Download An Examination of the Impact of Criminological Theory on Community Corrections Practice and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Criminology in PDF only on Docsity!
December 2016^15
An Examination of the Impact of
Criminological Theory on Community
Corrections Practice
CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES ABOUT
why people commit crime are used—and mis- used—every day by legislative policy makers and community corrections managers when they develop new initiatives, sanctions, and programs; and these theories are also being applied—and misapplied—by line commu nity corrections officers in the workplace as they classify, supervise, counsel, and con trol offenders placed on their caseloads. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief overview of the major theories of crime causa tion and then to consider the implications of these criminological theories for current and future community corrections practice. Four distinct groups of theories will be examined: classical theories, biological theories, psy chological theories, and sociological theories of crime causation. While the underlying assumptions of classical criminology have been used to justify a wide range of sentencing and corrections policies and practices over the past several decades, it is also possible to iden tify the influence of other theories of crime causation on corrections policies and practices during this same period. As we examine each group of theories, we consider how—and why—the basic functions of probation and parole officers change based on the theory of crime causation under review. When considering the link between theory and practice, it is important to remember the following basic truth: Criminologists disagree about both the causes and solutions to our crime problem. This does not mean that crim inologists have little to offer to probation and
James Byrne
University of Massachusetts Lowell
Don Hummer
Penn State Harrisburg
parole officers in terms of practical advice; to other community corrections programs are to the contrary, we think a discussion of “cause” is be successful as “people changing” agencies. critical to the ongoing debate over the appro- But can we reasonably expect such diversity priate use of community-based sanctions, and flexibility from community corrections and the development of effective community agencies, or is it more likely that one theory— corrections policies, practices, and programs. or group of theories—will be the dominant However, the degree of uncertainty on the influence on community corrections practice? cause—or causes—of our crime problem in Based on recent reviews of United States cor the academic community suggests that a rections history, we suspect that one group of certain degree of skepticism is certainly in theories—supported by a dominant political order when “new” crime control strategies are ideology—will continue to dominate until introduced. We need to look carefully at the the challenges to its efficacy move the field— theory of crime causation on which these new both ideologically and theoretically—in a new initiatives are based. It is our view that since direction. We may—or may not—be at such a each group of theories we describe is appli- watershed point in the United States today. See cable to at least some of the offenders under Table 1 below. correctional control in this country, interven
tion strategies will need to be both crime- and 1. Classical Criminology
offender-specific, if probation, parole, and Why do people decide to break the law?
TABLE 1.
An Overview of Criminological Theories
Classically-based criminologists explain criminal behavior as a conscious choice by individuals based on an assessment of the costs and benefits of various forms of criminal activity. Biologically-based criminologists explain criminal behavior as determined—in part—by the presence of certain inherited traits that may increase the likelihood of criminal behavior. Psychologically-based criminologists explain criminal behavior as the consequence of individual factors, such as negative early childhood experiences and inadequate socialization, that result in criminal thinking patterns and/or incomplete cognitive development. Sociologically-based criminologists explain criminal behavior as primarily influenced by a variety of community-level factors that appear to be related—both directly and indirectly—to the high level of crime in some of our (often poorest) communities, including blocked legitimate opportunity, the existence of subcultural values that support criminal behavior, a breakdown of community-level informal social controls, and an unjust system of criminal laws and criminal justice.
16 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 80 Number 3
To a classical criminologist, the answer is simple: The benefits of law breaking (such as money, property, revenge, and status) simply outweigh the potential costs/consequences of getting caught and convicted. When viewed from a classical perspective, we are all capable of committing crime in a given situation, but we make a rational decision (to act or desist) based on our analysis of the costs and benefits of the action. If this is true, then it is certainly possible to deter a potential offender by (1) developing a system of “sentencing” in which the punishment outweighs the (benefit of the) crime, and (2) ensuring both punishment certainty and celerity through efficient police and court administration. “Classical” theories of criminal behavior are appealing to criminal justice policy makers, because they are based on the premise that the key to solving the crime problem is to have a strong system of formal social control. In other words, the clas sical theorist believes that the system can make a difference, regardless of the myriad of indi vidual and social ills that exist. During the past four decades, a number of federal, state, and local programs have been initiated to improve the deterrent capacity of the criminal justice system, including proactive police strategies to ensure greater certainty of apprehension, priority prosecution/speedy trial strategies to ensure greater celerity (speed) in the court process, and determinate/mandatory sentenc ing strategies to ensure greater punishment certainty and severity. To further our deter rent aims, we have significantly increased our institutional capacity during this same period and passed legislation that includes manda tory minimum periods of incarceration for drug-related crimes, while simultaneously developing a series of surveillance-oriented intermediate sanctions (e.g., intensive proba tion supervision, electronic monitoring/house arrest) for a subgroup of the offenders under community supervision. It is apparent from these initiatives that clas sical assumptions about crime causation are still being used as the basis for current crime control strategies. Some have argued that our four-decade-long emphasis on “deterrence based” crime control policies has resulted in safer communities; in fact, by most standard measures (crime rates, victimization rates) we have less crime and less violence today than at any point since the early 1970s. However, there is disagreement among academics on the source of this decline (see Byrne, 2013 for an overview), with most experts estimating that about a quarter of the crime decline can
be linked to tougher sentencing policies, while three quarters of the decline have been attrib uted to other factors (such as the economy, education, and immigration). A careful review of the evaluation research on the latest wave of deterrence-oriented community-based sanctions does not support the notion that increased surveillance and control reduces recidivism (that is, an offend er’s likelihood of rearrest, reconviction, and/ or re-incarceration). There are two possible explanations for these findings: (1) the under lying assumptions of classical criminologists (i.e., most people are rational, and weigh the costs and benefits of various acts in the same manner) are wrong (e.g., people com mit crimes for emotional reasons, because of mental illness, and/or because they believe the criminal act is justified, given circumstances and prevailing community values); or (2) the current sentencing strategies and community corrections programs need to be even tougher and deterrence-oriented (in other words, the theory is correct; it just has not been imple mented correctly). In the short run, it appears that policy mak ers and program developers favor the latter explanation; prison populations and incarcer ation rates in the United States remain among the highest in the world (Byrne, Pattavina, & Taxman, 2015), while community corrections populations and probation rates also remain high, and continue to use multiple condi tions that emphasize surveillance and control (through drug testing, electronic monitoring, curfews, and now social media monitoring). For example, in the name of deterrence, legislation has been passed in several states allowing the lifetime supervision of paroled
TABLE 2.
