Intermediate Sanctions in Corrections

CHAPTER 2

– 22 – THE EMERGENCE OF INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS Prior to the 1980s, the standard sentencing options for judges consisted of probation or incarceration. Although community-based programs, such as probation, restitution, community service, and halfway houses, were available in the 1960s and 1970s, they lost credibility and support mainly because they were shown to be ineffective in a number of ways (Tonry, 1997). It was not until the early 1980s as correctional crowding became a serious problem that alternatives to incarceration, or intermediate sanctions, were formally organized into state correctional options (Lurigio & Petersilia, 1992). Boot camps and intensive supervision probation and parole emerged in the middle 1980s and the other, fragmented assortment of programs, such as community service and home confinement, were “repackaged” and formally implemented as intermediate sanctions. Three main correctional issues prompted the need for change in corrections and led to the formal development of intermediate sanctions in the middle 1980s: a lack of success with felony probationers and to a lesser extent, parolees, severe overcrowding in prisons and jails, and inadequate sentencing choices. Problems with Felony Probation High revocation and recidivism rates of felons on probation as well as the inadequate supervision and limited treatment for adults on probation CHAPTER 2 Development, Goals, and Structure of Intermediate Sanctions Programs DEVELOPMENT, GOALS, AND STRUCTURE OF INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS – 23 – and parole contributed to the development of intermediate sanctions (Petersilia, 1998, 1999). During the 1960s and 1970s when rehabilitation and reintegration were the guiding philosophies of corrections, probation was a popular sanction. Probation officer caseloads were relatively low at this time, which enabled probation officers to individualize treatment and service programming to meet the specific needs of each probationer. Officers were expected to deliver important services, such as counseling, encouragement, and job placement assistance while also providing control and supervision over the probationer. Probation departments experienced dramatic changes in the 1980s, which led to the call for an increased focus on supervision/ surveillance over offenders sentenced to probation. First, the type of offenders being sentenced to probation changed (Petersilia, et al., 1985). Given the increasing problem of prison overcrowding in the 1980s, more serious and “high risk” offenders were being placed on probation. These more serious (felony) offenders posed a potential risk to public safety. According to Petersilia (1998), nationally in 1986, probation was granted to 46% of all convicted felons, and 30% all offenders ordered to probation were also required to serve some jail time. About six percent of offenders convicted of homicide, 20% convicted of rape, 20% convicted of robbery, and 40% convicted of burglary were sentenced to probation. At the same time that probation caseloads were changing in nature and becoming more “high-risk” (Byrne, Lurigio, & Baird, 1989), and thereby requiring more supervision, probation departments were experiencing significant budget cuts, resulting in the reduction or elimination of probation officers and limitations on the treatment and services offered. While probation department cuts led to larger caseload sizes and fewer treatment options, probationers were presenting greater supervision and treatment needs. As such, the frequency of contacts between probationers and their probation officers was reduced. It was estimated that during the late 1980s, most offenders who were on probation for felony offenses were meeting with their probation officers at most only once each month (Langan & Cunniff, 1992). The low levels of officer/probationer contact, lack of services, and inadequate supervision contributed to high failure and recidivism rates among probationers, particularly felony probationers. These factors, coupled with general shifts in the political climate to “get tough on crime” and INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS IN CORRECTIONS – 24 – public dissatisfaction with the rehabilitative ideal, led to a greater focus on crime control through incapacitation and deterrence. The focus of probation began to change from one-on-one offender contact and “service-delivery” to “risk management” with enforcement-centered supervision and minimal treatment delivery. The RAND Study A1985studyconductedbytheRANDCorporationhighlightedtheproblems offailureandrecidivismamongfelonsonprobation(Petersilia,etal.,1985). The research revealed that many states were forced to rely on probation for serious felony offenders and other “high-risk” groups (such as drug users) due to increasing prison populations and prison crowding. The research also suggested that these offenders were being supervised inadequately. In terms of public safety, about 75% of the 2,000 probationers tracked in the research were rearrested within three years, most for serious offenses. Not only did this present serious public safety issues, it exacerbated the existing prison crowding problem; many offenders who failed on probation were incarcerated in the...