Visit Our Other Websites
empty
empty
CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) RESOURCE CENTER Read More

Add To Favorites



Probation Systems in the United States and California


By: the U.S. Department of Justice

Probation in the United States is administered by hundreds of independent agencies operating under different state laws and following different philosophies. Over half of the 1,920 agencies that administer adult probation services are operated at the state level (26 states), and the rest are administered by combination of state/county and or county or municipal agencies. Texas, for example, has over 100 independent, local district probation agencies that handle adult probation cases.
In general, probation services in the United States are organized into five administrative models:

  • Juvenile. Over half of all juvenile probation services (2,120 agencies) are administered at the local level or by a combination of local and state agencies, and the rest are administered solely by state agencies (16 states). In all cases, the administration of juvenile probation is separate from adult probation services.
  • Municipal/County. Probation units are directed by the trial courts following state law and guidelines and are operated and funded by local governments. (This administrative model operates only in California and Washington D.C.).
  • State. A state-level executive agency administers a central probation and/or a combined probation and parole system that provides services throughout the state. (New Mexico for example, has a state-administered agency that provides both parole and probation services).
  • State combined. In this model programs are administered locally but funded at the state level. (The state of Pennsylvania for example, provides funds to county probation departments through a grant-in-aid program).
  • Federal. Probation is administered as an arm of the federal courts.

The organizational structure of probation in California in which the trial courts direct the activities of local probation units is unusual. The only other jurisdiction in which adult probation is the sole responsibility of local government is Washington D.C. California is also the only state that does not serve as the primary funding source for local probation, leaving this responsibility to local county governments. (Federal and state grants have been utilized increasingly by local probation departments but they do not provide a continuous funding stream).

National Trends in Probation Supervision

There are approximately 72,000 probation and parole officers across the United States involved in direct the supervision of adult offenders:

  • 29,974 officers supervise probation offenders,
  • 31,209 officers supervise a combination of parole and probation offenders, and
  • 10,883 officers supervise only parole offenders.

According to the American Parole and Probation Association, the adult probation population grew from 2,670,234 in 1990 to 3,932,751 offenders in 2001, an increase of 32.3 percent. Fifty-three percent of all probationers were convicted of a felony, 45 percent of a misdemeanor, and one percent of other infractions. Twenty-five percent were placed on probation for a drug violation, and 18 percent for driving while intoxicated.

Four states experienced an increase of ten percent or more in their probation populations in 2001, led by Maine (15 percent), Colorado, Kentucky, and Virginia (12 percent each). California’s adult probation population has remained relatively stable over the last ten years (about 300,000 offenders). In contrast, the adult probation population has decreased in 17 states, led by Nevada (14 percent decrease). Idaho has the highest rate of probationers per 100,000 residents (3,747), while New Hampshire has the lowest (9,385).

While there is no official tabulation of the number of probation officers who supervise juvenile offenders, the National Center for Juvenile Justice is sometimes able to provide information on the number of probation personnel involved in juvenile supervision. Most states do not consistently collect this information, and those that do, do not distinguish between supervising and administration personnel.

Probation departments across the country suffer from declining resources in the face of increasing service demands. They generally receive less than ten percent of state and local government funding for corrections. Contrasted to appropriations for prisons, probation funding has been on the decline for 30 years.

Probation in California

Probation departments in California counties currently serve an estimated 548,000 adult and juvenile probationers; 38 percent are juveniles and 62 percent are adults. Next to Texas, California’s probation population is the largest of any state in the nation.
California experienced a significant change in the probation population during the years 1991 to 2000, with the total adult population increasing by approximately seven percent. The number of juveniles on probation also increased during the past decade, from 172,000 in 1990 to 210,000 in 2000. The adult probation population has become much more violent, as measured by felony offenses. More severe sentencing standards are one reason for this increase. The number of adult probationers sentenced for a felony offense nearly doubled from 1990 to 2000, from 130,000 to 245,000 offenders (see Chart 9). During this time period, the number of adults who were sentenced to probation for misdemeanor offenses decreased by approximately 46 percent.

The number of probation officers supervising adult and juvenile offenders in California’s 58 counties increased from 6,387 in 1991 to 7,781 in 2000. The number of other local probation department employees (which includes administrative, teaching, counseling, prosecution, and public defense) increased from 7,366 in 1991 to 8,341 in 2000. This is the only data on probation personnel collected by the Department of Justice. The data does not distinguish adult probation from juvenile probation. Based on 1996 CRB survey data, there were approximately 2,900 adult probation officers in California. That would make the overall supervision ratio of probation officers to adult offenders approximately 1-to-121.

While the Department of Justice does not collect data by which to determine the ratio of probation officers to juvenile probationers, it is possible to use 1996 CRB survey data to make a reasonable estimate. Based on this data, there were 2,289 juvenile probation officers supervising approximately 200,000 juveniles. That would make the supervision ratio of probation officers to juvenile offenders approximately 1-to-87.

The 1996 California Research Bureau survey (49 responding counties) found that approximately 2,898 county-level personnel were involved in the management of adult probation, and 2,289 personnel were involved in the management of juvenile probation (a total of 5,187 probation officers). In addition, approximately 1,369 probation officers and other professional staff supervised 40,601 adult alternative sanction probationers, for an overall total of 6,556 probation personnel (see Chart 10). The 1996 figure in Chart 10 below differs slightly from the CRB survey data because it also takes into consideration retires.

There are three primary approaches to adult probation in California, based on findings from the 1996 CRB survey. A recent study by the California Judicial Council found similar approaches, with alternative sanction programs more heavily utilized for juvenile supervision.

  • Alternative sanction programs require high-risk offenders to undergo intensive supervision, including frequent and unannounced contact by probation officers outside a jail environment. Other alternative sanction programs require low-