Benefits of merging probation with parole

¶ … Merging Probabtion and Parole

In the United States, the parole and probation systems have been implemented with two main goals in mind: To promote rehabilitation rather than mere incarceration; and to offer an alternative to incarceration in already overcrowded prisons. Further, probation offers an economic alternative to incarceration. In comparison, an individual under probation supervision costs only approximately $1,250 per year, as opposed to $30,000 to keep the same individual incarcerated for a year. The probation and parole systems are, however, not handled in the same way across the United States. Some have different types of legislation and rights for parole and probation officers, others have similar legislation and rights, while a third group of states have integrated and streamlined their probation and parole boards. Probation officers, essentially being piece officers, are allowed to carry firearms in 31 states in the country, for example (Morton, n.d.). For many, the third option appears sensible, since this could result in significant cost savings while also easing the case loads for the different types of officers. And indeed, logic would suggest that such integration would be sensible. The differences in government arms responsible for these boards, however, is one of the challenges faced by states such as New Jersey when considering integration.

One of the questions at the basis of integrating probation and parole systems is the efficacy of these. Morton (n.d.) quotes statistics from the Bureau of Justice in indicating that 13% of all adult probationers are rearrested per year, while 49% are likely to eventually re-offend. Indeed, according to the same statistics, more than 40% of felony probationers across the country are rearrested for new felonies within three years of their placement under supervision. The question these statistics beg are then whether these statistics can be improved in any way by integrating parole and probation boards across the country in general and in New Jersey specifically, thereby creating a more uniform system across the country.

Probation and Parole: History

In their earliest manifestations, the concepts of probation and parole were developed to include less severe punishments to fit less severe crimes (Probation and Parole, n.d.). One component of probation, for example, is to release the prisoner to the community depending on certain conditions. Originating as part of the English court system, probation started its existence as a type of bail system, or, as it was known first, "release on recognizance." This would allow people accused of lesser crimes, or who were not considered to be a risk to the community or the justice system, to be released to the community to await trial, much like today's bail system. In some cases, judges failed to take further action against criminals released on bail. If a bail released person were to break the conditions of bail, he or she would be subject to revocation.

The English and American systems are both similar and, in some respects, different in the way in which bail and appeals were handled. In the English court system, judicial reprieve allowed defendants to appeal o the Crown for a pardon. In the American system, the sentence could be suspended if a miscarriage of justice was found. This power was later extended to all cases, whether a miscarriage of justice was found or not. This practice was challenged in 1894 in a state court in New York and later in the Supreme Court (1916).

John Augustus, credited by most as the founder of probation in the United States, began the practice of not only bailing offenders out of court, but also assuming responsibility for them in the community. To encourage agreement to the terms of bail, Augustus provided philanthropic acts such as helping the offender find employment and assisting his or her family in several ways. This created a platform for offenders to be willing to abide by the terms of the bail agreement. After a period of time, the offender would be scheduled for a hearing again, during which Augustus would present his recommendations. In most cases, the offender was found to be rehabilitated sufficiently to be spared further conviction. Today's probation practices closely resemble the system started by Augustus.

One component of Augustus' system was, for example, great care in determining eligibility for probation. Factors he considered in this determination included a person's character, age, and factors that would influence him or her after release. When a case was less than certain, Augustus used methods such as requiring a probation candidate to be employed or go to school.

In 1852, Augustus published an account of his work with people on probation, which led to an 1878 Massachusetts bill allowing the city of Boston tot hire a probation officer. This practice subsequently spread throughout the state and beyond at the turn of the twentieth century. Between 1897 and 1920, 26 states passed adult probation statutes. For juveniles, probation law had ben adopted in all states except Wyoming by 1927. Adults had to wait until 1956 to have probation available for all. The main concern behind probation was to effect a platform for rehabilitation, as far as possible, for defendants. This was made available by providing an opportunity for reconciliation between the offender and the state. Once rehabilitation is achieved, the offender was "forgiven."

