Back to [Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Field Services, July 1971 (1 of 5)

Ask the Scholar

Document scope · 1 page

doc

Scholar

Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory. For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.

Scholar Source Context

Document identity

localId

118564912

label

[Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Field Services, July 1971 (1 of 5)

core

doc

dtoType

document

citationUrl

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564912

pageCount

Source metadata

118564912

sourceUrl

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564912

contentType

document

title

[Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Field Services, July 1971 (1 of 5)

citationUrl

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564912

identifierLocal

840

collections

Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit

Reports

iiifBase

https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P33-008-2017.pdf

thumbnailUrl

https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P33-008-2017.pdf

largeImageUrl

https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P33-008-2017.pdf

imageCount

hasImages

yes

source

import

hasTranscription

Source extras

url

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564912

naId

118564912

coverageEndDate

logicalDate

1975-12-31

year

1975

coverageStartDate

logicalDate

1967-01-01

year

1967

levelOfDescription

fileUnit

recordType

description

ocrSource

nara-archive

Single page context

seq

pageIndex

type

document

url

https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P33-008-2017.pdf

mediaId

b24633d71aece642

ocrText

Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Digital Library Collections This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections. Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers, 1966-74: Press Unit Folder Title: [Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Field Services, July 1971 (1 of 5) Box: P33 To see more digitized collections visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected] Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/ Coordinated California Corrections: FIELD SERVICES PAROLE Correctional System Study of OF BOARD OF CORRECTIONS HUMAN RELATIONS AGENCY CALIFORNIA July, 1971 CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM STUDY Final Report Human Relations Agency Board of Corrections James M. Hall, Chairman Secretary, Human Relations Agency Karl Holton, Vice-Chairman Allen Breed Probation Officer Director of the Youth Authority Los Angeles County (Ret.) (Citizen Member) Julio Gonzales Vice Chairman Michael N. Canlis Youth Authority Board Sheriff, San Joaquin County Henry Kerr Mrs. Eleanor W. Hiller Chairman, Adult Authority Chairman, Women's Board of Terms and Parole Edward Walker Chairman, Narcotic Addict R. K. Procunier Evaluation Authority Director of Corrections State of California Ronald Reagan, Governor Sacramento JULY, 1971 STUDY STAFF Robert E. Keldgord, Program Director Robert O. Norris, D. Crim., Associate Program Director Miss Patricia A. Hagen, Secretary-Office Manager Probation Task Force Richard P. Gist, Director Jack Allbright, Consultant Ernest S. Bachelor, Consultant Mrs. Joyce M. DeVore, Consultant Wes DeWeert, Consultant Harry A. Dudley, Consultant Jack Gifford, Consultant Sam Glane, Consultant Russell D. Kokx, Consultant David R. Matsler, Consultant Francis E. Miller, Consultant Miss Gwen M. Monroe, Consultant Gilbert J. Negrette, Consultant Arthur D. Nettles, Jr., Consultant Miss Sylvia Newberry, Consultant Leo M. Owen, Consultant Joseph W. Phelan, Consultant Rito Rosa, Jr., Consultant Harley L. Ross, Consultant Mrs. Gloria Steen, Consultant Miss Marilyn Stewart, Consultant Joseph J. Tavares, Consultant Miss Lucille Toscano, Consultant William A. Underwood, Consultant Joel A. Ungar, Consultant Juvenile Institution Task Force Eugene O. Sahs, Director Mrs. Edith Elkins, Consultant Leonard Moncure, Consultant William Pagle, Consultant Willie Richardson, Consultant Lawrence Stump, Consultant Jail Task Force Edward A. Veit, Director Mrs. Willa J. Dawson, Consultant Edgar A. Smith, Consultant Prison Task Force Gus Harrison, Director William L. Kime, Consultant Perry M. Johnson, Consultant Parole Task Force * Tully McCrea, Co-Director Mrs. Helen Sumner, Co-Director R. Barry Bollensen, Consultant Edward F. Tripp, Consultant Jeffrey Glen, Consultant Lee F. Cumpston, Consultant Frederick Howlett, Consultant Don Gottfredson, Ph.D., Consultant Walter Luster, Consultant Dean R. Lantz, Consultant Arnold Pontesso, Consultant K. W. Ostrom, Consultant System Task Force Robert M. Brown, Jr., Co-Director Donald L. Garrity, Ph.D., Co-Director Special Consultants Neeley Gardner Daniel Glaser, Ph.D. Richard A. McGee Spencer Williams Editor Peter G. Garabedian, Ph.D. Artist Mrs. Lily Wong Clerical Staff Mrs. Lorraine Cook Mrs. Shirley Houser Miss Kathy Mackey Miss Beverly Campbell *The Parole Task Force Report was prepared, under contract, by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Honorable W. Craig Biddle, Co-chairman Honorable James M. Hall, Co-chairman California State Assembly Secretary, Human Relations Agency Chairman, Board of Corrections Honorable Arthur Alarcon Wesley Barrett Judge of the Superior Court Chief of Police Los Angeles County City of Oroville Herbert L. Ashby Honorable Bernard J. Clark Chief Asst. Attorney General--Criminal Sheriff Department of Justice Riverside County Sacramento Honorable Marie Bertillion Collins Honorable Gordon Cologne Judge of the Municipal Court California State Senator Oakland Honorable John T. Conlan, Chairman Robert Eckhoff Board of Supervisors Public Defender Ventura County Santa Barbara County Herbert E. Ellingwood Tony Garcia Legal Affairs Secretary Secretary-Business Agent-ILWU Governor's Office Port Hueneme Allen Grant, President Honorable Bertram Janes California Farm Bureau Federation Justice of the Third District Berkeley Court of Appeal Sacramento Kenneth Kirkpatrick Chief Probation Officer Elmer Kim Nelson, Jr., D.P.A. Los Angeles County School of Public Administration University of Southern California Charles J. Patterson, Ph.D. Vice President Mrs. Dorothy L. Schechter World Airways, Inc. Assistant County Counsel Oakland Ventura County Honorable Ray Reynolds Ted L. Smith Judge of the Municipal Court Chief Probation Officer San Francisco Placer County Honorable Keith Sorenson District Attorney San Mateo County INTRODUCTION: FIELD SERVICES TASK FORCE REPORT It is the judgement of this study that correctional services can best be provided if: (1) they are community-based (i.e. non-institutional), and (2) the delivery of such services is accomplished at the local level of government. In respect to the value of community-based programs, the Corrections Task Force of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administra- tion of Justice observed: "A key element is to deal with problems in their social context, which means in the interaction of the offender and the community. It also means avoiding as much as possible the isolating and labeling effects of commitment to an institution. There is little doubt the goals of reintegration are furthered much more readily by working with an offender in the community than by incarcerating him".¹ Support for community-based correctional programs had earlier been expressed in a 1964 study conducted by the Board of Corrections, in which it was ob- served: "The circumstances leading to delinquent and crim- inal behavior are the product of life in the com- munity, and the resolution of these problems must be in the community. This proposition is based on the assumption that local treatment has an inherent advantage since it keeps the offender close to his family and the important social ties that bind him to conformity in the community.' In respect to this study's view that the best correctional services can be provided at the local level, support may also be found in the afore- mentioned 1964 study by the Board of Corrections, which reported: "Modern correctional theory takes the position that the most effective correctional service should and must be offered at the local level if it is to achieve the greatest rehabilitative impact on the offender. "3 Unlike programs of institutionalization, which, by their very nature, preclude maximum utilization of community resources, the field supervision component of correctional services appears to have the greatest potential for incorporating community-based support, as well as the greatest potential for delivering services at the local level. This thought was reinforced by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice which suggested that field services are best able to reintegrate the offender into society and to restore him to productive, law-abiding citizenship. In accordance with views expressed in previous studies, and also in accordance with data collected in the course of this study, it is suggested that correc- tions can most effectively maximize its investment by concentrating its efforts and resources on locally operated community-based supervision programs. In terms of volume, it is apparent that the vast majority of California's correctional population participates in field supervision programs, rather than in institutional programs. In April 1970, California had a correctional population of some 274,000 persons; of this number, some 221,000 or about 81%, were the subjects of field supervision, under the auspice of either probation or parole. 4 Data furnished by the Bureau of Criminal Statistics reveal that, for every 100 Superior Court convictions, 66 persons are placed on probation; for every 100 referrals to Probation Departments by Municipal Courts, 70 defen- dants are awarded probation. In terms of juvenile corrections, data reveal that for every 100 youths who appear before a juvenile court, 62 youngsters are granted probation. 5 When viewed from an economic vantage point, it is apparent that field supervision is much less costly than institutionalization. According to the Corrections Task Force Report of the President's Crime Commission, the average yearly cost, nation-wide, of confining a youth in an institution was $3,400 in 1966, while probation supervision normally cost only about one-tenth of that amount. 6 Current California data support this finding: the average cost of maintaining a ward in a State operated youth facility in the fiscal year 1969-1970 was $6,371 ($6,754 for fiscal year 1970-71) while parole supervision was provided for only $580 per year per ward. 7 Whether measured in terms of human values (such as preservation of the family unit) or in terms of dollar savings, local field supervision of offen- ders, incorporating community resources, represents the most effective and least expensive means of dealing with both juvenile and adult offenders. A review of the professional literature, along with data collected in the course of this study, clearly identifies certain ingredients which are essential for the construction and operation of adequate field supervision services; among these ingredients are: 1. Clear designation of goals and policies and adherence to such goals and policies. 2. Adequate manpower, both in the numbers of field supervision officers and in the appropriate training of such officers. 8 3. Cooperation of key social institutions, such as the family and the school. 4. Employment opportunities for probationers and parolees; inherent in this ingredient is the necessity for the development of a program whereby an ex-offender's past criminal misconduct may not constitute a barrier to employment. 5. On-going research to determine effective classification procedures, and to determine differential treatment practices which can be VI applied successfully to various types of probationers and parolees. 6. Public education about the problems of reintegrating offenders into the community, in order to elicit the community's cooper- ation in carrying out specific field supervision efforts. 7. Improved administrative structure and practices. 8. Improved staff development, through intra and extra mural training. 9. Expanded and improved diagnostic and mental health services for probationers and parolees. 10. Improvements in the law, particularly in respect to current statutory restrictions upon the granting of probation. Field supervision in California runs the gamut from highly sophisti- cated, experimental endeavors to supervision which is, in reality, a myth. Data collected in the course of this study indicate that, along with a pro- portional increase in the use of probation in recent years,9 there has been some qualitative increase in field supervision, probably due, in large measure, to the 1965 enactment of the California Probation Subsidy Law. However, as will be argued in the Probation Task Force Report, probation (and early parole) can be used to an even greater degree; similarly, all field services can certainly increase their current effectiveness. It is the view of this study that, second only to efforts to divert inappropriate persons from the correctional system, California corrections should continue to place primary emphasis upon field supervision, and that such continued emphasis on field supervision must include development of the necessary ingredients itemized above. As the field of corrections is enabled to develop and establish en- riched, community-based, locally operated programs, it is believed that commitments to institutions in general, and to State institutions in partic- ular, will continue to decrease. As institutionalization is de-emphasized and savings are realized from the closure of some State facilities, these savings should be invested in community-oriented field supervision programs, to be operated locally under conditions and standards determined by the State in cooperation with the counties. In order to operationalize a system which delivers maximum field ser- vices, it is held that the primary role of the State should be that of an enabler--to provide subvention, training, research, coordination, and con- sultation. Concurrently, local government should be primarily responsible for the delivery of correctional services, giving emphasis to those services which incorporate local community resources. VII FOOTNOTES ¹President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Corrections, (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 27. 2 Board of Corrections, Probation Subsidy, State of California (Sacramento, 1965), p. 135. 