David Farabee’s Model of Corrections
sex offenders, based on the belief that if these offenders know they are being monitored, they will be less likely to re-offend. The use of electronic monitoring for sex offenders, domestic violence offenders, and others on probation and parole has been justified using similar logic. However, the research reviews on the effectiveness of electronic monitoring do not support this strategy (Byrne, 2016). A good example of how classical crimi nology can be applied in the community corrections field is found in David Farabee’s monograph, Reexamining Rehabilitation. In this review, Farabee offered several recom mendations for corrections reform that focus on deterrence-based intervention strategies. He argued that since his review of the avail able research reveals that a prison sentence does not either deter or rehabilitate offenders, we need to reconsider our current reliance on this sentencing strategy. While the use of incarceration can be justified for those vio lent offenders who require control through incapacitation, it cannot be justified using the logic of offender change (through deter rence or rehabilitation). Because prison does not appear to deter non-violent offenders, he believes that we need to experiment with the use of deterrence-based community-supervi sion strategies, not only as a sentencing option but also as a response to offenders who refuse to comply with the conditions of community supervision. The key features of Farabee’s model are highlighted below in Table 2. Perhaps the most intriguing component of the above strategy is the recommendation that offenders under community supervision should be closely supervised in order to detect violations of the conditions of community
Recommendation 1: “De-emphasize prison as a sanction for nonviolent offenses and increase the use of intermediate sanctions...Furthermore, minor parole violations....should be punished by using a graduated set of intermediate sanctions, rather than returning the offender to prison” (p 63). Recommendation 2: “Use prison programs to serve as institutional management tools, not as instruments of rehabilitation” (64). Recommendation 3: “Mandate experimental designs for all program evaluations” (66).
Recommendation 4: “Establish evaluation contracts with independent agencies” (67).
Recommendation 5: “Increase the use of indeterminate community supervision, requiring three consecutive years without a new offense or violation” (68). Recommendation 6: “Reduce parole caseloads to fifteen to one, and increase the use of new tracking technologies” (71). Source: Farabee (2005)
18 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 80 Number 3
●●
●●
human nature develops from the interplay of psychological, biological, and social fac tors” (1986: 1). There certainly appears to be an emerging body of research examining the linkage of biology, environment, and various form of criminal behavior (see Pratt et al., 2016; Portnoy et al., 2014). What are the implications of bio-crim inological theory for probation and parole practice? This is a difficult question to answer. No estimates are available on the size of the current offender population that is affected, either directly or indirectly, by these biological factors, but it seems safe to predict that before probation and parole agencies could address the needs of these offenders, money for treat ment would have to be found. Individual treatment plans would vary by the type of problem identified. It also seems likely that a policy of selective incapacitation would be dis cussed as a means to “control” the treatment failures that inevitably would emerge from these community-based programs.
3. Psychological Criminology
The field of psychology has influenced com munity corrections in a number of important areas: (1) the classification of offenders’ risk and needs; (2) the development of case man agement plans and offender supervision strategies; (3) the techniques used to inter view, assess, and counsel offenders; and (4) the strategies used to foster compliance with the basic rules of community supervision. Because of their focus on individual problems, it is the psychological theories of criminal behavior that have had the most direct influ ence on probation and parole practice in this country. Much of what currently passes as “rehabilitation” in the field of community- based corrections is taken from one or more of the following four groups of psychological theories.
