Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
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
118564914
label
[Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Field Services, July 1971 (2 of 5)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564914
contentType
document
title
[Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Field Services, July 1971 (2 of 5)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Reports
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564914
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
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
0d1154f6e550256e
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 (2 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/
TABLE X
JOB SATISFACTION AND WORKING CONDITIONS AS PERCEIVED BY PROBATION STAFF
(Percentage Distribution *)
Subsidy
Non-Subsidy
QUESTION
Total Staff
Juvenile
Adult
Line Workers
Line Workers
(N=880)
(N=483)
(N=397)
(N=198)
(N=522)
Are you basically satisfied with the
promotional system in your agency?
Yes
46
49
42
35
48
No
54
51
59
65
52
Do you have sufficient clerical and
stenographic help?
Yes - more than necessary
8
8
8
18
4
Yes - sufficient
55
62
46
68
52
No
37
29
45
14
44
Is your workload:
40 I
Completely manageable
17
17
18
29
10
More or less manageable
64
69
60
66
66
Unmanageable
18
15
23
5
25
Generally, are your working conditions:
Good
57
58
56
64
53
Fair
34
34
32
29
36
Poor
9
7
11
7
11
Is your salary:
Good
53
51
56
48
55
Fair
42
45
38
42
41
Poor
5
5
6
9
4
Estimate how high the morale in your
agency is:
High
30
32
28
26
32
In between
42
43
42
41
40
Low
28
26
30
33
28
*
Percentages may not add to 100% because of rounding.
- 41 -
also estimated the level of morale to be lower than was estimated by the
non-subsidy probation officers. Thus, while the subsidy program has had
some obvious effects in bringing about improvements in working conditions
in some areas, it has not resulted in improving conditions in other areas.
Low morale continues to be a problem among a significant number of proba-
tion officers.
Suggestions for Change
Several changes were suggested which would affect the structure of
probation departments and the way they operate. One suggestion would make
probation entirely a supervision program by removing the investigative func-
tions it now performs. Another suggestion would further reduce the work of
officers supervising cases by having all revocation of probation matters
handled in court by the district attorney. A third suggestion, frequently
voiced, was to place the appointing power for all chief probation officers
in the hands of the boards of supervisors. With regard to this last point,
Task Force Staff feels that, once a defendant is placed on probation, the
court's role should be limited to insuring that the rights of society and
each client are protected. However, the court should not be involved in
determining specific correctional strategy in individual cases or in setting
policy for probation programs. Because judicial assignments are rotated
regularly in many counties, the smooth administration of all phases of pro-
bation, including supervision, would be enhanced if judges no longer influ-
enced departmental administrative operations. The following observations,
made ten years ago by the Governor's Commission, continue to be valid today:
"The present administrative arrangement produces an un-
necessary comingling of judicial and treatment functions
without parallel in any other court. In our view, there
is no more logic for a juvenile court judge to administer
a probation department than for a criminal court judge to
be administratively responsible for the district attorney's
office, county jails, or honor farms. In the adult field,
these functions have been recognized as separate and dis-
tinct; the same should apply to the juvenile field.
"The present administrative relationship between juvenile
court judges and probation departments is an inappropriate
historical vestige, created 50 years ago under totally
different social and governmental conditions. The large
scale probation departments of today bear little resem-
blance to their historical counterparts. Nowadays, pro-
bation departments have extensive administrative respon-
sibilities, whereas a half century earlier they had only
minor administrative responsibilities. Today, probation
departments not only have large professional staffs, but
also operate clinics, juvenile halls, and camps. Fifty
years earlier, their staffs were small and no institutions
were administered. "27
- 42 -
When judges exert influence in both departmental policies and programs,
and when budgetary control for departments is exercised by county chief ad-
ministrative officers and boards of supervisors, chief probation officers
frequently find themselves caught between dictates of the judges and fiscal
controls exercised by the county.
Judges should be no more involved in the administration of probation
departments, on a de facto basis or otherwise, than they are in respect to
any other branch of government. Unfortunately, judges who are not normally
trained as administrators sometimes are reluctant not to inject themselves
into the administration of the probation department. Of the 15 counties
studied, staff perceived situations in at least two counties where the court
clearly dominated the administration of the probation department and, in an-
other county, a judge complained about local statutory actions which had
reduced the court's ability to dominate the administration of the probation
department.
IV. RESOURCES
Community Resources
When asked about the most important resources needed to do an effec-
tive job, the most frequently mentioned factors had to do with placement
resources, help for drug abusers, employment and educational opportunities,
mental and medical health services for clients, and financial aid for pro-
bationers in need.
One of the major areas of need outlined by the 1964 study on proba-
tion was the development of specialized community correctional facilities
to handle juvenile offenders exhibiting different types of problems and needs.
There was an acute shortage of foster homes, community treatment centers, and
virtually no specialized facilities for taking care of the female delinquent.
The Probation Task Force found that in many instances these shortages
continue to exist even though seven years have elapsed since the former study.
Many workers expressed the wish to have a variety of living situations avail-
able to meet the needs of the homeless offender and those needing placement
away from their own homes. Hostels, group homes, and foster homes are needed
as well as non-residential day care facilities. Particular concern was ex-
pressed about the need of placement resources for female offenders.
One of the needs most frequently identified by staff was the Tack of
adequate specialized facilities to deal with the drug abuser. While in 1964,
drugs were not as much a part of the youth culture as they are today, the
staff at that time did express the need, as mentioned above, for more facil-
ities dealing with offenders presenting special problems. In the current
study the Task Force found much the same concern expressed by staff. Many
probation officers felt unable to cope with the needs and problems of drug
offenders, and expressed the desirability of having both residential and
daytime community treatment centers. However, the Task Force did find various
- 43 -
new approaches to the supervision of drug abusers now in use. Some depart-
ments concentrated drug abusers in specialized caseloads; chemical anti-
narcotic testing was used by some departments; others placed probationers
in group counseling or intensive supervision caseloads; still others operated
drug education programs for offenders and their families. In many instances,
however, drug abusers were placed in general caseloads and received the same
treatment as non-drug offenders.
However, while it is apparent that drug users often need special types
of treatment, the question arises as to whether it is better to supervise
caseloads consisting of all drug abusers, or whether they should be distrib-
uted in caseloads and programs consisting of other types as well. Tradition-
ally, an attempt often has been made to group these offenders in the same
program or caseload. Recently, a number of questions have been raised re-
garding the wisdom of this approach. For example, in a recent discussion
of the California Rehabilitation Center for drug addicts, it was pointed out
that:
=
the very existence of CRC as a separate institution
for addicts, and the very notion of a group session of
addicts, reinforce the idea of the addict as a separate
kind of person, thereby creating unanticipated and very
undesirable side effects. The (program) emphasizes con-
sciousness of kind because it is a separate structure
for addicts. What is more important, the group therapy-
sessions have the explicit function of developing a com-
munity of men involved in elaborate introspection about
themselves as a special and different case. The import-
ance of an identity as an addict is set against the "normal"
or nonaddict world.
⑉
A side effect of the success of this program may be to
instill in the ex-addict a sense of his identity as an
addict who best belongs among others of the same type--
other addicts. It may be that the ex-addict comes to
believe that "squares are really different", that there
is something about one who takes drugs which does make a
qualitative difference. The unanticipated consequence
of such a community, whether it is a therapeutic community
or a living community, is that the members may come to feel
a kinship with each other which supercedes their involvement
with those outside the community. "28
Another area of need identified by the 1964 Probation Study was in
diagnostic and psychiatric services. The study found that, almost without
exception, staff in all 17 probation departments falling within its scope
indicated a lack of resources for diagnostic workups on defendants being
considered for probation. 29 Even metropolitan centers, where major re-
sources for psychiatric services were located, felt the existing need.
Psychiatric services in rural areas were virtually non-existent. 30
- 44 -
In the present study, the Probation Task Force found that staff con-
tinued to express concern over the lack of mental as well as medical health
services for clients under their supervision. The general feeling was ex-
pressed that more persons in need of mental health services are under pro-
bation supervision than in the past, and thus there is an increased demand
for these services.
Expanded resources in the areas of employment and education were called
for, with officers seeing the need for job training and more opportunities for
clients to work. The need for special help in schooling was felt most acutely
for those who have dropped out of school and for those who do not function in
the usual public school program.
A further resource needed is financial aid to provide the basic neces-
sities of life for destitute clients.
It is an accepted maxim that for most offenders the time when guidance
and financial assistance are most needed is at the outset of supervision.
Walker comments on this point:
"The days or weeks immediately after release, when the
ex-prisoner has not yet begun to earn money and has not
yet settled down in a home, are said to be the time when
he is especially likely to commit another offence
his
first wage-packet may seem so far off that he steals in
order to raise ready money. "31
A number of probationers interviewed by the Task Force spoke of their
need for food, housing, clothing, and transportation while they were trying
to establish themselves in the community. Many clients felt such assistance,
as well as help in finding and maintaining employment, were the critical
issues related to success in the community. It will be recalled that, when
probationers were asked how helpful a job was in keeping them out of trouble,
69% of 1,296 adults sampled said a job helped "a lot" and an additional 14%
said a job helped "some". Many probationers wrote comments at the end of
the questionnaire about their need for help in finding employment.
Profile of Staff
The best available data indicate that probation offers one of the
most significant prospects for effective programs in corrections. 32 State
and Federal correctional authorities have recognized its great value as well
as economy, and as a result probation has become the dominant correctional
alternative for persons convicted of crime. In 1965 slightly more than half
of the offenders sentenced to correctional treatment were placed on probation,
and according to recent estimates, by 1975 the figure will increase to almost
60%. 33 Hence, the quality of manpower in the field of probation is an ex-
tremely important consideration in the overall corrections picture and is
closely related to the ultimate success of the field.
- 45 -
Below is a profile of some of the more significant characteristics
of probation staff in the 15 counties surveyed by the Task Force.
1. Sex
Nearly 75% of total staff are male.
72% of line workers are male.
Only 18% of supervisors are female.
75% of administrators are male.
2. Age
Nearly 50% of total staff are in the 25-35 range, but only 27%
of supervisors are in this range.
33% of total staff are in the 36-50 range, but over 50% of
supervisors are in this range.
Only 6% of total staff are below 25; only 12% are over 50,
though 43% of administrators (not including department heads)
are over 50.
3. Race
Only 16% of total staff are not white (9% black, 2% Latin-American,
3% Oriental, and 2% other).
83% of line workers are white, 87% of supervisors are white.
4. Years Full-Time Experience in Corrections
50% of total staff have 5 years or less experience, but only 9%
of supervisors have this amount.
Only 12% of total staff have over 15 years experience, but over
25% of the supervisors have this amount as do over 75% of the
administrators.
50% of total staff have 3 - 10 years experience.
5. Time on Current Assignment
Over 70% of total staff have 2 years or less.
80% of supervisors have 5 years or less.
Only 4% of total staff have been on the same assignment over
10 years, though 22% of administrators are in this category.
6. Recommending Corrections As A Career
79% of total staff would, but 16% are not sure; only 5% would not.
7. Future Career Plans of Staff
67% of total staff plan to make a career in corrections, 25% are
not sure; only 9% plan to leave.
- 46 -
Training
One of the major concerns in the correctional services has revolved
around the question of training for staff. This was a concern in the 1964
Probation Study, as it is in the present Report. The same 15 counties were
surveyed in both studies, and the probation officers were asked to specify
the level of formal education they had attained. For purposes of comparison,
the results from the 1964 study are shown in Table XI along with the results
from the present Task Force Survey. It can be seen that striking similarities
existed in the educational level of the two groups. In both studies, fully
96% of the probation officers responding to the questionnaires had achieved
at least a bachelor's degree. It is to the credit of probation in California
that a high level of education has been maintained throughout the years, and
it should be noted that this compares very favorably with the educational
level achieved by probation officers around the United States. 34 Table XI
also shows the college major, and it can be seen that in 1964, as today,
sociology was the most popular major, followed by the field of psychology.
In addition to the level of education already attained, the Probation
Task Force asked the probation officers if they were currently attending
school. The results, shown in Table XII, indicate that one-third of the
staff were attending school at the time of the survey. Most of them were
either taking job-related college courses (beyond the bachelor's), or were
working on their master's degree. Thus, it appears that high priority con-
tinues to be assigned to formal education even after individuals obtain
employment in the field of probation.
Table XII also shows that approximately three-quarters of the staff
had taken some job-related courses or specialized training since entering
the field of corrections. However, only 56% claimed that their agency en-
couraged further education by providing stipends, giving employees time off
and so on. Over one-quarter (27%) stated that their agency encouraged fur-
ther education, but only on their own time, and 11% asserted that their
agency did not encourage further education.
In short, the formal educational background of the probation officers
surveyed is beyond reproach. Almost all of them were graduated from college,
many were pursuing advanced degrees, and many were employed in agencies which
encouraged further education. The high educational quality, noted in the
1964 Probation Study, has continued to exist.
However, while the probation officers were well-educated formally,
at the same time they strongly felt the need for additional training aimed
specifically at improving their effectiveness as probation officers. In
staff discussions with Task Force interviewers, the need mentioned most
frequently was to improve counseling skills. This included individual,
group, and family counseling, as well as crisis intervention. There was
considerable demand for orientation training for new staff and for some
kind of basic uniform training requirements which would lead to a program
of certification for deputy probation officers. The details as to whether
this could be accomplished best through a State Academy, through regional
centers, or in local trainee programs seemed less important to people than
- 47 -
TABLE XI
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF PROBATION OFFICERS
IN 1964 AND 1970 IN 15 SAMPLE COUNTIES
(Percentage Distribution *)
1964ª
Probation Study
Present Study
(N=1,317)
(N=880)
Education:
High School
2
1
High School w/some College
1
--
2 years College
1
3
Bachelor's Degree
67
66
Some Graduate Work
19
20
Master's Degree
11
8
Doctorate Degree
--
1
College Major:
Sociology
23
20
Psychology
16
17
Social Work
10
10
Criminology/Corrections
8
10
Law-Prelaw
2
2
Public Administration
2
5
Social Science
9
10
Police Science-Criminal Justice¹
--
2
Education²
--
6
Other
17
17
General Social Science³
7
--
None⁴
4
--
* Percentages do not add to 100% because of rounding.
a Source: California Board of Corrections, Probation Study, State of Calif-
ornia, (Sacramento, 1965), P. 73.
