Problems and Challenges Facing Probation

An Overview of the Parole System and its Problems Overcrowding in both state and federal prisons has been a major problem facing the corrections system. There have been many ways to try and stop the overcrowding, but it is still a problem to this day. Parole is just one strategy that has helped with this problem. The first actual type of parole was introduced by Alexander Maconochie in 1840. It was a primitive system and the first actual system of parole was introduced in 1846 by Sir Walter Crofton. Crofton had the first system in which parolees would be put back in prison if their parole conditions were violated. Also, Crofton introduced supervision by police officials. These officials proved to be the first actual parole officers. It was not until 1870 that parole was first introduced to the United States. Parole is defined as the, ?release of an offender from a penal or correctional institution, after he has served a portion of his sentence, under the continued custody of the state and under conditions that permit his reincarceration in the event of misbehavior? (p.437 Allen et al).

Parole seems like a reasonable and effective way to get prisoners back on the streets, rehabilitated and helping out the community, but parole still faces many challenges and problems. More and more inmates are being let out on parole, but at the same time, parole boards are losing funding. This puts a strain on parole officers and leaves many parolees unsupervised. It is problems like this that lead to parolees ending up back in prison. ?Based on the offense that brought parolees back to prison, these 156,000 offenders committed at least 6,800 murders, 5,500 rapes, 8,800 assaults, and 22,500 robberies, while under supervision in the community an average of 13 months? (p.1 Cohen). These are eye-opening numbers. If parolees end up back in prison, then the system is not working. With such staggering numbers, how is the community protected? How can the system insure that the parolees are being rehabilitated? The main ideas to be discussed in the following paragraphs are: how can the system prepare its prisoners for parole, and prevent them from being re-entered back into prison.

Major Issues With so many people on parole, it has been hard for the system to look after all of its parolees. So many people are getting out on parole and a lack of funding for rehabilitation programs, have led to a major problem. Support and funding have declined, resulting in dangerously high caseloads. Parolees sometimes abscond from supervision; more than half of all parolees are rearrested? (p. 1 Petersilia). It is hard for a community to feel safe with facts like this. Since these parolees are not being watched over by the system, they are free to do as they please. Many parolees are violating their parole, but not being punished for it.

Felony probationers and parolees are not permitted to possess a firearm while under supervision. Yet 21% of probation and parole violators imprisoned for a new offense reported possessing a firearm while under supervision? (p. 1 Cohen). Many find it hard to believe that such criminals are being released back into their neighborhoods. Having parolees in the community who are not rehabilitated, can have a serious affect on how the community develops. It is detrimental to community cohesion, employment prospects and economic well being, participation in the democratic process, family stability and childhood development, and mental and physical health and can exacerbate such problems as homelessness? (p. 3 Petersilia). Sometimes, parolees leave prison with no money saved and the fact that they have been in prison, and are most likely uneducated, jobs can be hard to find. Without jobs, parolees must sometimes resort back to their criminal ways as a means of survival. It seems the only way to stop such problems would be better supervision once parolees are let out and have them interact with the community.

The Systems Response In order to make sure parolees are not violating their parole, and that they are being rehabilitated, many new programs have been put into use. These programs are not just setup for after prisoners are paroled, but instead, the programs start as soon as they enter prison. One such program, or model, would be the Intensive Aftercare Program, also known as the IAP model. This model ?posits that effective intervention with the target population requires not only intensive supervision and services after institutional release, but also a focus on reintegration during incarceration and a highly structured and gradual transition process that serves as a bridge between institutionalization and aftercare? (p. 1 Wiebush et al).

Inmates need to be rehabilitated while still in prison. This gives them a better chance to live a normal life once they are released, causing recidivism to go down. The most important parts of this model would be the programs offered through it. On page two of their article, Wiebush et al, explain the programs as followed: Assessment, classification, and selection criteria. IAP focuses on high-risk offenders in order to maximize its potential for crime reduction and to avoid the negative outcomes previously demonstrated to result from supervising low-risk offenders in intensive supervision programs (Clear, 1988).