A. Psychoanalytic Theory
Psychoanalytic theorists, such as Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), explain criminal behavior as follows: The actions and behavior of an adult are understood in terms of childhood development. Behavior and unconscious motives are intertwined, and the interaction must be unraveled if we are to understand criminality. Criminality is essentially a representation of psychological conflict (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2013). Advocates of psychoanalytic explanations would emphasize the need for
both short and long-term individual and fam ily counseling by trained therapists. Probation and parole officers could either be hired with the necessary qualifications (e.g., a Master’s degree in Psychology or Social Work) or the agency could refer offenders to existing com munity treatment resources. To the extent that early identification of “pre-delinquents” is also recommended by advocates of the psy choanalytic perspective, (juvenile) probation and parole officers would need to develop collaborative agreements with local school boards regarding a comprehensive screening protocol and the development of appropri ate early childhood intervention strategies. Because of limited community corrections resources, we do not anticipate community corrections agencies focusing much attention on pre-delinquents in the coming decade, but given the current fascination with predic tive analytics, it is not out of the question. Nonetheless, the influence of psychoanalytic theory is substantial, since a wide range of treatment models are based (in whole or part) on these theoretical assumptions (e.g., indi vidual therapy, group therapy, reality therapy, guided group interaction).
B. Social Learning Theories Adherents of social learning theory make a common-sense claim: Behavior is learned when it is reinforced, and not learned when it is not reinforced. Building on this basic premise, many residential juvenile treatment programs include “token economies,” which reward juveniles for adherence to program rules, utilizing positive reinforcement tech niques to help juveniles learn appropriate behavior. Similarly, probation and parole offi cers establish conditions of supervision that represent a “behavioral contract” between the probation officer and the offender. If an offender adheres to the contract for a set period of time, he or she is rewarded by a relaxation of supervision standards (such as downgrading an offender’s risk classification level, requiring fewer meetings with the P.O., no curfew, no drug testing). The problem with such behavioral con tracting in probation and parole is that judges, parole boards, and probation and parole offi cers simply set too many conditions and then do not uniformly enforce them; inevitably, this leads to high levels of noncompliance by probationers and parolees. For example, sur veys of absconding levels (i.e., offenders who fail to report and/or leave the area without permission) reveal that, at any one time, up
to 10 percent of the probation population has absconded, while another 15 percent had their probation revoked for failure to com ply with the conditions of probation release. Comparable patterns of failure are found among parolees, suggesting that we need to rethink our current approach to offender con trol in community settings. One strategy advocated by a number of corrections experts is simply to set fewer con ditions, but to enforce those conditions we do set (Jacobson, 2005). Others have argued that it is not the number, but the type, of conditions that should be carefully examined. For exam ple, should we mandate weekly drug testing for probationers and parolees with admitted substance abuse problems, even when the agency lacks the necessary resources to place these same offenders in an appropriate treat ment program? Answers to questions such as this are critical to the success of probation and parole strategies based on the two basic assumptions of social learning theory: People will repeat behavior when it is grati fying, that is, when it is rewarded. Punishment is immediately effective only for as long as it lasts and cannot be avoided. It will not extinguish unacceptable behav ior—unless some optional behavior is found that is as rewarding to the person as was the original behavior. It appears to us that probation and parole officers spend too much time telling offend ers what to do and too little time explaining why they should behave in a certain way. Borrowing for a moment from the title of criminologist Jack Katz’s recent book, we need to offer offenders a reasonable alternative to the “seductions of crime,” because—if social learning theorists are correct—punishment alone will simply not work. Similarly, a strat egy of drug control based on the slogan “Just say no—or else!” fails to recognize that people get high on drugs because they like the expe rience. A social learning theorist would argue that we need to replace the positive feelings an offender gets from doing drugs (and crime) with some other positive experience, such as involvement in the arts, music, and/or other leisure activities, including sports. Strategies designed to facilitate positive lifestyle change among offenders under community control have been reviewed by the United Kingdom’s National Offender Management Service, with mixed results reported (Byrne & Shultz, 2014).
C. Cognitive Development Theories A third group of psychological theories
December 2016
—cognitive development theories—has also been used to explain criminal behavior, and a wide range of offender treatment pro grams have been implemented in recent years based on this group of theories (MacKenzie, 2006). Cognitive development theories, ini tially developed by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget and then refined by Lawrence Kohlberg and his colleagues, essentially argue that offenders have failed to develop their moral judgment capacity beyond the precon ventional level. Kohlberg found that moral reasoning (i.e., our capacity “to do the right thing”) develops in three stages:
... in stage one, the preconventional stage, children (age 9-11) think, “If I steal, what are my chances of getting caught and punished?” Stage two is the conventional level, when adoles cents think “It is illegal to steal and therefore I should not steal, under any circumstances.” Stage three is the post- conventional level (adults over 20 years old), when individuals critically exam ine customs and social rules according to their own sense of universal human rights, moral principles, and duties (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2004: 87).
