Misdemeanant Probationers' Perspectives On The Severity Of The Conditions Of Probation

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Misdemeanant Probationers' Perspectives On The Severity Of The Conditions Of Probation
Physical Description:
1 online resource (452 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Santos,Saskia Daniele
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Criminology, Law, and Society, Sociology and Criminology & Law
Committee Chair:
Lane, Jodi S
Committee Members:
Lanza-Kaduce, Lonn M
Spillane, Joseph F
Wald, Kenneth D

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
conditions -- probation -- probationers -- severity
Sociology and Criminology & Law -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Criminology, Law, and Society thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
Probation is a court-ordered disposition that places the adjudicated offender under the control, supervision and care of correctional or court supervision in lieu of incarceration, while the probation conditions form a contract with the court by which an offender must abide in order to remain in the community (Petersilia, 1997, 1998). Though current estimates place over a million individuals on probation, the research is limited on the specific probation conditions imposed and the perceptions and effects of those conditions. Research focused on comparing offenders? perceptions of various type of criminal justice sanctions suggests that offenders? experiences with the criminal justice system, as well as their personal characteristics, influence their perceptions of the punitiveness or severity of criminal sanctions (May & Wood, 2010). The purpose of this research is to conduct research in an area that has been traditionally ignored by researchers. Using both quantitative and qualitative data, this project examined perceptions of probation and probation conditions from the perspectives of 202 current misdemeanor probationers. Participants responded to questions measuring perceptions of probation conditions? severity and difficulty, as well as questions pertaining to potential obstacles for them successfully completing probation. Official criminal, court, and probation records were also included in that analysis. Frequencies were run to examine participants? agreement with survey items and linear regression models were also estimated to identify possible predictors of agreement with survey items. Content analysis was performed on the qualitative data. Probationers? perceptions of their conditions of probation are that probation conditions are typically not severe. Additionally, probationers consider the perceived severity of probation conditions when identifying the perceived difficulty of adhering to or completing probation conditions; the majority of probation conditions were perceived as being not difficult. The majority of listed obstacles were not viewed as obstacles by the probationers for them successfully completing their probation sentences, though this study identified six common obstacles: affording financial obligations, completing the community service hours, finding transportation to various probation conditions? locations, avoiding alcohol and/or drugs, avoiding particular people, places and things and current health conditions.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Saskia Daniele Santos.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local:
Adviser: Lane, Jodi S.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID:
UFE0043279:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 CONDITIONS OF PROBATION By SASKIA DANIELE SANTOS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE RE QUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Saskia Daniele Santos

PAGE 3

3 To my p arents, Rob French, and S.A. Santos

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost I would like to thank Jodi Lane for all the time and energy she has spent on me over the course of the last six years. Without her mentorship and support, I would have not been able to complete graduate school. I am grateful to her and feel lucky t o have had her as my mentor. I would also like to thank Lo nn Lanza Kaduce for all his support through the years; he also helped by pushing me to see other points of view. I would also like to acknowledge Joseph Spillane and Kenneth Wald for their time and expertise. Their knowledge greatly improved the quality of this project and enhanced my overall academic experience. I would also like to thank Alachua County Court Service s for graciously allowing me to do this project. I would especially like to thank Cyndi Morton and Sharon Longworth for being instrumental in ensur ing that this project was a success. I am grateful to Kris Anderson, Valerie Green, Drew Gallaugher, Amanda Mash, Wanda Mayberry, Wilfredo Melendez, Margie Nunez, Dana Patterson, Rodney Williams, and Nicole Wise for all of their help in recruiting This project would not have been possible without them or the probationers who agreed to participate. I am also thankful for all the support and help I received from Tom Tonkavich and my Jail Population Management co workers. K atheryne Zambrana has be en my co researcher and friend through out this process. Without her I would not have been able to survive the many hours of recruiting and interviewing. We were also lucky to have energetic research assistants who were willing to spend time helping us. I would like to acknowledge Joseph Tyler Dimaio, Elder Garcia, Jennifer Lee, Colin Murphy, Griffin Peters, Jacob Whitney, Nicole

PAGE 5

5 Wolfman, and all the other wonderful research assistants who worked with us on this project I am blessed with a loving family. I want to thank my mo ther for all her support and patience. I am the person I am today because of her. I am also grateful for my f ather and Donna for their constant encouragement. They are always proud of me and their unflagging support mean a lot. A lex and Kenna have been my cheerleaders throughout this experience. I am thankful for their support. I would also like to acknowledge Sherri DioGuardi. She has been there every step of the way with me. She has always been a tremendous s upport for me a s well as a great friend. I am grateful to my friend s and graduate school colleagues for their friendship. Finally, I would like to thank my fianc Rob, for always believing in me and my abilities even when I do not. I am lucky to have such a kind, cari ng, and thoughtful person in my life. I love the man he is, and I am grateful for all that he adds to my life. He inspires me to be a better person. He and our boys -Smoky, Tre nt, and Staley -are my world.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 14 C HAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 16 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 21 Probation in the United States ................................ ................................ ................ 21 Mission of Probation ................................ ................................ ............................... 23 Models of Probation ................................ ................................ ......................... 2 4 ................................ ................... 26 ................................ ................................ ....... 28 Probationers in the United States ................................ ................................ ........... 32 Co nditions and Violations of Probation ................................ ................................ ... 35 Technical Violations ................................ ................................ ......................... 38 Predictors of Probation Failure and Success ................................ .................... 40 Severity Literature ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 43 Severity of the Conditions of Probation ................................ ............................ 44 Severity of Cri minal Sanctions ................................ ................................ .......... 46 Effect of Offender Characteristics ................................ ................................ ..... 49 Race ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 49 Gender ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 51 Age ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 52 Offender type ................................ ................................ ............................. 53 Criminal justice experience ................................ ................................ ........ 53 Offenders Versus Non Offenders ................................ ................................ ..... 55 Procedural Justice ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 57 Chapte r Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 61 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 62 Context: Alachua County Probation ................................ ................................ ........ 62 Sample Procedure and Recruitment ................................ ................................ ....... 65 Target Population ................................ ................................ ............................. 65 Recruitment ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 67 Recruitment through the mail ................................ ................................ ..... 68 Recruitment through the probation officers ................................ ................ 68 Recruitment through follow up letter ................................ .......................... 69 Recruitment through direct contact ................................ ............................ 70

PAGE 7

7 Recruitment through follow up phone calls ................................ ................ 73 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 76 Official Data Collection ................................ ................................ ..................... 76 Self Reported Data Collection: Face to Face Interviews ................................ .. 77 Prior to the interview ................................ ................................ .................. 77 During the interview process ................................ ................................ ...... 78 Post inte rview process ................................ ................................ ............... 81 No show to the interview procedure ................................ ........................... 82 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 83 Official Data: Criminal History Form ................................ ................................ 83 Self Reported Data: Interview Instrument ................................ ......................... 87 Variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 93 Dependent Variables ................................ ................................ ........................ 93 Research question 2a: Severity ................................ ................................ 93 Research question 2b: Difficulty ................................ ............................... 101 Research question 2c: Obstacles ................................ ............................ 108 Independent Variables ................................ ................................ ................... 112 Personal characteristics variables ................................ ............................ 112 Previous criminal history variables ................................ ........................... 114 Current offense and probation sentence variables ................................ ... 117 Sample Characteristics ................................ ................................ ......................... 118 Response Rate ................................ ................................ ............................... 118 Interviewees ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 122 Personal characteristics ................................ ................................ ........... 123 Juvenile justice system history ................................ ................................ 136 Adult justice system history ................................ ................................ ...... 137 Current probation ................................ ................................ ..................... 141 Official Sample Description versus Self Reporting Sample Description ......... 143 Similarities ................................ ................................ ................................ 143 Differences ................................ ................................ ............................... 144 Random Sample Description ve rsus Convenience Sample Description ........ 147 Similarities ................................ ................................ ................................ 147 Differences ................................ ................................ ............................... 156 Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 157 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ 159 4 RESULTS: RESEARCH QUESTION 1 THE CONDITIONS OF PROBATION ... 160 Standard Conditions of Probation ................................ ................................ ......... 160 Treatment Conditions of Probation ................................ ................................ ....... 164 Additional C onditions of Probation ................................ ................................ ........ 173 Additional Treatment Conditions ................................ ................................ .... 174 Additional Punitive Conditions ................................ ................................ ........ 176 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ 178

PAGE 8

8 5 RESULTS: RESEARCH QUESTION 2A SEVERITY OF CONDITIONS ........... 180 Quantitative A nalysis ................................ ................................ ............................ 180 Percentages and Frequencies: Severity of Probation Conditions ................... 180 Mean scores ................................ ................................ ............................ 181 Factor analysis based scales ................................ ................................ ... 181 Literature based scales ................................ ................................ ............ 186 Summary of frequencies and percentage s ................................ .............. 190 Correlations and Regressions: Severity of Probation Conditions ................... 191 Factor analysis based scales ................................ ................................ ... 191 Literature based scales ................................ ................................ ............ 200 Summary of correlations and regressions ................................ ................ 202 Qualitative An alysis ................................ ................................ .............................. 203 Standard Conditions of Probation ................................ ................................ ... 203 Not severe ................................ ................................ ................................ 203 E xtremely severe ................................ ................................ ..................... 211 Summary of standard conditions ................................ .............................. 215 Treatment Conditions of Probation ................................ ................................ 215 Not severe ................................ ................................ ................................ 215 Extremely severe ................................ ................................ ..................... 219 Summary of treatment conditions ................................ ............................ 221 Punitive Conditions of Probation ................................ ................................ .... 221 Not severe ................................ ................................ ................................ 221 Extremely severe ................................ ................................ ..................... 227 Summary of punitive conditions ................................ ............................... 233 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ 233 6 RESULTS: RESEARCH QUESTIO N 2B DIFFICULTY OF CONDITIONS ........ 235 Quantitative Analysis ................................ ................................ ............................ 235 Percentages and Frequencies: Difficulty of Probation Conditions .................. 235 Mean scores ................................ ................................ ............................ 236 Factor analysis based scales ................................ ................................ ... 24 1 Literature bas ed scales ................................ ................................ ............ 244 Correlations and Regressions: Difficulty of Probation Conditions ................... 250 Factor analysis based scales ................................ ................................ ... 250 Literature based scales ................................ ................................ ............ 259 Qualitative Analysis ................................ ................................ .............................. 263 Standard Conditions of Probation ................................ ................................ ... 264 Not difficult ................................ ................................ ............................... 264 Very difficult ................................ ................................ ............................. 271 Summary of st andard conditions ................................ .............................. 276 Treatment Conditions of Probation ................................ ................................ 276 Not difficult ................................ ................................ ............................... 276 Very difficult ................................ ................................ ............................. 279 Summary of treatment conditions ................................ ............................ 281 Punitive Conditions of Probation ................................ ................................ .... 282

PAGE 9

9 Not difficult ................................ ................................ ............................... 282 Very difficult ................................ ................................ ............................. 287 Summary of punitive conditions ................................ ............................... 292 Overall Difficulty of Probation ................................ ................................ ................ 292 Not difficult ................................ ................................ ............................... 293 Relatively easy ................................ ................................ ......................... 294 About 50/50 ................................ ................................ .............................. 294 Somewhat difficult ................................ ................................ .................... 295 Very difficult ................................ ................................ ............................. 296 Summary of the overall difficulty of probation ................................ .......... 297 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ 298 7 R ESULTS: RESEARCH QUESTION 2C OBSTACLES OF PROBATION ........ 301 Quantitative Analysis ................................ ................................ ............................ 301 Percentages and Frequencies: Obstacles for Co mpleting Probation ............. 301 Mean scores ................................ ................................ ............................ 302 Percentages and frequencies: Factor analysis based scales .................. 304 Correlations and Regressions: Obstacles for Completing Probation .............. 307 Transportation attendance obstacles scale ................................ ............. 311 Responsibility obstacle scale ................................ ................................ ... 311 Tracking obstacle scale ................................ ................................ ........... 312 Punitive obstacles scale ................................ ................................ ........... 313 Living environment scale ................................ ................................ ......... 315 Summary of correlations and regressions ................................ ................ 315 Qual itative Analysis ................................ ................................ .............................. 316 Potential Obstacles ................................ ................................ ........................ 316 Financial obligations ................................ ................................ ................ 316 Community service hours ................................ ................................ ......... 317 Transportation ................................ ................................ .......................... 318 Alcohol and/or drugs ................................ ................................ ................ 319 People, places and things ................................ ................................ ........ 320 Health conditions ................................ ................................ ..................... 320 No Potential Obstacles ................................ ................................ ................... 321 Summary of Obstacles ................................ ................................ ................... 322 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ 322 8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ .... 324 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ ............................ 324 Comparison of Current Results to Previous Research ................................ .......... 328 Study Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 333 Suggestions for Future Research ................................ ................................ ......... 337 Policy Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ 340 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ 344

PAGE 10

10 APPENDIX A NOT INTERVIEWED CLASSIFICATION ................................ .............................. 345 B LETTER TO PROBATIONERS ................................ ................................ ............. 348 C FOLLOW UP LETTER TO PROBATIONERS ................................ ...................... 349 D CRIMINAL HISTORY FORM ................................ ................................ ................ 350 E INFORMED CONSE NT ................................ ................................ ........................ 355 F PROTECTIONS FOR PARTICIPANTS ................................ ................................ 357 G INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT ................................ ................................ ................. 359 H ANSWER CARD OPTIONS ................................ ................................ .................. 383 I NOT INTERVIEWED SAMPLE DESCRIPTION ................................ ................... 385 J PERCENTAGES AND FREQUENCIES BY SUBSAMPLE ................................ ... 394 K CORRELATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ 408 L REGRESSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 434 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 444 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 452

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Probation estimates ................................ ................................ ............................ 33 3 1 Returned mail ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 68 3 2 Factor analysis for severity variables ................................ ................................ .. 95 3 3 Severity scal es based on literature ................................ ................................ ..... 99 3 4 Factor analysis for difficulty variables ................................ ............................... 103 3 5 Difficulty scales based on literature ................................ ................................ .. 107 3 6 Factor analysis for obstacles variables ................................ ............................. 109 3 7 Outcome rate categories ................................ ................................ .................. 119 3 8 Rate estimates ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 121 3 9 Origin of information ................................ ................................ ......................... 123 3 10 Sample description based on official data ................................ ........................ 125 3 11 Sample description based on self report data ................................ .................. 131 3 12 Official sample description versus self reported sample description ................ 145 3 13 Random sample versus convenience sample description based on official data ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 149 4 1 Standard conditions based on official data versus se lf report data ................... 161 4 2 Treatment conditions based on official data versus self report data ................. 165 4 3 Punitive conditions based on official data versus self report data .................... 170 4 4 Additional conditions based on official data versus self report data ................. 1 75 5 1 Perce ntages for severity scales based on factor analysis ................................ 182 5 2 Percentages for severity scales based on literature ................................ ......... 187 5 3 Correlat ions of severity scales and personal characteristics variables ............. 193 5 4 Correlations of severity scales and previous criminal history variables ............ 194

PAGE 12

12 5 5 Correlations of severity scales and current offense and probation sentence variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 195 5 6 factor analysis based scales ...... 197 5 7 literature based scales ............... 201 5 8 ative themes ................................ ...... 205 5 9 ................................ .... 218 5 10 ive themes ................................ ....... 222 6 1 Percentages for difficulty scales based on factor analysis ................................ 238 6 2 Percentage for difficulty scales and varia ble based on the literature ................ 246 6 3 Correlations of difficulty scales and personal characteristics variables ............ 252 6 4 Correlation s of difficulty scales/variable and previous criminal history variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 253 6 5 Correlations of difficulty scales/variable and current offense and probation sentence variables ................................ ................................ ............................ 254 6 6 factor analysis based scales ..... 255 6 7 l iterature based scales .............. 261 6 8 ................................ ...... 266 6 9 qualitative themes ................................ .... 277 6 10 ................................ ....... 283 6 11 Overall difficulty of probation sent ............................ 293 7 1 Percentages for obstacles scales based on factor analysis ............................. 303 7 2 Correlations of obstacles sc ales and personal characteristics variables .......... 308 7 3 Predicting obstacle of probation ................................ ................................ ....... 313 7 4 Qualitative themes of the obstacles for probation ................................ ............. 316 8 1 Condition continuum based on extremely severe responses percentages ....... 326 8 2 Condition continuum based on very difficult responses percentages ............... 341

PAGE 13

13 A 1 Sample classifications ................................ ................................ ...................... 345 I 1 Not interviewed sample description of based on offic ial data ........................... 385 I 2 Not interviewed sample description of based on official data refused ............. 388 I 3 Not interviewed sample descriptio n of based on official data ineligible ........... 391 J 1 Percentages for severity scales based on factor analysis by subsample ......... 394 J 2 Pe rcentage for severity scales and variables based on the literature by group 397 J 3 Percentages for difficulty scales based on factor analysis by subsample ......... 400 J 4 Percentage for difficulty scales and variables based on the literature by group 404 J 5 Percentages for obstacles scales based on factor analysis by group ............... 406 K 1 Correlations of severity scales and personal characteristics variables ............. 408 K 2 Correlations of severity scales and previo us criminal history variables ............ 412 K 3 Correlations of severity scales and current offense and probation sentence variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 416 K 4 Correlations of difficulty scales and personal characteristics variables ............ 420 K 5 Correlations of difficulty scales/variables and previous criminal history variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 424 K 6 Correlations of difficulty scales/variables and current offense and probation sentence variables ................................ ................................ ............................ 427 K 7 Correlations of obstacles scales and pe rsonal characteristics variables .......... 431 K 8 Correlations of obstacles scales and previous criminal history variables ......... 432 K 9 Correl ations of obstacles scales and current offense and probation sentence variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 433 L 1 Predicting perceived severity total models ................................ ...................... 434 L 2 Predicting perceived difficulty total model ................................ ....................... 438 L 3 Predicting obstacles total models ................................ ................................ .... 442

PAGE 14

14 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Sch ool of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy CONDITIONS OF PROBATION By Saskia Daniele Santos August 20 11 Chair: Jodi Lane Major: Criminology, Law and Society Probation is a court ordered disposition that places the adjudicated offender under the control, supervision and care of correctional or court supervision in lieu of incarceration, while the probat ion conditions form a contract with the court by which an offender must abide in order to remain in the community ( Petersilia, 1997, 1998). Though current estimates place over a million individuals on probation, the research is limited on the specific pro bation conditions imposed and the perceptions an d effects of those conditions. justice system, as wel l as their personal characteristics, influence their perceptions of the punitiveness or severity of criminal sanctions (May & Wood, 2010). The purpose of this research is to conduct research in an area that has been traditionally ignored by researchers. U sing both quantitative and qualitative data, this project examined perceptions of probation and probation conditions from the perspectives of 202 current misdemeanor probationers. Participants responded to questions measuring perceptions of probation cond

PAGE 15

15 for them successfully completing probation. Official criminal, court and probation records were also included in that analysis. Frequencies were run to examine parti estimated to identify possible predictors of agreement with survey items. Content analysis was performed on the qualitative data. probation are that probation conditions are typically not severe. Additionally, probationers consider the perceived severity of probation conditions when identifying the perceived difficulty of adhering to or completing probation conditions ; the majority of probation conditions were perceived as being not difficult. The majority of listed obstacles were not viewed as obstacles by the probationers for them successfully completing their probation sentences, though this study identified six common obstacles: affording financial obligations, completing the locations, avoiding alcohol and/or drugs, avoiding particular people, places and things and current health conditions.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPT ER 1 INTRODUCTION Probation is a court ordered disposition that places the adjudicated offender under the control, supervision and care of correctional or court supervision in lieu of incarceration (Petersilia, 1998a). The conditions of probation form a c ontract with the court by which an offender must abide in order to remain in the community (Petersilia, 1997). Probation is based on the philosophy that some offenders have the ability to redeem themselves and become productive members of society (Silverm an, 1993). Additionally, incarceration may be too severe of a sentence for some types of offenses and offenders. Today, probation is the most utilized criminal sanction in the United States (Applegate, Smith, Sitren & Springer, 2009; Petersilia, 1998a). Between 1980 and the late 1990s, the number of individuals on probation more than doubled (Olson, Weisheit, & Ellsworth, 2001). By yearend 2009, there were an estimated 4,203,967 individuals on probation, which is roughly equivalent to about 1,799 per e very 100,000 adults. This is a 0.9 % decrease from the previous year and the first decrease since 1980, when the Bureau Justice of Statistics (BJS) began to annually collect probation statistics (Glaze & Bonczar, 2010). Within the State of Florida, there were 267,738 individuals on probation by yearend 2009, which is roughly equivalent to about 1,841 probationers per 100,000 adult Floridians. Florida is the fourth largest state in terms probationers under supervision (Glaze & Bonczar, 2010). Despite the f act that over four million people are sentenced to probation, it is severely underfunded and understaffed (Fin, 1984; Kleiman et al., 2003; Petersilia, 1995, 1997; Silverman, 1993). Nationally, community corrections, which includes probation, receives rou ghly 10% of the state and local funding that institutional

PAGE 17

17 corrections does, though two out of three people under correctional supervision are led to an increase in prob Commission recommended that probation caseloads ideally should be thirty offenders for every one probation officer. However, the national average is approximately 150 offenders for every one probation officer (Petersilia, 1995). Today some officers carry a caseload of 4,000 offenders (Jones & Kerbs, 2007). In addition to being underfunded and understaffed, probation has also been understudied. The research examining probation has been limited, especi ally the research examining misdemeanor probation (MacKenzie, Browning, Skroban & Smith, 1999; May & Wood, 2010; Olson et al., 2001; Petersilia, 2002). The research n on existent. The research that has been conducted found that overall inmates felt that they would have little difficulty complying with various probation conditions (Petersilia & Deschenes, 1994b). However, the sample was compo sed of current inmates and not of individuals who were currently serving probation. With probationers being the largest group of people under correctional way to do this is to examine the perc eived severity of probation conditions (e.g., reporting requirements, drug tests, community service, paying fees) from a or not these conditions are reasonable and eas y to follow and to know which ones they believe are more difficult or severe. If probationers believe that probation conditions are

PAGE 18

18 difficult to follow, it might be that they are more likely to fail on probation. However, it is also possible that for con ditions believed to be severe, probationers will make a greater effort to complete or adhere to them. Some researchers have recommended that a theory of sentence severity be developed to provide a foundation for a sentencing system for both custodial and noncustodial sanctions (von Hirsch, Wasik & Greene, 1992). Such a theory of sentence severity should address what severity means and what factors may influence how sanctions are ranked (May & Wood, 2010; Sebba & Nathan, 1984; von Hirsch et al., 1992). Mo rris and Tonry (1990) argued for courts to use a continuum of correctional sanctions based on the premise that not all crimes and criminals deserve the most severe punishment (i.e., incarceration). Instead, they called for the development of a range of pu nishments, with upper boundary being imprisonment and lower boundary being probation. Severity can be determined by measuring the pain and/or discomfort Research conducted t hus far on trying to develop a range of criminal sanctions severity (May & Wood, 2010; Spelma n, 1995). The assumption that probation and prison lie on separate sides of a continuum has been challenged by research findings. Since sanctions that are alternative to incarceration are being utilized more often, it is important for policy makers to un might be possible to find sanctions that are as punitive as prison but do not carry the

PAGE 19

19 financial burdens that mas s incarceration does (May & Wood, 2010). The research has yet to be fully expanded to the conditions of probation. With so many offenders being placed on probation, it is possible that some conditions are perceived to be more severe than others. There m ay be a continuum of conditions in regards to severity. The purpose of this study is to examine whether there is a severity continuum for conditions of probation and to determine whether perceived difficulty in completion and adherence to conditions infl sentenced to misdemeanant supervised probation in Alachua County, Florida were interviewed regarding their current conditions of probation and their perceptions of condition severity and abil ity to adhere to them. This research hopes to answer the following research questions: RQ 1: What are the conditions of probation that clients face in Alachua County? RQ 2: What RQ 2a: Sp ecifically, do the conditions of probation fall on a continuum when it comes to severity? If so, which conditions are viewed as being most severe? RQ 2b: perceived ability to complete a particular probation condition? RQ 2c: What do probationers see as potential obstacles that would hinder them from completing or adhering to the conditions of their probation? With the majority of probation a ed of misdemea nant probationers (Clear, Harris & Baird, 1992), this research makes a contribution to the literature by examining the understudied topic of probation (Petersilia, 1997), and more specifically misdemeanant probation, which focuses on the more common, less serious offender. Additionally, this research contributes to the very

PAGE 20

20 conditions by interviewing individuals who currently are on probation which prior research has failed t o do. By shedding light on how current probationers view their conditions of probation and their perceptions of possible obstacles for adhering and completing their term of probation, this research contributes by allowing for policy recommendations that m ay help in reducing the likelihood of individuals violating the terms of their probation due to a technical violation. This paper answers the research questions by first highlighting relevant, prior research and discussing the methods used in the study. Ne xt, the results are presented, first by f ocusing on Research Q uestion 1. Research Question 2 is answered in three chapters; Chapter 5 addresses the sub question about perceptions of severity, Chapter 6 addresses the sub question about perceptions of diffi culty, while Chapter 7 addresses the sub questions about potential obstacles probationers are facing. The final chapter policy.

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Though not in great quantity, research on perceptions of the severity of criminal sanctions among offenders has been a research topic for several decades. Research on probationers has also occurred for a number of years. However, research examining perceptions of the severity of probation conditions specifically is sparse, and no research has examined the perceptions of current probationers on the severity of probation conditions. Yet, this is an important issue because perceptions of condition severity may be imp ortant in predicting the chances of a person violating his or her probation. This literature review addresses three elements of relevant prior research: 1) who is placed on probation, 2) who violates probation, and 3) perceptions of severity, both of prob ation conditions and criminal sanctions more generally. First however, probation within the United States and the mission of probation are discussed. The last section discusses Procedural Justice and probation. Probation in the United States Modern day probation has its historical roots in three common law practices: benefit of clergy, reprieve and recognizance (Greenberg, 1981). The practice of benefit of clergy allowed clerks, monks and nuns to escape punishment in secular courts. Later, this practic e was extended to secular clerks and individuals who were able to read. Though it allowed individuals to escape punishment for some crimes, not all crimes were covered by benefit of clergy. The practice of reprieve, on the other hand, allowed courts to t Though benefit of clergy and reprieve were precursors to probation, they are not

PAGE 22

22 considered to be direct ancestors or equivalents to modern day probation (Greenberg, 1981). The pr actice of recognizance is considered to be a direct ancestor of probation. Recognizance entailed the offender promising to keep the peace and based on the would act as a peace. If the offender violated the pledge, the surety was required to return the offender to the court. This practice led to the first probation service in England and was first adop ted in the United States in Massachusetts in 1841 by John Augustus (Greenberg, 1981). Ofte robation Augustus posted bail for those being charged as common drunks and asked the judge to postpone sentencing for severa l weeks and place the offenders into his custody. Once the probationary period was over, Augustus would report to the judge whether the person had been reformed. If the offender could convince the judge of his reform, the offender would receive only a sm all fine (Petersilia, 1997, 1998a). By the end of his career in 1858, Augustus had bailed out 1,946 individuals, who originally were limited to drunkards but eventually included other types of criminals (Greenberg, 1981). Augustus is also credited with b eing the first to use the term probation, a derivative of the Latin term probation, which means a period of proving or trial (Petersilia, 1997). The origins for presentence investigations, conditions of probation, and revocation of probation came from Aug was the key impetus behind the adoption of the first probation statute (Greenberg, 1981). In 1878,

PAGE 23

23 probation laws. By 195 4, all states had passed juvenile probation laws (Petersilia, 1998a). With Mississippi being the last state, by 1956, all states passed adult probation laws (Petersilia, 1998a; Silverman, 1993). With its roots in the common law practices rk, probatio n is now the most commonly court ordered criminal sanction within the United States ( Applegate et al., 2009; Petersilia, 1998a). Mission of Probation Though many current probation practices were shaped and formed from the historical developmen t of probation, the confusion regarding the mission of probation s The purpose of probation and the role of probation officers has long been a source of debate, and probation organizations have bee n plagued with vague objectives and a lack of consensus about the role of probation officers (Blackmore, 1981; Czajkoski, 1965; Van Laningham, Taber & Dimants, 1966). Following Augustus at the turn of the century, probationer officers often came from one of two backgrounds. They either came from a law enforcement background or from a social work one (Lindner & Savarese, 1984). This still exists today, and individuals working within probation agencies often have different perspectives about their role, wh ether it is solely to protect society or to rehabilitate offenders. At the organizational level there is little agreement about whether probation should function as a surveillance agency or a service agency or both. Little thought has been given to the o perating philosophy of probation agencies (Czajkoski, 1965) and

PAGE 24

24 Models of Probation Historically, the main philosoph y of probation was to befriend and aid the probationer as a way to rehabilitate the offender (Aldridge & Eadie, 1997). With the ers including probationers, the main philosophy of probation shifted to one that emphasizes control and supervision of probationers (Harris, Clear & Baird, 1989; Petersilia, 1985; Rosecrance, 1987; Sigler & McGraw, 1984). The objective of assistance and t reatment diminished while a new importance on surveillance emerged (Harris et al., 1989). Probation officers went from doing casework to focusing on technical violations (Whitehead & Braswell, 2000). However, the goal of rehabilitation has not entirely v anished, leaving probation agencies and probation officers the difficult role of protecting the community by rehabilitating of probationers (Holgate & Clegg, 1991; Miles, 1965). op posite sides of the continuum: encourage offenders to reform themselves and supervise offenders in order to prevent further criminal behavior (Blackmore, 1981). The organizational conditions of the probation agency dictate if and which goal takes priority Tomaino, 1975; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1992). Depending on which goal takes priority, the model of probation typically is either a rehabilitation model or a law enforcement model ( has also been referred to as the welfare model as well as the therapeutic model (Glaser, 1969; Klockars, 1972). Probation officers are to have a high concern for the probatione r and a low concern for the community. His or her role is to mentor and

PAGE 25

25 assist the probationer in whatever way he or she can (Whitehead & Braswell, 2000). The law enforcement model is also known as the punitive model or the reform model 1986; Glaser, 1969; Whitehead & Braswell, 2000). The goals of this model are to deter both the probationer and would opportunity for committin g crimes (Whitehead & Braswell, 2000). Though the mission of probation is often thought of as being based on a rehabilitation model or being based on a law enforcement model, other missions based on other models have emerged. Some suggest that probation now functions as a manage large caseloads successfully (Simon, 1993). Another model that has been suggested is the public safety model, where the focus is solely on pu nishment and public safety. Probation offices attempt to identify naturally occurring guardians in the in the public safety model, under the restorative and communit y justice model the focus is on the victim, community and offender. Often the victims are not included in probation models, but through this model the victim is included through conditions such as restitution and victim offender mediation (Feeley & Simon, 1992). Though some models have diverged from the two traditional models of probation, most probation offices continue to su bscribe a rehabilitative model or a law enforcement mod el Some probation agencies use a balanced approach which combines th e two models. They have elements take from the rehabilitation model such as assessing a

PAGE 26

26 law enforcement model, the probationers are held accountable. Some also include elements from the restorative justice model by emphasizing the victim. By combining the models it borrows the positive element from each. Unfortunately the combination also borrows the limitations of each model (Feeley & Simon, 1992). Additionally the c ontradiction between the rehabilitation model and law enforcement model is still present. Under the rehabilitative model there is an assumption of determinism, which is why the focus is on providing services and rehabilitating the offender. This contradi cts the assumption of the law enforcement model which assumes free will and therefore emphasizes the need for accountability (Feeley & Simon, 1992). This contradiction of y do they daily practice of probation. Even if a probation office has adopted a particular model, there are variations across the agencies who adopted the same model (Weiss & Wozner, 2002). In other words, those probation offices that subscribe to a law enforcement model have variations among themselves. The presence of different models and the variation among those models contributes to the lack of agreement about the purpose of probation. The confusion regarding the mission of probation has led to pro bation agencies having vague objectives (Blackmore, 1981; Czajkoski, 1965; Van Laningham et al., 1966). The role of a probation officer in its basic form is to ensure that the offender is complying with the co urt ordered probation (Hardman, 1960). However, with the mission of probation not clearly defined, there is also a lack of consensus about how probation officers can best achieve that role. As was the case with probation agencies,

PAGE 27

27 most probation officers 1993; Lawrence, 1984; Tomaino, 1975). The role that a specific probation officer adopts is based on his or her personal philosophy and/or the organizational policies of the probation agency the probation officer works for (Clear & Latessa, 1993). Since there is not one specific role adopted by all probation officers, over time probation officers have developed different styles of managing their probationers based on the role they identify with the most. The multiple styles that were developed allowed for the classificat ion of probation officers based on the role he or she adopts. Most classification systems were created based on where the work style fell on the continuum between service and surveillance. The earliest categories are the three created by Ohlin, Piven an d Pappenfort (1956): punitive, protective agent and welfare worker. A punitive officer sees his or her role as enforcing conformity and protecting society from the probationer. A protective agent sees his or her role as protecting the probationer and the community. A welfare worker officer sees his or her role focusing being and aims to help the probationer adjust to the community. Glaser (1969) had similar categories in that he had a punitive and welfare role. Howev er, a probation officer who sees his or her role as both high in assisting and controlling probationers were classified as a paternal officer. A probation officer who is class ification remains present in the literature but the terminology has been changed from assistance and control to service and surveillance (Whitehead & Lindquist, 1992).

PAGE 28

28 Other classification system for probation officers (e.g., Klockar s 1972; Raynor, 1985; Spica, 1977; Whitehead, 1990) were created but most are similar to previous classification. As previously stated, most probation officers identity their role as falling somewhere between being more service oriented or more surveillance oriented. Research has shown that t ork degree, females and those with higher income levels tend to be more likely to embrace a rehabilitative role and see oriented (Anderson & Spanier, 1980; Brennan & Khinduka, 1970). Early research concluded that probation officers were more likely to agree about importance of some of the social work aspects of their jobs, while there was little agreement about the importance about some of the law enforcement aspects of the job (Van Laningham et al., 1966). This might indicate that more would have been classified under welfare/service categories. Recent research has concluded p robation officers are moving away from embracing the treatment philosophy of probation with more probation officers placing themselves on the law enforcement side of the continuum (Harris et al., 1989; Sigler & McGraw, 1984). Perhaps, modern probation off icers would be more likely to fall into punitive/surveillance categories than in the past. Role conflict can occur when a person is expected to perform two or more roles simultaneously though the roles are contrary to ea ch other (Tomaino, 1975). In the case of probation officers, it is often argued that the two most common roles expected for them to perform cause role conflict. The role of enforcing probation conditions (i.e.,

PAGE 29

29 law enforcement) is viewed as being counter to the role of assisting the probationer in rehabilitation and successful community adjustment (i.e., social worker) (Clear & Latessa, 1993; Lawrence, 1984; Tomaino, 1975). With the mission of probation not being clearly defined, probation officers are e xpected to find a way of integrating the two roles, conflicting or not. Experiencing role conflict is believed to lead to job burnout, which is the psychological withdrawal from work as a response to extreme stress and/or job dissatisfaction (Whitehead, 1 989; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1992). Role conflict is also believed to lead to emotional exhaustion (Holgate & Clegg, 1991). Due to the lack of consensus about the mission of probation, probation officers might also suffer from role ambiguity in addition t o job burnout and emotion exhaustion. With their role not being clearly defined, it may be difficult for them to be certain as to which goals need to be achieved. The lack of goal achievement may lead to the lack of personal accomplishment (Holgate & Cle gg, 1991). The negative effects of role conflict are likely to lead to job turnover. In addition to probation officers experiencing role conflict due to the conflicting roles of law enforcer and social worker, the public is unclear on how to evaluate pro bation and probation officers (Ohlin et al., 1956; Van Laningham et al., 1966). This may lead to criticisms or a lack of public support furthering the stress and emotional exhaustion suffered by probation officers. With the roles of probation officer bei ng thought of as incompatible, the issue of role conflict is very present in probation literature. has been little attempt to directly measure role conflict among probati on officers. The

PAGE 30

30 limited amount of research that has been conducted showed that probation officers experience a low level of role conflict (Hardman, 1960; Sigler & McGraw, 1984). Some estimate that 10 to 20% of probation officers experience emotional exh austion and depersonalization, which was mainly contributed to role conflict (Whitehead & Lindquist, 1985). However, most research suggests that the social worker role and law enforcer role are not incompatible (Clear & Latessa, 1993; Studt, 1978). Proba tion officers do not necessarily see the investigation and supervision of probationers as being distinct from providing and helping in treatment (Czajkoski, 1969). Perhaps the argument that probation officers experience role conflict might be overstated. A probation officer may avoid role conflict by placing an emphasis on one somewhat mutually exclusive towards law enforcement or rehabilit ation and therefore there is n o conflict about having to perform two contrary roles (Tomaino, 1975). A probation officer may also avoid role conflict by shifting from role to role depending on the circumstances (Hardman, 1960). Most probation officers learn to develop an adaptive app roach where he or she chooses whether to be a law enforcer or a social probation officer subscribes to a particular style, he or she must understand and invoke the other philosophy from time to time (Bates, 1960). Probation officers appear to be able to play both roles with little difficulty and avoid possible role conflict. Despite evidence suggesting that most probation officers do not experience role conflict, some pr obation agencies have attempted to resolve role conflict by implementing a team concept of probation supervision (Barkdull, 1976; Whitehead &

PAGE 31

31 Lindquist, 1992). One member of the team emphasizes the law enforcement role, while the other the social worker r ole (Whitehead & Lindquist, 1992). Other variations of team supervision have one member emphasize surveillance, one member aid employment, education, vocational, housing and financial matters and a third member help with marital, family and other personal issues (Barkdull, 1976). The hope is for reduce any potential role conflict probation officers may experience by limiting their role to only one. If role conflict exists, probation officers do not have a monopoly on it. Other professions require that a person to play sometime contrary roles. Yet in those professions eliminating professional tasks is not seen as an option (Clear & Latessa, 1993). The field of probation is one of the few professions that advocates for getting rid of one role or the o ther, although research does not support the argument that role conflict is a major concern. Nevertheless, any role conflict that can or does occur is due to lack of clarity about the goal and mission of probation. or her conditions of probation may be affected by which model a probation agency and role his or her probation officer adopts. It is possible that agencies that focus more on the control of the offenders versus the care of offenders are seen as more punit ive which may affect how severe a probationer influence how difficult the probatio ner perceives his or her conditions of probation are to comply with or to complete role to be strictly enforcement, the probationer may consider the probation sentence more difficult to complete than a probationer whose probation officer adopted more of a

PAGE 32

32 service oriented philosophy and aids the probationer in successfully navigating any obstacles he or she faces during the course of his or her probation sentence. Due to the criminal sanction of probation having a vague mission statement and poorly defined goals and objectives, probation agencies and probationer officers adopt various philosophies and roles. These varying philosophies and roles may influence n. Probationers in the United States As previously mentioned, at yearend 2009 there were over four million individuals on probation in the United States. Historically, a higher percen tage of probationers have been W hite. In 1997, Petersilia report ed that r oughly 64% were W hite and 34% were B lack. More recent estimates are that 55% of probationers are White and 30% are Black Additionally, 13% identify as being Hispanic (Glaze & Bonczar, 2010) ( Table 2 1) Women only make up 24% robationers, while men make up 76% of the population (Glaze & Bonczar, 2010). This is a 4% increase in women probationers (Petersilia, 1997a), but men still out number women probationers three to one. The characteristics of male and female probationers significantly differ. The average age of the female probationers was one year older than male probationers. Female probationers also were more likely to be of lower income and were less likely to be employed than male probationers. Male probationers wer e more likely to have prior criminal histories and more extensive substance abuse histories than their female counterparts. There were also differences among the type of offenses, with women being more likely to have been placed on probation for property or drug offenses. Men

PAGE 33

33 were more likely to have been convicted and placed on probation for a violent crime (Olson, Lurigio & Seng, 2000). Table 2 1. Probation e stimates National Florida N % N % Total Number of Probationers 4,203,967 267,738 Race White 1,483,180 55 132,559 57 Black 804,591 30 63,681 27 Hispanic 362,156 13 34,906 15 Other 53,374 2 2,047 1 Gender Female 740,253 24 63,738 25 Male 2,342,640 76 189,435 75 Offense level Felony 1,665, 216 51 171,506 66 Misdemeanor 1,530,520 47 87,163 33 Other 77,445 2 1,591 1 Type of Offense Public Order Offense 404,834 26 3,6544 24 Drug 582,759 26 54,498 33 Property 575,360 18 76,267 16 Violent 426,344 19 42,361 19 Other 21 3,745 10 18,808 8 Estimates Probation and parole in the United States, 2009 report Approximately 47% of probationers are on probation for misdemeanors, and 51% are for felonies ( Table 2 1). Twenty six percent a re classified as drug offenders, 26% as property offenders, and 18% as public order offenders. Public order offenses include driving while intoxicated and other traffic offenses. Nineteen percent of the enders (Glaze & Bonczar, 2010), which is a slight increase over the previously reported number of 16% several years earlier (Mayzer, Gray, & Maxwell, 2004; Petersilia, 1995). The southern region of the United States has more individuals on probation than any other region (Glaze & Bonczar, 2010;

PAGE 34

34 Petersilia, 1997a). The South had approximately 1,997 individuals on probation per 100,000 adults by yearend 2009, with Georgia having the most at 5,385 per 100,000 adults. However, Texas has the largest number of adult probationers in the country with 426,331 individuals (Glaze & Bonczar, 2010). Examining Florida specifically, it is fourth in terms of the number of individuals on probation, behind Texas, Georgia and California, respectively. The most recent est imates report 267,738 adults are on probation in Florida, which is equivalent to one in every fifty four adults. Of those on probation in Florida, 95% were sentenced to solely to probation. Roughly 4% of the probationers received a sentence of incarcerat ion in addition to their sentence of probation. Of those serving a sentence of probation in Florida, approximately 57% are White, 27% are Black and 15% are Hispanic. Fewer than 1% is identified as being American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaii an/Other Pacific Islander or being of two or more rac es (Glaze & Bonczar, 2010) ( Table 2 1). In the State of Florida, females roughly compo se 25% of th e population, while males compo se 75% of the population (Glaze & Bonczar, 2010). Once again, this equat es to three male probationers to every one female probationer. to be similar to the national estimates. Florida appears to have a higher percentage of individuals wh o are on probation 33% were sentenced to probation for misdemeanors, while 68% were for feloni es (Glaze & Bonczar, 2010) ( Table 2 1). This is roughly 15% more felony probatio ners than the national average. Twenty

PAGE 35

35 offenders, 35% as property offenders and 16% as public order offenders. Nineteen d those sentenced to probation for domestic violence and sex offenses (Glaze & Bonczar, 2010). Florida appears to have more property offenders and slightly fewer drug offenders on probation than the national average. Conditions and Violations of Probatio n offender, in which he or she agrees to complete or adhere to the probation terms in order to remain in the community. The conditions that the offender is required to compl ete or adhere to typically fall into one of three categories of conditions: standard, treatment, and punitive. Standard conditions are the conditions that are imposed on all the probationers under that supervision agency (e.g., not leaving the jurisdictio n without permission and notifying the agency of any changes in address) (Clarke, 1979; Petersilia, 1997a). Treatment conditions are conditions specific to the individual and require the person to address a problem (e.g., substance abuse) or need (e.g., v ocational training). Punitive conditions are conditions imposed on a person in order to reflect the seriousness of his or her offense. These conditions are meant to increase the invasiveness and punitiveness of probation (e.g., victim restitution, commun ity service, and house arrest) (Petersilia, 1997a). probation, it does not mean the probationer forfeits all his or her constitutional protections (Levin, 1983). Morrissey v Brewer (1972) requires that due process be

PAGE 36

36 applied to parole revocation hearings 1 (Fisher, 1977; Greenberg, 1981). In this case, the Supreme Court held that a parolee facing revocation of parole needs to be given two hearings. The first should be a pre liminary hearing where it is determined whether there is probable cause to believe that the offender violated his or her parole conditions. The second hearing is the final revocation hearing. Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) applied this standard to probatione rs facing revocation of probation (Fisher, 1977; Greenberg, 1981). A probationer can break his or her contract with the court (i.e., probation) in one of two ways. Probation can be violated if a person commits a technical violation, which is when an indi vidual violates the conditions of his or her probation other than committing a new law violation. A person can also have his or her probation violated by committing a new law violation. Law violations have been categorized as either minor or major. Mino r violations constitute an arrest or conviction for a minor offense where the punishment of such a conviction would be imprisonment for ninety days or less. Major violations are arrests and convictions for a criminal offense where the punishment if convic ted would be more than ninety days (Bork, 1995). Though a person violates his or her conditions of probation including committing new law violations, he or she can sometimes still successfully complete his or her probation term. A violation may result i n the probation officer deciding not to officially judge (Taxman & Cherkos, 1995). However, a violation can also lead to the person 1 Despite parole and probation often being used interchangeable, the y are different. Parole implies that the offender served a portion of his or her sentence incarcerated and is being released prior to completing the full sentence. Probation is a sentencing disposition and is often used as an alternative to incarceration ( Petersilia, 2002).