3Ibid., p. 3. ⁴Data provided by Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Department of Corrections, and Department of Youth Authority, State of California. ⁵Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Adult Probation: 1969, State of California (Sacramento, 1969), p. 30; Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Juvenile Probation and Detention: 1969, State of California (Sacramento, 1969), pp. 1, 64. ⁶President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, op. cit., p. 28. 7 Data provided by Department of Youth Authority. The reader is referred to Perspectives on Correctional Manpower and Training, published by the Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, Washington, D. C., 1970. ⁹According to data published by the Bureau of Criminal Statistics in Crime and Delinquency in California: 1966, State of California (Sacramento, 1966), p. 192; Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Crime and Delinquency in California: 1969, State of California (Sacramento, 1969), p. 126; and Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Juvenile Probation and Detention: 1969, op. cit., p. 9, there were 33,700 adults and 79,582 juveniles on probation in 1965. By 1969, these figures had increased to 55,100 and 94,724 re- spectively. VIII CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM STUDY PROBATION TASK FORCE REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS X CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 Probation in California 1 Trends in Probation 2 Characteristics of juvenile probationers 5 Characteristics of adult probationers 5 Summary 8 II. METHODOLOGY 10 III. MODEL 14 Goals 14 Principles 14 Responsibility 14 Diversion 15 Coordination 15 Community-based programs 15 Visibility 15 Accountability 15 Objectivity 16 Burden of responsibility 16 Public involvement 16 Change-orientation 16 Differentiation 17 Range of services 17 CHAPTER PAGE Client-centeredness 17 Financial support 17 IV. THE CURRENT PROBATION SYSTEM: SURVEY FINDINGS 18 Goals and Philosophies 18 Functions 20 The making of probation policy 20 Diversion 21 Formulating conditions of probation 22 Classification and treatment systems 24 The probation officer as "services manager" 27 Summary 28 Client views of treatment 30 Frequency of contact with probation officers 30 Perceived helpfulness of probation officers 32 Perceived helpfulness of other persons 34 Summary 36 Structure 37 Communication 37 Job satisfaction 39 Suggestions for change 41 Resources 42 Community resources 42 Profile of staff 44 Training 46 Use of nonprofessionals 52 State consultative services 55 [iii] CHAPTER PAGE Evaluation 57 Issues of the Future 58 The future of probation 58 Probation as viewed by clients 61 V. PROBATION SUBSIDY 66 Overview 66 Statistical Data 67 Key Problems and Issues 72 Summary 74 VI. PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS 76 Use of Offenders and Ex-offenders 76 Work Experience Program 76 Crisis Intervention 77 Drug Abuse Treatment 77 Differential Treatment 77 Use of Volunteers 78 Continuum of Treatment 79 Use of Para-professionals 80 VII. PREVAILING ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 81 Goals and Objectives 81 Recommendation 1 82 Functions 82 Intake 82 Elimination of non-criminals from supervision 82 Recommendation 2 83 Removal of prohibitions against probation 83 [iv] CHAPTER PAGE Recommendation 3 84 Keeping conditions of probation relevant 84 Recommendation 4 84 Reports and recommendations 84 Recommendation 5 84 Classification 85 Recommendation 6 85 Treatment 85 Care and concern for probationers 85 Recommendation 7 85 Client participation in planning his own program 86 Recommendation 8 86 The probation officer as "services manager" 86 Recommendation 9 86 Supervision with offenders' families 86 Recommendation 10 86 Termination of supervision after two years 87 Recommendation 11 87 Resources 87 The need for community resources 87 Mental health diagnostic and treatment programs 87 Recommendation 12 88 Group living facilities for offenders 88 Recommendation 13 88 Drug abuse programs 88 Recommendation 14 88 [v] CHAPTER PAGE Emergency financial assistance 88 Recommendation 15 89 Public information programs 89 Recommendation 16 89 Training 89 In-service training 90 Recommendation 17 91 Specialized training 91 Recommendation 18 91 Recommendation 19 92 Coordination of statewide training resources 92 Recommendation 20 92 Certification 92 Recommendation 21 93 Staff hiring and promotions 93 Recommendations 22 - 24 94 Use of nonprofessionals 94 Recommendation 25 95 Appointment of the chief probation officer 95 Recommendation 26 96 Subsidy 96 Recommendations 27 - 28 97 Recommendations 29 - 31 98 Research and Evaluation 98 Recommendation 32 98 Issues of the Future 99 [vi] CHAPTER PAGE Contracts between the State and counties for supervision of offenders 99 Recommendation 33 99 Contracts between counties for supervision 99 Recommendation 34 99 The new clients: environmental pollution and consumer fraud violators 100 Recommendation 35 100 [vii] LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Superior Court Defendants Convicted, Adults Granted Probation and Probation Caseload, 1960-1969 3 II. Number of Initial Delinquency Petitions Filed, Declarations of Wardship and First Commitments of Juvenile Court Wards to California Youth Authority Institutions, 1956-1969 4 III. Characteristics of Juvenile Probationers in 15 Sample Counties 6 IV. Characteristics of Adult Probationers in 15 Sample Counties 7 V. Frequency of Response by Origin and Category 29 VI. Client Contacts with Probation Officers 31 VII. Client Evaluation of Helpfulness of Probation Officers 33 VIII. Client Evaluation of Helpfulness of Other Influences 35 IX. Evaluation of Communication by Probation Staff 38 X. Job Satisfaction and Working Conditions as Perceived by Probation Staff 40 XI. Education Background of Probation Officers in 1964 and 1970 in 15 Sample Counties 47 XII. Staff Participation in Academic Studies 48 XIII. Staff Description of In-Service Training 51 XIV. Staff Interest in Using Nonprofessionals 53 XV. Report on Performance of Counties Participating in the Probation Subsidy Program 68 [viii] LIST OF CHARTS CHART PAGE I. Actual and Ideal Correctional Goals as Viewed by Probation Staff 19 II. Training for Probation Line Workers 50 [ix] SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Written statements of goals and objectives should be formulated by each probation department in keeping with the mission of corrections (the reduction of further illegal behavior on the part of offenders), and should include an emphasis on reintegrating the offender into the community. 2. As quickly as adequate alternative community resources can be devel- oped, probation departments no longer should supervise dependent children and those called "pre-delinquent" (Sections 600 and 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, respectively). Departments should not supervise persons placed on probation merely for the purpose of collecting money nor supervise those persons whose sole offense is public drunkenness. 3. Section 1203 of the Penal Code should be amended to remove restric- tions on granting probation because of an offender's prior convic- tions, and to reduce other restrictions on granting probation. 4. Standard conditions of probation should be at a minimum and should be relevant to each individual client in terms of his needs, abilities, personality, offense, and the protection of society. Conditions im- posed should be realistic and therefore enforceable by probation officers. Although special conditions may be appropriate in individ- ual cases, standard conditions should be limited to (2) a prohibition of any Low violations; (2) requirements for maintaining contact with the officer in the way prescribed by the officer; and (3) keeping the officer informed of residence or whereabouts. 5. Recommendations to courts by officers and their supervisors on super- vision cases should be based on an evaluation of all pertinent data and should be made without influence from "special interest" or other sources outside the department. 6. Each department should make use of a classification system, with specific differential treatment implications. To the degree necessary, the State should assist the counties in accomplishing this. 7. Probation supervisors and administrators should provide a working environment which will encourage staff to develop caring relation- ships with probationers under their supervision. 8. Clients should be involved in the planning of their probation programs, beginning at the earliest possible time and continuing on through the term of probation. 9. Probation departments should begin expanding the roles and capabilities of their staffs as "services managers". 10. Whenever appropriate, probation supervision should be involved with offenders' family units, not just with offenders alone, in order to further the reintegration process. Summary of Recommendations 11. Probation departments should adopt an administrative policy requiring the return of supervision cases to the court with a recommendation for termination of nonvoluntary supervision at a time not exceeding two years, unless there is evidence that the protection of the com- munity will be substantially decreased by 80 doing. If there are compelling reasons for the continuance of supervision, these reasons should be brought to the attention of the court at a hearing in the presence of the probationer and his counsel. 12. Probation departments, assisted as necessary by the State, should make available greatly expanded mental health services for proba- tioners. 13. Probation departments, assisted as necessary by the State, should make available adequate placement resources in the community. 14. Probation departments, assisted as necessary by the State, should develop and make use of existing drug abuse programs to meet vastly increased needs for such resources. 15. Probation departments, assisted as necessary by the State, should provide emergency financial aid to clients in need as a regular part of departmental programs. 16. Probation departments should develop public information programs that will assist in both enlightening the community and involving it in the role probation supervision plays in the justice system. The State should provide consultation services to assist the counties in devel- oping such programs. 17. Each probation department should develop its own in-service training programs, aided as necessary by the State, geared to provide relevant, individualized, and ongoing training for all levels of staff. Primary attention should be given to developing trainers within the department, particularly first line supervisors. 18. Probation departments should strive to make better use of available training and professional development programs in the community, e.g. by contracting for services and by encouraging and enabling their staff to participate in such programs. 19. The State should greatly increase its role in providing training needed by the counties, particularly specialized training programs. 20. The State should immediately implement the CO-ACT concept of a cen- tral unit to coordinate statewide training and develop a network of trainers and training resources from all appropriate sources. 21. The State, in cooperation with the counties, should develop a certi- fication program for all probation officers. [xi] Summary of Recommendations 22. Probation departments should create a case-carrying position equiva- lent to the first level supervisor in salary and other benefits. 23. Certified probation officers should be able to transfer to in-grade positions or compete for promotional opportunities in other probation departments or other similar parts of the correctional system, pro- vided they meet the necessary requirements. 24. The State and counties should coordinate their retirement systems 80 that a worker can combine his benefits when transferring between agencies. 25. Departments should greatly expand their use of nonprofessional work- ers, including volunteers, para-professionals, ex-offenders, and students, to assist in probation supervision. They should, at the same time, plan carefully how to recruit, train, and supervise these workers. 26. The chief probation officer should be appointed by and be responsible to the board of supervisors; Sections 575 and 576 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and Section 1203.6 of the Penal Code should be amend- ed accordingly. 27. The State of California should subsidize county-operated probation services in accord with the overall subsidy program specified in the System Task Force Report. Essentially, that Report recommends sub- sidy as follows: a. 75/25 -- probation supervision and investigation, including day care centers and other juvenile non-residential programs. This means that the State would pay 75% of the actual costs and the counties 25%. b. 60/40 -- "open" institutions (e.g. group homes or facilities which send youth to school in the community; also jail work furlough programs). c. 40/60 -- "closed" but short-term and community-based institutions (i.e. facilities to which persons can not be committed more than six months and which are both adjacent to and have a high degree of interaction with the community). d. 25/75 -- other institutions (e.g. juvenile institutions which are not short-term and not community-based; adult jails, including branch jails and honor camps, minus separate work furlough facil- ities). 28. Assuming that the above recommendation is operationalized, counties should pay the State 75% of the "career costs" (as defined in the System Task Force Report) for any youths or adults committed to the State. [xii] Summary of Recommendations 29. The probation subsidy program, as part of the overall correctional subsidy program, should be reviewed annually, to consider cost fluctuations and to effect necessary adjustments. 30. The State should provide increased consultation to the counties in respect to county-operated probation subsidy programs. 31. The State, in cooperation with the counties, should develop a set of minimal standards for all probation services that are subsidized. Thereafter, the State should enforce the standards, i.e. no subsidy should be granted to a program which does not meet State standards. 32. Probation departments, assisted as necessary by the State, should conduct programs in research and evaluation designed to improve the quality of probation operations. 