Is it possible to improve the moral judg ments of offenders by utilizing probation and parole officers as role models? Kohlberg observed that we learn morality from those we interact with on a regular basis—our fam ily, friends, and others in the community. It certainly makes sense that moral development could be improved by increased contacts between POs and offenders, especially if the focus of these sessions was on morality (e.g., justice, fairness), rather than the typical ritu alism of most office visits. In Massachusetts, the probation department sponsored a series of violence prevention workshops utilizing the basic principles described by Kohlberg and his associates. Initial research reveals “significant increases in moral development” when these types of programs are initiated (Guarino-Ghezzi & Trevino, 2014). In addi tion, a variety of treatment programs for drug-involved offenders has been developed, implemented, and evaluated. In terms of “what works” with drug-involved offenders, treatment programs based on this theory are among the most effective in the field, accord ing to the most recent evidence-based reviews (see, e.g., Taxman & Pattavina, 2014).
THE IMPACT OF CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY 19
TABLE 5.
Psychological Criminology and Community Corrections Practice
Theoretical Assumptions Intervention Strategy Examples of Programs/Strategies (1) Psychoanalytic theories (1) The use of either (1) Individual counseling assume that negative early mandatory or voluntary strategies using both community childhood experiences may individual treatment as a corrections personnel and local increase the probability of condition of supervision. referrals to local counselors, criminal behavior. psychologists, and psychiatrists. (2 ) Social Learning theories (2) The use of conditions (2) Residential community focus on the ways in which that restrict who an corrections programs often behavior is learned and offender can interact use token economies to reinforced. with and where he or reinforce positive behavior, she can live, work, or while behavioral contracting visit; the application of has become standard practice behavior modification in many state community techniques. corrections systems, including California and Arizona. (3) Cognitive Development (3)^ Regular meetings^ (3)^ Many drug treatment theories link criminal between offenders and^ programs utilize the basic behavior to a failure to move community corrections^ tenets of cognitive development from the pre-conventional officers, focusing on^ theory, making it the most to the conventional and morality, fairness, and^ popular group treatment strategy post-conventional stages of related issues; the referral currently being employed in this cognitive development. of offenders—including country. drug, violent, and sex offenders—to group treatment strategies based on this theory. (4) Criminal personality (4) Taxman’s Proactive theories assume that Community Supervision Strategy offenders have developed targets offenders’ criminal criminal thinking patterns thinking; it has been used in that are distinct from those Maryland, Minnesota, and of non-offenders. several other state community corrections systems.
(4) Classification of offenders with criminal personality traits, followed by placement in specialized supervision caseloads
D. Criminality Personality The final group of psychological theories focuses on the potential link between per sonality and criminality. Although there is currently much debate on whether personal ity characteristics play a significant role in determining subsequent criminal behavior, a number of prominent criminologists have argued that “the root causes of crime are not…social issues [high unemployment, bad schools] but deeply ingrained features of the human personality and its early experiences. Low intelligence, an impulsive personality, and a lack of empathy for other people are among the leading individual characteristics of people at risk for becoming offenders” (Wilson, 2007: v). Hans Eysenck has com pleted numerous studies on the impact of personality characteristics on criminality. He theorizes that criminal behavior may be a function of both personality differences (i.e., offenders are more likely to be neurotic and extroverted) and conditioning, in that some individuals are simply more difficult to
“condition” than others. Since we “develop a conscience through conditioning,” it is not surprising that antisocial behavior is more likely when this process breaks down for some reason (Eysenck, 1987). If a criminal personality (or identifiable criminal thinking pattern) does exist, what—if anything—can probation and parole officers do about the problem? The answer may be that it depends on exactly how the problem is defined. For example, it has been esti mated that a significant proportion (over 20 percent in some studies) of the current state correctional population in this country could be classified as psychopaths, with the exact estimate depending on exactly how this term is defined. According to a recent review by Caspi, Moffit, Silva, Stouthamer-Loeber, Krueger and Schmutte (2006:82), “Across different samples and different methods, our studies of personality and crime suggest that crime-proneness is defined both by high nega tive emotionality and by low constraint.” This certainly sounds like the criminal personality
December 2016 THE IMPACT OF CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY 21
development of a full range of alternative edu cation programs to meet the diverse needs of inner-city students. In addition to education reform, Cloward and Ohlin have advocated a number of poli cies focusing on improving job opportunities for at-risk youth (and young adults) from lower-class areas. In fact, a number of the federal anti-poverty programs originally proposed by President Kennedy and then funded through President Johnson’s “War on Poverty” initiatives (e.g., the Job Corp and other employment/training programs) have been linked directly to the positive reaction by Congress to Cloward and Ohlin’s proposals (Huang & Vikse, 2014). Although strain theorists focus on the need for changes in opportunity structure (jobs, education) of the lower-class community, it can certainly be argued that probation and parole officers still need to work with indi vidual offenders in the areas of education and employment. But we need to emphasize that from a strain perspective, it is not enough that POs set and monitor conditions of supervision requiring offenders to “stay in school” or “get a job.” Probation and parole officers would need to act as advocates for change in both the educational and employment opportunity structure in their communities.
