.

WHO SETS POLICY ON RESPONSES TOVIOLATIONS?

Responses to violation of probation and parole arevirtually always a shared responsibility. Granting

probation or parole along with the setting ofconditions--and ultimately the ability to revokeprobation or parole--usually lies either with the courtin the case of probation or with a parole board in thecase of parole.

Supervision of the offender’s compliance with thoseconditions is a responsibility delegated to probationand parole agencies, which may or may not be withinthe direct control of the court or parole board. Infact, in 25 states, probation and parole supervision areboth administered by a state-level, executive branchagency--usually a department of corrections that alsoadministers prisons. An additional 3 states haveseparate executive branch agencies that administerprobation and parole (AR, GA, TN). Another 16states split responsibility for probation and parole,leaving parole at the state level in an executive branchagency, with probation supervision handled by thecourts, usually at the circuit or county level. Thereare 4 exceptions to this (CT, HI, NE, SD) where thestate court administers probation. In another 5 states,there are hybrid systems with a state executive agencyadministering probation and parole services in somecounties, but other counties providing their ownprobation services (MN, OH, OR, PA, WA). And 1state (IA) created special purpose units of governmentat the judicial district level to provide the full range ofcommunity correctional services--parole, probation,halfway houses, residential community correctionsfacilities, etc. In only 8 jurisdictions (CT, DC, GA,HI, MA, PA, SC, TN) do paroling authorities havedirect authority over parole supervision staff, and only14 states have courts with direct authority overprobation supervision staff.

The arrangements present a dizzying variety of sharedresponsibilities and challenges to clarity of purposeand authority. This situation in itself creates a needfor clear thinking, communication, and policy aboutthe handling of violations. (Exhibit 3 summarizes. thelocation of probation and parole supervisionresponsibility in each state, the District of Columbia,and the federal system.)

5

Exhibit 3. Probation and Parole Supervision Location by State

State Function State AgencyI

Local Agency Judicial (J) orExecutive (E) Branch

AL Parole & Probation Board of Pardons and Paroles E

AK Parole & Probation Department of Corrections E

AR Parole Department of Corrections EProbation Department of Community Punishment E

AZ Parole Department of Corrections EProbation Administrative Office of the Courts Court J

CA Parole Department of Corrections EProbation court J

CO Parole Departments of Corrections EProbation Court J

CT Parole Parole Board EProbation Judicial Dept. J

DE Parole & Probation Department of Corrections E

DC Parole Parole Board EProbation court J

FL Parole & Probation Department of Corrections E

G A Parole Parole Board EProbation Department of Corrections E

HI Parole Parole Board EProbation Judiciary J

IA Parole & Probation Judicial Districts E

ID Parole & Probation Department of Corrections E

U Parole Department of Corrections EProbation Judicial Circuits J

IN Parole Department of Corrections EProbation County Courts J

KS Parole Department of Corrections EProbation Judicial Districts J

KY Parole & Probation Department of Corrections E

LA Parole & Probation Department of Public Safety & Corrections E

ME Parole & Probation Department of Corrections E

MD Parole & Probation Department of Public Safety and Correctional EServices

MA Parole Parole Board EProbation Judicial Branch J

MI Parole & Probation Department of Corrections E

M N Parole & Probation Department of Corrections Counties E

MS Parole & Probation Department of Corrections E

6

INNOVATIONS AT WORK

Parole and probation agencies have many reasons toexamine and improve their responses to technicalviolations. With dozens of jurisdictions exploringthis area, there is now enough experience to begin tocharacterize the activities under way, some of theinnovations being tested, and some of the lessonsemerging from the experience. The following sum-maries are drawn from the experience of workingwith 19 jurisdictions under the NIC technicalassistance projects (listed in Exhibit 1). frominterviews with 5 other jurisdictions, and fromthe literature.

Systematic Review of Current Practice

As mundane as it sounds, the first step that agencieshave taken in trying to improve revocation responseshas been to look carefully and systematically at theway they are currently doing business. Not surpris-ingly--given the state of most agencies’ informationsystems--the first discovery was how little anyonereally knew about the violation and revocationprocess. Many agencies could report how manyindividuals were revoked over the course of a yearand sometimes whether the revocations were for newcrimes or for technical violations. But beyond that,very little information was available.

Mapping--Qualitative Analysis. One helpful taskthat some agencies undertook was a careful mappingor flowcharting of the violation process. Thishighlighted the key decision points in the process, thetiming of specific steps, where and how informationwas made available, and the complexity of the entireprocess. It particularly highlighted the importance ofthe line officer in initiating violation efforts andshowed how key the line officer is in acting as agatekeeper. If he or she feels an offender’s violationbehavior warrants initiating the formal violationprocess, then a whole series of activities is set intomotion. On the other hand, if he or she does notinitiate the formal process, the court or the parole

board will never see a violation. Exhibit 4 presents anexample of a “map” drawn of a violations process inan operating community supervision agency.

The Current Norms--Policy Analysis. A secondaspect of understanding current practice is to examineexactly what policy is in place to guide the lineofficer and his or her supervisor in deciding whatviolation behavior warrants attention--and what typeof attention. When the NIC technical assistanceproject began in the late 198Os, the typical policyguidance found in most agency manuals was not veryspecific. In some jurisdictions, the language woulddirect a probation or parole officer to file a violationreport “...whenever the probationer commits aviolation in a significant respect...,” leaving theofficer to decide what “significant” meant. In otherinstances, policy language would appear to becompletely inflexible, directing that a violation reportbe filed “...in the case of a violation...,” suggestingthat the officer had no discretion whatsoever. Inreality, the line officer had enormous discretion with,in most instances, very little formal policy direction.Exhibit 5 provides two examples of fairly typicallanguage from policies in effect prior to thedevelopment of “new generation” policy onviolations and revocation.

In exploring these uncharted waters, agenciesencountered a variety of situations. Some found thatpractice varied widely within a single department andvaried clearly on the basis of individual officers,supervisors, or judges. Other agencies found thatunwritten policies were being observed. Such was thecase in one parole agency where officers indicatedthat they adhered closely to the letter of the law,quickly bringing virtually every violation to theattention of the Board. At the same time, the Boardmembers indicated that they typically revoked anyonebrought to them by their officers because they knewthat “ . ..the officers had already tried everythingpossible and we feel that it is important to back themup.” Clearly there were unspoken assumptions atwork that may have been in conflict.

8

Exhibit 4. Illustrative “Map” of the Violations Process in an Agency

Exhibit 4. Illustrative “Map” of the Violations Process in an Agency (continued)

Exhibit 5. Examples of Traditional Policy Language Regarding Violations

“The purpose of the parole officer’s investigation is toobtain sufficient information to determine whether releaseconditions were violated in an important respect, andwhether proof of this can be established at parole violationhearings.”

New York State Revocation Process,New York Board of Parole, 1988, p. B-4

Regarding the outcomes of preliminaryrevocation hearings.. .“Where the hearing officer finds probable cause he is

permitted to allow the parolee to remain free and under supervision ifthis is in the best interest of all parties and the community.”

Tennessee Board of Paroles,Administrative Policies and Procedures506.10, July 1, 1986

Statistical Information--Quantitative Analysis.Beyond understanding the flow of the process andthe policy--or lack of it--that guides the process,agencies also found it instructive to examine violationpractice from a quantitative dimension. Someagencies conducted extensive research, including theassembly of a data base of past cases--including onesthat had been through the violation process--tounderstand exactly who was on probation or parole,who was violating, with what types of violations, andwith what types of responses by the agency. Thisbegan to give a more detailed picture of the violationbehavior with which the agency was faced, typicallywhat resources were brought to bear, a profile of theviolator population, and so forth.

Not surprisingly, the findings varied from one agencyto-another. One found that youthful offenders wereparticularly at risk for quick revocation. Others foundthat drug use was a major violation problem. In mostcases, however, at least some findings dispelled themyths that had been held previously. In one juris-

diction, for instance, officers were convinced thatmost violators were high risk offenders with a historyof serious, violent crime. The analysis revealed quite.a different violator population, with high levels oftechnical violations, drug use, and very little incidenceof person crimes in the backgrounds of those revoked.

Exhibit 6 provides examples of the types ofinformation that can be generated through a thoroughstatistical analysis of violation practice. Theseexamples are drawn from a probation agency thatparticipated in the NIC projects. Prior to thecompletion of the analysis, everyone involved knewthat it was a complex process and that there weresome inconsistencies. The analysis revealed,however, how long it took to dispose of each petitionto revoke, who was involved, and what proportion ofviolators were in custody while their petition movedthrough the process. The analysis also revealed whattypes of violations were moving through the processand what responses were typically used. There had

11

Exhibit 6. Examples of Results of Statistical Analysis of Violation Practice

Length and Complexity of the Revocation Process

How long does it take to move from detection of a violation through Court disposition?Estimated average ranges from 44 to 64 days

Who is involved in the process?Probation Officer, Supervisor, Prosecutor, Judge,

Law Enforcement, Jail Administration, Service Providers

What mechanism is used to bring probationer into the violation Process?18% receive summons

82% have warrants issued against them

Prison 94Jail 8Jail with Probation 56Probation with Conditions 4Probation 100

Incarcerative Sanctions 158Non-Incarcerative Sanctions 104

of Motions to Revoke

Percent ofDispositions I

Percent of TotalProbation Population

36.0 2.53.0 .21

21.0 1.51.5 .1

38.0 2.6

60I

4.240 2.7

Far What Violations Do Probation Officers File Motions to Revoke?