When considering the origins of parole, one might investigate the court and prison system as it occurred during the mid-nineteenth century. At this time, most offenders could expect a flat or "determinate" sentence in prison (Probation and Parole, n.d.). This meant that a specific amount of time was spent in prison for a specific crime. This created a massive overcrowding problem in prisons, which meant that either mass pardons or random releases had to be effected in order to make room for prisoner influxes.

Unlike Augustus, early parole systems are credited to a two people; the Englishman, Captain Alexander Maconochie and he Irishman, Sir Walter Crofton. Captain Maconochie was appointed as governor of the English penal colony close to the coast of Australia, notorious for the violent and lawless nature of its inhabitants. Norfolk Island, where Maconochie was to begin his work as governor, served as a secondary penal colony. In other words, this colony was reserved for those who had committed crimes even as part of the existing penal colon on the mainland, which was Australia at the time.

When arriving at his new post, one of Maconochie's first actions was to eliminate the flat sentence structure. He replaced this with a "mark system." This meant that, instead of serving the full sentence imposed without any hope of release, a convict could earn marks by means of hard word and good behavior. The earned marks could then be used towards purchasing goods or a reduction in sentence. The system was based upon Maconochie's belief that prisoners should be incarcerated and rehabilitated rather than simply locked away for a number of years without any hope of redeeming themselves.

Sir Walter Crofton shared this belief. He became the administrator of the Irish Prison System in 1854. His system included three classes: Imprisonment, indeterminate sentences, and tickets-of-leave (Probation and Parole, n.d.). The indeterminate system later became known as the Irish system, and meant that convicts could earn marks for a move away from solitary confinement on conditional pardon or ticket-of-leave.

In the United States, the Michigan penologist Zebulon Brockway is generally credited with the implementation of indeterminate senences and parole release. Like his English and Irish predecessors, Brockway believed not only retribution by means of imprisonment, but also in rehabilitation.

In Brockway's system, the initial sentence included he possibility of being released before the completion of the sentence depending on the behavior of he individual. The reasoning behind this system was based on two major advantages. First, that it would provide a good way to manage prison populations, and second, that I would provide an opportunity for reform by means of he good behavior requirement.

Brockway first implemented his system in 1876 as newly appointed superintendent of Elimor Reformatory for youthful offenders in New York. Grades were awarded to inmates based on their conduct, achievements, and education. Their behavior during their stay at the reformatory was then used as a basis for parole. To monitor this, volunteers were recruited to act as guardians and submit written reports on the behavior of inmates within the community. One of the parole conditions was that offenders needed to report to their guardians once per month. By 1900, the United States had a parole system firmly in place, which meant:

1) a sentence reduction was possible as a result of good behavior;

2) once parole was obtained, the parolee would be supervised in the community; and

3) sentences would be indeterminate.

Further, the outcome of Brockway's work was that twenty states had parole statutes by 1901, with every jurisdiction in the country having some form of parole release and indeterminate sentencing by 1944.

Probation and Parole in New Jersey

The fact that parole and probation are inherent parts of the American penal system does not mean that they are by any means simple as concepts. There are, for example, great differences among states regarding the way in which these systems are managed and the rights and responsibilities of officers for both sectors of the legal system.

In New Jersey, the goal of probation is to promote the reintegration of offenders into the community, while encouraging a responsible, law-abiding lifestyle for such a person (New Jersey Courts, 2013). In total, probation officers are responsible for more than 70,000 adults and 13,000 juveniles. Supervision services are offered for adult and juvenile offenders.

Adult probationers have the opportunity to serve their sentence in the community under the supervision of a probation officer as alternative to sentencing and incarceration. For these offenders, probation officers have a duty to oversee imposed counseling for issues like substance abuse or family problems, as well as any community service to be carried out. The probation officer is also responsible for collecting fines or restitution, as imposed by he court. According to New Jersey Courts (2013), more than $20 million is collected per year from probationers in court-imposed fines.

Juveniles who have committed certain offenses have probational supervision available as a dispositional alternative in the Family Superior Court. These offenders may then remain in heir own community while being supervised by a probation officer. The duties of this officer include monitoring the compliance of the offender to the rules and conditions imposed by a Family Court Judge. For juveniles, conditions can include some form of treatment, restitution and fine payments, or completing educational goals. This kind of supervision includes a much closer connection to the family or guardians of the juvenile, since the probation officer is required to work with parents or guardians, treatment providers, and the school to ensure a successful probation period and ultimate rehabilitation (New Jersey Courts, 2013).

A third component of probation in the state of New Jersey is the intensive supervision program or ISP. Under this program, serious offenders may apply for release under the condition of an intensive monitoring and supervision program. A panel of judges decides whether such a criminal is eligible on the basis of willingness and ability to maintain the strict guidelines of the program.

For juvenile offenders, the juvenile intensive supervision program (JISP) was created to intervene in cases of juvenile delinquency. Intensive community supervision is involved in this program as an early intervention strategy (New Jersey Courts, 2013).

The parole system in the state is managed by the State Parole Board. Decisions regarding parole release is made by the Board's Division of Release. This division maintains offices in each of the 15 correctional facilities in New Jersey, with a total of more than 150 civilian employees. The Division's primary duty is to evaluate and assess adult incarcerated offenders and determine their eligibility for parole release. The state's incarcerated offenders come to approximately 27,000, each of which must be assessed by the Division (State of New Jersey, 2013).

The Division of Release also includes parole counselors, who facilitate parole decisions for offenders. The primary duty involved in this process is that counselors are to calculate the Parole Eligibility Date (PED) under State law for each offender. In terms of this finding, the parole counselor is then to make sure that each inmate's possible release is processed in a timely way. Part of this is ensuring that the necessary documents and information are available for parole hearings. Counselors also work with inmates themselves to ensure they understand the parole process and requirements.

Unless an inmate was sentenced to a period of parole ineligibility, parole becomes a possibility after a third of the sentence has been served. After this sentence period, the inmate is subjected to a parole hearing, after which the parole decision is made. Release is subject to supervision by a parole officer.

Before such a decision is made, however, the hearing process includes a number of steps, the first of which is an initial hearing. The Division of Release conducts a preliminary review of an inmate's eligibility for parole. To do this, hearing officers review reports on the offender's criminal history, social, physical, educational, and psychological progress, and assesses the risks and needs of he offender. Eh case is then summarized and offered to the Parole Board for review. This is followed by the panel hearing.

The panel includes two members of the Parole Board, whose duty it is to grant or deny parole. This decision is also subject to the time at which the crime was committed. Fro crimes committed on or after August 19, 1997, an adult inmate has the right to parole under the Parole Act unless he or she has failed to cooperate with the rehabilitation process or if there is a high likelihood of violating the conditions of parole. When a crime has been committed before this date, the Act requires granting parole unless there is a high likelihood that the inmate will commit a new crime once released (State of New Jersey, 2013).

In New Jersey, crime victims are also allowed to provide input for the Board Panel's decision. This information is kept strictly confidential, and the parolee is not informed whether the victim chose to provide testimony. Testimony can be given in writing or during a confidential hearing.

On the strength of the evidence collected by means of documents and during hearings, the Parole Board makes a decision to grant or deny parole. If parole is denied, the inmate is given a Future Eligibility Term (FET), meaning that a period of further incarceration is required before the inmate becomes eligible for parole again. At such a time, all the components of the hearing process is repeated.

If parole is granted, special conditions for parole are determined in addition to the standard conditions for all parolees. Special conditions may include seeking employment, submitting to substance tests, or substance abuse counseling, depending on the risk factors determined during the hearing process. The parolee could also be required to submit to specific programs under the State Parole Board's Division of Community Programs.

Finally, the inmate attends a session with parole counselors or parole officers to review the conditions of parole and create a discharge plan. Discharge then includes supervision by a parole officer, who ensures that the conditions of the parole are met and maintained (State of New Jersey, 2013).

The main difference between parole and probation in the State of New Jersey is therefore that parole is granted after part of a prison sentence has been served, whereas probation is generally an alternative to prison. The fact that parole is granted to inmates of the prison system creates the conception that such supervision is somewhat more dangerous than that provided by a probation officer. Hence, probation officers are generally not granted the right to carry a firearm in New Jersey.

In New Jersey, for example, Kiminski (2007, p. 1359) notes that the Supreme Court unanimously found against upholding the Probation Officer Safety Community Act. Under the act, probation officers were allowed to carry firearms. The Act, implemented by the New Jersey Legislature, provided for a special unit of probation officers to be authorized to carry firearms and arrest probation violators. Such rights are also held by probation officers in some other states, especially where the probation and parole divisions of law enforcement are integrated.

The Supreme Court ruling was based upon the complaint that the Act was unconstitutional, because I was a violation of the exclusive powers of the judiciary, where Act was implemented in violation of the right of this branch of government to make decisions regarding the rights of probation officers in the state. In other words, the main issue was the separation of powers among different branches of the government.

This, of course, has significantly complicated the debate around whether to integrate the probation and parole boards in the state. The matter might be highlighted significantly by means of some statistics. In new Jersey, more or less 130,000 adults and 20,000 juveniles are under probation supervision (Morton, n.d.). These persons form part of the more than 4 million strong population under probation supervision in the United States as a whole.

Although the overall crime rate has dropped, he number of dangerous and repeat offenders under probation in New Jersey has continued to grow, increasing the burden on the states probation officers. In addition, these officers are faced with challenges such as absconding probationers. Compared to the national figure of 11%, probationers in New Jersey who abscond come to as high as 25%, or some 30,000 probationers throughout the state.

Morton (n.d.) also notes that offenders under supervision of probation tend to be placed under such supervision for he same or a similar level of criminal activity as those under the care of parole officers. Yet, as seen above, only parole officers and federal probation officers in New Jersey are permitted to carry a firearm in the state. Further, bench warrants for adult and juvenile probationers are active for 60 days, after which hey are placed in an unsupervised category. Regardless, warrants are generally disposed of if or when a probationer is arrested for committing a new offense. According to Morton (n.d.), the last few years have seen "hundreds" of probationers in New Jersey arrested for new offenses. A survey of 102 probationers in the state has revealed the severity of the crimes committed by arrested probationers. These crimes included offenses such as murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, sexual assault, robbery, and less severe offenses such as the distribution and/or possession of CDs.

Morton (n.d.) uses these statistics to make the point that probation officers, like parole officers, are responsible for the supervision of often dangerous criminal offenders within the community. Hence, these officers need not only proper training, but also the proper weaponry to effectively and safely carry out their duties in New Jersey, just as in the other states and just like parole officers do.

Probation and Parole Partnerships in Other States: Opportunities and Challenges

One of the strongest arguments in favor of implementing a combined parole and probation board is cases of states where such an integration has been successful. Matz (2013), for example, mentions the case of Boston, where Operation Night Light is considered to be one of the first formalized police-probation/parole partnerships.

In the early 1990s, the Operation was developed to respond more effectively to the state's increased gang violence and juvenile recidivism. Curfews and other restrictions were increased to help reduce these criminal activities. Specifically, the Boston police and probation officers formed a partnership that supervised high-risk probationers on the basis of sharing intelligence information. Police on patrol assisted probation officers by providing information regarding technical violations or suspected criminal behavior by probationers. Probation officers, on the other hand, would share intelligence regarding gang involvement and social gang networks. Police awareness of the number and nature of probationers in their area could then act in a forewarned way to curb potential violence. This partnership then forms a type of symbiotic entity, in which both crime prevention systems work together to curb criminal activity, especially among the youth. It is therefore a highly effective crime prevention system that is stronger as a unit than either part on its own.

One of the ways in which the partnership worked was that probation officers were teamed with police officers. The probation officer would then make a selection of 10 to 15 of the most high-risk, gang-affiliated youths under current supervision. Unmarked cruisers and plainclothes law enforcement teams would then make unannounced visits to the home, school, or workplace of the probationer while also cruising hotspot neighbourhoods. This was a far more effective and economic use of officers and hours in order to curb specific expected crimes. Whereas police officers were able to more effectively determine crime hotspots and deter or arrest criminals, probation officers were relieved from the burden of supervising several probationers on his or her own.

Probation officers are further able to assist in terms of unrestricted searching rights and unannounced visits. Law enforcement, in urn, served as a strong deterring factor while encouraging potential youthful criminals to engage in more pro-social behavior. Officer safety was also promoted in this way. Importantly, Matz (2013) also notes hat several similar partnerships exist in other cities, including Minneapolis, Minnesota; New Haven, Connecticut; Redmond, Washington; and Phoenix, Arizona.

Matz (2013) does point out, however, that there is a notable lack of rigorous evaluation regarding the Night Light and similar programs across the country. Despite this, anecdotal evidence suggests the efficacy of the program in terms of increasing arrests during criminal activity as well as a decrease in crime and recidivism rates.

The author also mentions the importance of recognizing potential difficulties related to partnerships among different law enforcement branches, their missions, and jurisdictional boundaries. Indeed, in addition to issues like mission distortion and organizational lag, the Night Light affiliation has also tended towards an overreliance on suppression and deterrence as opposed to alternative law enforcement strategies. Further, the various work cultures developed within singular agencies such as probation, parole, or police units, could complicate partnership efforts when such partnerships are attempted.

It is therefore clear that, although an integration of probation and parole systems may be desirable and more effective in terms of law enforcement and monetary savings, the various challenges need to be recognized and addressed in order to create an optimally effective partnership.

In terms of mission distortion, for example, it is possible that a community correction agency such as a parole board may clash with the crime fighting role of a police officer. A community corrections officer is more focused on monitoring behavior and offering an opportunity for changing such behavior than on fighting already existing criminal activities. Similarly, a probation officer may be more focused on maintaining an already existing focus on community integration, whereas a parole officer might be more focused on enforcing an as yet unformed willingness to re-enter the community.

A further and more focused concern for agencies with very similar functions, such as probation and parole agencies, is organizational lag as a result of bureaucratic customs. It has been seen above that there are very specific protocols to follow when granting parole to a prisoner. This could lead to an overly strong focus on bureaucratic processes, even in the field. When working with probation officers or probationers for the first time, parole officers will need to take specific care against letting a focus on specific protocols interfere with the efficacy of supervision for either probationers or parolees. Probation officers, on the other hand, are subject to a more flexible set or rules and procedures, dependent on the severity of the crimes committed by probationers.

Finally, when considering the various benefits of partnering police with parole or probation officers, it is also important to maintain a recognition of the Fourth Amendment rights of parolees and probationers. A careful balance is therefore needed between the rights of parole and probation officers to search for contraband and the specific rights in this regard that should be enjoyed by those being searched. In other words, police officers should be deterred from searching a person or premises at random without a warrant on the strength of the presence of a probation or parole officer.

According to Matz (2013), the C.A.R.E. model is an extension of the Night Light effort by more specifically defining the collaborative effort to deter probationers and parolees from reoffending. The model integrates the four primary components of helping offenders improve themselves and re-enter society: Collaboration, analysis, re-entry, and evaluation. According o this model, various agencies are encouraged to collaborate in order to make he crime fighting effort more effective. Through this model, it can be recognized that every component of law enforcement agencies, including parole and probation boards, serve a specific purpose in ensuring that both deterrence and rehabilitation are a possibility by working together with each other and within offenders themselves.

A further component of collaboration is the partnership not only between police, probation and parole boards, but also between law enforcement and community and faith services. All these agencies can work together to far greater effect than any one of them by itself. Such a discussion could, however, serve for future investigation, being somewhat beyond the scope of a discussion regarding the possible integration of parole and probation services.

Of course, street gang violence, as discussed by Matz (2013), is but one example of criminal activity that can be mitigated by means of effective collaboration, especially within law enforcement and prevention services. Investigation in this regard should also focus on other types of criminal activity where parolees and probationers pose a significant risk.

Also focusing on Boston, Greene (2011) considers the more specific integration of the Probation Board and Parole Department, as suggested by Governor Deval Patrick at the time of publication. The stated goals of the merge were not only to mitigate budgets for both, but also to better be able to monitor offenders before and after their releases.