PAGE 37

37 being unsuccessfully discharged from probation. This is when a judge sentences the probationer to another punishment and his or her former probation sentence is terminated or revoked. Successful completion or discharge from probation entails completing the full term on sentence or receiving an early discharge. National estimates place the successful completion rate of probation in 2009 at 65% Within the State of Florida the rate of successful completion is estimated to be 57% (Glaze & Bonczar, 2010). Smaller studi es support the findings that the majority of probationers successfully complete their term of probation, with some estimates being as high as 75% being in compliance (Clear et al., 1992; Minor, Wells & Sims, 2003; Taxman, 1995). Other studies estimate tha t one fourth to one half of probationers comply with their probation conditions (Bork, 1995; Gray, Fields & Maxwell, 2001; Taxman & Cherkos, 1995; Taxman, 1995). Though most probationers will successfully complete their term of probation, there is some re search that suggests the contrary. A classic RAND study that examined felony probationers in California estimated that 65% of those sampled were rearrested during a forty month follow up. Fifty one percent were eventually reconvicted of a new crime (or c rimes), with 34% being reincarcerated. Only a minority (35%) of the felony probationers successfully completed probation without incident (Petersilia, 1985). However, studies have not been able to replicate these findings and instead find that most proba tioners comply (McClelland, & Alpert, 1985), so California may be a unique case.

PAGE 38

38 Some of the differences in estimates of probationers who successfully (or non successfully) completed probation may be due to researchers failing to distinguish between misdem eanants and felons. When using rearrest as the measure of probation failure, researchers concluded that most misdemeanants complete their probation while many felons do not complete probation (Petersilia, 1997a). Roughly three quarters of misdemeanor pro bationers are estimated to successfully complete probation (Petersilia, 1997b). Nearly half (46%) of those on felony probation are classified as failures, with 54% being arrested at least once (Petersilia, 1995). However, an examination of New bation population indicated that 35% of the misdemeanor probationers had received a violation within the first six months of their sentence, and 61% had done so within one year. Only 24% of the felony probationers received a violation during the six month s of their probation and 45% did so within the first year (New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, 2007). It remains to be seen if the differences in estimates are due to the type of offender (i.e., misdemeanant versus felons), but it appear s that regardless of the sample, the majority of those on probation will complete their term of probation. Technical Violations As previously mentioned, a person can violate his or her probation either by committing a new law violation or committing a tec hnical violation. These violations can be categorized into three categories: most serious violations, medium serious violations and least serious violations. The first category, most serious violation, encompasses new law violations and absconding 2 (Gary et al., 2001). Violations that are considered 2 Absconding is when a probationer has failed to repeatedly show up to required contacts with his or her probation officer and with whom the officer no longer has contact (Mayzer et al., 2004).

PAGE 39

39 to be medium in terms of seriousness are ones such as failing to attend substance abuse or mental health treatment and failing a urinalysis test. The least serious violations include things such as failing to report to the probation office or committing a curfew violation (Gray et al., 2001). The majority of technical violations involve failure to report or failure to comply with treatment conditions (Maxwell et al., 1999). Most of the violations that occur are technical (Bork, 1995; Clear et al., 1992; Gray et al., 2001, Maxwell, Gray & Bynum, 1999; Minor et al., 2003; Sims & Jones, 1997). Of those who commit a violation of probation, 24% committed a new law violation and 74% committed a technical violatio n (Gray et al., 2001). Some place the estimates lower, finding that only 13% of violations discovered are for new crimes (Maxwell et al., 1999; McClelland & Alpert, 1985). Twenty six percent of those whose probation was revoked were due to technical viol ations (McClelland & Alpert, 1985). One finding to the contrary was in New York City, where 16% of the cases were discharged because of new conviction while 12% were discharged due to a technical violation. However, when examining the county depar tments in New York State, only 6% of the probationers were discharged from probation due to a new conviction. Twenty six percent was discharged due to a technical violation (New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, 2007). Most often, studies find t hat when individuals violate their probation it is due to technical violations. In some cases technical violations occur three times more often than violations that are classified as major (i.e., new law violations that could result in imprisonment longer than ninety days) (Bork, 1995). Violations that are serious are rare, and instead, violations tend to be technical or for minor offenses (Clear et al., 1992).

PAGE 40

40 A possible contributor to probationers receiving more technical violations than new law violat ions is that the number of special conditions being placed on probationers has increased. These special conditions include required drug testing and treatment, as well as mandatory curfews, house arrest and employment. Judges are not only sentencing more probationers to split sentences (i.e., both an incarceration sentence and a probation sentence) but, more importantly, are increasing the number of conditions that probationers must adhere to or complete As more conditions are placed on probationers the chances of them failing on probation increases (Taxman, 1995). In terms of which conditions probationers appear to struggle with the most, one study estimated that 59% of those sampled received a violation for a dirty urinalysis test, while another indi cated that more than 30% of the sample either failed to appear for drug testing or failed the test itself (Kleiman et al., 2003). Gray and his colleagues (2001) reported failure to report to be the most common type of violation and failing a drug test to be the second most common violation. While some may argue that focusing on new law violations is more important than focusing on technical violations, focusing on technical violations is just as important because they may be a signal that an offender is e ngaging in criminal behavior and can therefore serve as a proxy for criminal behavior (Petersilia & Turner, 1990). Additionally, of those that violate probation, most will do so due to a technical violation, and it appears that among technical violations, some conditions appear to be violated more often than others. Predictors of Probation Failure and Success As previously mentioned, studies have concluded that those on felony probation are more likely to violate than are those who are on probation for committing

PAGE 41

41 misdemeanors (Petersilia, 1997a), but other factors also seem to affect how well one does while on probation. Stu dies show that Blacks are more likely to violate compared to Whites (Maxwell et al., 1999; McClelland & Alpert, 1985; Morgan, 1994) Minorities are also more likely to receive a technical violation (Gray et al., 2001). Males are twice as likely to be violated, despite females often having a greater number of risk factors for probation failure (e.g., lower income, higher unemployment ) (McClelland & Alpert, 1985; Morgan, 1994; Norland & Mann, 1984; Olson et al., 2000). In one study, males were more likely to be violated for new felony charges while females were more likely to be violated technical reasons. In examining just technical violations, males were more likely violate due to failing to work, and females were more likely to be violated for hanging out with the wrong friends (Norland & Mann, 1984). Yet, more recent research showed no evidence of gender differences in probabilit y of probation revocation or technical violations, although the study did find that the males were more likely to be arrested while on probation for a new law violation (Olson et al., 2000). Age, education, and employment status have also been link ed to probation success and failure. Younger offenders tend to be less successful on probation, and as age increases, so does success on probation (McClelland & Alpert, 1985; Morgan, 1994; Petersilia, 1997a). Less educated offenders were more likely to r eceive a technical violation while the probationers who had higher educational level were less likely to violate the terms of probation (Gray et al., 2001; Maxwell et al., 1999; McClelland & Alpert, 1985; Morgan, 1994). Employment status has been a predic tor of probation failure/success. Those probationers who are unemployed were more likely to commit a new law violation while on probation (Gray et al., 2001; Petersilia, 1997a).

PAGE 42

42 Having stable employment decreased the odds of a person violating his or her terms of probation (McClelland & Alpert, 1985; Morgan, 1994). Additionally, those serving probation in rural areas were less likely to violate their probation compared to those serving probation in an urban area (Olson et al., 2001). This may be in part due to rural agencies being more likely to handle low risk cases while large city departments are more likely to handle high risk cases (Clear et al., 1992). The research on marital status is mixed. Some studies concluded being married did decrease th e odds of a person failing while on probation (McClelland & Alpert, 1985; Morgan, 1994). Previous research also indicated that those residing with a spouse, children or both were more successful on probation (Petersilia, 1997a), possibly meaning that co r esidence is important to family impact. However, in more recent of dependents he or she had, wa s not a significant predict or of either technical or new law violations (Gray et al., 2001). Cu rrent offense and prior criminal history have been significant in predicting the likelihood of probation violations (Maxwell et al., 1999). Those serving probation for assaultive crimes have been shown to be more likely to commit a new crime (Gray et al., 2001). In some studies those serving a probation sentence for a property offense (when compared to robbery and drug offenders) were more likely to violate (Petersilia, 1997a). Those who had a history of substance use, especially heroin use, were more li kely to violate probation than those who did not (Gray et al., 2001; Maxwell et al., 1999; Petersilia, 1997a). Lastly, the length of probation is a predictor of probation outcome, with the longer sentences being more likely to fail on probation (Morgan, 1 994). In

PAGE 43

43 summary, the majority of those serving a sentence of probation successfully complete probation. Those that do violate the conditions of their probation are more likely to violate due to a technical violation. There also appear to be other varia bles that are associated with probation outcome. Severity Literature Though the terms and conditions of probation allow the probationer to remain in the community, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges may not always take great care when setting pro bation conditions or type of supervision. Once probation is ordered, the probation officer is expected to take over and ensure the probation conditions are adhered to and completed (Clarke, 1979). Yet, the appropriateness and severity of probation condit complete the sentence. Studies find that if clients are assigned to the appropriate programming based on their risk level, they are more likely to complete the sentence (Palmer et al., 2009). This fin ding suggests that applying the wrong conditions may lead to an increased chance of one violating his or her conditions. With a vague mission and no consensus about the purpose of probation, it is rehabilitate, punish or rehabilitate and punish the person (Blackmore, 1981; Czajkoski, 1965; Van Laningham et al., 1966). It is unclear what the underlying purpose of p robation conditions is Despite the lack of clarity about the purpose for the condit ions, it is necessary that the conditions also be reasonable in order for the probationer to comply. For example, an individual who have had difficulty maintaining employment throughout his or her life may struggle with a condition requiring him or her to maintain employment. In such cases, the person may feel that it will be difficult to complete probati on or adhere to the

PAGE 44

44 condition and find the sentence to be more severe than it would be otherwise. The the severity and difficulty of his or her probation conditions is sparse. Severity of the Conditions of Probation To date, only Petersilia and Deschenes (1994a, 1994b) have focused specifically on the perceived severity of probation conditions. The researchers, in a larger study designed to ask inmates to rank the severity of different types of criminal sanctions, asked forty eight male inmates how hard it was to comply with different conditions of probation. The response options were: not difficult (90% chance I could do it) relatively easy (75% chance I could do it) about 50/50 chance I could do it somewhat difficult (25% chance I could do it) and very difficult (10% chance I could do it) The conditions were: twenty hours per week of employme nt, pay $100 fine, ten hours per week community service, one unannounced drug test per week (and no positives), make one to two visits per week to probation office, one to two unannounced home visits per week by probation officer, attend weekly outpatient alcohol/drug program, pay victim restitution, pay $500 fine, pay $20 per week supervision fee, and house arrest with twenty four hour electronic monitoring. Additionally, the inmates were asked to rank the probation conditions overall. Petersilia and De schenes (1994b) concluded that the inmates believed they would have little difficulty complying with the conditions. The conditions of paying a $100 fine and doing ten hours per week of community service were reported as the easiest conditions. House arr est with twenty four hour electronic monitoring and $20 per week supervision fee were seen as the most difficult conditions.

PAGE 45

45 In general, there were no significant differences in background characteristics between those who indicated that the conditions o f probation would be easy to comply race, marital status, parental status, employment history, prior prison experience and how safe he felt in prison was not significantly related to his perception of difficulty. The only significant difference was between those with no history of drug or alcohol use and those who had used. Those with no history reported that they would find it difficult to attend a weekly outpatient trea tment program in comparison to users. In addition to the inmates, Petersilia and Deschenes (1994a) asked thirty eight individuals who worked for Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) or who worked for private agencies contracted by Minnesota DOC how hard they felt it would be for probationers to comply with conditions of probation. The staff were asked about the same thirteen conditions of the probation as were the inmates and were given the answer options of not difficult (90% chance offender could do it) relatively easy (75% chance offender could do it) about 50/50 chance offender could do it somewhat difficult (25% chance offender could do it) and very difficult (10% chance offender could do it) In comparison to the inmates, the staff was mo re likely to indicate all the conditions to be more difficult to adhere to or complete However, the only statistically significant differences were the conditions of having to pay victim restitution, pay a $100 fine, pay a $500 fine, maintain twenty hour s/week employment and the overall rating. The staff reported believing it was difficult for offenders to locate jobs and in turn comply with conditions related to financial payments, whereas the offenders reported believing employment would not be difficu lt to obtain. When asked to indicate how difficult

PAGE 46

46 particular conditions would be to adhere to or complete inmates generally indicated that the conditions were relatively easy and that there was a 75% chance of them completing the condition. Staff was m ore likely to indicate that the probation conditions were more difficult to comply with than did the inmates (Petersilia & Deschenes, 1994a). Though Petersilia and Deschenes (1994a, 1994b) are the only ones to research the perceived difficulty of specific conditions of probation, they sampled curr ent inmates and asked them to imagine what it would be like to comply with probation conditions. They did not ask current probationers, or those actually facing the specific probation conditions, how hard the con ditions were to adhere to or complete The view s of individual s currently experiencing the conditions may be significantl y different than the views of individual s asked to imagine the experience. More studies are needed regarding the perceived severity o f probation conditions and specifically studies sampling individuals currently experiencing the conditions. Severity of Criminal Sanctions Though the literature regarding the severity of probation is limited, the literature examining perceptions of sever ity of different types of criminal sanctions is more severity of criminal sanctions has indicated the relationship to be complex (Flory, May, Minor & Wood, 2006; May & Wood, 20 10). Findings from studies often challenge the long held belief that regular probation is at one extreme and incarceration is at the other in terms of severity (May & Wood, 2010). When asked to indicate how severe they perceived a variety of different s anctions to be, inmates indicated that three years of regular probation was as severe as being incarcerated in jail for six months or being placed on intensive supervision for one year

PAGE 47

47 (Petersilia & Deschenes, 1994a). A sample of recently convicted offend were similar, with 75% of the sample indicating that either a serious probation term or a large fine (e.g., $5,000) was more severe than a light incarceration sentence (e.g., three months) (Spelman, 1995). A study of probationers found that m ost felt their sentence of probation was a deterrent (Applegate et al., 2009). Research appears to suggest that a longer sentence of probation can be viewed as being more punitive than a shorter prison term, and that some offenders prefer a prison sentenc e over a longer probation sentence (Crouch, 1993; Petersilia, 1990; Wood & May, 2003). sanction punitiveness and probation is sometimes viewed as being more punitive than incar ceration, regular probation is still often viewed by offenders as being on the less punitive side of the severity continuum. However, the opposite (i.e., more punitive) side of the severity continuum is often not as agreed upon (May & Wood, 2010). Altern ative sanctions to prison (e.g., intensive supervision probation, boot camp) sometimes have been viewed as more difficult and punitive than incarceration (May & Wood, 2010; Petersilia & Deschenes, 1994a). This, coupled with the length of probation sentenc criminal sanctions that is not bound by probation and incarceration on both sides of the extreme. There appear to be many factors that influence if a criminal sa nction is thought of as severe by a person (May & Wood, 2010). When determining the severity of a criminal sanction, it appears that an offender takes into account the perceived inconvenience, intrusiveness and punitiveness of that sanction (May, Wood, Mo oney & Minor, 2005; May & Wood, 2010). Research that

PAGE 48

48 focused on the severity of alternative sanctions in comparison to incarceration concluded that perceptions of inconvenience, intrusiveness and punitiveness appear to be strongly influenced by program s personalities, as well as program revocation rates (May & Wood, 2010). Approximately 47% too hard on the program participants, they try to catch them and send them back to have a bearing on determining perceived se verity. A greater number confirmed the belief that alternative sanctions have high revocation rates. Fifty eight percent indicated a very important reason to avoi d alternative sanctions (May & Wood, 2010 :29 ). Prison may be seen as less inconvenient, intrusive and punitive to some since offenders often see prison terms as having no strings attached in terms of supervision once they are released (Williams, May & Wood, 2008). On the other hand, alternatives to incarceration are seen as being inconvenient and intrusive (Wood & May, 2003). It might be preferable to serve a short incarceration sentence and not be supervised once released rather than try to com plete and adhere to restrictive conditions in the community for a longer period of time. Slightly fewer than a quarter of inmates sampled an offender ranks the severity of a criminal sanction is in part dictated by his or her perceptions of the inconvenience, intrusiveness and punitiveness of the criminal

PAGE 49

49 demographic characteristics. Effect of Offender Characteristics Adding to the complex relationship between offenders and their perception of the punitiveness or severity of criminal sanctions is research that showed perceived past experiences related to the criminal justice system (May & Wood, 2010). In some studies, there were no significant differences in how offenders rank the severity of a sanction based on some demographics (e.g., race, prior prison experience, drug dependence) (Petersilia & Deschenes, 1994a, 1994b). However, in most research there were significant differences. There appear to be differences in how particular groups of offenders rate the severity of a criminal sanction (May & Wood, 2010). Race In terms of racial groups, Blacks are more likely to indicate a preference for prison and report viewing prison as less punitive than Whites (Crouch, 1993; M ay et al., 2005). Race was also the most important predictor of preference for jail term over two years of intensive supervision probation. The majority of Blacks (87%) and Hispanics (68%) indicated this preference, while only 41% of White and Pacific As ian participants did (Spelman, 1995). In addition to viewing incarceration as less punitive in comparison to Whites, Blacks view alternative sanctions as being more punitive than Whites. While both Blacks and Whites report perceiving jail and boot camp t o be punitive sanctions and probation as being the least severe, White participants were more likely to perceive jail to be more severe than boot camp. Black participants reported perceiving boot camp to be more severe than a jail sentence (May & Wood, 20 10; Wood & May, 2003).

PAGE 50

50 In comparison to White probationers, Black probationers were two to three times more likely to indicate a preference for prison when asked to choose among incarceration in prison, incarceration in jail, incarceration in boot camp, supervision under electric monitoring and placement in a halfway house. Given the choice among probation, day reporting, intensive supervision probation and day fines, Blacks were three to six times more likely to indicate a preference towards prison time than White participants (May & Wood, 2010). Black probationers also differed in the amount of time they would be willing to serve under each alternative sanction. Blacks were less willing to serve time under the alternative sanctions in comparison to Wh ites (May & Wood, 2010). Overall, Whites were willing to serve twice as long of an alternative sanction in order to avoid incarceration than were Blacks (Wood & May, 2003). The differences in race may be because Blacks view prison as being less punitive When it comes to alternative sanctions, Blacks may view them as having too many rules that are too hard to comply with and to be more of a hassle than prison. Blacks may believe that under an alternative sanction they would be subjected to harassment a nd abuse by those who supervise the alternative sanctions, including probation officers. This may lead to Blacks viewing alternative sanctions as being more of a gamble and perceive a higher risk of revocation with these sanctions in comparison to Whites (May et al., 2005; May & Wood, 2010; Wood & May, 2003). Specifically examining the differences between the races regarding a preference to boot camps, Whites may consider boot camps to be a more physically safe environment than jail while Blacks may consi der boot camps to be too controlling and pose a greater risk of revocation

PAGE 51

51 willingness to participate in alternative sanctions, preferences for prison over alternative sa nctions, and the amount of time willing to serve under alternative sanctions (May & Wood, 2010). Gender With respect to gender, women are more likely than men to be willing to participate in some form of alternative sanction in order to avoid incarceratio n (May et al., 2005; Wood & Grasmick, 1999; Wood et al., 2005). The only alternatives women were less amenable to are electronic monitoring and half way houses (May & Wood, 2010). When asked to indicate how many months of boot camp they would be willing to endure in order to avoid one year of prison, females reported a significantly longer amount of time than males did (Wood et al., 2005). When probationers and parolees were studied, women appeared to be significantly more amenable to community based alt ernative sanctions than men were. Female participants were more willing to serve significantly longer sentences on community based sanctions than in prison (May et al., 2005). In a study that examined inmates in Oklahoma correctional facilities, women we re more open to serving longer sentence on alternative sanctions, with the exception of half way houses, than men were (May & Wood, 2010; Wood & Grasmick, 1999). Women might be more willing to serve longer sentences in a community based program rather tha n incarceration because they may be single mothers and would be able to keep their children (May & Wood, 2010; Wood & Grasmick, 1999). Support for this assertion was found when being a parent had a positive impact on the amount of time women are willing t o endure to in a boot camp in order avoid one year of prison (Wood et al., 2005). Women may be less willing to serve a sentence on electronic monitoring and in half way houses because these alternative sanctions may be too

PAGE 52

52 restrictive for women with child ren. Electronic monitoring may not offer the flexibility in common to half way houses prevent women from living with their children or bringing the children to the house (May & Wood, 2010). Another possible reason for women to be more willing to serve longer sentences on alternative sanctions is because many states have fewer female prisons than male prisons. Some states may only have one female prison. The chances tha t a female offender would be placed far from her home may be greater, and the distance may prevent regular contact with children and loved ones, leading the female to opt to a longer sentence on a criminal sanction that allows her to remain closer to home (May & Wood, 2010; Wood & Grasmick, 1999). Regardless of the reason, women report being more willing to serve some forms of alternative sanctions as a way to avoid imprisonment, which leads one to believe that men and women may weigh the severity of crimi nal sanctions differently. Age In terms of age, research has shown that older offenders are more likely prefer prison over alternative sanctions (Crouch, 1993; May et al., 2005; May & Wood, 2010; Spelman, 1995; Wood et al., 2005). In a sample of rece ntly convicted offenders slightly more than half of the twenty year olds preferred to serve a three months jail sentence over serving a two year sentence on intensive supervision probation. In contrast, nearly two thirds of the forty year olds preferred j ail over intensive supervision probation (Spelman, 1995). In another study older inmates reported being less willing to enroll in boot camp and to serve as long of a sentence in boot camp than younger inmates (Wood et al., 2005).

PAGE 53

53 Some have argued that o lder offenders may prefer incarceration over alternative sanctions because they perceive imprisonment as less of a gamble than alternative sanctions than younger offender do (May et al., 2005). Older inmates may also see those who volunteer to participate who are willing to be subjected to institutional embarrassment and who are fearful of characteristics believed to be as sociated with a preference for particular criminal sanctions include education and marital status. Offenders who reported a higher level of education tended to prefer a sentence of probation over prison, while prison was preferred among those who were unm arried (Crouch, 1993). Offender type The type of offender has also been linked to criminal sanctions preferences. In one study, 54% of those convicted of drug dealing or use preferred three months in jail over two year of intensive supervision proba tion, while 73% of violent and property offenders reported preferring a jail sentence (Spelman, 1995). It is possible that those convicted of drug offending may believe that they would not be able to keep dealing and/or using drugs while in jail but may b e able to on intensive supervision. However, in a more current research drug offenders were more willing than nondrug offenders to choose an incarceration sentence over serving any duration of an alternative sanctions (May & Wood, 2010). The type of offe criminal sanctions, though the specific relationship of the influence remains unclear. Criminal justice experience Those with more exposure or experience within the criminal justice system, including prior pr ison experience, hold different preferences and beliefs about severity

PAGE 54

54 (Crouch 1993; May et al., 2005; May & Wood, 2010; McClelland & Alpert, 1985). Offenders who had prior exposure to correctional institutions preferred prison over any alternative sancti on, and if willing to serve a sentence on an alternative sanction, they were willing to serve less time on each alternative sanction to avoid prison (May et al., 2005; May & Wood, 2010). Since prison is no longer unknown to those who have served a prison sentence, they may be less likely to be fearful of prison and see prison as easier than alternative sanctions. To those with prison experience, prison is seen as familiar while alternative sanctions are seen as harder than prison as well as more of a risk in terms of revocation (May & Wood, 2010; Williams et al., 2008). perceptions of punishment. Whe n arrestees were asked to assign a number to a variety of criminal penalties while using the standard of a hundred being equivalent to one year in jail, those with more criminal justice experience were more likely to minimize the seriousness and severity o f prison in comparison to the other penalties. Those with more previous criminal convictions were more likely to indicate incarceration as being less punitive in comparison to those with less criminal convictions (McClelland & Alpert, 1985). However, th e characteristics of sanctions will vary by jurisdiction. In other words, serving a probation or boot camp sentence in one place may be a very different experience than serving a probation or boot camp sentence in another (Schiff, 1997). Still, research suggests that different groups of offenders view sanction severity differently. Black offenders, male offenders, older offenders, unmarried offenders and

PAGE 55

55 those with more criminal justice experience appear to be more likely to report a preference for incar ceration over othe r alternative sanctions, while W hite offenders, female offenders, younger offenders, and more educated offenders tend to prefer alternative sanctions, including probation. The preference for a particular sanction may be a proxy for how o ne views the severity of a sanction, since one may be willing to serve the sanction that is seen as less punitive and more doable than a sanction seen as more severe. Offenders Versus Non Offenders While there are differences in the rating of sanction seve rity among different groups of offenders, there are also differences between offenders and other groups of individuals. Offenders as a whole tend to rate sanction severity differently from other groups in the general population. A study that compared pro perceptions of severity of sanctions to the perceptions of the probation/parole officers assigned to supervise them found that the officers felt prison was a more severe sanction than the offenders did. The officers also indicted that the offenders would be willing to do more time on alternative sanctions than the offenders were actually willing to do (Flory et al., 2006). Similarly, judges and probation/parole officers were more likely to rate alternative sanctions as being signi ficantly less severe than offenders. Judges and officers were also more willing to personally serve longer amounts of the sanctions in order to avoid prison than offenders. Offenders reported being less willing to serve alternative sanctions in order to avoid being incarcerated in prison (May & Wood, 2010; Moore, May & Wood, 2008). In terms of probation specifically, both a group of non offenders (i.e., judges, probation and parole officers and members of the general public) and a group of

PAGE 56

56 probationer a nd parolees reported finding probation to be the least severe sanction. However, the offenders did view probation to be more punitive than the other three groups did and would serve less of a probation sentence to avoid a one year incarceration sentence. The group of members from the general public indicated being willing to serve nearly twice the probation sentence in order to avoid prison than would the probationers and parolees (May & Wood, 2010). As previously mentioned, Minnesota DOC staff indicated that most probation conditions would be harder to comply with than a group of inmates believed the conditions to be (Petersilia & Deschenes, 1994a). Research has also focused solely on the views of non offenders. Using a method known as magnitude estimat ion, Erickson and Gibbs (1979) asked police and citizens to assign a number to each penalty, using one year in jail as the comparison and represented by the number 100. Criminal sanctions perceived to be more severe than one year in jail were to be given a number greater than 100 and criminal sanctions perceived to be less severe than one year in jail were to be given a number less than 100. Police rated a sentence of one year in jail to be a 107.85 while citizens rate it as a seventy five. One year in prison was assigned the value of 140 from the police but a 175.23 from citizens. A $10,000 fine was rated as being equal to 135 by citizen, whereas such a fine was equal to a 400 for police. Despite the groups disagreeing on about most criminal sanction s, they did seem generally to agree about the severity of probation. Police placed on one year on probation as a twenty five on the perceived severity scale, while citizens placed probation as a thirty five. In a study that examined the perceived severit y of sanctions

PAGE 57

57 among a grand jury pool, intermediate sanctions were perceived to be less severe than prison. Probation was consistently reported as a relatively easy sanction (Harlow, Darley & Robinson, 1995). In sum, research to date appears to indicate that offenders and non offenders view criminal sanction severity differently. Procedural Justice Procedural justice may be an aspect of the criminal justice system experience that can affect probation success and perceptions of the supervision experien ce. The Procedural Justice argument was first developed based on the 1975 research of Thibaut and Walker (Casper, Tyler, & Fisher, 1988; Tyler, 1994). They examined the satisfaction was based on a combination of the case proceedings and the case outcome (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Since then research on Procedural Justice has continued to grow and expand beyond courts to other aspects of the criminal justice system (Caspe r et al., 1988). Procedural Justice researchers argue that, in order for individu als to obey laws, they must: (1 ) perceive their treatment as being fair; and (2 ) perceive the law and its agents to be legitimate (Tyler, 1990, 1994, 2003). Procedural Justi ce can be extended to probation and probationers and may offer an explanation as to why some probationers comply with the conditions of their probation while others do not. If procedural justice occurs, people believing they have been fairly treated will be more likely to comply with rules or laws (Robinson & McNeill, 2008; Tyler, 1990, 2003). If offenders perceive the sanction they received to be fair, it upholds the legitimacy of law enforcement and increases the likelihood of them being legally complia nt. Unfair sanctions reduce perceptions of legitimacy and, therefore, reduce compliance (Tyler,

PAGE 58

58 interpretation of whether they had a fair hearing may be predicated on whethe r the criminal sanction decision makers were respectful of them and their viewpoint (Sherman, 1993). Individuals who received unfavorable outcomes but who had the opportunity to express their views and who believed those views were considered by the deci sion maker may come away more satisfied than individuals receiving more favorable outcomes but left feeling that their views were not expressed or considered (Casper et al., 1988). It is important that people believe that they were treated fairly, that de cisions were evenhanded and impartial, and that they had the opportunity to be heard (Tonry, 2006). The perceived procedural fairness of the criminal justice experience shapes the perceived legitimacy of criminal justice agents (Tyler, Sherman, Strang, Ba rnes & Woods, 2007). Legitimacy is an important factor in determining how people relate to officials (Tyler, 2003). When offenders view the law and its agents as being legitimate, they may be more willing to obey the law and be more compliant. If they s ee it as legitimate they will comply regardless of the risk or likelihood of detection (Tyler et al., 2007). espectfulness and the perceived fairness of the criminal justice process (Tyler, 1990). The effect on perceived legitimacy, which in turn has an effect on compliance (Sherman, 1993). Those who view the agent as being legitimate, as well as perceive their court process as being fair, will be more likely to comply. T hose who are dissatisfied with the decision viewing the decision maker as not being legitimate, engage in criminal acts. The

PAGE 59

59 breakdown of legitimacy may result in a loss of complianc e (Sherman, 1993; Tyler et al., 2007). A study that focused on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audits showed that participants who heard stories about the IRS treating taxpayers unfairly were less likely to comply with the law than participants who did not hear such stories. Hearing the with the law (Kinsey, 1992). Within the court system, research has shown that feelings of unfair court processing continued to shape vie ws of legitimacy two years after the initial experience. Procedural Justice contributed to long term compliance to the law by increasing positive attitudes toward the criminal justice system (Tyler, 2006; Tyler et al., 2007; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Those who felt they had been treated unfairly by the criminal justice system reported reduced legitimacy, as well as reduced compliance with the law (Tyler, 1990). Those who felt the law, the process, and the agents were legitimate tend to be more likely to obey t he law (Tyler et al., 2007). Examining probation specifically, the idea is that those who felt that their criminal court proceedings as well as the judge who sentenced them to probation were fair (i.e., they felt procedural justice) would be more likely to comply with their probation. They would be more likely to take the personal responsibility for obeying probationary conditions and, thus, be more likely to comply with those conditions than those who did not feel they experienced procedural fairness. Ev en in cases where the risk of detection for violating probation were low, individuals who perceived procedural justice presumably would still be more likely to comply (Tyler et al., 2007). Theoretically, procedural justice ideas can be extended to the con ditions of probation. The conditions

PAGE 60

60 that probationers perceive as being unfair would be more difficult for them to comply with than the conditions that they perceive as being fair. Individuals who receive technical violations would be more likely to vio late on those conditions viewed as being unfair. The behaviors and actions of probation officers may also impact compliance through legitimacy. Legitimacy would be related to how probationers relate to the probation officer and probation office (Tyler, 2003). Probation officers might exercise officers whose probationers view as being fair and reasonable are more likely to be seen as legitimate; therefore, their pr obationers would be more likely to comply with their probation. Probation officers wanting to ensure compliance should strive to increase their legitimacy among their probationers (Robinson & McNeill, 2008). In sum, the procedural justice perspective sugg ests that perceived legitimacy and procedural fairness are associated with compliance of the law (Casper et al., 1988; Sherman, 1993; Tyler et al., 2007). Despite the outcome, those who saw the law, sanction and/or agent as being legitimate and who felt t hat they were able to share their side, and that their side was heard, are more likely to comply. For the criminal sanction of probation, probationers who feel that they received probation fairly, that their conditions of probation are fair, and who view their probation officers as being legitimate are more likely to comply. In order to prevent violations of probation, probation officers need to secure their status of legitimacy among their probationers by being fair and respectful (Robinson & McNeill, 20 08). The sentence of probation and all the conditions

PAGE 61

6 1 of probation need to be perceived as being fairly received in order to ensure compliance. Chapter Summary The literature examining who is placed on probation was reviewed, with special attention place probationers in Florida are White, male, serving a felony probation sentence and were sentenced to probation for a drug offense. It appears that most violations are due to technical violatio ns and that there are some probationer characteristics (e.g., race, successfully complete a probation sentence. The research examining perceptions of the severity of crim inal sanctions has demonstrated that the relationship between offender and criminal sanction severity is a complex one (Flory et al., 2006). Criminal sanction preferences and views of severity vary based on offender characteristics. One study that specif ically examined perceptions of probation condition severity showed that inmates felt that the conditions asked about would not be difficult to comply with (Petersilia & Deschenes, 1994b). However, this study sampled individuals incarcerated and not indivi duals currently on probation. The importance of procedural justice, or experiences with the system as offenders progress through it, can be extended to probationers and may offers an explanation about how and why probationers will comply with the conditio ns of probation.

PAGE 62

62 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the methodology this study utilized. First the location from which the sample was drawn will be discussed, followed by a section describing the target population and how participants were rec ruited. The third section will discuss the methods of data collection by describing the step by step procedure I took. This is followed by a description of the measurement instruments. Next there will be a section describing the dependent and independen t variables. Sample characteristics will next be discussed. Last, there will be a section describing the analysis plan. Context: Alachua County Probation Misdemeanor p robation was first adopted in the State of Florida in 1939 in Duval County (Senate Com mittee on Corrections, Probation, and Parole, 1990). In 1941, the Florida Parole and Probation Commission was created and became responsible for 2010). Today in Florid a, misdemeanor probation continues to be managed through counties, as well as the Salvation Army and other small entities, while the Florida Department of Corrections supervises those sentenced to felony probation (FDOC, 2010; Senate Committee on Correctio ns, Probation, and Parole, 1990). In Alachua County those sentenced to misdemeanor probation come under the supervision of from Alachua County Probation, and therefore a re all misdemeanant probationers. by a county court judge for having committed criminal traffic, misdemeanor or municipal ordinance violations. The program also supervise s juveniles sentenced for criminal

PAGE 63

63 traffic offenses and ordered to county probation. Individuals sentenced to county probation in other counties but reside in Alachua County are also supervised by this probation agency (Alachua County, 2010). As previou sly stated, the organizational conditions of a probation agency dictates which model of probation an agency subscribes to and whether that model of probation 1969; Ohlin Whitehead & Braswell, 2000; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1992). In the case of Alachua County Probation the agency attempts to use a balanced approach which combines the two models. From reh abilitation model, Alachua County Probation emphases assessing and providing treatment to probationers, while from the law enf orcement model, the agency hold s probationers accountable by violating offenders. Though the agency attempt s to create a balance d model of probation, there are variations among probationer officers. Probation officers typically adopt roles based on personal philosophies and/or the organizational policies of the probation agency (Clear & Latessa, 1993). From my observations of the probation officers and their case management, I noted differences in the flexibility with scheduling monthly meetings, expectations of when particular conditions should be completed, as well as differences in how quickly violation reports were written and for what prob ationers were being violated This suggests that the probation officers who work for Alachua County Probation fall along a continuum with some being more service oriented while others were more surveillance oriented.

PAGE 64

64 Thos e supervised by Al achua County P robation are assigned to one of the ten probation officers, all of whom work under one supervisor. Four of the ten officers manage a specialized caseload that focuses either of offenders sentenced to probation for domestic violence or offend ers who were sentenced to jail time which they serve on the weekends (also known as weekenders). The remaining six officers carry a case load compo sed of a variety of criminal traffic, misdemeanor and municipal ordinance violators and have an average casel oad of 130 to 140 probationers (S. Longworth, personal communication, March 5, 2010). Probation officers are assigned the task of monitoring whether the probationer is completing and adhering to the conditions established by the court (Stickels, 2007). The probationers are supervised by the probation officers for the designated period of time they were sentenced to supervision, which in Alachua County is typically no longer than one year. Some standard conditions of probation in this jurisdiction includ e: reporting monthly, notifying the probation officer of any changes in employment/education, and paying fines and court costs. Probation officers may also remain crime fr ee. Depending on their situation, probationers may be required to attend counseling, support dependents, perform community service and attend a victim impact panel. Those sentenced to probation in Alachua County are typically required to pay a monthly co st of supervision fee, which often ranges from fifty to sixty dollars. Those able to demonstrate an inability to pay the fee are eligible to perform community service Cou nty, 2010).

PAGE 65

65 On any given day there are approximately 1,300 active probationers under the transferred to another jurisdiction and cases where a violation report is pendin g. At the reporting probation program, Alachua County Probation also was responsible for monitoring individuals placed on one onetime cost of supervision fee, pay court fines and not get arrested for a new crim e. Some are required to report to the probation office once a month until all the conditions are met while others only have to report to the probation office once. They sometimes are required to participate in community service or write a letter of apol ogy (S. Longworth, personal communication, May 24, 2010). Sample Procedure and Recruitment Target Population The target population for the study was individuals under current supervision by Alachua County Probation 1 In order to be eligible for the study, the person had to be over the age of eighteen, required to report to Alachua County Probation at least once a e in Alachua County and needed to 1 An unknown amount of probationers interv iewed were also currently on felony probation for a felony conviction. In the State of Florida, felony probation is supervised by the Florida Department of Corrections, meaning the person had to report to two separate probation agencies and had different probation conditions applied for each sentence. Though probationers were asked to limit their responses responses were influenced by their felony probation s entence.

PAGE 66

66 have at least four months remaining on his or her sentence of probation in order to ensure adequate time to schedule an interview while still on probation. ement software of May 25, 2010. There were 1,651 on probation on that date. The analyst then removed those whose status indicated that they were expected to comp lete probation within the next four months and whose status indicated they were currently in jail, which removed 460 individuals (27.9%). The resulting list contained 1,191 individuals. From that list, a random sample was generated of those who the resea rchers 2 hoped to interview and for whom official data would be collected. The goal was to ensure that the sample results would be generalizable to the population of all remaining probationers. The researchers first ensured that the list of participants was not listed in a systematic way (e.g., in alphabetical order or by probation officer). Next we flipped a study participation. This process was repeated unti l a random sample of 450 participants was obtained. However, once the researchers began going through the eligible. In some cases the probation officers had indicat In order to account for this, I went through the list and removed an yone from the list who was currently in jail 2 thesis. The self reported data collection was done jointly.

PAGE 67

67 and was in violation status that initial searching may have missed. Additionally, I removed anyone who was on mail original sample of 450 probationers, 243 (5 4%) were deemed ineligible after review of the files. The remaining 207 probationers were eligible and, therefore, included in the sample. In order to obtain the desired 450 participants, the researchers went through all those who were originally dropped from the study (i.e., received a head in the coin flip) and those for whom a coin was not flipped. From that list (N=741), 272 probationers were removed due to ineligibility. Using the list of 469 eligible participants, the researchers again flipped a coin until 207 individuals were identified. In combination with the group from the first coin flips, a total of 450 probationers were identified through random sampling. All 450 participants were assigned a subject code nu mber (001 to 450). Three months into the study, only 134 participants were interviewed due to the difficulty in getting the probationers to initially agree to participate and then to subsequently attend the interview. Additionally, some probationers end ed up becoming ineligibl e as the study was ongoing ( recommendation during dissertation proposal defense, a convenience sample was included during the last two months of the study. The convenience sample mem bers were assigned subject code numbers ranging from 500 to 567. Recruitment Once the sample had been randomly selected, I attempted to recruit participants through: mail, probation officers, direct contact and telephone.

PAGE 68

68 Recruitment through the ma il During the Month of June 2010, the researcher and the co researcher mailed a recruitment letter to the in itial random sample of 450 ( Appendix B). The letter was mailed to the last registered physical address for the probationer, which was found in Information Network Data Access System (LINDAS). The letter informed the probatione r about the study and indicated that participation was voluntary. Additionally, the letter informed the probationer that he or she had two options for scheduling an interview: (1) scheduling with the researcher via telephone or e mail or (2) signing up in person on the day he or she was required to report to probation. Of the 450 letters mailed to the randomly sampled participants seventy one letters were retur ned (15.7 %) ( Table 3 1). Table 3 1. Returned m ail Reason given: Number Not deliverable as addr essed 39 Attempted not known 3 No such street 2 No such number 9 Vacant 1 Moved and left no address 2 Insufficient address 10 No mail receptacle 2 Unclaimed 3 Total: 71 Recruitment through the probation officers Participants were also recruited through the same letters given to them by their probation officer dur ing the month of June 2010 ( Appendix B). I identified the probation officers for each of the 450 randomly selected participants. The probation officers were

PAGE 69

69 then given letters addresse d to the participants on their caseloads and asked to give the probationer the letter when he or she reported to see the officer. Of the 450 letters given to the probation officers to disseminate, eighteen (4%) were returned to the researcher after being identified as not qualified for the study (i.e., moved to mail in status, early termination of probation, in violation status). Recruitment through follow up letter During the month of September 2010, the researchers gave probationer officers follow up let ters to give to those who were originally contacted via letter but who had not yet had direc t contact with researchers ( Appendix C). Each of the letters was the outs ide of the envelope so the probation officer knew to whom to give letters. Similar to the first letter used to inform potential participants, the follow up letter informed the person about the purpose of the study and indicated that participation was volu ntary. The follow telephone number and e mail addresses if he or she wanted to schedule an interview. Due to concerns about the low response rate based on the study introduction letters, a c onvenience sample design also was implemented. In addition to the follow up letters for specific probationers, I gave the officers extra copies of the follow up letters that were not addressed to anyone specifically. The probationer officers were asked t o give the letter to all the clients on their caseloads who had not been part of the original sample. Throughout September and October 2010, I continued to ask the probationer officers if they needed additional copies of the letter and dropped o ff more wh en they were needed.