1 Was not a category in 1964 Study
2 Was not a category in 1964 Study
3 Was not a category in present Study
4 Was not a category in present Study
TABLE XII
STAFF PARTICIPATION IN ACADEMIC STUDIES
(Percentage Distribution *)
Subsidy
Non-Subsidy
QUESTION
Total Staff
Juvenile
Adult
Line Workers
Line Workers
(N=880)
(N=483)
(N=397)
(N=198)
(N=521)
Are you attending school now:
Yes - but not job-related
5
4
8
5
7
Yes - working on Bachelors (job-related)
1
1
2
1
2
Yes - working on Masters (job-related)
14
17
9
14
14
Yes - working on Doctorate (job-related)
1
1
2
1
1
Yes - job-related, but not working on
degree
12
15
8
19
10
No
67
62
72
61
66
48 I I
Since you have been employed in corrections,
have you taken any job-related courses or
specialized training? (Do not include in-
service training)
Yes
73
77
69
82
66
No
27
23
31
18
34
Does your department encourage further
education?
Yes - by stipends, agency time off, or
similar aids
56
60
52
45
61
Yes - but only on one's own time,
money, etc.
27
25
30
33
23
No
11
10
13
17
10
Don't know
5
5
5
5
6
*
Percentages may not add to 100% because of rounding.
- 49 -
obtaining support for the establishment of entry level standards and meaning-
ful in-service training.
A special need for training was noted among first line supervisors,
as they often are not included in training programs for other staff. This
is in keeping with the findings of the Joint Commission on Correctional Man-
power and Training which reported on a study of training in probation de-
partments across the country. The Commission found that less than half the
departments serving over 100,000 population provided in-service training for
supervisors and that only 16% of the departments in smaller areas did SO. 35
The void in training for supervisors also was noted by the 1964 Probation
Study. In that study, many panelists interviewed strongly suggested improved
training for supervisory personnel as a means of improving overall adminis-
trative practices. 36 Substantial numbers felt that trained middle management
and supervisory personnel were the basic ingredient of an effective probation
operation. 37
The recent California Correctional Training Project reported that few
supervisors had received training in the principles and methods of supervision
before they were promoted and that opportunities were very limited for obtain-
ing such training while on the job. 38 In brief, the need for training of
administrative personnel continues to exist notwithstanding the expressed
concerns of those working in the field, both in 1964 and again in 1970.
Line workers in subsidy programs had a heavier involvement in training
than those in regular supervision, but there appeared to be a spillover effect,
partly due to rotation, which resulted in increased training for all staff.
Twenty-nine percent of the staff sampled by the questionnaire said no
in-service training existed and 48% said they had no ongoing training program.
The percentage of subsidy and non-subsidy line workers reporting that in-
service training was not existent or ongoing is shown in Chart II. Fifty
percent more non-subsidy than subsidy line workers in juvenile assignments
said they were receiving no training, although little difference was reported
between workers in adult assignments. The other point to be noted is that
no training was reported by a slightly higher percentage of adult subsidy
workers than juvenile non-subsidy workers. The most significant finding is
that nearly 50% of all staff, except juvenile subsidy workers do not receive
ongoing training. This is especially discouraging in light of the fact that
the 1964 study of probation found that a program of ongoing training for staff
development was deemed to be one of the most critical needs facing probation. 39
Only two chief probation officers in the sample counties reported that they
considered their in-service training, even for subsidy workers, to be intense.
Responses to questions about the amount of time spent in training and how
people felt concerning the relevancy and individuality of in-service training,
can be seen in more detail in Table XIII.
One of the more interesting training proposals noted by the Task Force
was one county's plan to train a small number of officers to work with clients
in family planning and family financial problems. This plan resulted from a
recognition that a number of clients needed assistance related directly to
family management problems and from a concomitant recognition that staff needed
special training for this task.
- 50 -
CHART II
TRAINING FOR PROBATION LINE WORKERS
20%
TOTAL SUBSIDY
43%
30%
TOTAL NON - SUBSIDY
47 %
13%
JUVENILE SUBSIDY
38%
28%
JUVENILE NON- SUBSIDY
47 %
30%
ADULT SUBSIDY
49%
32%
ADULT NON- SUBSIDY
48%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Percent
No training at all
No ongoing training
TABLE XIII
STAFF DESCRIPTION OF IN-SERVICE TRAINING
(Percentage Distribution *)
Subsidy
Non-Subsidy
QUESTION
Total Staff
Juvenile
Adult
Line Workers
Line Workers
(N=880)
(N=483)
(N=397)
(N=198)
(N=522)
In your agency, is the in-service
training for employees of your level
(check ALL answers that are applicable):
Existent:
Yes
71
75
67
80
70
No
29
25
33
20
30
Relevant:
Yes
62
66
57
68
60
51 I I
No
38
34
43
32
40
Individualized:
Yes
27
30
25
33
26
No
73
71
75
67
74
Ongoing:
Yes
52
54
49
57
53
No
48
46
51
43
47
If you receive in-service training,
how many hours per month?
1 - 2 hours per month
45
40
50
30
53
3 - 4 hours per month
20
24
15
20
18
5 - 9 hours per month
19
19
20
22
17
10 or more hours per month
16
18
14
28
12
*
Percentages may not add to 100% because of rounding.
- 52 -
The question of what roles the State and counties take in the delivery
of future training programs was of particular interest to the Task Force,
especially since counties overwhelmingly asked for the State to provide an
increasingly greater part in the training of all personnel. Over 70% of the
presiding superior court judges, chairmen of boards of supervisors, and county
administrative officers in the sample counties supported this position.
In summary, it is clear that probation officers feel the need for
additional and more relevant training. However, the subject of training is
generally approached with a casework orientation, that is, concerned with
improving supervision techniques, counseling skills, and so on. There is
little, if any, concern expressed for training that would be consistent
with the idea of "managing" community services to reintegrate offenders.
Further, there is no uniformity of training efforts around the State.
The variation ranges from nothing to highly organized programs that provide
something for all staff members. However, the preponderance of existing
training is limited to personnel in subsidy assignments. Fortunately, there
seems to be some spillover to personnel in regular supervision units and it
appears that subsidy has had real impact on some department heads in making
them aware of the values and the need of training for all staff. An appall-
ing lack of uniformity exists in services given to probationers as a result
of the lack of uniform training programs for staff. This is one of the major
areas which needs to be addressed by probation in the immediate future.
Use of Nonprofessionals
The nonprofessional group is comprised primarily of volunteers, student
workers, and para-professionals such as "New Careerists" (defined as persons
placed in entry positions newly created at a level commensurate with their
education and experience and from which they are expected to advance), in-
cluding ex-offenders. The Task Force found considerable support voiced for
the use of nonprofessionals to assist in probation supervision, but despite
this verbal support their actual use was quite limited, with some notable
exceptions. Even the verbal support was far from unanimous, with some staff
vehemently opposing the use of anyone but professionals. Table XIV shows
responses to questions about the use of nonprofessionals.
It is clear that any successful use of nonprofessionals necessitates
proper planning, selection, training, and supervision. For example, Scheier
has warned that not investing adequate time and resources often will lead to
failure of a volunteer program. The experience of those departments using
nonprofessionals indicated that initially staff costs for managing the pro-
gram outweighed the return received, but eventually the balance changed as
the output of services from the nonprofessionals increased.
The use of nonprofessionals is just beginning to expand in California,
but it is an area which already has proven its worth and gained wide accept-
tance elsewhere. In Great Britain, for example, the use of volunteers is one
of the most important segments of the correctional system. A recent British
report on voluntary service described these persons thusly:
TABLE XIV
STAFF INTEREST IN USING NONPROFESSIONALS
(Percentage Distribution *)
Subsidy
Non-Subsidy
QUESTION
Total Staff
Juvenile
Adult
Line Workers
Line Workers
(N=880)
(N=483)
(N=397)
(N=198)
(N=522)
Could you use volunteers to help you
in your normal work?
Yes
71
78
63
77
69
No
29
22
37
23
31
Could you use "New Careerists" or other
para-professionals to help you in your
normal work?
Yes
84
87
80
85
83
No
16
13
20
15
17
53 I I
If a "New Careerist" or other para-
professional was available to assist
you, would you want to make use of his
services?
Yes
79
84
74
86
77
No
8
5
11
6
9
Not Sure
13
11
15
8
14
Should "New Careerists" and other
para-professionals be allowed and
encouraged to work their way up to
regular line and supervisory positions
in your agency provided they meet the
necessary requirements?
Yes
91
92
89
91
91
No
9
8
11
9
9
*
Percentages may not add to 100% because of rounding.
- 54 -
"Volunteers are best viewed as the activist minority
within the public at large. They should be seen,
not as substitute probation officers trying to fill
the role of amateur social case-worker, but as rep-
resentatives of the public, prepared to offer some
part of their time to assisting in the reintegration
into society of men and women who its system has
condemned "41
Volunteers tend heavily to be middle class and thus can serve as ef-
fective mediators between probation departments and the middle class community.
As yet, little experience has been reported of attempts to use volunteers from
the lower economic class. In the Los Angeles County VISTO (Volunteers in
Service to Offenders) Program, volunteers actively provide services to regular
probationers as well as to subsidy units. VISTO offers tutoring, transporta-
tion, legal assistance, counseling, and a whole range of other services. The
use of community workers or probation aides has become common in some subsidy
units and is said to offer much promise in meeting the basic needs of proba-
tioners in a treatment sense and of providing a liaison between officers and
clients.
There is a growing interest in using ex-offenders as "New Careerists"
in the correctional field, and several probation departments have embarked
on such programs. The value in following this course of action was pointed
out by Empey. He listed four potential payoffs accruing from the use of
offenders in correctional positions, stating such use would:
"1. Seek to use his knowledge as a resource rather
than a liability;
2. Involve him actively as a reformer rather than
as a perpetual enemy or a persistent dependent;
3. Constitute a rite of passage back from a criminal
to a non-criminal status;
4. Provide him with a career which could be a source
of personal and social esteem rather than a source
of stigma and degradation. "42
Among the positive reports received by the Task Force on the use of
nonprofessionals, one came from a county that successfully used volunteer
addicts as assistant leaders with groups of drug users and their parents.
Other reports from both staff and clients favorably mentioned the liaison
role played by New Careerists between officers and the neighborhoods where
clients reside. A number of clients reported that these para-professionals
were able to relate to ex-offenders, and urged that probation departments
hire more such persons. In corroboration of this, over half the clients
indicated in the questionnaire that they had been helped to stay out of
trouble by someone who also had been in difficulty. Another positive re-
sult of using ex-offenders and New Careerists comes from the effect they
- 55 -
have on professional staff who get an opportunity to work closely, often for
the first time, with an offender and a member of a minority group.
The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice has strongly endorsed the idea of using nonprofessionals, including
ex-offenders and volunteers, in the field of corrections. 43 Frequently these
persons occupy crucial links between the offender and the community's re-
sources, and can thus be instrumental in facilitating the reintegration
process.
It is abundantly clear that a vast source of additional correctional
manpower is to be found among volunteers and para-professionals. Probation
departments in California cannot afford to overlook this tremendous resource.
Increasingly, the professional is being asked to perform administrative tasks
and a variety of other responsibilities that leave him with less time to
work directly with the offender. Moreover, the offender frequently has needs
requiring the services of persons with specialized skills. Many volunteers
and para-professionals possess skills in limited areas which could be used
effectively and economically by the probation officer. The very high general
level of education attained by most probation officers makes them uniquely
suited to coordinate and work with the spectrum of individuals, groups, and
agencies located in the community. A significant part of this role would
be to recruit, coordinate, and direct the activities of volunteers and para-
professionals, including ex-offenders. 44 The Probation Task Force strongly
recommends expanding the use of these persons in the field. An effective
division of labor between the professional worker and the non-professional
is clearly possible and would lead to the dispensing of more adequate correc-
tional services with minimum cost to the community.
State Consultative Services
Responsibility for the major portion of the State's consultative ser-
vices for the counties lies with the Community Services Division of the Youth
Authority. This Division has only 21 staff members available to the 58 count-
ies for consultation and advice. In addition, the Division performs liaison
and staff services to organizations that are concerned with serving children
and youth, including liaison between probation departments and groups con-
cerned with youth. With the Community Services consultants has rested much
of the responsibility for coordinating public and private organizations in
order to promote and/or develop community-wide programs for the prevention
of delinquency. Programs supported by State delinquency prevention funds
are also audited by the consultants.
Consultation and technical assistance consists of assisting communities
to integrate and coordinate their criminal justice system. In addition,
inspections are conducted in juvenile halls, camps, ranches, and schools
and any jails in which juveniles are held. Training is one of the major
areas of concern and consultants provide programs for law enforcement, pro-
bation and related agencies. Both one-day and residential training sessions
are provided.
- 56 -
One of the major responsibilities of the Division is the administra-
tion OF probation subsidy. Consultants from the Community Services Division
advise probation departments, judges, county officials and others about the
subsidy program and may assist counties in drawing up plans for participating
in the program. The Division must review and approve or disapprove all plans
submitted. The Division also is responsible for interpreting standards which
have been set for subsidy programs, for ongoing operations of all subsidy
programs, and for annual audits of these programs.