B. Subcultural and Differential Association Theories
Subcultural (or cultural conflict) theorists argue that crime is not a function of oppor tunity; it is a function of values. Although they agree with strain theorists on the relation between class and crime, they take the view that individuals who live in lower-class com munities have been exposed to a different set of values than individuals from more afflu ent areas (see, e.g., Elijah Anderson’s Code of the Street). These values include the notion that criminal behavior is indeed acceptable behavior in certain circumstances. If subcul tural criminologists such as Walter Miller and Marvin Wolfgang are correct, then neither educational reform nor increased job oppor tunity will substantially reduce the problem of crime and violence in urban areas. What is needed is a fundamental change in the basic values of the entire lower-class community. But how can we change the values of an entire community? According to Edwin Sutherland, the key to understanding crimi nality is to recognize how values supporting criminal behavior are defined and transmitted from “one generation to the next”:
The theory of differential associa tion states that crime is learned through social interaction. People come into constant contact with “definitions favorable to violations of law” and “defi nitions unfavorable to violations of law.” The ratio of these definitions—criminal to noncriminal—determines whether a person will engage in criminal behavior.
If Sutherland is correct, then the use of short and long periods of incarceration may actually promote subsequent criminal behav ior, since incarcerated offenders are rarely placed in treatment programs (such as thera peutic communities) designed to offset the negative effects of a group of criminals living together and thus acting as “schools for crime.” Similarly, community supervision strategies that ignore the prevailing attitudes of family members, peer group members, and commu nity residents toward crime and violence will also be ineffective. Whether the offender is locked up or placed under community super vision, what is needed is the presentation of an “alternative world view” that underscores the advantages of conformity. Institutional treatment programs have been developed for juvenile and adult offenders along these lines, utilizing guided group interaction (GGI) techniques. The problem with this strategy is that the “group support” disappears when the offender graduates from the program. While examples of community support groups can be provided (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous), it is obvious that we have done a poor job of providing (both indi vidual and group-level) positive role models in lower-class communities. Probation and parole officers may be able to begin to address the problem by becoming more visible in the communities where they work, perhaps utilizing the basic strategy of the community police officer. But visibility in targeted neigh borhoods is only one step in the direction supported by subcultural theorists. Probation and parole officers would need to embrace a mentoring role with the offenders on their caseloads.
C. Social Ecological Theories A third group of sociological theories of crime causation emphasize the negative con sequences of community characteristics on the behavior of community residents. Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, for example, examined the effect of community social disorganization on juvenile misbehavior. According to Shaw
and McKay, social disorganization occurred in periods of change, due to such factors as increased immigration, urbanization, and/or industrialization. Communities characterized by social disorganization typically had high rates of crime and delinquency, owing in large part to a breakdown in the community’s infor mal social control system (i.e., family, peers, and neighbors). The solution to the problem of a disor ganized community is reorganization, but how and where do we begin? In a seminal article, “The Community Context of Violent Victimization and Offending,” Harvard University criminologist Robert Sampson argues that:
there are... policy manipulable options that may help reverse the tide of community social disintegration. Among others, these might include (1) residential management of public hous ing (to increase stability), (2) tenant buy-outs (to increase home ownership and commitment to locale), (3) reha bilitation of existing low income housing (to preserve area stability, especially single-family homes), (4) disbursement of public housing (versus concentra tion), and (5) strict code enforcement (to fight deterioration). (Sampson, 1993)
As we discussed earlier in our analysis of strain theory and probation and parole prac tice, there is a dual role for POs working in disorganized, lower class communities. On the one hand, these agencies would need to take an advocacy role regarding community reorganization efforts; but at the same time, line probation and parole officers would also need to develop specific, short-term strategies for supervising the probationers and parolees who live in these communities. One strategy would be to place a priority on field visits by POs, and to coordinate various offender control strategies (such as curfews) with local neighborhood (block watch) groups. It would also be necessary to consider the use of special conditions to keep probationers and parolees out of certain neighborhood areas (or estab lishments) known to police as the “hot spots” of crime (and victimization). In a series of federal and state court decisions, the court has upheld the constitutionality of such conditions as long as they can be reasonably linked to the goal of rehabilitation. When viewed from a social ecological perspective, the need for planned community
22 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 80 Number 3
reorganization is obvious. In fact, Shaw and McKay responded to this need by developing the Chicago Area Project in 1934, and simi lar community change efforts have emerged in other poor, urban areas since that time. While it is difficult to assess the impact of these attempts at community reorganization, our view is that it doesn’t make much sense to attempt to change offenders without also addressing the “community context” of their behavior. Probation and parole officers can help organize local residents in this type of effort, while also developing offender-specific (and area-specific) supervision strategies. The negative consequences of continued residence in socially disorganized communities would not be eliminated by such activities, but the overall risk of recidivism might be reduced to some extent.
D. Control Theories
A somewhat different view of crime causa tion is offered by social control theorists (Gottfredson & Hirshi, 1990; Hirschi, 1969). Control theorists do not attempt to explain why “otherwise moral” individuals are driven to break the law; they focus instead on why we conform to the rules of law in the first place. Criminologist Travis Hirschi has theorized that when an individual’s bond to society is either weak or broken, he or she is “free to engage in delinquent acts.” Hirschi has iden tified four elements of this bond to society: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. He argues that,
... Attachment to conventional others, commitment to conventional pursuits, involvement in conventional activities, and belief in conventional val ues reduces the likelihood that a youth will become delinquent.
Although Hirschi’s theory was originally applied only to juvenile delinquency, it has also been used in recent years to explain various forms of adult criminality, including white-collar crime. Control theory has implications for change in a number of family, school, and neighbor hood-level policies that are directly (and/or indirectly) related to current probation and parole practice. For example, since attachment to parents is one element of an individual’s bond to society, it certainly makes sense to develop intervention strategies designed to improve parent-child relationships (e.g., parent training programs). Similarly, since
attachment to family may be improved by utilizing a combination of treatment (e.g., family therapy) and control (e.g., curfews, house arrest, electronic monitoring) strate gies, it makes sense to use probation and parole conditions to focus on this problem. Unfortunately, keeping an adult offender at home at night may simply move the location of certain forms of criminal behavior, such as assault and substance abuse, from the com munity to the home. Hirschi has also emphasized the impor tance of the school, focusing on attachment to teachers, commitment to education, and involvement in school-related activities: “attachment to school depends on one’s appre ciation for the institution, one’s perception of how he or she is received by teachers and peers, and how well one does in class” (Hirschi, 1967). In this context, it would appear to be futile to simply require that a young offender “go to school” as a condi tion of probation/parole, particularly if the offender has a history of failure in school. The development of specialized programs for youth “at risk”—perhaps aimed at improving student-teacher relationships, or increasing the number and type of after-school activi ties—would be more consistent with social control theory. Unfortunately, these types of programs are difficult to get started and the first to get cut when there is an economic “downturn.” Social Control Theory can also be used to justify neighborhood-level changes in both resource availability (for youth and adults at risk) and community values (such as legiti macy of the criminal justice process, belief in the law). As we noted in our earlier discus sion of cognitive development theory, it does appear that probation and parole officers can play a critical role in this latter area. On the one hand, they can help communities to secure local, state, and federal funding for a variety of programs designed to (1) improve family relationships and parenting skills, (2) expand school resources for students with academic problems, and (3) increase resident involvement in community activities. But perhaps more importantly, they can provide a function typically reserved for organized religion: to reinforce belief in the moral valid ity of existing laws. This can be accomplished by asking POs to emphasize “morality” in their interactions with offenders (Taxman et al., 2005) and by developing positive relation ships between offenders and POs that result in offender attachment to POs. When this
occurs, the PO is acting as an agent of formal and informal social control. After evaluating the impact of the Massachusetts Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) Program, Byrne and Kelly concluded:
... the relationship that develops between PO’s and offenders during the intensive supervision process may... act as a powerful, informal deterrent to future criminal activity. (Byrne & Kelly,
The results of the Massachusetts IPS evaluation underscore the need for a strong probation and parole presence in the lives of offenders. When probation and parole offi cers are involved in the lives of offenders—by monitoring individual and family treatment, by assisting in employment searches, by dis cussing key “life course” events (e.g., marriage, family, friends, jobs)—they generally respond by committing fewer crimes. If social control theorists are correct, criminal justice policy makers have focused far too much attention on formal deterrence mechanisms (e.g., man datory sentencing laws) and far too little attention on informal deterrence techniques (e.g., increased contacts/development of per sonal relationships).
E. Life-course and Developmental Theories In recent years, criminologists have explored the possibility that we may have overempha sized the impact of childhood experiences (victimization, parenting, peer influences, school experiences) on adult patterns of both continued criminality (the persistent offenders) and desistance from crime (i.e., the age-crime connection). According to Sampson and Laub (2005), there are four key turning points in the adult life-course that appear to be linked to desistance from crime: (1) mar riage, (2) employment, (3) the military, and (4) physical relocation. They conclude that “Involvement in institutions such as marriage, work, and the military reorders short-term situational inducements to crime and, over time, redirects long-term commitments to conformity” (2005:18). If Sampson and Laub are correct, then it would certainly make sense for community corrections officers to recog nize the importance of these turning points as they consider the prospects—and develop strategies—for changing the behavior of the offenders placed under their direct supervi sion. A variety of community corrections
24 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 80 Number 3
