Expert answer:Survey of Corrections Week 2 Intensive Probation S
Answer & Explanation:Compare and contrast “regular probation supervision” with “intensive probation supervision”. Give the source of the comparison, if one is used.2. Find at least ONE research article from the TU Library that offers research on one of these. Give a summary of the article with the name of the article, journal, date, etc. Include a link if possible. http://trojan.troy.edu/library/perceptions of intensive probation.docx
perceptions_of_intensive_probation.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Accessibility Information and Tips Revised Date: 07/2015
Perceptions of Probation and Police Officer
Home Visits During Intensive Probation
Supervision
Search
Searching: Academic Search Premier Choose Databases
Please enter search term(s).
•
•
•
Basic Search
Advanced Search
Search History
•
•
Result List
Refine Search
•
AN 108315191 Search
Result 1 of 1
Translate Full Text:
Choose Language
Title:
Perceptions of Probation and Police Officer Home Visits During Intensive Probation
Supervision. By: Aland, Leanne Fiftal, Federal Probation, 00149128, Jun2015, Vol. 79,
Issue 1
Database:
Academic Search Premier
HTML Full Text
Perceptions of Probation and Police Officer Home Visits
During Intensive Probation Supervision
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Related Literature
Methods
Findings
Discussion
TABLE 1. DEMOGRAPHICS–Raw numbers (%)
TABLE 2. HOME VISITS ON INTENSIVE SUPERVISION PROBATION
TABLE 3. Probationer Activity Change During ONL (% of probationer sample)
References
ListenPauseStopSelect:
enabled by ReadSpeaker
American Accent
Volume SettingsDownload mp3CloseSpeech-
PROBATION SUPERVISION OF youth and adults has evolved over time to respond differently
to probationers based on the risk each person poses to the community and according to
criminogenic needs that are related to criminal activity. Intensive probation supervision through
more conditions and unannounced home visits has been used with probationers deemed at high
risk to recidivate with new crimes. The initial purpose of home visits and intensive probation was
to deter known offenders from involvement in criminal activity and to decrease the possibility
that they would violate conditions of probation (e.g., by associating with criminal friends,
violating curfew, or using drugs or alcohol). Deterrence theory assumes that swift and certain
punishment is likely to keep people from violating the law. The assumption of home visits is that
they help probation officers more readily detect probationers who are not following the
conditions of their probation, so that they can act much faster to revoke probation in order to
prevent a probation violator from future criminal conduct.
Home visits conducted during the evening hours posed a potentially volatile situation for one
officer to handle alone. To address this issue, partnerships between the city police and county
probation departments were created throughout the 1990s to encourage both agencies to share
information and to participate as a team in evening home visits (Alarid, Sims, & Ruiz, 2011a;
Leitenberger, Semenyna, & Spelman, 2003). One such evening home visit partnership called
Operation Night Light (ONL) began in Boston, where police and probation officers met to
conduct evening home visits of designated probationers. The idea behind ONL was for a
designated probation officer to visit probationers at a time when immediate family members
were also present. The probation officer, who normally worked during the day, would rotate on
ONL for one evening shift every week to conduct nighttime home visits of his or her own
caseload. At least one police officer was present during the home visit to address security and
safety issues if they arose. Some probation departments used probation officers who worked with
police only at night. The evening probation officers did not supervise a caseload of clients;
instead, they visited homes of probationers at the request of their probation officer (Condon,
2003; Matz & Kim, 2013). Other police-probation partnerships were created to reduce truancy in
schools through communication with school resource officers (Alarid, Sims, & Ruiz, 2011b).
Related Literature
Home visits of probationers have certainly been an important part of probation supervision for
nearly a century. However, having probation and police officers conduct home visits together has
become more prevalent only in the last 20 years. As a result, the academic literature lacks
information about how the probation/police home visits are perceived by probationers, parents,
and officers or how the home visit might alter probationer behavior (Ahlin, An tunes, &
Tubman-Carbone, 2013). Instead, the available literature has focused on how the home visits
broadened probation officer roles and responsibilities (Murphy, 2005). Previous research found
that the “tone” of a home visit was largely determined by which officer did most of the talking
and decision making. The ideal situation was when the probation officer took the lead and
asserted the conversation, while the police officer stood by as a passive onlooker (Alarid et al.,
2011a).