PAGE 70

70 Recruitment through direct contact Since Alachua County Supervised Probation requires that probationers physically report to the office each month, the researchers also tried to recruit participants directly during the time they physic ally reported to probation. Probation officers typically schedule four probationers per hour and schedule their clients to report during the first ten days of the month (S. Longworth, personal communication, March 5, 2010). I obtained the days and times that the sampled probationers were scheduled to report requesting the information. During the months of July and August 2010, either I or the fellow graduate s tudent on the project was at the Court Services building from Mondays through Fridays from 8:30am until approximately 5:00pm during the first ten days of each month. One of the researchers would stand between the two waiting rooms, near where the individu als sign in to see their probation officer. The location allowed the researcher to hear the person say his or her name and determine whether the person signing in was one of the randomly selected probationers. If the person was determined to be one who w as sampled, I either tried to talk to the probationer while he or she waited to be called by his or her probation officer or after the person had been seen by his or her probation officer. I approached the person and identified myself as being a University of Florida researcher conducting a study that was independent from Court Services. I mentioned that he or she might have received notice of the study via mail or through his or her probation officer. The probationer was told that the interviews typicall y lasted an hour and that participation earned him or her either five hours of community service or one

PAGE 71

71 month cost of supervision credit. If the person indicated that he or she would be willing to participate, I asked the person what days of the week and/ or times during the day work best for him or her Based on what the person said, I read the days and times she could be contacted in the date time slot selected. Once the date and time was selected, I asked if the downtown public library was a convenient location for the person to be interviewed. If the downtown library was not, another public location that was ioner was then given a reminder card that had the date, time and location of the interview written on it, as well as a number the person could call if he or she needed to reschedule. The person was told that I would contact him or her the day before the s cheduled interview as a reminder and to confirm that the date, time and location still worked for the person. Finally, I thanked the person f or agreeing to participate. If the person indicated interest but stated that he or she was not able to sign up for contact me via email, I wrote my University of Florida email address on the c ard with the On the occasions where the probationer would indicate that he or she had completed his or her community service hours as well as paid the required supervision costs, I asked the perso n if he or she would still be willing to participate. In most cases done with both yes and an interview was scheduled. For

PAGE 72

72 those individual s who were approached and then the person indicated that he or she probationers ignored my request to talk to them or walked away in the middle of the conversation done with During the months of September and October 2010 eit her I or my fellow graduate student was at the Court Services building trying to recruit directly. However, as the schedules and we were not able to be in the building all day (i.e., 8:30am through 5:00pm) trying to recruit during the first ten days in the month. Consequently, I obtained the dates and times of all the randomly sampled participants who had not been directly contacted during the previous months. We then atte mpted to be in the building for as many of those people as possible and then used the same initial face to face contact procedure as before. The attempt to gather more interviewees through convenience sampling also occurred during September and October, while I was at the probation office. In addition to directly approaching those previously sampled, I made periodic announcements in both waiting rooms. I informed the individuals in the waiting room that I am a researcher from the University of Florida co nducting a research project. I then said that anyone who is currently on reporting probation qualified for the study and that the study involved a one time interview that lasts approximately an hour. The individuals were also told that their participatio n qualified them from either five hours of community services or

PAGE 73

73 one month cost of supervision credit. I then asked if anyone was interested in participating. For any person who indicated his or her interest in participating, the same process for determi ning a day and time for the interview was used. The only difference an indicator that he or she was conveniently sampled and needed to be assigned a subject number. I f the probationer indicated being interested in the study but not able or willing to sign up for an interview at the time, I gave the person the follow up letter used to recruit originally sampled probationers, which explained the study and listed ways to contact me if he or she wanted to set up an interview. Recruitment through follow up phone calls The final method used to recruit participants was through the telephone. In October 2010, participants who had failed to show up to their scheduled interview s and had not rescheduled were called via telephone. I went through the list of the individuals study and confirmed that they still qualified for the study. Individua ls who had been violated or had successfully terminated their probation were removed from the list. A total of twenty one individuals were no longer eligible due to early termination of probation (N=6), end of probation sentence (N=1), moved to mail in pr obation (N=3), no longer interested in participating (N=1), completed both incentives for participating and no longer interested in participating (N=2), and violation of probation (N=8). I then went through the sign up sheets and found the phone numbers fo r the ( Appendix A for classification system). In most cases the people failed to answer the phone, and I left a message when possible identifying myself as a University of Florida researcher who was trying to contact i ndividuals who

PAGE 74

74 had at one point indicated their interest in participating in the study. I also mentioned that the study would be coming to an end soon, so I wanted to ensure that anyone interested had the opportunity to participate. I reiterated on the m essage the benefits of the study and left the number for the person to call if he or she was interested in setting up an interview. Of the fifty to directly. Ten rescheduled an int erview while one person indicated he had since completed probation (though the official record did not show that) and one indicated he had since violated probation (an official violation report was later written). For twenty three of the no show partici reached because they never answered and there was no voicemail option, the number was incorrect or the number had been di sconnected. At the beginning of October 2010, I also contacted individuals who had indicated that he or she would call or email me once he or she determined a convenient interview try to obtain the phone number for those who had told me they were going to email or call but never did. Unfortunately, not all probation officers had a number or a current number for all the probationers on their caseload. In the case of tho se who cancelled, I used the phone number provided by the participant when he or she scheduled his or her original interview. Of the twenty five individuals called, only seven rescheduled, one indicated he was no longer interested and two indicated that t hey had since completed probation. Nine of the probationers who had previously indicated an interest but never

PAGE 75

75 scheduled an interview or who had scheduled an interview but canceled were never reached, either because they did not answer their phone, there was no voicemail option, the number was incorrect or the number was disconnected. For the remaining six probationers, the researcher left a message on voicemail or left a message with someone for the potential respondent. I also contacted the individual s who were originally sampled but with whom I was unable to have direct contact while recruiting in the Court Services building. There were thirty nine individuals whom the researchers were not able to ask directly whether they would like to participate i rt to the probation office or the researchers missing the person when he or she did report to the probation office ( Appendix A). In all the cases where the person was not directly contacted, I attempt ed to call the person using the telephone number listed on the the past. The only diff erence was that I said I am trying to contact individuals who qualified for the study but had been unable to contact in person rather than saying I was contacting those who at one point indicated interest in the study. I was only able to talk to two peop le out of the thirty nine in this category. One person scheduled an interview, and one person indicated she would call back once she figured out a convenient time. I was able to leave a message on voicemail or with someone for nine individuals. As in th e case of the previous groups, some individuals were never able to be reached for various reasons (e.g., voicemail full, phone disconnected); twenty one people fell into this category. Additionally, seven people

PAGE 76

76 were never able to be contacted because the probation officer did not have a phone n umber listed for the person. In summary, I attempted to recruit participants in several different ways. I attempted to recruit through multiple letters given to the person by his or her probation officer. Also by to recruit people in person at the probation office, as well as through the telephone. Data Collection The study used both official data and self report data in order to answer t he Official Data Collection For each of the 450 participants identified through the random selection process as well as the sixty seven participants conveniently sampled, I accessed the r to obtain the following information: prior offense history, demographic information and terms of probation. I recorded what conditions of probation, including any special conditions, to which the person was und history was obtained through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and Florida Crime Information Center (FCIC). I created a criminal history form in order to record and collect data fr om the subsequent section for descripti on of form and Appendix D). I only completed a form for those selected through the random selection process or who compo sed the convenience sample.

PAGE 77

77 Self Reported Data Collection: Face to Face Interviews Prior to the interview The day prior to a scheduled interview, I called the participant on the number given to me by the participant when he or she signed up for the study. I asked to speak to the participant directly. If the person was unavailable, I left a message either on voicemail or with the person who answered the phone requesting the participant call me back. Unless speaking to the participant directly, I only identified myself as a University of Florida researcher. If I was able to speak to the participant directly, I identified myself as the r esearcher conducting a Court Services University of Florida study. I then asked the participant if the previously agreed upon time, date and location still work for the participant. If the participant indicated yes, I told the probationer the exact locat ion where I would be waiting for him or her and the interview location. For example, if the interview was scheduled for the downtown location of the Alachua County library, I told the participant that I would be waiting by the television in the entrance l obby. Additionally, the participant was told to look for a person holding a clip board with a University of Florida sign on the back of it. Most interviews were conducted at Alachua County library, and more specifically at the downtown location. The rese archers had hoped to conduct interviews at the Court Services building, but due to limited space very few interviews were conducted Court Services building making the loca tion easy for participants to locate and find parking. The library is also open seven days a week. For many interviews, I reserved one of the two private study rooms. When that was not a possibility, an area of the

PAGE 78

78 library that offered some privacy was located (e.g., tables in the back of the children section, a bench in the movie section). In cases where the participant indicated not being able make it to the downtown library, a different location was agreed upon. In many cases these interviews occurre d at other library locations or at my office at the University of Florida. However, in some work were selected. In all cases we conducted the interviews in public locat ions and During the interview process Once the probationer arrived at the interview location on the scheduled date, and an area that offered some privacy was secured, the participant was give n an informed consent form ( Appe ndix E). I read aloud the informed consent and the probationer was asked to follow along. The informed consent described the study and stated its purpose, as well as stated the rights of the participant. Any potential risks and benefits were also discus sed in the informed consent form ( Appendix F). After the form was r ead out loud to the probationer (s)he was asked to sign and return it to me if (s)he agreed to participate. The signed informed consent was placed in an envelope and the participant rece ived an extra copy of the informed consent. All study participants signed an informed consent form. After the informed consent form was completed, I completed the cover page of the survey and removed it from the survey instrument. Removing the cover page removed which was assigned when the participant was randomly selected or when he or she volunteered for the study. Once the cover with all information that could dir ectly link the

PAGE 79

79 person to his or her responses was removed, the interview began. The interview instrument contained questions designed to obtain demographic information, the conditions of probation 3 subsequent section for a detailed description of the interview instrument and Appendix G). The participant was asked both open and close ended questions. Open ended questions allow participants to answer questions with ope n responses and are semi structured and in depth, whereas closed ended questions require the participants to respond based on the choice options provided or information within a specific answer range (Groves et al., 2004). The questions were either open or close ended depending instrument. For some of the close ended questions, I gave the participant a colored card with the answer selections for that particular questi on on it and ask answer ( Appendix H). The probationer was only given a card with answer options when it related to the specific question, and I retrieved the card when it was no longer relevant. If the person was unable or had difficu lty reading, I explained the answer options following each question. I then read the questions to the individual and marked recorded most open ended questions. When I got to a question that was open ended, the digital recorder was turned on, and once the participant completed his or her response, I 3 Probationers were asked additional questions that examined the fear of crime. These questions were the focus of the co

PAGE 80

80 turned off the digital recorder. The first time the digital recorder was turned on I i number. Throughout the interview, I reiterated to the individual to not use his/her name/nickname or describe details and events that could identify the person or others while the digital recorder was on. Prior to turning on the digital recorder for the first time, the participant was informed that if he or she does so during the interview, the I informed the participant when the digital recorder was being turned on or off so the participant was never recorded without his or her knowledge. Of the 202 interviews, portions of 159 (78.7%) were recorded. The remaining interviews were not recorded due to various reasons. In nineteen cases the participant did not want to be recorded, while in six cases health related issues prevented the interview from being recorded (e.g., participant had difficulty talking due to throat cancer or the participant h ad lost his or her voice). One interview was not recorded because participant did not speak English, and the person conducting the interview felt it would be too hard to interview the person and translate the conversation while being recorded. Seventeen interviews were not recorded because the location did not offer enough privacy. In order for the digital recorder to pick up our voices we would have had to speak louder which would have given people outside the study the opportunity to listen to the part Additionally, I also recorded direct quotes from the participant.

PAGE 81

81 Most of the interviews we re conducted by me or the fellow graduate student working on the project. However, nineteen interviews were done by other graduate students or undergraduate research assistants. In order to ensure that the procedure was the identical regardless of who wa s conducting the interview, everyone was required to observe one interview done by me or the co researcher. The person was then required to conduct an interview under the supervision of either researcher before conducting interviews alone. The intervie ws ranged from thirty five minutes in length to two hours and fifteen minutes, with the average being forty five minutes to one hour to complete. Post interview process Following the interviews, I downloaded the interviews from the digital recorder to di sks. The recordings from the interviews were then transcribed verbatim. The recordings from each interview were transcribed within forty five days of the interview date by undergraduate research assistants. The recordings were then checked for accuracy by one of the researchers listening to the recording while reading the transcribed interviews. At this point we removed any names or personal identifiers. Once an interview was transcribed and verified, the digital recording was deleted and the disk was erased. In order for the participant to receive credit, the fellow researcher emailed the which probationers from his or her caseload had participated during the p rior two weeks. The email only indicated that the participant met with us and did not indicate

PAGE 82

82 ipated in the study throughout the months was emailed to each particular probation officer. Originally, Court Services indicated that participants were to receive five hours community service credit for their participation. Only if the participant was not required to perform community service hours or had completed his or her community service in many cases the probation officer used his or her discretion to give the participant the form of credit most needed by participant. Some probation officers allowed the participant to select which form of credit they wanted. In some cases the probation officer would give the probationer other forms of credit (e.g., work crew hours/days, waived drug test fees). On the rare occasion (i.e., two), the participant agreed to participate though he or she had already completed all his or her conditions of probation. No show to the interview procedure On several occasions a part icipant did not show up to his or her scheduled interview (N= 79, 15% of the total sample (N=517)). Ten minutes after the scheduled interview time, if the participant had not shown up I attempted to contact that person through the phone number given to me when the interview was scheduled. If the person answered, I asked the person if he or she was still planning on attending the interview. If so, I told the person exactly where I was waiting. If the person indicated he or she was not going to come to th e interview, I tried to reschedule the interview for a different date and time. However, on most occasions the person did not answer his or her phone. In those cases, I left a message, whenever possible, stating exactly where I was waiting and that I wou ld be there for at least twenty more minutes. I remained at

PAGE 83

83 the scheduled interview location for at least twenty more minutes, which was thirty minutes after the scheduled interview time. Measures The research instruments were designed to measure the st questions. As previously mentioned the research questions are: RQ 1: What are the conditions of probation that clients face in Alachua County? RQ 2: What RQ 2a: Specificall y, do the conditions of probation fall on a continuum when it comes to severity? If so, which conditions are viewed as being most severe? RQ 2b: perceived ability to complete a particula r probation condition? RQ 2c: What do probationers see as potential obstacles that would hinder them from completing or adhering to the conditions of their probation? Official Data: Criminal History Form The criminal history form was be used to verify d ata obtained from the interview instrument, as well as to obtain information not collected during the interview. I hic information and curre nt conditions of probation ( Ap pendix D). In order to answer Research Q uestion 1, the official record of what conditions the probationer was sentenced to was used to verify the conditions the probationer reported being sentenced to adhere to or to complete. The remainder and characteristics, which served as independent variab les in models used to estimate Research Q uestions 2a, 2b, and 2c.

PAGE 84

84 To requested no more than seventy five criminal histories per week. Once all the criminal histories on my request were collected, I received notification to collect the completed histories. The first four questions on the criminal history form was be used to collect information for me to keep accurate records about the participant. The date t hat the the criminal history was retrieved (Question 3). The date the criminal history form was completed (Question 4) was recorded once every question on the form was c omplete. Questions 5 through 7 were demographic questions (i.e., date of birth, gender and race) Previous criminal history questions (Questions 8 through 16) were answered using iminal history obtained from NCIC/FCIC. I recorded verbatim each previous criminal offense as it was listed on the NCIC/FCIC printout. I also recorded whether each offense was a felony or misdemeanor and listed the degree of the offense. When the inform ation was not available the space was left blank. The state where the offense occurred, the year of arrest and, when possible, the outcome for each offense were also recorded. Finally, the case number (consecutively numbered) was recorded (i.e., column b ). This indicated how many cases a person had and allowed for the researcher to understand how many charges for each case. For same case number, I listed both as case n umber 1. If the two criminal charges had two separate case numbers, I listed one as case number 1 and the other as case number 2.

PAGE 85

85 In the first example, the person had one arrest for one case with two charges, while the second example had a person with on e arrest for two cases with one charge each. the information and identified the arrest as a juvenile arrest so the information would be able to be sorted later by ju venile versus adult. The next set of questions measured the current offenses for which the person was on probation (Questions 17 through 34 listed some common offenses that individuals are placed on to Alachua County Probation for based on an examinati database, Legal Information Network Data Access System (LINDAS)). If the probationer was currently charged with a particular offense, I indicated so and recorded r current case number. I then verified the information on LINDAS. If the court records or NCIC/FCIC indicated that the person was originally arrested or charged with additional charges or counts or more severe charges (e.g., felony), I recorded the addi tional or original charge(s) or counts (Questions 17 34). I then made a note identifying the charge or count as being dropped or reduced. An example of a charge being dropped would be if a participant was arrested for a driving while license suspended o r revoked and driving under the influence but was only on probation for the driving under the influence. I circled both offenses and listed the case number for each but next to the driving while license suspended charge I would put in parenthesis arrested for three counts of possession of marijuana but was only on probation for one

PAGE 86

86 If a person was arrested for felony battery but the charge was reduced to misdemeanor battery, I recorded the felony battery and its case number an d in parenthesis wro ed the misdemeanor case. Using LINDAS, sentences ran consecutively, the total number of months was recorded. However, most individuals were sentenced to serve probation sentences concurrently and in those expected termination date was also recorded (Question 36). In order to obtain information regarding any violation of probation, I used both records and recorded any violations found. In most cases v iolations listed in the notes were also found in the court records. However, in some cases violations listed in the notes were not in the court records and some violations in the court records were not in discrepancy was recorded. The next set of questions recorded any violation of probation that involved new law violations (Questions 36 42). The new offense was recorded verbatim, as were the date of the offense and the outcome of the violation. Any v iolations of probation that involved technical violations were also recorded (Questions 43 79). The violations were selected based on commonly utilized conditions reported on the probation rts on LINDAS, as

PAGE 87

87 violations occurred and the outcome were recorded. In cases when the new law violation and the technical violation(s) had not been resolved, I recorded th e outcome as The subsequent set of questions recorded whether a particular probation condition applied to the probationer (Questions 81 118). The probation conditions were the same conditions selected under the technical violation section (Questions 43 79). I few conditions questions (81 85) were standard conditions and applied to all applied to the person. In the case of questions pertaining to financial conditions (Questions 90, 91, and 96), if they applied, I recorded the dollar amount owed. For the punitive conditions, (Questions 92, 93, 94 95 and 111) I recorded the hour, day, or month requirement of that particular condition where relevant. When a person was assigned a condition not listed, I recorded the condition in the additional spaces provided (Question 114 118). I obtain NCIC/FCIC histories for the entire sample (the initial random sample of 450 and the additional convenience sample of sixty seven), and obtained access to all their court records. Though the probation files varied in completeness, all necessary information was located. Crim inal histories forms were completed for the total sample (N=517). Self Reported Data: Interview Instrument Generally, each section of the interview instrument was designed to answer a pa rticular research question ( Appendix G). Additionally, we completed a cover page and a section on personal characteristics thought to be relevant to in answering the

PAGE 88

88 questions of interest. The first page of the interview instrument (the cover sheet) was used to help the researchers maintain accurate records of the interv iews. It also allowed us to track whether the criminal history information was completed on the particular individual. The personal characteristics questions (6 13) asked the individual to report his or her parental status, marital status, race, employ ment status and education level. This section also asked the probationer to indicate general information about length of the probation sentence (Questions 14 and 15) and whether the person was sentenced to probation as the result of a plea agreement (Ques tion 16). This section also asked the probationer to report the current charges for the probation sentence (Questions 17 through 35). Next, we asked the person to self report whether he or she received any violation during his or her current term of probation (Question 36). If the person indicated that he or she committed a new law violation, we recorded the offense, offense date and the outcome of the violation (Questions 37 43). If the person indicated that he or she committed a technical violati on, we recorded the number of times the technical violation(s) occurred and the outcome of the violation(s) (Questions 44 81). The included conditions were the same as those on the criminal history form used when collecting official records data. The co nditions were chosen for the interview instrument because they appeared to be conditions that are either standard to all probationers under Alachua County Probation, or because they are common conditions for a particular offense (e.g., victim impact panel for driving under the influence offenders).

PAGE 89

89 They were chosen based on conversations with Court Services employees, a search of The ensuing set of questions (82 88) asked the probati on indicate whether he or she had been sentenced to various types of sanctions and if so, how long. The sanctions asked about were: probation prior to his or her current sentence, intensive supervision probation, jail, prison, day reporting, electronic mo nitoring and boot camp. If the person indicated having a previous probation sentence, he or she was asked if he questions (90 96) collected any self reported new law violations, including the date and outcome. Then, we asked about any technical violation(s), including the number of times the violation(s) occurred and the outcome(s) (Questions 97 133). In order to answer what probation conditions probationers in Ala chua County were sentenced to (Research Q uestion 1), probationers were asked to indicate the terms of his or her probation (Questions 134 172). The interviewer read each of the listed conditions and indicated if the condition applied. If applicable, the person was asked to specify any amount, hours, days, or months. The first open ended question (Question 173), asked participants to list any additional conditions that apply to them that had not already been discussed. The next section of the interview i nstrument contained questions about the ndition severity and addressed Research Q uestion 2. In the past researchers have tried to assess severity by using one of three methods of ranking: magnitude estimation, comparative jud gments and offender generated equivalencies (Wood & May, 2003). Magnitude estimation involves a standard level of

PAGE 90

90 punishment being worth 100 points and participants being asked to assign a score of each criminal sanction in relationship the standard punis hment. A sanction that is half as severe should be assigned fifty points (May & Wood, 2010; Wood & Grasmick, 1999). Though this method may be the most popular method used, it requires the respondents to have some mathematical ability and may not be appro priate for all populations (May & Wood, 2010; Petersilia & Deschenes, 1994a). Because I was was not appropriate for determining severity in this study. The method of comparative judgment involves asking participants to identify which of the two paired options choices they perceive as being most severe (Spelman, 1995; Wood & May, 2003). Since over thirty conditions are being queried, I decided that having each partici pant indicate which condition is more severe in comparison to each other condition individually would be too cumbersome. The offender generated equivalency method requires participants to make comparisons of criminal sanctions based on their own experienc es of incarceration and alternative sanctions. Typically in this method, participants are asked to indicate the number of months he or she would be willing to serve an alternative sanction in order to avoid a specified length of incarceration, also known 2005; Wood & Grasmick, 1999; Wood & May, 2003). However, it is possible that participants have no past experience with the conditions of probation, and that would make it difficult for them to indicate how long they woul d be willing to serve each condition.

PAGE 91

91 Because I decided these approaches would not be feasible in the current study, I asked respondents to respond to severity using a Likert scale. Likert scales have been used in previous research to determine the perc eived ranking of the difficulty of probation conditions in inmate populations (Petersilia &Deschenes, 1994a). This study extends the method to determining the perceived severity of probation conditions among current probationers. The next group of quest ion (Questions 174 211) was meant to determine how severe a probationer felt the conditions were and to determine if the conditions fell on severity continuum. The probationer was asked to indicate whether he or she felt each of the listed probation cond itions were not severe (1), somewhat severe (2), severe (3) or extremely severe (4). Previous research has been criticized for not addressing what severity means to the participant and why he or she indicated the severity rankings (s)he did (Von Hirsch et al., 1992). In attempt to address this criticism, for each condition that the person indicated as being extremely severe I asked, with the digital recorder on, why the person felt the condition was extremely severe For each condition that the person i ndicated as being not severe I asked, also with the digital recorder on, why the person felt the condition was not severe The following questions (212 (1994a) work in which they had inmates estimate the diff iculty of probation conditions. This work expanded the previous work by increasing the number of probation conditions being asked about from thirteen to thirty two. The probationer was asked to indicate how difficult it is to comply with each of the list ed conditions. Taken from Petersilia and not difficult (90% chance I could do

PAGE 92

92 it) (1), relatively easy (75% chance I could do it) (2), about 50/50 chance I could do it (3), somewhat difficult (25% chance I c ould do it) (4), and v ery difficult (10% chance I could do it) (5). To more fully understand why the probationer perceives the condition to be very difficult, the person then was asked to indicate why he or she felt so (Question 251). The participant was also asked to expand on why he or she felt a condition is not difficult to comply with or to complete. The open ended responses were recorded. As indicate how difficul t does he or she felt the sentence of probation was overall using the above listed answer options. The next section of the survey instrument was designed to determine what the pro bationer saw as potential obstacles for him or her completing or adhering to the conditions of his or her probation and to help determine if these obstacles influenced the perceived severity and difficulty of a particular probation condition. With the digital recorder on, the participant asked what obstacles he or she may face that would prevent a successful completion of probation (Question 252). Then, a list of questions (253 272) asked the participant to indicate his or her level of agreement with whether or not the item was a possible obstacle to successfully completing pro bation. The answer options were strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), agree (3) and strongly agree (4). Once again with the digital recorder on, the person was asked to list anything that may help increase his or her chances of completing probation and wh ether he or she had any suggestions for removing any possible obstacles.

PAGE 93

93 The final section 4 of the survey instrument asked the probationer whether he or she had any policy recommendations regarding the types of criminal sanctions used in the American Cr iminal Justice S ystem. The person was also asked whether there was anything that the person felt I should know about conditions of probation or sanction severity which had not been asked. Both questions were digitally recorded. Variables Dependent Vari ables There were multiple dependent variables utilized in this study, with multiple scales created for each of the three parts of Research Question 2. For R e search Q uestion 2a, which examined the severity of conditions, there were twelve scales created w hile for Research Q uestion 2b, which examined the difficulty of the conditions, there were eleven dependent variables incl uding ten scales created. For R esea rch Q uestion 2c, which examined possible obstacles for adhering or completing to conditions, there were five dependent variables. Research question 2a: Severity In order to develop the severity scales, exploratory factor analysis was first conducted. Factor analysis allows for the discovering and summarizing of the pattern of intercorrelation among v ariables (Wuensch, 2004). Using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) factor analysis was conducted with the items that were meant to assess the severity of probation conditions from the prospective of probationers. The probationers were asked to rate the severity of thirty two differe nt conditions of probation ( e based on a Likert scale with 4 among different types of criminal sanctions. However, the questions are not included in this study, and instead will be used for a different study.

PAGE 94

94 not severe (1 ) somewhat severe (2), severe (3) and extremely severe (4). I ran factor analysis using Varimax rotation, for the purpose of understanding the relationship among the items by approximating a simple structure. Varimax rotation is also the most commonly used rotation (Wuensch, 2004). Scales based on factor analysis. Eight components had Eigenvalue s above one. Scales were created based on what items loaded on the eight components at 0.5 or above 5 ( Table 3 compo sed of the five items: commit no new law violation, report to probati on once a month, answer truthfully to inquiries by probation officers, notify probation officer of changes in residence and notify probation officer of changes in employment/education. The items loaded on the scale at 0.72, 0.79, 0.89, 0.86 and 0.80, resp ectively. The scale items were added together then divided by five in order for the scale values to remain the same as the original coding. Conceptually the items appeared to be related since they are all standard conditions of probation and part of a pe internal consistency. The second scale formed was termed the Table 3 2). It was compo sed of six items: participate in me ntal health treatment, participate in employmen ntervention program, complete anger management, no contact with victim and attend one victim impact panel. The items loaded on the scale at 0.56, 0.55, 0.86, 0.84, 0.65 and 0.6 6, respectively. The six scale items were added together then divided by six. This was done so the scale values 5 The factor analysis showed that the item, pay restitution and the item, complete Milepost class, did not load on any of the eight components at a level above 0.5 and were dropped from the analysis.

PAGE 95

95 Table 3 2. Factor analysis for severity v ariables Scales Factor Loading Scales Factor Loading Routine Condition Scale Punitive Activity Scale Item 1: Commit no new law violation 0.72 Item 1: Complete mandatory CS hours 0.63 Item 2: Report to probation once a month 0.79 Item 2: Complete CS hours in lieu of fees 0.63 Item 3: Answer truthfully to inquiries by PO 0.89 Item 3: Compl ete work crew days 0.73 Item 4: Notify PO of changes in residence 0.86 Item 4: Complete a jail sentence 0.63 Item 5: Notify PO of changes in Employment 0.80 Punitive Restrictive Scale 0.71 Offender Specific Scale Item 2: Abide with order of impoundment 0.83 Item 1: Participate in mental health treatment 0.56 Item 3: Abide by curfew 0.72 Item 2: Participate in employment program 0.55 ntervention 0.86 Standard Financial Scale Item 4: Complete anger management 0.84 Item 1: Pay monthly cost of supervision 0.92 Item 5: No contact with vi ctim 0.65 Item 2: Pay court costs 0.86 Item 6: Attend one victim impact panel 0.66 Standard Visit Scale Item 1: Allow PO to visit residence 0.80 Offense Specific Scale Item 2: Allow PO to visit employment site 0.88 I tem 1: Submit to random screens 0.75 Item 2: Do not possess or consume alcohol 0.71 Standard Employment Scale Item 3: Do not possess or consume drugs 0.63 Item 1: Try to obtain employment 0.87 Item 4: Participate in alcohol treatment 0.59 Item 2: Maintain employment/enrollment 0.79 Item 5: Participate in drug treatment 0.54 0.60

PAGE 96

96 would remain the same as the original variables for comparison purposes. The scale appears to be composed of conditions that are applied based on the offender versus just the offense. For example, individuals charged with battery are not automatically placed into anger management. The particulars of the case and circumstanc es related for the scale was 0.88, which indicated good internal consistency. The third severity scale formed was compo sed of six items ( Table 3 2). The six items were: submit to random screens, do not possess or consume alcohol, do not possess or consume illegal drugs, participate in alcohol treatment, participate in drug 0.58, 0.54 scale items were added together then divided by six for the scale values to remain the same as the original coding. The items conceptually fit, since the items appear to be ones commonly given to offender charged with driving under the influence or to offenders who had the reduced charge of reckless driving with alcohol. Both types of offenders compo showing good i nternal consistency. sed of four items: complete community services in lieu of fees, complete mandatory community services hours, complete work crew days and compete a jail sentence ( Table 3 2). The items loaded on the scale at 0.63, 0.63, 0.73 and 0.63, respectively. The scale items were added together then divided by four for the scale values to remain the same as the original variables. Conceptually the items appeared to be relate d since they were all

PAGE 97

97 punitive conditions of probation. They are also require the probationer to do some sort consistency. r compo impou ndment and abide by curfew ( Table 3 2). The items loaded on the scale at 0.71, 0.83 and 0.72, respectively. The three scale items were added together then divided by comparison purposes. The items appeared to be related since they are all punitive nt. The The remaining three scales were c ompo sed of two items each ( Table 3 2). T he sixth scale formed was compo financial tems were pay monthly cost of supervision, which loaded at 0.92 and pay court costs, which loaded at 0.86. The scale items were added together then The items concep tually fit, since both items are the only two standard conditions that consistency. visit sed of the follow ing two items: allow probation officer to visit residence and allow probation officer to visit employment site. The two items, which loaded on the scale at 0.80 and 0.88, respectively, were added together then divided by two in order for the scale values

PAGE 98

98 to remain the same as the original variables. The scale items were the two standard conditions that involve the probation officer visiting the probation either at home or at his had good internal consistency. items, try to obtain employment and maintain employment/school enrollment, loaded at 0.87, and at 0.79, respectfully. The two scale items were added together then divided by two in order for the scale values to remain the same as the original coding for comparison purposes. The two items conceptually fit since they were both standard cale was 0.81, which indicated good internal consistency. Scales based on literature. According to the literature, conditions of probation fall into one of three categories of conditions: standard, treatment, and punitive (Clarke, 1979; Petersilia, 1997a ). All the conditions included in the study fell into one of these categories. Three severity dependent variables also were created by combining all the conditions that fall into a particular category ( Table 3 3). The first scale that combined all the c compo sed of all the standardized conditions: commit no new law violation, report to probation once a month, answer truthfully to inquiries by probation officers, notify probatio n officer of changes in residence, notify probation officer of changes in employment/education, try to obtain employment, maintain employment/school enrollment, allow probation officer to visit residence, allow probation officer to visit employment site, p

PAGE 99

99 Table 3 3. Severity scales based on l iterature Scales Scales Severity Standard Scale Severity Punitive Scale Item 1: Commit no new law violation Item 1: Complete mandatory CS hours Item 2: Report to probation once a month Item 2: Complete CS hours in lieu of fees Item 3: Answer truthfully to inquiries by PO Item 3: Complete work crew days Item 4: Notify PO of changes in residence Item 4: Complete a jail sentence Item 5: N otify PO of changes in Employment Item 5: Pay restitution Item 6: Try to obtain employment Item 6: No contact with victim Item 7: Maintain employment/enrollment Item 7: Attend one victim impact panel Item 8: Allow PO to visit residence Item 8: Item 9: Allow PO to visit employment site Item 9: Abide with order of impoundment Item 10: Pay monthly cost of supervision Item 10: Abide by curfew Item 11: Pay court costs Severit y Treatment Scale Overall Severity Scale Item 1: Submit to random screens All thirty two conditions Item 2: Do not possess or consume alcohol Item 3: Do not possess or consume drugs Item 4: Partici pate in alcohol treatment Item 5: Participate in drug treatment Item 6: Participate in mental health Treatment Item 7: Participate in employment program Item 8: Complete Milepost class ntervention Item 10: Complete anger management

PAGE 100

100 the scale had good internal consistency. The seco nd scale formed based on the classification used in the literature was 3). It was composed of eleven items: participate in alcohol treatment, participate in drug treatment, participate in mental health, parti values remain ed the same as the original variables for comparison purposes. The The third classification compo sed of ten items: c omplete community service hours in lieu of fees, compete mandatory community service hours, complete work crew days, complete a jail license suspended/revoked, abid e by order of impoun dment, and abide by curfew ( Table 3 3). The scale items were added together then divided by ten in order for the indicated the scale had good interna l consistency. Since there was no question that asked probationers to indicate their overall final dependent variable was created by combining all thirty two conditio ns that probationers were asked to rate the severity of, and then was divided by thirty two. This

PAGE 101

101 nsistency. The Research question 2b: Difficulty There were eleven depe ndent variables used to answer Research Q uestion 2b, which pertained to how difficult probationers perceived conditions of probation to be to adhere to or to c omplete. As was the case with Research Q uestion 2a, exploratory factor analysis was run. The probationers were asked to rate the difficulty severity of the same thirty two different conditions of probation asked about in the severity questions ( e based on a Likert scale with not difficult (90% chance I could do it) (1), relatively eas y (75% chance I could do it) (2), about 50/50 chance I could do it (3), somewhat difficult (25% chance I could do it) (4) and very difficult (10% chance I could do it) (5). Factor analysis was run using Varimax rotation, and seven components had Eigenval ues above one. Once again, scales were created based on what items loaded on the components at 0.5 or above 8 Scales based on factor analysis. d was compo sed of the nine items: participate in alcohol treatment, participate in drug treatment, participate in mental health treatment, participate in employment program, co i nd 8 The factor analysis showed that three item s (i.e., report to probation once a month, no contact with victim and abide by curfew) did not load on any of the seven components at a level above 0.5 and were dropped from the analysis. One item, do not posse ss or consume alcohol, loaded above 0.5 on two components and was dropped from the analysis.

PAGE 102

102 one victim impact panel ( Table 3 4). The items loaded on the scale at 0.65, 0.84, 0.91, 0.87, 0.93, 0.83, 0.76, 0.66 and 0.71, respectively. The scale items were added together then divided by nine in order for the scale values to remain the same as the original variables. Conceptually the items appeared to be related since they all require the indicated the scale had high internal consistency. The second difficult (Table 3 4). It was composed of five items: pay monthly cost of supervision, pay court cost, complete work crew days, complete jail sentence and pay restitution. The items loaded on the scale at 0.9 0, 0.82, 0.73, 0.51 and 0.56, respectively. The five scale would remain the same for as the original variables. The scale appears be composed of conditions that require p robationers to pay and the two conditions that may affect money and make it difficult for individuals to complete the conditions that require alpha for the scale was 0.81, which indicated good internal consistency. The third difficulty scale formed was composed of four items (Table 3 4). The four items were: answer truthfully to inquiries by probation officer, submit to random screens, complete community service hours in lieu of fees and complete mandatory community service hours. The items loaded on the scale at 0.68, 0.70, 0.63 and 0.60, respectively.

PAGE 103

103 Ta ble 3 4. Factor analysis for difficulty v ariables Scales Factor Loading Scales Factor Loading Mandatory Attendance Scale Drug Employment Scale I tem 1: Participate in alcohol treatment 0.65 Item 1: Try to obtain employment 0.85 Item 2: Participat e in drug treatment 0.84 Item 2: Maintain employment/enrollment 0.59 Item 3: Participate in mental health treatment 0.91 Item 3: Do not possess or consume drugs 0.61 Item 4: Participate in employment program 0.87 Item 5: Complete Milepost class 0.93 ntervention 0.83 Notification Scale Item 7: Complete anger management 0.76 Item 1: Notify PO of changes in residence 0.90 0.66 Item 2: Notify PO of changes in Employment 0.92 Item 9: Attend one victim impact panel 0.71 Restriction Scale Monetary Concerns Scale Item 1: Commit no new law violation 0.58 Item 1: Pay monthly cost of supervision Item 2: D 0.69 Item 3: Complete work crew days 0.56 Item 3: Abide with order of impoundment 0.70 Item 4: Complete a jail sentence 0.51 Item 5: Pay restitution 0.73 Difficulty Visits Scale Item 1: Allow PO to visit residence 0.87 Accountability Scale Item 2: Allow PO to visit employment site 0.88 Item 1: Answer truthfully to inquiries by PO 0.68 Item 2: Submit to random screens 0.70 Item 3: Complete mandatory CS hours 0.6 3 Item 4: Complete CS hours in lieu of fees 0.60

PAGE 104

104 divided by four in order for the scale values to remain the same as the original coding. The items may go together since they hold the probationer accountable. T he community service might hold the probationer accountable by having him or her do work in the community where others may see the probationer. Random screens hold the probationer accountable by ensuring that he or she is not drinking or using substances. Telling the truth to the probation officer holds the probationer accountable for his or her internal consistency than most of the other scales. The fourth scale formed employment sc 4). It was compo sed of three items: try to obtain employment, maintain employment/school enrollment and do not possess or consume illegal drugs. The items loaded on the scale at 0.85, 0.59, and 0.61, respectively. The three scale items were added together then divided by three, so the scale values would remain the same as the original variables for ease of interpretation. The items may be related since two items involve obtaining and maintaining employment. For those who use drugs, obtaining and maintaining indicated lower internal consistency than so me of the other scales used in the study T he fifth scale formed was compo sed of 4). The two items were to notify probation officer of changes in residence, which loaded at 0.90 and notify probation officer of changes in employment/education, which loaded at 0.92. The scale items were added together coding. The items conceptually fit, since both items are standard conditions and involve

PAGE 105

105 notifying his or her probation officer about c alpha for the scale was 0.84, showing good internal consistency. 4). It was compo nse suspended/revoked and abide by order of impoundment. The item, commit no new law suspended/revoked loaded at 0.69, while the third item, abide by order of impoundment loade d at 0.69. The scale items were added together then divided by three in order for the scale values to remain the same as the original coding. The items may have loaded on the same component because they involve restrictions on the probationer. Having on restrict a probationer from doing things he or she might usually do if it were not for him o indicated poor internal consistency. This was the lowest alpha across all scales. The remai ning difficulty scale was compo sed of two items and became the visits sc 4). It was compo sed two items: allow probation officer to visit residence and allow probation officer to visit employment site. The two items loaded on the scale at 0.87 and 0.88, respectively. The items were added then divided by two in order for the scale values to remain the same as the original coding. The consistency.

PAGE 106

106 S cales based on literature. As was the case with severity, dependent variables also were created by combining all the conditions that fall into the standard, treatment and punitive categories to allow comparison with the literature (Table 3 5). The first probation once a month, answer truthfully to inquirie s by probation officers, notify probation officer of changes in residence, notify probation officer of changes in employment/education, try to obtain employment, maintain employment/school enrollment, allow probation officer to visit residence, allow probation officer to visit em ployment site, pay monthly cost of supervision and pay court cost) were combined and then divided by eleven in order for scale values to remain the same as the original consistency 5). It was composed of the eleven treatment conditions that probationers were asked about in the interview instrument. Those items were: participate in alcohol treatment, participate in drug treatment, participate in mental health, participate in employment w alpha for the scale was 0.92, which indicated high internal consistency. The third difficulty scale created using the literature based classification was the nitive sc 5). It was compo sed of the same ten items the

PAGE 107

107 Table 3 5. Difficulty scales based on li terature Scales Scales Difficulty Standard Scale Difficulty Punitive Scale Item 1: Commit no new law violation Item 1: Complete mandatory CS hours Item 2: Report to probation once a month Item 2: Complete CS hours in lieu of fees Item 3: Answer truthfully to inquiries by PO Item 3: Complete work crew days Item 4: Notify PO of changes in residence Item 4: Complete a jail sentence I tem 5: Notify PO of changes in e mployment Item 5: Pay restitution Item 6: Try to obtain employment Item 6: No contact with victim Item 7: Maintain employment/enrollment Item 7: Attend one victim impact panel Item 8: Allow PO to visit residenc e Item 9: Allow PO to visit employment site Item 9: Abide with order of impoundment Item 10: Pay monthly cost of supervision Item 10: Abide by curfew Item 11: Pay court costs Difficulty Treatment Scale Item 1: Submit to random screens Item 2: Do not possess or consume alcohol Item 3: Do not possess or consume drugs I tem 4: Participate in alcohol treatment Item 5: Participate in drug treatment Item 6: Participate in mental health treatment Item 7: Participate in employment program Item 8: Complete Milepost class ntervention Item 10: Complete anger management

PAGE 108

108 sed of and those items were: complete community service hours in lieu of fees, compete mandatory community service hours, complete work crew days, complete a jail sentence, pay restitution, no contact with victim, attend impoundment, and abide by curfew. In order for scale values to remain consistent with the original coding, the scale items were added together t hen divided by ten. The Unlike severity, the probationers were asked to indicate their overall perception of the difficulty of their sentence of probation (Question 251). The re sponse options were the same as all difficulty questions. This was the final difficulty dependent variable used. This variable made the total number of dependent variables used to a nswer Research Q he difficulty of probation conditions, be eleven. Of the eleven difficulty variables, ten were scales. Research question 2c: Obstacles Research Q uestion 2c tries to determine what probationers see as potential obstacles that might hinder their ability to complete or adhere to their conditions of probation. The probationers were asked to indicate their level of agreement rate options were based on a Likert scale with 1 stron gly disagree 2 disagree 3 agree and 4 strongly agree Using SPSS factor analysis was conducted in order to determine patterns among the variables. I utilized a Varimax rotation and found five components

PAGE 109

109 had Eigenvalues above one. Five scales were fo rmed with the items that loaded on the five components at 0.5 or above 9 Table 3 6. Factor analysis for obstacles v ariables Scales Factor Loading Transportation Attendance Obstacles Scale Item 1: Finding time to report monthly 0.62 Item 2: Transpo rtation to work 0.85 Item 3: Transportation to report monthly 0.88 Item 4: Transportation to do CS hours 0.79 Responsibility Obstacle Scale Item 1: Finding a job 0.90 Item 2: Finding a good job 0.82 Item 3: Maintaining a residence 0.51 Tracking Obstacles Scale Item 1: Paying court cost 0.86 Item 2: Paying monthly COS 0.86 Item 3: Number of probation conditions 0.54 Punitive Obstacles Scale Item 1: Finding time to do CS hours 0.58 Item 2: Finding time to do work crew 0.91 Item 3: Paying restitution 0.72 Living Environment S cale Item 1: Avoiding drinking alcohol 0.62 Item 2: Avoiding using drugs 0.69 Item 3: Lack of family support 0.56 Item 4: Neighborhood conditions 0.53 9 The factor analysis showed the item participating in treatment, and the item, maintaining a job, did not load above 0.5. They w ere both removed from the analy sis. Additionally, the item, transportation to do work crew, loaded above 0.5 on two components and therefore was removed from the analysis.