33. Departments should be able to contract with the State to provide pro- bation supervision as well as accept contracts from the State to pro- vide parole services. Permissive legislation which would enable the State and counties to enter into such contracts should be enacted. 34. Where better services can be provided at lower cost, counties should consider contractual agreements with neighbor departments (or possibly consider consolidation of services) for probation supervision. En- abling legislation should be enacted to provide for such agreements. 35. Departments should engage in long range planning about the implica- tions of supervising large numbers of environmental pollution viola- tors and consumer fraud violators, both individuals and corporations. [xiii] "Probation is a term that gives no clue to what is done by way of treatment." Healy and Bronner: Delinquents and Criminals - Their Making and Unmaking CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION I. PROBATION IN CALIFORNIA Probation in California faces monumental problems as the size of its caseload mounts steadily--problems largely related to the highly complex economic difficulties faced by county and State government. However, now may be a propitious time for movement forward because moments of great pro- gress often arise out of deep financial troubles. The adversity faced today demands that solutions be found. To maintain the status quo is to retreat into mediocrity. Many of the key issues cited in this Report focus upon the changing relationships of State and county government, particularly the increased emphasis on providing direct services to the offender by the counties and increased emphasis on the part of the State for providing supportive and enabling services to the counties in the form of subsidy, planning, training, research and information, standard setting, inspections and consultative services. Other key issues include staff training, the use of non-profes- sionals in the probation setting, increased workloads, improved classifica- tion and treatment, and the reintegration of offenders into the community. Probation is often seen as first among the several components of cor- rections because it begins the series of correctional services used by the courts for sentenced offenders. To many persons, probation represents the least restrictive punishment and the least cost to the taxpayer. In fact, many of the uninformed look on probation not as punishment at all, but rather as a form of leniency, "second chance", or "lucky break" for the offender. Fortunately, this misunderstanding gradually is being eradicated as proba- tion becomes more effective and involves more of the general public. In the 68 years since California law first made provision for proba- tion, there has been a tremendous growth in this service. Today, of some 274,000 offenders who comprise California's correctional population, about 200,000 are probationers. Because the law provides for probation services to be operated by the counties, the effect of "home rule" is plainly visible. As a result, a wide variety of service patterns exists, running the gamut from a service performed totally by one man on a part-time basis, to the largest probation department in the nation with over 2,000 officers on its staff. Service provided by the 60 departments within the State varies from excellent supervision to the opposite extreme of no contact whatsoever. - 2 - An adult offender may come under the supervision of the probation officer following conviction for an offense which the court sees as meriting stronger measures than a suspended sentence or a fine, but not as stringent a measure as incarceration. An order for supervision is also normally made on the basis of a review of the offender's past record and social history. A common variation of probation is the "split sentence", i.e. imposing cus- tody in the county jail as a condition of probation (this is done in over 40% of the cases granted probation by superior courts2). A wider range of dispositions are available for the juvenile who may be handled informally on a first offense, placed on informal probation without having to appear in court, be ordered by the court to a term of probation limited to six months without having been made a ward of the court, or be placed on formal probation. Again, institutionalization may be used by the court, with the juvenile placed in a juvenile hall or county operated ranch, camp or school or in some other facility, including privately-operated institutions or foster homes. Probation terms imposed on adults in superior courts are almost en- tirely in the two to three year range, with twice as many three year terms being imposed as are two year terms.3 However, a quarter of the termina- tions of superior court probation are made prior to the expiration of the term.⁴ No data are available concerning lengths of terms for lower court cases. In the case of juveniles, Section 607, Welfare and Institutions Code, provides that the term of wardship can extend almost until a youth's 23rd birthday, but generally it is terminated no later than the 18th birthday. Almost 30% of juvenile probationers are dismissed from supervision in six months to a year and about the same percentage are dismissed after a year to a year and a half of supervision. By the time two years from the date of wardship has elapsed, 80% have been dismissed from probation. II. TRENDS IN PROBATION According to the Bureau of Criminal Statistics, on December 31, 1969, there were 102,042 active adult jurisdictional probation cases in California. 6 Of these, 55,124 (54%) were granted in the superior courts and 46,918 (46% were granted in the lower courts. In addition, there were 17,232 active courtesy probation cases under supervision. On the same day there also were 88,104 active juvenile probation cases in California.7 Table I shows the number and ratio of adults granted probation in the superior courts between 1960 and 1969. The data clearly indicate an upward trend, both with respect to the number of persons under supervision, and to the ratio of persons granted probation rather than confinement in a correc- tional institution or some other alternative. In 1960, 44.4% of the superior court convictions were granted probation; in 1969 this ratio had increased to 65.6%, representing the increasing trend in the number of probationers under supervision. Table II shows the trend for the number of delinquency petitions filed, declarations of wardship, and first commitments to CYA institutions. - 3 - TABLE I SUPERIOR COURT DEFENDANTS CONVICTED, ADULTS GRANTED PROBATION AND PROBATION CASELOAD, 1960-1969 Superior court defendants Adults Percentage of Calendar convicted and granted adults placed Caseload Year sentenced probation on probation December 31 1960 24,800 11,000 44.4 26,900 1961 28,000 12,600 45.0 28,300 1962 27,000 11,400 42.2 28,700 1963... 28,400 13,500 47.5 30,800 1964... 27,800 14,200 51.1 32,000 1965 30,800 15,700 51.0 33,700 1966... 32,000 16,800 52.5 36,000 1967 34,700 20,300 58.5 39,500 1968... 40,500 25,000 61.7 46,300 1969... 50,600 33,200 65.6 55,100 Percent change 1969 over 1960 104 202 105 ᵃBased on data submitted by district attorneys. Source: Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Crime and Delinquency in California: 1969, State of California (Sacramento, 1970), p. 126. - 4 - TABLE II NUMBER OF INITIAL DELINQUENCY PETITIONS FILED, DECLARATIONS OF WARDSHIP AND FIRST COMMITMENTS OF JUVENILE COURT WARDS TO CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY INSTITUTIONS, 1956-1969 Initial petitions Declarations First commitments fileda of wardship of wards to CYAC Percent Percent Percent change from change from change from Year Number previous year Number previous year Number previous year 1956 22,145 21.7 14,417 15.4 2,539 18.4 1957 24,057 8.6 16,473 14.3 2,656 4.6 1958 25,227 4.9 17,993 9.2 3,023 13.8 1959 26,171 3.7 18,920 5.2 2,986 - 1.2 1960 28,401 8.5 19,444 2.8 3,350 12.2 1961 28,187 - 0.8 20,163 3.7 3,851 15.0 1962 30,778 9.2 13.0 3,739 - 2.9 ... 22,782 1963 33,401 8.5 24,597 8.0 4,358 16.6 1964 34,229 2.5 24,842 1.0 4,157 4.6 1965 ... 35,614 4.0 25,646 3.2 4,632 11.4 1966 37,344 4.9 26,247 2.3 4,119 - 11.1 1967 43,782 17.2 28,311 7.9 3,571 - 13.3 1968 49,688 11.2 30,535 7.8 3,163 - 11.4 1969 57, 978 16.7 35,451 16.1 2,778 - 12.2 aPetitions filed as the intake disposition of new referrals. Excludes supple- mental petitions and also filings following the re-referral of active un- official cases. bInitial adjudications of wardship for delinquent acts as provided in Section 725-b of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Section 725 also provides for probationary periods without adjudications of wardship. The declarations of wardship accounted for in this table may be based on initial or secondary petitions. CFirst commitments toinstitutions received on commitment from California juvenile courts. Criminal court commitments and juvenile court recommitments are excluded. Source: Department of the Youth Authority - 5 - The data indicate that the number of wardships (formal probation cases) has steadily increased since 1956, from 14,417 in that year to 35,451 in 1969. These figures do not include juveniles placed on probation for a period of six months under Section 725(a) of the Welfare and Institutions Code. nor do they include the number of juveniles placed on "informal" probation with- out court action. The data shown in Table II also indicate that since 1965 there has been a decided shift away from institutionalizing youthful offend- ers in favor of keeping them under supervision in the local community. Be- tween 1968 and 1969, the number of juvenile cases placed on probation in- creased by 16.1%, while CYA juvenile commitments during the same period de- creased by 12.2%. The declining institutional population is discussed in greater detail in the Juvenile Institution Task Force Report. In short, the trends for both juveniles and adults clearly show an increasing probationer population. Characteristics of Juvenile Probationers According to the Bureau of Criminal Statistics, in 1969 there were 41,556 juvenile court dispositions in 56 California counties.⁸ Of this num- ber, 22,996 juveniles were declared wards of the court and placed on proba- tion. The median age of the juvenile probationers was slightly over 15 years. Table III summarizes the characteristics of 720 juvenile probationers under supervision in the 15 study counties who completed questionnaires. The probationers are grouped according to whether they were being supervised in reduced subsidized caseloads or under non-subsidy supervision. In general, the juveniles in subsidy caseloads were somewhat more likely to be male, somewhat older, and more likely to be black. It can be seen that relative to the racial backgrounds noted in the section on staff profiles, probation officers from minority racial groups are definitely under-represented. Whereas about 45% of the juvenile clients are drawn from racial minority groups, only 16% of the probation officers are drawn from the same groups. The final point to note in Table III is that the juveniles being supervised in subsidy caseloads had been under supervision for longer periods of time than their counterparts in the non-subsidized caseloads. Forty-seven per- cent of this group, compared to 28% of the non-subsidy group, had been on probation for at least one year prior to the time of the Task Force survey. While at this point it is only conjectural, it may be that the more serious cases, requiring more intensive supervision, are placed in the subsidized caseloads. Characteristics of Adult Probationers In 1969 there were a total of 33,188 adults placed on formal proba- tion from the superior courts in California. This represented an increase of 32% over the 1968 figure of 25,055. Table IV summarizes the characteristics of the adult probationers in the 15 counties studied by the Task Force. The clients in the subsidized - 6 - TABLE III CHARACTERISTICS OF JUVENILE PROBATIONERS IN 15 SAMPLE COUNTIES (Percentage Distribution *) CHARACTERISTIC Total Subsidy Non-Subsidy (N=720) (N=280) (N=440) Sex: Male 76 81 72 Female 24 19 28 Age: Under 17 60 56 63 17-18 35 39 33 Over 18 5 6 4 Race: White 56 52 58 Black 21 25 18 Brown 19 18 20 Oriental 1 -- 1 American Indian 2 3 1 Other 2 2 2 Time Supervised: Under 7 months 33 25 38 7 Months - 1 year 31 28 32 1 to 2 years 18 23 15 Over 2 years 18 24 15 * Percentages may not add to 100% because of rounding. - 7 - TABLE IV CHARACTERISTICS OF ADULT PROBATIONERS IN 15 SAMPLE COUNTIES (Percentage Distribution *) CHARACTERISTIC TOTAL SUBSIDY NON-SUBSIDY (N=1,327) (N=250) (N=1,077) Sex: Male 80 83 79 Female 20 17 21 Age: Under 19 14 19 12 19-20 years 14 19 13 21-25 years 32 38 31 26-35 years 24 17 25 36-50 years 13 5 15 Over 50 years 4 2 5 Race: White 59 58 59 Black 22 23 22 Brown 16 17 15 Oriental 1 - 1 American Indian 1 1 1 Other - 1 1 Time Supervised: Under 7 months 24 19 25 7 months - 1 year 28 30 27 1-2 years 29 27 30 Over 2 years 19 24 18 * Percentages may not add to 100% because of rounding - 8 - caseloads were somewhat more likely to be males; sex differentials between the subsidized and non-subsidized units were slight. Unlike the juvenile probationers, adults under subsidy supervision were younger than those in non-subsidy supervision. However, as was true of juvenile probationers, the adults in the subsidy units had been under supervision for a longer period of time than those in the non-subsidy units. There were no signif- icant racial differences between the two groups, although, as was the case with juveniles, proportionately there were more adult probationers drawn from racial minorities than probation officers from the same groups. III. SUMMARY With regard to probation supervision, this Task Force had three major objectives: (1) to describe probation supervision as is is today, (2) to suggest what it should be in the future, and (3) to recommend ways of moving from today's position to that of the future. Chapter II will describe the methodology used in the study. This will be followed in Chapter III by a condensed "model" of how probation should operate. Chapters IV and V will describe the current system as reflected by the data collected in question- naires and interviews with staff members, department heads, clients, judges, district attorneys and public defenders, law enforcement, juvenile justice commissions and a probation committee. Because of its importance, proba- tion subsidy is discussed separately in Chapter V. Program highlights as described in Chapter VI will present a sample of good and progressive pro- grams with probationers. Finally, the Report will conclude with a summary and highlighting of the principle issues in probation supervision today together with the Task Force's recommendations for moving from the current system to the model. - 9 - FOOTNOTES 1 Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Adult Probation: 1969, State of California (Sacramento, 1970); Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Juvenile Probation and Detention: 1969, State of California (Sacramento, 1970). 