Types I Percent

Positive UrinalysisFailure to Participate in TreatmentAbscondNew FelonyFailure to ReportNew MisdemeanorAll Other Technical

27.020.018.512.010.04.08.5

12

been a general understanding that drug use was a highfrequency violation and that failure to report was alsofairly common. It was startling to find, however, thatfailed drug tests, failure to participate in treatment,and failure to report accounted for almost 60 percentof all violations. New criminal behavior representedjust 16 percent of petitions to revoke. The analysisalso indicated that 60 percent of petitions to revokeyielded incarcerative sanctions. Suddenly, the agencyhad a much better understanding of its practices andbegan a much more informed process of assessing andrefining its work.

This first innovation--systematic review of currentpractice--has proven a powerful tool as agenciesmove to restructure how they respond to violations ofparole and probation conditions.

Assessment of Violation Severity

An innovation employed by almost all agenciesexamining their violation practices is the use of aviolation severity scale. Many jurisdictions aredeveloping explicit catalogues of “serious” and “lessserious” violations or “A” and “B” violations. In thepast, policies were largely silent with respect to someviolations being more serious than others. Whileviolations of special conditions imposed by the courtor parole board for very specific community safetyreasons might be more serious than others, gradationsof seriousness were largely left unspoken. In practice,that translated to enormous discretion and variationamong line probation and parole officers since noteveryone agrees on what constitutes a serious or non-serious violation--unless it is explicitly articulated andagreed upon formally. The ratings of seriousness varygreatly from one jurisdiction to another for specificviolations. Also, some severity scales rely on listingsof specific violations, while others suggest categories.

These differences are entirely appropriate, as theyreflect individual agencies’ differences in goals,priorities, and the values of the communities theyserve. The similarity--and value--across jurisdictionslies in the explicitness of the scales. They serve toprovide clear guidance to probation and parole staff,

assure consistency, and target resources to the moreserious violation behavior. Exhibits 7 and 8 providetwo examples of severity scales developed by agenciesparticipating in the NIC projects. The reader will notethe differences in format and content. Exhibit 7 listsdescriptive violation categories (e.g., positive drugtest, failure to pay restitution/other fees) and assignsthem either a “high” or “low” severity rating. In someinstances repetitions of the same violation can raisethem from a low to a high category depending on thenumber (as indicated by the columns on the right sideof the table).

The example in Exhibit 8 is a bit more complex,including four levels of severity and violationdefinitions that sometimes rely on the type of sentencereceived or the type of supervision the probationer isreceiving. The highest level specifies the appropriateaction--bypass of the Misconduct Review Board(MRB), an administrative hearing body, and automaticissuance of a Violation of Probation (VOP) or war-rant. This categorization rates some new criminalbehavior--conviction of a misdemeanor with asentence of 15 days or less--as low severity.

The variation between these two examples is a goodillustration of why revocation policy is a highlyindividualized tool. What makes sense in terms ofseverity rating in one jurisdiction may be whollyinappropriate in another. The same can be said for allof the other elements of violation policy--riskassessment, levels of authority, and the policy thatguides action. Agencies can learn from one another,but must build their own policy approach to achievetheir agency goals.

Assessing Violations and Violators--Adding Riskto the Equation

Perhaps one of the most striking innovations that hasbeen embraced in the field is the use of riskassessment as part of deciding how to respond to aviolation. While it sounds so sensible, including riskassessment in the violation/revocation equation is amajor shift in emphasis. The earlier focus on dueprocess and procedural protections mandated by

13

Exhibit 7. Illustrative Violation Severity Scale #l

SeverityRating

Violation

ALCOHOL TEST

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

FAILURE TO TAKE ANTABUSE L H H

FAILURE TO REMIT PAYCHECK (Intensive Probation L H HSupervision)

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN EMPLOYMENT L L H

FAILURE TO PAY RESTITUTION/OTHER FEES L L H

FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN EDUCATION PROGRAM L L H

FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN COMMUNITY SERVICE L L H

CHANGING RESIDENCE W/O NOTICE OR PERMISSION L L H

FAILURE TO REPORT L L H

VIOLATING CURFEW/APPROVED SCHEDULE L L H

MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS L L H

FAILURE TO FOLLOW ORDERS L L H

VIOLATING JAIL RULES L L H

FAILURE TO NOTIFY SHERIFF OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS L L L(Sex Offender\

Low BEING FINANCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE I L I L L

14

Exhibit 8. Illustrative Violation Severity Scale #2

15

Morrissey and Gagnon tended to create an emphasison the determination of fact--did a violation occurand, if so, what was it? Little attention was paid toother factors--how the offender performed on super-vision to date, the underlying offense of conviction,what the violation behavior communicated aboutdangerousness or risk to the community? Once thefact of a violation was established, there was littleguidance as to the best course of action. Of course,the overarching sentencing philosophy of desert thatwas so prominent in the 1970s and beyond alsofocused attention on scaling of severity--both in theoriginal offense and in any violations of conditions.Indeed, some of the earlier attempts at developingconsistent policy around the use of alternatives torevocation focused exclusively on the violation andwhether it was “deliberate or chronic.“’

Many factors are now directing attention to the issueof risk. First, community safety is a paramountconcern for all criminal justice agencies. Second,scarce resources demand that priorities be set whenallocating prison and jail beds, as well as communitycorrections resources. These priorities, along with theavailability and acceptance of empirically based riskassessment tools in the parole and probation field,emphasize risk as a major consideration in definingappropriate responses to violations.

Technical violations by two different offenders may becomparable in severity--for instance the violation of ano-alcohol condition--but may have quite differentrisk implications. For the offender with a history ofviolence while under the influence of alcohol, such aviolation may be good cause for issuance of a warrantand quick placement in custody. For another offender,the same violation may be cause for a reprimand andadjustment of conditions. The difference is not in theviolation, but in the risk it presents to the communityor even to specific victims.

combines the use of violence assessment and theseverity of the misconduct to generate risk categoriesfrom A to E, with A being the highest. Therefore, anoffender with an initial assessment as violence prone,plus higher severity violations, and supervision in theviolent track, surfaces quickly as the highest riskviolator. On the other hand, a probationer initiallyassessed as non-violence prone, currently supervisedin the non-violent track, and with a low level ofviolation severity is defined in the lowest risk level.

There are many approaches to the issue of risk assess-ment. Some agencies use an existing classificationtool or supervision level as a measure of risk--withoutany other formal consideration of risk. Othersinclude--either as a substitute or as an additional step--a specific assessment by the officer of “communitystability” or “situational risk” in order to capture otherfactors not recognized by a classification instrument.This addresses factors that might be known by theofficer to indicate a particularly risky or dangeroussituation. This encourages the officer to focus onimminent risk in recommending a response to aviolation.

The merits of the various approaches have yet to bestudied empirically. And there is ample evidence thatmany agencies are using various types of risk assess-ment tools that have not been specifically validatedfor use on their populations. However, attempting tofashion an objective risk assessment instrument is astep in the right direction. It at least makes thefactors upon which risk is rated explicit and open toquestion and analysis. Such instruments can serve toemphasize the concern for risk and to get everyone onthe same page when it comes to definitions. Muchwork remains to be done to assure the validity andreliability of the instruments, however.

"Staffings” and Administrative Hearings

Many agencies revising their approach to violationshave begun to incorporate a specific risk assessmentstep in the violation process. Exhibit 9 provides anexample of a risk assessment scale that correspondsto the violation severity scale shown in Exhibit 8. It

Another innovation emerging among agenciesinterested in refining their violation practices is the

16

development of formalized stages in the violationprocess, including a “staffing” and/or an “administra-tive hearing” to:

emphasize for line officers--and supervisors--theimportance of considering intermediate responsesto violations and revocation,

create opportunities for formal review and qualitycontrol to assure consistency and adherence toagency policy,

allow specific delegation of authority for appli-cation of intermediate sanctions, and

keep violations that can be handled at a lowerlevel off court and parole board dockets to relieveworkload pressures and speed responses toviolations.

Among agencies interested in assuring consistenthandling of violations by officers, the development ofa formal “staffing” procedure has emerged. Thisusually involves a formal meeting between line officerand supervisor to consider a violation report. The

facts of the violation, background of the case,progress under supervision, and response options areconsidered. In this way the supervisor can reinforcethe agency’s policy about the nature and type ofviolations that officers should handle themselves, aswell as the responses appropriate to a particular typeof violation and risk. An official record is kept of themeeting.

This procedure is a fairly informal process, wherebythe line officer reviews a violation, chooses a courseof action, and makes it more formal by involving thesupervisor. This assures a formal record of thestaffing and creates an opportunity to reinforce policy.

A second innovation works in just the oppositedirection, by downgrading the formality of someviolation hearings from the courtroom to anadministrative procedure. The thinking behind thisinnovation is that many violations that end up in courtor before a parole board can be handled at a lowerlevel. In fact, many violations that go to court or to aparole board result in reinstatement on supervision--sometimes with changed conditions and sometimeswith no changes. This is often the desired outcomeon the part of the probation officer and the court or

17

board. In those instances, the administrative hearingoffers a less cumbersome, less costly, and moreexpeditious method to achieve the desired result.

