It’s Not Technically a Crime

• Published date: 01 November 2016
• Date: 01 November 2016
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403414553098
• Author: Christopher M. Campbell
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2016, Vol. 27(7) 643 –667

© 2014 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0887403414553098

cjp.sagepub.com

Article

It’s Not Technically a Crime:

Investigating the Relationship

Between Technical Violations

and New Crime

Christopher M. Campbell1

Abstract

A long-held assumption in corrections is that parole technical violations (TVs) serve as

a proxy of an offender’s potential of committing a new crime. Considering this notion

has yet to be empirically tested coupled with recent research indicating a patterned

difference between violators and recidivists, a test of this foundational assumption of

community corrections is warranted. The current study aims to test this assumption

using male and female offender samples from Washington State. Receiver operating

characteristic curves are used to test the predictive validity of a generic risk–needs

scale designed for felony recidivism on TV outcomes. Results suggest that the male-

specific scale performs significantly worse when predicting nonserious and serious

violations among the male sample. A female-specific scale, however, showed no

significant difference in predicting female violations. The findings provide evidence

that violations are not necessarily a proxy of new crime, and therefore offer wide

implications for community corrections policy.

Keywords

community corrections, recidivism, sanctions, correctional policy, probation violation

An enduring goal of U.S. correctional systems has been to decrease the number of

people who leave prison and commit another crime. To achieve this goal, a rationale

has been to use a system of parole where the state can identify a person’s readiness to

be relieved of supervision. Since the 1870s, such systems have operated on

1Washington State University, Pullman, USA

Corresponding Author:

Christopher M. Campbell, Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology, Washington State University,

P.O. Box 644872, Pullman, WA 99164-4872, USA.

Email: campbell27@wsu.edu

553098CJPXXX10.1177/0887403414553098Criminal Justice Policy ReviewCampbell

research-article2014

644 Criminal Justice Policy Review 27(7)

the assumption that a parolee’s behavior best indicates such readiness. This can be

understood simply as the “readiness assumption.” Contingent on agreed behavioral

expectations, officials can determine that a releasee is in fact not ready, and should

then be returned to confinement. Key to the readiness assumption is the agreement of

behavior expectations or conditions of release. Release conditions have been under-

stood as noncriminal indicators of the readiness assumption. Violations of these non-

criminal conditions are recognized as “technical violations” (TVs). Corresponding

with the readiness assumption, TVs are used as proxies of the person’s potential for

committing another crime. As such, states look to apprehend parolees on noncriminal

TVs and return the individual for further correction instead of waiting until new crimes

are committed, thereby minimizing victimization.

Current use of readiness conditions, however, has been shown to feed the revolving

door of corrections. In the aggregate, a common reference to TVs is that they make up

a third of prison admissions as parole failures who are returned to confinement

(Petersilia, 1999). In 2011, 32% of parolees were returned to incarceration nationwide

(Maruschak & Parks, 2012). However, these figures are often misleading as a portion

of these parole failures are returns due to new crimes that are often counted as condi-

tional violations. Separated, noncriminal TVs still account for as many as one-in-six

of those returned (Glaze & Bonczar, 2008). Considering that more people are being

released to community corrections caseloads than ever before, totaling more than five

million across the nation (Pew Center on the States, 2009), coupled with annual state

costs for incarceration routinely exceeding US$45 billion (Schmitt, Warner, & Gupta,

2010), returns to incarceration for noncriminal events are becoming increasingly

problematic.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of TVs and associated revocations is that many

conditions of release have never been empirically shown to be proxies of new crime.

Although many scholars have argued against the use of TVs as proxies (Gray, Fields,

& Maxwell, 2001; Hamilton & Campbell, 2013; Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2006;

Moczydlowski, 1980; Olson & Lurigio, 2000; Petersilia & Turner, 1993; J. Travis,

Solomon, & Waul, 2001), this gap remains in both literature and practice. In addition,

recent research indicates that there are notable, patterned differences between parolees

who technically violate and those who commit new crimes (Hamilton & Campbell,

2013). Such findings, joined with a practice based on the age-old readiness assump-

tion, provide reason to believe that the foundational postulations of TVs should be

questioned and tested.

This study seeks to determine if TVs are in fact proxies of new crime. Using a sta-

tistical technique known as a receiver operating characteristic, the predictive perfor-

mance (specificity and sensitivity) of risk and needs assessment items are plotted and

compared for outcomes of both new crime and TVs. Utilizing data from the Washington

State Department of Corrections (WADOC), this study offers a necessary investiga-

tion into the assumptions that drive risk assessment, treatment placement, and supervi-

sion plans. The results from this study will provide empirical evidence to further guide

research on TVs, the improvement of post-release supervision practices, and the

development of a more selective system of assigning conditions to early release.