2 Ibid., Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Adult Probation: 1969, P. 17. 3 Ibid., p. 16. 4 Ibid., p. 27. 5 Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Juvenile Probation and Detention: 1969, op. cit., p. 40. 6 Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Adult Probation: 1969, op. cit., P. 6. 7 Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Juvenile Probation and Detention: 1969, op. cit., p. 9. 8 Ibid., p. 36. The reader should keep in mind that these figures refer to the dispositions of juvenile courts, and not to referrals or number of peti- tions files; this accounts for the discrepancies between these figures and those in Table II. 9 Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Adult Probation: 1969, op. cit., p. 4. CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY Because of the vast size of the probation population in California, it was patently clear to the Probation Task Force that a method of sampling the State had to be devised. The sample used in the report, Probation Study¹, by the Board of Corrections in 1964 still appeared to be a valid and representative one; hence, it was again adopted. Fifteen counties in Calif- ornia, representing all sizes and most geographical areas of the State from Oregon to the Mexican Border, were studied. The counties included in the sample were: Alameda, Del Norte, Fresno, Humboldt, Imperial, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Francisco, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Sutter, Tehama and Tulare. Seventeen probation departments were included, as the Counties of San Francisco and Santa Clara have separate adult and juvenile departments. Be- cause of its size, a sub-sample was devised for Los Angeles County which enabled the Task Force to survey four offices which covered a wide geographi- cal, economic, and ethnic range. The four offices had responsibility for about one-quarter of the total clients and staff in the county. One of the first steps taken by Task Force staff was to review the most significant literature available on probation. This review covered four statewide studies done previously on probation in California, 2 Youth Authority research reports on probation, reports from a number of probation departments, and professional journals and books. In addition, extensive use was made of annual reference tables and other data from the State Bureau of Criminal Statistics. Another preliminary step was to talk with a number of probation staff members for the purpose of discussing probation as it now exists and what probation supervision should be like in the future. The discussants held positions as line workers, supervisors and administrators in probation de- partments in various parts of the State and provided the Task Force with valuable insights into a number of important issues facing probation today. This information was helpful in developing the overall study strategy. A staff questionnaire was developed, similar to those used by other components of the study. It was distributed to chief probation officers and all personnel with supervision assignments in the 15-county sample. A total of 982 staff questionnaires were distributed and 892 returned, giving a very high return of 91%. The questionnaire for clients was given to 10% of subsidy cases and 5% of regular supervision cases in the sample counties. Most counties were asked to distribute the questionnaires on a systematic random selection basis and this method was followed in many of the counties. Return of the client questionnaires created some procedural problems; how- ever, of the 3,632 distributed, 2,103, or 58%, were completed and returned. Because of the proportionally small sample of clients, no effort is made to derive definitive conclusions from their responses. However, the responses are viewed as general indicators of the attitudes of probationers in the sample counties. - 11 - Questionnaires were pre-tested in a non-sample county before being put into final form. Computer printouts divided questionnaire results into several cate- gories, including job function, adult probation and juvenile probation, and subsidy and non-subsidy units. Results were also divided by four sizes of counties with size A having populations below 100,000; size B between about 100,000 and 500,000; size C being 500,000 to 2,000,000 and size D being over 2,000,000. Because the emphasis of the questionnaires was on describing proba- tion as it exists today, interview schedules were designed to elicit pri- marily comments about what probation should be in the future. Interview questions were prepared for four groups: (1) chiefs and staff assigned to supervision, (2) probationers, (3) presiding superior court judges, county supervisors, and county administrative officers, and (4) judges, district attorneys, public defenders, law enforcement and juvenile justice commissions or probation committees. In order to conserve time and to stimulate dis- cussions, it was decided to utilize group interviews. Eight was determined to be the optimum number of persons and most groups approximated this size. However, most of the interviews with chiefs were on an individual basis as were a number with judges and other key persons, including the presiding judges of superior courts, members of boards of supervisors and county ad- ministrative officers. The number of interviews was scaled to the size of the probation supervision staff in each sample county. Staff interview panels varied be- tween one and six per county in addition to an equal number of client panels Overall, there was a total of 70 staff panels and 70 client panels. In addition, there were panel and individual interviews with chiefs and other persons and groups mentioned above. The names of staff chosen for interviews were selected through use of a random number process. Although client panel participants were chosen most frequently with the assistance of local probation staff members, the clients freely verbalized the whole range of attitudes toward supervision from very negative to very positive. Panels generally were either entirely juveniles or adults and usually were all subsidy or all regular supervision. The bulk of the data were collected by consultants from the Division of Community Services of the Youth Authority assisted by some Youth Authority Parole Agents, a number of graduate students, and the Task Force staff. In addition, questionnaires were mailed to chiefs in non-sample counties and written responses were solicited. Three "model-building" sessions were held; one with members of the Correctional System Study and two with experts outside the Task Force. These sessions provided information on changes that were imminently impor- tant plus ideas as to what the correctional system should be in the future. Additionally, two special and valuable meetings with chief probation officers were held to discuss the tentative findings and recommendations of the Task Force. - 12 - In short, the major sources of input into this Task Force Report were the probation literature, the probation staff and clientele in 15 selected California counties, and a number of additional experts familiar with the State's probation process. - 13 - FOOTNOTES 1 Board of Corrections, Probation Study, State of California (Sacra- mento, 1965). 2 Ibid.; Report of the Governor's Special Study Commission on Juvenile Justice, Part I, State of California (Sacramento, November 30, 1960); Report of the Governor's Special Study Commission on Juvenile Justice, Part II, State of California (Sacramento, November 30, 1960); The Special Study Com- mission on Correctional Facilities and Services, Probation in California, State of California (Sacramento, December 1957); The Special Crime Study Commissions on Adult Corrections and Release Procedures and Juvenile Justice, Probation Services in California, State of California (Sacramento, 1948-1949). CHAPTER III MODEL The model presented in this chapter is an attempt to apply to proba- tion supervision those goals and underlying principles which the Correctional System Study believes are vital to the entire correctional process. In brief, these are seen as the cornerstones upon which any progressive probation pro- gram must be erected and must rest. I. GOALS The primary goal or mission of probation supervision is the same as that of the entire correctional system, viz, the protection of society by minimizing the probability of recidivism on the part of probationers. Secondary goals, and strategies for attaining goals, are basically the same as for the rest of corrections, but with particular emphasis on community-based, field supervision objectives and techniques. Secondary goals include rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into the com- munity and, at the same time, specific (i.e. directed at those on probation) deterrence. The Probation Task Force contends that all of these objectives are normally compatible, i.e. that society is best protected and offenders most effectively deterred from further illegal behavior by their successful rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. The strategies of probation, for both youth and adults, should place heavy stress on effecting social change, maximum development and utilization of community resources, family involvement, group work, and individual case- work. II. PRINCIPLES The statements below represent an effort to apply specifically to probation supervision those basic principles which the Correctional System Study contends are most fundamental to any progressive correctional system. 1. Responsibility Local communities, normally individual counties, have primary respon- sibility for delivery of probation services. Accordingly, they have the responsibility to develop the range of strategies, techniques, and resources to effectively protect the community and successfully rehabilitate/reinte- grate probationers placed in their charge. The State, which has the overall enabling responsibility for the en- tire correctional system, should assist the counties to develop and imple- ment the types of programs necessary for an effective field services opera- - 15 - tion. This assistance should include subsidization and a wide range of "supportive" services such as training, planning, research, standard setting and enforcement, and general consultation. (Additional discussion of the State's role as an "enabler" will be found in the System Task Force Report.) 2. Diversion Probation departments should make every effort to divert or remove from the system all persons who are not appropriate subjects for correctional supervision. As a general rule, probation should receive or retain under supervision only those offenders who pose a threat to the community's pro- tection. 3. Coordination Since it handles the great bulk of the correctional population and is the normal first step in the correctional labyrinth, probation must be closely coordinated with other components of the correctional system, both to avoid duplication of efforts and to provide a continuum of treatment. It should also work hand-in-hand with the rest of criminal justice, and with other public and private agencies who are involved with its clientele. 4. Community-Based Programs Probation should keep its programs as close and as relevant to the communities of its clients as possible. Offenders should be retained in the community (i.e. not institution- alized) whenever possible. 5. Visibility Probation operations, including departmental policies and procedures, should be "open" or visible to the community, not only to permit scrutiny and review, but also to engender public understanding and support. 6. Accountability Each probation department should spell out, for itself as a whole and for each of its major programs: (1) goals, (2) how to measure whether or not those goals (results) are attained, and (3) the tools necessary to assure the measurement of results and actions based on those results. Re- search and evaluation should thus be an integral part of every program. Provided they are given the necessary resources, probation programs should then "live or die" by their results. This is the "contract" of accountability. - 16 - Probation should be accountable not only to itself, but also to the public, to other segments of the criminal justice system, to other branches of government, and to probationers. 7. Objectivity Probation departments and individual officers must maintain profes- sional integrity by submitting reports and recommendations on their clients which are as objective and straight-forward as possible. This means that individual workers must not only refrain from any attempts to manipulate other decision-makers, but they must also be free from intra- or extra- departmental pressures which might cause them to submit reports or recommend- ations which are not objective, do not reflect their honest views, or do not reflect their best professional judgment. 8. Burden of Responsibility All probation decision-making relevant to handling of clients should place the burden of responsibility on the system, not the probationers, to justify any further degree of restriction or extention of restriction on his freedom. Put another way, the system should also select the least re- strictive course consistent with protection of the public. 9. Public Involvement Probation should take greater recognition both of general public apathy about corrections and of the growing interest and concern among at least some elements of the community; in response, it should develop strong programs aimed at eliciting greater public involvement. Such programs should focus on at least three levels: a. Establishing credibility with the public, i.e. obtaining the community's trust through ongoing public education and public relations. b. Enlisting direct support, e.g. financial assistance, volunteers, and other direct aid. C. Involving the community in an advisory capacity, i.e. providing for public input by at least an indirect share in policy and decision-making. 10. Change-Orientation In recognition of the fact that governmental agencies tend to pre- serve their traditional modi operandi, probation departments must incorpor- ate flexibility, creativity, and innovation into their very bloodstream. Based on a commitment to continual feedback and evaluation, they must be - 17 - prepared not only to change but, if necessary, to "self-destruct" any part of their program that fails to produce expected results or that is no longer relevant to current problems and responsibilities. 11. Differentiation Meaningful handling, let alone treatment, of offenders demands dif- ferential approaches based on individual needs. Hence, differential classi- fication/treatment systems must be employed. 12. Range of Services Probation must have available specialized programs and resources to meet the needs of its clients to the fullest possible degree. Such pro- grams/resources may be provided by the probation department itself, con- tracted for with another agency or individual, or obtained in some other manner (e.g. volunteers). At the bare minimum such services must include a study or diagnostic capability, casework services, a wide variety of alternatives to institutionalization, and access to available community re- sources such as employment and schools. 13. Client-Centeredness All probation programs should be "client-centered", i.e. involve the client himself in the planning and carrying out of a specific program of rehabilitation/reintegration. 14. Financial Support To carry out their primary responsibility for the delivery of ser- vices, county probation departments must have the financial resources to carry out effective programs, contract for necessary services, and experi- ment with promising innovations. The State and Federal Governments should provide subsidization for such services as necessary. CHAPTER IV THE CURRENT PROBATION SYSTEM: SURVEY FINDINGS This discussion of the current probation system will focus on six major areas: (1) goals and philosophies of probation departments, (2) their primary functions or tasks, (3) their organizational structure, (4) the re- sources they have or need to carry out their functions, (5) evaluation and research, and (6) some important issues facing probation in the immediate or near future. I. GOALS AND PHILOSOPHIES The primary goal of probation, as well as all of corrections, is the protection of society by reducing recidivism. As indicated in other Task Force Reports, society is normally best protected by the development and im- plementation of effective programs of rehabilitation and reintegration. For probation this means that recidivism is most likely to be reduced if the offender is provided with a variety of effective services while under super- vision in the free community. These services include working with the offend- er's family, providing vocational counseling and training, finding appropriate employment, helping to overcome stereotyped public attitudes toward offenders, overcoming restrictive employment policies and procedures, and providing case- work services to the individual offender. The Probation Task Force included two items in its survey questionnaire to determine how the major objectives of probation were perceived by the staff. The first question was, "What actually is the primary goal of your agency?", and the second question was, "What should be the primary goal of corrections?" The response categories included, "punishment"; "keeping offenders off the streets"; "protection of society"; "rehabilitation of offenders"; "other"; and "unclear or no opinion". Staff responses to the two questions were tab- ulated and are presented in Chart I. Thirty-two percent of the staff thought that the actual primary goal was the protection of society, while 38% asserted it was the rehabilitation of offenders. Significantly, 20% claimed that the primary goal of their respective agencies was either unclear or they had no opinion on the matter. The fact that a sizeable number of staff members did not know what is the actual goal, suggests that there is little in the way of attempting to clarify major agency goals on the part of administrators and agency heads. Almost all of those having no idea of their agency's goals were line workers and supervisors; administrators and agency heads almost without exception expressed a definite opinion on the question of agency goals. However, the data in Chart I clearly show that even when the staff expressed an opinion--no matter what their rank in the agency--there was no agreement on the primary goal. Lack of agreement is also evident with respect to the ideal goal of corrections. Thirty-nine percent asserted that the goal should be the pro- tection of society and 58% said that it should be rehabilitation. Juvenile probation officers were more likely than adult probation officers to assert that rehabilitation should be the major goal. Almost everyone expressed an - 19 - CHART I ACTUAL AND IDEAL CORRECTIONAL GOALS AS VIEWED BY PROBATION STAFF "What actually is the primary goal of YOUR AGENCY?" UNCLEAR 20% PROTECTION OF SOCIETY 32% REHABILITATION 38% OTHER 10% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 PERCENT "What SHOULD be the primary goal of Corrections?" UNCLEAR 1% PROTECTION OF SOCIETY 39% REHABILITATION 58% OTHER 2% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 PERCENT - 20 - opinion in defining the ideal goal, but again, the preferences were distri- buted between protection of society and rehabilitation. Apparently there is a good deal of confusion over the meaning of these two objectives; the latter is construed to be generally a more permissive approach, while the former is seen as being more punitive. There is little doubt that probation officers did not agree on the meaning of these concepts and perceived them to be somewhat incompatible with each other. Rehabilitation is thought of more as an end product, rather than as a means by which society can be pro- tected. Similar disagreements have also been noted over the question of the most effective methods of supervising juvenile probationers. In one study, the probation officers were completely divided on whether unexpected home visits were more effective than predetermined appointments, and whether making probationers "toe the line" was more effective than being lenient. 1 In short, the data suggest that in the probation agencies surveyed by the Task Force there have not been very extensive attempts to discuss goals and objectives. Even in those instances where goals have been formalized in writing, they have not always been disseminated to staff members or, if disseminated, they have not always been read, accepted or followed by staff members. Encouragingly, it was observed that efforts are under way in some of the larger probation departments to develop and define formal statements of goals and objectives. An additional problem, however, is that goals are rarely operation- alized, i.e. defined in clear, concrete terms, so that their attainment or lack of it can be measured. Unless this, too, is done, a mere theoretical formulation of goals is of limited value. II. FUNCTIONS The Making of Probation Policy Because of the large number of counties where the judge appoints the chief probation officer, one would expect to see many courts participating in the making of probation policy. Responses in the interviews indicated that the court is involved in such activity in many areas, although it was reported that the practice no longer exists in some communities. What subtle influences, if any, the courts have on recommendations made on supervision cases is not clear. However, it does seem clear that the power of judges to appoint and remove chief probation officers, under Section 575 Welfare and Institutions Code and Section 1203.6 Penal Code, carries with it the danger that judges may become de facto administrators of the probation de- partments. In at least two of the sample counties, there was evidence that the court was determining departmental policy to a large extent. - 21 - Diversion While intake laws and procedures were not formally within the scope of the present study, an effort was made to ascertain retrospectively what types of clients now placed in probation supervision are inappropriate sub- jects for the probation process. In fact, the exclusion of intake issues from the study was a point of serious concern among probation administrators and personnel. Study staff shared in this concern and attempted to look at critical issues from a retrospective point of view whenever possible. It became readily apparent to Task Force staff that not only preven- tion of initial law violations, but also diversion of many persons who com- mit acts which make them legal subjects for the criminal justice and proba- tion systems are of growing import to both correctional workers and the general public. Persons interviewed throughout the course of the study had many opinions as to types of clients who are not appropriate for proba- tion supervision. The chief categories of persons suggested for diversion from this process were: dependent and pre-delinquent children, alcohol and drug abusers, those placed under supervision simply as a means of getting them to pay money under court order, victimless offenders in general, and those in need of psychiatric aid. The topic provoking the most discussion was possible removal of the pre-delinquents (Section 601 Welfare and Institutions Code) from probation supervision. Chief probation officers, in particular, urged that this sec- tion of the law not be repealed until viable alternatives were present in the community which would provide services as good or better than those now offered by probation. Actually, a large proportion of such cases are presently diverted from the justice system by various agencies, but it is those delinquent-prone youth who find their way to court that cause the concern. While many anticipated such a change in the law, most hoped for additional time for communities to prepare alternative programs. The case for removal of Section 601 from the Welfare and Institutions Code was made by Thomas L. Carroll in a report prepared for the California Assembly. 2 That report urged that Section 600 be used for those pre-delin- quent youth in need of the protection of the court. Probation chiefs and staff saw such resources as youth service bureaus, crisis intervention centers, welfare departments, and various family service and mental health agencies as being the alternatives to handle the pre-delinquent, but did not feel that such services were adequately developed as yet. As an example, Duxbury cited evidence that some youth service bureaus in the State have had an impact on diverting young persons from the justice system. However, she indicated the bureaus have been in operation too short a time to deter- mine whether they are a satisfactory alternative. 3 The greatest consensus was found in support for removal of common drunks from the criminal justice system. Most respondents felt that pro- cessing drunks to jail or probation is inappropriate because their problem is not one of harming society but rather of harming themselves. It was suggested that the problem could best be met by detoxification centers or some other programs operated by a public health or mental health agency. - 22 - Additional discussion on diverting the alcoholic from the criminal justice system may be found in the Jail Task Force Report. Formulating Conditions of Probation While it occurs during the investigative process, and therefore does not technically fall within the scope of this Study, adult probation officers are required by law to make recommendations either for or against placement on probation. 4 In the superior courts in 1969, there were 37,832 recommen- dations made by probation officers. 5 Of this number, 23,794 (63%) were recommendations for probation, and in 96% of these cases the court granted probation. Of the 14,038 cases where probation officers recommended against probation, the court denied probation 66% of the time. Thus, when probation officers recommended probation, the courts almost always granted it, but when probation was not recommended, the courts nevertheless granted it a third of the time. The effects of this disparity are not known and should be a matter for systematic investigation. In addition to making recommendations either for or against probation, probation officers also specify the appropriate conditions of probation if it is to be granted by the court. One of the most common conditions of pro- bation is that the offender serve a jail term prior to his placement under supervision in the community. In 1969, there were 27,458 adult defendants granted probation by superior courts. In 11,470 (42%) of these, a jail sentence was a condition of probation. 6 It is not known how long each of these sentences were, but it is unlikely that they were a year, or longer. At the present time, it is not known whether jail as a condition of probation is more or less effective in reducing recidivism than straight probation. Research is urgently needed on this question, since, as noted in the Jail Task Force Report, approximately 40% of the sentenced jail pop- ulation presently are serving terms as a condition of probation. It is the belief of the Probation Task Force that many of the above offenders could be placed on straight probation without seriously jeopardizing the safety of the community. This action also would be consistent with the principle of retaining offenders in the community whenever possible, rather than isolating them from it. Furthermore, minimizing the use of jail as a condi- tion of probation would result in substantial savings. It has been esti- mated that the average per capita annual cost for successful cases on straight probation is $247, while the costs range between $1,000 and $3,000 if jail is a condition of probation.7 Fines and restitution also are stipulated conditions of probation, and tend to be imposed more frequently in the municipal courts than in the superior courts of the State. (On the other hand, the condition of jail is specified more frequently in the superior courts.) According to the statis- tical report of a large adult probation department in the Bay Area, there were 2,681 persons admitted to probation in 1970. Of these, 812 had to pay a fine as a condition of probation, 100 were required to make restitution, and 193 had to pay a fine in addition to making restitution. Thus, of the 2,681 probationers, 1,105 persons (41%) had fines, restitution, or both - 23 - imposed as conditions of their probation. Of this number, 823 were munici- pal court cases and only 282 were from the superior courts. It is signifi- cant to note that while fines could very likely be an effective device in reducing recidivism, especially for property offenders, it is not commonly a condition of probation in the superior courts of the State. Further corroboration of this fact was reported in a recent study which found that of 17,000 property offenders sentenced by the State's superior courts, only 750 received fines. 