Individualized case planning that incorporates family and community perspectives. This component specifies the need for institutional and aftercare staff to jointly identify the services needed shortly after commitment and plan for how those needs will be addressed during incarceration, transition, and aftercare.

A mix of intensive surveillance and services. IAP promotes close supervision and control of high-risk offenders in the community but also emphasizes the need for similarly intensive services and support. This approach requires that staff have small caseloads and that supervision and services be available not only on weekdays, but also in the evenings and on weekends.

A balance of incentives and graduated consequences. Intensive supervision is likely to uncover numerous technical violations and program infractions. The IAP model indicates the need for a range of graduated sanctions tied directly and proportionately to the seriousness of the violation instead of relying on traditional “all or nothing” parole sanctioning schemes.

Creation of links with community resources and social networks. This element of case management is rooted in the conviction that the parole agency cannot effectively provide the range and depth of services required for high-risk, high-need parolees unless it brokers services through a host of community agencies and resources. Moreover, because interventions will focus on family, school, peer, and community issues, the case manager and service agencies need to create strong working relationships with these social networks.

It seems obvious that these programs could seriously help parolees stay out of prison and become normal citizens again. With such strong programs to back it up, it seems as though the AIP model could be a successful way to help rehabilitate parolees and reduce recidivism.

Another program which has been tested is the Reentry Partnerships Initiative. This programs focus is on better risk management, with the help of enhanced surveillance, risk and needs assessment, and pre-release planning. The program is ?based on the drug court model and taps the court’s authority to use sanctions and incentives to help released offenders remain crime free? (p. 5 Petersilia). With the system working with them, parolees will most likely feel as though they have someone there to help them adjust. This can make it easier for them to get back their lives and make something of themselves.

Conclusions Parolees being re-entered back into prison is a major problem. Attorney General Janet Reno called it “one of the most pressing problems we face as a nation.” If parole worked as it should, then these parolees would be rehabilitated and not going back into the system. I feel as though the proper steps are being taken to help ensure that parolees are rehabilitated and kept out of prison. The IAP model seems to have exactly what is needed to ensure this. The Reentry Partnerships Initiative is basically the same thing, but I feel as though the IAP model has been thought about more thoroughly and can be more effective. Given the increasing human and financial costs of prison, it seems as though putting money into these programs, or ones like it, is a cost-effective idea.

It is not all about money though. If parolees are rehabilitated before they exit prison, communities can feel safe and actually benefit from parolees. Parolees would be able to get jobs and live normal, independent lives. It is extremely obvious that no matter the parolee or program they are involved in, supervision post-release is a must. Parole officers need to keep an eye out for their parolees and get involved with their daily lives. This will ensure that their parolees are doing what is necessary to become an average citizen. This will only be possible if there is more money put into the parole system, in order to hire more parole officers, and lighten caseloads. Without these programs, parolees will continue to go back to prison and money which could be used for rehabilitation and parole programs, will just end up being used to build more prisons. It seems like an endless cycle, but once money is put into programs like these, it seems obvious that the results will be positive.

Works Cited

Petersilia, Joan. ?When Prisoners Return to the Community: Political, Economic, and Social Consequences.? Sentencing and Corrections. No. 9. (November 2000). World Wide Web. 20. Nov. 2003. http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/184253.pdf Wiebush, Richard G., Betsie McNulty, and Thao Le. ?Implementation of the Intensive-Community Based Aftercare Program.? Juvenile Justice Bulletin. (July 200). World Wide Web. 20 Nov. 2003. http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/181464.pdf Cohen, Robyn L. ?Probation and Parole Violators in State Prison, 1991.? Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. (August 1995). World Wide Web. 20 Nov. 2003. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ppvsp91.pdf Allen, Harry E., Clifford E. Simonsen, and Edward J. Latessa. Corrections in America. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2004.