Ideally, each consultant in the Division is available with expertise
in prevention and treatment programs tailored to particular problem areas
within the counties. However, the 13 chief probation officers in the sample
counties who responded to a questionnaire from the Task Force indicated that
the impact of Youth Authority consultants ranged from extremely helpful to
no help at all. Many of the chiefs believed that the consultants were over-
worked by the various duties required of them, often leaving them little
time to spend in the probation departments. Because of this situation,
several consultants were not even contacted whenever problems arose in the
probation departments. Two counties reported that they had requested help,
but none had ever been forthcoming. Eight counties reported their satis-
faction with the expertise of the consultants.
The Department of Corrections provides no formal services to proba-
tion departments although anti-narcotic testing has been provided on a con-
tractual basis and occasional cooperative training programs are arranged
between local parole offices or institutions and probation departments.
The Board of Corrections provides consultative services to counties
and cities operating jails through its field representative for jail services.
In addition, there is a statutory provision for review of construction plans,
standard setting, and inspection of existing jail facilities.
The California Council on Criminal Justice exists for the purpose of
reducing the incidence of crime and delinquency by providing financial sup-
port to various agencies having criminal justice responsibilities. CCCJ
is also established to provide statewide planning and coordination in the
criminal justice field. Grants have been made to a large number of public
and private agencies in order to assist the Council in its purpose of re-
ducing crime. Council funds come from the Federal government under authori-
zation of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
In summary, local probation departments appeared receptive to and
desirous of State consultative services, but indicated that sufficient
services are not now available from the State. The one area in which many
counties were resistant to State intervention was in setting and enforcing
mandatory standards or establishing mandatory regulations--unless these
applied to State subsidized programs. Only 9 of the 17 chief probation
officers in the study counties favored the State establishing and enforcing
standards for non-subsidized programs or facilities, while 15 of the 17
favored this when the State also subsidized the programs or facilities.
Similarly, only 37% of the presiding judges of superior courts, chairmen
of boards of supervisors, and county administrative officers favored manda-
- 57 -
tory standards by the State, unless there are accompanying State subsidies,
in which case, 76% of the same local officials favored such State-imposed
mandatory standards.
V. EVALUATION
While wide support generally is given to the concepts of "evaluation"
and "research", with a few notable exceptions, little has been done to put
them into operation. Similarly, little is understood as to their meaning
or the role research and evaluation can play.
Most probation personnel indicated that they believed there was a
place for research and evaluation in probation. There was, however, dissent
to this position, coming in the main from those who did not wish to get in-
volved in additional responsibilities and those not clear as to what value
might accrue from research and evaluation.
Some held high hopes that research and evaluation could enable staff
to know which supervision programs worked, as well as their cost-effective-
ness. Other staff had expectations that research and evaluation could guide
decision-making, evaluate the effectiveness of individual officers, lead
toward simplified differential treatment programs, and move toward the use
of a base expectancy scale. Many workers asserted that they received little
feedback from the research that was being done and thus concluded it must
not be relevant to supervision. The Task Force noted a lack of understanding
about research and evaluation on the part of workers and administrators,
particularly in areas where their contact with research was limited to sub-
mitting data to the Bureau of Criminal Statistics.
It is clear that the State should play a major role in conducting
research, whether through continuation of the present procedure of compiling
statewide statistical reports by the Bureau of Criminal Statistics and con-
ducting State research in the Department of Corrections and the Youth Author-
ity, or whether through joint efforts with counties in special studies.
Systematic evaluation of the subsidy program was initiated by the
Youth Authority in September, 1970, by collection of data on a monthly basis
indicating caseload movement in the subsidy program. It should be noted,
however, that in previous years the Youth Authority made several attempts
to secure funds for subsidy evaluation, but was unsuccessful. It was de-
cided in 1970 that the Youth Authority would contract with the Bureau of
Criminal Statistics of the Department of Justice. By utilizing the Bureau's
reporting system, the Youth Authority will have access to data allowing com-
parison of subsidy cases with non-subsidy cases. This will permit a wider,
more flexible evaluation which will be better equipped to answer questions
regarding subsidy's impact on the field of probation. However, it will be
some months before enough data are collected for meaningful evaluation. 45
One suggestion of particular interest to the Task Force was for the
State or some private group to establish a "think tank" unit where persons
- 58 -
knowledgeable and interested in the field could gather for concentrated long
range planning about supervision and related concerns.
Systematic evaluation of the goals, objectives, and operation of pro-
bation supervision is difficult, because these factors often do not lend
themselves readily to evaluative measures. However, in the opinion of the
Task Force, it is extremely important to establish some means of evaluating
probation supervision. Strong support was given this position by criminol-
ogists Morris and Hawkins who have indicated that no correctional practice
should exist or be introduced without an accompanying program of evaluation.
They contended that:
00 half the time of all probation officers is now wasted
by the application of their services to those who do not
need them (and who should be bound over or on suspended
sentence or supervised by other than skilled caseworkers)
and to those who will not respond to their efforts (and
who need more forceful casework supervision than the
average probation officer can provide); and that it would
be quite possible in a few years of evaluative research
greatly to reduce that wastage, and at the same time
better to protect the community. "46
Wilkins has stated that the key elements of evaluation are: (1) information,
(2) decision variety, and (3) pay-off or purpose. In this regard, he has
defined one of the goals of evaluation as, "the discovery of that decision
which, in the light of the available information, maximizes the probability
of obtaining the pay-off desired". 47
VI. ISSUES OF THE FUTURE
The Future of Probation
As stated previously in this Report, the local community should have
primary responsibility in delivering services to the offender. The State
should have the overall enabling responsibility. Every effort should be
made to retain the offender in the community to maximize his chances for
successful reintegration. As the Juvenile Institution Task Force Report,
as well as the Reports dealing with county jails and prisons have pointed
out, the offender should be incarcerated only as a last resort.
There is little doubt that probation has one of the most important
roles to play in the reintegration process, and that many persons now being
incarcerated in institutions could be effectively supervised in the community
without seriously jeopardizing the safety of the community. Perhaps the best
known effort to determine the extent to which probation could be used was a
demonstration project conducted in Saginaw, Michigan, over a three-year
period. 48 In that project, the judges agreed to increase the number of
persons placed under the supervision of trained probation officers. Prior
to beginning the project, the judges had used probation in about 50% of the
- 59 -
cases; with the project's inception, they increased the use of probation to
80%. Despite the 60% increase in the use of probation, there was no in-
crease in the revocation rate over the three-year demonstration period. 49
There is little reason to believe, therefore, that increasing the
use of probation will lead to diminished community safety. In California,
between 1961 and 1967, the percent of adults granted probation after a
superior court conviction increased by 31%. Yet the probation violation
rates remained virtually constant. 50 This was true for violations involving
new crimes, as well as those involving the violation of conditions of proba-
tion. The Task Force strongly encourages the increased use of probation as
a sentencing disposition.
As the number of clients on probation has increased, the need for a
greater variety of services has also increased. As stated earlier in this
chapter while the probation officers in California are exceptionally well-
educated, they cannot be expected to possess all of the specialized skills
required to serve the expanding client population effectively. The proba-
tion officer cannot hope to master all of the requisite skills. The field,
therefore, should move away from an exclusive casework orientation and move
toward a balancing of this traditional role with the newer perspective out-
lined in this chapter. As indicated earlier, this perspective would define
the probation officer's role as a "manager of services" where the focus
would be on determining the needs of probationers, locating the required
specialized services, coordinating the services, and evaluating their rela-
tive effectiveness in the reintegration process.
Consistent with the emphasis stated above, the move of the future is
for probation to get out of large office buildings and make use of "store-
front" locations, mobile offices, and cars. Use of a community correctional
center might be appropriate for consolidating some services for probationers,
including in-residence treatment, a 24-hour crisis intervention service, and
work with groups.
With regard to groups, support came from a number of probationers for
an increase in group work although many cautioned against mixing different
types of offenders in the same group, particularly if some were heavy drug
abusers. (The possible dysfunctional consequences of too heavy a concentra-
tion of the same type should be recalled.) About 75% of those who have been
in group counseling reported in the questionnaire that this process helped
them. Support for group work is noted in the writings of criminologist
Howard Jones who observed that the probation officer cannot do his job well
unless he is able to work with groups. He added:
"There are certain opportunities for influencing offenders
which exist only in the group situation--in the form of
mutual interaction and stimulation within the group, and
the exploitation of the influence of the public opinion
of the group over its members. "51
From several areas of the State, proposals were made to the Task
Force to add to supervision rolls clients who have not been sentenced. It
- 60 -
was suggested that use of informal probation for adults, similar to that
used with juvenile offenders under Section 654 Welfare and Institutions Code,
be permitted.
The suggestion to remove the officer from the adversary role in juve-
nile court received a great deal of support, particularly from supervision
officers who must appear in court as a part of their job. Several reasons
underlie the desire of SO many probation officers to get out of the adversary
role. Since 1961 there have been significant changes in the California juve-
nile court scene. These changes have included the frequent appearance of
public defenders and private attorneys on behalf of minors, a decline in the
formality of the court, and more stringent rules relating to evidence and
proof. They have all contributed to making the job of the probation officer
in court more difficult. The biggest objection, however, is the difficulty
in resolving the conflict of roles which has been imposed on probation offic-
ers because of an increase in the adversary nature of juvenile proceedings.
Probation officers expressed strong displeasure over having to be a friend
and counselor in supervision and a prosecutor in court.
One of the most widely supported hopes for the future of probation
line workers lies in horizontal promotions. Over 90% of 884 staff expressed
their support for such lateral pay increases for line workers. Supporters
of such a program state it would improve case supervision because of in-
creased stability of staff, continuity of service to the client, and, most
significantly, because highly competent caseworkers can be promoted without
leaving the jobs at which they are most skilled.
Another area where an improvement in supervision is expected to re-
sult is through better public relations. The inadequacy of public education
on behalf of corrections, especially probation, is well-documented. A survey
of California correctional public relations, conducted in 1962, concluded:
"
it appears that public information is a much needed,
but neglected aspect of the correctional field.
"....While the public relations vacuum in corrections has
frequently been the topic of discussion within the pro-
fession, very little material of a constructive, concrete
nature has developed. "52
The sad plight of public education on behalf of corrections was again noted
by the Louis Harris and Associates public opinion survey organization, which,
in November, 1967, reported:
=
the American public does not know as much about
corrections as it should. Public attitudes towards
corrections are being formed within a factual vacuum. "53
The questionnaire results clearly illustrate the gap which staff correctly
perceive between corrections and public understanding or support. Eighty-
four percent of all staff felt the public did not know "what corrections is
all about" and 57% believed the public does not support corrections. Data
- 61 -
collected by staff revealed that, of California's 60 probation departments,
only one has a public information officer.
Probation as Viewed by Clients
Although some clients saw probation as trying to help them, many looked
on it as a punitive and impersonal service. Some preferred being interviewed
at home by the officer and complained about being required to travel to the
office, particularly when, upon arrival at the probation department, they
found that their officer was not available to see them. Clients looked fav-
orably on having an officer who is available to them, who is fair, and who
helps them deal with the causes of their problems. Frequently, the differ-
ence in viewpoints expressed by clients about probation stemmed from the
kind of supervision service they had received, with positive feelings being
expressed more often by those under subsidy supervision.
Many probationers did not adequately understand the conditions of
probation imposed on them, and thus were at a disadvantage in fulfilling
them. Sometimes clients were given printed conditions with no explanation,
and at times even the special conditions were not clarified. Clients fre-
quently saw the conditions of their probation as vague, ambiguous, irrele-
vant, or inappropriate to them as individuals. A number of probationers
noted the inconsistency of enforcement, and commented how this leads to
disrespect for the conditions and for probation itself. Clients complained
of conditions imposed on them that were unrelated to their problems. Cited
as examples were restrictions on movements, such as not leaving the county
without permission, not entering a place where alcohol is served, early
curfew, and requirements for reporting to the office on specified dates to
be "checked off". A written statement of rights and responsibilities would
help clarify the conditions and also could provide guidelines for the client
who needs to obtain assistance from an officer outside of office hours.
The Task Force believes that it is important to minimize the number
of conditions of probation as much as possible and to impose only those that
are appropriate to the individual offender so as to help bring about an im-
proved attitude toward probation on the part of its clients.
- 62 -
FOOTNOTES
¹Peter G. Garabedian, "Policy Questions in Delinquency Control:
Perspectives of Police and Probation Officers", in Peter G. Garabedian
and Don C. Gibbons (editors), Becoming Delinquent (Chicago: The Aldine
Publishing Company, 1970), pp. 285-299.
2Report of the Assembly Interim Committee on Criminal Procedure,
"Juvenile Court Process", State of California (Sacramento, 1970).
3Elaine B. Duxbury, Youth Service Bureaus, A Progress Report, De-
partment of Youth Authority, State of California (Sacramento, January, 1971),
p. 60.
⁴California Penal Code, Section 1203.
⁵Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Adult Probation, 1969, State of Calif-
ornia (Sacramento, 1970), p. 13.
61bid., p. 17.
7California Legislature, Preliminary Report on the Costs and Effects
of the California Criminal Justice System and Recommendations for Legisla-
tion to Increase Support of Local Police and Corrections Programs, State of
California (Sacramento, 1969), P. 190.
⁸[bid., p. 97.
⁹President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, Task Force Report: Corrections (Washington: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1967), p. 34.
10Board of Corrections, Probation Study, State of California (Sacra-
mento, 1965), pp. 140-141.
llIbid., pp. 33-40.
2president's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, op. cit., p. 29.
