Chapter 2 Notes: How Probation Developed

CHAPTER 2 How Probation Developed: Chronicling Its Past and Present

  • Chapter outline themes:

    • Precursors to American Probation
    • Procedures Related to Modern Probation
    • Founders of Probation
    • Development of Federal Probation
    • History of Juvenile Probation and Juvenile Court
    • Early Probation Legislation in Other States
    • Current Probation Practice: Diversion, CCAs
    • Evolution of Community Corrections and Supervision Models over Time
    • Demographics and Characteristics of Probationers
    • Discussion questions and case study exercises

  • Chapter learning objectives (key aims):

    • Recall the social and legal history of probation in England and the United States.
    • Discuss the founders of probation.
    • Restate how supervision philosophies have changed in the United States.
    • Describe how probation is now organized and operates.
    • Examine how community corrections acts implement local programs.
    • Characterize how probation supervision styles have changed over time.

  • Key terms (selected definitions you should know):

    • amercement
    • civil citation
    • security
    • motion to quash
    • suspended sentence
    • laid on file
    • John Augustus
    • parole
    • parens patriae
    • diversion
    • community corrections acts (CCAs)
    • casework
    • brokerage of services
    • community resource management team
    • model, including: justice model, neighborhood-based supervision, criminogenic needs-based supervision
    • criminogenic needs-based supervision
    • split sentence

  • Prelude: precursors to American probation (Britain and early U.S.)

    • Early British law relied on retribution and corporal penalties (branding, flogging, mutilation, execution).
    • By Henry VIII’s era, >200 crimes were punishable by death; punishment was harsh and often unjust by modern standards.
    • Early criminal procedure included dangerous trial methods (trial by combat, trial by ordeal, “trial by God”).
    • The fundamental premise was to administer justice for past harm, not to deter or rehabilitate.
    • In the U.S., early forms of provisional relief included security for good behavior (bail-like mechanisms), and motions to quash, laid on file, and suspended impositions to avoid harsh penalties.
    • The suspended sentence became the closest procedural analogue to modern probation in early practice.

  • Procedures related to modern probation (early cases and developments):

    • Commonwealth v. Chase (1831): an early example of a suspended sentence used to avoid final conviction; if the defendant avoided trouble, the sentence could later be imposed; if trouble recurred, the original sentence could be imposed.
    • The Killits case (Ex parte United States, 1916): federal courts could not suspend the imposition or execution of a sentence indefinitely; this prompted the push for formal probation legislation.
    • Evjen (1975) notes that federal probation was recognized as a bona fide sentence by 1925.

  • The Founders of Probation

    • John Augustus (1784–1859): Boston bootmaker, founder of adult probation in the United States; pretrial supervision pioneer who bailed out first-time offenders, supervised them, and then accompanied them to court; his work evolved into probation for pretrial and post-conviction purposes.
    • Augustus’s practices included bailing out offenders, paying fines and costs for indigent defendants, and supervising them to reduce recidivism.
    • Augustus is credited with initiating probation, though not officially recognized as a probation officer in his time.
    • By 1846, Augustus’s private philanthropy expanded, and his work supported thousands of individuals (e.g., he assisted 1,946 people and paid $2,418 in fines and costs; total bail liability reported as ~$99,464). Only a small number of repeat offenders recidivated.
    • The Washington Total Abstinence Society, which Augustus was a member of, influenced his approach to treating alcoholics and problem drinkers with kindness and structured accountability.
    • Matthew Davenport Hill (England) contributed equally to probation’s development, bringing a framework in England and advocating guardians to monitor juveniles; Hill’s approach included reporting and social-service support, with a receptiveness to data on recidivism.

  • The Founders: John Augustus vs. Matthew Davenport Hill

    • Augustus: the American precursor, focused on pretrial supervision, bail-posting, and reform through personal oversight and accountability.
    • Hill: English reformer who helped lay the foundation for probation in England, stressing guardianship, court reporting, and the role of social services; connected to Bentham, Peel, and other reformers; highlighted early juvenile probation concepts.

  • Parens patriae (key concept): the state as guardian of children; under this doctrine, the government acts as a substitute parent to protect neglected/dependent juveniles; a central rationale for juvenile probation and juvenile courts.