8 There also are a number of specialized conditions that can be imposed if the probation officer or court deems them to be necessary. Some of these stipulate that the probationer receive psychiatric treatment, that he pay child support, or that he pay court costs. There almost always are standard or routine conditions specified, such as not violating any laws, not leaving the county without permission, not associating with persons who have been in difficulty with the law, actively seeking or maintaining employment, re- fraining from the use of alcoholic beverages, and so forth. Judges, juvenile justice commissions and a probation committee, dis- trict attorneys and public defenders were asked to describe what kind of conditions are regularly imposed on persons granted probation in their county, why, and how strictly the conditions should be enforced. It was accepted generally that conditions such as those mentioned above were imposed in order to help clients stay out of trouble. However, the evidence shows that the appropriateness and relevance of the conditions for the client often was overlooked and that a need exists for a review of the whole matter. One indication of this need came from a member of the judiciary who responded frankly to the question of why certain conditions were given without reference to their appropriateness by saying, "Because they always have been imposed." Other proof of the need for change came from the frequent observations of probationers that conditions often were meaningless, irrelevant, non-individualized and overly restrictive. As examples, some reported being told not to associate with other persons on probation, even though members of their own household were under supervision. In one community, a seven o'clock curfew was imposed on a mature teenager even though his offense was related to traffic. In another county, some married women probationers complained that they were threatened with revoca- tion if they became pregnant. That there is value in having probation conditions is evident in the fact that 75% of 2,039 clients responding to this part of the questionnaire said conditions usually or sometimes helped them obey the law. The need is to move now toward more relevant conditions. Further support for this stance is found in the observation of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice that conditions of probation must be appropriate to the needs of the individual case in order to have differential treatment.9 The Probation Task Force strongly suggests that the impact of the various conditions of probation on the recidivism rate be systematically investigated. It is likely that a jail sentence preceding probation will be more effective for certain types of offenders, but not for others. The - 24 - same is likely to be true for other conditions that are commonly imposed. Only after a period of systematic evaluation will there be information on the relative effectiveness of the various conditions. If some turn out to be effective in reducing recidivism, then they should be specified as con- ditions of probation; if others are found not to be effective, then they should be abandoned. Classification and Treatment Systems In 1964, the Board of Corrections conducted a study of probation services in California. One of the major recommendations of that study was to reduce the size of the burgeoning caseloads throughout the State. The report was quick to point out, however, that reduced caseloads per se were not sufficient to bring about more effective probation supervision, and that an efficient classification system must be adopted to provide meaningful and individualized services to probationers. "Without commit- ment to classification, probationers receive a generalized, often meaning- less, service that is best characterized by the current goal of probation: one probationer--one contact a month. "10 The 1964 Probation Study found that classification was not a regular part of the operational activities of any of the 17 probation departments selected for the study. 11 Since classification was recommended by the 1964 study, the Probation Task Force, using the same 15 counties as the 1964 study, attempted to de- termine the extent to which classification systems are now being used by the various probation departments. Interviews with probation staff and ad- ministrators revealed that most classification and treatment systems current- ly were operating only in probation subsidy units, although there were some exceptions to this. Classification systems solely for case management pur- poses existed in many regular probation units. One of the items in the Task Force questionnaire asked probation officers whether they were using a classification system with the probation- ers under their supervision. Fully 41% of the line workers said that they were not using any system; an additional 38% asserted that they were using a classification system, but it was of no help in the treatment process. While there were differences between subsidized and non-subsidized units (more probation officers from the former type of unit claimed to be using classification), the data clearly showed that in no instance did a majority of probation officers claim that they were using classification effectively. It was also found that, while many staff would like to use a differ- ential treatment classification system, they lacked an adequate level of understanding of the way such a system should be used. In addition, inter- views revealed a lack of planning for case management. The questionnaire disclosed that fully one-quarter of probation staff members felt their agen- cies did not encourage them to develop individual treatment plans and to implement them. This is in direct contrast to the opinion expressed by the President's Crime Commission that one of the major requirements for using a differential treatment system is an adequate case analysis and planning procedure. However, it is consistent with the Commission's observation that careful planning by probation officers is almost non-existent. 12 - 25 - Support was expressed during interviews for the idea of matching officers with clients by personality types. In addition, questionnaire responses indicated that 75% of 875 staff at all levels supported the match- ing concept. Because of a failure to understand the way in which classifi- cation is used for treatment purposes, a number of negative views were ex- pressed (such as classification is merely a "labeling process" and is "de- humanizing"). Other negative statements came from those who felt that the particular system being used was ineffective. It is quite evident that the years separating the 1964 study and the present Probation Task Force Report have not witnessed the widespread use of classification--even with the existence of subsidized units with reduced caseloads--nor any great acclaim as to its effectiveness in the supervision of probationers. While an increasing range of approaches and techniques were noted (such as psychodrama, Gestalt and other forms of group therapy, conjoint family therapy, transactional analysis, reality therapy, audio- visual equipment for "instant playback", recreational and camping trips, drug schools, weekend work or other programs, remedial tutoring, vocational training and counseling by private agencies, etc.), the standard "treatment" practice for the great majority of probationers still consisted of 10 to 15 minute "across the desk" office type interviews on a once a month basis (less often for many adults) and frequently under rushed circumstances (e.g. with a line of other clients waiting). Even in some intensive supervision programs, the nature of supervision had changed little, i.e. the additional time provided by reduced caseloads was used mainly to offer more of the same type of service that had traditionally been offered. A related problem was that the great bulk of probation officers worked hours which were in- convenient for most clients and which inevitably led to long waiting lines and short interviews. On the other hand, a number of counties, particularly in their subsidy units, had implemented many of the treatment strategies mentioned above, in addition to others, and had begun to demonstrate more flexibility in their programs and the hours they were available. There is great variation in the types and intensity of probation services which are offered to clients. These range from phone or mail super- vision to daily contacts in which probation officers almost "lived" with some youngsters. Subsidy units, because of their smaller caseloads and richer resources, tended to have the most innovative and progressive types of pro- grams. A number of the most promising treatment efforts will be discussed in more detail in a following section entitled "Program Highlights". However, overall it was found that probation contacts tended to be similar, infrequent and fleeting. In fact, the probation officers them- selves questioned the quality of their services. One of the items in the staff questionnaire asked them to estimate the quality of services provided by their agencies. Only 36% of all staff (33% of subsidy staff) rated the general quality of correctional services in their agencies as "high". The general conclusion of Task Force staff is that most probation programs offer minimal treatment and the treatment they do offer tends to be the same, for the great majority of probationers, with the exception that some offenders receive more of it. The direction that probation is - 26 - only beginning to pursue incorporates sophisticated programs of differential treatment, i.e. developing and implementing separate correctional strategies for different types of offenders. However, many of the staff and administrators were aware of the exis- tence of at least one classification system. When they were queried by the Task Force as to what were the most promising classification systems, several were mentioned. The one most frequently cited was the "I-level" classifi- cation system in which offenders are classified according to a given level of interpersonal maturity. According to the theory of interpersonal maturity, individuals progress through several stages of socialization. 13 Each succes- sive stage of development involves a greater degree of interpersonal compe- tence and skill. The theory asserts that there are seven levels of inter- personal maturity and individuals who are fixated at the lower levels tend to be poor role-players and dependent personalities. The theory of interpersonal maturity has clear implications for dif- ferential treatment. In California, both Youth Authority wards and some probationers have been classified into one of the levels of interpersonal maturity and then provided with treatment services that would logically appear to be related to deficiencies characterizing the particular type. 14 For example, a youth classified as being very immature would require some form of placement where his dependency needs could be met. This classifi- cation system has been used with some success in the Community Treatment Project, and is discussed in greater detail in the Juvenile Institution Task Force Report. While the I-level classification system holds much promise, a number of cautionary remarks should be made to prevent its uncritical use. First, this system assumes that offenders are interpersonally immature as compared with non-offenders in the general population. 15 A substantial body of re- search has been conducted on this general matter, and as yet none of it has uncovered a trait or set of traits that clearly differentiate criminals and delinquents from non-criminals and non-delinquents. A second point to keep in mind is that more than one classification system is likely to be needed by the correctional services. There are many offenders who do not exhibit any clear sign of emotional or mental disorders. Instead, their crimes may result from social forces beyond their control, such as a sagging economy; high unemployment rates; discriminatory policies in unions, business and industry; and other limited opportunities. Under such conditions, psychologically healthy individuals can succumb to these forces. A final point to keep in mind is that classification systems are abstractions which might not accurately describe a group of individuals. Some individuals do not neatly "fit" into any given category; and even when they are classified, they are not clearly distinguishable from persons who have been classified into other categories. 