However, as mentioned, resistance to change and the status quo can pose significant challenges, regardless of how sound the reasoning is behind the move. At the heart of the battle are legislative leaders and top judges, whose major problem is with transferring the Probation Department from the judiciary to the executive branch. Indeed, one can compare this to the situation in new Jersey, where, as mentioned, a similar concern resulted in denying general probation officers the right to carry a firearm.

As in many other cases, budget savings, up to $14 million for 2012, formed a strong argument in favor of Patricks' plan (Greene, 2011). According to a statement by Patrick, budget savings would be combined with a more effective system, ensuring supervision after an offender's release from prison.

A commission was also called at the time to investigate he power struggle and other problems facing the Probation Department. Although Patrick announced his intention to merge the entities ahead of the findings release, he noted that he would wait with a final filing of the bill after the publication of the findings. As part of Patrick's plan, legislation would also be filed to eliminate mandatory minimum senences for drug offenses where guns or children were not involved. This would go a long way towards mitigating overcrowded prisons, while also providing judges with discretion regarding sentencing such offenders.

In states where Parole Boards and Probation Departments are not merge, it appears that certain pitfalls and drawbacks are the norm. According to the Salem News (2011), for example, both parole and probation agencies came under close scrutiny in Massachusetts when a man released on parole killed a Woburn police officer during an attempted robbery. This called into serious question the soundness of judgment when it comes to releasing parolees. Further, the alleged political connections for probation boards have also come into question in terms of the efficacy of the two departments in the state. The report points out that the primary goal of both agencies should be serving the public via reintegration and rehabilitation. Should the agencies be combined, for example, a more effective and collaborative model can be implemented for ensuring that both offenders and the community are served best.

The authors of the Salem News (2011) report, for example, state that the "turf battle" between the agencies involved, resulting from the shooting and similar incidents, has failed to address the needs of either the community or the offenders who are supposed to experience a rehabilitation drive. Indeed, the various branches of law enforcement became embroiled in petty battles, which took far too many resources that could have been applied elsewhere. Hence, the proposal is that probation and parole agencies be integrated for the more effective functioning of both.

This model, according to the article, was already used effectively in 37 other states, making it not only viable for the states not yet enjoying such integration, but also desirable. The combined mission of these agencies is to supervise hose convicted of a crime, either as a reprieve or after release from jail. Although probation is assumed to be involved for lesser crimes, it is also surmised that many probation and parole clients may be common among parole and probation officers. The similarity of these services beg the need for integration. Should challenges arise, integration would also mean less ability to point fingers at others and a greater focus on solving what problems may arise.

In Salem, the culmination of events was, finally, to replace five of seven Parole Board members with people who have prosecutorial experience and will presumably be able to identify those with a history of violence when they seek early release.

As for the Probation Board, the widespread political patronage served as a sharp reminder of a need for better control of the agency in order to more closely adhere to its mission. Ronald Corbett, the new administrator, was also considered to be a good candidate to act as he head of a combined agency, should this drive see the light. At the heart of he difficulties experienced by the Parole Board is the tendency of powerful legislators to use trial courts and Probation Boards in the city to provide jobs for relatives, friends, and other favored associates. This in itself has created a widespread platform not only for corruption, but also for the inclusion of inappropriately trained officers to serve in this important position. Again, this is far from the ideal where offender rehabilitation and re-entry into society is the primarily stated concern.

To create more professional agencies, it is vital that appropriately trained officers be appointed on probation boards. One way to mitigate the pitfalls of temptation when it comes to the abuse of power in probation and parole agencies is to integrate both, where non-related agents can supervise and monitor not only potential criminals, but also potential corruption within the agency.

In other words, the article concludes that both fiscal and operational goals can be reached far more effectively if probation and parole boards are integrated to monitor those released from jail and those receiving reprieve from their sentences.

The Post and Courier (2012) furthers the financial argument, stating that it makes a large amount of sense to merge various agencies, including the Department of Corrections and the Department of Probation, Pardon and Parole for South Carolina. According to the article, such a merge will result in a saving of $5.8 million. This is a powerful incentive since, at the time of writing, the state was facing the need to significantly cut expenditures to cover a $700 million shortfall for the fiscal year to follow. Although $5.8 million is but a fraction of this amount, it is nonetheless a good amount towards reaching more effective goals for the state.

