Entry
Reader's guide
Entries A-Z
Subject index
Probation: Organization of Services
Probation services are provided under various models in different jurisdictions throughout the United States. Some states have centralized probation functions under the aegis of a state correctional authority, while other states maintain a more localized structure in which the services are administered under the aegis of municipal or county courts. Juvenile probation services usually reflect a highly localized orientation and generally attempt to provide various treatment modalities and other services utilizing nearby facilities and public and private agencies with which probation officers and judges are familiar. This reflects both a concern with political and economic realities and an interest in keeping a close level of supervision on delinquents in their care.
State-Level Administration
State-level administration is the dominant model for provision of probation services in the United States, with 30 states adhering to the general principle of centralization. In 25 states, probation services are exclusively provided by the centralized state agency. In most of the remaining states, at least some probation services may be contracted out to private services or local public/private agencies. Seventeen states have a mixed state/local structure under the primary aegis of the state.
State systems are less prone to be influenced by local political factors and parochial prejudices. Thus, they are mainly free from undue influence wielded by powerful interest groups and mercantile interests. Moreover, goals and objectives that are consonant with current approved practices are more likely to be promulgated by state-level agencies. This being the case, they are able to impose rigorous and uniform statewide standards for officer training and offender supervision. They are able to attract more qualified and professional educated personnel than local-oriented agencies. Finally, economies of scale assure that better uses of scarce resources can be achieved by state agencies. Simply put, they are more cost-effective and efficient than locally administered agencies.
In general, state agencies, generally part of an overarching state correctional department, may be more prone to rely on institutional rather than community-based dispositions. In any event, they are criticized as less responsive to local communities. It has been suggested that entities furnishing probation services should be deconsolidated from the control of institutionally oriented state correctional departments and henceforth should focus on a more specific mission: providing probation, parole, and aftercare. This view advocates the notion that special free-standing probation and parole departments, perhaps called “state departments of community corrections” should be established.
Local Administration
Larger cities and municipalities often have probation services provided under local authority. Some states have county probation departments in certain areas and a centralized state authority over the majority of counties. Often misdemeanant supervisory services are provided at the local level while felons are supervised at the state level. In some states, this situation may reflect a history of political bargaining for control of patronage positions, although the positions currently are under a civil service bureaucracy.
County-level agencies have difficulty attracting a pool of sufficiently qualified recruits and lack resources for staff development. Local agencies seldom have sufficient budgets to provide up-to-date preservice or on-the-job training. Hiring may be heavily influenced by political factors. Research is seldom conducted at this level, and professional practice is often behind the times. Provision of probationary services may be rudimentary and unduly influenced by local political factors.
...
- Actuarial Risk Assessment
- Classification Systems
- COMPASS Program
- Firearms Charges, Offenders With
- Hare Psychopathy Checklist
- Level of Service Inventory
- Offender Needs
- Offender Responsivity
- Offender Risks
- Prediction Instruments
- Predispositional Reports for Juveniles
- Risk and Needs Assessment Instruments
- Risk Assessment Instruments: Three Generations
- Wisconsin Risk Assessment Instrument
- Absconding
- Augustus, John
- Benefit of Clergy
- Boston's Operation Night Light
- Case Management
- Caseload and Workload Standards
- Circle Sentencing
- Conditional Sentencing and Release
- Conditions of Community Corrections
- Continuum of Sanctions
- Crime Control Model of Corrections
- Curfews
- Diversion Programs
- Drug Courts
- Faith-Based Initiatives
- False Negatives and False Positives
- Family Courts
- Family Group Conferencing
- Family Therapy
- Felony Probation
- Field Visits
- Investigative Reports
- Juvenile Probation Officers
- Manhattan Bail Project
- Mediation
