This paper examines the history and practice of probation supervision, tracing its origins in English and American criminal law. It discusses how risk and needs assessment tools have evolved across three generations, from case-by-case interviews to instruments incorporating both static and dynamic offender factors. The paper also reviews key treatment interventions — including cognitive-behavioral therapy, motivational interviewing, employment assistance, and informal social control — and compares traditional caseload supervision with neighborhood-based and specialized supervision models. The conclusion emphasizes that successful offender rehabilitation depends on officer training and experience as much as on offender motivation.
Probation originated in ancient times in both England and the United States, devised as a means of avoiding the mechanical application of the harsh penal codes of the day. The early criminal law of Britain pursued the objectives of retribution and punishment, imposing severe and rigid penalties on offenders. Common punishments were corporal in nature, including flogging, branding, mutilation, and execution. Philanthropists and volunteers proved instrumental in the development and acceptance of probation in practice before it was formally established in law.
There is an ongoing need to identify a probationer's risks and needs. Risk assessment measures the probationer's or parolee's level of danger to the public and, at the same time, gauges the offender's propensity to engage in future criminal activity. Parole and probation jurisdictions have developed risk prediction scales that assist in developing supervision plans and classifying caseloads. Although such instruments differ in certain respects, they all place offenders into groups based on a statistical probability of committing new offenses or violating supervision conditions.
As noted by Joan Petersilia and Richard Rosenfeld (2007) of the UC-Irvine Center for Evidence-Based Practices, risk and needs assessment is one of several evidence-based practices, alongside motivational interviewing, case planning, the principle of correctional intervention, and cognitive-behavioral treatment.
Different generational approaches to assessment exist. The first-generation assessment involved interviewing the offender and using case-by-case anecdotal information to make decisions. Due to widespread criticism of this approach, various assessment tools were subsequently developed, some considerably more sophisticated than others.
Second-generation tools rely primarily on questions about past behavior — events that have already occurred and cannot be changed. The third generation, the most recent, incorporates both static and dynamic factors to measure negative as well as positive offender change over time. Examples include the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) and the Offender Inventory Assessment (OIA).
On the matter of a probationer's needs, identifying treatment needs is critical. The officer is responsible for identifying conditions, characteristics, or behavioral problems that limit an offender's motivation or may contribute to a repetition of criminal behavior (Taxman, F.S., Simpson, S., & Piquero, N.L., 2002). Examples of treatment needs include mental illness, drug or alcohol abuse, anger management issues, and deficiencies in vocational skills or education.
"CBT, motivational interviewing, employment, and social control"
"Comparing traditional, neighborhood-based, and specialized supervision"
Not only observing conditions of release or managing the offender to avoid arrest for a new offense demonstrates rehabilitation; the training, personality, and experience of the supervisory officer determine outcomes just as much as the motivation of the offender.
You’re 47% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.