The home visit also broadened opportunities for police officers. Police were able to enter private
homes without warrants, but they were instructed to serve only as backup rather than as
interrogators (Byrne & Hummer, 2004; Mawby & Worrall, 2004). In other jurisdictions, police
officers conducted random curfew checks of juveniles who were in violation of court-ordered
probation. Apparently, these curfew checks were made without a probation officer present and
could potentially be problematic if the balance of power shifted from being more rehabilitative to
strictly law enforcement (Jones & Sigler, 2002). At times, police have overstepped their legal
authority during home visits once probation or parole officers began to conduct searches and
have even collected evidence in situations when probable cause or a warrant is required to
conduct a home search (Murphy & Worrall, 2007).
Allowing the probation officer to maintain more leverage and having clear written roles and
responsibilities was necessary for the home visit to remain related first and foremost to
supervision (Murphy & Lutze, 2009; Murphy & Worrall, 2007). The degree to which the home
visit achieves these goals, however, is unclear. Furthermore, with the exception of Piquero
(2003), who examined home visits of adult probationers, most previous studies examined home
visits of youth on probation. This study attempts to fill a gap in the literature by more closely
examining both juvenile and adult probationer home visits in two ways: (1) to present viewpoints
from police, probation officers, probationers, and parents of probationers who experienced
probation/police home visits, and (2) to study probationer activity change as a result of home
visits during supervision.
Methods
The ONL program under study was a partnership between the Kansas City, Kansas Police
Department (KCKPD) and the Wyandotte County Adult and Juvenile Probation Departments.
Research into how the Operation Night Light program worked was obtained through participant
interviews, ride-alongs, and official agency data. The three research questions were:
* What experiences do participants of probation/police home visits have?
* Do probation/police home visits allow probation officers to detect probation violations sooner?
* Do these home visits change the behaviors of probationers?
Perceptual data was collected through interviews of 18 ONL officers (7 juvenile probation
officers, 4 adult probation officers, and 7 police officers). I conducted individual interviews of a
random sample of 49 probationers–27 adult and 22 juveniles. Ten parents of juvenile
probationers were interviewed separately. I obtained human subjects’ approval for this project,
and parental permission for all juvenile interviews. All interviews took place at the juvenile and
adult probation department in private rooms. The parents were interviewed separately from the
children. Official agency data was also obtained for the number and dates of home visits.
I logged 40 observation hours during home visits and ride-alongs with ONL police and probation
officers. Each ride-along lasted 4 hours, usually between 6:30-10:30 p.m. Two police officers
accompanied one probation officer per vehicle. The ONL staff devoted approximately 20 hours
total per week to ONL home visits. Probation officers in Kansas did not carry firearms at the
time of data collection. There were some differences noted between the adult and juvenile ONL
visits. The adult ONL lists were generated randomly by the probation supervisor, while the
juvenile ONL visits were chosen by each individual probation officer. Second, while the curfew
was enforceable for the juveniles according to age, the adult curfew was reportedly difficult to
enforce. Other than home visits at random, juveniles in the program had weekday curfew times
of 7:00 p.m. for middle school and 8:00 p.m. for high school age. On Friday and Saturday nights,
the curfew was 9:00 p.m. for middle school and 11:00 p.m. for high school. In both cases, the
curfew did not apply if the youths were accompanied by their parents or an approved guardian.