16 The above remarks are not intended to discourage the use of classifi- cation systems. Rather, they are made with the aim of encouraging the in- - 27 - telligent and effective use of such systems. There is little doubt regard- ing the validity of the idea of differential treatment. Different types of offenders have different needs, and one of probation's major tasks is to decide "who needs what type of service". Effective differential treatment assumes statutory flexibility, a minimum of restrictive probation conditions, greater and more varied use of community resources, including volunteers, para-professionals, and ex-offenders, and greater public understanding and support. The Probation Officer as "Services Manager" Effective "treatment" involves not only the rehabilitation of the offender, but also his successful reintegration into the community. Rehab- ilitation involves strategies of intervention that are aimed at changing the individual client. Some of these strategies are counseling, casework, and psychotherapy. All of these are attempts to help the individual gain more insight into his personal problems in order to bring about behavioral change. A long-standing tradition of probation has been to offer counsel- ing and casework services to probationers, and the Task Force found that these continued to be assigned positions of high priority in the minds of most probation officers. When asked if they used any form of counseling, such as individual, family, or group counseling, almost all of the probation officers (95%) stated that they used at least one of these. It is quite clear that probation services are conceived largely in "casework" terms. Another major goal, as indicated in all of the Task Force Reports, is the successful reintegration of the offender into the mainstream of the community's life. This means academic and vocational training, the creation of employment opportunities, health and welfare services, legal services, housing, and so forth. While the probation officer cannot be expected to be an "expert" in all of these areas, he can be expected to coordinate and manage the dispensing of the variety of community services that can be made available to the probationers. The probation officer's role is most aptly described as a "services manager". His task is to locate the range of in- dividuals, agencies, and organizations that can be helpful in reintegrating the probationer back into the community. In this regard, the probation officer may have to spend more time with the agencies and organizations providing specialized services, than with his individual probationers. This is not to say that casework services will be less important than was pre- viously the case; rather, it means that the probation officer will not be as directly involved in the dispensing of specialized services. His task will be to identify the needs of the offender, locate the appropriate ser- vices, and coordinate them to his client's best advantage. Seen from this perspective, the probation officer is the central figure in the network of community services. There is an increasing amount of evidence to suggest that services provided by the probation officer as such are not as important as the ser- vices provided by other individuals and groups in the reintegration process. For example, one study investigated the reasons for the successful comple- tion of supervision of 75 Bay Area Federal probationers and parolees. 17 - 28 - This group was asked, "How do you account for your success on supervision?" Similarly, the officers and a friend or relative of each offender were asked, "How do you account for the offender's success on supervision?" The re- sponses to these questions are reproduced in Table V. In summarizing the results of this study, Sigurdson has noted that: "One is immediately struck with the high level of agreement in the response pattern of officers, offenders, and third parties interviewed. What is more significant is that only 20 percent of the officers themselves and even smaller per- centages of offenders and third party respondents--12 percent and 15 percent, respectively--associated the efforts of the supervising officer with successful completion of supervision. It is apparent from these findings that the officer plays a rather insignificant role in the rehabilitation of most of his charges. "18 This and other studies thus suggest that the probation officer may have a greater contribution to make on a broader community level in the role of arranging for and coordinating services to his probationers. Summary. Almost without exception, correctional authorities have endorsed the idea of classification and differential treatment of offenders. But two problem areas remain. The first pertains to which system or systems to employ in the field of probation. While I-level offers a good deal of promise, there are other typological systems as well. For example, the President's Corrections Task Force outlined the characteristics of a general offender typology of: prosocial offenders; antisocial offenders; psuedo- social offenders; and asocial offenders. 19 This classification also holds some promise. But at the present time, any of these systems should be con- sidered as tentative. It is clear that more research and experimentation are needed to determine the relative effectiveness of competing typological systems. The second problem area has to do with the assimilation of research findings into routine programs and policies. To date, despite the vast amount of research that has been conducted in various facets of corrections, especially in typological systems, a notable gap continues to exist between research findings and correctional practice. 20 Perhaps the most important problem facing all of corrections is to determine how best to translate re- search findings into viable agency policies. But despite the above concerns, the ideal of differential treatment should continue to be a major goal of probation, and indeed of all correc- tions. As the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice has pointed out: "More individualized and systematically differentiated treatment and control of offenders is (a) major requisite of more rational and effective corrections. "21 TABLE V FREQUENCY OF RESPONSE BY ORIGIN AND CATEGORY Origin of Response Category of Response Assistance Personal from Strengths Fear of Non- Family Employment or Religious Social Further criminal and or Emotional Probation or Ethical Respon- Legal Orientation Friends Training Growth Officer Principles sibility Action Other 75 Officers 41 43 34 34 15 6 9 14 4 29 I I 75 Offenders 43 40 40 39 9 13 11 21 8 Family or friends * 38 57 53 39 11 11 17 16 9 * For a variety of reasons it was possible to interview only 49 families or friends of the 75 offenders; for purposes of comparison, their responses were projected to a total of 75. Source: San Francisco Project, A Study of Federal Probation and Parole, Research Report No. 13, National Institute of Mental Health, 1967, Tables 13, 14,15. - 30 - Similarly, the Youth Authority's Community Treatment Project has demonstrated that: = it is the differential or intensive/extensive treatment aspects which appear to be of fundamental importance. "22 However, consistent with its tortoise-like tradition, probation has been slow to peer out from under its shell and move forward. The fact is that probation's main incentive has come from State subsidization and that, with- out increased subsidization and encouragement by the State, little additional progress is anticipated in the near future. Client Views of Treatment A variety of responses were received when probationers were asked what it was like being on probation. Many of the answers were in a negative vein. Clients told of their resentment to overt displays of authority on the part of the officers, of probation terms which were too long, and of regulations which seemed childish. Illustrative of the last point was a report from probationers recently released from jail that they were prohib- ited from visiting inmates, even family members, still in jail until a cer- tain time had elapsed after their own release. Frequency of contact with probation officers. A major concern of the Task Force was to determine from the clients' perspective how frequently they had contacts with their probation officer. Table VI presents information on frequency of contacts, average length of each contact, and whether the pro- bation officer had ever visited the probationer's home. The data show quite clearly that clients in subsidized units claimed having considerably more contact with their probation officer than those who were being supervised in non-subsidized units. In fact, throughout the study, most of the posi- tive comments were made by probationers in the subsidy units. At the same time, however, it should be noted that of the clients under subsidy supervision, fully 25% of the juveniles and 42% of the adults claimed seeing their probation officers only once a month or less. In addi- tion, only 28% and 34% of the juvenile and adult probationers, respectively, in subsidy programs estimated that their probation officer usually spent an hour or more with them. Thus, in terms of contacts, while there were defi- nite differences between subsidized and non-subsidized units, neither group estimated having a great deal of contact with their probation officer. It would appear, therefore, that the subsidy program has succeeded in increasing contact between the probation officer and his charges. In 1964, the Probation Study found that the average caseload for adult proba- tion officers was 209 cases, which was four times the recommended national standard and three and one-nalf times the recommended State standard. 23 For juvenile probation officers the median caseload size was 78.9 cases, sub- stantially in excess of any State or national standard. 24 While the 1964 study did not estimate the number of contacts probation officers had with - 31 - TABLE VI CLIENT CONTACTS WITH PROBATION OFFICERS (Percentage Distribution *) Juvenile Adult Non- Non- QUESTION Subsidy Subsidy Subsidy Subsidy (N=280) (N-440) (N=250) (N=1,077) How often do you usually see your probation officer? Never seen 1 3 -- 4 Once a week 42 17 24 3 Semi-monthly 34 21 35 6 Once a month 17 42 34 66 Every 2 or 3 months 6 12 5 14 Less often 1 5 3 7 How much time do you usually spend together? Few minutes 22 31 15 37 Half hour 50 49 50 51 An hour 23 17 23 10 Over an hour 5 3 12 2 Has probation officer ever come to where you live? Yes 85 74 73 32 No 14 25 25 62 Don't know 1 2 2 6 * Percentages may not add to 100% because of rounding. - 32 - caseloads of 209, judging from the comments made by judges, probation offi- cers, and others during panel interviews, it is clear that they were minimal. Since 1966, it has been possible to reduce some caseloads below 50 through the State subsidy program, and as Table VI shows, this has had the effect of increasing the amount of contact probation officers have had with their charges. Perceived helpfulness of probation officers. Both juvenile and adult probationers were asked to evaluate how helpful their probation officer was in a variety of areas. The results of these queries are presented in Table VII. There are several points worth noting about the data. First clients under subsidy supervision did not uniformly evaluate their probation offi- cer as being more helpful than the clients under non-subsidy supervision. In general, there are fairly consistent differences between the subsidized and non-subsidized units among juvenile probationers. Those under subsidy supervision claimed, more frequently than juveniles under non-subsidy super- vision, that their probation officer always helped them with any kind of trouble (42% vs. 27%), always helped with problems at school (32% vs. 21%), always helped when looking for a job (24% vs. 9%), and had a lot of personal concern (50% vs. 39%). However, the differences between adult probationers under subsidy and non-subsidy supervision were not nearly as great, nor as consistent. The only clear difference between these two groups was found to be in the area of employment. Thirty-one percent of the clients in subsidy units claimed that their probation officer was always helpful when looking for work or with problems on the job, while only 18% of the non-subsidy unit clients claimed this to be the case. Beyond this one area, however, the differences between the two groups are not significant. In short, the data suggest that the State subsidy program has had a more positive impact on the supervision of juvenile than adult probationers. A second point worth noting in Table VII is that in no instance did the clients enthusiastically endorse their probation officer. There is not one instance where at least a two-thirds majority checked the "most favor- able response category". Instead, the evaluations were less than enthusias- tic, or flatly negative. For example, when asked, "How can your probation officer help you most?", fully 38% of all the clients answered, "leave me alone", or something "other" than the response categories listed. In addi- tion, responses to this item did not differ between probationers who were and were not under subsidy supervision. Thus, in conclusion it appears that subsidy programs have not had an overwhelming impact on probationers' evaluations of the helpfulness of their probation officer. Whenever they do make a difference, it is likely to show up among juvenile, rather than adult probationers. Adult probationers under subsidy supervision are, however, quite likely to be helped in the field of employment. - 33 - TABLE VII CLIENT EVALUATION OF HELPFULNESS OF PROBATION OFFICERS (Percentage Distribution *) JUVENILE ADULT QUESTION Subsidy Non-Subsidy Subsidy Non-Subsidy When you have troubles of any kind, does (N=280) (N=440) (N=250) (N=1,077) your P.O. help you solve them? Always helps 42 27 38 32 Sometimes helps 34 33 29 23 Never helps 2 4 2 3 I have not needed help 23 36 31 42 Is your P.O. helpful to you when you have problems at school? Always helpful 32 21 11 5 Sometimes helpful 29 26 6 4 Never helpful 2 7 3 1 I have no problems at school 27 35 15 13 I am not in school 10 11 65 76 Is your P.O. helpful when you are look- ing for work or have problems on the job? Always helpful 24 9 31 18 Sometimes helpful 20 12 16 13 Never helpful 8 16 9 9 I have no problems at work 22 27 36 54 I am not of working age 26 37 7 7 Does talking with your P.O. help you stay out of trouble? Helps very much 33 32 42 40 Helps some 55 51 44 38 No help at all 12 14 14 16 P.O. does not talk with me I 3 -- 6 If you wanted help from your P.O., do you think you could get the help you want right away? Yes 56 51 65 62 No 12 11 9 8 Don't know 32 37 26 30 How much concern does your P.O. have for you? A lot 50 39 51 44 Some 23 28 30 29 None 3 6 4 5 Don't know 24 27 16 22 How can your P.O. help you most Be available when I want him 21 19 11 18 Listen more to what I say 12 11 10 11 Both of the above 33 35 34 32 Leave me alone 14 14 12 13 Other 21 21 34 26 *Percentages may not add to 100% because of rounding. - 34 - Perceived helpfulness of other persons. The clients were also asked to assess the helpfulness of persons other than their probation officer, as well as the helpfulness of their home, job, and probation rules, in keeping them out of trouble. Table VIII presents the appropriate data. The first thing to note is that no one person was singled out and identified as clearly being the most helpful in keeping the probationers out of trouble. For the juvenile probationers, parents were identified as being most helpful (37% of the subsidy probationers and 40% of the non-subsidy clients), while for the adult probationers, the spouse was singled out as being the most helpful (21% for the subsidized units and 25% for the non-subsidized units). Overall, parents, spouses, and relatives were evaluated as being the most helpful group of individuals. The juvenile probationers under subsidy supervision evaluated the pro- bation officer as being more helpful than did non-subsidy juvenile probationers (19% vs. 10%), again suggesting the program's greater impact among juvenile