Missed Officer–Probationer Contacts and Its Influence on Rearrest

• Author: Justin C. Medina,Haley R. Zettler
• Published date: 01 April 2020
• Date: 01 April 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419828092
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419828092

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2020, Vol. 31(3) 374 –394

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403419828092

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Missed Officer–Probationer

Contacts and Its Influence

on Rearrest

Haley R. Zettler1 and Justin C. Medina2

Abstract

Probation supervision is marked by the dual roles of surveillance and casework.

A key feature of supervision that aligns with the goals of community safety

through surveillance is the use of officer–probationer contacts. The current

study explores the relationship between missed probation contacts and rearrest

while on supervision in a surveillance-driven context. Logistic regression analyses

modeled the effects of missed contacts on rearrests using probation data from a

large supervision agency (n = 3,809). Analyses included the overall percentage

of missed contacts and missed contacts above/below the median and mean

percentage of missed contacts to subsequent rearrests while on supervision.

Overall, the percentage of missed contacts increased the likelihood of rearrest

while on probation. Furthermore, the percentage of missed probation contacts

that significantly predicted rearrest was lower than expected (4.17%). The results

suggest that missing contacts while on probation has a negative impact on probation

success. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

probation, abscond, technical violation, recidivism, community corrections

Probation is the most common form of correctional sanction, with an estimated

3,789,000 adults on probation at 2015 year end (Kaeble & Bonczar, 2017). Probation

serves as an alternative to incarceration that allows the offender to serve their crim-

inal sentence in the community (Bonta, Rugge, Scott, Bourgon, & Yessine, 2008).

1The University of Memphis, TN, USA

2Lycoming College, Williamsport, PA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Haley R. Zettler, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, The University of Memphis, 318

McCord Hall, Memphis, TN 38152, USA.

Email: hzettler@memphis.edu

828092CJPXXX10.1177/0887403419828092Criminal Justice Policy ReviewZettler and Medina

research-article2019

Zettler and Medina 375

One of the primary goals of probation is crime control (Champion, 1996), which is

achieved through the imposition of conditions of supervision. The crime control

model has expanded in recent years to include the use of graduated sanctions cou-

pled with judicial monitoring and the use of swift and certain zero-tolerance poli-

cies (Harrell & Roman, 2001; Hawken & Kleiman, 2009). One of the ways that the

crime control model manifests is through monitoring and surveillance of probation-

ers, including the requirement to report to a probation officer. The frequency of

contact with probation officers varies by supervision level, as higher risk proba-

tioners are generally required to report more frequently compared with those on

low-risk supervision (Gray, Fields, & Maxwell, 2001). Although contact with pro-

bation officers is a central component of supervision, relatively few studies have

examined how missed probation contacts influences probationer outcomes, espe-

cially concerning rearrest.

The majority of research on the topic has examined missed probation contacts in

the larger context of probation violations. A national survey of 5,867 adult probation-

ers found that 41% of probation revocation hearings involved violations for failing to

report to a probation officer (Bonczar, 1997). An additional survey of state prison

inmates who were incarcerated for a probation or parole violation (n = 13,986) identi-

fied 37% of inmates incarcerated for technical violations due to failure to report/

absconding (Cohen, 1995). In their review of probation violations, Gray and col-

leagues (2001) found that the most common probation violation was a failure to report

(33.6% of violations).

As prior research has identified missed probation contacts as one of the most fre-

quent types of probation violation, the relationship that missed probation contacts

might have on other probation outcomes, including recidivism is warranted. The cur-

rent research contributes to the literature on probation contacts and recidivism, by

examining the relationship between probationer missed contacts and rearrest while on

supervision. Adding to this line of research is important, as it can inform probation

officers and administrators as to how missing probation contacts jeopardizes proba-

tion’s goal of crime control.

Literature Review

Theoretical Frameworks of Probation Supervision

Probation officers have faced conflicting goals of public safety and rehabilitation

since the profession’s inception (Ellsworth, 1990). Beginning in the 1950s,

researchers have documented these polarized supervision approaches of enforcing

the law and assisting clients in the community (Clear & Latessa, 1993; Ohlin,

Piven, & Pappenfort, 1956; Whetzel, Paparozzi, Alexander, & Lowenkamp, 2011).

For example, Klockars’ (1972) seminal 2-year ethnographic examination of offi-

cers’ supervision styles accounted for these competing goals in his taxonomy of

officers’ supervision styles. Klockars (1972) identified four types of probation offi-

cers who fell along the continuum between law enforcement and rehabilitative