ques 6 Unit 5 Assessment Parole and probation

BCJ 3150, Probation and Parole 1 Cou rse Learning Outcomes for Unit V Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to: 1. Analyze the probation and parole processes. 1.1 Examine the process by which revocation or granting of probation or parole occurs. 5. Examine the basic models for administering parole. 5.1 Compare and contrast the independent versus consolidated models of administering parole. 7. Analyze the role of probation and parole officers. 7.1 Evaluate the role of the probation and parole officer in administrative sanction and revocation proceedings. 7.2 Eval uate the role of parole officers in assisting offenders with reentry. Reading Assignment Chapter 7: Community Supervision Modification and Revocation Chapter 11: Prisoner Reentry: Collateral Consequences, Parole, and Mandatory Release Unit Lesson One of the challenges and frustrations facing probation and parole officers is the issue of supervision modification and revocation. As you have learned, probation and parole officers assess an offender for risk, try to appropriately monitor offenders base d upon their risk level, and refer offenders to programs that will address criminogenic needs. The main goals of probation and parole supervision are to appropriately monitor offenders and hopefully reduce the risk that these offenders pos e to the communit y by helping reduce their criminal thinking and actions. Unfortunately, some offenders either violate their community supervision by not following rules of probation or parole or by obtaining new arrests and convictions for criminal acts. In situations whe re the offender commits a technical violation of his or her supervision, the probation or parole officer utilizes administrative sanctions as both a consequence for the technical violation and as a means of addressing the situation that caused the technica l violation. In some situations, however, such as in situations where the offender commits a new criminal offense, the probation or parole officer cannot administratively sanction the offender and must file a violation notice with the court (probation) or recommend revocation proceedings to the parole board (parole). F ormally, the process of revocation involves both a preliminary hearing and final revocation hearing, but oftentimes the offender will waive his or her right to a preliminary hearing and the co urt or parole board will proceed directly to the final revocation hearing (Alarid, 2015). The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to proceed to a revocation hearing, and the probation or parole officer provides a report to the court for this preliminary hearing (Alarid, 2015). This report outlines the violations, and the offender has the opportunity to dispute the violations at the preliminary hearing. Probation and parole officers are not typically pre sent at preliminary hearings; rather, they testify as to the violations of probation or parole at the final revocation hearing. At this point, the judge or parole board will determine if the offender is in violation of his or her probation or parole and wi ll also determine if the offender’s supervision should be revoked or modified. This process is going to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and between parole and probation. Some systems operate in a much more formal manner because they have fewer cases in the criminal justice system or on parole, and prosecutors or parole boards are not as concerned with the lengthy preliminary hearing and final revocation hearing process as those who work in more crowded systems. UNIT V STUDY GUIDE From Probation Revocation to Incarceration to Parole BCJ 3150, Probation and Parole 2 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title Consider these examples of administrat ive sanctions and the rationale for their use: John Doe is on probation for possession of a controlled substance , and after being assessed, the probation officer determines that John has a problem with cocaine abuse and refers him for a drug and alcohol evaluation so that he can participate in substance abuse treatment. John begins attending outpatient treatment, and six weeks into the program, his probation officer conducts a random drug test that is positive for cocaine. John’s probation officer discusse s this drug test with John, and he admits that he was with old friends one night at a party and used (drugs) because they were using. The probation officer sanctions John to the following: 1. wee kly drug testing for two months; 2. calling his counselor wit h the probation officer to discuss the positive test and increase John’s participation in trea tment from once to twice weekly; and 3. making a list of 10 things that he can say to his friends to avoid using, and practicing these in a mock situation with hi s probation officer at his next appointment. How does this administrative sanction address John’s cocaine use? How does this administrative sanction address some of the underlying problems that John is having with using cocaine? Jill Doe has a lot of m ental -health issues and takes many psychotropic medications. Side effects of these medications include drowsiness and forgetfulness, and as a result, Jill has missed three appointments with her parole officer. Her parole officer understands the side effect s of her medication, but Jill will have to take this medication for life and will have to learn how to function in society in spite of the medication’s side effects.

Jill’s parole officer administratively sanctions her to report daily at the same time each day by phone for a period of two months. Throughout that period, Jill’s parole officer discusses with Jill problems that she had that caused her to call late some days as a result of her medication’s side effects. In this time, Jill learns how to manage m ost of the side effects of her medications by planning ahead for how her medications are going to affect her functioning. Though she calls late 10 times during that two month period, her parole officer considers her sanction successfully completed. Why w ould the parole officer consider Jill to have successfully completed her sanction? What issues was the parole officer addressing in issuing Jill the sanction? The challenge and frustration come into play in situations where the parole or probation office r has implemented an administrative sanction and the offender has not completed it (or in situations where the offender has committed a new offense), and a violation report is sent to the deciding body (either the court or parole board). Due to plea bargai ning in probation, sometimes an offender will admit to the violation and be resentenced to either stricter terms of probation or some other consequence without even seeing the judge.