The article confirms the report in the Salem News (2011), that significant savings will combine with improved operations should these agencies merge. In 2012, when the article was published, all but about 10 states have combined both correction, parole, and probation services to great effect.

In addition to the already mentioned better ability to monitor and rehabilitating offenders, a merge would also mean a more efficient ability to accommodate sentencing reforms when these are implemented. The main aim, as stated in the article, would be to maintain the most violent and non-reformed of criminals incarcerated, while offering less violent and truly reformed criminals the opportunity to re-enter society under initial supervision with the aim to finally end such supervision.

Specifically, Judge Bill Byars, an advocate of the merge, considered it a way of reducing recidivism rates for South Carolina. The Post and Courier (2012) article includes statistics that are difficult to ignore. A similar merge in the Department of Juvenile Justice resulted in an incarceration drop of 30%, from 1,600 to 1,124. To achieve this, more juveniles were placed in group homes or camps, where the specific aim is rehabilitation rather than simply removing them from the community. The $300 per day cost of incarceration for a juvenile offender was also mitigated by the new strategy. Indeed, Judge Byars confirmed what has been stated above; incarceration costs thousands of dollars per person per year, while community supervision costs hundreds per year for an individual.

The attractiveness of such a level of saving, however, does not come without acknowledging that it will probably take years of work and investment before the savings in fact become visible. Included are the challenges mentioned above, relating to agency resistance to change and other initial factors that will have to be taken into account. In short, an agency-wide merger can be successful, and probably will be, but it should be recognized that significant success will become visible only in the long-term, after years of consistent work and investment.

The same is probably true for New Jersey and its potential to integrate its parole and probation boards. Further agency integrations may then be possible in the even longer term.

For several reasons, not all authors and investigators are in favor of merging Parole Boards and Probation Departments. The situation in Nebraska is one such example. In 2007, the Nebraska Community Corrections Council contracted with the Vera Institute of Justice to investigate the possibility and viability of merging the agencies (Daly and Peck, 2007, p. iii).

One main and interesting finding in this regard was that none of the 31 states with merged services has consolidated these under the judicial branch. In Nebraska specifically, a sound argument against consolidation is that, although parole and probation populations are demographically similar, they differ significantly in terms of scope. Adult probationers, for example, number some 15 times more than the parole population. Specifically, this means that 2007 figures for probationers number 18,557, as opposed tot 982 parolees across the state. In addition, the Probation Department during this year employed 12 times as many officers as those provided for the Parole Board (243 vs. 20). He situation in Nebraska during 2007 was also such that the agencies do coordinate for some services, where his is deemed necessary. Drug treatment and evaluation services, for example, are coordinated by means of Specialized Substance Abuse Supervision and fee-for service voucher programs. Independent administrative structures, apparently, did not negatively affect the integration of such services. Another interesting finding of the investigation was that an overwhelming majority of interviewee stakeholders were strongly opposed to consolidation for parole and probation, while only one of these was strongly in favor of it. The ultimate finding was that, while probation and parole services may viably be combined in the future, the current limitations made such an effort premature.

The Vera study was somewhat more thorough than other anecdotal evidence and news reports that have so far been considered. It included a 50-state review to highlight the various challenges and issues related to a consolidation of parole and probation services. According to Daily and Peck (2007, p. 5), the most difficult concern in a drive towards merging parole and probation services is the location of administration. In states like New Jersey, as mentioned, parole is generally located in he executive branch under h department of corrections. Probation, on the other hand, tends to be located within the judicial or executive branch at the estate or local level. Importantly, the authors note that states where services are consolidated experience significant impacts relating on where he consolidated agency is located, both in terms of the structure and function of such an agency.

The authors further point out that the vast majority of the 31 consolidated agency states (27 out of 31) have consolidated their field services into the Department of Corrections. The four remaining stats have a separate and autonomous department for their consolidated services. Only in Tennessee are the field services overseen by a board rather than a single director, which is different from separate parole boards, where several individuals form entities to oversee the parole service.