clients in reduced caseloads. Adult clients, however, did not rank the pro- bation officer as high. When the clients were asked to evaluate the helpfulness of their home and job, the picture changed. Both juvenile and adult offenders in subsidy and non-subsidy units asserted that a job helped them keep out of trouble. While the percentages are somewhat lower for juveniles than adults, the positive evaluation of employment is nevertheless clear. While a job was perceived to be an important deterrent to crime and delinquency, it will be recalled that at the same time fewer than one-third of all the clients said that their probation officer had always been helpful when looking for work or with problems on the job (Table VII). Both groups evaluated the home as being almost as important as the job in keeping them out of trouble. Juvenile probationers assigned less importance to the helpfulness of probation rules than did the adult probationers. Of the former group, 45% under subsidy supervision and 41% under non-subsidy supervision asserted that probation rules usually helped them to obey the law. The percentage rose among adult probationers to 53% for the subsidy units and 60% for the non-subsidy units. These data suggest that various conditions imposed on offenders when they are placed on probation will be more effective for adults than for juveniles. Apparently the greater experience and maturity of the adults plays a role in the relatively positive assessment of the helpfulness of probation rules. In short, the only factors that were clearly defined by probationers as being helpful were the job and the home. However, no specific individual was singled out as being definitely helpful. Of those evaluated, parents and spouses were mentioned as being moderately helpful. Probation rules were evaluated as being more helpful in obeying the law than were the proba- tion officers themselves. This was especially true of the adult clients under supervision. Finally, with only one exception, there were no signifi- cant differences between probationers under subsidy and non-subsidy super- vision; that exception was in the assessment of the probation officer among - 35 - TABLE VIII CLIENT EVALUATION OF HELPFULNESS OF OTHER INFLUENCES (Percentage Distribution *) Juvenile Adult Non- Non- Subsidy Subsidy Subsidy Subsidy QUESTION (N=280) (N=440) (N=250) (N=1,077) Who helps you most to stay out of trouble? Parent 37 40 17 15 Spouse 3 2 21 25 Relative 3 4 2 4 Friend who has been in trouble 8 16 8 7 Friend who has not been in trouble 11 11 14 10 Employer -- -- 3 2 Teacher 1 -- 1 -- Probation Officer 19 10 12 12 Police 1 1 2 2 No one helps 16 15 20 22 How much does a job help in keeping you out of trouble? A lot 55 47 64 70 Some 14 14 15 14 None 6 6 14 9 Not of age 25 33 8 6 What effect does your home have on keeping you out of trouble? A lot 47 50 63 62 Some 35 33 22 19 None 18 16 15 19 Do probation rules help you obey the law? Usually 45 41 53 60 Sometimes 36 32 24 21 Never help 11 14 18 12 Don't know 8 12 5 8 * Percentages may not add to 100% because of rounding. - 36 - juvenile clients. Those on reduced caseloads gave a more positive assess- ment of the probation officer than did those in large caseloads. Summary. The 1964 Probation Study found that caseloads in California were excessively large when compared to national and State standards. The study called for a State subsidy program aimed at reducing caseloads; and since 1966 the State has been subsidizing counties to allow at least some of the probation officers to work with caseloads of substantially less than 50 clients. The data presented in this section clearly indicate that the reduced size has resulted in increased contact between the officer and his client. There were great and consistent differences between clients under subsidy and non-subsidy supervision. However, the increased contact has not always resulted in providing clients with better service. The data suggest that the subsidy program has resulted in improving services for juvenile clients, but not necessarily for adult clients. For the latter group, the one major area where increased contact through reduced caseload size apparently has made a difference is in the area of employment. But in other areas the quality of service for adult probationers on reduced caseloads has not necessarily improved. Per- haps it is not surprising to see reduced caseloads making a greater differ- ence among juvenile than adult probationers. Being younger, the former group can more readily profit from the more intensive supervision made pos- sible by reduced caseloads. Finally, it should be noted that overall client evaluation of the quality of services provided by the probation officer was only moderately favorable. In no area did clients as a group enthusiastically evaluate his helpfulness. In fact, other persons were seen as playing an equal or more important role in the rehabilitation and reintegration process. This fact, however, should not be taken as evidence of the failure of probation, the subsidy program, or the individual probation officer. The probation officer cannot be all things to all persons; no one person can be. Rather, it should be taken as possible evidence of misplaced emphasis regarding the probation officer's role. As indicated in the previous section on Classification and Treatment, perhaps the focus needs to be shifted somewhat away from directly providing all services to the client and more towards enlisting the aid of various persons and groups in the community. Perhaps the probation officer should be viewed more as a "broker" or "manager of services in the community" than solely as a "caseworker". Within this framework, the probation officer would not be the person to provide, for example, all casework services to his client. Instead, he would often attempt to locate appropriate casework services in the community and make them available to the client. In short, the thrust of the probation officer's efforts needs to be directed more to- ward the community as well as the individual probationer--with the goal of involving the community in the reintegration process. Much of his job then would center around locating services, coordinating them, identifying areas where services do not exist, playing a role in creating them, and assessing their relative effectiveness in reintegrating the offender back into the community. - 37 - III. STRUCTURE The most typical organizational structure for probation departments involves the juvenile court judge as the appointing power for the chief probation officer. Most chiefs have an assistant chief, directors or chiefs of divisions or sections, staff supervisors and line workers to supervise the clients. Divisions typically are established for adult work, juvenile work, and institutions. Depending on internal factors, mostly relating to the size of the department, the assistant chief may be used in a direct line of administrative control, or may be used as a partial supervisor, or may be completely bypassed by the chief in the chain of command. Several de- partments in the study were found to have no assistant or division chiefs. The span of control of staff appeared to be adequate in most instances, al- though there were some instances where supervisory staff or the department head appeared to have far too many persons under their immediate supervision. In one of the sample counties, a chief probation officer was supervising nine officers, in addition to the juvenile hall staff, with help from an assistant who was carrying a half caseload. Another county had supervisors with as many as 19 workers in their units. Communication The problem of faulty communication was demonstrated by a failure on the part of some staff to comprehend departmental policies. Line workers in several departments felt communication was not coming clearly from the top and, in return, they were unable to communicate to administrators their lack of comprehension of departmental policies. When asked in the question- naire to estimate the clarity of agency philosophy and policy, most officers gave either a "middle of the road" answer, or asserted that philosophy and agency policy were unclear. A similar response came from both adult and juvenile workers in subsidy and non-subsidy units to the questions request- ins evaluation of communication within departments. However, line workers and supervisors rated the quality of downward and upward communication lower than did administrators and department heads. Details of these responses are reported in Table IX. In some instances, evidence of bypassing the chain of command was reported, resulting in some confusion on the part of those bypassed. This occurred both within departmental administrative structure and, more frequently, when there was a line of authority running to and from a judge (in which case the judge sometimes became the de facto administrator of the probation department). Several examples of good communication were noted in the counties studied. For example, in one of the small counties, both the chief and his assistant were readily available to staff; similarly, in one of the large counties, the formal structure was able to facilitate rather than inhibit communication. In both instances, the facilitation occurred because those in the lines of communication were able to talk and to listen. The oppor- tunity given some staff to share in decision-making also assisted the com- munication process. However, it is not a widely practiced procedure as the questionnaire results make clear. Staff were also asked to estimate the TABLE IX EVALUATION OF COMMUNICATION BY PROBATION STAFF (Percentage Distribution *) Department QUESTION Total Staff Line Workers Supervisors Administrators Heads (N=881) (N-727) (N=115) (N=28) (N=11) Estimate how clear the philosophy and policies of your agency are: Clear 28 29 22 39 55 In between 37 35 41 50 36 Unclear 35 36 37 11 9 Estimate how good the downward communication in your agency is: 38 I I Good 30 31 25 37 64 In between 33 32 36 44 36 Bad 36 37 39 19 -- Estimate how good the upward communication in your agency is: Good 27 25 29 28 64 In between 36 34 44 54 27 Bad 38 40 27 18 9 Estimate how good the lateral communication in your agency is: Good 61 62 58 43 100 In between 30 29 35 50 : Bad 9 9 8 8 -- * Percentages may not add to 100% because of rounding. - 39 - extent to which they had a voice in administrative decision-making. Their responses tended heavily toward the "no voice" end of the scale--two-thirds of the line workers and 45% of the supervisors said they had little or no voice in this area. In summary, it is evident that the quality of communication has not improved since the 1964 Probation Study. That study strongly suggested in- ternal changes within departments that would result in improved communication, and an improved understanding of the philosophy and policies of probation. 25 However, the Probation Task Force found that the situation in the area of communication was substantially the same as it was in 1964. Accordingly, the Task Force suggests that the whole area of communication needs immediate attention and that efforts should be made to clarify and communicate philoso- phies and policies to all staff in a more straightforward fashion, particu- larly in smaller sized departments. Upward and downward channels of communi- cation are always in need of reinforcement and data clearly indicate that such reinforcement is needed at this time in many counties. Job Satisfaction A number of items in the questionnaire explored job satisfaction of the staff. As seen in Table X, the adult probation officers expressed some- what more dissatisfaction with their job than did the juvenile probation officers. The former group was somewhat less satisfied with promotional opportunities, workloads, and general working conditions. They were defi- nitely not satisfied with the adequacy of clerical and stenographic help (also a problem in 1964), and estimated the morale of their agencies to be somewhat lower than did the juvenile probation officers. It was generally agreed among staff members that adult supervision appears to have the least priority of any part of probation. Some probation officers expressed the feeling that their supervisors and chief probation officers were non-supportive, inadequate, and suppressive of new ideas. Staff was asked by questionnaire if their agency encouraged flexibility and creativity; 42% replied that they felt their agency discour- aged creativity. Probation officers also voiced serious concern over the lack of risk-taking and progressiveness within their agencies, feeling this to be inhibiting the application of new treatment methods. Over half (53%) responded on the questionnaire that their departments were conservative; only 20% saw their departments as progressive. Table X also shows that a number of substantial differences in job satisfaction existed between subsidy and non-subsidy probation officers. The former group clearly expressed more satisfaction with workloads, and with adequacy of clerical and stenographic help. In 1964, the Probation Study found the workloads to be excessive, and many line workers, supervi- sors, and administrators expressed concern over unmanageable loads. 26 It appears that the State subsidy program has had a favorable impact in this regard, and this is reflected by the more favorable attitudes expressed by probation officers supervising reduced caseloads. However, they were less satisfied with the promotional opportunities, and with their salary. They

nara / coll_rr-0840 / doc

[Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Field Services, July 1971 (1 of 5)

ID: 118564912
Type: document

Citation Image

Metadata

id	118564912
sourceUrl	https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564912
contentType	document
identifierLocal	840
collections	Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit Reports
iiifBase	https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P33-008-2017.pdf
thumbnailUrl	https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P33-008-2017.pdf
largeImageUrl	https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P33-008-2017.pdf
imageCount	1
hasImages	yes
source	import

Additional Source Fields

url	https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564912
naId	118564912
coverageEndDate	logicalDate 1975-12-31 year 1975
coverageStartDate	logicalDate 1967-01-01 year 1967
levelOfDescription	fileUnit
recordType	description
ocrSource	nara-archive

Pages

Page 1 OCR

Survos folio item chat

Ask the Scholar

Scholar Source Context