PAGE 110

110 attendance obsta 6). It was composed of the four items: finding time to report monthly, transportation to work, transportation to report monthly to probation office and transportation to community service location. The items loaded on the scale at 0. 62, 0.85, 0.88 and 0.79, respectively. As was the case in all the previous scales, the scale items were added together then divided by number of items in order for the values of the scale to remain the same as the original coding. These items appear to b e related conceptually since three items involve acquiring transportation to locations and the fourth item involves consistency. The second scale involving potential obsta cles for probationers was compo sed of three items. The three items were finding a job, finding a good paying job and maintaining a residence, which loaded on the scale at 0.90, 0.82 and 0.51, respectively. together then divided by three in order for scale values to remain the same as the original variables. The three items seem to load on the same component since they are activities that involve some level of resp onsibility. Find a job, good or not, requires a person to take some responsibility, as does maintaining a residence (e.g., paying bills, cleaning house). The Cronbach alpha for the scale was 0.81, showing good internal consistency. The third obstacle sc 6). It was compo sed of three items: paying court costs, paying monthly cost of supervision, number of probation conditions. The items loaded on the scale at 0.85, 0.86, and 0.54,

PAGE 111

111 respectively. The t hree scale items were added together then divided by three, so the values would be comparable as the original variables. The items may be related because two items are conditions that involve making payments. These conditions require that the probationer keep track of what he or she has paid, as well as track of what he or she still is required to pay. The third condition requires the probationer to keep track of all his or her conditions of probation so he or she is able to complete or adhere to the con good internal consistency. Th e fourth scale formed was compo 6). The three items were finding time to do community service hours, which loaded at 0.58, finding time to do work crew, which loaded at 0.91, and paying restitution, which loaded at 0.72. The scale items were added together then ginal coding. The items conceptually fit since the three items involve completing or adhering to punitive conditions. Punitive conditions are imposed on a probationer as a way to reflect the seriousness of his or her offense by increasing the invasivenes s and punitiveness of probation (Petersilia, 1997a). The three items might load together because their invasiveness and punitiveness might be seen as an obstacle. The The final 6). It was compo sed of four items: avoiding drinking alcohol, avoiding using drugs, neighborhood conditions and lack of family support. The item, avoiding drinking alcohol, loaded on the compone nt at 0.62, while the second item, avoiding using drugs, loaded at 0.69. The

PAGE 112

112 third item, neighborhood conditions, loaded at 0.56. The final item, lack of family support, loaded at 0.53. The scale items were added together then divided by four in order f or scale values to remain consistent with the original coding. The items may have loaded on fifth component because they might be obstacles involving the be obstacles, as well as avoiding drinking and using drugs if those substances are in number of dependent variables examining potential obstacles to five. Overall there were twenty eight different dependent variables. Independent Variables Independent variables were selected based on previous research and consisted of information taken from both the official data and the self report data. There were twenty three independent variables included in the analysis. They were classified as variables that focused on personal characteristics, previous criminal history, and current offense and probation s entence. Personal characteristics variables Nine of the independent variables are variables that describe personal characteristics about the probationer. The first independent variable was age and was The variable was left as a continuous variable. The second independent variable was race and was also taken from official data. The files that indicated the individual was White were listed as a 1, the files that indicated the individual was Black/Afric an American were listed as a 2 and those that indicated any race besides White or Black were listed as a 3. Asian was the only other

PAGE 113

113 race listed in the records. The respondents were recoded to 0 indicating non White and 1 indicating White. Gender the t hird independent variable, was also collected from official records. Individuals identified as male were coded as a 1, while those identified as female were coded as a 0. The next several independent were gathered from self report information. The var iable ethnicity Hispanic. Those that indicated Hispanic were listed as 1 and those that indicated non Hispanic were married, widowed, divorced, separated, never married and living with a partner. The i ndependent variable, marital status was recoded so those who self reported being married were coded as 1 and all other response options were coded as 0. Parental status you ha 0. The seventh independent variable was years of education and was also taken from the self education y high school, GED, some college, and other. The responses were coded so the option matched the years of education (i.e., 4th grade was coded as 4, 9nd grade was coded as 9). In the c ase of 12th grade and GED, both were recoded into 12, for 12 years of school. The responses that indicated education beyond high school or general

PAGE 114

114 equivalence diploma (GED) were coded to correspond with the approximate years of education. For example asso and 16, respectively. This created the years of education variable which was continuous. The eighth independent variable created based on personal characteristics was employment status Probatione time, part time, not employed and other. The response options were recoded so those who reported being employed full time or part time were listed as 1. All o ther options (e.g., retired, disabled) were listed as not employed and coded as a 0. The final independent variable was sample Those who were conveniently sampled were coded a 1 and those who were randomly sampled were coded as a 0. Previous criminal history variables The next seven independent variables discussed were all variables collected from the official data. Unfortunately, it was not able to be determined if the juvenile records found in the NCIC/FCIC were complete and therefore the juvenile arrest information adult criminal history. The first independent variable focusing on criminal history was a dichotomous variable and titled previous criminal history Those who had a previous criminal history were coded as 1, while those with no previous criminal history were coded as 0. In order to account for varying level of criminal histories in terms of seriousness, a seriousness of criminal history variable wa s created. During data collection, I recorded

PAGE 115

115 all previous arrest offense levels (e.g., 1st degree felony, 2nd degree misdemeanor 10 ). ublic order, drug, property or violent offense. During data entry each arrest was placed into the crime type with the corresponding offense level (e.g., 1st degree drug felony =5, 2nd degree drug felony = 4, 3rd degree drug felony = 3, 1st degree drug mis demeanor = 2 and 2nd degree drug misdemeanor = 1). To create the seriousness of criminal history variable, all 1st degree felony offenses, regardless of crime type were combined into a dichotomous variable (i.e., 1st degree felony present= 1, no 1st degre e felony present= 0). This also was done for the remaining two felony levels and two misdemeanor levels. Once the dichotomous variables were created the seriousness of history variable was created by combining the offense level variables. The presence o f offense at each offense level corresponded with a number value: 1st degree felony =5, 2nd degree felony = 4, 3rd degree felony = 3, 1st degree misdemeanor = 2 and 2nd degree misdemeanor = 1. The higher the value the more serious the previous record, wit h fifteen being the highest level or A zero indicated none of the five offense levels were present. 10 A felony is any criminal offense punishable by more than one year of incarceration in a correctional institution; t here are five levels of felony. Capital felony is limited to the charge of murder and is punishable by death or life imprisonment. Life felony is p unishable up to forty years to life and a maximum fine of $15,000 (MyFloridaDefenseLawyer.com, 2011 indicated either level. First degree felonies are punishable up to thirty years and a fine of $10,000. Second degree felonies are punishable up to fifteen years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The final felony level, third degree felonies, is punishable up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Misdemeanors are criminal offense punishable by less than a year of incar ceration in jail; there are two levels of misdemeanors. First degree misdemeanors are punishable up to one year in jail and a fine of $1,000, while second degree misdemeanors are punishable up to sixty days in jail and a $500 fine (MyFloridaDefenseLawyer. com, 2011)

PAGE 116

116 The eleventh independent variable was prior violent offense If record indicated having a prior violent offense, regardless of the level of offense, the file was coded as a 1. Those with no evidence of a prior violent offense were coded as 0. The independent variable, prior probation sentence was also a dichotomous variable. Any criminal histories that had a prior disposition of probation were coded 1 and those with no dispositions indicating a prior probation sentence were coded as 0. Prior violation history was also a dichotomous variable indicating whether the official records showed the person being arrested for a violation of probation. If the person had an arrest for a violation of probation on a previous probation sentence the file was coded as 1. If the person did not have an arrest for a vio lation of probation the file was coded as 0. In order to account of jail experience the jail history variable was created. Any record that showed the person had received a case disposition of jail was coded as a 1. Any record that did not show the person had received a case disposition of jail was coded as 0. Due to a low frequency of individuals having a case disposition of a prison sentence, it was decided to not have a variable for prison history. However, a variable was created the indicated t prison history. The prior sentence history variable was created by coding any record the indicated a prison sentence a 3. Those with a jail sentence were coded a 2 and those with a probation se ntence coded a 1. The higher the number value the more

PAGE 117

117 Current offense and probation sentence var iables probation sentence. The seventeenth variable, current offense type was an ordinal variable and taken from official records. The most serious offense for which the pro offense. The offenses were classified into crime offense type using the modified BJS classification system. Public order offenses were coded as 1, drug offenses as 2, p roperty as 3 and violent offenses were coded as 4. Another variable based on the current offense was violent offense The variable was also taken from official records. If the individual was on probation for a violent offense, the person was coded as 1. For those on probation for non violent offenses they were coded as 0. sentence taken from self report data was the independent variable, plea bargain The probationers were aske Those that indicated yes were coded as 1 and those that indicated no were coded as 0. reduced from a higher level charge. For example if the person had originally been arrested or charged with a felony and it was reduced to a misdemeanor. This information was used to create the variable charge level reduction Those whose records showed a reduction in charge level s were coded as 1 and those whose records did not were coded as 0. The final three independent variables address any violations that a person may have received on his or her current charge and were all collected from official records. If the probationer

PAGE 118

118 code of 1. If the file or record did not indicate a violation it was coded as 0. This created the dichotomous variable, violation of probation The variable, new law violation was c reated by coding those with new law violations as 1 and those with no new law violations as 0. Similarly, those with technical violations were coded as 1 and those with no technical violations were coded as 0. This created the final independent variable, technical violation In total there were twenty two independent variables used in the analysis. Some were collected from official records and some were collected from self report information Sample Characteristics Response Rate Response rates were calculated using the American Association for Public distinguishes between response rates and cooperation rates. It also sets criteria for ineligibility, and specifies ways for cal culating refusal and noncontact rates. The calculator allows for response and nonresponse rates to be standardized, which allows rates to be compared across surveys of varying research (AAPOR, 2011). esses surveys Standard Definitions in order to categorize the sample (Table 3 7). The 202 individuals interviewed were categorized in Category 1. Category 1 includes all tho se interviewed and all 202 individuals were listed under complete versus partial since all the individuals completed the interview.

PAGE 119

119 T able 3 7. Outcome rate c ategories Categories Number Category 1 Interview Complete 202 Category 2 Eligible: Non interview Refusal and breakoff 97 Refusal 65 Miscellaneous 32 Category 3 Unknown eligibility, non interview Other 25 Category 4 Not eligible No eligible respondent 96 Total 517 Under Category 2, Eligible: Non interview, ninety sev en individuals were listed under refusal and breakoff. This classification is used for cases in which contact has been made and the person agreed to participate but the interview never occurs for various reasons (e.g., never answers the telephone at the d esignated time) (AAPOR, 2009). This is different than partial interviews because in the case of refusal breakoff the interview never began. For this study any individual who agreed to participate but was never interviewed, either because they failed to s how up, cancelled or never set up an interview, were listed as refusal and breakoff. Sixty five individuals were listed as refusal. They were individuals who never agreed to participate and instead refused outright. Thirty two individuals were listed as miscellaneous, since the person did not refuse to be interviewed and no interview was conducted. These were individuals with whom I was not able to have direct in person contact. Twenty five individuals were placed under Category 3, Unknown eligibility: Non interview; specifically under the classification of other. This classification is used for situations where the eligibility of the person is undetermined and which does not fit into one of the other classifications (AAPOR, 2009). For the purpose of this study,

PAGE 120

120 individuals whose status was listed as administrative or mail in were placed into this mission, mail in status during specific months). The final category, Category 4 Not eligible, had ninety six individuals listed under the classification of no eligible respondent. These are individuals who are no longer eligible to participate in the st (Appendix A ) This included people whose probation sentence ended or individuals who never reported to probation during the course of the entire study. Additionally this included individuals who were wait ing for a violation of probation case to be resolved and those who were removed from their current probation due to a violation of probation. calculated the response rate, coop eration rate, refusal rate and contact rate for the study (Table 3 8). In order to calculate the Response Rate 1 (RR1) the number of completed interviews is divided by the total number from Category 1 (i.e., interviews), Category 2 (i.e., eligible non int erviews) and Category 3 (i.e., unknown eligible non interviews). The RR1 is also referred to as the minimum response rate For this study the RR1 was 48% The Response Rate 3 (RR3) is similar to RR1 but differs since it attempts to estimate what proport ion of unknown eligibility individuals are actually eligible (AAPOR, 2009). The RR3 for this study was 48.5 % which is only 0.5 % greater than the RR1. The Response Rate 2 and Response Rate 4 were not used since all

PAGE 121

121 interviews were complete interviews and those response rate calculations focus on partial interviews. Table 3 8. Rate e stimates Estimates Percent Response rate Response rate 1 (RR1) 48.0 Response rate 3 (RR3) 48.5 Cooperation rate Cooperation rate 1 (COOP1) 51.0 Cooperation rate 3 (COOP3) 55.5 Refusal rate Refusal rate 1 (REF1) 38.5 Refusal rate 2 (REF2) 38.9 Refusal rate 3 (REF3) 40.9 Contact rate Contact rate 1 (CON1) 94.1 Contact rate 2 (CON2) 95.2 Contact rate 3 (CON3) 100.0 he proportion of all cases interviewed of all eligible units referred to as the minimum cooperation rate, is the number of completed interviewed divided by the total number o f from Category 1 plus the total number of non interviews who were eligible individuals (e.g., refusal and break off, refusal) (AAPOR, 2009). The COOP1 for the study was 51% The Cooperation Rate 3 (COOP3) is similar but removes those who were unable to do the interview and identifies them as incapable of cooperating (AAPOR, 2009). The COOP3 was 55.5 % which is only slightly greater than COOP1. The Cooperation Rate 2 and 4 were not included because they focus on partial interviews. Refusal rates are the percentage of cases where the individual refused to be interviewed or broke off on interview. The Refusal Rate 1 (REF1) is calculated by

PAGE 122

122 dividing the number of refusals by the total number of interviews, non respondents and cases where eligibility is unknown (AAPOR, 2009). In this study the REF1 is 38.5 % The Refusal Rate 2 (REF2) includes the estimates of eligible individuals among situations when eligibility might be unknown (AAPOR, 2009). The REF2 was 38.9 % only slightly greater than REF1. The final refusal rate that was calculated, Refusal Rate 3 (REF3) is similar to the others but the unknowns are not included. The REF3 for the study was 40.9 % Contact rates refer to the percentage of cases where the individuals were reached by the study r contact rates. The Contact Rate 1 (CON1) is calculated assuming that all individuals whose eligibility was indeterminate were actually eligible (AAPOR, 2009). The CON1 was 94.1 % The Cont act Rate 2 (CON2) includes only the estimated eligible cases among the indeterminate eligibility individuals, while Contact Rate 3 (CON3) includes only the known eligible individuals (AAPOR, 2009). The CON2 was 95.2 % and CON3 was 100% Overall, the respo nse rates w ere slightly under 50% while the cooperation rates were all slightly above 50% All refusal rates were under 42% while contact rates were all abov e 94% Interviewees The study contained a total sample of 517 misdemeanant probationers. Table 3 10 illustrates demographic information for the entire sample (gleaned from random sample of official records plus the additional convenience sample official records) and illustrates differences between the people who were interviewed and those who were not. It allows an examination of the representativeness of the interviewed sampled. Descriptive information about the total sample was obtained through official data. Of

PAGE 123

123 the 517 individuals comprising the total sample, 202 were interviewed. In order to have included both offici al data and interview data ( Table 3 9). Personal characteristics Among the 202 probationers interviewed, the mean age was 35.9 years o ld. How ever, the mode age was twenty three and the age range of the interviewees was nineteen to sixty nine years of age. The majority (N= 128, 63.4%) of the sample was male. Sixty percent (N= 121, 59.9%) of the interviewed sample was White, and nearly 40% was Black (N= 80, 39.6%). Less than 1% (N= 1, 0.5%) of the interviewed sample was Asian (Table 3 10). Ninety three percent (N= 188, 93.1%) self reported being non Hispanic (Table 3 11). Table 3 9. Origin of i nformation Official Data Interview Data Pe rsonal Characteristics Age X Gender X Race X Ethnicity X Marital status X Parental status X Education X Employment status X Length of stay in neighborhood X Juvenile Justice System History History present X Age of first arrest X Number of arrests X Violation of probation present X Adult Justice System History History present X Jurisdictional information X Arrest history Age of first arrest X Number of arrests X Seriousness history X

PAGE 124

124 Table 3 9. Continued Official Data Interview Data Probation history Prior probation present X X Number of probation X Longest probation sentence (in months) X Violation of probation Violation of probation present X X Number of violations X New law violation present X X Number of new law violations X Jail history Jail sentence present X X Number of jail sentences X Longest jail sentence (in days) X Prison history Prison sentence present X X Number of prison sentences X Longest prison sentence (in months) X Parole violation present X Sanction seriousness history X Alternative sanction(s) present X Electronic monitoring X Intensive supervision probation X Day reporting X Boot camp X Pretrial release violation present X Pretrial diversion present X Current Probation Type of offense X X Sentence result of a plea X Charges Number of current charges X Reduction in number of charges X Reduction in number of counts X Reduction in offense level X Sentence X X Time served at time of interview X Violation of probation Violation of probation present X X New law violation present X X Number of new law violations X Technical vio lation X X Number of technical violations X

PAGE 125

125 Table 3 10. Sample description based on official d ata Total N= 517 Interviewed N= 202 Not Interviewed N= 315 Codes N % N % N % t X Personal Characteristics Age Mean age 3 4.9 35.9 34.2 1.56 Mode age 24.0 23.0 24.0 Median age 31.0 34.0 31.0 Age range 19 69 19 69 19 68 Gender 8.75** Female 0 150 29.0 74 36.6 76 24.1 Male 1 367 71.0 128 63.4 239 75.9 Race 6.38* W hite 1 275 53.2 121 59.9 154 48.9 Black 2 237 45.8 80 39.6 157 49.8 Asian 3 5 1.0 1 0.5 4 1.3 Juvenile Justice System History History present Yes= 1 72 14 18 8.9 54 17.1 6.29** Age of first arrest Mean ag e of first arrest 15.0 13.8 15.4 2.30* Mode age of first arrest 16.0 14.0 17.0 Median age of first arrest 15.0 14.0 16.0 Age range of first arrest 1 17 7 17 10 17 Number of arrests Mean number of arrests 3.6 4.2 3.4 0.75 Mode number of arrests 1.0 1.0 1.0 Median number of arrests 2.0 3.0 2.0 Range of number of arrests 1 21 1 13 1 21 Violation of probation present Yes= 1 17 24 6 33 11 20.4 1.64 T test of Independent Samples and Chi Square p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 126

126 Table 3 10. Continued Total N= 517 Interviewed N= 202 Not Interviewed N= 315 Codes N % N % N % t X Adult Justice System History History present Yes= 1 382 73.9 144 71.3 238 75.6 0.95 No F lorida (FL) history Yes= 1 13 3.4 7 4.8 6 2.5 FL & 1 additional jurisdiction 1 47 12.3 13 9.0 34 14.3 FL & 2 additional jurisdiction 2 13 3.4 6 4.2 7 2.9 FL & 3 additional jurisdiction 3 1 0.3 0 0.0 1 0.4 Arrest history Age o f first arrest Mean age of first arrest 23.0 24.3 22.2 2.79** Mode age of first arrest 19.0 19.0 19.0 Median age of first arrest 21.0 21.0 20.0 Age range of first arrest 15 53 17 53 15 53 Number of arrest s Mean number of arrests 8.1 7.5 8.5 1.04 Mode number of arrests 1.0 1.0 1.0 Median number of arrests 5.0 4.0 5.0 Range number of arrests 1 56 1 56 1 47 Seriousness history Mean seriousness h istory 4.0 3.6 4.3 2.04 Mode seriousness history 3.0 0.0 0.0 Median seriousness history 0.0 2.0 3.0 Range seriousness history 0 15 0 15 0 15 Probation history Prior probation present Yes= 1 248 64.9 88 61.1 160 67.2 1.22 Number of probation Mean number of sentences 2.6 2.6 2.5 0.32 Mode number of sentences 1.0 1.0 1.0 Median number of sentences 2.0 2.0 2.0 T test of Independent Samples and Chi Square p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 127

127 Table 3 10. Continued Total N= 517 Interviewed N= 202 Not Interviewed N= 315 Codes N % N % N % t X Range number of sentences 1 15 1 11 1 15 Longest probation sentence (in months) Mean longest sentence 2 1.5 19.1 22.8 1.04 Mode longest sentence 12.0 12.0 12.0 Median longest sentence 12.0 12.0 12.0 Range longest sentence 1 300 6 120 1 300 Violation of probation Violation of probation present Yes= 1 192 50.3 64 44.4 128 53.8 2.77 Number of violations Mean number of violations 3.5 3.8 3.3 0.91 Mode number of violations 1.0 1.0 1.0 Median number of violations 2.0 2.0 2.0 Range number of violations 1 18 1 18 1 16 Number of new law violations Mean number of violations 2.4 2.5 2.3 0.33 Mode number of violations 1.0 1.0 1.0 Median number of violations 2.0 2.0 2.0 Range number of violations 1 13 1 13 1 9 Jail histo ry Jail sentence present Yes= 1 176 46.1 58 40.3 118 49.6 2.63 Number of jail sentences Mean number of sentences 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.12 Mode number of sentences 2.0 2.0 2.0 Median number of sentences 2.0 2.0 2.0 Range number of sentences 1 16 1 15 1 16 Longest jail sentence (in days) Mean longest sentence 139.2 127.4 145.0 0.89 T test of Independent Samples and Chi Square p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 128

128 Table 3 10. Continued Total N= 517 Interviewed N= 202 Not Interviewed N= 315 Codes N % N % N % t X Mode longest sentence 364.0 180.0 364.0 Median longest sentence 90.0 90.0 90.0 Range longest sentence 1 364 1 364 1 364 Prison history Prison sentence present Yes= 1 68 17.8 22 15.3 46 19.3 0.75 Number of prison sentences Mean longest sentence 3.1 2.7 3.3 0.74 Mode longest sentence 1.0 1.0 1.0 Median longest sentence 2.0 2.0 2.0 Range longest sentence 1 15 1 14 1 15 Longest prison sentence (in months) Mean longest sentence 270.6 105.3 349.7 1.07 Mode longest sentence 12.0 12.0 & 98.0 12.0 Median longest sentence 40.0 33.0 48.0 Range l ongest sentence 12 10 800 12 720 12 10,800 Parole violation present Yes= 1 4 5.9 2 1.4 2 4.3 0.07 Sanction seriousness history Mean sanction history 1.9 1.3 1.7 2.13* Mode sanction history 0.0 0.0 0.0 Median sancti on history 1.0 1.0 1.0 Range sanction history 0 6 0 6 0 6 Alternative sanction(s) present Yes= 1 15 3.9 4 2.7 11 4.6 0.39 Pretrial release violation present Yes= 1 8 2.1 5 3.5 3 1.2 1.18 Pretrial diversion present Yes= 1 30 7.8 7 4 .9 23 9.7 2.20 T test of Independent Samples and Chi Square p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 129

129 Table 3 10. Continued Total N= 517 Interviewed N= 202 Not Interviewed N= 315 Codes N % N % N % t X Current Probation Type of offense 2. 31 Public order 1 280 54.2 115 56.9 165 52.4 Drug 2 49 9.5 15 7.4 34 10.8 Property 3 78 15.1 28 13.9 50 15.9 Violent 4 110 21.3 44 21.8 66 20.9 Charges Number of current charges Mean number of charges 1.3 1 .3 1.4 1.32 Mode number of charges 1.0 1.0 1.0 Median number of charges 1.0 1.0 1.0 Range number of charges 1 6 1 6 1 6 Reduction Number of charges Yes= 1 96 18.6 30 14.9 66 20.9 1.24 Number of counts Yes= 1 26 5.0 11 5.4 15 4.8 0.28 Offense level Yes= 1 88 17.0 36 17.8 52 16.5 1.37 Sentence (in months) Mean sentence length 11.0 11.1 11.0 0.41 Mode sentence length 12.0 12.0 12.0 Median sentence length 12.0 12.0 12.0 Sentence range 6 60 6 12 6 60 Violation of probation Violation of probation present Yes= 1 143 27.7 42 20.8 101 32.1 7.26** New law violation present Yes= 1 81 58.3 24 57.1 57 56.4 0.00 Number of new law violations Mean number of violations 1.8 1.5 1.9 1.53 Mode number of violations 1.0 1.0 1.0 T test of Independent Samples and Chi Square p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 130

130 Table 3 10. Continued Total N= 517 Interviewed N= 202 Not Intervie wed N= 315 Codes N % N % N % t X Median number of violations 1.0 2.0 1.0 Range number of violations 1 6 1 5 1 6 Technical violation Yes= 1 124 89.2 33 78.6 91 90.1 8.48** Number of technical violations Mean number of violations 3.3 3.0 3.4 0.99 Mode number of violations 4.0 1.0 4.0 Median number of violations 3.0 3.0 3.5 Range number of violations 1 6 1 6 1 6 T test of Independent Samples and Chi Square p< .05 ** p<.01 ** p<.001

PAGE 131

131 Table 3 11. Sample description based on self report d ata Total Interviewed N=202 Random Sample N= 153 Convenience Sample N= 49 Codes N % N % N % t X Personal Characteristics Ethnicity 0.00 Non Hispanic 0 188 93.1 1 43 93.5 45 91.8 Hispanic 1 13 6.4 10 6.5 3 6.1 Marital status 0.00 Married 1 27 13.4 20 13.1 7 14.3 Not Married 0 172 85.1 131 86.3 41 83.7 Divorced 40 19.8 30 19.6 10 20.4 Separated 13 6.4 11 7.2 2 4.1 Never married 103 51.0 77 50.3 26 53.1 Living with partner 17 8.4 14 9.2 3 6.1 Parental status 0.14 No children 0 80 39.6 59 38.6 21 42.9 Children 1 One child 41 20.3 30 19.6 11 22.4 Two children 34 16.8 24 15.7 10 20.4 Three children 21 10.4 16 10.5 5 10.2 Four children 14 6.9 12 7.8 2 4.1 Five children 3 1.5 3 2.0 0 0.0 Six children 4 2.0 4 2.6 0 0.0 Seven children 3 1.5 3 2.0 0 0.0 Eight children 2 1.0 2 1.3 0 0.0 Number of children Mean number of children 2.5 2.7 1.9 2.32** Mode number of children 1.0 1.0 1.0 Median number of children 2.0 2.0 2.0 Currently living with child Yes= 1 61 50.0 44 46.8 17 60.7 1.16 T test of Independent Samples and Chi Square p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 132

132 Table 3 11. Continued Total Interviewed N=202 Random Sample N= 153 Convenience Sample N= 49 Codes N % N % N % t X Education 4 th grade 4 1 0.5 1 0.7 0 0.0 6 th gr ade 6 1 0.5 1 0.7 0 0.0 7 th grade 7 1 0.5 1 0.7 0 0.0 8 th grade 8 2 1.0 2 1.3 0 0.0 9 th grade 9 1 0.5 1 0.7 0 0.0 10 th grade 10 2 1.0 2 1.3 0 0.0 11 th grade 11 16 7.9 10 6.5 6 12.2 12 th grade/ GED 12 79 39.1 62 40.5 17 34.7 Some college 13 63 31.2 43 28.1 20 40.8 14 15 7.4 14 9.1 1 2.0 16 13 6.9 10 6.5 3 6.1 18 4 2.0 3 2.0 1 2.0 Ph.D. 22 1 0.5 1 0.7 0 0.0 Mean (in years) 12.6 12.6 12.7 0.33 Mode (in years) 12.0 12.0 13.0 Employment status 12.0 12.0 13.0 0.74 Employed Yes= 1 118 58.4 87 56.9 31 63.3 Full time 1 81 40.1 61 39.9 20 40.8 Part time 2 37 18.3 26 17.0 11 22.4 Not employed No= 0 83 41.1 66 43.1 17 34.7 Unemployed 3 59 29.2 45 29.4 14 28.6 Disabled 4 12 5.9 12 7.8 0 0.0 Retired 6 1 0.5 1 0.7 0 0.0 Student 5 11 5.4 8 5.2 3 6.1 T test of Independent Samples and Chi Square p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 133

133 Table 3 11. Continued Total Interviewed N=202 Random Sample N= 153 Convenience Sample N= 49 Codes N % N % N % t X Length of stay in neighborhood (in months) Mean 63.1 72.4 34.3 2.72 ** Mode 12.0 24.0 2.0 Median 21.0 24.0 12.0 Range 0.17 564 0.25 564 0.17 480 Prior Criminal Justice Experience Probation Yes= 1 100 49.5 75 49.0 25 51.0 0.01 Violation of probation Yes= 1 30 30.0 24 32.0 6 24.0 0.34 New law violation Yes= 1 12 17.6 11 45.8 1 16.7 0. 93 Electronic monitoring Yes= 1 7 3.5 6 3.9 1 2.0 0.03 Intensive supervision probation Yes= 1 12 5.9 10 6.5 2 4.1 0.08 Day reporting Yes= 1 15 7.4 10 6.5 5 10.2 0.29 Boot camp Yes= 1 2 1.0 1 0.7 1 2.0 0.01 Jail Yes= 1 67 33.2 46 30.1 21 42.9 2.11 Prison Yes= 1 21 10.4 19 12.4 2 4.1 1.95 Current Probation Type of offense Public order 1 110 54.5 84 55.3 26 53.1 0.00 Drug 2 17 8.4 13 8.6 4 8.2 0.00 Property 3 27 13.4 15 9.9 12 24.5 5.70* Violent 4 47 2 3.3 40 26.3 7 14.3 2.30 Sentence result of a plea Yes= 1 150 74.3 114 74.5 36 73.5 0.40 Probation sentence (in months) Mean 11.1 11.4 10.2 1.89 Mode 12.0 12.0 12.0 Median 12.0 12.0 12.0 T test of Independent S amples and Chi Square p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 134

134 Table 3 11. Continued Total Interviewed N=202 Random Sample N= 153 Convenience Sample N= 49 Codes N % N % N % t X Range 3 36 3 36 4 24 Time served at time of interview (in months) Mean 5.1 5.3 4.5 0.14 Mode 4.0 4.0 3.0 Median 5.0 5.0 4.0 Range .00 18 1 18 .00 11 Violation of probation Yes= 1 8 4.0 7 4.6 1 2.0 0.63 New law violation Yes= 1 4 50.0 3 42.9 1 100.0 0.31 Technica l violation Yes= 1 5 62.5 5 71.4 0 0.0 0.00 T test of Independent Samples and Chi Square p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 135

135 In terms of marital status, roughly 13% (N= 27, 13.4%) reported being married at the time of the interview. Of those not married (N= 175, 86.6%), the majority indicated never being married. Sixty percent (N= 122, 60.4%) of the interviewed group reported having children, and half of them reported currently living with their child (or children). Those with children tended to have multi ple children (Table 3 11). reported education ranged from a 4th grade education to a Doctorate of Philosophy (Ph.D.). Roughly 12% (N=24, 11.9%) had less than a high school education, while approximately, 40% (N= 79, 39.1%) of the in terviewees indicated completing the 12th grade or receiving a GED. Thirty one percent (N= 63, 31.2%) had some college, 14% (N= 28, 14.3%) had college degree or equivalent. Only 3% (N= 5, 2.5%) held a higher degree. The majority of the interviewed sample had at least a high school diploma/GED, if not additional education. The majority of interviewees were employed at the time of interview (N= 118, 58.4%), while only slightly more than 40% (N= 83, 41.1%) of those interviewed reporting not being currently e mployed (Table 3 11). Of those who were unemployed, a small percentage was unemployed due to a disability or retired. Five percent (N= 11, 5.4%) of the sample reported currently being only a student, but it is also possible that some of those who were em ployed were students. On average, the sample reported living in their current neighborhood for roughly five years and three months. Some had only resided in their curren t neighborhood for a little as five days, while others had lived in their neighborhoo d as long as forty seven years. Interviewed versus not interviewed comparison. As previously mentioned, official data were collected on all 450 ran domly sampled individuals and sixty seven

PAGE 136

136 conveniently sampled individuals. The previously listed est imates were only those for the 202 interviewed. In order to determine if there were significant differences between those interviewed and those not interviewed, I compared the official interviewed estimates versus the official estimate s of those not inter viewed ( Table 3 10). When comparing the personal characteristics of those who were interviewed to those who were not interviewed, there are significant differences between the groups on gender (X= 8.75, p= .003) and race (X= 6.38, p= .041). The intervi ewed sample had significantly more females and Whites than the not interviewed portion of the total sample. There was not a significant difference in age. Juvenile justice system history Of those who were interviewed, only 9% (N= 18, 8.9%) had an offici al record indicating that the person was arrested as a juvenile. However, it should be noted that juvenile records. On average, most experienced their first juvenile arre sts when they were fourteen. Additionally, those with juvenile histories often had multiple juvenile arrests. Of those with a documented juvenile history, one third (N= 6, 33.0%) received at least one viola tion of juvenile probation ( Table 3 10). Inter viewed versus not interviewed comparison. There was a significant difference between the interviewed and not interviewed sample with regard to the presence of juvenile justice system history (X= 6.26, p= .012), with the interviewees having significantly fewer individuals noted as having a juvenile history than those not interviewed ( Table 3 10) Additionally, there was a significant difference between the mean age of first juvenile arrest between the two groups (t= 2.30, p= .032). The interviewed sample

PAGE 137

137 mean number of arrests and the presence of violation of probation. However, due to concerns about the reliability of the juvenile history data, this information will not be used in the multivariate analyses. Adult justice system history In terms of prior criminal history, 71% (N= 144, 71.3%) of the interviewed sample had at least one arrest p rior to the c urrent charge ( Table 3 10). Only small percentage (N= 7, 4.8%) of those with a criminal history only had out of jurisdiction arrests. Less than 10% (N= 13, 9.0%) of the interviewees had at least one out of jurisdiction arrest in addition to at least one prior arrest in Florida, while less than 5% (N= 6, 4.2%) had arrest history in Florida and two other jurisdictions. On average, the interviewees with criminal histories received their first adult arrest at age twenty four. They also often had multiple ar rests, with most having se ven to eight prior arrests ( Table 3 10). created where the presence of any arrest at a particular offense level corresponded with a number val ue. The higher the offense level the greater the value (i.e., 1st degree felony =5, 2nd degree felony = 4, 3rd degree felony = 3, 1st degree misdemeanor = 2 and 2nd degree misdemeanor = 1). These values were then combined; a fifteen indicated the presenc e of an arrest at each offense level, while a zero indicated no the presence of a criminal history but often the arrests were for lower level offenses. The majority o f those interviewed had a prior criminal history. Despite most having multiple arrests, the arrests were typically f or low level offenses.

PAGE 138

138 Probation and violation of probation history. Official records indicated that slightly more than 60% (N= 88, 61.1%) of the 144 interviewees with a criminal history received a prior sentence of probation at least once ( Table 3 10). However, interview data showed that roughly 50% (N= 100, 49.5%) of the interviewed probationers self reported having received a p revious pr obation sentence ( Table 3 11). Typically, most individuals with prior probation histories had three prior probation dispositions ( Table 3 10). The longest prior probation sentence received by a person was recorded and equated to slightly lon ger than a ye ar and a half ( Table 3 10). Forty four percent (N= 64, 44.4%) of the 144 interviewees with a prior criminal history had at least one officially documen ted violation of probation ( Table 3 10). On the other hand, interview data showed 30% (N= 30, 30.0%) having received at least one violation of probation on a previous probation sentence ( Table 3 11). Of those with violations, most had multiple arrests for the violation of probation. Less than 20% (N= 12, 17.6%) of the violators indicated their violation was due to a new law violation but those with new law violation had two to three arre sts for new law violations ( Table 3 10). The majority of sample had served a previous probation sentence, and over a third of them had received a violation of probation. Incarceration history. With regards to incarceration history, 40% (N= 58, 40.3%) of those interviewed had a jail se ntence noted in the record ( Table 3 10) while roughly 30% (N= 67, 33.2%) of the participants report ed serving a jail sentence ( Table 3 1 1). Those with prior jail dispositions typically had four (mean= 3.6). By recording the longest jail sentence received for each person with a jail disposition, it was determined 127.4

PAGE 139

139 days, with a range of one to 364 days ( Table 3 that they ha d been sentenced to prison ( Table 3 10). An even smaller percentage ( N= 21, 10.4%) self reported havin g served a prison sentence ( Table 3 11). Of those with prison sentences, the majority had received one only prison sentence. The longest prison sentence served by a person was recorded and the mean longest prison sentence served by individuals was 105.3 months ( Table 3 10). Of the twenty two individuals whose official record indicated a prison sentences, only 1% (N= 2, 1.4%) was arrested for a parole violation. y of sanctions, a variable was created so that a higher value meant more experience with criminal sanctions. The presence of prison history was coded as 3, presence of jail history was coded as 2, and presence of previous probation history was coded as 1 11 A value of six indicated a person had received a prison sentence, jail sentence and probation sentence, while a zero indicated the person had never received a prison sentence, jail sentence or probation sentence. Most individuals had a history of recei ving criminal sanctions but most had not exper ienced all three sanctions ( Table 3 10). In summary, majority had a prior probation sentence, a sizable portion had a jail sentence but only a small percentage a prison sentence. Alternative sanction and pretr ial history. According to official data, a very small percentage (N= 4, 2.7%) of the interviewees received an alternative sanction (i.e., house arrest, intensive supervision probation and extra d uty as a military sanction) 11 Due to inconsistences in reporting the presence of an alternative sanction in the dispositions listed on NCIC/FCIC criminal histories, they were not included in the scale

PAGE 140

140 (T able 3 10). According the int erview data, less than 10% of the interviewees reported receiving the sanction of electronic monitoring, intensive supervision probation, day reporting or boot camp ( Table 3 11). Five percent or less violated his or her pretrial release conditions and rec eived the option of pretrial diversion at least once. Pretrial diversion typically implies that the person was placed into a non criminal program prior to his or her conviction and upon successful completion the original charges are dropped (United States Department of Justice, 2011). The majority of the sample never received an alternative sanction, violated pretrial release or participated in pretrial diversion. Interviewed versus not interviewed comparison. In comparing the adult criminal histories of those who were interviewed to those who were not, only two characteristics were significantly different. There was a significant difference between age of first arrest between the two samples (t= 2.79, p= .006). The interviewed There was also a significant difference between the two groups regarding history of receiving less serious sanctions. There were no significant differences in seriousness of criminal histories, mean number of arrests, prior probation and history of violation of probation. Additionally, there were no significant difference between those who were interviewed v ersus those who were not interviewed regarding prior jail, prison, parole, alternative sanctions and pretrial information. The interviewees and those not interviewed had a very limited number of significant differences in adult criminal histories.

PAGE 141

141 Current probation In order to categorize the offenses for which individua ls currently were on probation, I used the classification system used by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (James, 2004) and adapted by Alachua County Court Services for their us e. offense, property offense or violent offense. According to official data, most participants were on probation for a public order offense (N= 115, 56.9%) (Table 3 10). The next largest group were violent charges (N= 44, 21.8%), followed by property charges (N= 28, 13.9%) and drug charges (N= 15, 7.4%). Interview data showed similar percentages for all categories of offenses ( Table 3 11). Current charges and sen tence. Almost three fourth of the interviewees (N= 150, 74.3%) reported that they had received their current probation sentence as th e result of a plea bargain ( Table 3 11). On average, those on probation were only serving for one char ge ( Table 3 10). A small percentage of the interviewees (N= 30, 14.9%) had at least one of the original arrest charges dropped prior to adjudication, while a smaller percentage (N= 11, 5.4%) had at least one count dro pped prior to adjudication ( Table 3 10). Nearly 18% (N= reduced to a lesser charge. According to the official data, the average probation sentence for those interviewed was 11.1 months, with the range being si x to twelve months ( Table 3 10). Self r eported data showed the probation sentences ranged from three months to thirty six months, with the average being 11.1 months ( Table 3 11). At the time of the interview, the time served on probation ranged from 0.0 months (i.e., had not met with their pro bation officer yet but were sentenced to probation) to eighteen months, with the

PAGE 142

142 mean probation sentence served at point of interview 5.1 months. In other words, most people had served roughly 50% of their sentence at the point of the interview ( Table s 3 10 and 3 11). Probation and violation of probation history. Of the 202 interviewed individuals, roughly 20% (N=42, 20.8%) had an indication of a violation of probation for their current probation case in their official records ( Table 3 10). However, onl y fewer than 5% (N= 8, 4.0%) self reported receivin g a violation of probation ( Table 3 11). Official records showed that nearly 60% (N= 24, 57.1%) of those who had violated, committed a new law violation, while 50% (N= 4, 50.0%) of those who reported viol ating self reported the violation being for a new law violation. Nearly 80% (N= 33, 78.6%) of 12 while slightly more than 60% (N= 5, 62.5%) of the self reported violators reported violating due to techni cal violations. Most violated for failing one condition versus violated for f ailing multiple conditions ( Table 3 10). Approximately, one fifth of the sample violated their current probation, with the majority of the violations being technical ones. Inte rviewed versus not interviewed comparison. When comparing sample current probation (X= 7.26, p= .007) and presence of technical violations (X= 8.48, p= .004). The not interviewed sample had more violations of probation and more technical violations present than the interviewed sample. The differences were expected considering 20% (N= 63) of the not interviewed sample became ineligible for the stu dy 12 Those whose violation was solely for a new law violation were remov ed; however those who had a new law violation and technical violations and those with just technical violation were included in the estimate.

PAGE 143

143 due to their violations ( Appendix A). There were no significant differences between those interviewed and those not interviewed in current offense type, change in charges, sentence length, and new law violations. Overall, the probationers interviewed had few characteristics that significantly differed from those not interviewed. Out of the thirty nine sample characteristics collected from official data, there were only eight significant di fferences: gender, race, presence of juvenile history, mean age of first juvenile arrest, mean age of first adult arrest, sanction history, presence of violation of probation and presence of technical violations. The interviewees were more likely to be fe male, White, not have a juvenile justice system history, younger at first juvenile arrest, older at first adult arrest, have received less serious sanctions in the past, not have violated current probation, and not have received a technical violation. Tho se interviewed were more likely to be male, non White, have a juvenile justice system history, older at first juvenile arrest, younger at first adult arrest, have received more serious sanctions in the past, violated current probation, and received a techn ical violation. Few significant differences in characteristics suggest the interviewees generally are representative of those probationers who were unable to be contacted and/or interviewed. Official Sample Description versus Self Reporting Sample Des cription As stated previously information about the sample was drawn from both official records and from self report data. Eleven sample characteristics items were drawn from both sources (Table 3 12). Similarities Of the eleven items taken from officia l and interview data, four had estimates that were not significantly different. In many cases, the percentages appear to be similar but

PAGE 144

144 s tatistically they differed ( Table 3 12). The first item not significantly different was whether the person had served a prison sentence. Official records validated the number of prison sentences reported during interviews. The mean length of the probation sentence was identical in both the official records and self report data. The official data and interview data did not differ significantly by type of offender. Both data sources had similar estimates of public order, drug, property and violent offenders. The final item that was not significantly different was the information regarding violating probation due to a n ew law violation. Differences Most of the information that was recorded both from official data and from self report data we re significantly different ( Table 3 12). Adult justice system history. Official data showed fewer individuals having a prior p robation sentence than interview data did (X= 13.48, p<.000). A possible explanation for the difference is that not all cases dispositions were listed on the NCIC/FCIC criminal histories. In other words, in some of the cases where the disposition was un known the person may have received probation. The percentages 13 regarding the presence of a violation of probation for a previous probation sentence appear to be similar. However, there was a significant difference between the two (X= 11.56, p=.001), wit h individuals reporting having fewer violations of probation than found in the official records. Of those with violations of probation, official records indicated a higher percentage of new law violators than people self reported, and these differences w ere significantly 13 Previous estimates were based out of those who had a criminal history, while current estimates are based on th e entire interviewed sample (N=202).

