Patterns of Probation and Parole Organization

• NCJ Number: 76997
• Journal: Federal Probation Volume: 44 Issue: 4 Dated: (December 1980) Pages: 43-51
• Author(s): C L Johnson; B D Smith
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 9 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

The organizational structure of probation and parole in all States is examined, and the extent of State compliance with the recommendations of the 1973 National Advisory Commission on Standards and Goals is determined.

Abstract

Diverse organizational structures in probation and parole have long contributed to the lack of coordination in corrections. However, recent trends towards streamlining correctional programs have been noted. The commission recommended that each State should unify all correctional facilities and programs, but that the parole board should be separate from field services; that institutional and parole field services should be consolidated in departments or divisions of correctional services; that probation should be placed under the executive branch of State government; and that parole decisionmaking bodies should be independent of correctional institutions. To determine compliance with these recommendations, researchers examined the 1980 American Correctional Association Directory and contacted State agencies when directory information was inadequate. The results showed that 41 States maintained parole field services as separate from the paroling authority to free the parole board of administrative duties and to enhance the quality of parole services. Institutional and parole field services as separate from the paroling authority to free the parole board of administrative duties and to enhance the quality of parole services. Institutional and parole field services were consolidated in divisions of corrections for the closer coordination of services in 37 States. Furthermore, 38 States had located probation services in the executive branch where all other correctional subsystems were usually located. Finally, 49 States were insuring parole decision autonomy by locating the paroling authority outside the direct administrative purview of the correctional department. Organizational varieties are reviewed in the text and in tables. Footnotes with references are included.