Probation Violations, Revocations, and Imprisonment

• Author: Vincent J. Webb,Nancy Rodriguez
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403406292956
• Published date: 01 March 2007
• Date: 01 March 2007
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice
Policy Review
Volume 18 Number 1
March 2007 3-30
Probation Violations,
© 2007 Sage Publications
10.1177/0887403406292956
Revocations, and Imprisonment
http://cjp.sagepub.com
hosted at
The Decisions of Probation Officers,
http://online.sagepub.com
Prosecutors, and Judges Pre- and
Post-Mandatory Drug Treatment
Nancy Rodriguez
Arizona State University, Glendale
Vincent J. Webb
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX
The focus of previous probation studies has been on identifying the significant predictors
of probation outcomes (e.g., violations and arrests) and probation processes (e.g., revo-
cation). In this study, the authors examine how the passage of Arizona’s mandatory drug
treatment law affected probation violations and the revocation process. They rely on pro-
bation, prosecution, and sentencing case file data of imprisoned low-level drug offenders
to analyze how the mandatory drug treatment law influenced the decision-making
processes of probation officers, prosecutors, and judges. Findings indicate that the major-
ity of revocations leading to incarceration involved technical violations and not the com-
mission of new crimes. Furthermore, the type of violations significantly differed pre- and
postimplementation of the law, as did prosecution and sentencing decisions. Policy impli-
cations for probation supervision and drug treatment laws are discussed.
Keywords:
probation revocation; probation violations; mandatory drug treatment
Mandatory drug treatment laws, the latest drug control policy, require that low-
level drug offenders receive substance abuse treatment while on probation
rather than be incarcerated. As studies begin to assess the impact of such laws on
offenders (Farabee, Hser, Anglin, & Huang, 2004; Hser et al., 2003; Longshore et al.,
2004; Speiglman, Klein, Miller, & Noble, 2003), minimal attention has been devoted
to how probation departments, prosecutors, and judges have adjusted their practices
to process low-level drug offenders. For example, it is unclear whether the types of
probation violations that result in revocations have changed since the implementation
of mandatory drug treatment laws and whether prosecutors and judges have modified
how they handle such revocations. Although prosecutors’ and judges’ discretion is
ever present in court decision-making processes, the implementation of mandatory
Authors’ Note: Preparation of this article was assisted by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Substance Abuse Policy Research Program. The authors would like to thank the editor and reviewers for
their insightful comments on an earlier draft of this article.
3

---

4
Criminal Justice Policy Review
drug treatment laws certainly reduced, and in some cases eliminated, the use of dis-
cretion in particular cases (e.g., first- or second-time drug offenders). Similarly, the
formal documentation of probation violations and the revocation of probation are
processes heavily guided by probation officers’ discretion.
Although research has not examined the direct relationship among these agents,
in the case of low-level drug offenses, it is certainly possible that probation viola-
tions have an influence on prosecution and sentencing outcomes. A recent study on
the imprisonment of low-level drug offenders pre- and postimplementation of
Arizona’s mandatory drug treatment law presents the first detailed analysis of the
relationship between prosecution decisions (e.g., plea bargaining) and the sentenc-
ing of low-level drug offenders (Riley et al., 2005). Findings from this study show
that 60% of offenders sentenced to prison for a low-level drug offense were offend-
ers who had probation revoked (Riley et al., 2005).
To establish how mandatory drug treatment laws have affected the decision-
making processes of probation officers, prosecutors, and judges, we examine these
processes in Arizona, which was the first state to legislate mandatory drug treatment
for low-level drug offenders. We have set out to examine three primary decision-
making processes. First, we identify the types of technical violations that lead to pro-
bation revocation and imprisonment of low-level drug offenders in the state. Second,
we examine how prosecutors handle revocation cases by analyzing changes in the
number of charges filed and changes in severity of the charges. Third, we analyze
the relationship between the types of probation violations and sentence length.
Specifically, we establish whether probationers who had probation revoked were
treated more severely by judges when they committed more serious (i.e., committed
new crimes) or less serious (i.e., failed to report to probation officer) technical vio-
lations. Lastly, we determine whether these decision-making processes changed
after the implementation of the mandatory drug treatment law.
We envision several benefits from pursuing this line of research. Given the
relatively few studies focusing on mandatory drug treatment laws, this study helps
establish how mandatory drug treatment laws have affected probation and court
decision-making processes. This study will also expand prior research of court
processes by highlighting the role of prosecutors in sentencing decisions. Finally,
this research will focus on identifying the significant predictors of probation revo-
cation that result in the imprisonment of low-level drug offenders. Specifically, we
examine whether imprisoned low-level drug offenders were incarcerated because
they presented a significant threat to the community (i.e., committed a new crime)
or because they committed minor technical violations.
Drug Offenders and Probation Supervision
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2004a, 2004b), 4 million individu-
als are currently under some form of probation, and approximately 25% of them are