13 Clyde Sullivan, Marquerite Q. Grant, J. Douglas Grant, "The Develop-
ment of Interpersonal Maturity: Applications to Delinquency", Psychiatry,
20 (November, 1957). Other classification systems were also mentioned by
the probation staff. Some of the more commonly mentioned were: "FIRO-B",
the maximum-medium-minimum system, base expectancy and lesser known systems.
Additionally, one large county has developed a system known as "workload
determined by plan", whereby the officer and his supervisor designate the
amount of time needed for each case assigned. When the amount of time
needed on a particular caseload equals 40 hours a week, the caseload is
considered to be full and no more cases are added. Records must be kept
on the time devoted to the various needs of each case and a quarterly review
is held to re-assess the amount of time needed by each client.
- 63 -
Footnotes
14 Marquerite Q. Grant, Interpersonal Maturity Classification: Juvenile,
Department of the Youth Authority, State of California (Sacramento, 1961).
15For a general critique of I-levels, see Don C. Gibbons, "Differential
Treatment of Delinquents and Interpersonal Maturity Levels Theory: A Critique,"
The Social Service Review, 44 (March, 1970), p. 22-33.
16Clayton A. Hartjen and Don C. Gibbons, "An Empirical Investigation
of a Criminal Typology," Sociology and Social Research, 54 (October, 1969),
p. 56-62.
17J. D. Lohman, A. Wahl, R. M. Carter, and A. E. Elliott, "An After-
view of Supervision," Research Report No. 10, The San Francisco Project: A
Study of Federal Probation and Parole (Berkeley: University of California,
School of Criminology, 1966).
18Herbert R. Sigurdson, "Expanding the Role of the Nonprofessional,
in Paul Lerman (editor), Delinquency and Social Policy (New York: Praeger
Publishers, 1970), pp. 343, 345.
19 President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, op. cit., pp. 20-22.
20peter G. Garabedian, "Research and Practice in Planning Correctional
Change," Crime and Delinquency, 17 (January, 1971), pp. 41-56.
21President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, op. cit., p. 18.
22 Department of Youth Authority, The Status of Current Research in
the California Youth Authority, State of California (Sacramento, July 1970),
p. 5.
23 Board of Corrections, op. cit., p. 34.
24Ibid.
25 Ibid., pp. 22-23.
26 Ibid, pp. 33, 185.
27 Report of the Governor's Special Study Commission on Juvenile Justice,
Part I, State of California (Sacramento, 1960), pp. 39-40.
28Troy Duster, The Legislation of Morality: Laws, Drugs, and Moral
Judgment (New York: The Free Press, 1970), pp. 149-150.
29 Board of Corrections, op. cit., p. 40.
- 64 - -
Footnotes
30Ibid., p. 41.
31Nigel Walker, Crime and Punishment in Britain (Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 1968), p. 161.
³²president's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Criminal Justice, op. cit., p. 27.
33 Ibid.
34 Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, A Time to
Act (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1969), p. 21.
³⁵Ibid., p. 51.
³⁶Board of Corrections, op. cit. pp. 22-40.
37 Ibid., p. 33.
³⁸Department of Youth Authority, Training for Tomorrow, State of
California (Sacramento, 1970), p. 48.
39Board of Corrections, op. cit., p. 30.
40Ivan H. Scheier, Using Volunteers in Court Settings, Department of
Health Education and Welfare (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1969), p. 2.
41 Home Office, The Place of Voluntary Service in After-Care, Second
Report of the Working Party (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1967),
p.l.
42 Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, Offenders
as a Correctional Manpower Resource (Washington: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1968), pp. 11-12.
43president's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Criminal Justice, op. cit., pp. 102-104.
44 Ibid., p. 102.
45 Department of Youth Authority, Probation Subsidy Evaluation Progress
Report No. 1, State of California (Sacramento, December 1970), p. 1.
46 Norval Morris and Gordon Hawkins, The Honest Politician's Guide to
Crime Control (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970), P. 252.
47Leslie T. Wilkins, Evaluation of Penal Measures (New York: Random
House, 1969), p. 135.
- 65 -
Footnotes
48Cited in the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Adminis-
tration of Criminal Justice, op. cit., p. 28.
49Ibid.
50California Legislature, Preliminary Report on the Costs and Effects
of the California Criminal Justice System and Recommendations for Legisla-
tion to Increase Support of Local Police and Corrections Programs., op. cit.,
p. 80.
51Howard Jones, Crime and the Penal System (London: University
Tutorial Press, 1965), p. 265.
52 Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, Corrections,
The Public, and You (Boulder, June 1968), p. 17.
53 Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, The Public
Looks at Crime and Corrections (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1968), P. 24.
CHAPTER V
PROBATION SUBSIDY
I. OVERVIEW
Probation subsidy in California is a system whereby the State pays
participating counties for each juvenile or adult who is retained in the
community instead of being committed to the Youth Authority or the Depart-
ment of Corrections. This system, which became operative on July 1, 1966,
has been an unprecedented success in reducing the rate of commitments to
State institutions, and has had far reaching effects and implications, not
only in probation departments, but throughout the entire correctional field.
A modified version of the California probation subsidy law has been enacted
by the State of Washington and information collected by the Task Force in-
dicated that other states are also giving consideration to variations of the
California model.
The intent of the California Legislature in enacting the probation
subsidy program was to increase the protection of the citizens, to permit
a more even administration of justice, to rehabilitate offenders, and to
reduce the necessity for commitment of persons to State correctional insti-
tutions. The hope was to rehabilitate offenders locally, by strengthening
and improving the supervision of persons placed on probation by the juvenile
and superior courts of the State, thereby reducing the necessity for commit-
ment to State institutions. 2
The program, unlike other subvention efforts, is based upon a "per-
formance" principle wherein the State pays the counties for results achieved.
Probation departments are encouraged to reduce their rates of commitment to
State correctional facilities in return for payment based upon the average
cost to the Youth Authority of a new commitment with one institutional stay
followed by a successful parole experience. This is referred to as the
"career cost" of the offender and is calculated by combining the institu-
tional cost-per-bed, a pro-rated sum of construction costs based on a 30
year institution life expectancy, average length of stay in institutions,
annual parole costs, and average time on parole for a first commitment.
Thus, the funds to pay for improved probation services come from savings
made by reducing the number of offenders entering the more expensive State
system. Probation departments were expected to work with five or six clients
for the same financial investment the State would expend on one. Probation
subsidy was intended not only to reduce commitments, but to bring about im-
provements in supervision and treatment services provided by county proba-
tion departments. The main vehicle for this purpose was the requirement
that the departments establish "special supervision" caseloads with "sub-
stantially below the maximum workload of 50 valid active supervision cases"
per deputy. 3
In summary, the probation subsidy concept involved the tying together
of a powerful economic incentive to a particular type of correctional approach,
that of a community-based probation system, rather than State institutional-
ization. It can be said, without qualification, that the subsidy picture
- 67 -
represents the most innovative approach to correctional field services in
California history. Though the number of persons on probation being served
under this system is only slightly more than 11% of the State's total pro-
bation population, 4 there has been a strong impact upon all of probation.
By creating a requirement to provide intensive supervision to those persons
in special subsidy caseloads, subsidy has proved to be a powerful stimulus
to professional creativity in methods of treating or supervising those who
might otherwise be committed to a correctional institution. As a result,
in both subsidy and regular supervision units, there has developed an aware-
ness that supervision of probationers can be more meaningful by using special
strategies such as reduced caseloads, more frequent contacts, more supportive
treatment of the client in his own environment, and additional training of
the probation officers in casework methods, group therapy and family group
counseling.
II. STATISTICAL DATA
The formula for determining subsidy requires several calculations re-
lated to the rate of commitment of offenders to the State. The average rate
of commitment per 100,000 population is called the "base commitment" rate,
and is determined on the average of past performance in the five-year period
1959-1963, or the two years 1962-1963, whichever was higher. The base com-
mitment rate is the permanent standard against which increases or reductions
in commitments are measured. The expected number of commitments for the
current year is established by the State for each county, based on past per-
formance and current population. Subsidy is granted if the county commits
fewer cases than the number expected. The amount paid by the State varies
from $2,080 to $4,000 per case, depending on the percent of decrease be-
tween the base commitment rate and the current commitment rate, with almost
all participating counties currently receiving the maximum rate.
Probation subsidy is a voluntary program, in which 46 counties par-
ticipated during the fiscal year 1969-70. Of the 46 counties, 44 had earn-
ings totaling $14,200,160, and their average decrease in commitment rate
was 30% for that year. The number of expected commitments to State insti-
tutions from 1966-67 to 1969-70 was 41,668, but the actual number was 30,862--
a reduction of 10,806. In the same years, county earnings were $43,443,510.5
Table XV shows the performance of 14 sample counties in expected and
actual commitments, amount of subsidy earned, and the percent decrease in
commitment rate for each year from 1966 through 1970. The peak years for
earnings by most sample counties were 1967-1969. At the same time, there
was a drop in earnings by a number of counties for 1969-70.
Recent estimates by the California Youth Authority show total savings
to the State in institutional costs for juveniles and adults, as a result
of probation subsidy as follows:
TABLE XV
REPORT ON PERFORMANCE OF COUNTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PROBATION SUBSIDY PROGRAM
County Base
Commitment
Actual
Percent
Estimated
Commitment
Expected
Actual
Reduction
Commitment
Decrease
Population
Rate
Commitments
Commitments
Number
Rate
In Rate
Subsidy
ALAMEDA COUNTY
1966-67
1,047,500
64.5
676
440
-236
42.0
34.9
$ 944,000
1967-68
1,065,500
64.5
687
372
-315
34.9
45.9
1,260,000
1968-69
1,069,900
64.5
690
381
-309
35.6
44.8
1,236,000
1969-70
1,051,100
64.5
678
422
-256
40.1
37.8
1,024,000*
*Special consideration as provided by Section 1825(g) W & I Code was given to
Alameda County. The sum of $1,190,504 given in lieu of earnings.
DEL NORTE COUNTY
1966-67
18,100
117.8
21
9
- 12
49.7
57.8
48,000
68 I I
1967-68
18,000
117.8
21
11
- 10
61.1
48.1
40,000
1968-69
16,700
117.8
20
11
- 9
65.9
44.1
36,000
1969-70
16,600
117.8
20
5
- 15
30.1
74.4
60,000
FRESNO COUNTY
1966-67
415,600
70.6
293
209
- 84
50.3
28.8
336,000
1967-68
420,700
70.6
297
238
- 59
56.6
19.8
236,000
1968-69
417,300
70.6
295
228
- 67
54.6
22.7
268,000
1969-70
417,500
70.6
295
206
- 89
49.3
30.2
356,000
HUMBOLDT COUNTY
1966-67
106,000
56.1
59
52
- 7
49.1
12.5
28,000
1967-68
105,900
56.1
59
27
- 32
25.5
54.5
128,000
1968-69
101,500
56.1
57
32
- 25
31.5
43.9
100,000
1969-70
101,000
56.1
57
40
- 17
39.6
29.4
68,000
TABLE XV (continued)
County Base
Commitment
Actual
Percent
Estimated
Commitment
Expected
Actual
Reduction
Commitment
Decrease
Population
Rate
Commitments
Commitments
Number
Rate
In Rate
Subsidy
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
1966-67
6,957,200
63.5
4,418
4,369
- 49
62.8
1.1
$ 104,615
1967-68
7,032,400
63.5
4,466
3,841
-625
54.6
14.0
2,415,625
1968-69
7,101,400
63.5
4,509
3,244
-1,265
45.7
23.0
5,060,000
1969-70
7,000,800
63.5
4,446
3,150
-1,296
45.0
29.1
5,184,000
SACRAMENTO COUNTY
1966-67
623,000
62.0
387
437
-
70.0
--
1967-68
631,700
62.0
392
451
I
71.4
:
1968-69
631,100
62.0
391
509
-
80.7
-
1969-70
636,600
62.0
392
331
- 61
52.3
15.6
244,000
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
69 I I
1966-67
657,400
70.3
462
382
- 80
58.1
17.4
303,200
1967-68
667,700
70.3
469
371
- 98
55.6
20.9
392,000
1968-69
683,900
70.3
481
370
-111
54.1
23.0
444,000
1969-70
687,500
70.3
483
413
- 70
60.1
14.5
246,960*
*Special consideration as provided by Section 1825(g) W & I Code was given to
San Bernardino County. The sum of $393,774 given in lieu of earnings.
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
1967-68
747,500
67.9
508
408
-100
54.6
19.6
400,000
1968-69
748,700
67.9
508
355
-153
47.4
30.2
612,000
1969-70
706,900
67.9
480
451
- 29
63.8
6.0
81,200*
*Special consideration as provided by Section 1825(g) W & I Code was given to
San Francisco County. The sum of $264,581 was given in lieu of earnings.