The administrative hearing process is 1) a tool toallow intermediate sanctions to be imposed quicklyand with less procedure and 2) a formal screening stepto assure that those violations that go to court morenearly approximate the ones the judge or the paroleboard really wants and needs to see. It createsanother, quasi-formal level of review where slightlymore onerous sanctions may be imposed--more sothan those that can be imposed by the officer andsupervisor--but less serious than those that can beimposed by the court or the board. Exhibit 10illustrates the possible outcomes of both a “staffing”and an administrative hearing as newly designed bythe South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole,and Pardon Services.8

Citations vs. Warrants

Offenders in custody awaiting violation hearings areoften a significant portion of local jail populations.For those offenders who have jobs, custody maydisrupt their ability to care for their families and causethem to lose employment. At least one of the juris-dictions revamping violation procedures examinedthe process--particularly the decisions around theissuance of warrants and use of custody awaitinghearings--and made a significant modification to pastpractice. It began using citations--or summons toappear--in place of automatic warrants. Officerswere still able to use a warrant when they felt flightwas a risk or community safety was in jeopardy.However, the presumption for custody was removed.Rather than automatically allowing offenders to waivea preliminary hearing and stay in custody until thefinal hearing, the presumption is now that a citationwill be issued. As a result, a significant amount ofjail space is saved. Exhibit 11 is an example of acitation used in the probation violation process inSouth Carolina.

Providing for the Delegation of Authorityto Impose Conditions

Another significant innovation in handling violationsis the delegation of specific authority to adjust condi-tions of probation or parole without returning to court

or to the parole board for formal revocation proceed-ings. Such proceedings often require long periods oftime to schedule and consume large amounts of court

and board time. In at least two jurisdictions, specificlegislative action was taken to provide statutoryauthority to delegate this authority. In South Carolina,in response to a legal challenge, state legislation waspassed in May 1996 specifically authorizing theDirector of the Department of Probation, Parole, andPardon Services to enhance the conditions of proba-tion or parole, but not to decrease them. In Illinois,legislation was enacted in 1995 directing each judicialcircuit to adopt a structured system of administrativesanctions for probation violators and creating statutoryauthority for probation officers to impose suchsanctions as a consequence of non-compliance withthe conditions of probation, conditional discharge,and supervision. Exhibit 12 is an example of languageused to delineate the legislative delegation ofauthority to change probation conditions.

Some jurisdictions have achieved the delegation ofsuch authority through the rule-making and policy-making authority already available to supervisionagencies. In other jurisdictions, adjustments inconditions are authorized by the court or boardthrough a review of the record and affirmation ofthe action after the sanction has been imposed. Thecourt or board always retains the authority to not affirm,and reverse, the action taken by the supervisionagency.

Regardless of the specific approach, agencies areusing a variety of legislative, procedural, and policytools to introduce more flexibility into their responsesto violations, to speed the process, and to decreasethe administrative burden of responding.

18

Exhibit 10: Possible Outcomes of “Staffings” and Administrative Hearings

South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services

Probation & Parole

Exhibit 11. Probation Citation

-GS--

PROBATION CITATION

Form 16.2Form Approved bySC Attorney GeneralMay 1988

SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY:

v. SCDC # SID #

TO:

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to appear in the above named case at the time, date, and place specifiedbelow.

Place Room

Date and Time

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that you are charged with violating the conditions of your supervision asstated below.

Violations Charged

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that you have the rights listed below.

List of Rights:You have the right at the hearing to question any person who appears as a witness against you and to

have witnesses appear in your behalf. You may present evidence on your behalf. You may have an attorneyrepresent you. If you cannot afford an attorney, an attorney will be appointed for you. You must advise the agentor the court in writing of your desire for an attorney. It is your responsibility to make arrangements for yourwitnesses and your attorney to appear at the hearing.

IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT THE TIME, DATE, AND PLACE SHOWN ABOVE, THE HEARING WILL BEHELD IN YOUR ABSENCE AND YOU MAY BE INCARCERATED.

, South Carolina Probation and Parole Agent

Date Agent #

A copy of the citation was served by the undersigned and given to the individual named therein at the time,date, and place indicated below.

Place Time and Date

Serving Officers Signature

Sworn to and subscribed before me this

Signature of Notary Public

day of , 19-______

My Commission Expires

20

Exhibit 12. Statutory Languageon Intermediate Sanctions for Violations

and Delegation of Authority

“Public Act 89-198 mandates that ‘eachcircuit shall adopt a system of structured,intermediate sanctions for violations...’and that ‘the court...impose as a conditionof a sentence of probation, conditionaldischarge, or supervision, that theprobation agency may invoke anysanction from the list of intermediatesanctions adopted by the chief judge ofthe circuit court for violations...subject tothe provisions of Section 5-6-4...’ Entryinto an Administrative Sanctions Programtherefore becomes a statutory condition ofprobation subsequent to the adoption ofan intermediate sanctions system by thechief judge of the circuit.”

Administrative Office of the IllinoisCourts, Administrative SanctionsProgram Guidelines, NOV. 1995

Specifying a Range of Intermediate Sanctions

Sentencing judges, parole boards, and probationagencies have become more familiar with the useof intermediate sanctions as credible options at thesentencing stage. It is only natural that intermediatesanctions would begin to be considered as credibleoptions in response to violations of probation orparole. If criminal activity falls along a range ofseriousness and risk warranting a range of sanctioningresponses, so too will technical violation behavior. Todate, many agencies have relied heavily on revocationas the sole response to violations. Many agents takethe approach of letting technical violations “stack up”until there are “enough” to go after revocation. Thatpicture is changing.

Jurisdictions pursuing a range of intermediatesanctions for violations found that part of the initiativerequired an effort to 1) identify existing sanctions

available in the community, and 2) consider how thosesanctions could be logically arrayed along a continuumof increasing punishment, control, and/or intensive-ness of treatment. These, then, needed to be matchedagainst a continuum of severity/risk of violationbehavior. In many ways, this effort mirrors the effortsof local policy groups attempting to array a system ofsanctions to be used at the sentencing stage.

Inevitably, those sanctions that include loss of liberty(e.g., house arrest) or serious constraints upon move-ment (e.g., electronic monitoring) are found towardthe top of the continuum, while less onerous orcontrolling sanctions such as increased reporting orscreening for substance abuse are found more towardthe middle or lower end of the continuum. But, again,there are significant differences from one jurisdictionto the next that reflect local practice and availabilityof resources. Exhibit 13 provides a fairly typicalexample of a range of suggested responses to viola-tions, arrayed along a continuum of increasing control,punitiveness, and intensiveness. The continuum isalso arranged according to the level at which decisionsabout the sanction should be made--with the morepunitive, intrusive, and expensive sanctions requiringcourt action, mid-level sanctions requiring the approvalof a supervisor, and low-level sanctions available tothe probation officer on his or her own authority.Exhibit 14 illustrates how violations are assessed andassigned to the appropriate level of decisionmaker andsanction. Moving from left to right on the exhibit,the reader can see how Severity, Risk, and BehaviorRisk are assessed sequentially to “sort” violators tothe appropriate level.

Explicit Policy

The “glue” that holds all of these different elements inplace is policy. Policy is the official language thatidentifies the factors to be considered, with whatweights, and what action should typically be takengiven a particular configuration of factors. Forinstance, with a high severity violation and a high riskoffender, particularly with an indication of communityinstability, the policy might indicate quick issuance of

21

Exhibit 13. Illustrative Range of Sanctions Authorizedat Various Levels of Decisionmaking

LEVEL OF DECISIONMAKING

(HIGH) COURT

(MEDIUM) SUPERVISOR & PROBATIONOFFICER CONFERENCE

(LOW) PROBATION OFFICER

PrisonJailJail with Work FurloughResidential TreatmentIntensive Probation SupervisionElectronic Monitoring - House Arrest (for more than 30days)All Listed Below*

Direct ProgramCommunity Service (20 - 40 hours)Electronic Monitoring - Release for Work (up to 30 days)Curfew (up to 30 days)Increase Supervision LevelAll Listed Below*

Curfew (up to 7 days)Community Service (up to 8 hours)Loss of Travel or Other PrivilegesCounseling/TreatmentBegin/Increase Drug/Alcohol TestingIncreased ReportingCounseling or Reprimand by Unit SupervisorCounseling or Reprimand by Probation Officer

*“All listed below” indicates that all of the sanctions listed as available to the supervisor or the probation officer are alsoavailable to the court. Similarly, all of the sanctions listed as available to the probation officer are also available to thesupervisor and probation officer in conference.

22

I

Exhibit 14. Illustrative Policy Indicating the Level at Which Decisions Should Be MadeGiven Various Combinations of Risk, Severity, and Behavior Risk of Violators

ConferenceHIGH

Supvr-POConference

Low Probation Officer

High court

High

LowSupvr-PO

ConferenceMEDIUM

Low

High Probation Officer

Low Probation Officer

LOW

supvr-POConference

High

Low

Low

High

Probation Officer

Probation Officer

Low I Probation Officer

23

a warrant and recommendation for revocation. Onthe other hand, with a low severity and low riskviolation, the typical course of action might beadjustment of a reporting schedule, along with averbal counseling session. Exhibit 15 provides anexample of some typical language found in policydirectives concerning “new generation” responses toviolations.

Clarity of Goals

It may seem disconcerting to list “clarity of goals” asan innovation for probation and parole. Being clearabout goals, however, is one of the most difficultaspects of any criminal justice agency’s operations.The various consumers of probation and parole ser-vices have widely divergent expectations of probationand parole supervision. Such expectations mightinclude monitoring and identifying non-compliancewith court or board conditions, controlling admissionsto prison or jail, protecting community safety, assuringoffender accountability, or rehabilitating the offender--all at the same time and with a shrinking budget.

Most agencies that have undertaken a review andrefinement of their violation practices have found thata careful rethinking of supervision itself is required:what is the goal of supervision and how do we definesuccess and failure? Exhibit 15 also illustrates howone agency carefully links its policy on violations tothe overall goals of supervision.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

Jurisdictions that have developed innovations in thisfield can offer instructive examples--not just aboutwhat they have done, but also about how they did it.Strategies cluster in several areas.

From the Bottom Up

One hallmark of the NIC technical assistance effortdirected at innovations in handling violations was thechartering of internal working groups. Groups ofstaff drawn from various levels of the organization--

but particularly including line probation/paroleofficers, first-line supervisors, and policymakers--provided the staff support to assess current practice,gather data about it, consider current policy, andfashion new approaches. Such a strategy assured thatthe changes were based on practical line experienceand also developed a sense of ownership in thechanges by the working groups. Subsequentimplementation, training, monitoring, and evaluationbecame smoother using such a development strategy.

Additions to the Probation/Parole Tool Bag

As agencies faced the challenge of changing the wayin which they handle violations, they found creativeways of expressing the policy foundation to guidetheir practices. They revised policy and proceduresmanuals to communicate policy on the topic. Theyalso used graphic depictions of the decision processthey expect officers to follow. They invested a gooddeal of effort in creating tools for line agents andsupervisors to use. Some designed documents andreference materials to give form and life to theirpolicy.

These “tools” illustrate the substantive aspects of howagencies are handling violations and translating policyinto practice. The tools include:

booklets that assemble all of the “pieces” of theviolation process in one document--severity scales,risk assessment scales, sample violation reportformats, violation logs, forms to record“staffings,” listings of available intermediatesanctions, etc.;laminated cards for staff to carry, summarizingviolation guidelines;new formats--violation logs--that change the wayprobation and parole agents keep their “runningrecord” in order to highlight violations and theirresponses;charts listing violations and their severity levels;charts listing risk levels; andcharts arraying severity/risk ratings withappropriate sanctions and levels ofdecisionmaking.

24

Exhibit 15. Typical “New Generation” Policy Language Regarding Violations

II. PURPOSE;: The purpose of this policy is to provide a framework to guide officer decision makingwhen a violation of probation has occurred. A clear, consistent understanding of the steps to be takenwhen responding to violation behavior should increase officer autonomy and reduce the filing of petitionsto revoke probation in cases where a response short of revocation and incarceration is appropriate.

Administrative violations of the conditions of probation are inevitable. It is unrealistic to believeoffenders, even if they sincerely desire to develop drug-free, pro-social lifestyles, will immediately havethe skills or abilities to do so. The issues and forces which brought them into the system will most likelycontinue to impact their behavior to some extent until they learn new skills and methods of dealing withthese forces.

All responses to violation behavior should be considered in light of the agency’s mission and philosophy,as well as the goals of the supervision process. While protection of the community must always be theprimary consideration, it does not follow that revocation is always, or even usually, the most effective orefficient way of achieving this goal....

The goal of community supervision is to selectively and proactively intervene with offenders so as toreduce the likelihood of future criminal activity and promote compliance with the supervision strategy.Strategies involve holding offenders accountable for their actions, monitoring and controlling offenderbehavior, and developing rehabilitation programs specific to offender needs. Another significant pieceof the supervision strategy is ensuring an appropriate and proportionate departmental response to allviolations of the conditions of probation, taking into account offender risk, the nature of the violation,and the objective of offender accountability.

The basic expectations underlying the department’s policy regarding probation violations are:

There will be a response to every detected violation,

n Responses to violations will be proportional to the risk to the community posed by the particularoffender, the severity of the violation, and the current situational risk.

The least restrictive response necessary to respond to the behavior will be used.

n There should be consistency in handling similar violation behavior given similar risk factors.

n Responses to violations should hold some potential for long-term positive outcomes in the context ofthe supervision strategy.

n While response to violation behavior is determined by considering both risk and needs, risk to thecommunity is the overriding consideration.

n Probationers who demonstrate a general unwillingness to abide by supervision requirements or whopose undue risk to the community should be subject to a Petition to Revoke Probation.

25

The appendices provide a selection of tools createdand used by probation and parole agencies as theyimplemented new practice regarding violations andrevocations:

Appendix A is a chart that summarizes oneagency’s thinking about the various purposes ofresponding to violations and which sanctions areappropriate.

Appendices B and C are logs of violations and of“staffings” between line officer and supervisor.Each was designed to highlight violations and theresponses made to each in the written record.

Appendix D is a set of instructions that leads aprobation officer through the steps to be followedin assessing offender risk, violation severity,situation risk, and the appropriate decisionmakinglevel for the response.

Appendix E is a listing of community sanctionsavailable to the probation officer, along withexamples of behavior and situations for which theyare appropriate.

Appendix F is a document developed to be anattachment to the standard conditions of probation,This attachment is a simple way for the court toindicate that the probation officer is authorized toimpose a certain set of intermediate sanctions--asdeemed appropriate--without having to come backthrough a formal violation hearing.

Appendix G is an example of a notice to the courtof technical or administrative violations and theactions taken in lieu of filing a formal petition torevoke. This keeps the court informed and alsoprovides the opportunity for the court to order thata formal revocation petition be filed.

These documents are examples of the ways in whichprobation and parole agencies are implementinginnovations in handling violations. Many otherexamples are in use around the country. Any agencyembarking on a refinement of violation policy shouldconsider these as reference points, but is cautioned todevelop its own tools appropriate to its own practicesand goals.

System Support

As any practitioner is aware, responsibility for almosteverything in the criminal justice system crossesagency boundaries. Handling violations may involvemore than One level or branch of government and theprivate sector. Even issues that can be viewed purelyas a matter Of internal agency policy often can betterbe addressed with the cooperation, support, informa-tion, or resources of other agencies and decisionmakers.

An approach some agencies have taken to assure thesuccess of efforts to respond to violations was toinclude policymakers and staff from other agencies intheir development and implementation efforts. It ismore the rule than the exception that the body respon-sible for the final revocation decision (i.e., the judgeor parole board) is distinct from the agency providingsupervision (e.g., departments of corrections, inde-pendent probation or parole agencies, etc.). In thoseinstances, it is key for probation agencies to under-stand the expectations of judges about what mattersshould be brought before the court, and what mattersthey can best handle internally. Likewise, agenciesproviding parole supervision should clearly understandthe expectations of the parole board regarding whatshould be brought back through the formal violationprocess. Judges and boards, too, must understand andsupport the internal policies of their respective super-vision agencies, Otherwise, they may be operating atcross purposes.

Beyond the obvious shared concerns of supervisionagency and decisionmaker, however, are many othercross-system relationships that are important forviolation/revocation practice. Prosecutors may be key inthe handling of probation violations, especially inconsidering appropriate sanctions. The defense barwill also be vitally interested in the sanctions available tooffenders. Sheriffs and jail administrators will beconcerned about how violation practice impacts jail.space. County board members will be concernedabout the costs of local incarceration. Serviceproviders will be concerned about criteria foradmission to their programs and criteria for failure.

26

And if greater access to services in the community ispart of an agency’s change efforts, involving privatesector service providers will also be important.

Many agencies have made the effort to involve otherkey policymakers in their deliberations. One approach,taken by a probation agency located within a judicialdistrict of a state court, was to convene an advisoryboard comprised of key policymakers--the chiefadministrative judge, the chief prosecuting attorney,and the chief public defender, as well as the head ofthe probation agency. The role of the advisory boardwas to provide overall direction to the staff committeesupporting the effort, react to its recommendations,and give credibility to the initiative both inside andoutside the court itself.

Another approach, which has been used in combinationwith an advisory committee, is the involvement ofother key agencies/actors in the context of a workingconference on new policy. One agency, after workingfor a number of months on assessing current practiceand developing suggested policy, presented a full-dayseminar for its entire bench, directors of the criminaldivisions of its prosecutor’s office, all staff from itspublic defender’s office, and all of its own staff. Theseminar presented the findings of the agency’s analysis,outlined its goals for the violation process, introducednew policy, and solicited feedback and support duringimplementation.

Probation and parole agencies may approach this issueas purely an internal policy matter, guiding how theirofficers will handle violations and when they willinitiate the formal violation process. On the otherhand, even if the policy is primarily an internal matter,assuring that the prosecutor and defense bar areinformed and securing support from the bench and/orboard are key to success.

Training

Policy changes must be accompanied by a significanttraining effort to assure that policy is translated intopractice. In those jurisdictions where changes inpractice were observed, significant effort was put into

training line officers--often using members of theoriginal working group as trainers. Another keystrategy is to train supervisors and they, in turn, trainline officers. This assures that both levels of theorganization are thoroughly familiar with the newpolicy’s goals and operation. Training tools includethe use of sample cases to illustrate how violationsmight be handled; introduction of new forms, formats,and data collection instruments; and practicing“staffing” procedures.

Because response to violations is such a key aspect ofagency operations, it is important to incorporate itinto routine training for new staff and into periodicupdates for veteran staff. Aspects of the policy andpractice will change over time. Keeping all staff upto date on changes is an important aspect ofimplementation.

IMPACT: A VARIETY OF MEASURES

As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. Withseveral years’ experience, there must be some docu-mentation of the effect of these innovations. Forexample, what has been the impact when:l Reduced use of incarceration as a response to

revocation is the goal?l Greater use of intermediate sanctions is the goal?l Better targeting of revocation to high severity and

high risk violations is the goal?

The discouraging news is that demonstrating impactdepends heavily on good data systems and adequateattention to monitoring. Unfortunately, managementinformation systems in probation and parole agencies--along with most other parts of the criminal justicesystem--leave much to be desired. The weak link inthese efforts has been in the design of monitoringsystems to capture good impact data. The author hasfound no comprehensive evaluation efforts completedto date.

The good news is that there are a few noteworthyexceptions and a few instances where the data is verylimited but still encouraging. The types of impactobserved by agencies as they made changes are

27

discussed in this section. Some of the illustrationshighlight the available quantitative impact data.Others highlight the available descriptive andqualitative information. They suggest that, in additionto measurable impact on revocation rates, admissionsto prison, etc., new thinking about violations andrevocations is having a significant effect on the wayprobation and parole agencies go about their work. Itis stimulating efforts to target resources, changeoffender behavior, and define agency missions andgoals. These, too, are important effects.

South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole,and Pardon Services (DPPPS)--Impact on Risk tothe Community, Court Resources, and Jail Use

The South Carolina experience is noteworthy for anumber of reasons. Beginning its work in 1988,DPPPS was an early participant in NIC’s nationaltechnical assistance efforts and, as such, became amentor for many other agencies that participated. Itdid a good job of translating its innovations intopolicy documents that not only guide practice, butalso provide others with information about itsprogress. South Carolina has continued to collectinformation on its violation practices so that a numberof encouraging conclusions about impact can bedrawn.

An important goal of the South Carolina initiative onviolations was to focus revocation more clearly alonglines of risk. DPPPS was one of the first agencies toexplicitly separate an assessment of risk from an assess-ment of violation severity and included indicators of“community instability,” such as recent instances ofassaultiveness, increased patterns of drug and alcoholuse, etc.

DPPPS’s policy is crafted so that, all other thingsbeing equal, violators demonstrating higher levels ofrisk will be revoked and incarcerated at higher ratesthan those with correspondingly lower levels of risk.South Carolina has been keeping statistics on the typesof offenders coming through the revocation processand found that in fiscal year 1992-93,85 percent ofviolators revoked to prison were designated in thehigher risk categories (supervised at the intensive,maximum, or medium levels) and 15 percent weredesignated at lower risk levels of supervision. Exhibit16 presents the percentage of total active cases thatfall into each category, and the percentage of all thoserevoked in each category.

These data indicate that higher risk offenders are muchmore likely to be revoked than lower risk offenders.For instance, probationers on intensive supervision--the highest risk group under supervision--represent

Exhibit 16. Impact of Violation Policy: Reducing Risk to the CommunityComparison of Risk Level with Revocation Rate (Nov 92 - Oct 93) in South Carolina

intensive Maximum

Violators

Medium Minimum

q Active Cases

28

about 5 percent of the total probation population.However, they represent 15 percent of those revokedto prison. DPPPS’s current practice on violations isclearly meeting its expectations that incarcerativesanctions will be used more frequently on higher riskoffenders.

Another hallmark of South Carolina’s revampedapproach to violations is that for every violation therewill be a response. In contrast to past practice, whereviolations were often allowed to accumulate awaiting“enough” to issue a warrant, the practice is now torespond to each one. Intermediate responses areencouraged and specified. One danger of thisapproach is that revocation activity might actuallyincrease. However, South Carolina’s monitoring ofthe situation indicates a different picture. When theviolation effort began in 1989, about 28,500 proba-tion and parole offenders were under supervision. Inthat year, 5 percent of the population was revoked toprison. In 1995, with 37,000 offenders on probationand parole and a new policy of responding to everyviolation in effect, still about 5 percent of the popu-lation was revoked to prison.

At one level, then, DPPPS managed to “hold the line”and avoid increases in the proportion of offendersrevoked. Looking below the surface of these figures,however,. one finds a significant change that is savingenormous court time. Prior to the implementation ofthe new policy, only about 35 percent of DPPPS’srequests to the court for revocation of probation weregranted. Although only 5 percent of probationerswere revoked, many times that number went to courtfor revocation hearings. Today, DPPPS reports thatover 80 percent of its requests to the court for revoca-tion of probation are granted. The same 5 percent ofoffenders are revoked, but only a small number broughtto court for revocation are denied. Clearly, DPPPS isdoing a better job of identifying offenders the courtfeels should be revoked to prison and those who canbe handled through its new administrative hearingprocess. Richard Stroker, Deputy Director of DPPPS,points out that “thousands of violation cases a yearwere diverted from court dockets by [being] disposedof at administrative hearings.“’

In addition, because DPPPS now handles manyviolators by issuing a citation to appear at a violationhearing rather than routinely taking them into custodyawaiting a hearing, Stroker reports that “...6,000offenders who otherwise would have been incar-cerated in a local jail while awaiting bond or somedisposition to their case can now await their hearingwhile remaining in the community.”

Missouri Board of Probation and Parole--Impacton Prison Admissions

Like South Carolina, Missouri’s probation and parolesupervision services are provided by a single, state-level agency--the Missouri Department of Corrections.In 1988, the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole’sstatistics indicated that over the previous IO-yearperiod, parole violators admitted to the Departmentof Corrections had more than doubled, from 10 percentto 22 percent of total admissions.

The Board began a significant revamping of its policyon violators. It focused first on absconders, reviewingthem on a case-by-case basis rather than automaticallyrevoking them. It decreased by half the average timespent in prison as a result of revocation for absconding,greatly reducing the number of prison beds allocatedto absconders. The Board also initiated a combinationof new supervision strategies for violators, includingresidential centers, electronic home monitoring, andintensive supervision. It encouraged its officers torecommend the use of alternatives instead of revoca-tion and allowed officers to place violators quicklyinto alternatives pending the Board’s approval. InJanuary 1992, the Board initiated a violation guidelinesmatrix, which corresponded with its OffenderStrategy Continuum.

The Board’s management information system reportsextremely encouraging outcomes. Between 1988 and1995, the Board’s parole caseload had almost doubledfrom 5,644 to 10,081. At the same time, the numberof returns to prison as a result of revocation remainedvirtually stable. (See Exhibit 17.) The Board and its

29

Exhibit 17. Impact of Violation Policy: Reducing Prison AdmissionsMissouri Board of Prob. & Parole: Parole Activity 1988-1995

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

CY 88 CY 90 CY 92 CY 94

Parole Caseload q Parole Releases Total Returns

field supervision staff were able to manage anincreasing population of parolees in the community,respond to violations with intermediate sanctions, andlimit the number of violators returned to prison.

The question always arises as to whether this modifiedapproach to technical violations is taken at the priceof higher risk to the community. In Missouri, duringthe period when these changes were taking place withrespect to parole violators, the parole supervisioncaseload grew by 78 percent. At the same time,returns to prison as a result of new arrests increasedby only 9 percent. Not only was the Board able toavoid using precious prison resources for technicalviolators, but it actually witnessed a decrease in therate of new arrests that might have been expected inlight of the increasing number of offenders on parole.

Missouri’s information about its supervisedpopulation and violators is more extensive than thatavailable to many jurisdictions, largely because of itsconsiderable efforts to build and maintain amanagement information system. This system, inconjunction with internal research, has also given theBoard insights into which of its alternative sanctionsprograms appear to be most successful for violators.

Macomb County Probation, MichiganDepartment of Corrections--Impact on Jail Use

In 1989, the Macomb County Probation Office andits parent agency, the Michigan Department ofCorrections, joined the NIC project and began acareful review of its violation and revocationpractices. Assembling one of the best data basesin the nation on its probation and parole violatorpopulation, Macomb County Probation staff devel-oped a profile of their entire violator population for1991. The analysis indicated that current violationpractice was unguided by policy and there wassignificant variation in how probation officers andjudges handled violations. The analysis also indicatedthat 54 percent of technical violators received sometype of incarceration as a responseto a violation, and65 percent of those who received incarceration as asanction received 90 days or more of jail or prisontime. In fact, violators who received county jail timeas a sanction for a probation violation received anaverage sentence of 176 days. The analysis furtherindicated that neither severity of the violation nor riskof the offender was a significant factor in the decisionto revoke and incarcerate.

30

New policy was designed and implemented inMacomb County that prescribed intermediatesanctions for less serious violations and lower riskoffenders. Probation staff analyzed what the out-comes of their revocation practice would have beenin 1991 if the new guidelines had been in place. Theydiscovered that an average of 83 jail days would havebeen saved per violator. The savings would havebeen realized primarily through reduced incarcerationof the least serious and lowest risk violators.

Although limitations in the jail data systems in thecounty have prevented the Michigan DOC fromcontinuing to track the revocation picture in as muchdetail as in the original analysis, probation staff havecontinued to gather information on commitments tojail and prison as a result of revocations. From 1991through 1994, commitments to the county jail forrevocation of probation dropped from 28 percent to18 percent of those sentenced (see Exhibit 18).County officials attribute this to the new policy andemphasis on intermediate sanctions.