Youth and adult probationers were selected for the ONL intensive supervision probation if they
had one or more of the following risk factors:
* History of family violence, drug, and/or gang activity
* Prior violent offense(s)
* Suspected gang affiliation
* Friend/Family of recent homicide victim/ perpetrator
* Suspected drug use/involvement in drug sales while on probation
* Current warrant/probation violation status
The first two risk factors were related only to past behavior that occurred before probation. The
third and fourth risk factors were situations that occurred in the recent past or present time. If at
least one of these first four factors was present, the probationer was identified as an ONL
participant in the beginning. The fifth and sixth risk factors occurred while on regular probation
and largely depended on the officer and supervisor’s discretion, which might bring a probationer
into the program at a later point in time. None of the probationers were on electronic monitoring
or any kind of global positioning system at the time of data collection.
Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the participants. The average age of juveniles
was 15 years of age, ranging between 12 and 18 years. For adults, the average age was 21 years,
with a range between 18 and 25. What is perhaps most striking is how similar the juvenile and
adult ONL participants were with respect to sex, felony conviction offense, and race/ethnicity.
About 8 out of 10 ONL probationers were male, with about 45 percent having been convicted of
a property crime, about 20 percent for a felony crime against a person, and the remaining for
drug or alcohol-related offenses. Slightly more of the adults than juveniles were AfricanAmerican (63 percent compared to 53 percent respectively), while Caucasians comprised over 40
percent of juveniles and about 33 percent of adult probationers. Hispanic probationers made up
around 5 percent for both groups, which was proportionate to the general population. However,
African-Americans were disproportionately over-represented in the probationer population
compared to their numbers in the community.
Findings
During my 40 hours of observations during the home visits, the probation officer initiated
communication strategies with his or her client. The police officers stood near the front door of
the house, but did not interact with the probationer. Characteristics of the home visits, including
the number per person, the percentage of time spent on ONL, and the result of each visit, are
shown in Table 2.
Characteristics of Home Visits
According to agency data, home visits for juveniles began on average, about 3.8 months (median
of two months) after probation supervision started. Home visits for adults began later, at an
average of 5.2 months. This was due primarily to the lag time between the initial risk and needs
assessment and supervisory approval. The other explanation was the number of probationers who
entered ONL as a result of certain types of technical violations that occurred midstream while on
regular probation. Once a juvenile probationer was approved to be in the ONL program, the total
number of ONL home visits ranged from 1-18, with a median of 3 visits and an average of 4.5
visits per probationer. The number of home visits for adult probationers was lower, with a range
of 1-7 and an average of 2.5 visits per probationer.
The time period between the first home visit and the last home visit ranged from one week (33.5
percent of all ONL probationers) to a span of 18 months (0.3 percent). The average amount of
time that lapsed between the first home visit and the last home visit was 3.7 months, with a
median of 3.0 months. The time period during the ONL visits made up an average of 29 percent
of the total time spent on probation (median time on ONL was 18.4 percent of the time). There
were a total of 1,420 ONL visits recorded in the chronology notes for the juvenile sample and
520 visits for the adult sample. About 48 percent of the juvenile visits yielded no response or no
one was at home, whereas a much higher percentage of visits to adult probationers yielded no
answer (73.5 percent). The juvenile probationer was at home over 28 percent of the time, while
only 15 percent of adult probationers were at home. In 22.5 percent of juvenile visits and 8.5
percent of visits to adult probationers, collateral contact was made through a third party, such as
a family member who resided with the probationer. In about 1 percent of juvenile and 2 percent
of adult home visits, the address did not exist, the probationer never lived there, or the
probationer no longer lived there.
Table 2 also shows that over half of all technical violations and/or new crimes discovered that
led to juvenile probation termination resulted directly from the ONL home visit. Only 22.5
percent of adult probation technical violations and new crimes were detected through home
visits. The other violations noted/crimes filed were discovered at some time other than during the
home visit.
Interviews with Police
The ONL program paid the police officers overtime, and officers were chosen based on
availability and seniority. Both regular street police officers and community police officers were
given the opportunity to sign up for specific evenings. The police who were interviewed were
members of both groups and all had direct experience with the ONL program. They understood
that their role was not to participate in decision making, but to act as security for probation
officers, intervening only if necessary for safety reasons. Most of the police officers interviewed
felt that probation officers were being too lenient and giving the probationers too many chances.