that were illegal, only a few of us have actually been labeled as “criminals” for this behavior. Once labeled in this manner, people tend to react by internalizing the negative label and living up to societal expectations by engag ing in further criminal activities. Given the potential negative consequences of labeling, we need to ask ourselves: (1) which laws do we really need to enforce? and (2) which offend ers can (and should) we divert from the formal court process? In the last decade, we have seen the relax ation of laws (i.e., decriminalization) in some states related to prostitution and marijuana use, although the AIDS epidemic has fueled fears about intravenous drug use and sexu ally transmitted disease, resulting in calls for tougher legislation to “deter” both behaviors. In addition, “diversion” is now an accepted practice for offenders with drug and alco hol problems (through drug court) in most states, while dispute resolution through medi ation (and restorative justice panels) is also becoming popular, particularly in the areas of misdemeanor crime, divorce, and child custody. Probation officers in many states are responsible for determining the eligibility of offenders for various diversion programs, as well as for their operation. However, a number of observers have suggested that by develop ing such pre-trial/pre-conviction diversion programs, we are actually “widening the net of social control,” thereby exacerbating the nega tive effects of being brought into the criminal (or juvenile) justice system. Conflict theorists, such as Richard Quinney, have argued that we need to focus our atten tion on why laws are made. According to conflict theorists, “Laws do not exist for the collective good; they represent the interests of specific groups that have the power to get them enacted” (Quinney, 1970). Given the size of the black underclass and the overrepresen tation of blacks and other minority groups at each step in the criminal justice process (e.g., arrest, conviction, incarceration), it has been argued that the criminal law has been used as a minority control mechanism in this country. The current preoccupation of federal and state legislators with the “drug problem” is a good example. We are willing to expand our prison capacity in order to incarcerate urban street- level dealers and users, but we are unwilling to adequately fund substance abuse treatment programs for these same offenders. Conflict theorists would argue that drug laws need to be enforced equally in urban, suburban, and rural areas. They would also demand other
changes in the criminal justice process, focus ing on the need for “equal justice,” regardless of race or social class. Although community corrections officers now represent “agents” of social control, conflict theorists would likely suggest that they would be more effective if they became advocates for social justice in the areas of jobs, health care, housing, education, and treatment. At the individual level, recent attempts to apply restorative justice concepts to community corrections practice are cer tainly consistent with conflict criminology (see Wood, 2016).
Conclusion
The Link between Criminological Theory and Community Corrections Policy A number of observers have suggested that probation and parole officers do not have an adequate “professional base” to do the job we ask them to do. However, it is our view that it is impossible to assess the qualifications of community corrections personnel unless we first clearly define the primary job orientation of the community corrections officer: Do we want our line staff to emphasize treatment or control? As we have indicated throughout this article, how we answer the “why” (or causa tion) question (Why did the offender commit this crime?) will determine not only our gen eral orientation toward certain categories of crime (e.g., drug offenses, violent crime) and groups of offenders (e.g., sex offenders, gang members, drunk drivers), but also the types of functions we will expect community correc tions to perform. Some POs have Master’s degrees in Social Work and Psychology, while others have advanced degrees in public administration and criminal justice. A number of line probation and parole officers only have an undergradu ate degree, while some have even less formal education. This diversity in educational back ground would be a cause for concern if we could clearly establish a relationship between education and the job itself. Unfortunately, we do not have a firm grasp on the types of skills necessary to be an effective probation or parole officer in the next decade. While a number of “get tough” intermediate sanc tions programs have been developed based on classical assumptions about crime control (e.g., intensive supervision, house arrest, boot camps), these programs still include only a small percentage (approximately 10 percent) of all offenders under community supervision. If
these programs continue to expand, it appears that we will need to draw our POs from the pool of undergraduate criminal justice majors, perhaps requiring some prior experience as a police officer or corrections guard. Such “deskilling” is an inevitable consequence of the movement away from treatment and toward the technology of control. However, there has been considerable discussion recently on the need to redesign existing community corrections programs—both probation and parole/reentry—with a renewed emphasis on individual offender assessment and treatment (Taxman & Pattavina, 2014; Taxman et al., 2005). To the extent that service provision/ treatment becomes a primary community corrections line staff function, upgrading the qualifications of line staff will be critical to the success of community corrections as a people-changing organization. Regardless of which direction we move toward, this review has underscored the need for a discipline not only with a rich theoretical “core,” but also with a clearly defined professional base informed by high quality evaluation research.