The DOC estimated that during 1994 alone, the newpolicy resulted in savings to the county and state ofapproximately $580,650. The former chief probation

officer in the county reports that the commitment ratehovers at 10 or 11 percent of those sentenced, farbelow the 28 percent rate experienced before thechange. He is also convinced that because probationofficers are systematically considering intermediatesanctions as responses to violations, they are alsomore likely to consider them as recommendations atthe sentencing stage. As a result, the local jail isoperating with enough capacity to house offenders oncontract from other counties. The county received anaward from the National Association of Counties forits achievements in local government efficiency as aresult of its violation policy initiative.

North Carolina Department of Correction-Impact on Revocation Rates

In July 1993, supported by federal funding throughthe Governor’s Crime Commission, the NorthCarolina Department of Correction established aRevocation Task Force to undertake a thoroughreview of its violation and revocation practices. Theprimary goal of the Task Force was to “...develop andimplement a structured decisionmaking process toexpand the use of graduated community sanctions forprobation and parole violators.“” A review of theDOC’s data systems revealed that 54 percent of

Exhibit 18. Impact of Violation Policy: Reducing Jail Use

Macomb County, Michigan (1991-1994)

I

Commitment Rate-Macomb County Circuit Court

31

prison admissions were attributed to probation andparole violations in 1993, and 80 percent of thosewere technical violations. Further examinationdetermined that the types of violations for whichoffenders were revoked varied greatly across the state,and from officer to officer. In addition, revocationwas sometimes the first response to a technicalviolation, but in other cases was recommended onlyafter a series of other intermediate sanctions wasattempted. The conclusion drawn by the Task Forcewas that “ . ..many revocations could be avoided,especially those that might occur as the first responseto the offender’s unacceptable conduct.“”

During the course of the Task Force’s work--when itsgoals were being disseminated and emphasized in theDOC, but before the new violation policy was fullyestablished--the DOC recorded a significant downturnin revocations to prison. In fact, the Task ForceReport found that “Despite a 4 percent increase in theprobation population from 1993 to 1994, the numberof imprisoned probationers decreased by 16 percentand the number of technical revocations decreased by26 percent” (see Exhibit 19).12

That trend appears to be continuing. When examinedacross four fiscal years (1992-1995), the probation

revocation rate as reported by the Department steadilyand significantly decreased from 42 percent in 1992 to22 percent in 1995. In contrast, parole revocation ratesremained steady. During this period, violation policywas effective only for probation--parole procedureshad not yet been developed. In the words of a Depart-ment official, “The drop in probation revocation rateduring this time period was significant.”

Adult Probation Department of the SuperiorCourt of Arizona, Pima County (Tucson)--Impacton Reducing Delay in Responding to Violators

In 1991, the Adult Probation Department of theSuperior Court of Arizona in Pima County (Tucson)joined NIC’s violation/revocation project. TheDepartment was concerned that revocations werebeing sought for cases that might well be managed inthe community and that violations were being handledinconsistently. A thorough review of current practicerevealed two other issues that the Department wantedto address. First, many petitions to revoke filed withthe court did not result in actual revocations. Second,the violation/revocation process was consuming aninordinate amount of time on the part of probationstaff, judges, prosecutors, and other court personnel.

Exhibit 19. Impact of Violation Policy: Reducing the Revocation Rate

Revocation Rates by Fiscal Year and Supervision Type in North Carolina

32

Analysis indicated that the revocation process--whichrequired as many as three separate court appearancesfor each petition to revoke probation--occupied theequivalent of one entire court room. In the medium-sized city of Tucson and its surrounding Pima County,this was a surprisingly large investment of resources.At the same time, almost 60 percent of petitions torevoke were not resulting in revocation. The majorityof violators were being returned to supervision withthe same or modified conditions. In essence, thepetition to revoke was being used most frequently tocontinue or adjust conditions--at great expense incourt resources and with unnecessary delays inachieving the desired modifications. Whatever theoutcome--revocation or modified conditions--theprocess took an average of 2 months from the filingto the disposition of a petition.

One group of violators particularly affected by thedelay in responding to violations were candidates forplacement in the Department’s specialized, intensivedrug supervision program. This “Direct” program istailored for probationers with continuing drug prob-

lems. It offers a suitable “intermediate” response toprobationers whose violation behavior is related todrug use. As a result of the Department’s newviolation/revocation policy, probationers with drug-related violations can now be placed in the Directprogram without going through the formal revocationprocess. They can now be referred, screened, andplaced in the program in less than a week. In com-parison with past practice, this allows probationersexperiencing serious drug problems to be quicklysanctioned and treated (see Exhibit 20).

One concern the Department has about this newapproach is that the judge’s admonishment of theviolator is eliminated. Feeling that a court appearancemay be an important aspect in the drug user’srecovery, the Department is considering including anappearance before the bench for a “counseling”session with the judge as part of the referral process.This would still allow referrals and placements to behandled less formally and more quickly, but it wouldinclude the judge in a counseling and admonitory rolethat may render the Direct placement more successful.

Exhibit 20. Impact of Violation Policy: Reducing DelayPima County, Arizona, Probation

I

Post Policy

Pre-Policy Change

0 10 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0

q Average Days from Filing to Placement in Treatment

33

Adult Probation Department of the SuperiorCourt of Arizona, Maricopa County (Phoenix)--Crafting Innovative Responses to ProbationViolations

The Adult Probation Department of the SuperiorCourt in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona, wasanother participant in the NIC violation/revocationproject. The Department, already involved insignificant efforts to use intermediate sanctions assentencing alternatives, began to focus on its violatorpopulation in 1992.

The Department formulated an explicit set of goalsand objectives for the violation process. It emphasizedimmediate responses to all violations, effective inter-ventions that respond to offender needs, quicklyidentifying offenders who must be removed from thecommunity, and returning to court only those offendersfor whom additional judicial action would be recom-mended. Violations were categorized by severity,and an existing risk assessment tool was used tofurther categorize violators by risk. The Department’spolicy and procedure manual was revised accordinglyand extensive training of new and existing staff wasinitiated.

A newly designed “petition worksheet” requires theofficer to go through the options available short ofrevocation and encourages consideration of alterna-tives. The Department has seen a modest drop inrevocations--from 20 percent in 1994 to 18 percent in1996. However, because a more significant drop washoped for, the Department is exploring alternativestrategies. One option under discussion is adaptingsome of the strategies and methods involved inalternative dispute resolution into a “compliancefacilitation” process that could assist officers incrafting innovative responses to probation violations.

New York City Department of Probation--Impacton Outcomes with Youthful, High-Risk Violators

As case loads continue to grow among communitysupervision agencies, discussion of how to do morewith less continues. One landmark example can be

found in the New York City Department of Probation.This agency was challenged to function in one of thelargest and most crime-ridden cities in the nation,while laboring under significant staff reductions.

The Department undertook a major restructuring and“reengineering” of its approach to supervision.Assigning large numbers of lower risk offenders toroutine and automatic reporting, the Departmentfocused on higher risk, youthful offenders who mightbe expected to respond to group counseling that useda cognitive restructuring approach.

The Department encountered a difficult issue. Giventhis “adult supervision restructuring,” how would itrespond to technical violations--or “misconduct”? Aspart of its restructuring effort, the Departmentdeveloped a major new policy regarding misconduct,including the design of a Misconduct Review Boardand the use of intermediate sanctions for many typesof misconduct. The issue was clear--a supervisionagency cannot revamp its entire approach to super-vision without examining its responses to violations.

Although the restructuring and misconduct policy areonly in the early stages of implementation, there isencouraging anecdotal information that this newapproach is having observable effects on hard-to-supervise young probationers. In one of the city’sboroughs, within a unit that supervises probationersidentified as high risk for violence, encouragingresults have been seen. One probationer with arrestsfor assaulting a neighbor and a record of sporadicattendance in drug treatment was finally persuaded tostay in treatment, largely as a result of the personalinvolvement of the probation officer and supervisor inthe administrative hearing. Another offender who hadfailed to keep appointments for a court-orderedpsychiatric evaluation finally began to cooperate in theevaluation and treatment--again because of theintervention of an administrative hearing.

Department managers feel that the new policyrequires officers and supervisors to become muchbetter informed about their high-risk cases. Armedwith the principles underlying cognitive-behavioral

34

approaches to treatment, officers and supervisors arebeginning to see real behavior change among theirtechnical violator population.

As one high-level Department official put it, “Dealingwith misconduct is one of the most important thingsyou do in changing behavior. If you don’t do that,you’ll never see success. What people are seeing isthat...even in a tough place like New York, it has apayback.”

Illinois Administrative Office of the Courts,Utah Department of Corrections, and VirginiaDepartment of Corrections--Impact on StatewidePractice

In Illinois, probation is administered through the 19judicial circuits and overseen by the AdministrativeOffice of the Illinois Courts. In Virginia and Utah,probation and parole are administered by Departmentsof Corrections.

Virginia and Utah were involved in the NIC technicalassistance effort but Illinois was not. These threestates have several significant things in common,however. They have each recently promulgatedstatewide initiatives to encourage the use of a rangeof intermediate sanctions for technical violations ofprobation. (In Utah, this initiative covers bothprobation and parole populations.) They are allencouraging the assessment of violation severity andrisk. They are all specifically seeking interventionsthat will have the effect of reducing future criminalbehavior.

In Illinois, recent state legislation directs the chiefjudge of each circuit to adopt “...a system ofstructured, intermediate sanctions for violations.“13

The Virginia Department of Corrections recentlydistributed its new Probation and Post-ReleaseSupervision Violations Guidelines for statewideimplementation. In Utah, statewide training for allprobation and parole staff was held recently tofacilitate Department-wide implementation of newpolicy guidelines on violations.