TABLE XV (continued)
County Base
Commitment
Actual
Percent
Estimated
Commitment
Expected
Actual
Reduction
Commitment
Decrease
Population
Rate
Commitments
Commitments
Number
Rate
In Rate
Subsidy
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
1966-67
278,800
93.7
261
168
- 93
60.3
35.6
$ 372,000
1967-68
284,400
93.7
266
136
-130
47.8
49.0
520,000
1968-69
288,100
93.7
270
129
-141
44.8
52.2
564,000
1969-70
293,900
93.7
275
143
-132
48.7
48.0
528,000
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
1966-67
247,400
59.5
147
96
- 51
38.8
34.8
204,000
1967-68
249,800
59.5
149
95
- 54
38.0
36.1
216,000
1968-69
254,900
59.5
152
103
- 49
40.4
32.1
196,000
1969-70
70 I I
260,900
59.5
155
106
- 49
40.6
31.7
196,000
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
1966-67
927,300
38.2
354
212
-142
22.9
40.1
568,000
1967-68
966,800
38.2
369
256
-113
26.5
30.6
452,000
1968-69
1,011,900
38.2
387
259
-128
25.6
33.0
512,000
1969-70
1,032,600
38.2
394
307
- 87
29.7
22.3
348,000
SUTTER COUNTY
1968-69
40,900
57.1
23
11
- 12
26.9
52.9
48,000
1969-70
42,400
57.1
24
14
- 10
33.0
42.2
40,000
TABLE XV (continued)
County Base
Commitment
Actual
Percent
Estimated
Commitment
Expected
Actual
Reduction
Commitment
Decrease
Population
Rate
Commitments
Commitments
Number
Rate
In Rate
Subsidy
TEHAMA COUNTY
1966-67
28,300
102.5
29
13
- 16
45.9
55.2
$ 64,000
1967-68
28,500
102.5
29
10
- 19
35.1
65.8
76,000
1968-69
29,100
102.5
30
9
- 21
30.9
69.9
84,000
1969-70
29,800
102.5
31
10
- 21
33.6
67.2
84,000
TULARE COUNTY
1966-67
191,300
65.0
124
60
- 64
31.4
51.7
256,000
1967-68
192,800
65.0
125
62
- 63
32.2
50.5
252,000
1968-69
192,400
65.0
125
60
- 65
31.2
52.0
260,000
1969-70
194,000
65.0
126
70
- 56
36.1
44.5
224,000
71 I I
- 72 -
TOTAL SAVINGS 1966-72
(including estimates for 1970-71 and 1971-72)
Annual Cost
Accumulative Cost
to 1971-72
Support
Cancelled Construction
$22,090,000
$67,590,000
Closed Institutions
5,302,820
9,012,000
New Institutions Not Opened
4,700,000
13,800,000
Construction
95,576,000
TOTALS
$32,092,820
$185,970,820
TOTAL EXPENDITURE FOR SUBSIDY
- 59,925,705
TOTAL ESTIMATED SAVINGS TO STATE
$126,045,115
III. KEY PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
In spite of the apparent successes with probation subsidy, a number
of increasingly difficult problems and focal issues have developed.
1. A growing county disenchantment with the State over its failure
to keep pace with rising costs is evident throughout the State.
No change from the original payment table of 1966 has been made,
although Section 1825 of the Welfare and Institutions Code pro-
vides that the Director of the Youth Authority, with approval
by the Director of Finance, annually may adjust the dollar amounts
to reflect changes in cost to the State of maintaining persons in
its correctional institutions. On two occasions, in 1970 and
again in 1971, legislation was introduced to increase the State's
payment rate. The 1970 Bill failed passage, and, as of this
writing, the 1971 Bill is pending.
2. Counties have only one year to use subsidy earnings. Actually,
they can use earnings of the previous year while planning for the
following year, but, under this arrangement, counties must operate
with uncertainty since there is no guarantee that the current year
earnings will, next year, support the developing programs. There-
fore, a substantial amount (over three million dollars) in subsidy
- 73 -
earnings have gone unused since 1966 and have become lost to the
counties.
3. The probation subsidy system, as it now exists, is inequitable
in two notable ways: (1) the commitment rate in some counties
was low during the base years; and (2) commitment rates fluctuate
and are dependent many times on circumstances outside the control
of the probation department. These circumstances include "lenient"
or "harsh" judges, the trend in recent years toward more serious
crimes of violence, and the voluminous increase in drug users,
many of whom require incarceration for their own protection.
Consequently, a sizeable number of counties are experiencing
difficulties in either reducing commitments even further or in
maintaining their program level from year to year.
4. Results of a questionnaire sent to the 46 participating counties
by the Human Relations Agency Task Force on Probation Subsidy
indicated that only 57% (25) of 44 respondents planned to carry
out their 1970-71 probation subsidy programs at the level sub-
mitted to the Youth Authority. Thirty-nine percent (17) said
they did not plan to do so (of these 17 counties, 14 said they
were going to reduce the size of their programs), and 2 counties
did not indicate a definite decision. Other results from the
same questionnaire indicated that only 25% (11) would use county
funds to partially or fully support their special service programs;
70% (31) said they would not use county funds.6
5. Possibly because of the time restriction on the use of earnings,
there has been relatively small use of the funds for the develop-
ment of services extending beyond special supervision. There has
been little development of support programs, such as special group
homes or services for the probationer which would assist in manip-
ulation of his environment (employment, loans, etc.)
6. The most recent report on probation subsidy, completed in October,
1970, recommends a 14% increase in payments to counties based on
the Consumer Price Index rise between 1966-67 and 1969-70. This
amounts to $560 above the $4,000 per case reduction. 7 This Index
takes into account only the value of the dollar. It does not
relate to the cost of governmental services on any level. It
also does not even reflect the decrease in the dollar value from
1963-64, the year on which the $4,000 California Youth Authority
"career cost" was based (this would have shown a Price Index rise
of 21.4%, equal to $856). 8 In any event, by using the Consumer
Price Index, the issue of meeting the full increase in cost of
operating subsidy programs in the counties is avoided. Also
avoided are the related problems of increased burdens on county
departments due to increasing numbers and types of referrals,
plus the fluctuations in judicial decisions.
7. A large portion of the counties agreed that they could reduce
commitments even further if they were able to:
- 74 -
a. Increase skills and capabilities in the diagnosis and classi-
fication of cases in order to develop successful treatment
approaches.
b. Develop more useful and specific kinds of staff training to
promote skills and abilities to work with clients.
C. Initiate or enlarge programs such as foster and group homes,
residential facilities for wards, programs for female clients,
and support services in the special programs.
d. Expand subsidy type programs to a larger portion of overall
caseload.9
IV. SUMMARY
Since 1966, the State has committed itself to a probation subsidy
program which today presents a paradox. On the one hand, the program has
drastically reduced commitments to State institutions and has saved the
State an estimated $126,000,000 over and above the cost of subsidy; it has
also significantly bolstered local probation services, and has been used
advantageously by 46 of the State's counties.
On the other hand, there has been no revision in the State's reim-
bursement rate to counties since 1966, despite the fact that the cost of
providing local correctional services has steadily increased (conservative
estimates made by some counties to Task Force staff were 30% to 40%). In
addition, there is a strong feeling that the current plan imposes a hard-
ship upon counties which had a low commitment rate prior to 1966; in effect,
counties are "punished" for having done a good job before the subsidy pro-
gram was implemented. Further, since the reimbursement is directly related
to commitment rates, the earnings (or losses) are often determined by factors
over which the probation department has little or no control. As a result,
counties are often unable to maintain a developed program from year to year.
It is now unmistakably clear that a new approach must be taken, not
only in respect to subvention for probation services, but for other segments
of the local correctional continuum as well. It is therefore suggested that
a series of priorities be established for subsidization of all local correc-
tional efforts, and that such subsidies require conformity with any standard
which may be established by the State, in cooperation with counties. The
Task Force's recommended plan will be outlined in the final chapter.
- 75 -
FOOTNOTES
¹Based on interviews with correctional administrators in Minnesota,
Wisconsin and Illinois.
2Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 1820, Article 7, Legislative
Intent, State of California.
3Department of Youth Authority, Rules, Regulations, and Standards of
Performance for Special Supervision Programs, State of California (Sacramento,
revised October 1969), p. 9.
⁴Department of Youth Authority, Probation Subsidy Evaluation Progress
Report No. 1, State of California (Sacramento, December 1970), p. 7.
⁵Department of Youth Authority, State Aid for Probation Services,
State of California (Sacramento, October 1970), pp. 11-12.
⁶Ibid., pp. 30-31.
7Ibid., Appendix L-1.
81bid.
9Ibid., pp. 33-34.
CHAPTER VI
PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
In counties around the State a number of programs worthy of special
note were brought to the attention of the Task Force. A few will be re-
ported here with the understanding that this is not an effort to be all-
inclusive, but merely to present a sample of good and progressive programs,
which may be worthy of consideration by other jurisdictions. An effort also
has been made to select programs from various sections of the State, as well
as from both populous and non-populous counties.
I. USE OF OFFENDERS AND EX-OFFENDERS
Humboldt County recently inaugurated a counseling program for selected
juvenile probationers which was unique in that the counseling groups were
led by Department of Corrections inmates from north coast conservation camps.
Teams of two inmates conducted each of three groups in a series of six weekly
sessions. The leaders used an approach of complete openness about their own
histories, avoided telling the probationers how to live, refrained from "scare
tactics", and attempted to establish a relationship of understanding with each
group member.
Reaction of the juveniles was seen as positive by the Humboldt County
Probation Department, and it was reported that the probationers seemed to re-
late well to the inmates in talking over their mutual experiences and prob-
lems in life. The response by the adult inmates was reported to be enthu-
siastic.
This program was possible because of an amendment to the Penal Code
several years ago permitting honor camp inmates to participate in community
betterment programs.
The Santa Clara County Juvenile Probation Department has established
a program wherein offenders and ex-offenders serve as group leaders in psycho-
drama sessions. The Department, assisted by outside experts in psychodrama,
has provided leadership training for selected offenders and ex-offenders.
In turn, these youth have led ongoing psychodrama groups for juvenile pro-
bationers and also have provided workshop training for correctional profes-
sionals in Northern California.
II. WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM
The Probation Department in the County of Santa Cruz operates a pro-
gram which provides work experience for selected emotionally and mentally
handicapped juvenile offenders, and additionally gives them remedial
academic training and intensive casework service. Unique in this program
is the cooperative involvement of county government (probation department),
the local school district, and a private agency (Goodwill Industries).
- 77 -
Wards are given a half-day of instruction and work experience by
Goodwill Industries and a half-day of remedial classwork by school person-
nel. Special casework supervision is provided by probation officers. The
program is reported to have effected substantial progress with the most
difficult of cases.
III. CRISIS INTERVENTION
A concentrated weekend program has been established in Los Angeles
County for male juveniles served by the Foothill District Probation Office.
The Probation Department provides a structured weekend program held in an
open, secluded camp setting where staff can provide an effective alternative
to out of home placement for a young person facing a family crisis situation.
The program is set up to provide an opportunity for the probation officer
to intervene decisively in the life of a ward without serious disruption of
that life pattern.
Weekend activities at the camp include group and individual therapy,
including encounter groups led by probation officers and volunteer post-
graduate students. Recreation and work also are included in the flexible
program, which can be varied according to differential treatment needs.
Parental approval is required before the court orders a boy into the pro-
gram and parents must also indicate their willingness to participate in
such treatment conferences or group therapy sessions as the probation officer
might determine.
IV. DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT
A variety of drug abuse programs are to be found throughout the State.
The "drug school" program in Alameda County is one which appears to be re-
ceiving positive response from the participants and the community. Juveniles,
along with at least one parent, are referred to the "school" by their proba-
tion officers. The program consists of six weekly sessions lasting one to
two hours each. Lectures are given and question and answer periods are led
by attorneys, district attorneys, probation officers, and policemen. How-
ever, the core of the program is found in small discussion groups composed
of young people and parents, with parents and their children always in dif-
ferent groups. Barriers to communication are broken in these groups and the
youth learn to talk with adults and vice-versa. This is a first step in
opening lines of communication and acceptance between parents and their
children and in providing a basis for building a resistance to further drug
abuse.
V. DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT
The special supervision unit of the Yuba County Probation Department
is illustrative of programs making good use of differential treatment techniques
- 78 -
in the supervision of adult and juvenile probationers. Caseloads, not ex-
ceeding 30 cases, are classified according to the I-level system. After
each case is assigned to the unit a treatment plan is developed in accord-
ance with the I-level classification and outlining specific treatment tech-
niques, goals, and evaluation procedures. Differential treatment methods
appropriate to each case are employed, e.g. group counseling is usually
used with I₃ types. Staff is well trained in I-level and other specialized
treatment techniques and maintains a high level of training activity. In
addition to the direct treatment effected by the probation officer there
are a number of supportive services which have been developed. These in-
clude tutorial services from Yuba College students and VISTA volunteers,
foster homes, and group homes. New cases are evaluated at the end of the
first two months and subsequently every three months.
VI. USE OF VOLUNTEERS
A number of probation departments are making extensive use of volun-
teers. Two of the most noteworthy are those in San Diego and Los Angeles
Counties.
In less than two years, the San Diego County Probation Department
has developed a highly skilled and active pool of volunteers to provide a
wide range of services to adult and juvenile probationers.
The San Diego program, set up as a non-profit organization entitled
Volunteers In Probation, has grown rapidly, obtaining in 1970 some 20,550
hours of service from 320 volunteers. Careful screening is made of volun-
teers and all must participate in an orientation training program. Once
accepted, the volunteers are classed as unpaid county employees and are
thus covered by workmen's compensation and liability insurance. One proba-
tion officer acts as a full-time coordinator and supervises a number of
district advisors, each of whom supervises volunteer advisors who work with
five to twenty volunteers. Regular meetings of volunteers are held with
probation officers in attendance.
Most volunteers have a direct relationship with the probation clients
to whom they are assigned and serve as supportive companions. Others tutor,
give job counseling, teach homemaking skills, counsel alcoholics, visit
children in institutions, lead group activities such as recreation, drama,
and driving lessons, and perform many other activities.
Thus far, the volunteers are seen as providing many highly individual-
ized services which the county could not otherwise afford. In addition,
they are increasing public awareness about problems faced in the control of
crime and delinquency. This program is entirely consistent with the "ser-
vices manager" role of the probation officer outlined in a previous chapter.
The Volunteers In Service To Offenders (VISTO) Program operated by
the Los Angeles County Probation Department began in March, 1968, as a pilot
project in two of the Department's offices. Today it is an integral part
- 79 -
of the probation operation in 15 area offices. Originally funded by the
Office of Economic Opportunity, the VISTO Program was funded by the State
probation subsidy on January 1, 1969.
