FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS, RESEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED ON PROBATION INNOVATIONS THAT SEEK EITHER TO ACHIEVE A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN CASELOAD, OR TO OFFER UNIQUE PROBATION SERVICES TO CLIENTS, OR BOTH. THE PROBLEMS ARISE WHEN ONE MUST DETAIL THE PROCESSES LEADING TO PARTICULARLY GOOD OR PARTICULARLY BAD RESULTS. A COMMON MEASURE IS THE 'AVERAGE CASELOAD.' THIS SEEMS SIMPLE ENOUGH ON THE SURFACE. HOWEVER, MANY PROGRAMS, ESPECIALLY INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS, USE VOLUNTEERS OR OTHER NONTRADITIONAL SUPERVISORY PERSONS WHO MAY OR MAY NOT LESSEN THE WORKLOAD FOR REGULAR SUPERVISORS. NONE OF THE PROJECTS EXAMINED HAD A SUCCESSFUL SOLUTION TO THIS QUESTION. ANOTHER PROBLEM ARISES IN DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF ACTIVE CASES, AS SOME CASES REQUIRE FAR MORE TIME THAN OTHERS. VARIOUS TYPES OF WEIGHTING ARE COMMON IN EVALUATIONS TO TRY TO COMPENSATE FOR THIS VARIABLE. THE RELIABILITY OF CASE CONTACT MEASURES IS ALSO SUSPECT. THERE IS SERIOUS QUESTION ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FREQUENCY OF CONTACT AND QUALITY OF CONTACT. ONLY TWO STUDIES MADE ANY SERIOUS EFFORT TO MEASURE QUALITY; BOTH EMPLOYED A SURVEY OF SUPERVISOR AND CLIENT OPINION ABOUT VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE SUPERVISION. OTHER MEASURES ENCOUNTERED WERE URINALYSES IN CONNECTION WITH DRUG-OFFENDER PROGRAMS, CLIENT REFERRALS TO COMMUNITY AGENCIES, PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATIONS PERFORMED, GROUP COUNSELING SESSIONS HELD, VOLUNTEERS RECRUITED, AND TESTS ADMINISTERED. ANOTHER MAJOR CLASS OF MEASURES IS THOSE WHICH ATTEMPT TO DOCUMENT CHANGES IN PROBATIONERS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY PROJECT ACTIVITIES. THE MOST COMMON IS A RECIDIVISM MEASURE, SUCH AS UNSUCCESSFUL PROBATION TERMINATION, REARREST, OR RECONVICTION. FOR EACH OF THESE THERE ARE ATTEMPTS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN 'TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS' OF PROBATION (NOT CALLING THE PAROLE OR PROBATION OFFICER) AND ACTUAL CRIMES. THESE MEASURES ARE DIFFICULT TO VALIDATE FOR SHORT PERIODS OF TIME AND ALSO ARE AFFECTED BY THE AMOUNT OF SUPERVISION -- INTENSIVE SUPERVISION MAY ACTUALLY UNCOVER MORE MINOR INFRACTIONS. THE ONLY OTHER OUTCOME MEASURE USED EXTENSIVELY IS EMPLOYMENT SUCCESS. THIS MEASURE IS OBTAINED EITHER FROM REPORTS TURNED IN BY THE PROBATIONERS OR BY FOLLOWUP STUDIES. HOWEVER, PROBATIONERS DO NOT INFORM THEIR EMPLOYERS THAT THEY ARE ON PROBATION, AND DIRECT VERIFICATION OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT STATUS MIGHT JEOPARDIZE THEIR JOBS. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSES ARE MADE IN SOME STUDIES. THE MOST EXTENSIVE OF THESE WAS IN CONNECTION WITH A PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE PROJECT WHICH CONSIDERED DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS OF THE PROJECT, COSTS OF DETAINING ARRESTED CLIENTS, WELFARE SUPPORT COSTS FOR UNEMPLOYED CLIENTS, AND TAXES PAID BY EMPLOYED CLIENTS. ATTEMPTS TO REFINE MEASURES TO ASSESS TRUE COSTS NEED TO BE INCREASED.
MEASUREMENT PRACTICE IN INTENSIVE AND SPECIAL ADULT PROBATION
NCJ Number
45586
Journal
EVALUATION QUARTERLY Volume: 2 Issue: 1 Dated: (FEBRUARY 1978) Pages: 127-139
Date Published
1978
Length
13 pages
Annotation
THIS STATE-OF-THE-ART PAPER DISCUSSES THE PROBLEMS OF MEASURING VARIOUS ASPECTS OF INTENSIVE AND SPECIAL PROBATION PROJECTS, BASED ON THE STUDY OF 28 RESEARCH DESIGNS.
Abstract