PAGE 145

145 Table 3 12. Of ficial sample description versus self reported sample d escription Official Data Self Reported Data N % N % X Prior Criminal Justice Experience Prior probation present 88 43.6 100 49.5 13.48*** Violation of Pr obation 64 31.7 30 14.9 11.56** New law violation 41 64.1 12 40.0 9.31** Jail sentence present 58 28.7 67 33.2 12.15*** Prison sentence present 22 10.9 21 10.4 0.75 Current Probation Type of offense Public order 115 56.9 110 54.5 0.8 5 Drug 15 7.4 17 8.4 1.26 Property 28 13.9 27 13.4 0.25 Violent 44 21.8 47 23.3 0.01 Probation sentence (in months) Mean sentence length 11.1 11.1 Mode sentence length 12.0 12.0 Median sentence length 12.0 12.0 Sentenc e range 6 12 3 36 Violation of probation Violation of probation present 42 20.8 8 4.0 18.49*** New law violation(s) present 24 57.1 4 50.0 2.56 Technical violation(s) present 33 78.6 5 62.5 18.56*** Chi Square p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p< .001

PAGE 146

146 different (X= 9.31, p=.002) (Table 3 12). Individuals reported fewer new law violations than indicated in the official records. In the case of both violation of probation and new law violation estimates, it is possible the differences are due to t he probationers not remembering accurately if an official report was submitted. They may have assumed the violation was a warning and not officially submitted to the court. Also, they may not remember the reason for the violation if it occurred a while a go or at the same time as other criminal cases. Official and self reported jail estimates were similar, but the differences were significant (X= 12.15, p<.000). As was the case with probation, it is possible that the difference was due to official recor ds not being complete. Current probation. The sentence ranges differ, with official records indicating a range of six to twelve months. The self report data indicated a range of three to thirty six months. The difference may be due to some individua ls indicating their earliest possible probation termination date and others indicating their sentence including additional time added after a violation of probation. Official records indicated roughly 20% of interviewees had a violation of probation on th eir current probation sentence, while less than 5% of interviewees self reported receivin g a violation of probation ( Table 3 12). There was a significant difference between the official and self report (X= 18.49, p<.000). An explanation for the differen ce is that individuals did not realize that they had received a violation of probation and had only considered it to be a warning. A greater percentage of the official records indicated violations of probations for technical violations than self reported a violation for technical violations. There was a significant difference between the official and self report (X= 18.86, p<.000). A possible explanation for the difference

PAGE 147

147 is they were unclear what the violation was for and had difficulty categorizing i t as a technical violation. Overall, the descriptive information that was collected by official sources and self report information were significantly different on their prior probation history, prior violation history, jail history, current violation of probation and technical violations. In some cases the percentages appeared similar but were statistically different. Possible explanations include limitations of the official data and accuracy in self reporting. The sample characteristics that did not d iffer significantly base on the source of data were prison history, sentence length, offense type and new law violations. Random Sample Description versus Convenience Sample Description Originally, I selected a random sample of records to interview, but due to a low response rate had to incorporate a convenience sampl e design later in the study ( Recruitment section for more details). Of the 202 probationers interviewed, 153 (75%) nine (2 4.3%) were In order to determine if there were significant differences between the random sample and the convenience sample, I e Table 3 11 for a sample description based on Self Report Data and Table 3 13 for a s ample description based on official data ). Similarities Out of the over sixty sample characteristics collected from official and self report dat a, there were only six characteristics that were significantly differ ent across the two samples ( Tables 3 11 and 3 13).

PAGE 148

148 Personal characteristics. There were no significant differences between those randomly sampled and those conveniently sampled in term s of gender, race, ethnicity or marital status. Both samples were majority male, White, non Hispanic and not married. participants having a child or children. There wa s also not a significant difference in terms of those who are parents living with their children. The two groups did not significantly differ in educational attainment. In both groups the majority had at least a high school diploma/GED if not higher. Th ere was no significant difference in employment status, with the majority of the random sample and the convenience sample having a job. Juvenile justice system history. There were no significant differences between the presence of a juvenile justice sys tem history between the random sample and conve nience sample (Table 3 11). Fewer than 10% of both groups had a juvenile history. The mean age of first arrest and the mean number of arrests were not irst arrest being fourteen. Additionally there was not a significant difference in the presence of violation of probation in the official records. Prior adult justice system. In general there were not statistical differences between the random sampl e and convenience sample in terms of prior adult justice system experiences (Table s 3 11 and 3 13). There was not a significant difference in the presence of a prior criminal history, with majority of both groups having a prior histor y. Additionally, the re were no significant differences in the mean age of first arrest, mean number of prior arrests, and seriousness history. Those who were

PAGE 149

149 Table 3 13. Random sample versus convenience sample description based on official d ata Total Interviewed N= 202 Random Sample N= 153 Convenience Sample N= 49 Codes N % N % N % t X Personal Characteristics Age Mean age 35.9 37.0 32.7 2.33* Mode age 23.0 23.0 22.0 & 41.0 Median age 34.0 35.0 31.0 Age range 19 69 20 69 19 64 Gender 0.00 Female 0 74 36.6 56 36.6 18 36.7 Male 1 128 63.4 97 63.4 31 63.3 Race 0.00 White 0 121 59.9 30 61.2 91 59.5 Black 1 80 39.6 19 38.8 61 39.9 Asian 1 1 0.5 0 0.0 1 0.7 Juv enile Justice System History History present Yes= 1 18 8.9 14 9.2 4 8.2 0.00 Age of first arrest Mean age of first arrest 13.8 13.6 14.3 0.57 Mode age of first arrest 14.0 14.0 14.0 Median age of first arrest 14. 0 14.0 14.0 Age range of first arrest 7 17 7 17 13 16 Number of arrests Mean number of arrests 4.2 3.3 7.5 1.70 Mode number of arrests 1.0 1.0 & 3.0 1.0 & 12.0 Median number of arrests 3.0 2.5 8.5 Rang e of number of arrests 1 13 1 13 1 12 Violation of probation present Yes= 1 6 33 3 21.4 3 75.0 1.97 T test of Independent Samples and Chi Square p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 150

150 Table 3 13. Continued Total Interviewed N= 202 Random Sample N= 153 Convenience Sample N= 49 Codes N % N % N % t X Adult Justice System History History present Yes= 1 144 71.3 109 71.2 35 71.4 0.00 No Florida (FL) history Yes= 1 7 4.8 6 5.5 1 2.9 FL & 1 additional jurisdiction 1 13 9.0 11 10.1 2 5 .7 FL & 2 additional jurisdiction 2 6 4.2 6 5.5 0 0.0 FL & 3 additional jurisdiction 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Arrest history Mean age of first arrest Mean age of first arrest 24.3 24.4 23.9 0.28 Mode age of first arrest 19.0 19.0 19.0 &JJ Median age of first arrest 21.0 21.0 21.0 Age range of first arrest 17 53 18 53 17 47 Number of arrests Mean number of arrests 7.5 8.0 5.7 1.46 Mode number of arrests 1.0 1.0 1.0 Median number of arrests 4.0 5.0 3.0 Range number of arrests 1 56 1 56 1 39 Seriousness history Mean seriousness history 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.00 Mode seriousness history 0.0 0.0 0.0 Median seriousn ess history 2.0 2.0 2.0 Range seriousness history 0 15 0 15 0 15 Probation history Prior probation present Yes= 1 248 64.9 68 62.4 20 57.1 0.35 Number of probation Mean number of sentences 2.6 2.8 1.9 1. 93 Mode number of sentences 1.0 1.0 1.0 T test of Independent Samples and Chi Square p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 151

151 Table 3 13. Continued Total Interviewed N= 202 Random Sample N= 153 Convenience Sample N= 49 Codes N % N % N % t X Median number of sentences 2.0 2.0 1.0 Range number of sentences 1 11 1 11 1 8 Longest probation sentence (in months) Mean longest sentence 19.1 21.1 12.3 2.90* Mode longest sentence 12.0 12.0 12.0 Med ian longest sentence 12.0 12.0 12.0 Range longest sentence 6 120 6 120 6 36 Violation of probation Violation of probation present Yes= 1 192 50.3 49 44.9 15 42.9 0.04 Number of violations Mean number of violat ions 3.8 3.7 4.1 0.30 Mode number of violations 1.0 1.0 1.0 Median number of violations 2.0 2.0 2.0 Range number of violations 1 18 1 18 1 17 Number of new law violations Mean number of violations 2.5 2. 2 3.7 0.13 Mode number of violations 1.0 1.0 2.0 Median number of violations 2.0 1.0 & 2.0 Range number of violations 1 13 1 13 1 10 Jail history Jail sentence present Yes= 1 176 46.1 49 44.9 9 25.7 3.61 Number of jail sentences Mean number of sentences 3.6 3.7 3.1 0.76 Mode number of sentences 2.0 2.0 2.0 Median number of sentences 2.0 2.0 2.5 T test of Independent Samples and Chi Square p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 152

15 2 Table 3 13. Continued Total Interviewed N= 202 Random Sample N= 153 Convenience Sample N= 49 Codes N % N % N % t X Range number of sentences 1 15 1 15 1 6 Longest jail sentence (in days) Mean longest sentence 139.2 135.9 85.5 1.30 Mode longest sentence 180.0 180.0 58.5 Median longest sentence 90.0 90.0 60.0 Range longest sentence 1 364 1 364 9 364 Prison history Prison sentence present Yes= 1 68 17.8 19 17.4 3 8.6 1. 15 Number of prison sentences Mean number of sentences 2.7 2.8 2.5 0.26 Mode number of sentences 1.0 1.0 1.0 & 4.0 Median number of sentences 2.0 2.0 2.5 Range number of sentences 1 14 1 14 1 4 Longest prison sentence (in months) Mean longest sentence 127.4 101.0 126.0 0.28 Mode longest sentence 12.0 & 98.0 98.0 66.0 Median longest sentence 33.0 30.0 12.0 & 18.0 Range longest sentence 12 720 12 720 12 360 Parole violation present Yes= 1 2 1.4 1 1.0 1 2.9 0.07 Sanction seriousness history Mean sanction history 1.3 1.5 1.0 1.90 Mode sanction history 0.0 0.0 0.0 Median sanction history 1.0 1.0 0.0 Range sanction history 0 6 0 6 0 6 Alternative sanction(s) present Yes= 1 4 2.7 3 2.8 1 2.9 0.00 T test of Independent Samples and Chi Square p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 153

153 Table 3 13. Continued Total Interviewed N= 202 Random Sample N= 153 Convenience Samp le N= 49 Codes N % N % N % t X Pretrial release violation present Yes= 1 5 3.5 3 2.8 2 5.7 0.07 Pretrial diversion present Yes= 1 7 4.9 6 5.5 1 2.9 0.05 Current Probation Type of offense Public order 1 115 56.9 28 57.1 87 56.9 0.00 Drug 2 15 7.4 4 8.2 11 7.2 0.00 Property 3 28 13.9 12 24.5 16 10.5 5.00* Violent 4 44 21.8 5 10.2 39 25.5 4.23 Charges Number of current charges Mean number of charges 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.80 Mode number of charges 1.0 1.0 1.0 Median number of charges 1.0 1.0 1.0 Range number of charges 1 6 1 6 1 3 Reduction Number of charges Yes= 1 30 14.9 21 19.3 9 25.7 0.10 Number of counts Yes= 1 11 5.4 9 8. 3 2 5.7 0.08 Offense level Yes= 1 36 17.8 28 25.7 8 22.9 0.24 Sentence (in months) Mean sentence length 11.1 11.4 10.0 3.34** Mode sentence length 12.0 12.0 12.0 Median sentence length 12.0 12.0 12.0 Sentence range 6 12 6 12 6 12 Violation of probation Violation of probation present Yes= 1 42 20.8 29 18.9 13 26.5 0.87 New law violation present Yes= 1 24 57.1 16 55.2 8 61.5 0.00 T test of Independent Samples and Chi Square p< .05 * p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 154

154 Table 3 13. Continued Total Interviewed N= 202 Random Sample N= 153 Convenience Sample N= 49 Codes N % N % N % t X Number of new law violations Mean number of violations 1.5 1.7 1.3 1.33 Mode number o f violations 1.0 1.0 1.0 Median number of violations 2.0 1.0 1.0 Range number of violations 1 5 1 5 1 2 Technical violation Yes= 1 33 78.6 24 82.8 9 69.2 0.87 Number of technical violations Mean number of viol ations 3.0 2.9 3.3 0.62 Mode number of violations 1.0 1.0 1.0 & 4.0 Median number of violations 3.0 3.0 4.0 Range number of violations 1 6 1 6 1 6 T test of Independent Samples and Chi Square p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 155

155 randomly sampled and those who were conveniently sampled had a mean age of first arrest of twenty four. A large percentage of both groups had served a prior probation sentence. There were no significant differences between prior probation history, mean number of probation, violation of prior probation, mean number of violations, and mean number of new law violations. In terms of incarceration, there were no significant differences between the random sample and convenience sample in prior jail history mean number of jail sentences, mean longest jail sentence, prison history, mean number of prison sentences, mean longest prison sentence, and parole history. A small percentage of each group had served at least one prison sentence, while more had served a jail sentence. There was no significant difference in being sentenced to alternative sanctions. More specifically, there were no significant differences in having been sentenced to electronic monitoring, intensive supervision probation, day reporting, and boot camp between the two groups. In both groups, boot camp had the greatest percentage of individuals reporting to have received that sentence. There was also no significant difference between pretrial release violations and receiving pretrial dive rsions. Current probation Between the random sample and convenience sample there was no significant difference in the amount of public order offenders, drug offen ders and violent offenders (Table s 3 11 and 3 13). The majority of both samples were publ ic order offend ers, while drug offenders compo sed a small percentage of both samples. No significant differences were noted in terms of accepting probation as a plea bargain and having reduction in number of charges, number of counts or offense level. Mo st

PAGE 156

156 had accepted their current charges as a result of plea bargain and experienced some sort of reduction of their charges. Additionally, no significant different was found between the amount of time served on probation at the point of the interview; both samples had served roughly five months on probation. The randomly sampled individuals and the conveniently sampled individuals were not significantly different in receiving a violation of probation on their current term of probation. The majority of both samples did not receive a violation and of those who received a violation, the majority received a violation for a technical violation(s) versus a new law violation. The samples did not significantly differ in presence of new law violations, mean number o f new law violations, presence of technical violations and mean number of technical violations. Overall, the random sample and convenience sample were not significantly different in the majority of sample characteristics collected from official and interv iew data. Differences Only six sample characteristics were significantly different between the random sam ple and convenience sample ( Table 3 13). Of the person characteristics, age, ignificantly different. The convenience sample was significantly younger with a mean age of thirty three (versus thirty seven) (t= 2.33, p= .022). The random sample had on average roughly three children (versus two children) (t= 2.32, p= .008). Those r andomly sampled lived in their currently neighborhood longer than those conveniently sampled (t= 2.72, p= .066). significantly different between the random sample and convenien ce sample was the

PAGE 157

157 mean of the longest prior probation sentence (t= 2.90, p= .005). Of those who had nearly twice as long as the convenience sample. In terms of their cur rent probation sentence, the convenience sample had significantly more property offenders than the random sample ( X= 5.70, p= .017). A possible explanation is some of the probation officers who were most willing to help us recruit had a large number of p roperty offenders on their caseloads. The final characteristic that was significantly different was the length of probation sentence. The samples differed by approximately one month. In summary, the random sample and convenience sample significantly dif fered in age, mean number of children, length of stay in neighborhood, mean of longest prior probation sentence, property offenders and length of probation sentence. However, the majority of sample characteristics were not found to be significantly differ ent. Overall, the samples were not significantly different in the majority of personal characteristics, adult justice system history characteristics and current probation characteristics, as well as all juvenile justice system history characteristics. Th e limited amount of significant differences between the convenience sample and the random sample suggests that the two samples are comparable. Analysis The analysis for this study utilized techniques for both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitati ve responses 1 were the primary data source and the qualitative responses were used as follow ups to assist in interpreting the quantitative data. The 1 Missing data was handled through listwise deletion, meaning a record was excluded from analysis if one value was missing. This explains the different Ns seen during different analysis. It was decided to use listwise deletion because in most cases, the missing responses were due to the probationer not having the particular condition

PAGE 158

158 expectation in using this method was to obtain a clear in depth understanding of of the conditions of probation, especially as it relates to severity, difficulty and potential obstacles. Descriptive statistics, such as percentage and freq uency tables were utilized for Research Q uestion 1 (what conditions are probationers sentenced t o in Alachua County?). For Research Q uestion 2a (do the conditions of probation fall on a continuum when it comes to severity? If so, which conditions are viewed as being most severe?), percentage and frequency tables were utilized. Following the frequen cies, correlations were run to examine possible correlations between the dependent variables (scales and scale items) and independent variables (e.g., age, race, ethnicity, prior probation sentence, current offense type, etc.). Once it was determined ther e were variables with significant relationships, ordinary least squares linear (OLS) regression was run. Since OLS regression was used the dependent variables pertaining to perceived severity were coded 1= not severe 2= somewhat severe 3= severe and 4= e xtremely severe Content analysis of the transcribed interviews w as used to further help answer Research Q uestion 2a. T he same procedure was used for Research Q of the severity of a condition impact their perceived abi lity to complete a particular probation condition?). Frequencies and correlations were run. OLS regressions were estimated using the variables with significant relationships. The perceived difficulty dependent variables were coded 1= not difficult 2= r elatively easy 3= about 50/50 4= somewhat difficult and 5= very difficult The quali tative data obtained to answer Research Q uestion 2b was analyzed by coding and examining the data for themes.

PAGE 159

159 Qualitative examples that supported or expanded the resul ts from the quantitative data were noted. Research Q uestion 2c (what do probationers see as potential obstacles that would hinder them from completing or adhering to the conditions of their probation?) was also analyzed using both quantitative and qualit ative data. First, frequencies were run followed by correlations in order to examine the relationships between the obstacle dependent variables and independent variables. OLS models were estimated with the variables with significant relationships. The d ependent variables were coded 1= strongly disagree 2= disagree 3= agree and 4= strongly agree The qualitative questions were examined for possible themes that matched or contradicted what was found from the quantitative results. Chapter Summary This chapter described the methodology that the study utilized. It described and discussed the target population, as well as the recruitment techniques used. The method of data collection, including both official and self reported data, was presented. The of ficial data measuring instrument and the interviewing instrument were described in detail. The next section described in detail both the dependent and independent a nd the final section described the data analysis techniques that were utilized.

PAGE 160

160 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS: R ESEARCH Q UESTION 1 THE CONDITIONS OF P ROBATION of probation that clien reporting the frequencies and percentages of each possible probation condition received by the interviewees. In order to answer this research question, I recorded the conditions of probation for ea ch of the 202 interviewees using official court records and conditions applied to them. Both the official and interview data collection instrument included thirty two 1 probation conditions The conditions were believed to be commonly conversations with Court Servic ( Clarke, 1979; Petersilia, 1997a ), each of the conditions of probation can be classified as a standard, treatment or punitive condition. Interestingly, t here were few discrepancies between what the official records indicated were conditions and what the interviewees believed were their conditions. Standard Conditions of Probation Standard conditions are probation conditions that are imposed on all the probationers under a particular probation age ncy (Clarke, 1979; Petersilia, 1997a). The probationers were asked about eleven conditions that generally are standard across probation agencies (Table 4 1). Nine of the eleven conditions are standard in Alachua 1 The data collection instruments included the condition of participation in the Daily Alternative Reporting Tracking (DART) program. H owever, it was later discovered that probationers do not receive this condition.

PAGE 161

161 County P g paperwork, the standard conditions are typically listed in paragraph form at the top of the page; the conditions are not individually listed. The only exception is the court cost which is individually listed. Table 4 1. Standard conditions based on o fficial d at a versus self report d ata Official Data Interview Data N % N % Commit no new law violation 202 100.0 166 82.2 Report to probation office monthly 202 100.0 201 99.5 Answer truthfully to inquiries by probation officer (PO) 202 100.0 198 98.0 Notify PO of changes in residence 202 100.0 195 96.5 Notify PO of changes in employment/education 202 100.0 181 89.6 Try to obtain employment 0 0.0 86 42.6 Maintain employment/school enrollment 0 0.0 92 45.5 Allow PO to visit residence 202 100.0 137 67.8 Allow PO to visit employment site 202 100.0 98 48.5 Pay monthly cost of supervision (COS) 201 99.5 187 92.6 Mean COS (in dollars) 48.71 52.05 Mode COS (in dollars) 50.00 50.00 Median COS (in dollars) 50.00 50.00 Range COS (in dollars) 5.00 50.00 10.00 100.00 Pay court cost 202 100.0 171 84.7 Mean court cost (in dollars) 751.76 652.45 Mode court cost (in dollars) 236.00 1000.00 Median court cost (in dol lars) 688.00 472.00 Range court cost (in dollars) 235.00 2644.00 30.00 2500.00 All 202 probationers interviewed officially received the conditions of: commit no new law violation, report to probation office monthly, answer truthfully to inquiries by probation officer, notify probation officer of changes in residency and notify probation

PAGE 162

162 officer of changes in employment/education. At least 97% of those interviewed indicated that they had the condition of reporting monthly to the probation office, wer e probation officer of changes in their living situation. While 97% (N= 194, 96.5%) of the interviewees acknowledged that they were required to notify their probatio n officer about changes in residence, slightly fewer (N= 181, 89.6%) acknowledged having to notify their probation officer about changes in employment and/or education 2 Interestingly, 18% (N= 36, 17.8%) did not think part of their probation sentence proh ibited them from being arrested and/or charged with committing a new crime. Probationers were also asked if their probation conditions included the conditions of trying to obtain employment and maintain employment and/school enrollment. Though not requi red conditions for Alachua County P robation, these conditions are often standard conditions in many probation agencies. Despite none of the interviewees being assigned either condition, over a third of the sample thought the conditions were required (Tabl e 4 1). Forty three percent (N= 86, 42.6%) of the interviewees thought their probation required them to obtain employment and 46% (N= 92, 45.5%) indicated they had the probation condition of maintaining employment and/or school enrollment. I ndividuals ma y have thought they were current probation conditions for them because previous probation sentences may have required them to obtain and maintain employment/school enrollment. Additionally, some of the probation officers 2 Since the conditions (commit no new law violation, report to probation office monthly, answer truthfully to inquiries by probation officer, notify probation officer of cha nges in residency and notify probation officer of changes in employment/education, and obtain and maintain employment/education) applied to all the probationers or none of the probationers, I was un able to use chi square to note any differences between the official and interview data.

PAGE 163

163 may have strongly encouraged their clients to obtain and maintain employment/school enrollment, which the probationers interpreted as being required. A 100% sidence and employment site (Table 4 1). However, only 68% (N= 137, 67.8%) of the interviewees thought their probation entitled their probation officer to visit their home. Almost one third of interviewees did not know that as part of their probation ord er, the officer was allowed to visit their residence. Likewise, fewer than 50% (N= 98, 48.5%) of the probationers interviewed believed that they had a condition which allowed their probation officer to visit their employment site. Only one of the prob ationers interviewed had his or her cost of supervision waived by the judge, meaning 201 of the interviewees (99.5%) were assigned to pay the monthly a cost of supervision fee (Table 4 1). The cost of supervision fee is the fee probationers pay for being on probation and is meant to reduce the amount that taxpayers pay for probation services. Ninety three percent (N= 187, 92.6%) of the interviewees indicated having to pay the cost of supervision, so in general they understood that they had this condition. Both official and self report data showed that probationers typically were required to pay fifty dollars a month. All 202 interviewees were court ordered to pay court costs, which are fines and fees given to them by the court system. Again, most, but n ot all of the interviewed (N= 171, 84.7%) reported having court costs. I used chi square to see if there were any differences between the official and interview data regarding the monthly cost of supervision and court costs. There were no statistically s ignificant differences between the official and interview data.

PAGE 164

164 Overall, most interviewees correctly reported the standard conditions of their probation, but fewer than half thought their probation officer could visit their employment site. Treatment Cond itions of Probation Treatment conditions refer to conditions that are specific to a probationer and require him or her to address a problem or need (Clarke, 1979; Petersilia, 1997a). On the sentencing paperwork, these conditions are listed individually. Probationers were asked about eleven possible treatment conditions (Table 4 2). However, official records often did not distinguish between the conditions of submitting to random screens like breathalyzers and/or urinalysis, not possessing or consuming al cohol and not possessing or consuming illegal drugs. Therefore, when reporting official estimates it is not possible to separate the three conditions. Fifty two percent (51.5%) of the ndom screens and not allowed to possess/consume alcohol or illegal drugs. Interview data showed over 70% (N= 148, 73.3%) of those interviewed had at least one of those three conditions. Nearly 60% (N= 116, 57.4%) of interviewees reported being required t o submit to random screens, while over 60% reported not being able to possess or consume alcohol (N= 122, 60.4%) and not court ordered to no possess and consume illegal drugs (N= 130, 64.4%). Despite the interview estimates being higher than official esti mates regarding submitting to random screens and not possessing and/or consuming alcohol and/or illegal drugs, there were no significant differences between the official and interview data. Official records also did not always distinguish between alcohol treatment and drug treatment. Therefore, I recorded that substance abuse treatment was required but did not distinguish whether it was for alcohol or drugs. Only 10% (N= 20, 9.9%) of the

PAGE 165

165 treatment was required (Table 4 2). Interview data showed that 30% (N= 60, 29.7%) of those interviewed reported being required to participate in substance abuse treatment. More specifically, 22% (N= 45, 22.3%) of interviewees reported being required to participate in alcohol treatment, and 13% (N= 26, 12.9%) reported being required to participate in being required to participate in a substance abuse program, while a larg er percentage reports indicated required participation. However, no statistical differences were noted. Table 4 2. Treatment conditions based on official data versus self report d ata Official Data Interview Data N % N % Submit t o random screens and do not possess or consume substances 104 51.5 148 73.3 Submit to random screens 116 57.4 Do not possess/consume alcohol 122 60.4 Do not possess/consume drugs 130 64.4 Participate in substance abuse treatment 2 0 9.9 60 29.7 Participate in alcohol treatment 45 22.3 Participate in drug treatment 26 12.9 Participate in mental health treatment 10 5.0 17 8.4 Participate in employment program 0 0.0 1 0.5 Complete Milepost class 2 1.0 2 1.0 33 16.3 30 14.9 Complete anger management 13 6.4 24 11.9 81 40.1 78 38.6 recordkeeping. The information about required substance abuse treatment was

PAGE 166

166 probation officers in record keeping. Some probation officers may not have listed whether substance abus e treatment was required for the probationers on their caseload. In other words, though the probationer was evaluated and identified as needing substance abuse programming, his or her probationer office r did not always record bation file. This more than likely le d to the difference s between official and interview estimates, since I collected whether files. Only 5% fficial records indicated the condition of mental health treatment (Table 4 2). Eight percent (N= 17, 8.4%) of the interviewees self reported this condition. Both official and self report estimates indicated that a small percentage of probationers were r equired to participate in mental health treatment. Using chi square, I determined there were no differences between the two data sources. Though they were not significantly different, the difference in percentages was more than likely due to the same rea son there were differences in substance abuse treatment percentages. Mental health treatment participation was recorded from tion files and the differences a re most likely due to some probation officers not listing that mental health tr None of the interviewed sample was court ordered to participate in an employment program 3 though one person (0.5%) self reported being required to participate in an employment program. Employment programs typically are geared to aid probationers in 3 Due to official records indicating the condition of participating in an employment program did not apply to any of the probationers I was not able to use chi square to note any differences between the official and intervi ew data

PAGE 167

167 finding and maintaining employment. The programs assist probationers with their officer suggested attending an employment program to the probationer, which the probationer understood as being a required condition. 1% (N=2, 1.0%) of the self report data showed that completion of the Milepost class was a condition. Ther e were no significant differences noted when chi squares were utilized. Milepost class is a course that is often given to those charged with petit theft, which typically involves a person taking property valued as being more than 100 dollars but less than 300 dollars. Individuals who are on probation for the offense of shoplifting/ retail theft can also be assigned to Milepost class. The purpose of the class is to help the offender identify theft as being a crime and to expose the offender to the effects of theft on others (i.e., recognize victims) (L Collopy personal communication, June 18, 2011 ) Official and interview data estimates were similar for the condition of completing ven for those charged with domestic battery, while anger management is typically given to those with battery, but is not limited to those people. Only 6% official record indicated having a condition requiring them to complet e anger management, while double that percentage (N= 24, 11.9%) self reported being required to participate in anger management (Table 4 2). There were no statistical significant differences noted when I ran chi or anger condition of probation, but sometimes it was later assigned after an evaluation. The

PAGE 168

168 difference in percentages is more than likely due to difference in probation o recordkeeping because in cases were the condition was later assigned, I relied on being assigned. Only a small portion of the probationers received the cond ition of anger Individuals with driving offenses can be assigned to participate in a course that focuses on driving, such as a driving under the influence (DUI) substance abuse cours e, an advanced DUI substance abuse course or a driver improvement course. Forty percent (N= 81, 40.1%) of the interviewed sample was court ordered to complete some report estimates were similar (N= 78, 38.6%) (Table 4 2). When I ran chi squares there were no differences noted between the offic ial records and self report records course. In summary, over half of those on probation were required to submit to random screens and not allowed to possess or consume alcohol/drugs, while over a third were remaining treatment conditions with the exception of substance abuse programming. The differe nces between official and self report estimates were likely due to official records not being complete. However, none of the differences were statistically different. P unitive Conditions of Probation Punitive conditions are meant to increase the invasiven ess and punitive of probation as a way to reflect the seriousness of the offense (Petersilia, 1997a). These interview instrument asked probationers about ten conditio ns of probations. Forty six

PAGE 169

169 percent (N= 93, 46.0%) of the official records indicated the option of completing community service hours in lieu of paying cost of supervision or court fees, while 38% (N= 77, 38.1%) self reported having this option (Table 4 3 ). This condition allowed probationers to complete community service hours instead of pay ing a portion of their monthly cost of supervision or co urt costs. The exchange rate i s one hour o f community service work equates to ten dollars. For the condition of completing community service hours in lieu of paying, the official data and self report data were similar, and no statistical differences were noted. Forty two percent (N= 85, 42.1%) of the probationers were court ordered to complete mandatory communi ty service hours; interview data estimates were similar (N= 89, 44.1%) ( Table 4 3) When I ran chi squares there were no differences between official and self report data. According to both the official and self report data, the mean number of community services hours was sixty hours. Over a third of the sample received the condition. While probationers are able to select their community service location, work crew is organized by Alachua County Court Services and requires individuals to perform specific has specific hours during the day when individuals are required to report and typically the individuals have to work four or eight hours at a time. Twelve percent (N= 25, 1 2.4%) of the official records indicated the condition of performing work crew days; 18% (N= 37, 18.3%) self reported having that condition ( Table 4 3). Despite the self report estimates being over reported, the difference was not statistically significant Fewer than 20% of the sample was assigned to participate in work crew.

PAGE 170

170 Table 4 3. Punitive conditions based on official data versus self report d ata Official Data Interview Data N % N % Complete community service (CS) hours in lieu of fees 93 46. 0 77 38.1 Mean (in hours) 74.0 66.0 Mode (in hours) 24 & 69 24 Median (in hours) 64 45 Range (in hours) 24 220 8 745 Complete mandatory CS hours 85 42.1 89 44.1 Mean (in hours) 60.1 60.2 Mode (in hours) 50 50 Me dian (in hours) 50 50 Range (in hours) 20 200 5 200 Complete work crew days 25 12.4 37 18.3 Mean (in days) 11.8 13.2 Mode (in days) 5 & 10 3 & 10 Median (in days) 10 10 Range (in days) 3 30 1 68 Complete a ja il sentence 39 19.3 33 16.3 Mean (in days) 29.6 31.4 Mode (in days) 60 30 Median (in days) 11 30 Range (in days) 1 180 1 68 Pay restitution 19 9.4 24 11.9 Mean restitution (in dollars) 1041.43 889.91 Mode restitution (in dollars) 500.00 & 1000.00 50.00 & 1000.00 Median restitution (in dollars) 537.38 221.00 Range restitution (in dollars) 48.55 7226.83 50.00 7500.00 No contact with victim 44 21.8 41 20.3 Attend victim impact panel 61 30.2 68 33 .7 66 32.7 97 48.0 Mean (in months) 11.1 13.2 Mode (in months) 6 6 Median (in months) 6 6 Range (in months) 6 60 1 90 Abide with order of impoundment 53 26.2 47 23.3 Abide by curfew 0 0.0 0 0.0

PAGE 171

171 receiving a condition to serve a jail sentence (Table 4 3). During the interview, slightly fewer (N=33, 16.3%) of interviewees reported having the condition. According to both data sources, the mean jail sentence was approximatel y thirty days and there were no statistical differences noted. The punitive condition of paying restitution was court ordered in 9% ean restitution being over a thousand dollars ($1,041.43). According to interview data, 12% (N= 24, 11.9%) reported having to pay restitution, with the mean restitution being roughly nine hundred dollars ($889.91). I noted no statistical differences betw een the two data sources. Roughly 20% of the sample received the condition of a jail sentence, while roughly 10% were required to pay restitution as part of their probation sentence. Similar estimates were found for the punitive conditions of not having c ontact with victim(s) and attending a victim impact pane l. Approximately 20% of the official records and self report estimates indicated the condition of no contact with victim(s) (Table 4 3). The estimates were similar and were no t statistically differe nce. This condition required the probationer to have no contact with the victim or victims involved in the case. Victims were often individuals but in the case of probationers serving probation for property offenses (e.g., petit theft, trespassing, etc.) probationers often receive a no contact with a victim order that forbid them to go to certain locations and/or enter certain business. The condition of victim impact panel is regularly given to those with alcohol related driving charges (i.e., DUI and rec kless driving with alcohol) and often requires probationers to listen to individuals who lost love ones due to an alcohol related driving

PAGE 172

172 offense or individuals who killed someone in an alcohol related driving offense speak about their experience s Thirt y percent (N= 61, 30.2%) of interviewed sample were required to attend a victim impact panel, while 34% (N= 68, 33.7%) of them self reported receiving the condition ( Table 4 3) The difference between the two data sources wa s not statistically different. T he slight difference may be due to some probation officers recommending to their caseload attending the panel in order to receive five hours of community service, though the probationers were not court ordered to attend. As part of their probation, a thi rd of the interviewees (N= 66, 32.7%) had their license suspended for eleven months. However, nearly 50% (N= 97, 48.0%) of the interviewees reported having their drive average time of suspension being thirteen months. The difference in estimates may be due to individuals reporting the condition when the suspension is due to a different probation case. It is also possible that suspended and assumed that their current case would also include that condition. Though there was a difference noted, when I ran chi squares the difference was not statistically significant. A sizable portion of th suspended or revoked as part of their probation. received by roughly a quarter of those interviewed according to both data sources. W hen I performed chi squares I noted no significant differences between the two sources. Probationers who se vehicles were impounded typically were serving probation

PAGE 173

173 for DUI and their vehicles were often impounded for ten days. Both sources indicated that none of the interviewees received a condition requiring them to abide by a curfew 4 which was final punitive condition included in the interview instrument (Table 4 3). Overall, the estimates for the punitive conditions based on official data were similar license suspended or revoked. In that case, it is possible that the probationers were over lic ense s s suspended and assuming their current case s would reiterate the suspension. However, there were Additional Conditions of Probation Both the criminal history form ( Appendix D) and the interview instrument (Appendix G) had spaces to record thirty two common probation conditions. If official records indicated additional conditions of probation, I rec orded the additional conditions (Questions 114 118). In the case of the self report data, the probationers were asked to indicate whether there were any conditions that they were required to complete or adhere to other than the conditions included in the survey (Question 173). When the probationers indicated there were additional conditions, the interviewer would record the additional conditions. The official records indicated a total of nineteen additional probation conditions given to the interviewees (Table 4 4). The nineteen additional probation conditions can be classified as either a treatment condition, meant to address 4 I was not able to use chi square since the estimates from both sources were zero.

PAGE 174

174 Additional Treatment Conditions There were six additional treatment conditions that were given to interviewees. One of the conditions required the individual to take his or her prescribed psychotropic medicine, which would be prescribed him or her to help manage his or her mental and/or emotional disorder. This was assigned to only 1% (N= 2, 1.0%) of the interviewed sample (Tab le 4 4). Fewer than 2% of the sample (N= 3, 1.5%) received the condition to attend Alcoholic or Narcotics Anonymous. Only one pr obationer (0.5%) received the condition banning him or her from entering a bar or club. In the case of the three previously listed additional treatment conditions, none of the interviewees during their interview reported having received the condition 5 T he treatment condition of participating in a psychosocial, an in depth mental health evaluation, was court ordered for one interviewee; one person indicated the condition during the interview data (Table 4 4). Nearly 3% (N= 5, 2.5%) of the interviewed sam ple received the additional treatment condition of participating in a parenting class. Parenting classes typically help individuals build healthy parenting skills and include such topics as setting boundaries, communication, anger management and stages of discipline. Two percent (N= 4, 2.0%) of the interviewed sample reported having received the condition. The final additional treatment condition 5 None of the probationers reported having received the conditions of: take psychotropic medicine, attend Alcoholic/Narcotics Anonymou s meeting, no bars or clubs, and comply with Department of Children and chi square s.

PAGE 175

175 found in one case (0.5 %). A DCF plan is usually used in cases where the children have been removed or are in danger of being removed for the home, and the plan is used to ensure the children are not removed or are allowed to return. None of the probationers indicated having re ceived this condition. Table 4 4. Additional conditions based on official data versus self report d ata Official Data Interview Data N % N % Treatment Conditions Take psychotropic medicine 2 1.0 0 0.0 Attend Alcoholic/Narcotics Anonymous meetings 3 1.5 0 0.0 No bars or clubs 1 0.5 0 0.0 Psychosocial evaluation 1 0.5 1 0.5 Parenting class 5 2.5 4 2.0 1 0.5 0 0.0 Punitive Conditions Payment plan 5 2.5 0 0.0 Pay S 7 3.5 1 0.5 Buy out community service hours ($10 per hour) 5 2.5 0 0.0 Work crew days in lieu of fees 5 2.5 0 0.0 No contact with children under 12 1 0.5 0 0.0 No employment involving children 1 0.5 0 0.0 Resign from teaching 1 0.5 0 0.0 Letter of apology 4 2.0 2 1.0 Impound gun/rifle 2 1.0 1 0.5 Provide vehicle identification number 11 5.4 0 0.0 9 4.5 1 0.5 11 5.4 2 1.0 Ignition interlock device 24 11.9 10 5.0 Overall, there were only six additional treatment conditions given to probationers not already included in the data collection instruments. These conditions were rarely given and in most cases the probationers did not indicate having received the condit ion. There were no significant differences noted between official and self report estimates.

PAGE 176

176 Additional Punitive Conditions There were eleven additional conditions recorded from official data that could be classified as a punitive condition. Fewer than 3 % (N= 5, 2.5%) of the interviewe d sample received the condition requiring them to pay their court costs on a court ordered payment plan (Table 4 4). This condition was typically given to individuals who were on probation for writing worthless checks and c onsisted of the probationer s receiving payment schedules of when they were required to pay off each of the worthless check they wrote. None of the interviewees indicated having a payment plan condition 6 Roughly 4% (N= 7, 3.5%) were assigned to pay a Stat fewer than 1% (N= 1, 0.5%) of the sample reported the condition. The difference was ome of the money it cost the State to prosecute the person. The conditions of court ordered payment plan and State A small percentage (N=5, 2.5%) of the probation sentences h ad the condition dollars for every hour they were assigned (Table 4 4) For example, people who had twenty hours of community service could pay two hundred dollars instead of performing their community service hours. In roughly 3% (N=5, 2.5%) of the records, probationers were allowed to do work crew days in lieu of paying their fees as opposed to performing community service in lieu of paying their fees. None of those inte rviewed reported 6 Since n one of the participants reported receiving the conditions of payment plan, buying out community service hours, work crew days in lieu fees, no contact with child, no employment involving children, resign from teaching, and provide VIN, I was unable to determine statistically if there were differences.

PAGE 177

177 receiving either of the previously mentioned conditions, while official recorders indicated less than 3% had received the conditions. One person (0.5%) who was serving a misdemeanor probation sentence for a sex offense was court ordered to not have any contact with children under the age of twelve (Table 4 4) Another probationer (0.5%) who was serving probation for assaulting students in his or her class (as a teacher) received the conditions of no employment involving children and resign from teaching. Neither probationer reported the additional conditions. On rare occasions, probationers were assigned the condition of writing a letter of apology (Table 4 4). Often the letter of apology was addressed to the police officer who arrested t he probationer. Another additional punitive condition required the probationers to impound their guns/rifles. Only 1% (N= 2, 1.0%) of the files had this conditi on, while fewer than 1% (N=1, 0.5%) of interviewees reported it. When I ran chi squares there were no significant differences noted between the two data sources regarding the conditions of writing an apology letter and impounding their weapons. Several additional punitive conditions were given to individuals serving probation for a driving offense (Table 4 4) Five percent (N=11, 5.4%) of the interviewees were reported having to do so. Roughly 5% (N= 9, 4.5%) were court license. I 5% (N= 11, can drive. Twelve percent (N= 24, 11.9%) of the official records had the condition of ignition

PAGE 178

178 prevents the car from starting if there is alc ohol present. Only 5% (N= 10, 5.0%) of the sample reported having this condition. In the case the additional punitive conditions p ertaining to vehicles or licenses, self report estimates were less than the official estimates. However, when I performed chi squares none of differences were statistically significant. In summary, according to official records there were several additi onal punitive conditions given to those on probation. These additional punitive conditions were rare and not often assigned to many probationers. In terms of self report estimates, those interviewed often did not report having the additional punitive con ditions and when they did report the conditions the self report estimates were lower than the official estimates. However, the noted differences were not statistically significant. Chapter Summary In order to answer Research Q hat are the cond itions of probation that condition received by the interviewees based on official and interview data were reported. Eight of the eleven standard probation conditions applied to all 202 interviewees. Most of the interviewees reported having received the standard conditions of probation, with the exception of the condition of probation officers visiting cial records indicated at least one treatment condition, with the percentage being higher in interview revoked, official estimates for the ten punitive conditions were s imilar to self report estimates. Nineteen additional probation conditions were present in official records, which could be classified as additional treatment conditions or additional punitive

PAGE 179

179 conditions. In the case of the additional conditions, they wer e not commonly assigned and often the interviewees did not report having been assigned these additional conditions. None of the standard, treatment, punitive and additional probation report estimates was significantly differe nt. This indicated that probationers were familiar with their probation conditions and knew what conditions they were required to adhere to or complete in order for them to successfully complete probation.

PAGE 180

180 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS: RESEARCH QUESTION 2A SEVERI TY OF CONDITIONS three sub research questions. The first sub do the condi tions of probation fall on a continuum when it comes to severity? If so, which conditions are viewed as responses. I will next report correlation results, and the re sults from the regressions that were conducted on items significantly correlated at the bivariate level. Finally, qualitative data are examined in order to determine whether they explain or expand the survey results. Quantitative Analysis Percentages and Frequencies: Severity of Probation Conditions As previously mentioned, past researchers typically use one of three methods to assess severity (i.e., magnitude estimation, comparative judgments and offender generated). However, I decided that these approac hes were not feasible in the current study and instead used a Likert scale to assess severity, which has been used in the past to assess the difficulty of probation conditions in incarcerated populations (Pete rsilia & Deschenes, 1994a) ( Measures section fo r more details). Interviewees were asked to indicate whether they felt each of the thirty two listed probation conditions were not severe (1) somewhat severe (2) severe (3) or extremely severe (4). I then ran exploratory factor analysis and created eig ht severity scales. Additionally, I created three severity scales ba sed on previous literature ( Dependent Variables section for more details).

