NCJ Number
54143
Date Published
1978
Length
18 pages
Annotation
TWO TYPES OF PROBATION SUPERVISION IN SEATTLE, WASH., (HIGH SUPERVISION AND LOW SUPERVISION) AND THE CONDITION OF NO PROBATION ARE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO CLIENT REARREST RATES (RECIDIVISM).
Abstract
FROM OCTOBER 1974 THROUGH DECEMBER 1975, ALL MUNICIPAL COURT DEFENDANTS REFERRED TO THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT FOR PRESENTENCE REPORTS, OR PLACED DIRECTLY ON PROBATION IMMEDIATELY AFTER SENTENCING OR AFTER SERVING SOME TIME IN JAIL, WERE SCORED ON A PREDICTION SCALE AS TO THEIR POTENTIAL RECIDIVISM RISK. WITHIN THE 15-MONTH PERIOD OF THE STUDY, 967 DEFENDANTS WERE SCORED. TO DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SUPERVISION ON RECIDIVISM, APPROXIMATELY ONE-THIRD OF HIGH-RISK AND LOW-RISK CLIENTS PLACED ON PROBATION WERE ASSIGNED RANDOMLY TO OPPOSITE SUPERVISION CONDITIONS. WITHIN THE LOW-RISK GROUP, 69 OF 219 INDIVIDUALS WERE ASSIGNED TO THE HIGH-RISK SUPERVISION CONDITION. WITHIN THE HIGH-RISK GROUP, 95 OF 278 INDIVIDUALS WERE PLACED ON LOW-SUPERVISION PROBATION. REARREST CHECKS WERE MADE ON ALL CASES 9 MONTHS FROM THE TIME OF SENTENCING. LEVEL OF SUPERVISION HAD LITTLE IMPACT ON THE TYPE OF CHARGE FOR WHICH PERSONS WERE REARRESTED. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT STUDY FINDING WAS THAT HIGH SUPERVISION ACTUALLY SEEMED TO INCREASE THE REARREST RATE RATHER THAN TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM. THIS IS EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF LABELING THEORY AND THE CONTENTION THAT HIGH-SUPERVISION AND NO-SUPERVISION CONDITIONS ACTUALLY SERVE TO DISCREDIT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESULTS FOR POLICY DECISIONS IN MISDEMEANANT PROBATION DEPARTMENTS UTILIZING THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MODEL AND THE TEAM MODEL OF SUPERVISION ARE DISCUSSED. SUPPORTING DATA ARE PROVIDED. APPENDIXES CONTAIN THE SUPERVISION SCORING FORM, GUIDELINES FOR RISK CATEGORIZATION, A LIST OF SPECIFIC CHARGES WITHIN OFFENSE CATEGORIES, AND DATA ON PROBATION ASSIGNMENT BY TYPE OF ORIGINAL CHARGE FOR THE HIGH-RISK GROUP. (DEP)