The range of services provided to clients by volunteers is extensive,
although the main areas of focus are providing transportation, companionship,
counseling, and tutoring. Volunteers work with both juvenile and adult
clients. The overall VISTO Program is directed from the Department's central
office, but each of the 15 area offices has a VISTO co-ordinator, who main-
tains extensive contact with the volunteers.
The volunteers are carefully screened prior to acceptance into the
program; thereafter they are provided with orientation and training and are
assigned to work with clients. The amount of time donated by volunteers
varies, although one area office reports that the average amount of volun-
teer time is 13 hours per month.
Each area office is encouraged to develop its own type of volunteer
program; this approach leads to innovation and, in some area offices, an
expansion of volunteer roles beyond those identified above. For example,
in one area office visited by study staff, the traditional volunteer func-
tions were expanded to include such items as collection of materials for
use by probationers and provision of individual casework services. This
particular office extends considerable recognition to the volunteers, to
the point of issuing "probation office identification cards" to volunteers,
and awarding plaques at recognition banquets.
At present, Los Angeles County enjoys the volunteer services of
several hundred persons, who, in turn, allow the Department to provide
greatly enriched services to the clientele at little cost to the County.
As in San Diego County, the use of volunteers in Los Angeles County
is viewed as a distinct asset, not only because of the direct services pro-
vided, but also because, through the volunteers, the communities are gaining
first hand knowledge about correctional problems.
VII. CONTINUUM OF TREATMENT
One of the most notable illustrations of a treatment program which
begins in the institution and continues into field supervision is operated
by the Probation Department in Tulare County.
A rehabilitation center was established several years ago to serve
youthful male offenders between the ages of 18 and 21. Following arrest
and during the court process, youths who appear to be fit subjects for the
program are often certified to the juvenile court which, if it makes a find-
ing of fact, may commit them to the center. The program is housed in a road
camp where the population averages about 25. Approximately 300 offenders
are in the camp yearly, with lengths of commitment varying from one to eight
months.
- 80 -
Program elements include work furlough for those who obtain employ-
ment in the community, and a public school program for those who can benefit
from remedial education. Evening classes also are available at the camp.
Testing and counseling is provided by the county mental health services;
individual and group counseling is provided by the probation officer. The
program is designed to be flexible enough to meet the individual needs of
each youth committed. Upon completion of the program, the youths are con-
tinued on probation supervision in the community.
The program appears advantageous in two ways. First, it serves an
age group that frequently gets little service. Second, it provides the be-
ginning of a treatment program which continues after the youths are returned
to the community.
VIII. USE OF PARA-PROFESSIONALS
Probation, like the fields of medicine and education, has, in several
California counties, begun to make valuable use of para-professionals. Los
Angeles County, for example, operates three "New Careers" programs. which
serve both to increase the Probation Department's manpower resources and to
improve understanding between the Department and its clients. The "New
Careerists" work with probationers and at the same time serve the Depart-
ment as cultural interpreters in understanding the needs of the poverty
community.
In yet another program operated by the Los Angeles Department, the
County makes valuable use of indigenous probation aides. These persons,
residents of high crime areas, serve with regular probation officers as
members of the overall treatment team. Such a team normally consists of
a probation officer and two indigenous community workers, who supervise
caseloads of 30 juveniles per team. The particular goal of this program,
known as RODEO (Reduction of Delinquency Through Expansion of Opportunity),
is to "open up" the community's opportunity structure to youth who are often
precluded from such opportunities.
Along with the use of volunteers, the use of para-professionals rep-
resents one of the greatest potential assets for enriching probation services,
at comparatively low cost to the county.
CHAPTER VII
PREVAILING ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This final chapter contains a discussion of the key issues prevailing
in probation supervision and the recommendations of the Task Force concerning
those issues. The reader will find the basis for these recommendations in
the chapters on the model and the current system. In fact, additional rec-
ommendations or implications for action may be stated or readily inferred
by the reader's perusal of the principles and problems discussed in those
chapters.
The issues addressed in this chapter are those believed most likely
to have significant impact on the overall probation system. Some of these
issues may have already been resolved by specific departments; however, they
are presented because of their importance to the total system.
Two issues in particular, which are more fully discussed in the System
Task Force Report, stand out: the need for redefined State and county roles
in the field of corrections and the need for a more equitable and effective
subsidy program. Briefly, the Correctional System Study contends that the
primary responsibility for the delivery of correctional services should rest
at the local level (normally the counties) whereas the primary enabling and
supportive responsibility should lie with the State. Thus, it is argued
that the State needs to play less and less of a role in directly handling
clients but more and more of a role in providing the "means" to effectively
protect society and rehabilitate/reintegrate offenders. This necessitates
a wide range of assistance programs for probation supervision such as train-
ing, certification and standard setting, research, planning, and general
consultation. It particularly must include an increased subsidization of
those programs which meet State standards, the cost of which will largely,
if not entirely, be offset by a further reduction in commitments to the
State, as well as less recidivism at the local level. These two issues are
so critical and so vital that, without them, there is no reason to believe
that probation or other correctional services will offer any more effective
services in the years ahead.
Appropriate recommendations for specific action are placed at the
end of the discussion on each major issue. While it is not a formal recom-
mendation of this Task Force, because it was outside the scope of the current
study, the first suggestion actually is that an additional study be conducted
in the immediate future on the entire pre-adjudication intake process. It
is readily apparent that changes in the intake phase of criminal justice have
implications which are at least as vital to corrections as the post-adjudica-
tory apparatus.
I. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Basic to many of the problems facing probation today, as it attempts
to provide improved services to growing numbers of offenders, is the lack of
articulated goals and objectives. In the absence of statements delineating
- 82 -
the direction in which probation is attempting to move, a notable degree of
confusion, as seen in Chapter IV, has arisen among both staff and clients.
All departments, not having goals and objectives in writing, should
immediately make an effort to formulate such a statement. In developing
these formal goals and objectives, participation should be sought from staff
at all levels and from probationers, with outside advisory assistance from
judges, prosecutors, public defenders, law enforcement, juvenile justice
commissions and interested citizens.
The mission of probation should be indicated as the reduction of
further illegal behavior on the part of probationers; more detailed goals
and objectives adopted should lead to this end. Because it is both compa-
tible with and essential to this mission that offenders be effectively in-
tegrated or reintegrated into the community, any statement of goals should
stress the importance of reintegrating offenders socially, economically,
and culturally. Finally, stated objectives should be measurable so that
progress toward accomplishing them can be evaluated.
Once formulated, the statement should not remain static but should
be reviewed periodically and revised as needed. It is imperative that such
a document remain alive and that it accurately state the goals and objectives
the department will pursue. The need for a statement of goals and objectives
was shown clearly in this study by the strong expression of desire on the
part of many staff for a clarification of the direction they should be mov-
ing in and by the lack of understanding expressed on the part of clients, as
well as staff, as to what it is that probation is attempting to accomplish.
Recommendation 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.
II. FUNCTIONS
Intake
Elimination of non-criminals from supervision. Although the intake
function is not a part of this study, it is believed that certain cases do
not belong under supervision of the probation officer and their removal
would allow probation supervision to concentrate on its area of greatest
competence, viz. working with those persons who have caused social harm.
Section 576.5 Welfare and Institutions Code provides that a board
of supervisors may delegate to the welfare department the supervision of
- 83 -
dependent children and this has been done already in a number of counties.
Many "pre-delinquent" minors coming to the attention of probation because
of Section 601 W. & I. Code are now being diverted from the criminal justice
system through referral to other agencies for service. More of this needs
to be done. It is critical for probation departments to lend their weight
to the demands for additional resources to serve this group and to partici-
pate in the development of such resources. However, until such alternative
resources are available, probation must continue to supervise delinquent-
prone youth needing the attention of the court.
It is possible that future changes in the law will repeal Section 601
W. & I. Code; if so, it will be necessary to use Section 600 W. & I. Code
whenever court action is needed for such cases. Changes in the law may also
make it necessary to preclude persons being placed under formal supervision
merely for the purpose of collecting money from them. Legal or administra-
tive changes should provide for such collections to be done by another agency
of the county or by agreement with a private agency. Similarly, probable
law changes will remove those persons now entering the justice system solely
because of their excessive use of alcohol and will provide for them to be
handled as public health cases.
Recommendation 2. As quickly as adequate alternative community re-
sources can be developed, 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 collect-
ing money nor supervise those persons whose sole offense is public drunken-
ness.
Removal of prohibitions against probation. It is the contention of
this Report that probation's greatest competence is the supervision of offend-
ers in the community. Therefore, no restrictions should limit the courts in
granting probation to those who are appropriate candidates for field super-
vision. In particular, the granting of probation should not be prohibited
because of some prior offense for which the defendant has "paid his penalty".
Such restrictions mock attempts to speak of an ex-offender as having paid
his debt to society upon the completion of his term. The problem inherent
in all legislation restricting probation is the inability to take cognizance
of every possible extenuating circumstance around an offense. The Presi-
dent's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice notes
that the key to providing differential treatment for probationers lies with
the judge's ability to base his decision on a review of all pertinent data
about the offender and the types of programs available for him. The report
goes on to say that, "Inflexible restrictions based on narrow criteria de-
feat the goals of differential treatment by restricting the options from
which a judge may choose. Even a cursory study of probation grants makes
it apparent that decision-making varies widely from court to court. Hence,
even if restrictions on granting probation are removed, there is still a
need for judicial guide-lines and standards for decision-making.
- 84 -
Recommendation 3. Section 1203 of the Penal Code should be amended
to remove restrictions on granting probation because of an offender's prior
convictions, and to reduce other restrictions on granting probation.
Keeping conditions of probation relevant. The reduction to a minimum
in the number of standard conditions of probation can be accomplished by
limiting conditions to: (1) a prohibition of any law violations; (2) require-
ments for maintaining contact with the officer in the way prescribed by the
officer; and (3) keeping the officer informed of residence or whereabouts.
Imposition of special conditions should be restricted to factors relevant
to the individual offender. In all cases, the conditions imposed should be
capable of being enforced, but considerable discretion in their enforcement
should be given to the probation officer.
Probationers verified the value of having conditions of probation
imposed, but it was also clear in data collected during the study that con-
ditions which are capricious in nature, unenforceable, or just ignored by
the officers tend to breed disrespect and contempt for the justice system
on the part of the clients.
Recommendation 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. Con-
ditions imposed should be realistic and therefore enforceable by probation
officers. Although special conditions may be appropriate in individual
cases, standard conditions should be limited to (1) 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.
Reports and Recommendations
In order to have the best professional recommendations, it is incum-
bent upon probation department heads to obtain the most competent line work-
ers and supervisors possible and to keep them well trained and free from
undue outside influences. The Task Force found some indications that rec-
ommendations were being influenced by courts and by other sources outside
the departments. This is totally inappropriate as pressuring workers to
"slant" their reports can become highly threatening to professional integrity.
In such situations, it may be necessary to clarify the role of probation,
i.e. the objective presentation of information, discussing factors on all
sides of a case, and the offering of objective recommendations based on
sound professional judgment.
Recommendation 5. Recommendations to courts by officers and their
supervisors on supervision 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.
- 85 -
Classification
Study results showed that, with a few noteworthy exceptions, proba-
tion supervision programs exhibit little sophisticated development or use
of classification systems which are relevant to treatment. Classification
employed as a management tool unrelated to treatment (e.g. "minimum" or
"maximum" supervision) is concerned with production and efficiency and often
focuses on quantity control. Classification related to treatment is con-
cerned with effectively protecting society and rehabilitating the individual
offender and focuses on quality control. A system of classification with
specific treatment implications is necessary in order both to manage work-
loads in an efficient manner and to apply the most appropriate intervention
strategy to each case in relation to the needs of both society and the indi-
vidual offender.
As stressed in Chapter IV, classification and treatment must be linked
together in a manner that offers differential approaches to working with the
offender population. All offenders do not need "treatment" in the therapeutic
sense (in fact, there is reason to believe that "over-treatment" is harmful
to some individuals2). However, probation staff should plan and implement
specific differential strategies which provide a course of correctional
action for all clients.
Because of the complexity of developing sophisticated classification
systems, relevant to differential treatment, and because of the need to train
staff in the use of such systems, the State needs to play an active role in
helping the counties achieve these objectives.
Recommendation 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.
Treatment
Care and concern for probationers. Data gathered in the study show
that the clients having the most positive attitudes about probation are those
whose officers exhibit a personal concern for them. The existence of this
concern was shown by 45% of the clients who indicated in the Task Force
questionnaire that their officers had a great deal of concern for them. Al-
though not appropriate with all cases, this kind of a relationship can have
a positive impact on a significant number; however, in order to determine
which cases to work with in this manner, a classification system is required.
Also, it is necessary for probation managers to provide the time, transpor-
tation, and flexibility of hours, as well as the encouragement and incentive
for officers to work closely with the clients they supervise.
Recommendation 7. Probation supervisors and administrators should
provide a working environment which will encourage staff to develop caring
relationships with probationers under their supervision.
- 86 -
Client participation in planning his own program. Participation on
the part of the client in the planning of his program should begin at the
first contact with the probation officer. Although some probationers will
reject the request to participate, many will welcome the opportunity. In
order to elicit participation, the officer will need to clarify his own
role and that of the client in an atmosphere of open and honest communica-
tion. The value in this approach lies in developing objectives which will
meet the needs of both the client and society and which can be expected to
gain the maximum amount of cooperation from the probationer.
Recommendation 8. Clients should be involved in the planning of
their probation programs, beginning at the earliest possible time and con-
tinuing on through the term of probation.