PAGE 181

181 Mean scores The means for seven of the eight scales ranged from 1.6 to 2.4; when rounded the mean scores indica ted the response of somewhat severe (Table s 5 1 and 5 2 and seven scales also had mean scores that indicated the response of somewhat severe The two exceptions were the it ems, complete a jail sentence and pay court costs, whose mean scores corresponded to the response of severe The mean score for the of severe However, two of the s by curfew, had mean scores that indicated a response of somewhat severe while the indicated severe Overall, the mean scores indicated that probation conditions to be either somewhat severe or severe None of the mean scores for the scales or scale items indicated the response of not severe or extremely severe Factor analysis based scales I next examined the percen (Table 5 62% of the participants indicated the five standard conditions that compo se the scale to be not severe ; for three of the items the perce ntage indicating a response of not severe was over 70% The not severe wever, the percentage indicating not severe was slightly lower in the specific sca identified the scale items as being not severe while for the

PAGE 182

182 Tabl e 5 1. Percentages for s everit y scales based on factor a nalysis Scales based on factor analysis N Not severe Somewhat severe Severe Extremely severe Mean Routine Condition Scale 1.6 Item 1: Commit no new law violation 198 68.2 12.1 9.6 10.1 1.6 Item 2: Report to probation once a month 202 61.9 15.8 11.4 10.9 1.7 Item 3: Answer truthfully to inquiries by PO 202 75.2 7.4 9.4 7.9 1.5 Item 4: Notify PO of changes in residence 202 75.7 8.4 10.4 5.4 1.5 Item 5: Notify PO of changes in Employment 197 72.1 12.2 10.2 5.6 1.5 Offender Specific Scale 1.7 Item 1: Participate in mental health treatment 133 54.9 18.0 21.1 6.0 1.8 Item 2: Participate in employment program 127 56.7 22.0 16.5 4.7 1.7 I nterv ention 124 56.5 16.1 18.5 8.9 1.8 Item 4: Complete anger management 126 57.1 14.3 23.0 5.6 1.8 Item 5: No contact with victim 124 59.7 16.1 12.1 12.1 1.8 Item 6: Attend one victim impact panel 151 60.9 19.9 12.6 6.6 1.7 Offense Specific Scale 1.8 Item 1: Submit to random screens 180 52.2 17.2 17.2 13.3 1.9 Item 2: Do not possess or consume alcohol 185 54.6 21.1 14.1 10.3 1.8 Item 3: Do not possess or consume drugs 185 73.0 9.2 9.7 8.1 1.5 Item 4: Participate in alcohol tre atment 163 52.1 21.5 20.2 6.1 1.8 Item 5: Participate in drug treatment 141 46.1 24.8 21.3 7.8 1.9 160 49.4 25.0 19.4 6.3 1.8 Punitive Activity Scale 2.3 Item 1: Complete mandatory CS hours 181 38.1 25 .4 19.9 16.6 2.2 Item 2: Complete CS hours in lieu of fees 169 48.5 21.3 16.6 13.6 2.0 Item 3: Complete work crew days 145 32.4 15.9 28.3 23.4 2.4 Item 4: Complete a jail sentence 153 22.9 10.5 29.4 37.3 2.8 Likert Scale: Not severe= 1, Somewhat se vere= 2, Severe= 3, and Extremely severe= 4

PAGE 183

183 Table 5 1. Continued Scales based on factor analysis N Not severe Somewhat severe Severe Extremely severe Mean Punitive Restrictive Scale 2.5 167 18.0 18.6 22. 8 40.7 2.9 Item 2: Abide with order of impoundment 153 34.6 16.3 26.8 22.2 2.4 Item 3: Abide by curfew 120 31.7 13.3 34.2 20.8 2.4 Standard Financial Scale 2.4 Item 1: Pay monthly cost of supervision 198 26.3 33.8 22.7 17.2 2.3 I tem 2: Pay court costs 195 21.5 29.2 25.1 24.1 2.5 Standard Visit Scale 1.8 Item 1: Allow PO to visit residence 196 57.1 24.0 9.2 9.7 1.7 Item 2: Allow PO to visit employment site 187 48.1 24.6 11.2 16.0 2.0 Standard Employmen t Scale 1.7 Item 1: Try to obtain employment 187 56.7 17.1 12.8 13.4 1.8 Item 2: Maintain employment/enrollment 186 61.3 19.4 11.8 7.5 1.7 Likert Scale: Not severe= 1, Somewhat severe= 2, Severe= 3, and Extremely severe= 4

PAGE 184

184 least half and typically the majority felt these conditions were not severe The se conditions were mainly compo sed of standard conditions and treatment conditions. In comparison to the three previously discussed scales, the re was greater variance in the reporting of severity among the probationer s for the conditions that compo (Table 5 1). The two scale items that focus on community service had similar percentages with a slight majority indic ating the conditions to be not severe and fewer than 20% indicating the conditions to be extremely severe For the third scale item, complete work crew days, 32% (N= 47, 32.4%) of the interviewees reported the condition to be not severe However, nearly 28% (N= 41, 28.3%) indicated the condition to be severe and 24% (N= 34, 23.4%) indicated the condition to be extremely severe so more thought this was a severe condition. The final scale item, complete a jail sentence, only had 23% (N= 35, 22.9%) of the sample report the condition to be not severe The majority of the interviewees for a jail sentence to be either severe (N= 45, 29.4%) or extremely severe (N= 57, 37.3%), meaning that restricting their freedom was more severe than the condition asking the m to abide by rules or participate in programming. ve sed of three items, one of which was the item that had more interviewees reporting the condition to be extremely severe than any other condition (Table 5 1) The revoked had only 18% (N= 30, 18.0%) of the sample reporting the condition to be not severe Forty one percent (N= 68, 40.7%) of the interviewees identified the condition to be extremely severe makin g it the condition with the most participants identifying it as

PAGE 185

185 extremely severe The other two conditions that compo sed the scale had roughly a third of the interviewees reporting the conditions to be not severe and s lightly more than 20% reporting them to be extremely severe The conditions comprising the probationers consid ered the conditions that restricted their freedom were more severe than the majority of standard and treatment conditions, which mainly comprise previous scales. the highest re sponse category indicated the response of somewhat severe In other words, in the case of most conditions, respondents reported the conditions to be not severe but for these two conditions respondents reported them to be somewhat severe (Table 5 1). Twen ty six percent (N= 52, 26.3%) of the sample indicated paying the monthly cost of supervision to be somewhat severe and 24% (N= 57, 29.2%) indicated paying court costs was somewhat severe Financial conditions were more burdensome than all previously menti oned conditions, except for the conditions of completing a jail The remaining two scales that were created using factor analysis had similar estimates as each other (Table 5 1). At least 48% of the interviewees felt the scales items were not severe At most only 16% of those interviewed reported the conditions comprising the two scales as being extremely severe A large portion of the probationers identified the conditions requiring probati oners to obtain and maintain

PAGE 186

186 employment sites as being not severe Overall, the factor analysis were often identified as being not severe which suggests tha t mos t conditions were viewed as being not severe (Table 8 1 lists the conditions on a continuum based on extremely severe responses percentages) Literature based scales Using the same thirty two probation conditions that were used in the factor analysis based scales, I created three scales compo sed of the conditions that fall into the classification established in the literature (i.e., standard, treatment and punitive) ed of the e leven standard probation conditions, and as before most though they were not severe For eight of the standard conditions, more than 55% of the sample identified the condition s as being not severe (Table 5 2). In most cases the percentages were greater t han 65% A small percentage of the interviewees identified the eight standard conditions as being extremely severe The remaining three standard conditions had fewer than 50% of those sampled indicate the condition to be not severe However, in the case of the standard condition, allow probation officer to visit employment site, slightly fewer than 50% (N= 90, 48.1%) reported it being not severe The two financial standard conditions had fewer interviewees indicating the conditions to be not severe and more indicating the conditions to be extremely severe For most of the standard conditions, the majority of the probationers identified the conditions as being not severe The exceptions were the conditions of paying monthly cost of supervision and court costs; less than a third of the probationers considered the conditions to be not severe

PAGE 187

187 Table 5 2. Percentages for severity s cal es based on l iterature Scales based on literature N Not severe Somewhat severe Severe Extremely severe Mean Severity Stand ard Scale 1.8 Item 1: Commit no new law violation 198 68.2 12.1 9.6 10.1 1.6 Item 2: Report to probation once a month 202 61.9 15.8 11.4 10.9 1.7 Item 3: Answer truthfully to inquiries by PO 202 75.2 7.4 9.4 7.9 1.5 Item 4: Notify PO of chan ges in residence 202 75.7 8.4 10.4 5.4 1.5 Item 5: Notify PO of changes in employment 197 72.1 12.2 10.2 5.6 1.5 Item 6: Try to obtain employment 187 56.7 17.1 12.8 13.4 1.8 Item 7: Maintain employment/enrollment 186 61.3 19.4 11.8 7.5 1.7 Item 8: Allow PO to visit residence 196 57.1 24.0 9.2 9.7 1.7 Item 9: Allow PO to visit employment site 187 48.1 24.6 11.2 16.0 2.0 Item 10: Pay monthly cost of supervision 198 26.3 33.8 22.7 17.2 2.3 Item 11: Pay court costs 195 21.5 29.2 25.1 24.1 2.5 Severity Treatment Scale 1.7 Item 1: Submit to random screens 180 52.2 17.2 17.2 13.3 1.9 Item 2: Do not possess or consume alcohol 185 54.6 21.1 14.1 10.3 1.8 Item 3: Do not possess or consume drugs 185 73.0 9.2 9.7 8.1 1.5 Item 4: Participate in alcohol treatment 163 52.1 21.5 20.2 6.1 1.8 Item 5: Participate in drug treatment 141 46.1 24.8 21.3 7.8 1.9 Item 6: Participate in mental health treatment 133 54.9 18.0 21.1 6.0 1.8 Item 7: Participate in employment program 127 56.7 22.0 16.5 4.7 1.7 Item 8: Complete Milepost class 101 58.4 13.9 21.8 5.9 1.8 ntervention 124 56.5 16.1 18.5 8.9 1.8 Item 10: Complete anger management 126 57.1 14.3 23.0 5.6 1.8 160 49. 4 25.0 19.4 6.3 1.8 Likert Scale: Not severe= 1, Somewhat severe= 2, Severe= 3, and Extremely severe= 4

PAGE 188

188 Table 5 2. Continued Scales based on literature N Not severe Somewhat severe Severe Extremely severe Mean Severity Punitive Scale 2.3 Item 1: Complete mandatory CS hours 181 38.1 25.4 19.9 16.6 2.2 Item 2: Complete CS hours in lieu of fees 169 48.5 21.3 16.6 13.6 2.0 Item 3: Complete work crew days 145 32.4 15.9 28.3 23.4 2.4 Item 4: Complete a jail sentence 153 22.9 10.5 29.4 37.3 2.8 Item 5: Pay restitution 138 35.5 26.8 23.9 13.8 2.2 Item 6: No contact with victim 124 59.7 16.1 12.1 12.1 1.8 Item 7: Attend one victim impact panel 151 60.9 19.9 12.6 6.6 1.7 167 18.0 18.6 22.8 40.7 2 .9 Item 9: Abide with order of impoundment 153 34.6 16.3 26.8 22.2 2.4 Item 10: Abide by curfew 120 31.7 13.3 34.2 20.8 2.4 Overall Severity Scale 1.9 All thirty two conditions Likert Scale: Not severe= 1, Somewhat severe= 2 Severe= 3, and Extremely severe= 4

PAGE 189

189 Eight of the 50 to 60% of the interviewees indicate the condition to be not severe (Table 5 2). Between 5 and 13% of the interviewed sample reported the eight conditions as being extremely severe than 50% of the sample identifying the conditions to be not severe The item, participate in drug treatment had 46% (N= 65, 46.1 %) reporting the condition as not severe and the item, attend a had 49% (N= 79, 49.4%) saying the same. The fin al item had over 70% (N= 135, 73.0%) of the interviewees reporting that not possessing or consuming drugs was not severe while only 8% (N= 15, 8.1%) indicated the item to be extremely seve re. Nearly all the treatment conditions had half of the sample indicating that the condition was not severe There was more variance among the ten items that compo punitive sca victim and attend victim impact panel) had roughly 60% of the sample identifying the conditions to be not severe (Table 5 2). However, 12% (N= 15, 12.1%) of the sample identified the condition of no contact with victim was extremely severe while only 7% (N= 10, 6.6%) indicated attending a victim impact panel as being extremely severe In the case of the condition, complete community service hours in lieu of fees, slightly fewer t han 50% (N= 82, 48.5%) indicated a response of not severe and 14% (N= 23, 13.6%) indicated a response of extremely severe Five of the ten punitive conditions had 30 to 40% of the interviewees indicating the conditions to be not severe The five conditio ns had 17 to 23% of the sample identify the conditions to be extremely severe The two conditions identified as being the most severe probation conditions were both

PAGE 190

190 punitive conditions. Nearly 40% (N= 57, 37.3%) of the interviewees reported the condition of completing a jail sentence was extremely severe while sli ghtly greater than 40% was extremely severe With the exception of attending a victim impact panel, the punitive c onditions were viewed as being more severe than standard and treatment conditions. Summary of frequencies and percentages Five of the eight scales created based on factor analysis had the majority of not severe With the exception of the two standard financial c onditions, the items that compo he punitive conditions were generally understood to be more severe as a punishment than the other conditions ( Table 8 1 lists the conditions on a continuum based on extremely severe responses percentages ) The condition with the largest of probationers id entifying it as not severe was notifying the probation officer of changes in residence. Similarly, the condition of answering truthfully to inquiries by probation officer was considered to be not severe by a large majority of people. One of the most seve re conditions was to complete a jail sentence (N= 57, 37.3%). However, the condition that was most often reported as being the extremely severe 41% (N= 68, 40.7%) of the interviewees identifyin g the condition as being extremely severe Overall, m ost conditions included in the interview instrument were viewed as being not severe

PAGE 191

191 Correlations and Regressions: Severity of Probation Conditions Following the frequencies, I ran correlations with the dependent and independent variables for the severity of conditions (Tables 5 3, 5 4 and 5 5 and Appendix K for correlations by scale item). There were twenty three independent variables used which were classified as personal characteristics, previous cri minal history and current offense and probation sentence. The personal characteristics included age, race, gender, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, years of education, employment status and sample The previous criminal history independent var iables were presence of previous history, seriousness history, prior violent offense, prior probation, prior violation, jail history and prior sentence history while the current offense and probation sentence variables were current offense type, violent o ffense, plea bargain, charge level reduction, violation of probation, new law violation and technical violation After running the correlation s I ran regressions using the variables that were correlated at the bivariate level ( Appendix L for regression t ables that included all the independent variables). Ordinary least squares linear (OLS) regression was used. Factor analysis based scales I ran correlations with the eight severity scales created by factor analysis and the twenty three independent variabl es and OLS regression with the variables significantly correlated at the bivariate level. Routine condition scale independent variables were significant at the bivariate level, age and race (Table 5 3). I

PAGE 192

192 age and race 1 Age (b= 0.01, p=0.018) and race (b= 0.34, p=0.005) remained significant in the multivariate model (Table 5 6). Younger interviewees and non Whites were more likely t o find the and Whites. Those who are older and White probationers were more likely to report that abiding by the law, reporting once a month, answering truthfully, an d notifying probation officers of changes in residences and employment sites as being less severe than younger and non White probationers. Offender specific scale. Prior sentence history new law violation and technical violation were significant at the b ivariate level (Table s 5 4 and 5 5). The current offense and probation sentence variables, new law violation and technical violation were not prior sentence history (b= 0.08, p=0.004) was significant (Table 5 6). Individuals with more extensive criminal sanction histories were more likely find the conditions of participating in : intervention, anger managem ent, victim impact panel and having no contact with the victim to be less severe than those with less extensive criminal sanction histories. Offense specific scale. One independent variable, age was significantly (Table 5 3). Next, OLS regression was run age as the independent 1 I used two collinearity diagnostic factors to assessed multicollinearity for all the regressi ons estimated None of the variables had a tolerance value below 0.40 or had a variance inflation factor (VIF) a bove 2 0. Based on the collinearity diagnostic factors, multicollinearity was not a problem in any of the models

PAGE 193

193 Table 5 3. Correlations of severity scales and personal characteristics v ariables Correlations of Severity Scales and Per sonal Characteristics Variables Age Race Gender Ethnicity Marital Status Parental Status Years of Education Employment Status Sample Scales based on factor analysis Routine Condition Scale 0.15* 0.18* 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.02 0.11 0.07 0.0 3 Offender Specific Scale 0.14 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.09 0.07 Offense Specific Scale 0.21* 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.15 0.09 0.02 0.09 0.12 Punitive Activity Scale 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.08 0.12 0.08 Punitive Restrictive Scale 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.14 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.14 Standard Financial Scale 0.03 0.02 0.17* 0.15* 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.02 Standard Visit Scale 0.11 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.17* 0.05 0.03 Standard Employment Scale 0.16* 0.20** 0.02 0.01 0.13 0.04 0.13 0.16* 0.00 Scales based on literature Severity Standard Scale 0.14 0.17* 0.07 0.04 0.10 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.00 Severity Treatment Scale 0.17 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.14 0.03 0.01 0.23* 0.13 Severity Punitive Scale 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.14 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.05 Overall Severity Scale 0.10 0.22 0.05 0.01 0.18 0.10 0.05 0.17 0.06 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 194

194 Table 5 4. Correlations of severity scales and p rev ious criminal history v ariables Correlations of Severity Scales and Previous Criminal History Variables Previous History Seriousness History Prior Violent Offense Prior Pro bation Prior Violation Jail History Prior Sentence History Scales based on factor analysis Routine Condition Scale 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 Offender Specific Scale 0.03 0.17 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.17 0.20* Offens e Specific Scale 0.16 0.12 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.15 0.15 Punitive Activity Scale 0.03 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.14 0.08 0.07 Punitive Restrictive Scale 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 Standard Financial Scale 0.06 0.11 0.12 0.02 0.03 0.11 0.07 Standard Visit Scale 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.05 Standard Employment Scale 0.13 0.18* 0.10 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.06 Scales based on literature Severity Standard Sc ale 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.00 Severity Treatment Scale 0.07 0.09 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.14 0.15 Severity Punitive Scale 0.06 0.08 0.01 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.09 Overall Severity Scale 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.06 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 195

195 Table 5 5. Correlations of severity scales and current o ffense an d probation sentence v ariables Correlations of Severity Scales and Current Offense and Probation Sentence Variables Current Offense Type Violent Offe nse Plea Bargain Charge Level Reduction Violation of Probation New Law Violation Technical Violation Scales based on factor analysis Routine Condition Scale 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.12 0.14 Offender Specific Scale 0.08 0.14 0.17 0.10 0.05 0.24* 0.23* Offense Specific Scale 0.06 0.03 0.11 0.05 0.01 0.08 0.06 Punitive Activity Scale 0.06 0.11 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.06 Punitive Restrictive Scale 0.10 0.10 0.18 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.10 Standard Financial Scale 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.16* 0.14 Standard Visit Scale 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.08 Standard Employment Scale 0.14 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.15* 0.12 Scales based on literature S everity Standard Scale 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.19* 0.18* Severity Treatment Scale 0.03 0.06 0.16 0.04 0.04 0.16 0.17 Severity Punitive Scale 0.12 0.13 0.23* 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.09 Overall Severity Scale 0.13 0.10 0.20 0. 01 0.06 0.17 0.17 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 196

196 variable (Table 5 6). Age (b= 0.01, p= 0. 017) was a significant predictor of the scale, indicating that as age increased the likelihood of reporting the scale items to be severe decreased. Older people thou ght submitting to random screens, not possess or consuming alcohol and/or drugs, and participating in alcohol treatment, drug treatment Punitive activity scale. None of the twenty three independent variables were (Table s 5 3, 5 4 and 5 5). Punitive restrictive scale 1 r estrictive (Table s 5 3, 5 4 and 5 5). Standard financial scale. Three independent variables were correlated with the Gender ethnic ity and new law violation were significantly correlated (Table s 5 3 and 5 5). A model predicting the scale with gender ethnicity and new law violation as predictors was run and all variables were significant ( gender : b= 0.42, p= 0.004; ethnicity : b= 0.6 2, p= 0.027; new law violation : b= 0.52, p= 0.017) (Table 5 6). Women were more likely to indicate the conditions comprising the scale to be severe than men, while Hispanics are more likely to indicate the conditions to be severe than non Hispanics. Addi tionally, those probationers who 1 I ran regression models fo r each of the scales with all the independent variables, regardless of whether the independent variables were significant at the bivariate level. One independent variable was identified as a significant predictor when an OLS model was estimated with all t he independent variables and the unitive Appendix L). Sample (b= 0.40, p= 0.041) was a significant predictor, and indicated that those who were conveniently sampled were more likely to report s to be severe. It is possible that when combined with the other variables, its joint predictive capability was seen. However, it should be noted that the predictive capability of the model is non existent or limited because the F statistic was non signi ficant.

PAGE 197

197 violated probation due to new law violations were also more likely to find the two financial conditions comprising the scale to be severe than interviewees with no new law violation. Table 5 6. Predicting conditions of pro factor analysis based s cales Scale Routine Condition Scale Variable b Standard Error B eta Age 0.01* 0.00 0.17 Race 0.34** 0.12 0.20 Constant 2.18 0.20 R square 0.06 Adjusted R square 0.05 Standard error of the esti mate 0.81 Degrees of freedom 2 F value 6.18** N 194 Offender Specific Scale Variable b Standard Error B eta Prior sentence history 0.08* 0.04 0.20 New law violation 0.30 0.30 0.13 Technical violation 0.26 0.23 0.15 Constant 1.74 0.1 1 R square 0.11 Adjusted R square 0.08 Standard error of the estimate 0.75 Degrees of freedom 3 F value 3.74* N 99 Offense Specific Scale Variable b Standard Error B eta Age 0.01* 0.00 0.21 Constant 2.27 0.21 R square 0 .05 Adjusted R square 0.04 Standard error of the estimate 0.74 Degrees of freedom 1 F value 5.82* N 124 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 198

198 Table 5 6. Continued Scale Standard Financial Scale Variable b Standard Error B eta Gender 0.42** 0.1 5 0.21 Ethnicity 0.62* 0.28 0.16 New law violation 0.52* 0.2 2 0.17 Constant 2.58 0.12 R square 0.09 Adjusted R square 0.07 Standard error of the estimate 0.96 Degrees of freedom 3 F value 5.87** N 192 Standard Visit Scale Variable b Standard Error B eta Years of education 0.09* 0.04 0.17 Constant 0.63 0.53 R square 0.03 Adjusted R square 0.02 Standard error of the estimate 0.99 Degrees of freedom 1 F value 5.14* N 183 Standard Employment Scale Variable b Standard Error B eta Age 0.01* 0.00 0.18 Race 0.28 0.15 0.15 Employment status 0.23 0.14 0.12 Seriousness history 0.03 0.01 0.13 New law violation 0.30 0.21 0.10 Constant 2.36 0.26 R square 0.11 Adjusted R square 0.09 St andard error of the estimate 0.89 Degrees of freedom 5 F value 4.46** N 179 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 199

199 Standard visit scale. The only independent variable correlated at the bivariate (Table 5 3). I ran ordinary s the dependent variable and years of education as the independent variable (Table 5 6). Years of education (b= 0.09, p= 0.025) was a significant predictor of the scale 1 As years of educational attainment increased so did the likelihood of the interviewees reporting that probation officers visiting their residence and employment sites were severe. Standard employment scale 2 variables correlated at the bivariate level. Age race employment status seriousness history and new law violation were all significantly correlated (Table s 5 3, 5 4 and 5 5). Using OLS regression, I determined that race employment status seriousnes s history and new law violation were no longer significant once I controlled for the other variables. Age (b= 0.01, p= 0.016) was the only significant predictor (Table 5 6). As age increased the likelihood of individuals reporting the scales to be sever e decreased. Older interviewees were more likely to report that obtaining and maintaining employment to be less severe than younger interviewees. 1 Though seriousness was not correlated at the bivariate level, when I ran OLS regression with all the independent variables, seriousness (b= 0.08, p= 0.032) was a significant predictor. Probationers with more serious criminal histories were more likely to report the conditions of their probation officers visiting their homes and employment sites to be severe. The significant relationship may be due to chance or due to seriousness needing to be in conjunction with other variables in order for the relationship to appear. The F statistics was non significant, indicating the model had little or no predictive capability. 2 As was the case with the reduced models, age (b= 0.02, p= 0.043) was a hen the full model was run ( Appendix L). Those who are younger were more likely age may have become significant due to chance or because when combined with other variables, its joint predictive capability is seen. It should be noted that the predictive capability of the model may be limited, because the F statistic was non significant.

PAGE 200

200 Literature based scales I also ran correlations with the severity scales created based on the literature, the nty three independent variables: nine personal characteristics variables, seven previous criminal history variables, and seven current offense and probation sentence variables. In comparison to the factor analysis base d scales, there were fewer variables significant at the bivariate level for the literature based scales. Severity standard scale 3 The first literature based scale had three independent variables significant at the bivariate level; race new law violation and technical violation were significant (Table s 5 3 and 5 race new law violation, and technical violation (Table 5 7). However, none of the variables remained significant once OLS re gressions were estimated. There were no significant predicators for the standard conditions comprising the scale. Severity treatment scale. Employment status was significant at the bivariate level (Table 5 3), but in the OLS regression this variable was not a significant predictor (Table 5 7). Severity punitive scale. One independent variable, plea bargain was (Table 5 5). I ran OLS regression with the scale as the dependent variable and plea bargain a s the 3 For each literature based severity scale, I ran a regression model with all twenty three independent variable regardles s of whether the variables were significant at the bivariate level. Age was a significant 0.01, p= 0.04 9) ( Appendix L). As age increased the likelihood of reporting the conditions as being severe decreased. When I ran the full models some variables that were not significant at the bivariate level became significant when all the variables were placed in the model. It is possible that offense type does not predict well individually, but does jointly. Howeve r, since the F statistic was non significant, there is little to no predictive capability in the model.

PAGE 201

201 Table 5 7. literature based s cales Scale Severity Standard Scale Variable b Standard Error Beta Race 0.20 0.10 0.15 New law violation 0.28 0.22 0.14 Technical violation 0.10 0.18 0.06 Constant 1.87 0.09 R square 0.06 Adjusted R square 0.05 Standard error of the estimate 0.66 Degrees of freedom 3 F value 3.65* N 170 Severity Treatment Scale Variable b Standard Error Bet a Employment status 0.01 0.00 0.17 Constant 1.69 0.08 R square 0.03 Adjusted R square 0.02 Standard error of the estimate 0.72 Degrees of freedom 1 F value 2.71 N 92 Standard Punitive Scale Variable b Standard Error Beta Pl ea bargain 0.41* 0.19 0.23 Constant 1.91 0.17 R square 0.06 Adjusted R square 0.04 Standard error of the estimate 0.69 Degrees of freedom 1 F value 4.94* N 86 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 202

202 independent variable (Table 5 7). Plea barga in (b= 0.41, p=0.029) was a significant predictor of the scale 4 Those who indicated having received their current probation as a result of a plea bargain were more likely to report the punitive conditions to be severe than those who were not serving thei r current probation sentence as a result of a plea bargain. Overall severity scale 5 since none of the variables were correlated at the bivariate level (Tables 5 3, 5 4 and 5 5). Summary of correl ations and regressions Few variables were correlated at the bivariate level. In the case of two factor analysis be significantly correlated. None of the scales had more than f ive variables correlated. For the factor analysis based scales, most of the variables remained significant once OLS regressions were run, while only one variable was significant predictor for one of the literature based scale. Having the presence of a ne w law violation age and race were found to be significant predicators for multiple severity scales. The independent variables marital status parental status sample previous history prior violent offense 4 variable and employment status (b= 0.405, p= 0. 032) was significant ( Appendix L). Individuals who were employed were more likely to report the punitive conditions to be severe. When combined with other variables, their predictive model may be seen, though the model itself had limit to no predictive p ower because the F static was non significant. 5 Two independent variables were identified as significant predictors when an OLS model was estimated with all the independent variables and th Appendix L). Race (b= 0.44, p= 0.036 ) and employment status (b= 0.59, p= 0.001) were significant when the model was run with all the variables. Individuals who were non White and those who were employed were more likely to report the conditions of probation as being severe than Whites and t hose unemployed. When combined with the other variables, their joint predictive capability was seen, though the predictive capability of the model is non existent or limited because the non significant F statistic.

PAGE 203

203 prior probation prior violation jail history current offense type violent offense charge level reduction and violation of probation were not significant at the bivariate level for any of the eleven severity scales. Overall there were few significant predictors of possibly because there is little variance in responses; a large portion of the probationers who responded consider most probation conditions to be not severe Qualitative Analysis A criticism of previo us severity research is that researcher s did not addres s what severity means to the participant and why he or she indicated the severity rankings he or she selected (Von Hirsch et al., 1992). I attempted to address this criticism. For each condition that the interviewee reported as being extremely severe I asked why the person felt the condition was extremely severe Additionally for each condition that the interviewee reported as being not severe I asked why he or she felt the condition was not severe ital recorded and later transcribed. Roughly 80% (N= 159, 78.7%) of the interviews were recorded. In the cases where the interview was not recorded, the inter viewer took detailed notes ( Data Collection section for more details). I analyzed the qualitati ve data by coding and examining the data for themes. The content analysis of the transcribed interviews w as used to further help answer Research Q uestion 2a, which pertains to severity. Standard Conditions of Probation Not severe No new law violation. T wo major themes emerged from the qualitative data regarding the first standard condition (Table 5 8). The first theme was that probationers considered the condition of abiding by the law to be not severe since they do not

PAGE 204

204 typically commit crime. Individu als would state they did not have a history of committing crime, nor did they plan to commit any future crime(s). For example, a forty year old, White man, serving probation for a public order offense three year old, White woman, serving probation I me Probationers also appeared to base their ranking of not severe on the idea that committing a new law violation violates a societal rule. It appears they do not see the condition as being a term of their probation but instead being something greater than their probation sentence. When asked a sixty four year old, Black, male, violent y. And we know the difference bet During her interview, a forty year old, White, female, public order offender responded twenty year old, W hite woman, sentenced f tion of committing no new law violations as being not severe did so because they typically abided by the laws and/or because they felt not breaking the laws was part of societal norms and a greater obligation than just a probation condition. Report to the probation office once a month. The second condition had three major themes with the first theme emerging being that the condition was a reasonable

PAGE 205

205 Table 5 hemes Condition Not Severe Extremely Severe C ommit no new law violation Do not regularly do so Consequence too great Societal norm Report once a month Reasonable Consequence too great Not difficult Time consuming Good idea Answer truthfully Nothing to hide Get in trouble Do not regularly do so Notify if changes in residence Reasonable Not appropriate for charges Not difficult Notify if changes in employment Reasonable Not appropriate for charges Not difficult Try to obtain employment Should work Hindered by probation Good idea Economy Maintain employment/school Maintained in past Hindered by probation Necessary Allow PO to visit residence Good idea Intrusive Reasonable Nothing to hide Allow PO to visit employment Good idea Intrusive Reasonable Nothing to hide Pay monthly cost of supervision Reasonable Consequences too great Flexible Expensive Paying for own supervision Pay court costs Reasonable Consequences too great Flexible Expensive condition (Table 5 8). I expect them to keep track of me, and that seems like the most two year old, White man, who is serving prob ation for a public order offense A twenty one year old, White,

PAGE 206

206 female, public order sentiment that it is a reasonable condition was shared by many of the interviewed probationers. The seco nd theme that emerged from the not severe qualitative responses was that reporting monthly to the probation agencies was not difficult. A thirty one year old, White, minutes six year old, White, female, public The final theme that emerged regarding this condition was that probationers fe lt that the condition was a good idea. A thirty year old, White, male probationer sentenced fo r a public order offense stated: a you got to put your mind to. If, I know I got a report why should I be g. A thirty five year old, Blac one year old, Black, female probationer, who is on probation for a violent offense, touch with the one that supervising me, and I can show and prove three themes that emerged regarding the condition of reporting once a month was that the condition wa s reasonable, not difficult to complete and a good idea.

PAGE 207

207 Answer truthfully to inquiries by probation officer. Through c ontent analysis, I extracted two major themes with regard to being honest with the probationer officer (Table 5 8). The first theme wa s that probationers felt the condition was not severe was a comment made by a forty five year old, White, female, public order offender and was express by others. T he second theme was that the interviewees reported that they do not lie, so the condition was not severe for them. A forty eight year old, White while a thirty year not severe did so because they did not feel they had anything to lie about or because they did not typically lie. Notifying probati on officer of changes in residence and notifying probation officer of changes in employment. The two conditions regarding notifying probation officer of any changes in either living situation and/or employment had the same two main themes (Table 5 8). Th e first theme being that probationers thought the condition was reasonable. A sixty two year eight year old, White, male, public order o Content analysis demonstrated that the two standard conditions were thought of as being not severe because the conditions were thought to be easy to accomplish. A majority of the probat four year old,

PAGE 208

208 White, man serving probation for a public order offense. A twenty nine year old, White, ma two reasons individuals considered the conditions of notifying their probation officers of changes in living situations and employment were because they felt the conditi ons were reasonable and/or thought they were easy to accomplish. Try to obtain employment. The qualitative data showed that one of the themes among probationers reporting the condition to be not severe was that they felt everyone should be required to wo rk regardless of being on probation (Table 5 old, Black, female, public order offender and was an opinion expressed by others. The second theme that emerged was that some probationers appeared to feel t hat encouraging probationers to obtain employment was a good idea. A forty one year pocket and you can take probationer, who was fifty eight years old, White and a public order offender stated that identified as being no t severe because individuals felt they should have a job regardless of probation and because people felt it was a good idea. Maintain employment/school enrollment. I extracted two major themes from the responses regarding this condition (Table 5 8). Seve ral probationers reported that they felt the maintaining employment/school enrollment was not severe because they maintained employment in the past or have maintained their currently employment for a while. A thirty four year old, Black, male, violent off

PAGE 209

209 twenty The second theme among those who reported the condition was not severe was that they would maintain employment/school enrollment regardless of being on ar old, White, female, public order offender, but was one that repeated by other interviewees. The two reasons probationers considered maintaining employment to be not severe was because they had been able to maintain employment in the past and that they would maintain probation regardless of the probation condition requiring them to do so. Allow probation officer to visit residence and allow probation officer to visit employment site. From the content analysis the same three themes emerged for the two co (Table 5 8). Many probationers reported feeling the conditions were a good idea and therefore not severe A thirty five year keep tabs on you. I think it keeps people out of trouble, keeps them from falling into bad Probationers also felt that the conditions were reasonable. A fifty year old, White, ed to do or allowed to do or

PAGE 210

210 The final theme that emerged was that probationers reported that they had nothing old, White, male public order offender but was a statement repeated by probationers when asked about the conditions. The conditions of probationers visiting their homes and employment sites were perceived as being not severe because the probationers considered the condi tions to be good idea, reasonable, and/or have nothing they need to hide from the probationer officers. Pay monthly cost of supervision and pay court cost. There were two themes that the standard financial conditions had in common (Table 5 8). It appears that probationers reported the conditions were not severe because they felt the condition was reasonable. A thirty five year ey deserve six year old, White, female probationer, who was serving a hould have to pay for something, s five yea r old, Black, that probationers felt that the probation agency will work with the m if they were having a forty two year old, Black, male, violent offender but was a reoccurring sentiment among other probationers.

PAGE 211

211 The condition of paying monthly cost o f supervision had an additional theme, which was that probationers felt the cost of supervision was not expensive. A twenty two year andard financial conditions were identified as being not severe due to the conditions being reasonable and the agency being willing to work with the probationers. The condition of paying the monthly cost of supervision had the additional theme that the mo nthly cost was not expensive. Extremely severe No new law violation. One theme emerged from the qualitative data from those who reported the condition of remaining law abiding as being extremely severe (Table 5 8). The theme that emerged was that they fe lt the consequences for violating the condition was too severe. A forty eight year was still paying the consequences for the f irst one, then the end results gonna be ten abiding by the law was extremely severe was that the consequences for not complying with the condition were too high. Report to th e probation office once a month. With regard s to reporting once a month, again some felt it was extremely severe because of the possible consequences for violation (Table 5 to jail five year old, White, male, public order offender but was an opinion shared by many of those who felt the condition was extremely severe Other probationers felt the condition was extremely severe because it was time con suming. A thirty one, year old, White woman, who was serving probation for a

PAGE 212

212 extremely severe b ecause of the consequences for violating the condition and because it is too time consuming to complete. Answer truthfully to inquiries by probation officer. Through content analysis, I extracted one theme regarding being truthful to the probation officer (Table 5 8). The theme was that probationers felt that being honest could lead to them getting in trouble. When asked why they indicated the condition to be extremely severe probationers made comments similar to a thirty three, Black, female, public or Notifying probation officer of changes in residence and notifying probation officer of changes in employment. The content analysis demonstrated that only one theme emerged regarding the two conditi ons being extremely severe (Table 5 8). Those who reported the conditions to be extremely severe appeared to feel so because the conditions three year old, Black, female, public order offender but was common response among other probationers who reported the conditions to be extremely severe The theme that individuals thought having to notify their probation officers of changes in their res idences and employment was not necessary considerin g their charges was the only theme identified. Try to obtain employment. The qualitative data showed two themes among probationers reporting the condition to be extremely severe (Table 5 8). The first th eme was that they felt being on probation would make it hard to obtain employment. A sixty

PAGE 213

213 year looking at a perspective job, I believe that your prospective employer would not hire two year sentiment. Her statement was : a job as it is right now, but I guess in some aspects charged as a criminal. The second theme that emerged was that probationers reported the condition to be extremely severe five year old, Black, female, drug offender and was a common one statement among other probationers who identified the condition as being extremely severe Being on p robation and the current state of the economy were the two reasons probationers reported a condition of obtaining employment would be extremely severe Maintain employment/school enrollment. From the transcripts I extracted one theme regarding the conditi on of maintaining employment and/or school enrollment (Table 5 8). Those who indicated the condition to be extremely severe reported feeling this way because they thought being on probation might make it difficult to comply with the condition. A thirty o ne year were common among those probationers. Currently being on probation was the only theme noted as to why p robationers reported maintaining employment would be extremely severe

PAGE 214

214 Allow probation officer to visit residence and allow probation officer to visit employment site. Only one theme emerged when I performed a content analysis on responses about why proba tioners consider their probation officers visiting their homes and/or employment sites to be extremely severe (Table 5 8). Probationers reported that the conditions were extremely severe private person and I three year old, White, male, public order offender and highlights this theme. A twenty five year old, White man, serving probation for a public order offense, also expressed this sentiment, as evident Probationers considered the conditions of allowing their probation officers to visit them at their homes and/or jobs to be intrusive. Pay monthly cost of supervision and pay court costs. The two standard financial conditions had two major themes regarding why probationers identified them as being extremely severe (Table 5 8). The first theme that emerged w as that the consequences of not completing the conditions were too severe. A twenty one year old, White, female public order offender stated: f steep how they do that and Her sentiment was expressed by other interviewees Probationers also reported that conditions were extremely severe because the forty four year (twenty seven year

PAGE 215

215 five year old, White, male, public order offender) were common feelings. The financial conditions were thought of as being extremely severe because the consequences for violating them being too great, as w ell as the amount required was too h igh. Another theme that was exclusive to the cost of supervision was that the probationers felt having to pay for their own supervision was extremely severe A forty five year old, White man, serving a sentence for a public order offense that you know why am I paying somebody to watch over me. Why do I have to pay condition to be extremely severe Summary of standard conditions qualitative responses regarding why they identified particular conditions as being not severe or extremely severe the majority of probationers considered a condition to be not severe when the condition was thought of as being reasonable, a good idea, and not difficult to adhere to or complete. Probationers also reported standard conditions to be not severe if they felt they had nothing to hide. Conditions were thought of as being extremely severe if the condition was expensive. Additionally probatione rs reported conditions as extremely severe if they felt the condition was not appropriate for their charges or if they thought the consequences for violating was too great. Treatment Conditions of Probation Not severe Submit to random screens. As I did fo r standard probation conditions, I coded the transcriptions for themes pertaining to treatment conditions. The condition of

PAGE 216

216 submitting to random screens had two themes emerge (Table 5 9). The first theme was that emerged was that probationers reported th e condition was not severe because they felt they had nothing to hide. A twenty one year old, White, female, public order eight year old, White, female, public order offender did. The second theme that arose was that interviewees felt randomly screening for alcohol and drugs was a good idea. A forty eight year old, White man, who was serving a pr one year old, Black, male, public order offender who having nothing to hide were the two themes that emerged when I examined the resp onses as to why submitting to random screen was not severe Do not possess or consume alcohol and do not possess or consume illegal drugs. The major theme that was noted was that probationers did not identify the conditions to be severe because they did n ot drink nor do drugs (Table 5 9). During the interview, a forty two year old, White man, who was serving probation for a property nine year old, White, male, violent offender) was another common statement.

PAGE 217

217 In the case of not possessing or consuming illegal drugs, there was an additional theme. Probationers also identified the condition to be not severe because besides being a violation o f probation it is also against the law. A twenty nine year old, White, male, public order offender and a forty two year old, White, female, property offender response. Both conditions were considered to be not severe because the probationers did not typically drink and/or do drug, while the condition of not possessing and consuming drugs was also considered to be not severe because doing so was against the law. Treatment pro grams or courses. Interviewees were asked about eight specific treatment programs or courses (i.e., alcohol treatment, drug treatment, employment class). Though they were asked about each program they identified as being not severe treatment programs or courses (Table 5 9). The first theme that emerged was that the probationers felt the treatment c onditions, regardless of the specific program or class, was or could be helpful. For example a twenty one year old, White, male, public order person that you are t one year old, White, female, public order offender expressed avoid future inciden old, White man serving probation for a violent

PAGE 218

218 identified as not severe Table 5 9. Tr hemes Conditi on Not Severe Extremely Severe Submit to random screens Nothing to hide Invasion of privacy Good idea Do not possess or consume alcohol Do not regularly do so Legal Illegal Do not possess or consume drugs Do not regularly do so Difficul t Participate in alcohol treatment Helpful Costly Not difficult Difficult Participate in drug treatment Helpful Costly Not difficult Difficult Participate in mental health treatment Helpful Costly Not difficult Difficult Particip ate in employment program Helpful Costly Not difficult Difficult Complete Milepost class Helpful Costly Not difficult Difficult Helpful Costly Not difficult Difficult Complete anger management Helpful C ostly Not difficult Difficult Helpful Costly Not difficult Difficult The second overall theme that I noted regarding the treatment programs and courses was that probationers often identified the conditions to be not severe because they thought the programs and courses were simple to complete. A statement made by a twenty two year old, White, male, public order offender summarized this theme. His

PAGE 219

219 very two year old, White, male, drug offender being not severe by probationer s because the programs and classes were considered to be helpful and simple to complete. Extremely severe Submit to random screens. From the content analysis I identified one theme (Table 5 9). Probationers who identified the condition of submitting to random screens as being extremely severe did so because they felt the process invaded their privacy. A forty one year wenty two year old, White, man serving a sentence for a plain a thought of as being extremely severe because it was invasive was the only theme noted. Do not possess or consume alcohol and do not possess or consume illegal drugs. I noted one theme among those who identified the condition of not possess or consuming alcohol to be extremely severe (Table 5 9). Probationers felt the conditio n was extremely severe because possessing and consuming alcohol was legal. During his interview a thirty one year what male, public order offender, who was thirty one years old, expressed the same

PAGE 220

220 For those who i dentified not consuming or possessing illegal drugs as being extremely severe it appeared that they felt quitting drugs would be difficult. During her interview a twenty four year old, White woman, who was on probation for a drug probationer, who was twenty seven year old, Black, male, property offender, candidly admitted that the condition was extremely severe The condition of not consu ming and possessing alcohol was identified as being extremely severe because drinking alcohol is legal, while not consuming and possessing drugs was viewed as extremely severe because using would be difficult. Treatment programs or courses. As was the cas e with the explanations of why probationers felt the treatment programs or courses were not severe two overall themes emerged regarding of the specific the treatment program or course (Table 5 9). Regardless of the program or class, the interviewees cite d the condition to be extremely severe because of the financial cost associated with the program or course. A forty three year expensive, and I have to put every single penny into i three year old, White, female, public order offender did. The second overall theme noted about treatment programs and courses was that attending the actual course could be difficult to adhere to or complete. During her interview, a forty year old, White, female, public order offender expressed that the eight year old, White,

PAGE 221

221 as a condition would be extremely severe When examining the reasons probationers identified treatment pro grams and classes as being extremely severe I noted that they were considered extremely severe because of the cost and that the programs and classes were difficult to complete. Summary of treatment conditions Treatment conditions were considered to be not severe because the conditions were viewed as being a good idea or that the probationer did not regularly engage in the activity. Additionally, the treatment programs and classes were viewed as being helpful and not difficult to complete, resulting in the m being identified as being not severe Probationers who identified the treatment conditions as being extremely severe typically did so because the conditions were difficult to adhere to or complete or because the conditions were expensive. Punitive Condi tions of Probation Not severe Complete community service hours in lieu of fees and complete mandatory community service hours. The two conditions that involved performing community service hours had one theme in common (Table 5 10). Probationers identifi ed the condition as being not severe old, Black, female, property offender, which was similar to a statement made by a tw enty year For the condition of doing community service in lieu of paying fees, probationers also as express the condition was not serve because it was easier than having to pay.

