Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Article 1. What Is the Purpose of Probation and Why Do We Revoke It?

Abstract: Preoccupation with due process has tended to obscure the substantive issues of probation administration. Courts give little attention to purposes of probation, impose numerous unnecessary and vague conditions, and tend to use probation solely as a token punishment. Consequently, the probation officer is compelled to decide which conditions to emphasize, with the result that administrative convenience has too much influence on supervision and the decision to seek revocation proceedings. In particular, using probation as a token punishment may lead to unjust revocation and imprisonment for noncriminal probation violations of an offender whom the court originally found no retributive need to imprison. In plea bar gaining and sentencing, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges should concentrate on setting specific goals of probation in individual cases and articulating the conditions necessary to achieve these goals. This can be assisted by presentence reports that are more focused on specific probation goals and involve more participation by the probation officer—preferably at the plea bargaining stage. Restraint is an important goal of probation; it can be better realized by (1) setting specific, enforceable probation con ditions to limit the probationer's opportunity for further crime and to make his activity more visible, and (2) revoking probation only if the probationer cannot abide by reasonable restraints. When a rehabilitative program is a condition of probation and the probationer fails to partici pate in or respond to it, probation should not be revoked unless the court in its original judgment found the supervision and service provided by the program a necessary substitute for the complete restraint of imprison ment. While restitution to the victim is a valid goal of probation, it can be better attained if carefully adjusted to the probationer's ability to pay before the probation judgment is imposed. When a probationer commits a new crime while on probation, the best response is to concentrate on sentencing him for the new crime, taking his probationary status into consideration along with other relevant factors, rather than to revoke probation and imprison him for his earlier offense.

Article 2: Using Police Officers to Enhance the Supervision of Juvenile Probationers: An Evaluation of the Anchorage CAN Program

Abstract: This study presents an evaluation of the Anchorage Coordinated Agency Network (CAN) program. The program combined the capacities of both the Anchorage Police Department and the Anchorage Office of Juvenile Probation to enhance the overall levels of supervision that juvenile probationers received. Consistent with research from intensive supervision literature, the CAN evaluation found that juveniles participating in the program were more likely to have new technical violations but no more likely to have new charges when compared to juveniles on regular probation. These findings support intensive supervision probation literature suggesting that increased supervision and surveillance lead to increased levels of probation violations.