Probation in the 1980s - A Public Administration Viewpoint (From Probation and Justice, P 327-346, 1984, Patrick D McAnany et al, ed. - See NCJ-97157)

• NCJ Number: 97168
• Author(s): R C Cushman
• Date Published: 1984
• Length: 20 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain Publishers, Inc; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Available on microfiche as NCJ-97157.

Annotation

Probation needs to improve its image, strengthen its fiscal support, and revise the organization of its services.

Abstract

Despite their importance, probation departments have become the least visible and most vulnerable parts of the correctional system. This is because of the comparative newness of probation, the image of probation officers as lenient, the lack of an effective constituency, the lack of advocacy, and vulnerability to fiscal constraints. Other problems are jurisdictional fragmentation, the lack of professional identity for probation workers, and the lack of eminent leaders in the probation profession. Growing crime rates, confusion about the roles of judges and correctional professionals, and lack of definitive research have all made it difficult for probation to realize its full potential. A reappraisal of probation's goals is clearly needed as the first step in change. A clear mission developed through a thoughtful, participative process is needed, as are major probation strategies that lead to action based on evaluative research. In addition, probation professionals should be required to meet and maintain specific personal and professional standards that are known and supported by the public and probation clients. To improve the image of probation, probation's leaders must seek support from former probationers, labor unions, minority groups, families, defense attorneys, employers, and members of helping professions. Fiscal support must be reexamined and improved, with some support and control from the States. Efforts are also needed to improve the organization of probation service, with leadership from a strong professional organization and the establishment of a strong Federal advocate and source of technical assistance. Each State should have a relatively independent board or office to administer any subsidies to local correctional services. The line of authority should run to the governor, and the office should be regulatory rather than operational. Three references are listed.