PAGE 222

222 A thirty five year was also a thought shared by a forty six year old, White, female, pub lic order offender expand on why she felt the condition was not severe For those who identified performing mandatory community service hours as being not severe another t heme that emerged was that individuals felt community service was a reasonable condition to require people to perform. When asked to expand on his Table 5 10. Punitive hemes Condition Not Severe Extremely Severe C ommunity service in lieu of fees Not difficult Interferes with work Easier than paying Mandatory community service Not difficult Interferes with work Reasonable Complete work crew days Not difficult Hard work Complete a jail sentence Reasonable Scary place Vacation Negatively impacts life Pay restitution Can afford it Expensive Reasonable No contact with victim Not difficult Interferes with relationships Good idea Attend one victim impac t panel Helpful Emotionally difficult Not difficult Reasonable Negatively impacts life Not difficult Have to rely on others Abide with order of impoundment Not inconvenient Negatively impacts life Abi de by curfew No impact Restricts freedom Not a child

PAGE 223

223 ranking, a thirty five year who was twenty five y ears old, and a Black, property offender, shared this viewpoint lieu of fees and performing mandatory community service was viewed as being not severe because it is not dif ficult to complete, while community service in lieu of fees was also considered to be not severe because performing community service is better than having to pay. Additionally, mandatory community service was seen as being a reasonable condition. Complet e work crew days. The qualitative analysis showed that individuals did not feel doing work crew days was severe because the condition was not difficult to complete (Table 5 10). A thirty four year old, Black man, who was serving a probation sentence for a property offense, summarized the views held by others with his two year old, White, male, public order offender indicated that if assigned the condition he would consider the conditio n to be not severe crew days was not severe because the condition was not difficult to complete. Complete a jail sentence. Among the responses regarding a jail sentences as being not severe two them es emerged (Table 5 10). The first theme was that individuals saw a jail sentence as being a reasonable condition for some offenses. A thirty five year old, White man, who was on probation for a public order offense, stated you should probably, you know, it fits getting jail then, I one year old, White

PAGE 224

224 just part of commi The second theme was the probationers felt serving a jail sentence would be a break from their lives; they saw a jail cot, without three kids nagging on you, that wou fifty year old, White man, serving a sentence for a public order offense. A thirty four year old, Black, female, property offender supported this theme when she said: somewhere I can just keep my mind, you know, just be in my own little Probationers who identified the completing a jail sentence as not severe did so because they felt t he jail sentence was reasonable and/or because a jail sentence would be a break from their daily lives. Pay restitution. The only financially punitive condition had two themes emerge (Table 5 10). While coding, I discovered that probationers reported fin ding the condition to be not severe statement made by a forty one year old, White, male, public order offender and whose comment was echoed by several interviewees. Other probationers i dentified the condition to be not severe because they felt the condition was a reasonable condition. A twenty one year old, White, female, public order offender expressed this viewpoint in ome way by being eight year old, White, male, public order offender by restitution was reported as being not severe because probationer s viewed the condition as being affordable and/or reasonable.

PAGE 225

225 No contact with victim. During the content analysis two themes emerged regarding the condition of not having contact with the victim (Table 5 10). The first theme was that probationers felt th e condition was not severe because it was not difficult to accomplish. Some stated that they did not want to contact their victim because they did not like the person, while others did not want to because they did not know their victim. For example, a fi fty eight year old, Black, female, property offender offender, who was thirty Th e second theme that emerged was that probationers felt the condition of no contact with victim was a good idea. A fifty year old year, Black, female, public order offender expressed it the best with her comment of: I feel like that if they are a victim, t your interest to stay away from them and keep from getting in more trouble. The two themes nses regarding why the perceived the condition of no contact with victim as being not severe The themes were that the condition was easy to adhere to and that the condition was a good idea. Attend one victim impact panel. The same themes that emerged fo r the treatment programs and classes appeared for the victim impact panel. Specifically, individuals expressed that they felt the condition was not severe because the condition was helpful and not difficult to accomplish (Table 5 10). A sixty year old, W hite, male, public order offender commented: provide a great deal of information that was, um, there to help you make a

PAGE 226

226 decision about whether or not you would ever try to do some thing like that again. Besides identifying the condition as a not severe because it is a learning opportunity, probationers also indicated the condition was simple. A twenty one year old, White, female, public order offender expressed this view by saying license suspended and/or revoked was identified as being extremely severe by more interviewees than any other condition. However, there were some that identified the condition as being not severe, and they felt so because they felt it was a reasonable condition (Table 5 10). A forty one year old, White, female, public order offender Another theme that merged was that complying with the condition was not difficult and therefore the condition was not severe Some made statements similar to a twenty two year old, Whit twenty five year not severe because the condition was a reasonable one and because it was not difficult to adhere to or complete. Abide by order o f impoundment. One of the themes that emerged from the qualitative data regarding impoundment was that probationers did not find the condition

PAGE 227

227 to be an inconvenience (Table 5 10). Several stated that their cars were totaled and therefore the condition wa s not severe For example, a thirty one year old, Black man, was total ed was also not an inconvenience because they had alternative transportation. A forty three year old, White, female, public order offender seven year really affect me viewed by some probationers as being not severe because it was not an inconvenience for them. Abide by curfew. The final punitive condition, abide by curfew, only had one theme, which was that the condition did not really impact their lives (Table 5 10). Many probationers identified the condition was not severe because they were typically home my kids. I four year old, White, male, public order offender. A twenty four year old, Black, female, violent elaborate why she felt the condition was not severe, while a forty one year old, Black, condition to be not severe because a curfew would not affect them. Extremely severe Complete c ommunity service hours in lieu of fees and complete mandatory community service hours. The conditions involving community service hours only had one theme that emerged for those who thought it was extremely severe (Table 5

PAGE 228

228 10). These probationers felt th at performing the community service hours interfered with their jobs. Individuals reported having full time jobs, and indicated that trying to schedule the hours around their job was difficult. A forty three year old, White, male, Complete work crew days. The condition of completing work crew days was identified as being extremely severe because the condition was seen as something that should be reserved for more seriou s offenders than themselves (Table 5 two year old, White, female, public order offender and others agreed with her. Interviewees referred to those old, White, female, property three year old, White, female, public order offender). In addition to probationers feeling the condition was extremely severe because it would expose th em to offenders they consider more deviant than themselves, some probationers felt that actual work that would be required made the condition extremely severe A sixty one year wanna work in the extremely severe a twenty three year old, White, female, public order offender said: They make you work all day, and they put you in random sites and you orning, be there all day, no pay, no The two reasons given by probationers, who identified completing work crew days as being extremely severe was that the condition was reserved to more serious off enders than themselves and that they considered the work to be difficult.

PAGE 229

229 Complete a jail sentence. While analyzing the qualitative data, I noted two major reasons why individuals reported completing a jail sentence as extremely severe (Table 5 10). The first theme was that they saw a jail sentence as extremely severe because they saw jail as being a place they did not want to go. A twenty year old, Black, female, o extremely severe A thirty two year old, The oth er theme I noted was that probationers felt that serving a jail sentence would negatively affect their lives therefore the condition was extremely severe When asked to expand on why she felt the condition was extremely severe a twenty nine year old, Bla example, a forty one year me to l extremely severe because it would affect their home life significantly. A thirty year old, White, daughter as being extremely severe did so because they viewed jail as a place they did not want to be and/or because going to jail would negatively impact their lives. Pay restitution. Th e only reason given as to why paying restitution was extremely severe was that the amount was too much (Table 5 two year old, White, male, public order

PAGE 230

230 offender and was a view shared by those wh o identified the condition to be extremely severe three year old, White, female, public order offender when asked to explain why she felt the condition of restitution was extremely severe and was a common respons e by others. No contact with victim. While two themes emerged as reasons why interviewees they identified the condition as not severe only one theme emerged among the extremely severe comments (Table 5 10). Individuals who felt the condition was extreme ly severe felt so because of their relationship with the victim. Often they three year old, Black, male, violent offender. A fifty five year old, White, male, property offender reported a similar sentiment and stated: I think no contact with your victim or the kid that was involved is a real ere, for the children. Due to their close relationship with the victim some probationers identified the condition of no contact with the victim as being extremely severe Attend one victim impact panel. Those who indicated the condition to be extremely se vere reported feeling so because they felt the class could be emotionally difficult (Table 5 10). A forty three year example o f this sentiment. The class being seen as emotionally difficult was the only

PAGE 231

231 theme I noted when I examined the responses given by probationers who considered attending a victim impact panel to be extremely severe I id entified two common trends in the extremely severe (Table 5 10). The first theme that emerged from the qualitative data was that probationers reported the condition was extremely severe because it negatively affected other aspects of their lives, including probation. A sixty year old, White, male, property dition was extremely severe A twenty nine year very, um, necessary in my life, between, um, transporting my kids to and from school, going to, em, from work and just daily living task one year old, Black, female, to drug treatment, how are you supposed to get to revoked was extremely severe because they have to rely on others. A thirty two year you have to depend on others who was forty my butt [laughing]. I have to ask everybody for a ride H aving to rely on others, as well as that it negat ively impacts their lives, were the reasons given by those who identified extremely severe

PAGE 232

232 Abide by order of impoundment. From the content a nalysis, I only identified one theme with regard to why impoundment was extremely severe (Table 5 10). Probationers appeared to report that the condition of abiding by an order of impoundment is extremely severe because it negatively affects their lives. When asked to elaborate on why she felt the condition would be extremely severe the forty eight year three year old, White, male p ublic order Abide by curfew. responses (Table 5 10). Proba tioners appeared to feel that the condition of a curfew was extremely severe three year old, White, female, publi c order offender Her statement highlighted the theme, as did a twenty three year The other theme that emerged was that individuals identified a curfew would be extrem ely severe because the condition made them feel like children. A White woman, three ye ar feel like children and that it restricts their freedom were the reasons given by those individuals who identified the condition to be extremely severe

PAGE 233

233 Summary of pu nitive conditions I performed a content analysis on the qualitative data gathered during the interviews regarding the responses about the punitive conditions. Some of the common themes among the punitive conditions were that individuals reported the condi tion to be not severe because the condition was reasonable or not difficult to accomplish. The conditions were identified as being extremely severe if the condition negatively impacted the probationers and if the condition was difficult in terms of being expensive. Chapter Summary continuum when it comes to severity? If so, which conditions are viewed as being most ith most of the items notifying the probation officer of changes in residence had more prob ationers indicating it to be not severe suspended and/revoked had the most probationers identifying it to be extremely severe ( Table 8 1 lists the conditions on a continuum based on extremely se vere responses percentages ). T Age, race and new law violation were significant predicators for multiple severity scales, with those who were younger, non White and had a new law viol ation being more likely to report the scales to be severe. performed a content analysis on the qualitative data and identified common themes.

PAGE 234

234 Though some themes may have var ied by probation condition category, it appears that probationers often identified a condition to be not severe if the condition was perceived to be easy, helpful, and/or reasonable. On the other hand, conditions were often identified as being extremely s evere if the condition was thought of as difficult, expensive and/or if the condition negatively impacted their lives. Both quantitative and qualitative data suggested that most probationers did not find the conditions of their probation to be severe.

PAGE 235

235 CH APTER 6 RESULTS: RESEARCH QUESTION 2B DIFFICULTY OF CONDITIONS In addition to examining how severe probationers perceive their probation conditions to be, I also examined how difficult probationers perceived their conditions of probation to be. It is con ceivable that individuals might consider a probation condition to be severe relative to their charges but consider the actual condition of probation not difficult to comply with or complete. It is also possible that probationers may find a condition to no t be severe in comparison to their charges but consider the condition to be very difficult to adhere to or complete. I wanted to understand the relationship research questio The first sub research question regarding severity was examined in the previous chapter. This chapter answers the second sub views of the sever ity of a condition impact their perceived ability to complete a particular I analyze the quantitative data by examining the Second, I exami ne the results from the content analysis I performed on the qualitative data. Quantitative Analysis Perce ntages and Frequencies: Difficulty of Probation Conditions Based on Petersilia and Deschenes (1994a) study that had current inmates rate the perceived difficulty of complying with thirteen conditions, I asked current probationers to rate the perceived difficulty of thirty two different probation conditions. The participants were asked to indicate the perceived likelihood that they will be able to

PAGE 236

236 comple te or follow the probation conditions and given the response options: not difficult (1), relatively easy (2), about 50/50 (3), somewhat difficult (4) and very difficult (5) ( Methods chapter for more details). Once all the data were collected, I ran explora tory factor analysis and created seven difficulty scales based on the analysis. Additionally, I created three difficulty scales and included one variable ba sed on previous literature ( Dependent Variables section for more details). Mean scores ory atte sed of all the treatment programs and courses and the punitive condition of attending a victim impact panel. The mean response of relatively e asy 1 (Table 6 sed of conditions that require payments (i.e., monthly cost of supervision, court costs and restitution) and two conditions that may hinder a per financial conditions by affecting his or her ability to work (i.e., work crew day and jail sentence). With the exception of one scale item, the scale and items indicated a response of the conditions being about 50/50 in terms of difficulty. One scale item, complete a jail sent ence, had the mean score of 3.5 and corresponded to a response of somewhat difficult scores corresponded with a not difficult or very difficult response. Thus far the difficulty scales bas ed on factor analysis have had little variance (Table 6 1). The 1 The mean scores were rounded up if the value was 0.5 or higher.

PAGE 237

237 core values corresponded with the response of relatively easy while one item, answer truthfully to inquiries by probation officer, corresponded to not difficult The condition of complete mandatory community service hours mean score corresponded with abo ut 50/50 perceived level of difficulty. none of which was greater than the response of about 50/50 rug employment sed of three conditions; the scale equated to relatively easy while one condition equated to not difficult somewhat difficult and none have equated to very difficult (Table 6 its two components all had the mean score of 1.2 and equated to not difficult None of not difficult and instead one item corresponded to a response of relatively easy and the scale and one item corresponded to about 50/50 had a mean score of 3.8 and equated to an answer of somewhat difficult The final ores corresponded to the answer response of relatively easy mean score equated to a response of not difficult (Table 6 1). Four scales equated to a response of relatively easy about 50/50 somewhat difficult or very difficu lt

PAGE 238

238 Table 6 1. Percentages for difficulty scales based on factor a nalysis Scales based on factor analysis N Not difficult Relatively easy About 50/50 Somewhat difficult Very difficult Mean Mandatory Attendance Scale 1.9 Item 1: Participate in alcohol treatment 155 45.8 21.9 17.4 8.4 6.5 2.1 Item 2: Participate in drug treatment 133 49.6 16.5 14.3 14.3 5.3 2.1 Item 3: Participate in mental health treatment 129 50.4 20.2 10.9 13.2 5.4 2.0 Item 4: Participate in employment program 124 50.8 28.2 9.7 7.3 4.0 1.9 Item 5: Complete Milepost class 97 53.6 15.5 12.4 14.4 4.1 2.0 119 53.8 12.6 13.4 10.9 9.2 1.8 Item 7: Complete anger management 127 53.5 16.5 12.6 12.6 4.7 1.8 course 151 47.0 20.5 11.9 13.2 7.3 2.1 Item 9: Attend one victim impact panel 148 57.4 21.6 8.8 6.8 5.4 1.8 Monetary Concerns Scale 3.1 Item 1: Pay monthly cost of supervision 199 26.1 13.6 20.6 22.1 17.6 2.9 Item 2: Pay court costs 195 20.5 12.3 16.9 26.2 24.1 3.2 Item 3: Complete work crew days 137 27.7 19.0 15.3 18.2 19.7 2.8 Item 4: Complete a jail sentence 145 22.8 6.9 8.3 20.0 42.1 3.5 Item 5: Pay restitution 132 25.8 15.9 15.2 22.7 20.5 3.0 Accountability Sc ale 1.9 Item 1: Answer truthfully to inquiries by PO 201 83.6 11.9 3.0 1.0 0.5 1.2 Item 2: Submit to random screens 176 68.2 18.2 9.1 2.8 1.7 1.5 Item 3: Complete mandatory CS hours 179 36.3 19.6 19.0 11.7 13.4 2.8 Item 4: Complete CS hours in lieu of fees 166 39.2 21.1 14.5 12.0 13.3 2.4 Drug Employment Scale 1.8 Item 1: Try to obtain employment 184 44.6 16.3 16.8 10.3 12.0 2.3 Item 2: Maintain employment/enrollment 183 61.7 20.2 7.1 6.6 4.4 1.7 Item 3: Do not possess or consume drugs 181 74.6 16.6 4.4 2.2. 2.2 1.4 Likert Scale: Not difficult= 1, Relatively easy= 2, About 50/50= 3, Somewhat difficult= 4, and Very difficult= 5

PAGE 239

239 Table 6 1. Continued Scales based on factor analysis N Not difficult Relatively easy About 50/ 50 Somewhat difficult Very difficult Mean Notification Scale 1.2 Item 1: Notify PO of changes in residence 201 84.6 11.9 2.0 1.0 0.5 1.2 Item 2: Notify PO of changes in Employment 195 85.6 11.3 1.5 1.0 0.5 1.2 Restriction Scale 2.7 Item 1: Commit no new law violation 197 73.1 12.2 8.1 4.6 2.0 1.5 162 17.3 6.8 6.8 21.6 47.5 3.8 Item 3: Abide with order of impoundment 147 31.3 14.3 8.8 16.3 29.3 3.0 Difficulty Visits Scal e 1.8 Item 1: Allow PO to visit residence 192 67.7 15.6 6.8 6.8 3.1 1.6 Item 2: Allow PO to visit employment site 183 67.7 12.6 7.1 8.2 10.9 2.0 Likert Scale: Not difficult= 1, Relatively easy= 2, About 50/50= 3, Somewhat difficult= 4, and Very difficult=5

PAGE 240

240 In addition to having the seven difficulty scales based on a factor analysis, I created three scales using the same conditions based of their literature based classification (Clarke, 1979; Petersilia, 1997a). The first literature based scale, sed of eleven items (Table 6 1). Three items, answering truthfully and notifying the probation officer of changes in residence and/or not difficult scores equated to the answer of relatively easy The remaining two standard items were the two financial items and had mean scores that corresponded to an about 50/50 of somewhat difficult or very difficult (Table 6 1) mean scores ranged from 1.5 to 2.1 and scores i ndicated an answer of relatively easy The remaining treatment condition, do not possess or consume drugs, had a mean score of 1.4 and corresponded to an answer of not difficult None of the treatment about 50/50 somewhat difficult or very difficult response of not difficult (Table 6 1). Instead three the conditions comprising the scales had mean score corresponding t o an answer of relatively easy while five other punitive the answer of about 50/50 The final two punitive conditions, completing a jail sentence license suspended or revoked had mean scores

PAGE 241

241 corresponding to somewhat difficult They were the only two conditions whose score indicated that response. The overall difficulty variable was included since it was used in the Petersilia and 94b) research which this study is built upon. The mean score for the variable was 2.9 and corresponded to an about 50/50 level of difficulty (Table 6 1). Summary of the mean scores. With the expectation of two conditions, the mean scores corresponded w ith the responses about 50/50 relatively easy and not difficult with most corresponding to r elatively easy corresponded to the answer of somewhat difficult indicated the response of ver y difficult Factor analysis based scales Mandatory attendance scale. (Table 6 items, which were mainly conditions requiring t reatment programs and courses attendance, had between 46 to 57% of the interviewees reporting the condition to be not difficult For all nine items, fewer than 9% of the sample indicated the condition to be very difficult For most of the conditions incl uded in the scale, half of those interviewed considered the condition to be not difficult and a small percentage reported them to be very difficult Monetary concerns scale. In general, respondents felt the monetary conditions were more difficult than t he previous set of items (Table 6 1). For five conditions less than 28% of the interviewees reported to condition to be not difficult For the condition of paying court costs only 21% (N= 40, 20.5%) of the sample indicated the condition to be not difficu lt which is fewer than the 23% (N= 33, 22.8%) who indicated the condition

PAGE 242

242 of complete a jail sentence to be not difficult In terms of identifying the conditions as being very difficult 24% of sample reporting the condition to be very difficult to comply with or complete. The remaining condition, complete a jail sentence, had over 40% (N= 61, 42.1%) of the sample reporting it to be very difficult For this scale, completing a jail sentence had the greatest percentage of individuals reporting the condition to be very difficult ( Table 8 2 lists the conditions on a continuum based on very difficult responses percentages ). Accountability scale. There was more variance among the conditions comprisi ng this scale in comparison to the previous scales on severity (Table 6 1). One of the conditions, answering truthfully to inquiries by probation officer, had 84% ( N= 168, 83.6%) of those interviewed perceiving the condition to be not difficult. Sixty ei ght percent (N= 120, 68.2%) of them perceived the condition of submitting to random screens to be not difficult. While those two conditions were indicated to be not difficult by the majority of the sample, the remaining two conditions comprising the scale had considerably fewer individuals reporting the community service related conditions to be not difficult. Similarly, fewer than 2% of the sample reported the first two conditions to be very difficult to comply or adhere to, while the two community servi ce conditions had 13% report the conditions to be very difficult. The two standard conditions comprising the scale were not considered as difficult to complete as the two punitive conditions included in the scale. Drug employment scale. percentages varied greatly across categories, the percentages did not vary as greatly (Table 6 1). Two thirds (N= 135, 74.6%) of the

PAGE 243

243 sample considered the condition of not possessing or consu ming drug to be not difficult to follow and 2% (N= 4, 2.2%) thought it to be very difficult As far as the two employment conditions, 62% (N= 113, 61.7%) of the individuals reported to maintaining employment would be not difficult to do, while 45% (N= 82, 44.6%) of them considered obtaining employment to be not difficult Twelve percent (N= 22, 12.0%) identified obtaining employ ment to be very difficult while only 4% (N= 8, 4.4%) identified maintaining employment to be. It appears that individuals consid ered finding a job to be more difficult than maintaining the job. When it comes to the conditions included in this scale, more participants considered the conditions to be not difficult than very difficult Notification scale. The two conditions req uiring the probationers to notify their probation officer of any changes in residency and/or employment had the highest percentage of individuals reporting the conditions to be not difficult i n comparison to other conditions (Table 6 1). Both conditions h ad over 85% of the interviewees reporting the conditions to be not difficult and less than 1% of the sample indicating the condition to be very difficult For both conditions only one person indicated the conditions to be very difficult Restriction sca le. Th sed of one standard condition and two punitive conditions. The standard condition had slightly more than 70% (N= 144, 73.1%) of the probationers indicating that committing no new law violation would be not difficult while only 2% (N=4, 2.0%) of them reported the condition to be very difficult (Table 6 1). The standard condition was perceived as being less difficult than the two punitive conditions. Roughly an equal amount of the interviewees considered the condition of impounding their car to be not difficu lt as considered the

PAGE 244

244 condition to be very difficult revoked was the condition that had the least amount of interviewees indicating the condition to be not d ifficult and the most indicating it to be very difficult out of the thirty two conditions. Only 17% (N=28, 17.3%) of the sample indicated that complying with not difficult while 48% (N=77, 47.5%) perceived it to be very difficult to adhere to or complete. The condition of difficult condition. Difficulty visit scale. The final scale created based on factor analy sis was the reporting the condition to be not difficult (Table 6 1). Nearly of 70% of the sample considered the conditions to be not difficult The condition of p robation officer visiting 3% (N= 6, 3.1%) of the sample indicating that complying with the condition would be very difficult while 11% (N= 20, 10.9%) of them indicated site was very difficult The majority of the probationers felt the two conditions were not difficult but more considered the probationer officer visiting an employment site to be more difficult than the probation officer vising a residence. Overall, th e majority of factor analysis not difficult to adhere to or complete ( Table 8 2 lists the conditions on a continuum based on very difficult responses percentages ). Literature based scales Difficulty standard s cale. I also examined the percentages when the conditions were placed in the literature based scales. Over 60% of the interviewees indicated

PAGE 245

245 eight of the eleven standard conditions were not difficult to comply with (Table 6 2). With the exception of one condition, fewer than 4% of the sample identified the conditions to be very difficult Trying to obtain employment was a condition was considered to be not difficult by 45% (N= 82, 44.6%) of the respondents, while 12% (N=22, 12.0%) of probationers consid ered the condition to be very difficult The two standard financial conditions had fewer than 26% of the sample indicating that it was not difficult to comply with or complete. Twenty four percent (N=47, 24.1%) of the probationers identified paying the c ourt costs to be very difficult while 18% (N=35, 17.6%) of them identified paying the monthly cost of supervision as being very difficult Of the standard conditions, the financial ones had the least amount of interviewees reporting them to be not diffic ult to comply or complete. Three of the standard conditions were the probation conditions that had the most interviewees reporting the condition to be not difficult Answering truthfully to inquiries by probation officer, notifying the probation officer of changes in residence and /or in employment were the conditions with the highest percentages of interviewees identifying them as being not difficult Difficulty treatment scale. In the case of the treatment conditions, all eleven conditions h ad at least 46% of the sample identifying them as being not difficult (Table 6 2). Nine percent or fewer indicated the treatment conditions to be very difficult The treatment condition with the greatest percentage of probationers reporting it to be not difficult was the condition of not possessing or consuming drugs. Overall, the treatment conditions were identified by more of the sample as being not difficult than being very difficult with which to comply.

PAGE 246

246 Table 6 2. Percen tage for difficulty scale s and variable based on the l iterature Scales based on literature N Not difficult Relatively easy About 50/50 Somewhat difficult Very difficult Mean Difficulty Standard Scale 1.9 Item 1: Commit no new law violation 197 73.1 12.2 8.1 4.6 2.0 1.5 Item 2: Report to probation once a month 201 67.7 15.9 7.5 7.5 1.5 1.6 Item 3: Answer truthfully to inquiries by PO 201 83.6 11.9 3.0 1.0 0.5 1.2 Item 4: Notify PO of changes in residence 201 84.6 11.9 2.0 1.0 0.5 1.2 Item 5: Notify PO of changes i n employment 195 85.6 11.3 1.5 1.0 0.5 1.2 Item 6: Try to obtain employment 184 44.6 16.3 16.8 10.3 12.0 2.3 Item 7: Maintain employment/enrollment 183 61.7 20.2 7.1 6.6 4.4 1.7 Item 8: Allow PO to visit residence 192 67.7 15.6 6.8 6.8 3.1 1.6 Item 9: Allow PO to visit employment site 183 67.7 12.6 7.1 8.2 10.9 2.0 Item 10: Pay monthly cost of supervision 199 26.1 13.6 20.6 22.1 17.6 2.9 Item 11: Pay court costs 195 20.5 12.3 16.9 26.2 24.1 3.2 Difficulty Treatment Scale 1.9 Item 1: Submit to random screens 176 68.2 18.2 9.1 2.8 1.7 1.5 Item 2: Do not possess or consume alcohol 183 57.9 19.1 13.7 5.5 3.8 1.8 Item 3: Do not possess or consume drugs 181 74.6 16.6 4.4 2.2. 2.2 1.4 Item 4: Participate in alcohol treatment 155 45.8 21.9 17.4 8.4 6.5 2.1 Item 5: Participate in drug treatment 133 49.6 16.5 14.3 14.3 5.3 2.1 Item 6: Participate in mental health treatment 129 50.4 20.2 10.9 13.2 5.4 2.0 Item 7: Participate in employment program 124 50.8 28.2 9.7 7.3 4.0 1.9 Item 8: Complete Milepost class 97 53.6 15.5 12.4 14.4 4.1 2.0 119 53.8 12.6 13.4 10.9 9.2 2.1 Item 10: Complete anger management 127 53.5 16.5 12.6 12.6 4.7 2.0 151 47. 0 20.5 11.9 13.2 7.3 2.1 Likert Scale: Not difficult= 1, Relatively easy= 2, About 50/50= 3, Somewhat difficult= 4, and Very difficult=5

PAGE 247

247 Table 6 2. Continued Scales based on literature N Not difficult Relatively easy About 50/50 Somewhat difficult Very d ifficulty Mean Difficulty Punitive Scale 2.7 Item 1: Complete mandatory CS hours 179 36.3 19.6 19.0 11.7 13.4 2.5 Item 2: Complete CS hours in lieu of fees 166 39.2 21.1 14.5 12.0 13.3 2.4 Item 3: Complete work crew days 137 27.7 19.0 15.3 18 .2 19.7 2.8 Item 4: Complete a jail sentence 145 22.8 6.9 8.3 20.0 42.1 3.5 Item 5: Pay restitution 132 25.8 15.9 15.2 22.7 20.5 3.0 Item 6: No contact with victim 124 55.6 18.5 8.9 8.1 8.9 2.0 Item 7: Attend one victim impact panel 148 57.4 21 .6 8.8 6.8 5.4 1.8 162 17.3 6.8 6.8 21.6 47.5 3.8 Item 9: Abide with order of impoundment 147 31.3 14.3 8.8 16.3 29.3 3.0 Item 10: Abide by curfew 119 40.3 10.9 10.1 16.8 21.8 2.7 Overall Diffic ulty Variable 200 17.0 21.0 27.0 22.5 12.5 2.9 Likert Scale: Not difficult= 1, Relatively easy= 2, About 50/50= 3, Somewhat difficult= 4, and Very difficult=5

PAGE 248

248 Difficulty punitive scale. The ten punitive probation conditions included in the study had fe wer of the interviewees identifying them to be not difficult to comply with in comparison to the standard and treatment conditions. The two conditions associated with victims (i.e., no contact with victim and attend victim impact panel) had similar estima tes with slightly more than 55% of those interviewed indicating the conditions to be not difficult They were the punitive conditions with the greatest percentage of individuals indicating them to be not difficult and the smallest percentage of individual s indicating them to be very difficult The conditions involving community service and the curfew condition had similar estimates except most interviewees reported abiding by a curfew would be very difficult Roughly 30% (N=46, 31.3%) of the sample felt not difficult to comply with but roughly 30% (N= 43, 29.3%) also felt the condition was very difficult Three of the punitive conditions had between 20 and 30% of the probationers reporting the condition to be not difficult (Table 6 2). However, roughly 40% (N= 61, 42.1%) of them considered the completing a jail sentence to be very difficult while only about 20% thought the other two conditions were very difficult The final punitive r revoked, had the least amount of probationers reporting the condition to be not difficult and the most probationers reporting the condition to be very difficult Overall difficulty variable. y and was also used here. This question allowed me to examine how probationers feel about their overall sentence. The majority of interviewees reported their probation

PAGE 249

249 sen tence to be about 50/50 or less in terms of difficulty. Twenty three percent (N=45. 22.5%) of the sample reported probation to be somewhat difficult and only 13% (N=25, 12.5%) of them reported probation to be very difficult Summary of frequencies and p ercentages. With the exception of the two standard financial c onditions, the items that compo identifying it as not difficult was notifying the probation officer of changes in employment with approximately 86% (N= 167, 85.6%) of the sample indicating the condition to be not difficult. The condit ion that was most often reported as being the very difficult was 48% (N= 77, 47.5%) of the interviewees identifying the condition as being very difficult for them. When asked to evaluate their prob ation sentence in its entirety, the majority of probationers identified probation to be not difficult relatively easy or about 50/50 Only slightly more than a third identified probation to be somewhat difficult or very difficult (Table 8 2 lists the con ditions on a continuum based on very difficult responses percentages ). The percentage of participants indicating the conditions to be not severe were similar to the percentage of participants indicating the conditions to be not difficult. It appears that when individuals consider a condition to be not severe they may be factoring in how diffic ult the probation condition would be to follow or complete into their evaluation. The majority of the probation conditions were considered to be both not severe and not difficult.

PAGE 250

250 Correlations and Regressions: Difficulty of Probation Conditions Once the frequencies were examined, I ran correlations with the difficulty dependent variables and the twenty three independent variables (Table s 6 3, 6 4 and 6 5 and see A ppendix K for correlations by scale item). The twenty three independent variables used were the same personal characteristics, previous criminal history and current offense and probation sentence variables used in the severity analysis. Following the cor relations, I ran ordinary least squares linear (OLS) regression regressions for any variables correla ted at the bivariate level ( Appendix L for regression tables that included all the independent variables). Factor analysis based scales I first ran correla tions for the seven difficulty scales created based on factor analysis. Mandatory attendance scale 1 Only two independent variables were significant at the bivariate level (Table s 6 4 and 6 5). The variables prior probation and severity were significant and therefore an OLS regression model was estimated with the two independent variables 2 of the variables were significant ( prior probation : b= 0.43, p= 0.040; severity : b= 0.68, p= 000) ( Table 6 6). Individuals who had served a prior probation sentence were more likely to find the conditions that required them to attend a program or course difficult 1 I ran regression models for each of the scales with all twenty three independent variable Severity was case with sever ity being significant when a reduced model was run, the model estimates indicated that individuals who considered their probation conditions to be severe were more likely to r eport the conditions that compo se the scale to be difficult. 2 T wo collinearity diagnostic factors were used to assess multicollinearity N one of the variables had a tolerance value below 0.6 0 or had a variance inflation factor (VIF) a bove 2 .0, which indicated multicollinearity was not a problem in any of the models

PAGE 251

251 than individuals who had not served a prior probation sentence. Additionally, those who ranked th eir probation conditions to be severe were more likely to consider their probation to be difficult than those who ranked their probation conditions to be less severe. Having prior probation experience and considering probation to be more severe increased items to be difficult. Monetary concerns scale 3 The personal characteristic, gender was significant at the bivariate level and continued to be significant was the OLS mode l was estimated (b= 0.44, p=0.041) (Table 6 3 and 6 6). The negative relationship between gender and the scale items suggested that women were more likely to report the conditions to be difficult than men. Women appeared to find paying their cost of sup ervision, court costs and restitution, as well as completing work crew hours and a jail sentence to be more difficult than their male probation counterparts. Accountability scale 4 Two personal characteristics, race and employment status and one curre nt offense and probation sentence variable, severity was significantly correlated with Table 6 3 and Table 6 5). Next, I race 3 When a model dependent variable, severity (b= 0.77, p= 0.005) and current violent offense (b= 0.38, p=0.043) were significant predictors of the scale (Appendix L). Those who identified the conditions of probation as being severe and those who were on probation for a violent offense were more likely to report the conditions comprising the scale as being difficult to comply with than those who identified the conditions of probation as bein g not severe and those who were on probation for an offense other than a violent one. 4 Four independent variables were identified as significant predictors when an OLS model was estimated with all the independent variables and the dependent variab Appendix L) The personal characteristics, age (b= 0.03, p= 0.011), race (b=0.83, p= 0.006), and gender (b= 0.63, p= 0.012) were significant predictors, as was the variable severity (b= 0.57, p= 0.002). Probationers who were older, Wh ite, male and identified probation conditions as being severe were more likely to identify the scale items as being difficult.

PAGE 252

252 Table 6 3. Correl ations of difficulty scales and personal characteristics v ariables Age Race Gender Ethnicity Marital Status Parental Status Years of Education Employment Status Sample Scales based on factor analysis Mandatory Attendance Scale 0.13 0.12 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.12 0.60 0.15 0.01 Monetary Concerns Scale 0.02 0.01 0.19* 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.05 Accountability Scale 0.04 0.19* 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.37** 0.13 Drug Employment Scale 0.08 0.11 0 .12 0.01 0.12 0.03 0.09 0.24** 0.05 Notification Scale 0.10 0.04 0.13 0.08 0.03 0.14* 0.04 0.04 0.11 Restriction Scale 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.13 0.08 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.02 Difficulty Visits Scale 0.02 0.00 0.1 9* 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.03 Scales based on literature Difficulty Standard Scale 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.21** 0.13 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.07 Difficulty Treatment Scale 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.00 0.05 0.12 0.04 0.1 6 0.05 Difficulty Punitive Scale 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.07 0.14 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.00 Overall Difficulty Variable 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.27** 0.08 0.15* 0.04 0.00 0.06 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 253

253 Table 6 4. Correlations of difficulty scales/variable and previous criminal history v ariables Previous History Seriousness History Prior Violent Offense Prior Probation Prior Violation Jail History Prior Sentence History Scales based on factor analysis Mandatory Attendance Scale 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.21* 0.06 0.06 0.00 Monetary Concerns Scale 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.08 Accountability Scale 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.09 0.11 0.04 Drug Employment Scale 0.03 0.19* 0.15* 0.02 0.12 0. 01 0.00 Notification Scale 0.10 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.08 0.07 Restriction Scale 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.09 0.10 Difficulty Visits Scale 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.06 Scales based on litera ture Difficulty Standard Scale 0.09 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.11 Difficulty Treatment Scale 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.18 0.06 0.07 0.02 Difficulty Punitive Scale 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.07 0.09 0.04 Ov erall Difficulty Variable 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.07 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 254

254 Table 6 5. Correlations of difficulty scales/v ariab le and current offense and probation sentence v ariables Current Offense Type Violent Offense Plea Bargain C harge Level Reduction Violation of Probation New Law Violation Technical Violation Severity Scales based on factor analysis Mandatory Attendance Scale 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.15 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.42** Monetary Concerns Scale 0 .13 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.35 Accountability Scale 0.15 0.07 0.02 0.13 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.22* Drug Employment Scale 0.10 0.13 0.06 0.02 0.12 0.04 0.10 0.23* Notification Scale 0.08 0.09 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.30** Restriction Scale 0.12 0.17* 0.14 0.11 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.28* Difficulty Visits Scale 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.16 Scales based on literature Difficulty Standard Scale 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.36** Difficulty Treatment Scale 0.11 0.09 0.04 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.41** Difficulty Punitive Scale 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.20 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.42** Overall Difficulty Variable 0. 02 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.03 0.01 0.16 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 255

255 employment status and severity as the independent variables (Table 6 6). Race (b= 0.53, p= 0. 007) and severity (b= 0.41, p=0.014) were significant predictors of the sca le while employment status was not a predictor of the scale Non White probationers were more likely to report truthfully answering inquiries by their probation officers, submitting to random screens and completing community service ho urs as being more difficult than probationers who identified themselves as White Additionally, those who reported that probation conditions were more severe were also more likely to consider the conditions to be difficult to adhere or complete. Race and perceptions of se verity Table 6 6. Predicti ng conditions of p difficulty factor analysis based s cales Scale Mandatory Attendance Scale Variable b Standard Error B eta Prior pr obation 0.43* 0.21 0.22 Severity 0.68*** 0.18 0.40 Constant 0.41 0.35 R square 0.23 Adjusted R square 0.20 Standard error of the estimate 0.88 Degrees of freedom 2 F value 10.29*** N 73 Monetary Concerns Scale Variable b Standard Error B eta Gender 0.44* 0.21 0.19 Constant 3.33 0.17 R square 0.04 Adjusted R square 0.03 Standard error of the estimate 1.12 Degrees of freedom 1 F value 4.26* N 119

PAGE 256

256 Table 6 6. Continued Scale Accountability Scale Variable b Standard Error B eta Race 0.53** 0.19 0.31 Employment status 0.14 0.19 0.08 Severity 0.41* 0.16 0.28 Constant 0.76 0.35 R square 0.16 Adjusted R square 0.13 Standard error of the estimate 0.80 Degrees of freedom 3 F val ue 4.72** N 78 Drug Employment Scale Variable b Standard Error B eta Employment status 0.29 0.21 0.16 Seriousness history 0.03 0.01 0.04 Prior violent offense 0.27 0.10 0.05 Severity 0.40* 0.18 0.26 Constant 1.25 0.37 R squa re 0.08 Adjusted R square 0.03 Standard error of the estimate 0.89 Degrees of freedom 4 F value 1.58 N 78 Notification Scale Variable b Standard Error B eta Parental status 0.18 0.11 0.17 Severity 0.28 0.09 0.32 Constant 0.7 8 0.19 R square 0.12 Adjusted R square 0.10 Standard error of the estimate 0.48 Degrees of freedom 2 F value 5.26** N 78

PAGE 257

257 Table 6 6. Continued Scale Restriction Scale Variable b Standard Error Beta Violent offense 0.29 0.26 0 .12 Severity 0.46* 0.19 0.27 Constant 1.85 0.38 R square 0.09 Adjusted R square 0.07 Standard error of the estimate 0.97 Degrees of freedom 2 F value 3.82* N 78 Difficulty Visits Scale Variable b Standard Error Beta Gend er 0.45* 0.17 0.19 Constant 1.52 0.14 R square 0.04 Adjusted R square 0.03 Standard error of the estimate 1.13 Degrees of freedom 1 F value 6.59* N 181 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Drug employment scale 1 Four of the twenty three independent variables were correlated with the drug employment scale at the bivariate level; however only one continued to be significant once the model was estimated (Table s 6 3, 6 4, 6 5 and 6 6). Employment status prior criminal history seriousness p rior violation of probation and severity were significantly correlated to the dependent variable. Only severity remained 1 dependent variable, four var iables were identified as significa nt predictors of the scale ( Appendix L). Employment status (b= 0.42, p= 0.000), violation of probation on current probation (b= 0.63, p= 0.035), new law violation (b= 0.93, p= 0.022) and severity (b= 0.52, p= 0.006). I ndividuals who were employed, had not violated their probation, did not receive a new law violation and identified probation conditions as comply with or to comple te.

PAGE 258

258 significant (b= 0.40, p= 0.026). Individuals who perceived their probation conditions to be severe were more likely to also consider the probation conditions diffic ult. If they considered their probation sentence to be severe they were more likely to consider obtaining and maintaining employment and not possessing and/or consuming illegal drugs more difficult than probationers who cond itioned their overall probation sentence to be not severe Notification scale 2 Two independent variables were correlated with the Parental status and severity were signif icantly correlated (Table 6 3 and Tabl e 6 5). A model predicting the scale with parental status and severity as predictors was run and neither variable was significant ( Table 6 6). None of the variables predicated the perceived difficulty of notifying the probation officers of any changes i n living situations and/or employment. Restriction scale. The two independent variables correlated at the bivariate level violent offense and severity (Table 6 5). Next, I violent offense and severity as the independent variables (Table 6 6). Current violent offense was not significant but severity (b= 0.46, p= 0.018) was a significant predictor of the scale. As probationers report ed perceived severity of probation conditions increases so does the likelihood of them reporting the conditions of not committing any new law 2 full mod el was run ( Appendix L). Those who did not have a new law violation (b= 0.63, p= 0.014) while those who received a technical violat ion severe ( severity : b= 0.29, p= 0.012) were more likely to report the two con ditions that required them to notify their probation officer of changes in residency and/or employment.