The probation officer as "services manager". As discussed in Chapter
IV, one of the major goals of probation is the reintegration of the offender
into the community. Since this process may involve training and education,
employment, health and welfare services, legal services, housing, and so on,
it is quite clear that the individual probation officer must develop the
capability to obtain these services whenever they are needed. Such action
on the part of the probation officer places him in the role of a services
manager. It is likely that the time expended in this role will bring greater
return in meeting the needs of probationers than any other approach used.
Evidence gathered by the Probation Task Force indicated that a substantial
number of clients felt the need of support and assistance in these areas
which would lead to their reintegration rather than in those areas of coun-
seling or therapy related to their personal adjustment.
Recommendation 9. Probation departments should begin expanding the
roles and capabilities of their staffs as "services managers".
Supervision with offenders' families. The importance of providing
supervision to family units is supported by data gathered in the study which
indicate the large amount of influence family members have on probationers,
either positively or negatively. This is corroborated by virtually all the
social-psychological literature on child-raising and family impact. In
order to assist the integration of clients in the community, the probation
officer needs to strengthen familial ties by working with family members
whose problems affect the clients and whose strengths can be developed to
assist them.
Recommendation 10. Whenever appropriate, probation supervision should
be involved with offenders' family units, not just with offenders alone, in
order to further the reintegration process.
- 87 -
Termination of supervision after two years. Supervision, when per-
formed in a perfunctory manner for large numbers of clients over a period
of several years or more, inhibits staff from concentrating their efforts
during the two year period of greatest probation risk.
In a study of adult probation violators, Davis found that two-thirds
of the probation revocations took place within two years of the time proba-
tion was granted and that the six-month period in which the greatest number
of revocations occurred was between 7 to 12 months. 3 Thus, in relation to
concentrating probation efforts to reduce further illegal behavior on the
part of the probationer, it is believed that administrative policies moni-
toring the length of probation should be instituted.
As a general rule, it is advantageous to move a client through the
correctional system as quickly as possible since the tendency is to retain
an offender in the system once he enters. As a number of authorities have
pointed out, 4 corrections tends to perpetuate itself and sometimes adds to
the deviant attitudes and behavior of its clients. This tendency could be
minimized by providing a maximum time at which clients automatically would
be considered for termination of probation unless compelling reasons cause
the court to extend the period of supervision. As an example, the Parole
Task Force Report indicates that Section 2943 of the Penal Code requires
consideration of discharge for adult parolees who have been on parole con-
tinuously for two years.
Recommendation 11. Probation departments should adopt an adminis-
trative 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
community will be substantially decreased by 80 doing. If there are com-
pelling 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.
III. RESOURCES
The Need for Community Resources
Mental health diagnostic and treatment programs. Many communities
are almost totally lacking in mental health services; most others have in-
sufficient services to meet the needs. Only the largest probation depart-
ments have their own mental health facilities, and even these are rather
limited. The State has provided diagnostic services in its reception cen-
ters for some years, but the need which remains unmet is for mental health
treatment services for probationers. This is an area in which the State
must move in order to attain the model system which calls on the State to
provide expanded consultative services and subsidization, and on the counties
to increase services provided directly to the offender. On the other hand,
- 88 -
local probation departments need to become more resourceful in developing
or contracting for available local services and resources.
Recommendation 12. Probation departments, assisted as necessary by
the State, should make available greatly expanded mental health services
for probationers.
Group living facilities for offenders. A recurring need seen by
probation officers everywhere is for additional placement resources for
both juvenile and adult cases. Needed are foster homes, group homes of
various types, hostels for homeless offenders, residential treatment facil-
ities, emergency placement situations and others. Over 20% of the proba-
tioners indicated their support for such resources by stating in the ques-
tionnaire that placement in a halfway house or group home would be helpful
if they were in need of a place to live. In order to increase the avail-
ability of placement resources in the community, probation departments need
increased subsidy assistance from the State.
Recommendation 13. Probation departments, assisted as necessary by
the State, should make available adequate placement resources in the com-
munity.
Drug abuse programs. The skyrocketing drug arrests over the past
few years, including the appearance of large numbers of middle class drug
offenders, and the corresponding increase of such persons in probation case-
loads has forced many officers to seek new sources of assistance. Through-
out the State, probation officers made clear their desire for help in work-
ing with drug abusers under their supervision; many officers indicating
that they felt inadequate to cope with such offenders. Although Perry
Birchard reports in her statewide survey that about 900 private and public
programs for drug abuse exist in California,5 they are not being used by
many probationers. In those areas where probation departments have inade-
quate resources to serve these offenders, the State should subsidize such
staff training and special programs as are needed to meet the problem.
Recommendation 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.
Emergency financial assistance. The concerns of many probationers
are related to such basic needs as food, shelter, clothing, transportation,
and jobs. These items are seen as paramount in the lives of a number of
clients, but few departments allot funds for such assistance. Probation
departments should make budgetary provision for such aid and the State
should make subsidy available to the counties to aid them in giving such
service.
- 89 -
Recommendation 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.
Public information programs. The Joint Commission on Correctional
Manpower and Training summarized a 1967 national Harris Poll survey on
corrections by concluding that:
=
the public feels the corrections system is currently
inadequate. At the same time, the public is not eager
to help bring about change if it means more money would
have to be spent. "6
California's probation officers were well aware of this situation.
Over 85% of supervision staff indicated on the questionnaire that they felt
the public had little or no understanding of corrections; 59% estimated
public support of corrections to be little or none at all.
The need for a vastly increased program of public information and
education is obvious. The Youth Authority's Standards for the Performance
of Probation Duties highlights this as one of the key obligations of proba-
tion departments:
"Development of an effective public interpretation
program is a responsibility of the probation officer.
Frequent reports setting forth the aims, methods, and
accomplishments of probation will help in attaining
public understanding as well as adequate support for
probation services of high quality."
In brief, if probation departments wish to engender greater public
support, they must first make themselves visible and, secondly, involve the
community in their actual operation. In order to promote an effective and
widespread program of public education about probation supervision (and
corrections in general), it is also crucial that both the counties and the
State increase and coordinate their efforts.
Recommendation 16. Probation departments should develop public in-
formation 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
developing such programs.
Training
Inadequate training has been a recurrent criticism of probation through-
out its history. The 1964 Probation Study identified training as one of the
major needs of probation and summarized the key problem in this area as follows:
- 90 -
"Few departments have effective continuous staff develop-
ment programs. As a result, working personnel cannot
keep abreast of the latest developments in the field,
even assuming they had time for staff development--which
they do not. As a result, probation staff often have
limited knowledge about treatment, their own capability
for treatment, or the treatment resources of the community
in which they work. Also, they often have erroneous con-
ceptions about the services that State institutions can
provide.
"Staff development programs for first-line supervisors
and middle management personnel are inadequate, and in
most departments non-existent. Most supervisors move
into their positions from treatment assignments. They
have no preparation for supervision and learn by doing.
Often what they learn is wrong, and what they do fails
to make the most effective use of the available manpower.
In turn, supervisors are promoted to middle management
positions without training and without preparation. The
mistakes that they were able to make as supervisors are
now compounded by the new position of authority and re-
sponsibility they command.
With one major exception--probation subsidy, there has been little
change in this situation. Yet, even in subsidized programs, only 57% of
line workers indicated that there was an ongoing in-service training pro-
gram for employees of their level. Hence, the problems of adequate train-
ing for all levels of staff, from meaningful orientation of new employees
to instruction in modern managerial techniques for supervisors and admin-
istrators, still persist in most probation programs.
The solutions are not simple. However, they would appear to lie in
being able to develop four general types of programs: in-service training,
specialized training, coordination of statewide training resources, and a
certification program. The major point is that it is now the time to act
rather than to merely restudy the same issues.
In-service training. As pointed out in Training for Tomorrow, a 1970
study of training in California corrections, larger departments are "becom-
ing deeply committed to training their probationary and journeymen employees
within their own 'shop'". 9 This is viewed as a progressive stance since
the individual agency is in the best position to assess both the training
needs and training resources appropriate to its own staff. To be consis-
tent with the increasing movement of direct services to the local level, it
is imperative that both the individual counties and the State, in its en-
abling and supportive role, channel their resources in a manner that will
maximize the planning and implementation of effective in-service programs
at the county level. Needless to say, this necessitates a wide range of
training programs and efforts directed at providing relevant, individualized,
and ongoing training for as many workers as possible. In this regard, it is
- 91 -
obviously highly appropriate to either develop joint programs with neighbor-
ing counties or to bring outside trainers into the department; at least the
latter is done routinely by a number of departments. However, while outside
trainers are a valuable added resource, it needs to be stressed that each
department should assign training specialists and should clearly place the
primary responsibility for training on the immediate supervisor, notably
first-line supervisors. As Training for Tomorrow stresses:
"It is the exclusive function of the line supervisor
to stimulate and oversee the process of conversion
of information into skilled practice. "10
The major implication here is that supervisors must receive very high train-
ing priority so that they may most effectively carry out their role of train-
ing subordinates.
Recommendation 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.
Specialized training. Every probation department has training needs
which it cannot adequately handle itself. Some of the smaller departments
may need outside trainers, such as State personnel, to conduct virtually
all of their basic training. All departments need to make use of training
resources available in the community, whether academic or experiential. A
glaring example of lack of agency commitment in this area is the rarity
with which they provide active assistance, such as stipends or time off,
to encourage staff to pursue graduate training or other relevant programs
of professional development. In fact, some agencies penalize staff who
attempt to make use of such resources, e.g. by refusing academic leave or
by demoting staff if they take academic leave.
Probation departments particularly need to make use of external
trainers for specialized programs, such as training and managerial tech-
niques or complex classification and treatment systems. This can, and is,
being done by contractual arrangements in a number of departments. As sug-
gested by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration
of Justice¹] and the Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, 12
this is where the State should carry out its enabling role. The Youth Author-
ity has traditionally conducted some training programs for probation personnel
but is grossly understaffed and under-budgeted to meet more than a fraction
of the need. Additionally, the State needs to develop or contract for train-
ers who are expert in specialized training areas before it can provide the
range of training programs required by the counties.
Recommendation 18. Probation departments should strive to make better
use of available training and professional development programs in the community.
- 92 -
e.g. by contracting for services and by encouraging and enabling their staff
to partioipate in such programs.
Recommendation 19. The State should greatly increase its role in
providing training needed by the counties, particularly specialized training
programs.
Coordination of statewide training resources. The central concern
about correctional training focused on in Training for Tomorrow is the lack
of efficient coordination of training resources in California's "diverse,
far-flung, and complex correctional conglomerate". 13 Particularly since
these resources are at a premium, coordination and integration are essential.
The final recommendation of the above report was for a centralized unit
known as CO-ACT (Coordinating Organization for Advancing Correctional Train-
ing) at the State level, whose task would be to develop a network of trainers
and training resources from various parts of the correctional system who
would form a partnership of mutual aid in promoting statewide training. The
Probation Task Force strongly endorses the central core of the CO-ACT con-
cept and suggests that, unless it is implemented in some form, California
will continue to duplicate, waste, and simply be unaware of existing train-
ing resources and efforts.
Recommendation 20. The State should immediately implement the CO-ACT
concept of a central unit to coordinate statewide training and develop a net-
work of trainers and training resources from all appropriate sources.
Certification. The Probation Task Force joins with the 1964 Proba-
tion Study in urging that the State "assume the major responsibility and
cost for training and certification of personnel working in probation". 14
Widespread support exists for the establishment by the State of a program
to certify deputy probation officers who meet prescribed standards. Advo-
cates of this proposal argue that it would raise minimum entry standards at
least in some counties, assure departments of minimum qualifications of staff
who have been certified (e.g. in transferring between agencies), result in
higher and more uniform quality of performance by staff, provide the basis
for certain changes in personnel practice highly desired by staff (notably,
being able to transfer between agencies without loss of rank or benefits),
and aid in moving toward the recognition and professionalization of proba-
tion work.
The first step in implementing a certification procedure is to deter-
mine who should control it and what should be the standards or requirements.
The Task Force proposes that the State operate and control the procedure,
with advice from the counties (perhaps in the form of an advisory commission).
Similarly, the State, in cooperation with the counties, should decide on the
requirements. It is suggested that the normal minimum academic requirements
be a bachelor's degree, preferably in the behavioral sciences, and the com-
pletion of at least one year "internship" of on-the-job experience and training
- 93 -
during which time the candidate must satisfy his superiors that he has the
ability to relate to and effect behavioral changes in probationers. Pro-
visional certification for persons not meeting the academic standard might
be granted if such persons otherwise demonstrate special competence or if
certificated staff are unavailable.
Recommendation 21. The State, in cooperation with the counties,
should develop a certification program for all probation fficers.
Staff Hiring and Promotions
The two major personnel concerns which stand out boldly are related
to the establishment of an advanced caseworker position and the ability to
transfer between correctional agencies.
Less than half of all probation officers were satisfied with the
promotional system in their agency. Ninety-one percent favored the creation
of "a separate series of rank and pay increases, parallel to at least the
first line supervisor level, for line workers (e.g. so an outstanding worker
can remain in his job without having to become an administrator to be pro-
moted)". The benefits of such a system are two-fold. On the one hand, it
would permit highly competent workers, who have developed their skills
through several years of experience and training, to remain in the vital
job of working directly with clients and still receive the status and salary
they deserve. The creation of such positions would also tend to boost staff
morale and retain workers who perceive themselves basically as "caseworkers".
On the other hand, it would assist departments by not forcing them to place
persons who may be good caseworkers but poor administrators in supervisory
positions where they may resemble "fish out of water".
The second concern is more complex. It is a common observation that
a person can normally enter the field of probation at two levels--the very
bottom or the very top. Individuals who meet all the relevant requirements
and who may be equally or far more qualified than persons within a specific
department cannot normally compete for advanced line worker or supervisory
positions in an agency of which they are not already employees. In short,
probation is a "closed" system. Task Force staff strongly supports the
overwhelming view of correctional practitioners and administrators through-
out the State that this situation is unnecessarily restrictive and poses
severe handicaps not only to individual workers but to probation as a whole.
