Drivers of Probation Revocation in Pulaski County, Arkansas

• Published date: 01 September 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231177701
• Author: Mofan Gu,Rebecca Stone,Femina Varghese,Heath Braziel,Logan Snyder,Nickolas Zaller
• Date: 01 September 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2023, Vol. 50, No. 9, September 2023, 1405 –1426.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231177701

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2023 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1405

DRIVERS OF PROBATION REVOCATION IN

PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS

MOFAN GU

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

REBECCA STONE

Suffolk University

FEMINA VARGHESE

HEATH BRAZIEL

LOGAN SNYDER

University of Central Arkansas

NICKOLAS ZALLER

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

Probation has received relatively little research attention. In this exploratory two-study inquiry, we first analyzed quantitative

data to identify factors driving probation revocation in Pulaski County, Arkansas, among 10,260 individuals (mostly male

and African American) between 2015 and 2019 (Study 1). We found individuals with felony histories were significantly more

likely to be revoked (aOR 17.2 for one or two convictions; aOR 25.1 for three or more convictions). Other predictors include

lower education, younger age at first sentence, unemployment, and substance use. In Study 2, we conducted 20 in-depth

qualitative interviews with 12 key stakeholders and 8 individuals with probation experience. We found that client financial

instability, substance use and mental health disorders, stakeholder risk avoidance, officer caseload, and lack of accessible

resources/services contributed to probation revocation. We conclude with recommendations for changes to probation policy

and practice, including officer training, alternatives to incarceration, service expansion, and community engagement.

Keywords: probation revocation; criminal justice; criminal justice system; quantitative methods; qualitative methods; statistics

Probation is the most common form of correctional supervision in the United States and

expanded rapidly from 1980 to its peak in 2007, when 1 in every 53 U.S. adults was on

probation (Phelps, 2017). Though the population has declined slightly in recent years, there

were still 3.5 million adults on probation in 2018 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2021). The

phenomenon of the rapid expansion and unprecedented scale of probation, as well as its

concentration among disadvantaged men of color, has been described as “mass probation”

(Phelps, 2017).

AUTHORS’ NOTE: This study was funded by the Arnold Ventures Reducing Revocations Challenge. We have

no known conflict of interest to disclose. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to

Nickolas Zaller, Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, Fay W. Boozman College of Public

Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72205;

e-mail: ndzaller@uams.edu.

1177701CJBXXX10.1177/00938548231177701Criminal Justice and BehaviorGu et al. / Drivers of Probation Revocation in Pulaski County

research-article2023

1406 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Though once intended as an alternative to incarceration, probation has been identified as a

major contributor to jail and prison admissions. Phelps (2013) argues that probation has para-

doxically served as both an alternative to incarceration and as a “net-widener” where people

receive probation for offenses that would not previously have resulted in supervisory sen-

tences. Standard probation conditions include regular reporting to a supervising officer and to

any required programming (e.g., substance abuse treatment, anger management courses),

abstaining from the use of alcohol or other drugs, paying fines and fees, participating in

employment or education opportunities, and avoiding new arrests (Doherty, 2016). People on

probation may also be subject to increased surveillance through home and workplace visits,

urinalysis, and electronic monitoring. The result is that probation staff have extraordinary

discretion in how they monitor clients and respond to violations (Doherty, 2016; Ruhland &

Scheibler, 2021). Probation violations are extremely common and have been identified as a

significant driver of jail and prison admissions (Council of State Governments Justice Center,

2018; The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2020). Twenty-three percent of prison admissions are the

result of probation revocations, half of those for technical violations that do not involve new

criminal activity, despite evidence that jail sanctions are no more effective than community-

based sanctions in reducing future violations or increasing successful probation completion

(Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2019; Wodahl et al., 2015).

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH PROBATION REVOCATION

Much of what is known about revocation of community supervision is based on studies

of people on parole. The literature on adult probation revocation is, in comparison, more

limited and has produced mixed findings regarding risk and protective factors (Diaz et al.,

2022). Below, we review factors identified as associated with or predictive of probation

revocation, beginning with the expected rules violations and broadening to bigger-picture

factors including socioeconomic disadvantage and issues relating to the administration of

probation services.

NEW OFFENSES

Prior research suggests that the majority of probation violations are for minor violations

that present minimal threat to public safety (Gray et al., 2001; Rodriguez & Webb, 2007).

Rodriguez and Webb found that only 9% of violations in their study involved the commis-

sion of new crimes (Rodriguez & Webb, 2007).

FAILURE TO REPORT AND ABSCONDING

The conditions of probation typically require regular reporting to the parole supervisor,

either in person or via telephone. Failure to report is a technical violation, and a client who

repeatedly fails to report and cannot be contacted may be considered an absconder. The

research on absconding from probation is slim but suggests that approximately 8%–10% of

people on probation may be expected to abscond (Bonczar, 1997; Langan & Cunniff, 1992;

Mayzer et al., 2004). An analysis of a large single-jurisdiction sample of people who

absconded from probation found that absconding was more common among those with

very low income, less than a high school education, and misdemeanor assaultive or drug

offenses (Stevens-Martin & Liu, 2017).