  • Parens patriae in practice (juvenile context)

    • 1899 Illinois Juvenile Court Act established a separate juvenile system emphasizing rehabilitation and less formal process; aim was to intervene earlier and avoid harsh penalties.
    • Lucy Flower and the Chicago Bar Association supported juvenile probation services in Illinois; a separate court and detention system was created.
    • The juvenile court doctrine emphasized four principles: guardians for juveniles; parental responsibility; avoidance of jail for juveniles; and probation with friendly State oversight when youths return home.
    • Mack (1909) argued that probation is the keynote of juvenile court legislation; the State’s role as guardian should be humane and friendly to the child and family.
    • The first Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act was passed in 1938 to provide probation supervision for juveniles up to age 18.

  • Early probation legislation in other states

    • New York: probation law allowed police officers to be probation officers; University Settlement members initially staffed positions; later, policies prohibited police from serving as probation officers; many early salaries were not funded, relying on volunteers or municipal staff.
    • Vermont (1898) and Rhode Island (1899): early organizational patterns for probation departments; Vermont used county-level appointments; Rhode Island used statewide/state-controlled probation.
    • Structural evolution: probation departments sometimes remained local (county) or statewide; organizational patterns varied across states and shifted toward larger agencies to compete for funding.

  • Probation today: current uses and structures

    • Diversion and deferred adjudication: before conviction, offenders may be offered diversion/deferred adjudication to avoid a formal conviction; successful completion leads to dismissal of charges.
    • Civil citation: some jurisdictions allow police to issue civil citations to direct juveniles to diversion programs without formal court adjudication.
    • Diversion targets: juveniles, first-time felons, individuals with mental health issues; diversion reduces stigma and focuses on treatment and risk reduction.
    • Diversion decision processes: prosecutors and defense weigh past records, health histories, community ties, and evaluative needs; weaponization of adult records or gang affiliations may influence diversion decisions.
    • Offenders with special needs (mental health, substance abuse) may be diverted to treatment rather than punishment.
    • Common diversion offenses include theft, possession of controlled substances, domestic violence, prostitution; contexts vary by jurisdiction.

  • Probation departments: County vs. State? (organizational patterns)

    • Massachusetts’s lead: local/probation officers existed early, later reforms moved toward a state-supported framework.
    • Vermont historically used county-level appointments; Rhode Island used statewide control.
    • Across states, probation departments have faced fiscal and political pressures: larger agencies can influence budgets and policy more effectively; some jurisdictions merged adult and juvenile probation to streamline operations.
    • Table 2.1 (organizational structures): summarizes the variety of structures (county/judicial vs state/executive; combined vs separate adult/juvenile; etc.). In about half of states, adult and juvenile systems are separate; in at least 10 states, services are fully integrated; in about 6 more, integration occurs partially.
    • Note on CCAs: Community Corrections Acts are contractual funding agreements between counties and the state to support local community corrections; CCAs often include incentives for counties to keep felony offenders on probation rather than prison; funding details guide how counties are reimbursed for holding offenders in jail while awaiting transfer to state facilities, among other provisions.

  • Community Corrections Acts (CCAs)

    • CCAs fund local implementation of community corrections programs via state funding.
    • They help counties develop programs like drug courts or mental health courts by requiring matching funds and specifying permissible uses of funds.
    • Example: Oregon’s CCA (Box 2.2) emphasizes a partnership between the State and counties, funding statewide community corrections programs; it also includes a monthly supervision fee to offset costs.
    • The Oregon act codifies the monthly fee and its purpose, allowing the county to retain collected fees to fund local programs.
    • Oregon’s CCAs illustrate typical components: funding partnership; program development; data collection for evaluation; ability to contract with private agencies; and cost-sharing requirements.

  • Box 2.2: Oregon Community Corrections Act (highlights)

    • Legislative findings and declarations about increasing penalties for violent offenses and the resulting demand on state facilities; counties are better positioned to manage serious offenders under a state-local partnership.
    • Policy: establish ongoing state-county partnership and finance statewide community corrections programs.
    • Dept. of Corrections will grant funds to counties to implement programs and require data sharing for evaluating program impact on future criminal conduct.
    • Counties may contract with public or private agencies for offender services.
    • Monthly fee (e.g., at least $25) payable by those on supervised release; fee funds are retained locally to support programs.
    • The overall aim is to provide sentencing and sanction options (incarceration, community supervision, services), reduce reoffending, and enhance local control and public safety.
    • The act illustrates how CCAs operationalize funding and programmatic decisions at the county level within a state framework.

