I’d like you to meet a fictional character. His name is Billy and he’s 12 years old. Billy lives in a middle class home in a suburban neighborhood. His mother loves his father. They both have good jobs — his is full time, hers is part time. His younger brother just turned nine. At school, Billy has better than average grades. He plays basketball, runs track, and is well-liked.
And yet, as the school year progresses, Billy’s mom notices a change in his behavior. He is becoming sullen. His grades are slipping. Mom sees a decline in effort and an absence of glowing teacher comments on his work. Dad notices that Billy’s participation at sports practice is lackluster. At dinner, the boy no longer talks about his day.
In response, Dad and Mom decide to step up their attention. Dad goes to all practices as well as games and meets and speaks to other parents. He learns the names of Billy’s friends and takes an active interest in Billy’s “off” time. Mom meets with teachers and learns all she can about Billy’s activities. She volunteers at the school and pays attention to Billy’s friends, language, dress, and topics of conversation.
Time goes by and Billy’s overall behavior improves along with his grades. Interestingly, Mom and Dad never actually find out what was wrong. But does it really matter? They used common sense and increased supervision of their child to create a satisfactory outcome. Everyone is happy…
Time goes by, and slowly but surely Billy’s environment changes. Billy is in High School now. Dad’s not in the picture anymore. Mom has a full-time job and a new man in her life (and with him come a couple of older siblings for Billy). A drug pusher is among the mix of peers at Billy’s school. Now, when Billy’s behavior begins to decline again, Mom cannot provide the increased supervision he needs.
To make a long story short: The outcome is poor.
The point here is that lack of supervision equals increased risk of poor behavior.
Today, all the sports programs, community activities and organizations developed around children and teenagers are designed to enable increased child supervision and to provide guidance. We do this because we know that increased supervision dramatically raises a teenager’s chances of getting back on their own feet, even if we can’t exactly diagnose what is troubling them.
So, why is it that “supervision” and guidance as a tool of the criminal justice system seems to loose validity when Billy reaches the ripe old age of 18?
Supervision is for anyone at risk of failing
Probation and parole clients all have different risks and needs, regardless of age. Drug problems are directed to treatment. Alcoholics go to AA. Family violence cases attend counseling. Mental health cases get treatment.
But who makes sure these clients attend their various programs? Police officers certainly don’t have time for it. Neither does the court or the parole board. Only the PPO can make sure that his or her clients attend their programs and only they can work to prevent further criminal activity while treatment is being provided.
A good PPO is an enforcer, a preventive agent, and a proactive change agent. And his/her greatest tool is the one used by good parents everywhere: supervision.
So, I ask you, what does this say about the future of corrections and recidivism? What will this mean to a nation that, in the face of tight budgets, is purging prisoners from its facilities and dumping them in community corrections? After all, a PPO can only effectively supervise a finite number of clients at one time. And if our PPOs are overworked, then ALL community-based rehabilitative programs are doomed to failure. Convicted criminals are notorious for NOT doing what you want them to do in absence of an outside influence that is immediate and effective.
Our slipping grip
Even prior to our current recession, most states failed to acknowledge the importance of individual client supervision provided by PPOs. And today, a review of the Justice Reinvestment reports in Texas, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire reveals no policy suggestions addressing community supervision by PPOs, despite fast-rising caseloads.
Texas is boasting of a success in reducing revocation rates, however, we do not have data on the caseloads of PPOs in Texas, and no explanation as to why the revocation rate dropped 24.6 percent for parole, and only 3.1 percent for probation. Parole boards are very political and can respond to pressure from above. Courts less so. Probation and parole revocation rates can be artificially reduced by supervisors under pressure. Texas did redirect $200 million to strengthen probation, parole, and treatment services. But did that include the hiring of additional PPOs?
The Wisconsin report gives us no information on PPO caseloads. The report identifies revocation of supervision as a major contributor to the prison population.
The New Hampshire study does mention that between FY2000 and FY2009 probation clients increased 26 percent, parole clients increased 93 percent and PPO staff has not increased significantly. The New Hampshire report also states that “intensive” (i.e. effective) supervision combined with effective addiction treatment resulted in an 18% reduction in recidivism. Yet, the policy recommendations make no attempt to bring PPO numbers up to a reasonable level. Why? Am I alone in being totally frustrated by lack of common sense used to develop policy options?
Probation and parole supervision standards are ignored across all the studies. Is this a built-in bias brought to the reinvestment projects by The Council of State Governments Justice Center?
North Carolina has responded by hiring 115 more officers, which is a good start. However, it’s going to take a whole lot more the 115 officers nationwide to keep all these released criminals from falling.
It’s been said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Just what are we expecting will happen this time as we increase caseloads and purge prisons? Unless we do something to help increase direct client supervision, expecting anything other than a boomerang effect (ending in increased recidivism) is nothing less than the talk of the completely insane.
I’m interested in your feedback. What is happening in your jurisdiction?