This can be frustrating t o the probation officer because after assessing for risk and working with the offender, the probation officer might believe that all options in the community have been exhausted in working with that offender, and the probation officer might want to see the judge revoke probation. The probation officer m ight also feel that revocation and resentencing to jail or prison time is not appropriate but that the offender should be court -ordered to participate in additional special conditions of probation or intensive programming that the officer cannot provide. W hile the probation officer is required to make recommendations to the court as to what would be the most appropriate consequence as a result of the violation, sometimes the prosecuting attorney or judge does not follow these recommendations, and it can be a cause of stress for probation officers. Likewise, parole officers make recommendations to the parole board as to whether or not an individual’s parole should be revoked, and because of prison overcrowding, sometimes parole boards are reluctant to retur n an individual to prison, even in cases where the offender obtains a new conviction for a criminal offense. This frustration is further connected with the way in which parole is administered in the parole officer’s state. There are two different ways of a dministering parole —the independent and consolidated models (Abadinsky, 2012). Under the independent model , the parole board is an autonomous body that decides whether or not an individual should be released on parole and whether or not a person’s parole should be revoked (Abadinsky, 2012). An independent parole board is its own separate state agency (Abadinsky, 2012). This also means that it is responsible for supervising the offenders on parole and is not unduly influenced by the number of offenders inc arcerated in the prison system (Abadinsky, 2012). BCJ 3150, Probation and Parole 3 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title Under the consolidated model , the parole board is under the direction of the commissioner of corrections or governor of the state, who also administers the prison system (Abadinsky, 2012). This means that parole boards that run under the consolidated model are included within the department of corrections in a state, and prison overcrowding can influence who is released on parole and who has their parole revoked (Abadinsky, 2012). For example, if there is a concern about returning too many inmates on revocation to the prisons, the parole board may be influenced to only revoke parole for serious felony offenses. This means that if a parole officer recommends revocation because an offender was found guilty of a misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol, the parole board would rule that the offender’s parole not be revoked, and the offender’s parole may be modified to include special conditions like alcohol counseling. However, the frustration of the parole officer may be that he or she has already referred the offender to alcohol counseling because of positive drug tests for alcohol, and the offender may not have complied with attending counseling, which resulted in the misdemeanor charge. Now the paro le officer is left with the task of communicating to the offender the seriousness of the driving under the influence case along with the seriousness of violating parole — even though the offender may not feel like he or she experienced any consequences for t he criminal behavior. There are also other pros and cons associated with the independent and consolidated models of parole administration. For example, in the independent model, the budget of the parole board is separate from that of the department of co rrections, so it may be harder to secure and justify an increase in expenses, while under the consolidated model the budget goes to corrections as a whole, which includes the parole board, and it is easier to secure needed funds (Abadinsky, 2012). Also, in a consolidated model of parole administration, it may be easier for the parole board to obtain institutional records that are required to make an informed release decision because they are all part of the same department, while in the independent model th e process may be delayed by departmental red tape (Abadinsky, 2012). Finally, an independent parole board can more easily make changes to its administration because it is separate from the correctional institution, while adjustments in the decision process or parole board performance may be more difficult to make under the consolidated model because the entire system may have to be adjusted and reviewed (Abadinsky, 2012). These two methods of administering parole are important to understand because they e ach affect the granting of parole and revocation of parole in different ways, and the level of influence that the rest of the correctional system has on each of them is important to understand. Reference Abadinsky, H. (2012). Probation and parole: Theory and practice (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Suggested Reading The Bureau of Justice Statistics provides information on prisoner re -entry, success, recidivism, and characteristics of releases: Hughes, T., & Wilson, D. J. (2015). Reentry trends in the U.S. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/reentry/reentry.cfm The following article discusses the potential overuse of community supervision and how it can be used more effectively. In order to access the resource below, you must first access the ProQuest Criminal Justice database within the CSU Online Library. Klingele, C. (2013). Rethinking the use of community supervision . Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 103 (4), 1015 -1069. The fol lowing is a National Institute of Justice Office of Justice Programs summary on offender reentry and evaluation of the Second Chance Act: BCJ 3150, Probation and Parole 4 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title National Institute of Justice. (2013). Offender reentry. Retrieved from http://nij.gov/topics/corrections/reentry/Pages/welcome.aspx Learning Activities (Non -Graded) Click here to access the unit Flash Cards. Click here to access a PDF version of this activity . Non -graded Learning Activities are provided to aid stude nts in their course of study. You do not have to submit them. If you have questions, contact your instructor for further guidance and information.