  • Community supervision models over time (evolution of practice)

    • Casework Model (1900–1970):
    • Officers viewed as caseworkers/social workers; emphasis on therapeutic relationships; focus on diagnosing and treating offenders; direct counseling and behavior modification; agents of change.
    • Brokerage of Services Model (1971–1981):
    • Shift away from in-house counseling; emphasis on linking offenders to community agencies for mental health, employment, housing, education, and welfare; service brokers identify and refer to specialists; reduce caseloads of direct counseling by one officer; focus on creating network connections.
    • Community Resource Management Team Model (CRMT) (part of Brokerage era):
    • Officers specialized in certain areas (drug abuse, employment, gender-specific issues); caseloads pooled; teams work collectively to assist offenders; shared expertise rather than a single officer handling all needs.
    • Justice Model (1982–2000):
    • Emphasized just deserts and proportional punishment; probation seen as a legitimate sanction in its own right; increased emphasis on sanctions and compliance with court orders; counseling and treatment services were provided, but often brokered through community agencies; focus on supervising compliance and restitution.
    • Neighborhood-Based Supervision (NBS) (2001–Present):
    • Officers supervise by neighborhoods/zip codes; increased mobility with technology; officers act as community boundary spanners, connecting corrections to police, treatment providers, and faith-based groups; emphasis on visible, community-based presence and public safety.
    • Criminogenic Needs-Based Supervision (2012–Present):
    • Aligns with risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) principles; officers adopt dual roles as therapeutic agents and enforcers; focus on criminogenic needs and motivational interviewing; emphasize meaningful relationships and targeted interventions to reduce recidivism.
    • Summary of model shifts: from therapy-centric to service brokerage to balanced enforcement-and-treatment; then to community-integrated, risk-focused approaches.

  • Table 2.2: What does a probation officer do? (codified tasks by state)

    • 1992 vs 2015 comparisons show a shift toward greater formal responsibilities in the rehabilitation and enforcement spectrum.
    • Rehabilitation-oriented tasks (examples): write presentence investigation reports; risk/needs assessment; assist in rehabilitation; case management; develop community service programs; counsel offenders; locate employment; welfare/social work.
    • Law enforcement-oriented tasks (examples): supervision; investigate cases; arrest offenders; service warrants; maintain contact with the court; home visits; initiate revocations; assist law enforcement; enforce criminal laws; perform court-related duties; surveillance.
    • Notable trend: overall increase in the scope of duties, with greater emphasis on case management, enforcement actions, and collaboration with courts, law enforcement, and community agencies in 2015 relative to 1992.

  • Table 2.3: Characteristics of adults on probation over time (1995, 2005, 2015)

    • Gender:
    • 1995: 21% female, 79% male
    • 2005: 23% female, 77% male
    • 2015: 25% female, 75% male
    • Race/Ethnicity (national averages):
    • White: ~53% (1995), ~55% (2005), ~54–55% (2015)
    • Black: ~31% (1995), ~30% (2005), ~32% (2015)
    • Latino: ~14% (1995), ~13% (2005), ~11–13% (2015)
    • American Indian/Alaska Native: small percentages; Asian/Pacific Islander also small (approx. 2%)
    • Offense type and status:
    • Liquid measures show a mix of felony and misdemeanor offenses; most probationers are under some form of direct sentence or suspended sentence.
    • Current probation status: actively reporting/supervised; inactive; absconded; supervised out of state; warrants for violations or new crimes.
    • Most serious offense: violent, property, etc., with violence accounting for a meaningful share of cases.
    • Drug involvement and public order offenses show growth in some periods.
    • Leaving probation: successful completion is common (roughly around 60–62% in 1995–2005; ~60% in 2015).
    • Recidivism and violations: a notable portion leave probation due to new crimes or technical violations; a minority are reincarcerated for new offenses (roughly 4–5% for new crimes, 21–28% for technical violations depending on year).
    • Notable trend: probationers have become older on average; higher representation of non-violent offenders; greater diversity in race/ethnicity by region; prior offenses and longer criminal histories in recent decades.
    • Overall conclusion: probation populations have shifted toward more complex risk profiles and greater needs (substance abuse, mental health, employment, housing), consistent with the move toward criminogenic-needs-based supervision.