- Mental Health Courts
- Neighborhood Probation
- Offender Supervision
- Pre-Sentence Investigation Reports
- Pretrial Detention
- Pretrial Supervision
- Probation
- Probation: Administration Models
- Probation: Early Termination
- Probation: Organization of Services
- Probation: Private
- Probation and Judicial Reprieve
- Probation and Parole: Intensive Supervision
- Probation and Parole Fees
- Probation Mentor Home Program
- Probation Officers
- Probation Officers: Job Stress
- Project Safeway
- Recognizance
- Reparation Boards
- Restorative Justice
- Revocation
- Sanctuary
- Shock Probation
- SMART Partnership
- Specialized Caseload Models
- Teen Courts
- Victim-Offender Reconciliation Programs
- Wilderness Experience
- Attitudes and Myths about Punishment
- Attitudes of Offenders toward Community Corrections
- Bail Reform Act of 1984
- Banishment
- Beccaria, Cesare
- Bentham, Jeremy
- Certified Criminal Justice Professional
- Civil and Political Rights Affected by Conviction
- Community Corrections Acts
- Community Corrections and Sanctions
- Community Corrections as an Add-on to Imprisonment
- Community Corrections as an Alternative to Imprisonment
- Community Partnerships
- Cook County Juvenile Court
- Costs of Community Corrections
- Determinate Sentencing
- Employment-Related Rights of Offenders
- Ethics of Community-Based Sanctions
- Flat Time
- Front-End and Back-End Programming
- Goals and Objectives of Community Corrections
- History of Community Corrections
- Humanitarianism
- Indeterminate Sentencing
- Law Enforcement Administration Act Initiatives
- Long-Term Offender Designation
- Loss of Capacity to Be Bonded
- Loss of Individual Rights
- Loss of Parental Rights
- Loss of Right to Possess Firearms
- Loss of Welfare Benefits
- Net Widening
- Philosophy of Community Corrections
- Political Determinants of Corrections Policy
- President's Task Force on Corrections
- Prison Overcrowding
- Public Opinion of Community Corrections
- Public Safety and Collaborative Prevention
- Punishment
- Punishment Units
- Reducing Prison Populations
- Reintegration into Communities
- Second Chance Act
- Sentencing Guidelines
- Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative
- Split Sentencing and Blended Sentencing
- Temperance Movement
- Three Strikes and You're Out
- Victims of Crime Act of 1984
- Violent Offender Reconciliation Programs
- Volunteers and Community Corrections
- Boot Camps
- Community Service Order
- Community-Based Centers
- Community-Based Vocational Networks
- Day Reporting Centers
- Electronic Monitoring
- Financial Penalties
- Fine Options Programs
- GPS Tracking
- Group Homes
- Halfway Houses and Residential Centers
- Home Confinement and House Arrest
- NIMBY Syndrome
- Probation and Parole: Intensive Supervision
- Residential Correctional Programs
- Residential Programs for Juveniles
- Restitution
- Restitution Centers
- Absconding
- Brockway, Zebulon
- Discretionary Release
- Elmira System
- Firearms and Community Corrections Personnel
- Furloughs
- Good Time and Merit Time
- Graduated Sanctions for Juvenile Offenders
- Irish Marks System
- Maconochie, Alexander
- Pardon and Restoration of Rights
- Parole
- Parole Boards and Hearings
- Parole Commission, U.S.
- Parole Commission Phaseout Act of 1996
- Parole Guidelines Score
- Parole Officers
- Pre-Parole Plan
- Prisoner's Family and Reentry
- Probation and Parole: Intensive Supervision
- Reentry Courts
- Reentry Programs and Initiatives
- Salient Factor Score
- Truth-in-Sentencing Provisions
- Victim Impact Statements
- Work/Study Release Programs
- Addiction-Specific Support Groups
- Correctional Case Managers
- Counseling
- Crime Victims' Concerns
- Cultural Competence
- Disabled Offenders
- Diversity in Community Corrections
- Drug- and Alcohol-Abusing Offenders and Treatment
- Drug Testing in Community Corrections
- Effectiveness of Community Corrections
- Elderly Offenders
- Environmental Crime Prevention
- Evaluation of Programs
- Female Offenders and Special Needs
- Job Satisfaction in Community Corrections
- Juvenile Aftercare
- Juvenile and Youth Offenders
- Liability
- Martinson, Robert
- Motivational Interviewing
- Offenders with Mental Illness
- Public Shaming as Punishment
- Recidivism
- Sex Offender Registration
- Sex Offenders in the Community
- Sexual and Gender Minorities and Special Needs
- Sexual Predators: Civil Commitment
- Therapeutic Communities
- Therapeutic Jurisprudence
- Thinking for a Change
- Victim Services
- “What Works” Approach and Evidence-Based Practices
- Women in Community Service Program
- Loading...
Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL
-
Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
-
Read modern, diverse business cases
-
Explore hundreds of books and reference titles
Sage Recommends
We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.
Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches