Research Summary and Implications

Chapter 7 summarizes the findings and conclusions from the 15 studies presented in the prior four chapters and then describes some specific implications of the research. With regard to economic sanctions in general, the studies indicated wide variation between counties. With regard to offenders, the research showed that offenders generally had little understanding of economic sanctions and generally think the system of economic sanctions is unfair. With regard to restitution, results indicated that most restitution is generally not paid, that a mandatory statute increased the rate at which restitution was imposed, and that offenders who received information from the probation office about how much restitution they owed both paid more restitution and were less likely to recidivate.

Professionalism, Payment by Results and the Probation Service: A Qualitative Study of the Impact of Marketisation on Professional Autonomy

This article utilises Foucauldian understandings of the sociology of the professions to explore how marketising reforms to probation services in England and Wales, and the implementation of a ‘Payment by Results’ (PbR) mechanism in particular, have impacted professional autonomy. Drawing on an ethnographic study of a probation office within a privately owned Community Rehabilitation Company, it argues that an inability to control the socio-economic organisation of probation work has rendered the service susceptible to challenges to autonomy over technique. PbR was proffered as a means to restore practitioner discretion; however, the article demonstrates that probation staff have been compelled to economise their autonomy, adapting their conduct to conform to market-related forms of accountability. In this sense, it presents the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms to probation as a case study of the impact of marketisation on the autonomy of practitioners working within a public sector profession.

Exploring the Impact of an AVRS Curfew Program on Recidivism of Juvenile Probationers in Korea

Community corrections agencies across the world have adopted biometric technologies as a security tool and cost-effective monitoring strategy. This study investigates the effectiveness of the automated voiceprint recognition supervision (AVRS) curfew program for 386 Korean juvenile probationers from the Seoul Probation Office. Although the AVRS curfew program in Korea has been in effect for more than 14 years, effectiveness of the program has not been fully tested. A propensity score analysis was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the AVRS program, controlling for potential covariates of referring juveniles to the program. Contrary to expectations, a logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the innovative curfew program is a statistically significant factor in increasing the odds of recidivism. The article concludes with a discussion of implications for court-ordered juvenile curfew programs.

Bisnis Proses Perlakuan Anak di Balai Pemasyarakatan

Formulate the e standard operational procedure for the children treatment in Probation Office

Assessing Proposals for Mandatory Procedural Protections for Sentencings under the Guidelines

12 Federal Sentencing Reporter 212 (2000)The federal sentencing guidelines have received sustained criticism from scholars, judges, and practitioners. Critics claim that the guidelines unwisely shift sentencing discretion from federal judges to prosecutors and probation officers; often mandate undeservedly harsh sentences; are complex, mechanistic, and bureaucratic; fail to achieve their goal of reducing sentencing disparity; and clog both district and appellate courts with litigation. Despite the attacks, some critics acknowledge that the guidelines will remain in force for the foreseeable future. While some nonetheless continue to urge abolition, others propose less ambitious reform, including enhancing the procedural protections available to criminal defendants at sentencing. Recommendations include (a) mandatory evidentiary hearings to resolve fact disputes; (b) rights to compel testimony and confront accusers; (c) application of evidentiary rules, particularly the hearsay prohibition, to the prosecution's evidence; (d) use of a standard of proof more rigorous than the "preponderance of evidence" threshold; and (e) pre-plea notice of the government's sentencing position.Critics claim that enhanced procedural protections are needed to ensure the reliability of factual findings at sentencing. Because proposed reforms typically involve providing only defendants with added protections, it appears that the reformers' objective is the reduction of improperly harsh sentences resulting from erroneous determinations of fact.In addition, some reform proponents contend that the disparity between trial, where there are significant procedural protections, and sentencing hearings, which are less formal, creates an incentive for federal prosecutors to "indict for less serious offenses which are easy to prove and then expand them in the probation office" or at the sentencing hearing itself. Presumably, an increase in procedural protections at sentencing would both reduce federal prosecutors' motivation to consciously circumvent defendants' trial rights and diminish the disparity between trial and sentencing if prosecutors nonetheless did so.After a brief description of relevant features of the guidelines, I offer several observations about these proposed measures. First, although maximizing the reliability of sentencing hearings is a legitimate objective, particularly for factual determinations that have a dramatic impact on the length of sentence, it is not self-evident that the proposed mandatory procedural protections will result in appreciably more accurate fact-finding. Second, in the absence of empirical support, the concern that federal prosecutors might circumvent trial protections is an unpersuasive rationale for restructuring the guidelines sentencing process. Third, some of the proposed reforms impose costs that may offset benefits. At several places below, I propose what may be equally effective and less costly ways to increase reliability, such as greater appellate scrutiny of lower courts' refusals to conduct evidentiary hearings. Finally, I suggest that, if mandatory procedural reforms are adopted, those who believe that they invariably will benefit defendants at sentencing may be disappointed by unintended results.

A Multisite Randomized Block Experiment on the Seamless System of Care Model for Drug-Involved Probationers

This multisite randomized block experiment examines the efficacy of the seamless system of care for probationers (an integrated probation model combined with substance abuse treatment intervention onsite at a probation office). The sample consists of 251 drug-involved probationers randomized into probation with referral to community treatment or the seamless system of care. Key outcomes are examined over a 1-year period by recidivism risk level. When compared with probationers in the control group, the findings are that those in the seamless system of care group had fewer drug use days overall, less alcohol consumption, improved treatment initiation and adherence, but a higher number of days incarcerated. Low-risk seamless system participants had the most favorable outcomes compared with other study conditions. This study demonstrates the importance of tailoring interventions to the risk level of the probationer, and that the seamless system works better for lower risk offenders with substance use disorders.

The prevalence of autistic spectrum conditions in a community offender sample

Purpose Previous prevalence studies of likely autistic spectrum condition (ASC) within criminal justice settings have focussed on specialist forensic mental health settings. The purpose of this paper is to examine prevalence of autism in a general community forensic sample. Design/methodology/approach In total, 336 offenders managed by a probation office were administered with a recognised screening tool to identify likely autism (AQ-10). Screenings were scored and those above the threshold were identified, where possible further diagnostic information was sought on positive-screened cases. Findings In total, 4.5 per cent (15 offenders) of the caseload screened positive for autism. Descriptive demographic information such as gender, age and offence type is provided for this group. Further diagnostic information was available on eight of the cases. Three already had an autism diagnosis and further psychometric assessment indicated that a further three cases were 80 per cent likely to be diagnosable with autism. Research limitations/implications Demographic information on the sample could not be compared with norms across the whole probation caseload due to limitation of resources for the project. No further diagnostic information was available on six offenders who screened positive for autism. Practical implications The research indicates that autism is not substantially over-represented in a large community offender sample although further research is required to identify the full degree of representation. Social implications Different kinds of offences are observed to be committed by offenders who do exhibit autism. It would be useful for criminal justice staff to have a general knowledge about autism, also how people with autism might offend and how they might best be supervised by probation services. Originality/value This is the first study of its kind internationally to examine prevalence of autism in a general community forensic sample.