  • Who is on probation? detail highlights from Table 2.3

    • By 2015, women represent about a quarter of the probation population.
    • Whites remain the largest single racial group, followed by African Americans and Latinos; the distribution varies by region.
    • The majority of offenders are under some form of probation sentence (direct or suspended); many are non-violent offenders, with significant numbers of property- and drug-related offenses.
    • A sizable fraction face ongoing supervision; a smaller but meaningful share become inactive or leave via transfer, warrants, or abscondment.

  • Box 2.1: Community Corrections Up Close – What is the Purpose of Probation?

    • Purpose: reduce crime incidence and impact in the community; provide presentence investigations and reports; help develop suitable court dispositions for adults and juveniles; supervise those on probation.
    • Mission: protect public safety by reducing crime through supervision; deliver services and programs that promote lawful behavior; participate in crime/delinquency prevention; ensure fair, individualized justice.
    • Core beliefs underpinning probation:
    • Society’s right to safety and property protection; due process and individual rights for offenders; victims’ rights; belief in the possibility of behavioral change.
    • Interventions should be minimally invasive and proportionate to risk; if an intervention is unwarranted, move toward non-justice-system alternatives.
    • Incarceration should be used when necessary to protect the public, but it should be humane and limited; community-based programs are often cost-effective and allow offenders to remain with families and continue contributing (e.g., paying taxes, restitution).
    • Ethics and values:
    • Probation is not purely punitive; it is an instrument of controlled treatment that balances public safety with offender rehabilitation and individual rights.

  • Box 2.2: Oregon Community Corrections Act (selected excerpts)

    • Legislative findings: national context recognizes the increased demand on facilities; counties are better positioned to manage serious offenders in partnership with the state.
    • Policy: establish ongoing state-county partnerships to finance statewide community corrections programs; grants to counties to support local implementation; data-sharing requirements for evaluating impact on future crime.
    • Local control and private contracting: counties may contract with public or private agencies for service provision.
    • Monthly supervision fees: offenders pay a per-month fee (minimum $25) to offset supervision costs; funds stay with the county to support local programs.
    • Purposes of the act: provide appropriate sanctions; enhance local services to reduce future offending; promote local control and effective sanctions; support data-driven policy decisions.

  • Discussion prompts and study prompts (from the chapter)

    • What is the significance of Commonwealth v. Chase (1831) in understanding suspended sentences?
    • How did the Killits/Ex parte United States decision influence federal probation legislation (1925 National Probation Act)?
    • How did John Augustus and Matthew Davenport Hill contribute to probation’s development?
    • Should diversion/deferred adjudication be abolished? Arguments for and against.
    • Are probation departments better run locally or by the state?
    • How has probation combined with or separated from parole across states? How have adult and juvenile probation services been organized (together or separate)?
    • What is the role of Community Corrections Acts (CCAs) in shaping local programs?
    • Which supervision model do you think is most effective today? Justify with reasoning.
    • How has the typical probationer changed demographically, offense-wise, and in terms of success rates over time?

  • Case study exercises: The Diversion Decision (summary and learning task)

    • Case A: Defendant Smith – possession of Ecstasy; first-time offender; past drug use but no mental health treatment; potential diversion to drug court; state’s prosecutor concerns due to drug type and potential ties to a drug ring.
    • Case B: Defendant Thompson – reckless injury to a person; college student; prior diversionary sentence for theft; new felony arrest; proposal for diversion vs. conventional court handling; prosecutor concerned about second arrest and seriousness of injuries to victim.
    • Task: Decide whether each case should be diverted or prosecuted; if diverted, justify conditions; if not, provide reasoning for conviction and sentencing.
    • Considerations to weigh: prior record, risk to public safety, seriousness of offense, likelihood of reform, treatment needs, victim impact, community ties, and policy implications of diversion.

