Community Corrections Also known as community-based corrections, community corrections: Refers to a wide range of sentences that depend on correctional resources available in the community. Permit convicted offenders to remainin the community under conditional supervision as an alternative to an active prison sentence. Community Corrections Examples include the following: Probation Parole Home confinement Electronic monitoring Probation A sentence of imprisonment that is suspended; instead, the sentence is served while under supervision in the community. This is conditional freedom granted by a judicial officer to a convicted offender, as long as the person meets certain conditions of behavior. History of Probation English Roots: By the fourteenth century, English courts began the practice of “binding over for good behavior,” in which offenders were placed in the custody of willing citizens. History of Probation In the U.S.: The first probation officer was John Augustus (1784-1859), a Boston shoemaker who observed court proceedings and volunteered to take home drunkards. He supervised over 2,000 offenders. In 1878 Massachusetts enacted a statute that provided for the first paid probation officer. By 1925, all states and the federal government had similar legislation. The Extent of Probation Probation is the most commonly used form of sentencing. 20-60% of guilty individuals are placed on probation. The number of offenders supervised yearly on probation increased from slightly more than 1 million people to over 4 million today. States vary with regard to extent of use. Even violent offenders may receive probation. Probation Conditions Probationers must abide by court-mandated conditions or risk probation revocation. There are two types of conditions: general and specific. Probation Conditions General Conditions Apply to all probationers within the jurisdiction. Examples: Obey laws Maintain employment Remain within jurisdiction Allow probation officer to visit home or work place Pay court ordered fines Specific Conditions Judge-mandated for the specific probationer. Examples: Surrender driver’s license Pass GED test Do community service Curfew Complete a treatment plan Federal Probation Officers There are approximately 7,750 federal probation officers, also called community corrections officers. They have the statutory authority to arrest probationers for a violation, but are encouraged to get an arrest warrant and have it executed by the U.S. Marshals. Some carry weapons. What is Parole? Parole—a prisoner reentry strategy in which inmates receive supervised conditional early release from correctional confinement. Parole vs. Probation Parole Offenders spend time incarcerated before release. Parole is an administrative decision made by paroling authority. Parolees must abide by conditions or risk revocation. Probation Probationers generally avoid prison time. Probation is a sentencing decision made by a judge. Probationers must abide by conditions or risk revocation. Parole Decision-Making Mechanisms: Two Approaches Parole Boards Grant discretionary parole based on judgment and assessment by parole board. Statutory Decrees Produce mandatory parole, with release date set near sentence end, minus good time. * More common Extent of Parole There’s a growing reluctance to use parole. Only 25% of parolees are released via discretionary parole. Mandatory parole releases have increased 91% since 1991. Extent of Parole Of all parolees: 44% successfully complete parole. 26% return to prison for parole violations. 11% return to prison for new violations. Parole Conditions In discretionary parole jurisdictions, the conditions of parole are similar to probation conditions. Violations may result in parole revocation. Examples of conditions include: Periodically reporting to parole officer Maintaining employment Paying fines and restitution Sometimes paying a “parole supervisory fee” Federal Parole Federal parole decisions are made by the U.S. Parole Commission. Commissioners consider an inmate’s readiness for parole. The U.S. Parole Commission must be periodically recertified by Congress. Advantages and Disadvantages of Probation and Parole Advantages Low cost Increased employment Restitution Community support Reduced risk of criminal sanctions Increased use of community services Better rehabilitation opportunities Disadvantages Relative lack of punishment Increased risk to community Higher social costs Discriminatory and unequal effects Griffin v. Wisconsin (1987) Supreme Court ruled that probation officers may conduct searches of a probationer’s residence without a search warrant or probable cause. Though the 4th Amendment normally provides for privacy, probation “presents special needs beyond normal law enforcement that may justify departures.” Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott (1998) Supreme Court declined to extend the exclusionary rule to searches done by parole officers. U.S. v. Knights (2001) Expanded the search authority normally reserved for probation and parole officers to police officers under certain circumstances. Sampson v. California (2006) The U.S. Supreme Court found that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit police officers from conducting a warrantless search of a person who is subject to a parole search condition, even when there is no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing and the sole reason for the search is because the person is on parole. Revocation Hearings Revocation hearing—a hearing used to determine whether a parolee or probationer has violated the conditions and requirements of his or her parole or probation. Outcomes of Revocation Hearings Annually, about 25% of parolees and of probationers have their conditional release revoked. Most are for: Failure to report to probation or parole officer Failure to participate in a stipulated treatment program Alcohol or drug abuse while under supervision. Mempa v. Rhay (1967) U.S. Supreme Court held that in probation revocation decisions both notice and a fair hearing are required and probationer must have the opportunity to be represented by counsel. Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) U.S. Supreme Court held that parole revocation proceedings require the following: Written notice of specific alleged violation Disclosure of evidence of violation An impartial hearing body Opportunity to offer a defense A right to cross examine witnesses A written statement of the outcome Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) U.S. Supreme Court held that probationers are entitled to two hearings. A preliminary hearing to determine whether or not probable cause exists. A more comprehensive hearing prior to the final decision about revocation. Those hearings were to be done under the conditions specified in Morrissey. Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates (1979) Parole boards do not have to specify the evidence used in deciding to deny parole. Bearden v. Georgia (1983) Probation cannot be revoked for failure to pay a fine and make restitution if it could not be shown that the defendant was responsible for the failure…alternative forms of punishment must be considered before imposing a prison sentence. Minnesota v. Murphy (1984) A probationer’s incriminating statements to a probation officer may be used as evidence if the probationer does not specifically claim a right against self-incrimination. The Job of Probation and Parole Officers Job Functions Presentence investigations Intake procedures Needs assessment/diagnosis Supervision of clients Job Challenges Balancing conflicting roles Large caseloads Frequent lack of opportunities for upward mobility Stress Intermediate Sanctions The use of non-traditional sentences in lieu of imprisonment and fines. These sentences offer alternatives that fall somewhere between simple probation and outright incarceration. Also called alternative sentencing strategies. Types of Intermediate Sanctions Examples include: Split sentences Shock probation/parole Shock incarceration Mixed sentences and community service Intensive supervision Home confinement and electronic monitoring Advantages of Intermediate Sanctions There are three distinct advantages: Less expensive, per offender, than prison They are “socially cost effective” Provide flexibility in terms of resources, time, and place Split Sentencing Split sentencing involves a combination of brief incarceration followed by probation. Frequently used for minor drug offenders. Shock Probation/Parole With shock probation, offender is sentenced to prison and is allowed to apply for probationary release. Offender usually does not know if he will be released and expects to serve a long prison term. Shock parole is similar, but the decision is administrative rather than judicial. Shock Incarceration Shock incarceration programs use “boot camps” to demonstrate reality of prison life. Mainly used for first time offenders. Involves strict discipline and physical training. Programs typically last from 90-180 days. “Failures” return to general prison population. Appear “tough on crime,” but research shows negligible impact on recidivism Mixed Sentencing Mixed sentencing—a sentence that required that a convicted offender serve weekends in a confinement facilities while undergoing probationary supervision in the community. Community Service Community service—requires offenders to spend time working for a community agency. Services can include washing of police cars, cleaning graffiti, and refurbishing public facilities. Intensive Supervision Intensive probation supervision (IPS) is the strictest form of probation. Frequent face-to-face contacts with probation officer Mandatory curfew Employment required Frequent check of local arrest records Unannounced drug testing Home Confinement and Electronic Monitoring Home confinement—“house arrest”—issometimes combined with electronic monitoring. People may be allowed to leave during work hours and in emergencies. Frequently used with certain types of offenders: pregnant women, geriatric offenders the terminally ill Future of Probation and Parole Criticized by many citizen groups, academics, some government officials, and even some prisoners. Parole advocates caution that eliminating parole can lead to public safety issues and wasting tax dollars. Some jurisdictions are moving toward a system of reentry courts with judges acting as reentry managers. Changes in Reentry Policies Most inmates will be released back into society. Barriers to successful reentry need to be addressed, including: Substance abuse Lack of education Poverty Diminished opportunities for employment Physical or mental disabilities Changes in Reentry Policies Successful reentry requires a multi-faceted, collaborative approach involving people and groups throughout the community, including: Corrections Public health workers State legislators Housing providers Workforce development staff The Serious Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) Funding for SVORI began in 2003, with the goal of successfully reintegrating serious and violent offenders: Phase 1—Protect and Prepare: Institution-Based Programs Phase 2—Control and Restore: Community-Based Transition Programs. Phase 3—Sustain and Support: Community-Based Long-Term Support Programs Reinventing Probation The “get tough” attitude of the 1990s increased funding for prisons but neglected to do the same for probation. Reinventing probation requires regaining public trust and reinvestment.