---

Rodriguez, Webb / Probation Violations
5
on probation for a drug law violation. Although the number of probationers has
continued to increase over the years, few studies have examined probation officers’
decision-making processes (Clear & Latessa, 1993; Fulton, Stichman, Travis, &
Latessa, 1997). Rather, studies in the area of drug-related probation have focused on
the impact of drug prevention programs or policies on drug offenders (Albonetti &
Hepburn, 1996; Britt, Gottfredson, & Goldkamp, 1992; Curtis, Hoctor, & Pennell,
1994; W. W. Johnson & Jones, 1998; Petersilia, Turner, & Piper-Deschenes, 1992;
Smith, Wish, & Jarjoura, 1989).
Studies of probation success and failure have taken various forms. For example,
some studies have strictly analyzed probation success and failure (Landis, Mercer, &
Wolff, 1969; Morgan, 1994; Petersilia, 1985; Sims & Jones, 1997; Vito, 1987),
whereas others have focused on the probation revocation process (Albonetti &
Hepburn, 1997; Clear, Harris, & Baird, 1992; Hepburn & Albonetti, 1994; Sims &
Jones, 1997; Ulmer, 2001). Researchers have also placed empirical focus on the types
of violations committed by probationers (Clear et al., 1992; Gray, Fields, & Maxwell,
2001; Harris, Petersen, & Rapoza, 2001; W. W. Johnson & Jones, 1998; Petersilia &
Turner, 1990). For example, Clear et al. (1992) found that 39% of rule violations by
probationers were major rule violations (e.g., absconding, consumption of alcohol, and
failure to submit to urine tests). Gray et al. (2001) found that the majority of probation
violations were for minor violations that presented minimal public risk to the commu-
nity. Similarly, Sims and Jones (1997) found that only 13% of felony probationers’
revocations were for the commission of new crimes. Still other studies have analyzed
rearrest rates while on probation and the time to probation failure (Albonetti &
Hepburn, 1996; Gray et al., 2001; Hepburn & Albonetti, 1994; Mackenzie, Browning,
Skroban, & Smith, 1999; Petersilia, Turner, Kahan, & Peterson, 1985; Petersilia &
Turner, 1990; Sims & Jones, 1997; Vito, 1987; Whitehead, 1991).
The overwhelming focus of this line of research has been on identifying the signif-
icant predictors of probation outcomes (e.g., violations and arrests) or probation
processes (e.g., revocation). For example, sociodemographic variables such as age,
sex, race, education level, social disadvantage, and employment status have all been
shown to affect probation violations, arrests while on probation, and overall probation
success (Albonetti & Hepburn, 1997; Gray et al., 2001; W. W. Johnson & Jones, 1998;
Landis et al., 1969; Morgan, 1994; Petersilia, 1985; Sims & Jones, 1997; Ulmer, 2001;
Whitehead, 1991). Legal criteria such as prior record and offense type (i.e., property,
drug, and assaults) have also been shown to be significant factors in probation out-
comes (Gray et al., 2001; Johnson & Jones, 1998; Landis et al., 1969; Morgan, 1994;
Sims & Jones, 1997; Ulmer, 2001; Whitehead, 1991). Not surprisingly, prior drug use
and probation requirements such as drug testing and mandatory drug or alcohol treat-
ment play an important role in probation failure (Albonetti & Hepburn, 1997; Gray
et al., 2001; Sims & Jones, 1997; Ulmer, 2001; Whitehead, 1991). Taxman and
Cherkos (1995) indicate that the increase in unsuccessful probation completions over
the years may be directly linked to probation requirements that increase the likelihood
of probation violations (e.g., drug testing). Although this may certainly be the case, it

---

6
Criminal Justice Policy Review
is important to note that probation revocations may be the product of a technical rule
violation and/or the commission of a new crime (Morgan,...