  • Summary of major themes (condensed):

    • Probation emerged as a reform-oriented response to harsh penal codes in England and early U.S. practice, evolving from bail-like pretrial supervision to a formal, court-sanctioned sentence.
    • Founders (Augustus, Hill) and the juvenile system (parens patriae, 1899 Illinois Act) established the philosophical foundations for probation and juvenile probation.
    • Federal probation developed gradually in the 20th century, culminating in more formal statutes after resistance from prohibitionists; by 1925 the federal system recognized probation as a bona fide sentence.
    • Probation today exists in multiple organizational patterns (county vs state; integrated adult/juvenile or separate) and under CCAs; it has shifted from casework and therapy to a broader, integrated model including supervision, referrals, enforcement, and data-driven risk/needs management.
    • The evolution of supervision models reflects changing ideas about public safety, accountability, rehabilitation, and the role of community resources in offender management.
    • Demographics of probationers have shifted toward more diverse populations with greater representation of women; higher average age and more criminogenic needs require sophisticated, needs-based supervision.
    • Ethical considerations emphasize balancing public safety with offender rights and the possibility of rehabilitation through proportional, individualized interventions.

Connection to prior and real-world relevance

  • Historical parallels: Probation’s evolution parallels broader reforms in criminal justice toward rehabilitation, community-based sanctions, and evidence-based practices (risk/needs assessment, targeted interventions).
  • Real-world relevance: CCAs and modern supervision models reflect ongoing efforts to optimize cost, improve public safety, and tailor interventions to individual risk and needs; diversions and deferred adjudication aim to reduce stigma and enhance rehabilitation for low-risk offenders.
  • Practical implications: Understanding the shift from casework to criminogenic needs-based supervision informs today’s policy debates about sentencing, resource allocation, and the balance between enforcement and treatment.

Equations and numeric references (LaTeX)

  • No explicit mathematical formulas are presented in the transcript. Relevant quantitative references include:
    • Probation population demographics and trends (e.g., gender share, racial composition, age distribution, offense types) cited in the tables; exact numbers are embedded in the text and boxes (see tables for 1995, 2005, 2015 data).
    • Example citation (historical figures): John Augustus assisted 1,946 individuals and paid $2,418 in fines and costs; private bail liability cited as ~ $99,464 (1852/1972).
    • Oregon CCAs specify a monthly fee of at least $25 for supervision costs to be offset by offender payments.
    • Example numbers (from Table 2.3, summary): 1995: male 79%, female 21%; 2005: male 77%, female 23%; 2015: male 75%, female 25%; White ~53–55%, Black ~30–32%, Latino ~11–14% depending on year.

References to figures and boxes (for quick review)

  • Box 2.1: Community Corrections Up Close – purpose, mission, beliefs, ethics, and balance between control and treatment.

  • Box 2.2: Oregon Community Corrections Act – legislative findings, policy, funding, and monthly fee details.

  • Table 2.1: Organizational structures of adult/juvenile probation and parole by state – county vs state administration; executive vs judicial control; combined vs separate agencies.

  • Table 2.2: Probation officer tasks codified by state – comparison of rehabilitation-oriented vs law-enforcement-oriented tasks between 1992 and 2015.

  • Table 2.3: Characteristics of adults on probation over time – 1995, 2005, 2015 metrics for gender, race, offense type, leaving probation, and leaving reasons.

  • Case studies: The Diversion Decision – Case A and Case B scenarios to practice diversion decisions and rationale.

  • Web resources and media (for further study):

    • History of US Probation (US Courts)
    • History of Probation in New York
    • Federal Probation and Pretrial Services
    • Matthew Davenport Hill biography and life
    • Related documentaries and videos on probation services

  • Ethical and practical implications to reflect on for exams:

    • The tension between public safety and rehabilitation in probation models.
    • The role of community organizations and funding mechanisms (CCAs) in shaping available services.
    • The legitimacy and effectiveness of diversion/deferred adjudication as alternatives to conviction.
    • The ongoing debate over local vs. state control of probation services and the implications for uniformity and local autonomy.

  • End-of-chapter prompts (to guide study):

    • Analyze the transformation from casework to criminogenic needs-based supervision and discuss which model best aligns with current evidence-based practices.
    • Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of CCAs in funding and sustaining local probation programs.
    • Discuss the ethical implications of diversion and how it affects victims, offenders, and the reintegration process.