What was only recently an issue relegated to a line ortwo in rarely read policy manuals has emerged as awidely accepted and implemented innovation inprobation and parole supervision. Entire statewidesystems are implementing innovations in handlingviolations and revocations. The development ofpolicy-driven intermediate sanctions for probation andparole violations has focused agencies on their goalsfor supervision, added significantly to the languagewith which agencies communicate about their work,and affirmed the community protection role ofcommunity corrections.

Adult Probation, First Circuit, Judiciary, State ofHawaii--Integrating Supervision and Treatment

In the First Circuit Court’s Adult Probation Division,an internal policy team worked for almost 2 years toanalyze its revocation practice and to fashionrevocation guidelines. As plans to implement theguidelines moved forward, it became apparent thatprobation officers would be asked to continue work-ing with some drug-involved offenders who were notfully compliant with court-imposed conditionsregarding the use of alcohol and other drugs.

Recognizing the difficulty of this challenge for linestaff--who continue to manage increasing case loads--Adult Probation designed training to familiarize themwith some of the principles of relapse prevention andthe cyclical characteristics of addiction, relapse, andrecovery. The significance of this effort lies in itsacknowledgment that successful supervision requiresnot simply monitoring compliance, but understandingproblem-solving interventions, sensitivity to the cul-tural dimensions of drug- and alcohol-using behavior,and knowledge of the variety of resources available inthe community. This is one example of how develop-ing policy regarding violations can reshape communitycorrections’ definition of its role.

35

CONCLUSION

Many probation and parole agencies around thenation have begun to reshape how they handletechnical violations of probation and parole. Most ofthese agencies were motivated initially by concernsabout resources, particularly in view of the number ofadmissions to prison and jail attributed to technicalviolations. Experience indicates that exploring andupdating responses to violations can result in:

. reduced admissions to prison,

. reduced use of local jail space,

. reduced delays in placing offenders into treatment,and

. unburdening court and parole board dockets sothat more attention can be focused on the moreserious and risky violator.

More importantly, all of these results have beenobserved without accompanying indications thatcriminal violations are increasing. Anecdotally inNew York City and Illinois--and based on statisticalinformation in Missouri and South Carolina--the goodnews is that these changes in probation and parole areassociated with better offender outcomes and are ableto claim the twin prizes of community safety and morejudicious use of resources. Rigorous evaluationresearch is clearly needed, but practitioners’assessments of their own experiences are quiteencouraging.

The implications of this experience, however, aremuch more far-reaching than even these impressiveachievements. The real promise of these innovationsdoes not lie just in their ability to target resources,

assure better offender outcomes, and enhancecommunity safety. It is, for those who are willing to“think outside the box,“14

the beginning of a radicalrethinking of community corrections. It begins toview the community as the customer.15 The simplenotion that responses to violations should be gearedprimarily by their implications for the community--rather than simply as a compliance matter with thecourt or parole board--is quite a departure.

In the course of reworking violation policy, agenciesare rethinking supervision and, in some instances, “re-inventing” themselves. In the same way that lawenforcement agencies have begun to redefine theirwork as “community” or “problem-oriented’ policing,probation and parole agencies are beginning to seethemselves as more in the business of “communityjustice.“16

Innovative responses to violation behavior hold theseeds of such a revolution in community corrections.Some agencies have come to see their role as workingtoward the “success” of a probationer. And thatincludes not simply responding to non-compliance,but actively working to assure community safety,mobilizing community resources to break the cycle ofaddiction and violence, facilitating “restoration” of thecommunity through community service and victimrestitution, and partnering with law enforcement andother community agencies to respond to the demandsof the community for a greater sense of security andsafety.

What began as a modest attempt to fine-tune violationpolicy may prove to be an important step forprobation and parole agencies into the arena of“community justice.”

36

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

ENDNOTES

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Press Release, August 27, 1995,The Nation ‘s Correctional Population Tops 5 Million. Washington, D.C.

Austin, James. Parole Outcome in California: The Consequences of DeterminateSentencing, Punishment, and Incapacitation on Parole Performance. San Francisco, CA:National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1988.

Oregon Department of Corrections. From Community Supervision to Prison: A Study ofFelony Probation and Parole Revocations. September 1992.

North Carolina Department of Correction. Impacting Probation/Parole Revocations:Final Report. May 1, 1995.

Andrews, D. and James Bonta. The Pychology of Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati, OH:Anderson, 1995.

Abadinsky, Howard. Probation and Parole: Theory and Practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1987.

Del Carmen, Rolando and Harlee Field. Model Guidelines for Probation Revocation.U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 1985.

South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services. ViolationGuidelines and Administrative Hearings. March 1993.

Stroker, Richard. “The Continuing Development of Policies and Procedures ConcerningProbation and Parole Violators in South Carolina,” Correctional Issues: CommunityCorrections. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association, 1996.

North Carolina Department of Correction, op.cit.

Ibid.

Ibid

Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts. Administrative Sanctions ProgramGuidelines. Springfield, IL, November 1995.

Hinzman, Gary. “Working Outside the Box: Thinking Differently About Justice,”Community Justice: Striving for Safe, Secure, and Just Communities. U. S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Corrections, Washington, D.C., March 1996.

Joyce, Nola. “Bringing the Community into Community Corrections: The Role of RiskAssessment.” Community Justice: Strivingfor Safe, Secure, and Just Communities. U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, Washington, D.C., March 1996.

Dickey, Walter J. “Why Neighborhood Supervision ?” Community Justice: Striving forSafe, Secure, and Just Communities. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute ofCorrections, Washington, D.C., March 1996.

37

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Correctional Association. Guidelines for the Development of Policies andProcedures: Adult Probation and Parole Field Services and Adult Parole Authorities, 1988.

Basset, Joel. “Discretionary Power and Procedural Rights in the Granting and Revoking ofProbation,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Political Science, NorthwesternUniversity School of Law, Vol. 60: 4, 1969.

Chief Probation Officers of California. Probation Standards. San Bernardino, CA, January1980.

Clarke, Stevens H. “What is the Purpose of Probation and Why DO We Revoke It?” Crime andDelinquency, October 1979, p. 409-424.

Criminal Justice Division, Office of the Governor, State of Texas. Intermediate RevocationSanctions: An Overview of the Texas System. September 1990.

Department of Health and Social Services, State of Wisconsin. Rules of Department of Healthand Social Services (HSS 31) Relating to the Revocation Procedures for Adults on Probation andParole. December 1981.

Dickey, Walter J. “The Promise and Problems of Rulemaking in Corrections: The WisconsinExperience,” 1983 Wisconsin Law Review, p. 285-340.

Lurigio, Arthur J., Nancy Martin, Marylouise Jones, and Laura Rizzardini. “Handling TechnicalViolations of Probation In-House: Experiences and Advice from Cook County, Illinois,”Executive Exchange, Spring/Summer 1996, p. 6-10.

McAnany, Patrick D., and Doug Thomson. Equity and Effectiveness in Responding to ProbationViolations: A Guide for Managers. Center for Research in Law and Justice, University of Illinoisat Chicago Circle, January 1984.

McAnany, Patrick D., Doug Thomson, Denise Morgan. Developing Equitable ProbationRevocation Practices. Center for Research in Law and Justice, University of Illinois at ChicagoCircle, March 1982.

New York City Department of Probation. White Paper on Probationer Misconduct. October1995.

New York State Division of Probation, Metropolitan Area Office. Curriculum: RulesImplementation Training Workshop: Violation of Probation, Declaration of Delinquency andRevocation of Probation, October 1982.

Office of Adult Probation, Connecticut Judicial Department. Violation of Probation Guidelines.1992.

38

Office of Commissioner of Probation, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Standards and FormsRegarding Surrender and Revocation of Probation for the Probation Offices of the SuperiorCourt Department, District Court Department, Boston Municipal Court Department and theJuvenile Court Department. May 4, 1981.

Parent, Dale, Dan Wentworth, Peggy Burke, and Becki Ney. Responding to Probation andParole Violations. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.,1994.

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. Technical Parole Violation Decisionmaking.January 11, 1982.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Sourcebook of Criminal JusticeStatistics, 1990. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, Academy Division. SeminarMaterials: Probation Revocation Guidelines. February 1984.

Weissman, James C. “Constitutional Primer on Modem Probation Conditions,” New EnglandJournal on Prison Law, Vol. 8:2, p. 367-391.

39

40

PROBATIONER'S NAMEAppendix B. VIOLATION LOG

CR-PROBATION START DATE: OFFICER

SystemSystemDateDate ConditionCondition ViolationViolation Admission Response LevelAdmission Response Level OverrideOverride Officer Response

(Y/N) H M L(Y/N) H M L LevelLevel,, 11II IIII IIII IIII II!! IIII IIii iiII IIIIII iiII 88IIII iiII II

ii iiII 11

II !!II IIII II

II IIII IIII II

II IIII !!rr II

11IIII

II II

11 iiII IIII IIII !!

ii iiII IIII II

11 iiII IIIIII iiII II

ii iiII II

IIIIII

II IIIIII iiII II

ii iiII II

ii 11II II

ii ii

Appendix C.VIOLATION STAFFING LOG

Month Supervisor D i v i s i o n

Probationer

42

- _ - - -

Appendix D. SUMMARY OF VIOLATION DECISION PROCESS

lS OFFENDER RISKHIGH/LOW?HIGH IF:a. original IPS Matrixscore is 8 or moreb. the probationer is asex offenderc. the probationer is anacknowledged memberof a street gangd. the probationer hasmore than 2 DUlswithin the last 5 yearse. the original offenseinvolved a predatory,assaultive crimeagainst a person.

