Diversionary Probationary Programs for Gang Members, Research Paper Example

Probation and Parole programs are designed to help divert people from incarceration and to assist those who have spent time in jail reintegrate into society. In many cases, these programs can be very effective. They are intended to provide strict supervisory conditions, while at the same time offering opportunities for disciplined offenders to meet those conditions. In many cases, those involved in these programs may offer particular problems that require diversionary or additional programs designed to assist problem offenders make it through these programs. Many probation and parole programs deal with current and former gang members, and there are programs in place to assist with these specific types of offenders. In some cases these programs are successful, in others they are not. This paper will examine some of these programs, with specific attention paid to diversionary probation programs, as well as some specific gang members who have had successful, and not so successful, experiences with these programs.

Probation programs are basically designed to divert offenders from having to go to jail or prison. First-time offenders, or those with little criminal history, are often viewed as candidates for probation. There are several advantages to probation programs, both to the offender and to society as a whole. For the offender, the most obvious advantage is simply the ability to avoid jail time. This also has larger benefits to society, as it is less expensive to monitor offenders on probation than it is to incarcerate them, and the recidivism rates (the rate at which offenders reoffend) are lower for those who successfully complete probation than for those who serve jail time (Stickels).

In a typical probation scenario, an offender –the probationer- is assigned to be supervised by a local probation office, usually under the supervision of a particular probation officer. The conditions of the probation may vary, but they typically include a set length of time, a regular schedule of visits to the probation office, a set of fees and/or fines to be paid, and other requirements specific to the particular probationer. Most probationers are expected to either obtain employment or provide regular evidence that they are seeking employment, and other programs may be utilized for specific probationers, such as mental health services, employment-seeking services, drug treatment and diversion programs, and gang-intervention programs (Stickels).

These gang-intervention programs follow many different models, and have met with varying levels of success. There has been a marked increase in the number of such programs in recent years, with most models centered on the concept of intense probationary supervision (IPS). The effects of these programs have come under much scrutiny, and have been seen to demonstrate mixed results.

One such study examined an array of different diversionary programs, including in their study various programs from house arrest to electronic monitoring to simple probation supervision. In each case, the focus was on the effectiveness of these programs to reduce recidivism rates among gang members. The study was quick to point out the same advantages to such programs that others have noted; namely, that these programs are less costly to an already-overburdened prison system, and that those who successfully complete such programs have lower recidivism rates than those who are sent to prison. The question for the researchers was to determine just how effective these programs were in lowering recidivism rates among gang members, as a means of determining whether such programs lived up to their promise (Agopian).

The focus of this particular study was on a program implemented in Los Angeles County between 1988 and 1989. The program had three primary goals: to develop a strict program of community controls, to lower recidivism rates, and to ensure that violators were promptly dealt with. Those selected for the program were all adults who had been identified as gang members, and whose offenses were drug-related, either for use or possession (violent offenders were not considered for this program). In addition, the caseload for the supervising probation officers was reduced by roughly 90%, from approximately 300 probationers for each officer down to approximately 30 for each officer (Agopian). The program was described by the LA County Probation office as follows:

The program will employ exacting sanctions, restrictions and electronic surveillance.

Arrest record checks will be made twice a month and all violations will be reported to the court within 72 hours of awareness. Alcohol and drug testing will be performed and community service  work will  be required.  These strategies, in  addition  to electronic surveillance, will enhance the Deputy Probation Officer’s ability to more effectively supervise and monitor the activities and whereabouts of adult gang members known to be involved in the use and sales of drugs and narcotics.  (LA County Press release; Agopian)

One of the primary purposes of such programs is to avoid having the probationer commit new crimes. This particular study found that the LA County program was largely successful in this area; very few new crimes were reported, and most were a handful of property crimes and drug offenses. This study found that the primary number of violations were of a so-called “technical” nature. Such technical violations include failure of a probationer to report regularly to their probation officer, to fail drug tests administered during probation visits, or to be considered to have “absconded,” when a probationer is discovered to no longer be living at his or her stated address (Agopian).

The results of this study did show some promising results, such as low rates of violation at the six-month mark, and lower rates of recidivism for many crimes. A follow-up of offenders after the conclusion of the twelve-month probation period, however, discovered that many of those involved in the program went on to commit additional crimes –particularly drug-related offenses- after the conclusion of their probationary period. Further examination of the study determined that the “intensity” of the IPS may have been lacking. Though the program’s intention was to develop stricter controls for those in this program than would be endured by a “regular” probationer, it was determined that, for practical purposes, the level of actual supervision differed little from a typical probation program (Agopian). Considering the reduced caseload given to the officers in this program, the failure to more intensively monitor the probationers seems to lie squarely with those operating the program, rather than with the probationers, the majority of whom successfully completed their probation.

The study found the results inconclusive, determining that the program’s guidelines may ultimately have been too lenient to effectively alter the future course of recidivism for those involved in the program (Agopian). Despite the lacking of this particular program, however, there are cases where such programs seem to work well, along with cases where they do not.

One example of a successful probationer was a 19-year-old Chicago area man who had been identified for his intense involvement in gang activity. Described as a “model citizen” by local police officials, this probationer was required to maintain employment, keep a strict curfew, forego wearing his gang colors, and meet other strict controls. He served as an example of the way these programs can function at their identifying gang members at young ages, and providing strict diversionary tactics, it has been shown that such programs can work (Rozek).

There are exceptions to how successful these programs can be, sometimes even surprising ones. One gang leader who had been seemingly successfully diverted from gang activity was 21-year-old Luis Lebya of Santa Fe , NM. Lebya had participated in several diversionary programs, and had even mentored young gang members in an effort to help them leave the gang life behind. Then, while attending a 21-day drug treatment program, Lebya absconded from supervision (Anon.).

Despite some shortcomings, gang-intervention programs related to probationary supervision continue to flourish (Lane). Most evidence has shown that stricter controls for gang members are necessary than for typical probationers, as the nature of gang life makes it difficult to leave, perhaps offering greater temptations to gang members than a typical probationer would endure (Rozek). Most of these types of programs are tightening up the sorts of controls placed on gang-member probationers. These stricter controls typically involve a layering of the different types of controls available to supervisors, such as house arrest, electronic monitoring, strict curfews, and of course avoiding associating with gang members (Lane).

Despite all of the various programs put into place, the evidence is still unclear as to what programs work best, and just how successful these sorts of programs can be. Some programs seem to work well in some areas, or for some probationers, while the same types of programs may fall short in other regions or for other probationers. It seems clear that such programs can work, but the construction and management of the programs must be both individually tailored to meet the specific needs of particular communities as well as flexible enough to respond to the individual needs and specifics of particular probationers. One thing seems clear: when these programs do work, they benefit everyone.

Bibliography

Agopian, M. (1990). The impact of intense supervision on gang-drug offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 4(214),

Anon., (1995, November 25). Ex-gang leader jailed over probation violation. Santa Fe New Mexican, p. pB3.

Lane, J. (2010). Exploring fear of general and gang crimes among juvenile on probation. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 25.

Rozek, D. (1998, February 10). Tougher probation planned for worst gang criminals. Chicago Sun-Times, p. p16.

Rozek, D. (1998, April 13). Gang member in probation program is ‘model citizen’ . Chicago Sun-Times, p. p14.

Stickels, J. (2007). The game of probation. Department of Criminal Justice, University of texas,

Wittmeyer, A. (2009, May 31). Mentorship program attacks gangs. The Virginian-Pilot, p. p 1.