Broken Windows or
Broken Logic?
Supervising Offenders
in the Community
Broken Windows Probation

3 Million In Our Midst
–
–
“Hundreds and thousands of violent crimes are
committed each year by people on probation”
The public wants to reduce violent crime now

2/3 of probationers commit another crime within three
years of their sentence
–
In 1991 (nationally), 6,400 murders, 7,400 rapes, 11,400
assaults, 17,000 robberies
– Conditions not “rigorously enforced”
– Absconders run amok
Why is Probation “Broke(N)?”

Funding Levels
–
–
–

2/3 of the people, 1/3 of the corrections dollar
$20-50K per year for prison, $200 for probation
Caseloads of 100-500 offenders
Bad Practices
–
–
–
Drug testing that is scheduled in advance
Supervision in Office (doesn’t manage risk)
Average of one contact per month
The Solution:
Placing Public Safety First

Supervise in neighborhood, not office
–
–

Rationally allocate Resources
–
–

More “surveillance,” ability to monitor and control
“Meaningful” supervision occurs at all hours
Better risk and need assessment
Supervision based on Geography
Enforce violations quickly/strongly
–
“Deterrent Effect,” Track down absconders
More Goals

Develop partners in the Community
–
–

Work with police, victims, schools, neighborhood
groups, inform public…
PO’s act like “C.O.P.s” (attend “neighborhood
meetings, adopt “placed-based” supervision
Establish “Performance Based Initiatives”
–
Good research with clearly measured outcomes
Structural Issues in Re-thinking




Case Assignments, Job Responsibilities
Job Description and Training
Caseload, Resource, Technical Support
Community Involvement and Support
Fixing “Broken Windows”

General Criticisms:
–

Ignores single most consistent finding in probation
literature: treatment works, surveillance and
control does not
“Community Supervision”
–
Publicity stunt to get funding

–
Is this based on any evidence?
Short-term thinking
Improve Public Safety

P.O.s should be asked to do LESS, not more
–


Cannot be held responsible for community
safety—focus on offender
Develop sanctioning strategies that do not
result in a significant # of offenders in jail
Treatment is the only known way to improve
safety
Supervise in Community?

Location, location, location only for houses
–
–
–
Any evidence this will work? (not really)
How monitor P.O.s?
“Supervision” becomes main role of P.O.

–
“Monitor and Control” emphasis
Union/staff resistance to hours/job
Rationally Allocate Resources

Council focuses on existing $
–
Improve assessment?


–
Cost of this?
Treatment availability, cost, quality?
Shift (back) to “place-based” supervision


Generalist vs. Specialist
There are reasons for the “specialist”
Strong Enforcement of Conditions

Past decade? Increase in number and type
of conditions
–
–
Use better judgment with conditions
Develop system of graduated sanctions


Council still relies on incarceration as a “general
deterrent” to others…support for this is weak
Probation Based “Absconder Units”
–
–
$ for this? What to do when we catch them?
Why do probationers abscond?
Partners in the Community

Operation Night Light
–
–
–
Allows probation to appear more “police-like”
Appear “tougher”
IRONY can be pretty ironic sometimes


COP envisions police acting as “resource brokers”
Dumja Vu
–
Council claims that “ONL” reduced homicide


Exaggerated claims unsupported by sound research
Ends ($) justify the means (use crappy research as
“evidence”
Final Comments on BW’s

Council ignores the fact that over 70% of offenders
placed on probation will complete their term without
new arrest
–
More effective than:




JAIL
Prison
Intermediate Sanctions
Core technology of probation? Individual Offender
Change
Supervision Models





Casework Era
Brokerage Model
Justice Model
“Supervision and Control”
Integrated
–

Control and Treatment are not incompatible
Pg. 117 = Martinson Blasphemy
Probation Officer Work Styles




The “Law Enforcer”
The “Time Server”
The “Therapeutic Agent”
The “Synthetic”
Caseloads and Workloads

“Average Caseload” not that important
–
–
–
Most jurisdictions have different levels
Specialized Caseloads (sex offenders, drugs, etc.)
“Regular”


–
“Intensive”



Parole = 67
Probation = 124
Parole = 38
Probation = 25
Assigning Cases: “workload standard”