One officer said: “ONL provides a community presence, but it needs harsher penalties.”
ONL served a vital public safety function. Should the need arise to remove a probationer from
the community, ONL allowed warrants to be served immediately. Police officers mentioned that
if they’ve been inside the house before, they are able to remember the layout. One police officer
shared a story about how both agencies were able to work together:
“Frank” was suspected by some of our detectives of shooting [a loaded weapon] into vacant
houses around 12th and Quindaro. A detective phoned one of the probation officers to see if he
knew anything about Frank. Due to previous probation contact with Frank, the probation officer
shared enough information on where Frank lived, his friends, and even the car he drove. This
was enough to assist detectives in finding and arresting Frank.
It was interesting to observe how two agencies, each with different training and emphases, were
able to work together to achieve the same goals. The police were more likely to be oriented
toward control and efficiency in singular events, while probation emphasized case management
and repeated communication over a longer period of time. Thus, members of each respective
agency are more likely to perceive a difference with the other.
Probation Officer Interactions with Police
Probation officers clearly recognized the importance of police officers to the safety of the home
visit. However, probation officers had more positive experiences with community police officers
than with regular street police officers. The street officers stayed in the car and used the time to
finish their own paperwork, while the community police officers were more likely to accompany
the probation officer inside the house. As a result, every probation officer preferred working with
the community police officer unit. The street police officer seemed to emphasize quantity and
efficiency, with the need to finish all the visits on the list. Probation officers were focused on the
quality of each visit and also of gathering more information from collateral contacts by speaking
with family members of probationers. One probation officer commented,
I would rather have fewer visits of higher quality rather than rush through to finish the list of
scheduled visits. Many police don’t see the value in talking to the parent or another family
member. They feel that if the youth is not home, we should just go on to the next house.
Another probation officer said:
Contact visits take longer. Sometimes I get the feeling that some of the senior [police] officers
seem glad that we’ve had no response because that means that there is less paperwork and they
can go home earlier.
The probation officers strongly believed that the success of ONL was largely determined by
police familiarity with the area. However, assignment of ONL police officers for overtime was
based on seniority, not on knowledge of the area or of particular houses (e.g., a known crack
house in the area). The probation officers were in favor of rotating more police officers into the
program to expose them to a wider variety of officers from other districts or working exclusively
with the community policing unit.
Probation Officer Experience with Home Visits
The probation officer interviews indicated that the home visits were an insightful tool for them to
gain information and increase understanding about their client. The officers believe that ONL has
assisted them to better tolerate cultures, income levels, and living situations that may differ from
their own. A greater understanding of challenges that the probationers face may contribute to the
probation officer being more likely to work with the client rather than be quick to file a violation.
A home visit also allowed the officer to establish relationships with family members and friends
of the probationer that would prove useful if probation conditions were ever breached. Verifying
that the probationer is living at the claimed address is equally important. In comparison to an
office visit, clients tended to be more honest and open when they were at their own home.
Home visits also allowed probation officers to detect earlier probation conditions that were not
being followed, and to investigate why the condition was not being followed. For example, a
home visit may provide clues about the client’s financial situation or the reason why restitution
payments are not being made.
The following situation was described by a juvenile probation officer:
“Jessica” had once again not shown up for her scheduled appointment with me. I wanted to find
out what the problem was before I filed a motion with the court. On the next ONL visit night, I
visited Jessicas house with police officers. As we pulled up to her house, one police officer said:
“I know this address. We come here all the time. The mother is always drunk or high on
something.” I saw that Jessica was home and actually caring for her mother, who was too drunk
to drive Jessica to her scheduled appointment. Jessicas UA [drug test] showed that she wasn’t
drinking or using [drugs]. The visit was productive and the mother has since been court-ordered
to treatment. There has been less police calls for service and Jessica is better able to meet her
probation terms.
Most probation officers indicated that the home visits increased their visibility in the community.
Offenders on probation seemed to get …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades