Technical Revocations of Probation in One Jurisdiction: Uncovering the Hidden Realities

THE INCREASE IN jail and prison populations across the United States has been attributed, in part, to the increase in probation and parole revocations in recent years (Pew, 2007). Additionally, the number of people on probation and parole in the United States has exponentially increased, with 1 in 31 adults under some form of criminal justice supervision in the community, according to a report from the Pew Center on the States (Pew, 2009). Due to concerns for public safety and the reported “failures” of probation systems nationwide in helping to reduce recidivism and reincarceration, many probation officials have attempted to reduce revocation rates by implementing strategies thought to be effective at increasing successful completions of supervision. Cognitive-behavioral programs, substance abuse treatment based on the risk-needs-responsivity model, and specialty courts to address specific needs of offenders have gained popularity as well as credibility in reducing revocations and recidivism (Aos, Miller & Drake, 2006; Clawson, Bogue, & Joplin, 2005; Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996; Hawken & Kleiman, 2009; HerzogEvans, 2014; Latessa, 2004; Latessa, 2006; McNeill, 2009). With the growing emphasis on utilizing “evidence-based practices,” new and old probation strategies are continually under evaluation across the United States and abroad using empirical methods to confirm effects of such strategies on probation (and parole) outcomes. However, more attention is needed for offenders who violate probation but do not necessarily commit new crimes while under supervision; these are generally referred to as technical violators of probation. In other words, offenders may violate the rules the court has ordered they abide by (in order to remain in the community in lieu of incarceration for their crime), their community sentence is subsequently revoked, or taken away, and a sentence of a period of imprisonment is imposed as set forth in the statute. Most scholarly literature regarding technical violations and technical revocations examines relationships among offender risk and need scores, offense types, demographic variables associated with technical violations, and criminal history information (Garber, 2007; Gray, Fields, & Maxwell, 2001; Minor, Wells, & Simms, 2003; Petersilia, 1999). Many offenders have substance abuse issues; therefore it is not unusual for them to violate supervision by submitting positive drug tests. And most offenders violate their conditions of probation during their community sentence in some way, especially in the beginning when they are adjusting to the rules. Thus, violations for failure to report, failure to maintain employment, failure to complete community service restitution, or failure to pay court-ordered fees are not uncommon. For the current study we collected data on demographic information, probation offense information, and criminal history, as other studies have. In addition, we gathered data on a variety of other variables such as type and frequency of technical violations, probation officials’ responses to violations, mental health and substance abuse issues, absconder status, accuracy of revocation reason reported to state officials, probationer refusals for treatment at time of revocation, and the length of imprisonment sentence received upon revocation. We examined these factors to uncover any issues not previously considered in empirical investigations of technical revocations of supervision. Revocation information for the study jurisdiction shows that almost 50 percent of felony revocations in fiscal year 2013 were attributed to technical violations of supervision. This is a concern for probation officials who are tasked with reducing prison overcrowding and improving probation outcomes.