From the individual employee's point of view, the current closed
system is personally and professionally stifling, particularly for the more
competent workers. An "open" system, allowing workers to transfer to and
compete for promotional openings in other agencies, not only would permit
greater flexibility but would provide employees with enriched experience in
their career patterns. Such is the case with education, medicine, and many
other professions. If an experienced worker wishes to move to another part
of the State or to gain experience in another agency, particularly on a
promotional basis, he should be able to do so. Such a system not only would
- 94 -
improve morale and minimize the loss of competent staff, but also would
offer stronger career incentives for potential correctional employees.
From the system's point of view, a closed promotional structure which
is limited solely to departmental employees and which places more value on
"departmental loyalty" and seniority than on other qualifications, tends to
breed a limited base of experience and ideas commonly known as "correctional
provincialism". Removing these barriers would enable each department to
hire the most competent persons available, to retain many top caliber per-
sonnel seeking promotional opportunities outside of corrections, and to
profit from a cross-fertilization of ideas from staff who have worked in
different agencies and areas of the State.
The system should be open not only to current probation officers but
also to correctional workers at the county, State, or Federal level, in addi-
tion to qualified persons employed in the private sector.
The certification program, recommended in the previous section, should
provide a sound base for hiring and promotional opportunities in corrections
by assuring employers that a prospective candidate has at least met certain
minimal standards.
Finally, for such a program to work effectively, it is necessary to
coordinate retirement earnings and other similar benefits, so that an employee
does not lose them when he transfers from one agency to another.
Recommendation 22. Probation departments should create a case-carry-
ing position equivalant 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, provided they
meet the necessary requirements.
24. The State and counties should coordinate their retirement sys-
tems 80 that a worker can combine his benefits when transferring between
agencies.
Use of Nonprofessionals
Probation departments must carefully study ways in which nonprofes-
sionals, notably volunteers and para-professionals, can be used, and should
call on the State for consultation service in this matter. Such programs
as are developed must be adequately staffed in order to provide for proper
recruitment, training, and supervision. It is important to note that evi-
dence presented to the Task Force indicated that most programs that fail do
so because of recruiting which is nonselective, training which is incomplete,
and supervision which is inadequate. It is also extremely important to make
nonprofessionals feel that they are part of a team, i.e. that they have an
- 95 -
important job to fulfill and that they are accepted by and work along with
the professional staff. The motivation to use nonprofessionals arises out
of the necessity to provide expanded services to clients and the need to
involve the community in the correctional process through the use of volun-
teers. Also, local government has a responsibility to give employment
opportunities to persons in the community such as ex-offenders and residents
of economically depressed areas who qualify as para-professional workers.
It is abundantly clear that nonprofessionals will play an increasingly im-
portant role in the future of probation supervision. In fact, as indicated
in Chapter IV, some authorities contend that the role of probation officers
may well change in the near future from one of delivering most services
directly to clients to one of managing or overseeing the delivery of ser-
vices by a staff of nonprofessionals. In any event, probation administra-
tors and staff should begin planning seriously for the more efficient and
effective use of this largely untapped correctional resource.
Re commendation 25. Departments should greatly expand their use of
nonprofessional workers, including volunteers, para-professionals, ex-offend-
ers, and students, to assist in probation supervision. They should, at the
same time, plan carefully how to recruit, train, and supervise these workers.
Appointment of the Chief Probation Officer
In nearly all counties, the chief probation officer is appointed by
the juvenile court judge or a majority of the superior court judges. This
is consistent with the traditional view of probation as an "arm of the court"
and with the fact that probationers are still under the jurisdiction of the
court. However, as probation departments have increased their professionalism
and special expertise in planning and carrying out correctional strategies
for offenders, more and more support has arisen for making them an indepen-
dent agency in local government, as the police, prosecutor, and public de-
fender. The basic reasons for this are two-fold.
On the one hand, the probation officer's expertise or area of most
competence is in objective evaluation of offenders and in implementing pro-
grams of rehabilitation and reintegration. Yet, there have been instances
of the courts exercising undue pressure on "their" probation departments,
sometimes to such a degree that probation officers have been handicapped in
making truly independent and objective decisions about the operations of
their departments. This is seen most notably in the area of what program
is most appropriate for individual offenders. In fact, there have been,
and in the opinion of the Probation Task Force, still are, instances in
which judges are the de facto administrators of the probation department.
Similarly and far more commonly, courts intentionally or unintentionally
influence the reports and recommendations submitted by the probation officer.
The responsibility for this does not lie with the courts alone as some pro-
bation officers deliberately "color" or "slant" their reports, e.g. by selec-
tive reporting, in order to manipulate the judge to make a desired decision.
However, the net effect is that where courts dominate probation departments,
the latter are kept from obtaining full professional stature and tend to be
hidden behind the skirts of the court.
- 96 -
On the other hand, the court's training and acknowledged expertise
are clearly in the legal arenas of protecting individual rights and deter-
mining guilt or innocence. Judges rarely have received much training in
the areas of modifying criminal or delinquent behavior or in correctional
management. As a result, they must make highly complex decisions which
weigh the protection of the community against concerns with rehabilitation
and reintegration--decisions for which they simply have not been trained.
Hence, no matter how sincere and well-intentioned, they are forced to decide
on the life and freedom of individuals with little relevant background and
training.
At the core of this issue is the question of whether or not the courts
should be involved at all in correctional decision-making. The fact of the
matter is that there is a rapidly growing opinion among correctional workers
and many others within the correctional and criminal justice process that,
once a person is found guilty, he should be turned over to a correctional
body or agency to determine what program would be most appropriate for him.
However, because this issue is clearly outside the scope of the present study,
no formal position is taken by the Probation Task Force. Needless to say,
it is a concern that should be addressed by the needed study of intake rec-
ommended by the Correctional System Study staff.
A final problem with the present law is that over 50% of all proba-
tioners are adults, yet probation officers are normally appointed by and
serve at the pleasure of the juvenile court judge.
To return to the issue at hand, the most logical body to appoint the
chief probation officer is the county board of supervisors. It is the super-
visors who determine budget and set many personnel and other policies for
the county departments. It is also the supervisors who normally appoint
non-elected county officials.
Recommendation 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 amended accordingly.
Subsidy
Chapter V presented the inherent and operational problems of the cur-
rent probation subsidy program. While this program was a monumental step
forward in California corrections, the Probation Task Force feels that its
handicaps and inequities, which have now become apparent, demand a bold new
move on the part of the State.
In brief, the State of California today is unmistakably at a crucial
crossroad in respect to probation subsidy. The State can continue the pro-
gram as it is presently structured. If taken, this course of action will
result in the increasing disenchantment of county probation departments and
may be followed by the counties' gradual withdrawal from the program. If
- 97 -
the State elects this course of action, it must stand prepared to witness a
fatal deterioration of probation services, and concomitantly, an overwhelming
increase in commitments to State institutions, and the need to spend vast
sums of monies to build and operate new State facilities.
The other option available to the State, and, in the opinion of this
study, the far superior alternative, is to recognize the value of probation
services, to acknowledge the savings which accrue to the State as a result
of probation subsidy, and to enact an entirely new probation subsidy program.
As part of the new probation subsidy effort, there should be effective, man-
datory standards, worked out in cooperation with the counties, and thereafter
administered by the State. The new subsidy program should be reviewed annually,
to consider cost fluctuations, and the State should provide increased consul-
tation in respect to the planning, operation, and evaluation of subsidized
programs.
Since it is the view of this study that the best, most effective cor-
rectional services are field services, provided at the local level, and since
probation, more than any other component of corrections, can and does provide
this type of service, it is felt that probation should have the highest pri-
ority in any new overall correctional subsidy program. A more complete state-
ment of the philosophy, priorities, and operational details of the entire
subsidy plan recommended by the Correctional System Study may be found in
the System Task Force Report.
Recommendations 27. The State of California should subsidize county-
operated probation services in accord with the overall subsidy program speci-
fied in the System Task Force Report. Essentially, that Report recommends
subsidy 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
Report) for any youths or adults committed to the State.
- 98 -
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.
IV. RESEARCH AND EVALUATION
Departments must allot sufficient resources for research and evaluation.
The amount of time and money needs to be expanded greatly beyond the small
part of one percent of total correctional expenditures reportedly being spent
now for research and evaluation. 15 State assistance, consultation and fund-
ing should be available to assist counties in this effort, but counties also
need to enlist the aid of universities, colleges and private organizations
to do research and program evaluation. However, none of this is likely to
occur until correctional agencies begin to become truly concerned about and
committed to evaluating what they are doing; only then will research become
more than a novelty.
One area critically in need of evaluation is the complete field of
decision-making. A large number of decisions made outside the court are
subject to few of the procedures and constraints present at the time of
court action. Some of the factors needing an evaluation of their decision-
components are violations of probation and accompanying detention, change
of placement, and recommendations for termination of probation.
It is imperative that new approaches to reducing crime on the part of
offenders on probation continue to be tried, but new approaches, as well as
current programs, need evaluation. However, this can occur only if proba-
tion managers first determine their objectives in measurable terms and then
commit themselves to objective evaluation. Even then, such efforts become
no more than routine "busywork" unless departments are committed to following
through on the results of research by modifying or eliminating programs when
so indicated.
Recommendation 32.
Probation departments, assisted as necessary by the State, should con-
duct programs in research and evaluation designed to improve the quality of
probation operations.
- 99 -
V. ISSUES OF THE FUTURE
Contracts Between the State and Counties for Supervision of Offenders
Interviews with officials in the sample counties revealed support in
some communities, principally smaller ones, for probation supervision operated
by the State under contracts with the counties. Interviews conducted by the
Task Force showed 24% of the chief probation officers and 13% of other county
officials (presiding judges, chairmen of boards of supervisors and chief ad-
ministrative officers) favorable to such an arrangement.
On the other hand, there was fairly strong support for the counties
to provide parole supervision for the State on a contractual basis. Fifty-
nine percent of the chief probation officers and 76% of other county officials
favored this kind of a permissive agreement. It is believed such contracts
should be permitted where they will best serve local correctional needs.
Recommendation 33. Departments should be able to contract with the
State to provide probation supervision as well as accept contracts from the
State to provide parole services. Permissive legislation which would enable
the State and counties to enter into such contracts should be enacted.
Contracts Between Counties for Supervision
There is considerable precedent for contracts among California counties.
For some years, counties have contracted with each other for the provision
of such specific services as the operation of a juvenile institution to serve
more than one county or for detention facilities for juveniles from more than
one county. In the adult field, as indicated in the Jail Task Force Report,
counties have arranged with each other to provide jail services and some
counties have contracts with cities to provide police services. Additionally,
counties have an informal "courtesy supervision" arrangement with one another
for probation services. However, some counties do not do this or, if they
do, provide only minimal services because they are not reimbursed for costs.
This might be remedied to the satisfaction of individual departments and in
a manner which provides the best services to the client and protection to
the community by establishing formal contractual arrangements, as exist be-
tween some institutions.
Recommendation 34. Where better services can be provided at lower
cost, counties should consider contractual agreements with neighbor depart-
ments (or possibly consider consolidation of services) for probation super-
vision. Enabling legislation should be enacted to provide for such agree-
ments.
- 100 -
The New Clients: Environmental Pollution and Consumer Fraud Violators
In the past year, a number of corporations have been placed on proba-
tion supervision in one county because of pollution violations. Special
conditions of probation have been ordered by the court which require correc-
tive anti-pollution measures to be taken. Among the issues raised by this
action is the need for technical consultation services to help the probation
officer see that the corporations comply with the conditions ordered by the
court.
This program is looked on favorably by the criminal justice system
of the community where it is in operation, and in view of the growing public
demand nationally for more environmentally protective controls, a distinct
possibility exists that such a supervision program could be adopted elsewhere.
Because of the rapidly expanding public concern for protection of the
consumer, much new legislation has resulted. It is very possible that this
combination of public concern and legislative activity will result in an in-
flux of violators whom the courts will deem in need of supervision.
Probation managers need to be aware of these trends and should plan
accordingly to meet the technical requirements of supervising such offenders.
Recommendation 35. Departments should engage in long range planning
about the implications of supervising large numbers of environmental pollu-
tion violators and consumer fraud violators, both individuals and corpora-
tions.
- 101
FOOTNOTES
1 President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, Task Force Report: Corrections (Washington: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1967), p. 34.
2 Don Gibbons, Delinquent Behavior (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall,
1970), pp. 255-256.
3 George F. Davis, "A Study of Adult Probation Violation Rates by
Means of The Cohort Approach," The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology
and Police Science, Vol. 55, No. T, March, 1964, p. 13.
⁴Gibbons, op. cit. pp. 221-261, 269.
50ffice of Narcotic and Drug Abuse Coordination, Drug Abuse: A
Directory of Community Services in California, State of California (Sacra-
mento, July 1971).
6 Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, The Public
Looks at Crime and Corrections (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1968), P. 1.
7 Department of Youth Authority, Standards for the Performance of
Probation Duties, State of California (Sacramento, February 1970), p. 22.
8Board of Corrections, Probation Study, State of California (Sacra-
mento, 1965), P. 153.
⁹Department of Youth Authority, Training for Tomorrow, State of
California (Sacramento, 1970), P. 1.
10Ibid., p. 60.
llpresident's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, op. cit. pp. 101, 206.
12 Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, A Time to
Act (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969).
13 Department of Youth Authority, op. cit., letter of transmittal, p. 2.
14 Board of Corrections, op. cit., p. 153.
15 Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, op. cit.,
p. 36.