IS SEVERITY OFVIOLATIONHIGH/LOW?1. Use Violation SeverityTable. to determineseverity.2. If violation is notincluded in table, staffcase with unit supervisorto determine level.3. If no violations havebeen documented duringthe preceding 6 monthsor more, the currentviolation should beconsidered a “first”violation for the purposeof determining severity.

IS CURRENT SITUATIONRISK HIGH/LOW?if two or more factors exist, riskis high:a. use of drugs or alcoholand/or failure to completetreatmentb. current or recent pattern ofavoiding officer contactc. emotional instability/distress -probationer or family - includingdomestic violenced. current or recentunacceptable pattern ofemployment, residence, orassociations.

Do other situational factorsexist which would suggest anincreased risk to reoffend? Ifyes, these should bedocumented and the situationrisk considered high.

RESPONSELEVEL?

H - High

M - Moderate

L - Low

N-no

NM

LL

L

Appendix E.

AVAILABLE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS AND CONSIDERATION CRITERIA

1. COUNSELING OR REPRIMAND BY OFFICER OR SUPERVISOR

Counseling or reprimand by the probation officer is the most common response to minor violations ofprobation. It involves confronting the probationer with the apparent violation, listening to their side ofthe story, and either redirecting them or delivering a stem admonition and warning.

A strategy that can be very effective with some probationers is to take them to the office of the unitsupervisor or the division director and to have this “higher authority” deliver the reprimand and warning.The intent is to impress upon the probationer the seriousness of the situation and the realization that anyfurther violation will have more serious consequences.

2. INCREASED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

For probationers who commit minor violations such as not keeping appointments or finding full-timeemployment, it can be an effective strategy to increase their reporting requirements to multiple times eachweek.

An example might be a probationer who is not exhibiting motivation to find work. The officer, aftercounseling and reprimanding, might decide to have the probationer report to the office every morning at9:00, and to bring a list of all the businesses at which he applied for jobs the day before. This is not onlyinconvenient, and therefore punishing, for the probationer, but it usually leads to full-time employmentwithin a short time.

3. LOSS OF TRAVEL OR OTHER PRIVILEGES

A condition of probation is that the probationer not leave Pima County or the State without thepermission of the probation officer. While not appropriate for all probationers, withholding thispermission may be an effective consequence for those who have committed administrative violations andwho enjoy frequent trips around the state.

This could also include imposing a curfew for the probationer to restrict his freedom to move aboutwithin the community for a period of time. The court has limited officers to impose a curfew for a totalof 14 days, no more than 7 days for each violation. Following a supervisory review and authorization, acurfew of up to 30 days may be imposed, with or without electronic monitoring.

4. INCREASED DRUG/ALCOHOL TESTING

This is the most common response with a probationer who infrequently tests dirty for drugs or alcohol.The officer either increases the frequency of random drug tests or, for more regular violators, places theprobationer on a regular twice-a-week schedule. This not only offers closer monitoring, but isinconvenient and, therefore, punishing for the probationer.

The officer should consider the frequency with which the violation occurs. Those who frequently testdirty for cocaine, heroin, or other “hard drugs”, should be referred to the DIRECT program via asupervisory review. Those who rarely test positive should receive some other sanction such asCommunity Service, a referral for an evaluation at a drug treatment program, or participation in out-patient treatment.

44

5. TREATMENT / EDUCATION REFERRALS

Referring a probationer for treatment or education should be considered any time there is a demonstratedneed that directly relates to the probationer’s ability to satisfactorily complete probation. This mayinclude treatment for alcohol or drug abuse, mental health problems, financial difficulties, or family /social dysfunction. Departmental studies have shown that probationers who complete educationprograms are more likely to successfully complete their period of probation.

Officers should consider the severity of the problem, the cost to the probationer and their ability to pay,and their willingness to participate. Some level of financial assistance may be available through theCommunity Punishment Program. Officers should inquire with the Director of the Special ProgramsDivision.

6. RESTRUCTURING PAYMENTS

Restructuring of payment plans should be considered when the probationer demonstrates an inability topay in accordance with the established payment plan. This could be the result of a change in employmentstatus or income, temporary disability, or excessive initial payments established. For probationers whoearn sufficient income, payments may be increased as well. Priority for monies owed should be 1)restitution, 2) probation fees, 3) fines, and 4) other fees.

If the court set the payment schedule, restructuring the plan will require an order from the sentencingjudge.

Officers should consider the length of time remaining under supervision and the amount of theassessment owed; the probationers’ ability to pay, given their income level and other financialobligations; and potential monetary settlements due, such as income tax refunds, insurance settlements,disability settlements, etc.

7. EXTENSION OF PROBATION

If a probationer has not paid all of the restitution ordered by the sentencing judge, the officer may petitionthe court to extend probation for a period of up to 3 years for felony convictions and up to 1 year formisdemeanors, to give the probationer more time to complete payment to the victim. This is the onlyreason that probation may be extended.

8. COMMUNITY SERVICE

Community Service (CS) is an appropriate sanction to use as punishment or as a means of holding aprobationer accountable for an administrative violation of the conditions of probation. CS can serve asa meaningful sanction for dealing with a broad range of violations such as not reporting as scheduled,failure to maintain employment, failure to follow through with treatment or education referrals orprograms, etc. One method for using CS as a sanction is to require a specified number of hours of CS foreach missed appointment. For example, if you require 4 hours of CS for each missed appointment and aprobationer misses 3 appointments during the month, you would impose 12 hours of CS to be completedduring the next 30 days.

The Court limits officers to a total of 24 hours, no more than 8 hours for a single violation, and limitssupervisors to authorize an additional 40 hours.

Because certain types of offenders are excluded from performing some types of CS (e.g., sex offendersworking with organizations serving children), probationers required to perform CS should be referred tothe Community Service Coordinator for a complete screening.

45

9. ELECTRONIC MONITORING (EM)

Probationers that need to be monitored closely because of a failure to comply with conditions should beconsidered for electronic monitoring. These persons would generally meet the criteria for IPS as well asneed enhanced surveillance to monitor and restrict their community activities. By doing so, their risk tothe community and likelihood of committing new violations will be reduced. A period of time between30 and 90 days should be specified.

The court has authorized the department to impose up to 30 days of EM for administrative violations.This requires the approval of a supervisor and a referral to the EM team. The department has a limitednumber of EM units; therefore, officers should call the EM team prior to making a referral.

10. DIRECT

Probationers with a history of substance abuse problems and recent drug use should be referred to theDIRECT program for screening. The officer should have already made treatment referrals, increasedurine testing, and used other intermediate sanctions without success. Curfews, frequent contacts,mandatory treatment, and regular drug testing are all part of the DIRECT program.

11. INTENSIVE PROBATION SUPERVISION (IF’S)

If a probationer has committed frequent or serious violations, is exhibiting significant problemscontrolling his/her life, and requires more frequent contacts, regular schedules, and closer monitoring toprevent violations, IPS may be an appropriate recommendation. The average length of time a probationerremains on IPS is about 12 months.

The probationer must have a place to live, and other adults living in the house must be interviewed andexpress agreement to having an IPS probationer in the residence. While IPS might be appropriate forsome probationers with chronic substance abuse problems, if this appears to be the most pressingproblem, perhaps the DIRECT program would be a more appropriate referral.

12. JAIL TIME

Recommendations for imposing jail time in response to violations should only be considered whenprobationers have willfully and consistently failed to abide by the conditions and regulations ofprobation, and other less severe sanctions have been unsuccessful or would significantly detract from theseriousness of the situation. Short jail sentences could be used to punish seriously recalcitrantprobationers, or to stabilize violating probationers who have mental health or serious drug abuseproblems while other arrangements are made to supervise them in the community.

The Pima County Jail operates a Work Furlough Program, allowing probationers to continue workingwhile spending non-working hours in custody. Participants are required to pay a daily fee, ranging from$8.50 to $14.50, depending upon their income. If the judge orders a probationer to serve jail time, aspecific order must be entered making the probationer eligible for participation in the Work FurloughProgram.

46

Appendix F. ATTACHMENT TO STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PROBATIONALLOWING IMPOSITION OF INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS

FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS

CONDITIONS OF PROBATION

Defendant: CR:

The Adult Probation Department may implement the following conditions in a manner consistentwith approved policy and procedure.

If SO directed by the Probation Officer You Shall:

a) Complete up to 24 hours of Community Service, ordered inincrements of up to 8 hours;

b) Be subject to a curfew for up to 21 days, ordered in increments of up to 7days;

If so directed, and following a Supervisory Review, you shall:

c) Participate in the DIRECT Program for drug abusers and abide by theprogram’s standard regulations;

d) Complete up to 40 additional hours of Community Service;

e) Be subject to a curfew, with or without Electronic Monitoring, for up to 30days.

I have received a copy of these conditions of probation, which I understand and with which I willcomply. I understand that if I violate any of the above conditions, the Court could revoke myprobation and sentence me to the maximum sentence permitted by law.

Dated , 1 9 - Defendant

Original - Court File Blue - Adult Probation Pink - Defendant Yellow - Probation Officer

47