References
Adler, F., Mueller, G., & Laufer, W. (2013). Crim inology (8th ed.), McGraw-Hill Publishers. Anderson, E. (2000). Code of the street decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. W.W. Norton. Akers, R. (2006). A social learning theory of crime. in F. T. Cullen & R. Agnew (Eds.), Criminological theory—Past to present (pp. 134-146). Los Angeles, Ca: Roxbury Press. Byrne, J. (2016). Smart sentencing revisited: As sessing the policy/practice implications of research on electronic monitoring and other intermediate sanctions, In T. G. Blomberg, J. Mestre Brancale, K. Beaver & W. Bales (Eds.), Advancing criminology and criminal justice policy. New York: Routledge. Byrne, J. M. (2013). After the fall: Assessing the impact of the great prison experiment on future crime control policy. Federal Proba tion, 77(3), 3-14. Byrne, J. M. (2008). The social ecology of com munity corrections. Criminology and Public Policy, 7 (4), 263-274. Byrne, J. M., & Kelly, L. (1989: 34). Restructur ing probation as an intermediate sanction: An evaluation of the Massachusetts Intensive Probation Supervision Program (executive summary of the final report to the National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC (85-IJ CX-0036)). Byrne, J., Pattavina, A., & Taxman, F. (2015). International trends in prison upsizing and downsizing: In search of evidence of a global rehabilitation revolution. Victims
December 2016 THE IMPACT OF CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY 25
and Offenders: An International Journal of Evidence-based Research, Policy, and Prac tice 10(4), 420-451. Byrne, J., & Schultz, P. (2014). The effectiveness of anti-social lifestyle change strategies: A rapid evidence assessment. Prepared for Ministry of Justice, London: National Offender Man agement Service. Caspi, A., Moffit, T. E., Silva, P. A., Stouthamer- Loeber, M., Krueger, R. F., & Schmutte, P. S. (2006). Are some people crime-prone? Rep lications of the personality-crime relation ship across countries, genders, races, and methods. Criminology, 32(2), 163-196. Cullen, F. T., Pratt, T. C. & Turanovic, J. J. (2016). It’s hopeless. Criminology & Public Policy, 15 : 1215–1227. doi:10.1111/
Eysenck, H. (1987). Personality theory and problems of criminality. In B. J. McGurk, D. M. Thornton, & M. Williams (Eds.), Ap plying psychology to imprisonment (pp. 224). New York: Wiley. Farabee, D. (2005). Rethinking rehabilitation: Why can’t we reform our criminals? Wash ington, DC: AEI Press. Gottfredson, M., & Hirshi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press. Guarino-Ghezzi, S. & Trevino, A. (2014). Understanding crime: A multidisciplinary approach. New York: Routledge. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Uni versity of California Press. Huang, C. & Vikse, J. (2014). War on poverty: Effectiveness of war on poverty programs in the United States. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University School of Social Work. Jacobson, M. (2005) Downsizing prisons. New York: NYU Press. Kleiman, M. A. R. (2016). Swift–Certain–Fair. Criminology & Public Policy, 15 : 1185–1193. doi:10.1111/1745-9133. Kleiman, M. (2009). When brute force fails: How to have less crime and less punishment. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Kubrin, C. E., & Stewart, E. (2006). Predict ing who offends: The neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies. Criminology, 44 :165-197. Kubrin, C. E., Squires, G., & Stewart, E. (2007). Neighborhoods, race, and recidivism: The community-reoffending nexus and its implications for African Americans. Race Relations Abstracts, 32(1):7-37. Laub, J., & Sampson, R. (2003). Shared begin nings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age
- Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Paperback edition, January 2006). Lattimore, P. K., MacKenzie, D. L., Zajac, G., Dawes, D., Arsenault, E., & Tueller, S. (2016). Outcome findings from the HOPE demonstration field experiment. Criminology & Public Policy, 15 : 1103–1141. doi:10.1111/ Mackenzie, D. (2006). What works in correc tions: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. Miofsky, K., & Byrne, J. (2012). Evaluation research and probation: How to distinguish high performance from low performance programmes. In D. Gadd, S. Karstedt, & S. F. Messner (Eds.), The Sage handbook of criminological research methods (pp. 336 357). London, U.K.: SAGE. National Research Council. (2007). Parole, desis tance from crime and community reintegra tion. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Nagin, D. S. (2016). Project HOPE. Crimi nology & Public Policy, 15 : 1005–1007. doi:10.1111/1745-9133. Petersilia, J. (2007). Employing behavioral contracting for earned discharged parole, Criminology and Public Policy, 6 (4):807-814. Renzema, M., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2005). Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate to high risk offenders? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1:215-237. Portnoy, J., Raine, A., Chen, F. R., Pardini, D.,
Loeber, R., & Jennings, J. R. (2014). Heart rate and antisocial behavior: The mediating role of impulsive sensation seeking. Crimi nology, 52: 292–311. doi:10.1111/
Pratt, T. C., Turanovic, J. J., & Cullen, F. T. (2016). Revisiting the criminological consequences of exposure to fetal tes tosterone: A meta-analysis of the 2D:4D digit ratio.* Criminology, 54: 587–620. doi:10.1111/1745-9125. Sutherland, E. (1939) Principles of criminology ( 3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott. As summarized in Sutherland and Cressey. In F. T. Cullen & R. Agnew (Eds.) Crimino logical theory—Past to present (2006, pp. 122-126). Roxbury Press. Quinney, R. (1969). Crime and justice in society. Boston, MA: Little Brown. Quinney, R. (1970). The social reality of crime. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction publishers. Sampson, R. (1993). The community context of violent victimization and offending. In W. J. Wilson (Ed.), Sociology and the Public Agenda (pp. 259-286). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Taxman, F., Shepardson, E., & Byrne, J. (2004). Tools of the trade: A guide for incorporating science into practice. A monograph prepared for the Community Corrections Division, National Institute of Corrections, Washing ton, D.C. Taxman, F., & Pattavina, A. (2014). Simulation strategies to reduce recidivism: Risk needs responsivity (RNR) modeling for the criminal justice system. NY: Springer. Wilson, J. Q., & Herrnstein, R. (1985). Crime and human nature. New York: Simon and Schuster. Wood, W. (2016). Editor’s introduction: The future of restorative justice? Victims and Offenders, 11, 1: 1-8).
