Variations on Felony Probation: Persons Under Supervision in 32 Urban and Suburban Counties

• NCJ Number: 129490
• Author(s): M A Cunniff; M K Shilton
• Date Published: 1991
• Length: 104 pages
• Contract Number(s): 87BJ-CX-0005
• Sponsoring Agency: Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
• Corporate Author: National Assoc of Criminal Justice Planners
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; National Assoc of Criminal Justice Planners; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Type: Survey
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: BJS/NACJP Statistical Series Project

Annotation

This study examined over 12,000 cases sentenced to probation during 1986 in 32 large metropolitan and suburban jurisdictions.

Abstract

The differential use of probation among all jurisdictions ranged from 30 to 75 percent, with an average of 51 percent of all convicted felons receiving probation. The probation rate per 100,000 ranged from 39 to 462, with an average of 162. Courts in determinate sentencing States (no parole board) tended to use probation much more frequently than courts in indeterminate sentencing States (parole board). The typical probationer was an unmarried, minority male who was 28 years old, convicted of a nonviolent offense, and sentenced to a 42-month probation term. All jurisdictions conducted presentence investigations, and the assignment of probationers to different supervision levels correlated with the probationer's risk profile. The percent of probationers receiving behavioral conditions ranged from 17 to 87. Drug abuse testing was the most prevalent behavioral condition imposed on probationers. Overall, half of the probationers failed to progress in achieving compliance with behavioral conditions. Financial conditions were imposed on five out of six probationers, and the most frequently imposed financial condition was for court costs. The average assessment incurred by probationers was $2,172, with probationers paying only 45 percent of this assessment. Over half of the probationers underwent at least one formal disciplinary hearing. Renewed criminal activity precipitated nearly half of these hearings. Probationers with high-risk characteristics tended to have a higher incidence of disciplinary hearings and higher arrest rates than those with low-risk characteristics. Nearly one-third of all cases were still under active probation supervision. Of those who left probation, 33 percent had served their term. With the exception of robbery, persons convicted of a violent offense had the lowest revocation rates. Appendixes contain the survey methodology and questionnaire as well as an arrest data collection form. 60 tables and 2 charts