PAGE 259

259 impoundment as being diffi cult. Those who indicated their probation were severe were more likely to indicate the scale items were difficult. Difficulty visits scale 3 correlated at the bivariate level; gender wa s significantly correlated ( Tables 6 3, 6 4 and 6 5). Using OLS regression, I determined that gender was a significant predictor (b= 0.45, p= 0.011) (Table 6 6). Women were more likely to report the probation conditions that compo se the scale to be difficult than the me n who participated. Women reported that probationers visiting their homes and/or employment sites to be more difficult to comply or adhere with than men. Literature based scales In addition to running correlations and regressions with the factor analysis based scales, I ran correlations with the difficult scales created based on prior literature and the personal characteristics, previous criminal history and current offense and probation sentence independent variables. OLS regression was run with the var iables that were significantly correlated at the bivariate level. Difficulty standard scale 4 All the conditions that were classified as a standard condition of probation created the first literature 3 Race (b= 0.92, p= 0.006), sample (b= 0.55, p= 0.031) and charge level reduction (b= 0.62, p= 0.038) total models were estimated ( Appendix L). Non White probationers, probationers conveniently sampled and those who had their original charges reduced were more likely to report their probation officers visiting their homes and/or emp loyment sites as being difficult to adhere to than White probationers, probationers randomly sampled and those whose charges were not reduced. 4 When I estimated a model with the independent variable s and the scale that was compo sed of the e leven standa rd conditions, four variables were significant predictors: type of offense (b= =0.21, p= 0.014), plea bargain (b= 0.32, p= 0.032), new law violation (b= 0.49, p= 0.018) and severity (b= 0.29, p= 0.000) (Appendix L) The less severe the offense type, thos e that were sentenced to probation not via a plea bargain, those who do not have a new law violation and those who reported the conditions to be severe were more likely to report the standard conditions to be difficult to adhere to or complete

PAGE 260

260 Two indepe ndent variables were significant at the bivariate level; ethnicity and severity (Table s 6 3 and 6 ethnicity and severity as predictors was run (Table 6 7). Only severity remained significant onc e OLS regressions were estimated (b= 0.31, p= 0.001). Those who reported conditions of probation to be severe were more likely to consider the conditions to also be difficult than those who reported the conditions of probation be not severe As probation ers reported conditions as being severe, the likelihood of them reporting standard conditions of probation to be difficult to comply or adhere to increased. Difficulty treatment scale 5 When it came to examining the eleven treatment probation conditions and the twenty three independent variables, severity was the only variable that was significant at the bivariate level (Table 5 3). I next ran OLS regression and severity (Table 5 7) (b= 0. 61, p= 0.000). Probationers who identified probation conditions to be severe were more likely to also identify the probation conditions as being difficult to adhere to or complete. If an individual reported his or her probation conditions to be severe, h e or she was more likely to find the treatment conditions to be difficult. Difficulty punitive scale 6 One independent variable, severity was significantly (Table 6 5). I ran OLS 5 Two inde pendent variables, employment status (b= 0.22, p= 0.016) and severity (b= 0.86, p= 0.000), participants who reported the conditions of probation to be severe were more likely to identify the eleven treatment conditions to be difficult to complete and/or adhere to than probationers who were not employed or reported the probation conditions to be not severe. 6 When I ran OLS regression for the total mod el, employment status (b= 0.29, p= 0.021) and seriousness Appendix L). Individuals who were employed and those with more serious criminal histories were more likely to rep ort the ten punitive conditions that c ompo employed and those who had less seriousness criminal histories.

PAGE 261

261 r egression with the scale as the dependent variable and severity as the only independent variable (Table 6 7). Severity (b= 0.64, p=0.000) was a significant predictor of the scale composed of the ten punitive conditions. Those who indicated probation cond itions to be severe were more likely to report the punitive conditions to be difficult than those who reported the probation conditions to be not severe The ten punitive conditions included in the study were more likely to be perceived as difficult by th ose who also consider probation conditions to be severe than by those who considered probation conditions to be not severe Table 6 7. literature based s cales Scale Difficulty Standard Scale Variable b Standard Error Beta Ethnicity 0.24 0.10 0.05 Severity 0.31** 0.09 .36 Constant 1.22 0.18 R square 0.13 Adjusted R square 0.11 Standard error of the estimate 0.47 Degrees of freedom 2 F value 5.67** N 78 Difficulty Treatment Scale Variable b Standard Error Beta Severity 0.61*** 0.16 0.41 Constant 0.68 0.31 R square 0.17 Adjusted R square 0.16 Standard error of the estimate 0.81 Degrees of freedom 1 F value 14.57*** N 73

PAGE 262

262 Table 6 7 C ontinued Scale Difficulty Punitive Scale Variable b Standard Error Beta Severity 0.64*** 0.16 0.42 Constant 1.44 0.34 R square 0.18 Adjusted R square 0.17 Standard error of the estimate 0.82 Degrees of freedom 1 F value 15.34*** N 72 Overall Difficulty Variable Variable b Standard Error Beta Ethnicity 1.31*** 0.35 0.26 Parental status 0.32 0.18 0.13 Constant 3.04 0.14 R square 0.09 Adjusted R square 0.08 Standard error of the estimate 1.22 Degree s of freedom 2 F value 9.57*** N 198 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Overall difficulty variable 7 The overall difficult variable was the final dependent variable included in the study and was based on a question used in Petersilia and Deschenes (199 4b) study ( Methods chapter for more detail). Ethnicity and parental status were the only two independent variables significantly correlated with this dependent variable (Table 6 3). Once OLS regression were run only ethnicity remained significant (b= 1.3 1, p=0.000) (Table 6 7). Non Hispanics were less likely to report their 7 None of the twenty three independent variables were significant predi ctors for the overall difficulty variable when the total model was estimated ( Appendix L).

PAGE 263

263 probation to be difficult overall in comparison to Hispanics. Hispanics were significantly more likely than non Hispanics to perceive their probation to be overall more difficult. Summary of correlations and regressions. When I ran correlations at the bivariate level there were very few variables that were significantly correlated. I next ran OLS regressions with the variables significant at the bivariate level. None of the dif ficulty scales had more than four variables correlated. Out of the eleven difficulty scales and variables, severity was a significant predictor in seven of the scales, with those who indicated their probation conditions as being severe being more likely t o report their probation conditions as being difficult to follow or complete. Gender was the only other variable that was a significant predicator for multiple severity scales; women were more likely to report particular probation conditions as being diff icult to comply with than men. The independent variables age marital status years of education sample previous history prior violent offense prior violation jail history prior sentence history current offense type plea bargain charge level redu ction violation of probation, new law violation and technical violation were not significant at the bivariate level for any of the difficulty scales. There were few variables that were significant in predicting Qualitative Analysis In order to understand why the participants rat ed the conditions as they did, participants were asked to expand on their answers. They were asked for each condition that they reported as being not difficult and for each condition that they reported as being very difficult ende d responses were digitally

PAGE 264

264 recorded. Of the 202 interviews conducted, 159 interviews (78.7%) were recorded. In the cases where the interview was not recorded, the interviewer took detailed notes, which of ten included direct quotes ( Data Collection sectio n for more details). After the recorded were written up, I performed a content analysis on the qualitative data. I examined and coded the data f or themes that may help an swer Research Q uestion 2b, Standard Conditions of Probation Not difficult No new law violation. When I performed a content analysis on the responses given by the probationers who identified the standard condition of new law violation as being not difficult to follow, only one theme emerged (Table 6 8). Participants identified the condition as being not difficult because they did not typically commit criminal offenses and therefore thought it would not be difficult for them to not commit criminal six year old, White, female, violent offender. A forty year old, White fema le public order offender made a similar hite female public order offender who was forty eight years old, probationers perceived the condition not difficult to follow because they did not typically break laws. Report to the probation office once a month There were two themes expressed by probationers who identified having to report to the probation office once a month as being not difficult (Ta ble 6 8). The first theme was that individuals did not

PAGE 265

265 perceive the condition to be difficult because it only required them to report one day a month. A thirty five year old Black man, who was serving a probation sentence for a the condition to be not difficult This was a sentiment shared by a thirty two year old, for only fifteen mi two years old and serving A twenty year every we maximum, in the morning so, and she lets me to pick time and date that I can, that like, one year old White, fe male public order offender. The second theme that emerged when I performed the content analysis was that probationers considered reporting to the probation agency once a month was not difficult because their schedules were open. A twenty two year ol d, White, female a stat ement made by a Black man, who was twenty three year s old and serving on why reporting once a month is not difficult to do were that it is only once a month and th at their schedules were open.

PAGE 266

266 Table 6 hemes Condition Not Difficult Very Difficult Comm it no new law violation Do not regularly do so Crooked police More susceptible Report once a month Only one day Transportation problems Open schedule Scheduling hassle Answer truthfully Nothing to hide Refused to expand Honest Noti fy if changes in residence Simple process Refused to expand Notify if changes in employment Simple process Refused to expand Try to obtain employment Have a job Economy Criminal record Maintain employment/school Good worker Criminal recor d Allow PO to visit residence Nothing to hide Hard to explain to others Allow PO to visit employment Nothing to hide Hard to explain to others Legitimate employment Negatively affect job Pay monthly cost of supervision Financial situation Financial situation Pay court costs Financial situation Financial situation Answer truthfully to inquiries by probation officer. The two themes extracted from the qualitative data regarding why answering truthfully to inquiries by probation office rs was not a difficult condition to follow were the same two themes extracted from the statements made by probationers who identified the condition to be not severe (Table 6 8). Probationers considered the condition to not be difficult because they did no t have anything to lie about or because they considered themselves to be always honest. The statement made by a thirty two year five

PAGE 267

267 year three year old, White man, serving probation for a public order offense and was similar to a twenty eight year old White, female public In addition to identifying the condition as being not difficult because they do not have anything to lie or hide, probationers also considered the condition to be not difficult because they c a Hispanic, Black man, who was fifty seven years old and serving probation for a violent offense. The theme was also supported by the comment of a twenty five year old, Black woman ser three year old, White, female public order offender and was si milar to a forty five year honest were the only themes identified from the qualitative data addressing the condition of being truthfully to the probation officer as being not difficult Notifying probation officer of changes in residence and notifying probation officer of changes in employment. The content analysis that I performed identified one major theme when it came to the two conditions requiring probationers to notify their probationer officers of any changes in living situations and/or employment (Table 6 8). Probationers who identified the two conditions as being not difficult reported the condition was not difficult because the process of notifying the probationer officers of seven

PAGE 268

268 year old, Black man serving probation for a violent offense when he was asked to expand on why t he condition was not difficult to adhere to or complete. A thirty five year old White man, who was serving probation for a public order offense, made a shared that the pa was shared by a forty one year old, White, female, public order offender, while a thirty five year The p articipants who identified the two conditions requiring them to notify their probation officers about changes in their lives reported the condition to be not difficult to comply with because the process of notifying the probation officers is a simple proce ss requiring only a form to be completed or a phone call to be made. Try to obtain employment. why they considered the condition of trying to obtain employment as being not difficult I only identified one theme (Table 6 8). The theme that emerged was that individuals considered the condition to be not difficult jo a forty five year old, Black, Male, public order offender and a forty e ight year old, W hite, f emale, public order offender. A thirty four year old, twenty two year old, Black man, serving probation for a drug offense, as evident in his who consider the condition of trying to obtain employment to not be difficult to comply with b ecause the condition does not really apply to them since they already have a job.

PAGE 269

269 Maintain employment/school enrollment. There was one major theme that I was able to extract from the responses regarding the condition, maintaining employment/school enr ollment (Table 6 8). Probationers indicated that the condition was not difficult to comply with because they considered themselves to be good workers and therefore maintaining employment was not difficult A twenty nine year old, Black, male, violent off three year old Black, male seven years old a the condition was not difficult because they were good workers. None of the probationers mad e any statements why they considered maintaining school enrollment was not difficult Allow probation officer to visit residence and allow probation officer to visit employment site. When I performed a content analysis of the qualitative data pertaining to why probationers reported the conditions to be not difficult the conditions of allowing probationer officers to visit their residences and/or employment sites shared one major theme (Table 6 8). Participants reported that the conditions were not diffi cult to comply with because they did not have anything to hide from their probation officers. four year old, White, male, public order offender and a sentiment shared by a forty one year old, three year

PAGE 270

270 old, White man serving a probation sentence for public order offense and a forty one year old, White, male, violent offender. When it came to the probation officers visiting employment sites, an additional theme emerged. Participants reported that the condition was not difficult to adhere to because they had legitimate employ eight year old, White, male public order offender when he was asked to expand on why he consid ered the condition to be not difficult The made by a fifty eight year old, White, male, public order offender and highlighted the theme. The conditions that allowed pro and/ or work sites were considered to be not difficult because the probationers had nothing to hide. In the case of work site visits, probationers reported that since their employment was legitimate it was n ot difficult for their probation officers to visit. Pay monthly cost of supervision and pay court costs. The two standard conditions that require probationers to pay had one major theme in common (Table 6 8). When asked to expand on why they considered the conditions to be not difficult probationers reported that they had the money to pay so it was not hard for them to five year old, White man serving probation for a dr ug offense. A fifty three year old, White eight year old, White, male, public order

PAGE 271

271 monthly cost of supervision and paying court costs as being not difficult appeared to feel so because they were in a financial situation that afforded them the ability to pay. Very difficult No new law violation. Four participants identified the condition of committing no new law violation as being very difficult (Table 6 8). The two probationers who chose to expand on why they felt the condition was very difficult had two different responses. A thir ty five year old, Black, male, drug offender stated that he felt the condition was very difficul the police would try to find reasons to violate him. A twenty one year old, White woman, who was serving probation for a public order offense, felt that being on probation increased the likelihood of individuals committing a new law violation. She stated you r e The individuals who report the condition to be very difficult felt that the police would try to set them up and violate them or that being on prob ation increased the susceptibility of them getting in trouble and violating. Report to the probation office once a month. Once again a limited number of probationers identified the standard condition to be very difficult (Table 6 8). Three probationers indicated that reporting to the probation office once a month as being very difficult One drug offender, who was a twenty two year old, Black woman, felt the condition could be very difficult Another w oman probationer, who was a forty five year old, White, property offender, stated the condition was very difficult rearrange my schedule and I have to make sure I have the money when I come see

PAGE 272

272 imited number of probationers, who identified reporting to probation as being very difficult, felt so because too many issues could arise that could prevent a person from being able to report or felt so because reporting was a hassle in terms of taking off work and/or rescheduling their schedule. Answer truthfully to inquiries by probation officer. Only one person reported that answering truthfully to inquiries by her probation officer was very difficult to comply with or to complete. The forty five year old, White woman, who was serving probation for a property offense, declined to indicate why the condition was very difficult Notifying probation officer of changes in residence and notifying probation officer of changes in employment. Only one person i dentified the condition of notifying his probation officer of changes in his residence as being very difficult The same person identified notifying his probation officer of changes in employment would be very difficult However, the fifty three year old White, violent offender did not want to expand on why he identified the conditions to be very difficult to adhere to or complete. Try to obtain employment. When I performed a content analysis on the qualitative data regarding why probationers considere d the condition of trying to obtain employment would be very difficult to comply with, two themes emerged (Table 6 8). The first theme was that individuals considered the condition to very difficult to co mply with because of the current state of the econo my. In other words, jobs were difficult to

PAGE 273

273 statement made by a twenty eight year old, White man, serving a probation sentence for public order offense, and highlights this theme. The second theme that was extracted from the data was that probationers felt that their criminal background could be a hindrance and therefore made trying to obta in employment very difficult to comply with or complete. A twenty seven year old, Black some people look at your background and your record and stuff like that and they judg e five year old, White, male, public order offender shared a condition of obtaining employment to be very difficult felt so because their criminal record would prevent them from accomplishing the condition. Additionally, others fel t that the economy would make complying very difficult Maintain employment/school enrollment. I extracted one theme from the be very difficult (Table 6 8). Probationers reported that they felt the condition would be very difficult to comply with because employers may fire them once the employers found out about the employee being on probation. A Black man, who was thirty one years old and serving probation for a public o somebody else that wants th Once you have a record in

PAGE 274

274 would make it difficult to maintain employment; none of the probationers shared why maintaining school enrollment would be very difficult Allow probation officer to visit residence and allow probation officer to visit employment site. I identified two themes when I performed the content analysis on the qualitative data that address why probationers considered probationer officers visit very difficult (Table 6 8). One theme that emerged was that probationers felt the conditions wer e very difficult because the bosses, coworkers). A comment made by a thirty one year old, Black, female, public order offense expressed this theme; her comment was : if my say they were children did not understand and they came to the home while the children were there then they Another public order offender, who was a thirty t wo year old, White woman, shared this The second theme that emerged when I was examining the reasons why probati oners consider the condition of the probation officers visiting employment sites to be very difficult was that individuals felt that the visit might negati vely impact their employment. A sixty year nk asked to expand on why she felt the condition was very difficult A twenty three year old, White man, who was serving probation for a public order offense, also expresse d this sentiment. He said:

PAGE 275

275 My probation is my business and, um, its already being on probation has already wrecked a lot of or a large part of my life so therefore when I finally have a job the last thing that anyone wants to see is a probation officer co ming on site. Then you will probably end up losing your job as well, not esteem, want to go to work, and from th their face. Probationers felt the condition of probation officers visiting employment sites was very difficult because it could potential hard to explain to others which made the conditions very difficult to comply with or complete. Pay monthly cost of supervision and pay court costs. One theme emerged during the content analysis pertaining to why probationers considered paying the monthly cost of supervision and/or court costs to be very difficult Individuals who identified the conditions to be very difficult to comply with felt so because of their current financial situation. has been go o pay all this, yeah, very hard was a comment made by a fifty five year old, White, female, property offender. A forty one year old, White, female, public order offender shared the same sentiment as ot working, and personal issues, trying to straighten all those out, so right now financially I have no the bills that I owe and my house a forty five year old, White woman, who was serving a probation sentence for a property

PAGE 276

276 offense, and also supported the theme. Probationers expressed that their financial situation is the reason why th ey considered complying with the conditions to be very difficult Summary of standard conditions I examined the qualitative responses given by the participants as to why they rated a standard condition as being not difficult or very difficult for them es. Though the theme may have varied based on the specific conditions t hose who identified the condition s as being not difficult typically felt so because the process for adhering to or completing the condition was simple. They also reported that some co nditions were not difficult because they had nothing to hide and the financial means to complete the conditions. Those who reported the conditions to be very difficult to adhere or complete did so because completing the conditions was hard to explain to o thers or they did not have the money to afford the conditions. Other reasons given were specific to the conditions, though for some of the conditions the probationers refused to expand on their rating of some of the conditions. Treatment Conditions of Pro bation Not difficult Submit to random screens. Among the individuals who considered submitting to random breathalyzers and urinalysis to be a condition that was not difficult to comply with one theme emerged (Table 6 9). Individuals considered submitting to the random screens to be not difficult because the actual screening procedure did not require a lot of effort on the part of the probationers A thirty seven year old, Black, male, violent on why he considered the condition to be not difficult while a twenty three year old,

PAGE 277

277 also highlighted in a forty five year old, White five year old, White, male, public order offender shar Individuals identified the process for submitting to a random screen to be simple and therefore the condition was not difficult Table 6 9. Treatment c ondit ions of hemes Condition Not Difficult Very Difficult Submit to random screens Simple process Enjoy drinking/using Do not possess or consume alcohol Do not regularly do so Enjoy drinking Do not possess or consume drugs Do not regularly do so Enjoy using Participate in alcohol treatment Flexible Costly Just sit there Negatively interferes Participate in drug treatment Flexible Costly Just sit there Negatively interferes Participate in mental health treatment Flexible Costly Just sit there Negatively interferes Participate in employment program Flexible Costly Just sit there Negatively interferes Complete Milepost class Flexible Costly Just sit there Negatively interferes s intervention Flexible Costly Just sit there Negatively interferes Complete anger management Flexible Costly Just sit there Negatively interferes Flexible Costly Just sit there Negatively interferes

PAGE 278

278 Do not possess or consume alcohol and do not possess or consume illegal drugs. I extracted one theme when I examined the qualitative data regarding why probationers considered not possessing or consuming alcohol and/or drugs to be easy. Participants felt the conditions were not difficult to adhere to because they did not consume or possess alcohol and/or drugs on a regular basis A twenty five year old, was asked why he considered the conditions to be not difficult Another twenty five year old, who was a Black, female, violent offender, expressed the same sentiment as evident by A forty one year o requiring them to not possess or consume alcohol and/or drugs as being not difficult appeared to do so because they did not drink or use the substances. Treatment programs or courses. Though participants were asked to expand on why they felt each of the eight specific treatment programs or courses (i.e., alcohol treatment, drug treatment, mental health tr eatment, employment programming, Milepost not difficult two themes emerged regardless of the specific treatment programs or courses (Table 6 9). Probationers felt the conditions wer e not difficult to complete either because they had flexibility in selecting when they attended the programs or courses or because the one year old, White, female, public order offender stated the

PAGE 279

279 explaining why she felt the treatment conditions were not difficult Another public order offender, who was a twenty seven ye ar The second theme that emerged was that individuals felt the conditions were not difficult because the treatment programs or courses did not require a lot of effort on the part of the probationers. old, White, female public order offender and highlighted this theme. A twenty two year old, White man, who was serving probation for a violen t offense, shared this sentiment and s tated Probationers who identified the treatment programs or courses as being not difficult to comply with or complete appeared to feel that way because the scheduling of th e programs or courses was flexible or they felt that way be cause the program or course do not require a lot from the probationers. Very difficult Submit to random screens. I performed a content analysis on the qualitative data collected from the ind ividuals who identified a submitting to random alcohol or drug screens as being very difficult (Table 6 9). Of the three individuals who identified the condition as being very difficult only one person expanded on why. The twenty eight year old, White, he was asked why he felt the condition was very difficult It appeared that he felt the condition was very difficult because it required him to not smoke marijuana, which he enjoys doing The condition was very difficult not because of the procedure of the screen but because it required him to abstain from engaging in an activity he enjoys.

PAGE 280

280 Do not possess or consume alcohol and do not possess or consume illegal drugs. Among the part not possessing or consuming alcohol and not possessing or consuming illegal drugs I identified one theme (Table 6 9). Probationers enjoyed drinking or using drugs and therefore considered the conditions to be very difficult to adhere to or complete. eight year old, White, male public order offender when he was as ked to expand on his ranking of the conditions as very difficult A forty eight year social thin eight years old, White and male, shared that the conditions were very difficult very diffic ult to adhere to thought so because they enjoyed drinking and/or using drugs. Treatment programs or courses. Despite being asked to specify for each particular treatment program or course that was identified as being very difficult to comply with, probat ioners often cited one of two reasons regardless of the actual program or course (Table 6 9). The first reason given by probationers who consi dered the treatment program or course to be very difficult was that the program or course was expensive. A twent y eight year old, White, male, public order offender simply stated very difficult Another public order offender, who is a forty eight year old, White man, shared the sentiment one year old,

PAGE 281

281 appeared to feel the financial cost of the treatment program or class made the complying wit h the condition very difficult A second theme that emerged from the responses was that probation ers felt treatment programs or classes were very difficult to adhere to because attending the program or course negativel y interfered with their lives. A fort y eight year old, White woman, who is serving probation for a public order offense, comment eight year old, White, male, public order offender expressed that the condition of atten ding a treatment program would be um identified treatment programs or classes as being very difficult to comply with, considered the m to be very difficult because of the cost assoc iated wit h attending the programs or classes or because of how attending might interfere with their lives. Summary of treatment conditions I performed a content analysis on the qualitative data regarding why probationers felt the treatment conditions w ere either not difficult or very difficult Probationers identified treatment conditions as being not difficult if they perceived the condition to be simple to complete and if the treatment program or class was flexible in terms of scheduling. Probatione rs also considered treatment conditions to be not difficult if they did not regularly engage in drinking alcohol and/or using drugs. On the other hand, probationers reported treatment conditions to be very difficult if they enjoyed drinking alcohol and/or using drugs. They also viewed conditions to be very difficult because of the costs associated with them and that they negativel y interfered with their lives.

PAGE 282

282 Punitive Conditions of Probation Not difficult Complete community service hours in lieu of fees and complete mandatory community service hours. The content analysis revealed that the probationers who identified the conditions involving community service hours as being not difficult did so because performing their community service hours required lit tle work (Table 6 10). They suggested that completing their community service hours was not difficult because they were not required to do a lot in order to complete the hours. For example a thirty four year old, White, male, public order offender stated to be not difficult five year old, Black man, serving probation for a property offense. When asked why they rated the community service conditions as not difficult participants suggested that the conditions were not difficult because they were not required to do a lot of work and the tasks they were required to perform were simple. Complete work crew days. The theme that emerged from the qualitative data regarding why they consider the condition of completing work crew days to be not diff icult was the reason that individuals considered community service conditions not difficult to complete (Table 6 10). Probationers felt that completing work crew days did not require a great deal of effort on their part. A twenty seven year old, Black, m ale, best highlights this theme. Those who rated the condition of completing work crew days

PAGE 283

283 as being not difficult did so because completing the condition did not r equire a lot of work on their part. Table 6 10. Punitive hemes Condition Not Difficult Very Difficult Community service in lieu of fees Not much work required Interferes with work Mandatory community service Not much work required Interferes with work Complete work crew days Not much work required Interferes with work Complete a jail sentence Over and done Interferes with work Away from children Pay restitution Financial situation Financial situation No contact with victim Do not want contact Interferes with relationship Attend one victim impact panel Short time commitment Emotional Other transportation options Interferes with work Have to rely on others Abide with order of impoundment Can rely on others Have to rely on others Abide by curfew Stays home Restricts freedom Complete a jail sentence. When I performed a content analysis on the y they rated the condition of completing a jail sentence as being not difficult one theme emerged (Table 6 10). Participants who indicated the condition was not difficult appeared to feel so because they felt that when people complete a jail sentence the y serve it and then they are done with it. In other words, they serve a jail sentence, which is typically short, and then the condition is complete. It does not require them to do or adhere to something throughout their entire probation sentence. A thir ty six year old, White, female public order offender stated

PAGE 284

284 sentence to be not difficult to comply with or complete. Another public order offe nder, who was twenty eight years old and a White man, shared this sentiment as evident in sentence would be not difficult because they would be able to complete the condition and then be done with it in a short time. Pay restitution. As was true with two standard conditions that required payment (i.e., monthly cost of supervision and court costs), probationers considered the condition of paying restitution to be not difficult if they had the fina ncial means t o pay restitution (Table 6 10 ). A twenty two year old, Black man, who was on probation for a drug restitution is rated as being not difficult because those rati ng it so have the money and ability to pay the restitution. No contact with victim. The one theme that emerged when I performed a content analysis on the qualitative data that expanded on why participants rated the condition, no contact with victim as b eing not difficult (Table 6 9). The theme was that people reporting the condition as being not difficult did so because they did not want to have contact with the victim regardless of the probation condition. A comment made by a twenty five, Black, male, property offender highlights this sentiment; his comment was probationer, who was a twenty three year old, Black, female, violent offender, shared that she considered the condition to be not difficult Those who rated the condition as being not difficult appeared to feel so because they

PAGE 285

285 did not want to have contact with their victim(s) and therefore, the condition of having not contact with their victim(s) was not difficult Attend one victim impact panel. From the content analysis, I extracted one theme regarding the condition of attending a victim impact panel and why participants rated the condition as being not difficult (Table 6 10 ). Individuals considered the condition to be not difficult to complete because attending the victim impact panel only required a short time commitment. A twenty five year old, White, male, public order hour and forty five minutes; it sentiment was shared by a forty one year old, White, female, public order offender as e Friday night or Tuesday night; not a big one year old, White woman, victim impact panel as being not difficu lt to complete reported feeling so because the condition required a limited amount of time in order to complete it. One theme emerged while I was examining the qualitative responses from individuals who rated the condi tion of having not difficult (Table 6 10 ). Participants considered the condition to be not difficult because there were other forms of statement made by a twenty eight year old, White, male, public order offender when he was asked to expand on why he considered the condition to be not difficult and is a good example of the theme. Since alternative forms of transportation are available to

PAGE 286

286 revoked was not difficult to comply with or complete. Abide by order of impoundment. The responses regarding why the condition of abiding by an order of impoundment is not difficult suggested that probationers felt they could rely on others (Table 6 9). A thirty four year old, White, male, public order impoundment was not di fficult for him Another probationer, who was a forty one year the condition of abiding by an order of impoundment as being not difficult to adhere to considered it to be because they could rely on others for rides during the time period when their cars were impounded. Abide by curfew. The final punitive condition was abiding by a curfew. The qualitative data that focused on the condition showed that probationers who felt the condition was not difficult because they did not typically go out and instead stayed home. A forty one year old, White woman, who was serving a probation sentence for a sked why she felt the condition would be not difficult to comply with or complete. This sentiment was also held by a thirty year old, Black, female, public order offender, whose comment was nty year old, Black, curfew appeared to be viewed as not difficult to follow by those who typically stayed home and therefore, the condition was not difficult to adhere to or complete.

PAGE 287

287 Very difficult Complete community service hours in lieu of fees and complete mandatory community service hours. comments about why they ranked each particular punitive condition as very dif ficult (Table 6 10). When it came to the two conditions regarding completing community service hours, one theme emerged as to why individuals considered the conditions as being very difficult A forty eight year old, White, female, public order offender shared three year old, White, male, public order when they were asked to expand why the y rated the conditions as very difficult Another probationer, who was a twenty nine year Those who identified the two punitive conditions that required them to complete community service hours felt the conditions were very difficult to complete because the community service hours interfered with their employment. Complete work crew days. Pr obationers who reported the condition of completing work crew days to be very difficult appeared to feel so because it interfered with their employment (Table 6 10) a comment made by a twenty six year old, Black woman, who was serving a probation sentence for a public order offense, and highlighted the sentiment. A forty eight year old, White, female, public order offender rviewer asked her why she felt the condition was very difficult There was only one theme extracted during the content analysis, and

PAGE 288

288 that theme was that probationers reported completing work crew days as being very difficult because performing the work cr ew hours interfered with their employment. Complete a jail sentence. As was the case in the three previously mentioned punitive conditions, the condition of completing a jail sentence was considered to be very difficult because it interfered with the pr (Table 6 10). A forty eight year very difficult for her to comply with or complete. This vi ew was shared by a twenty nine year old, Black, very difficult did so because they felt the sentence would interfere with their employment. An additional reason why probationers identified the condition as very difficult to complete or adhere to is because it kept them away from their children. An example of this theme is seen in a comment by a forty five yea r old, Black, female, public order a twenty two year old, Black, male, drug offender s f or my Participants who rated completing a jail sentence as being very difficult felt so because the condition interfered with their employment or because they had children. Pay restitution. When I examined the qualitative data regarding payi ng restitution, the one theme I extracted was that probationers considered the condition to be very difficult based on their current financial situation (Table 6 10). As was the case with the conditions of paying the monthly cost of supervision and court costs,

PAGE 289

289 probationers who were not financially sound rated the condition as being very difficult A twenty year another twenty year old, Black woman, who was a property offender said a twenty one year old, White, female, public order offender and highlighted the theme that emerged. Probationers who identified the condition of paying restitu tion as being very difficult did so because their current financial situation made it very difficult for them to complete the condition. No contact with victim. While individuals who considered the condition of having no contact with their victim(s) was not difficult because they did not want anything to do with them, those who rated the condition as being very difficult did so because they had a personal relationship with their victim(s) (Table 6 10). In other words, probationers who identified not havi ng contact with their victim(s) as being very difficult to comply did so because it required them to stay away from someone they typically had a lot of contact with prior to condition somebody I lov six year old, Black, man, serving probation for a public order offense. His comment highlights the theme that emerged, which was that the condition was very difficult because they wanted to have contact with the person du e to them having a personal relationship with their victim. The condition interferes with their relationship. Attend one victim impact panel. Among the responses regarding why attending a victim impact panel would be very difficult to complete and comply with, the only theme that emerged was that attending the panel would be very emotional and

PAGE 290

290 therefore, very difficult (Table 6 10). When asked to expand on why he felt the condition would be very difficult to comply with, a thirty year old, White, male, v iolent Another probationer, who was a forty three year old, White, female, public order condition of attending one victim impact panel to be very difficult reported identifying the condition as such because the panel would be emotionally difficult for them to complete. Nearly 50% (N= 77, 47.5%) of the as being very difficult When I performed a content analysis on the qualitative da ta, two themes emerged as to why probationers considered the condition to be very difficult (Table 6 suspended or revoked as being very difficult because the condition inte rferes with their comment made by a thirty year old, White, male, violent offender. This sentiment was also shared by a forty eight year old, Black, female, public order ask why she rated the condition as very difficult a twenty one year old, White, female, In addition to the condition being considered very difficult because it interfered with was very difficult because they had to rel y on others for transportation. This theme can

PAGE 291

291 be seen in the comments of a twenty one year old, White, female, public order offender. condition that was ident ified as very difficult by more interviewees than any other condition was identified as being so because complying with the condition interfered with their employment and caused them to rely on others for rides. Abide by order of impoundment. Individual s who reported the condition of abiding by an order of impoundment was not difficult felt so because they were able to rely on others for transportation (Table 6 10). However, those who reported the condition to be very difficult to comply with felt so be cause they were required to rely on four year old, Black, male, property offender. Another property offender, who was a forty did. The condition of impoundment is either seen as being not difficult or as being very difficult depen ding on how the probationers f e l t about having to rely on others for rides. Abide by curfew. The content analysis extracted one theme regarding why abiding by a curfew is viewed as being very difficult to comply with or complete (Table 6 10). Probationers reported the condition was very difficult because it restricted their freedom. A sixty four year three year old, Black, male, violent offen

PAGE 292

292 condition as being very difficult did s o because complying with the curfew greatly restrict their freedom. Summary of punitive conditions Every time the participants would report a probation condition to be not difficult or very difficult they were asked to expand on why they rated the con dition as such. After several themes that explain the ratings. The punitive conditions were often reported as being not difficult if the probatione r perceived that there was little effort required to complete the condition and if they had other options, such as relying on others for transportation. In the reverse individuals identified some conditions as being very difficult because it require them to rely on others. Ad ditionally, probationers often perceived the conditions to be very difficult because they interfered with their employment or personal relationship. Overall Difficulty of Probation In addition to rating each of the thirty two probation conditions, partici pants were also asked to rate the difficulty of their probation sentence generally. Based on Petersilia and Deschen r the individual conditions they were given the response options of not difficult (1), relatively easy (2), about 50/50 (3), somewhat difficult (4) and very difficult (5). Regardless of Ple their responses were digitally recorded and transcribed. I performed content analysis ended responses regarding why they ranked their probation sentence as they did.

PAGE 293

293 Not difficult When I examined the responses fro m those who identified their overall probation sentence as being not difficult there was one major theme that emerged (Table 6 11). Probationers considered their probation sentence to be not difficult because there were not a lot of conditions they had t o follow or complete. A twenty two year old, Black, this sentim ent. A forty year old, Black, f female, property offender, who was White and forty one years old, stated that she felt probation was not di fficult probation sentence was not difficult appeared to feel so because they did not feel they had a lot of probation conditions to complete. Table 6 11. Over hemes Response Options Themes Not difficult Few requirements Relatively easy Financial costs About 50/50 Financial costs Inconvenient Somewhat difficult Financial costs Too many requirements Very difficult Not being able to drive Negatively effects on personal life

PAGE 294

294 Relatively easy Among probationers who reported their probation sentence as being relatively easy I identif ied one theme. Participants appeared to feel that their sentence of probation was relatively easy because they were not required to adhere or complete a lot of conditions but the financial conditions did cause them some difficulties. A twenty four year o six year old, White, male, public order offender as evident by his However highlighted in a thirty one year that I relatively easy reported that they do not have a lot conditions to comply with or complete, which was the sentiment expressed by those who identified probation to be not difficult However, those who c onsider it to be relatively easy felt that the financial conditions placed some burden on them and therefore, listed their probation sentence as relatively easy versus not difficult About 50/50 There were two themes that emerged when I performed a cont ent analysis on the about 50/50 The first theme was that probationers felt the financial requirements increased the difficulty fifty because I forty five year old, White man, who was on p robation for a public order offense.

PAGE 295

295 Another participant, who was a sixty one year old, White, male public order offender ed his probation sentence to be about 50/50 A twenty nine year old, female, White, public order offender simply expressed the The second theme expressed among those who reported their prob ation sentences to be about 50/50 was that their probation sentences were inconvenient. About fifty off from it to come here and I had to finish up in the morning then the weekend com little side job then cause if I do screw up the work crew, you know what I mean was a comment made by a forty eight year old, Black, male public order offender who viewed his probation to be about 50/50 because completing his conditions interfered with his everyday life. A forty five year old, Black, female, property offender merely about 50/50 in terms of difficulty seemed to feel so because of their financial conditions or because their sentence was inconvenient to them. Somewhat difficult considered their probation to be somewh at difficult two themes emerged (Table 6 11). The first theme was that probationers considered probation to be somewhat difficult because of how much they are required to pay. A thirty three year old, Black, male, public order offender shared that he fel t his probation was somewhat difficult because of thirty one year old, White man, serving a

PAGE 296

296 probation sentence for a public order offens e. Once again the probationers based their probation sentence difficulty rating on the financial requirements The second theme I extracted from the responses was that probationers considered their sentence to be somewhat difficult because they were requi red to complete or adhere to too many conditions. A twenty year old, Black, female, property gave me too much to do, Friday work crew, community service and then I got to pay comment made by a twenty three year old, White man serving a public order offense; his comment was : somewhat difficult, um, just, I mean with the interlock device an d all the work crews and everything like that. I mean that, just the tough part about the money and everything like that, interlock device, not being able to ha ve a car is som ewhat difficult. Participants who reported to the interviewer that they considered their probation sentences to be somewhat difficult did so because of the financial cost they are required to pay or because they felt they had too many conditions to adher e to or complete. Very difficult Individuals who reported their probation sentences to be very difficult appeared to do so for two reasons. Some felt probation was very difficult because the condition of d made completing the other conditions of probation difficult. A sixty year ust seems like it was extremely punitive in those, in those

PAGE 297

297 very difficult Another probationer, who was a thirty two year old, White, female, public order offender, shared : because my situation, lik really difficult in that way. This sentiment was also shar ed by a forty one year old, Black, female, public order I also extracted the theme that probation ers viewed their sentences to be very difficult because their probation sentences negatively affected their lives. One probationer, a twenty nine year old, White, male, public order offender candidly ult time and being on probation is very difficult A twenty nine year old, White, female, public order offender stated that probation was very difficult body watch my kid sentences we re incon venient and negatively impacted their personal lives and therefore, they consider ed their sentences to be very difficult Others considered their probation sentences to be very difficult because no t completing their other conditions of probation difficult. Summary of the overall difficulty of probation Probationers were asked to rate the difficulty of their probation sentence. Individuals who rated their sentence as being not difficult did so because they felt they did not have many requirements (i.e., conditions) to complete or follow. Participants who reported their probation as being relatively easy reported that the financial

PAGE 298

298 requirements were the only conditi ons that were difficult. Those who identified their probation as being about 50/50 voiced feeling that way because of the financial burden and the inconvenience place on them by their probation sentence. Financial costs, as well as feeling they had too m any conditions to comply with, were the reasons given by those who identified their probation sentence as somewhat difficult Among the participants who rated their sentence as being very difficult two themes emerged. Some felt the condition was very dif ficult license suspended or revoked was difficult to comply with, as well as made it difficult to complete other probation conditions. Additionally, probationers rated their sentence as being very difficul t because their sentence negatively affected their personal lives. Probationers appeared to mainly rate their probation sentence in terms of difficulty based on the financial burden it placed on them. Chapter Summary This results chapter answered the su b of the severity of a condition impact their perceived ability to complete a particular In the case of standard and treatment conditions, nearly 50% of the participants indicated the conditi ons to be not difficult The financial conditions were exceptions to this. There was more variance among the punitive conditions, indicating that probationers tended to report the punitive condition as being m ore difficult to adhere to or complete. N oti fying the probation officer of changes in employment was the condition with the highest percentages of interviewees identifying it as being not difficult the highest percentag e of participants reporting the condition as being very difficult The percentages of interviewees that indicated probation conditions to be not severe

PAGE 299

299 were similar to the percentage of interviewees that indicated the conditions to be not difficul t. This suggests that participants consi der how severe a condition is when determining how difficult conditions are to comply with or complete. difficulty. Gender and severity were si gnificant predicators for multiple severity scales, with women being more likely to report particular probation conditions as being more difficult to comply with or complete. Severity was a significant predictor for seven scales out of the eleven difficul t scales and variables. Probationers who perceived probation conditions to be more severe were more likely to identify probation conditions as being difficult to follow or complete than those who identified probation conditions as being not severe In th a condition does impact their perceived ability to complete a particular probation condition. I also performed a content analysis on the qualitative data and identified common them es regarding why probationers identified conditions as being not difficult or very difficult The themes varied by probation condition but conditions were often identified as being not difficult if complying with the condition did not require a great deal of time or effort on the part of the probationers. Additionally, if when the probationers could complete the condition was flexible and they had the financial means to afford the condition, the interviewees identified a condition to be not difficult. Pr obation conditions were often identified as being very difficult if the conditions interfered with their employment, their relationships or other aspects of their lives. Conditions were also viewed as being very difficult if the conditions restricted the behavior and if

PAGE 300

300 they did not have the financial means to pay the conditions. In terms of how probationers viewed their probation sentence, interviewees mainly based their difficulty rating on how great of a financial burden the probation sen tence placed on them. The financial situations were the biggest factors in determining how difficult they perceive probation and probation conditions to be.

PAGE 301

301 CHAPTER 7 RESULTS: RESEARCH QUESTION 2C OBSTACLE S OF PROBATION Chapters 5 and 6 examined how the probationers viewed their probation condition s in terms of severity and how difficult the conditions are to adhere to and complete. This chapter answers the sub research probationers see as potential obstacles that would hinder them from completing or adhering to the conditions of determine what were common obstacles for current probationers and, if and how do those obstacles influence their perceptions of their probation sentence. In this chapter, I analyze quantitative data by examining the p results, and regression model estimates. I also perform a content analysis on the qualitative data in order to further answer the sub research question Quantitative Analysis Percentages and Frequencies: Obstacl es for Completing Probation The interviewees were asked to indicate their level of agreement with twenty possible obstacles. For each item, I asked current probationers to indicate whether they felt the listed item was or could be a potential obstacle for them s uccessfully completing or adhering to their probation sentence. Their response options were: strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), agree (3), and strongly agree (4) ( Methods chapter for more details). Following data collection, I ran exploratory fa ctor analysis and, based on the analysis, I created five obstacles scales 1 ( Dependent Variables section for more details). 1 Three possible variables were dropped from the scales due to the variables not loading at above a 0.5 on any factor Maintaining a job, transportation to work crew and participating in treatment were dropped and not included in any of the five scales.

PAGE 302

302 Mean s cores When I examined the mean scores for the five obstacles scales the majority of the scales and scale items corresponded to the response of disagree indicating that the particular scale items were not considered to be obstacles that could prevent probationers from successfully completing probation (Table 7 atten sed of ob stacles related to transportation (i.e., transportation to work, report monthly, and community service location) and the obstacles that might be found in probationers drinking alcohol and/or using drugs, lack of family support and neighborhood conditions). The mean scores for both scales range from 1.6 2 to 2.4 and equated to a response of disagree the three items had mean scores of 2.4 and indicated a response of disagree The remaining scale item, finding time to do community service hours, had a mean score of 2.5 and when rounded equated to the response o ption of agree The means scores attendance potential obstacles for them successfully adher ing to or completing probation. The only exception was finding time to do community service hours, which was seen as an obstacle. The remaining t w o obstacles scales had mean scores that indicated an answer response of agree (Table 7 bil ed of 2 I rounded the mean scores if the value was 0.5 or higher to the next response option.

PAGE 303

303 Table 7 1. Percentages for obstacles scales based on factor a nalysis Scales based on factor analysis N Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Mean Transportation Attendance Obstacles Scale 2.3 Item 1: Finding time to report monthly 202 30.2 45.0 17.8 6.9 2.0 Item 2: Transportation to work 189 25.4 28.0 27.5 19.0 2.4 Item 3: Transportation to report monthly 200 27.5 35.0 22.5 15.0 2.3 Item 4: Transportation to do CS hours 191 28.8 29.8 25.1 16.2 2.3 Responsibility Obstacle Scale 2.5 Item 1: Finding a job 198 26.3 22.2 27.3 24.2 2.5 Item 2: Finding a good job 196 15.8 17.3 29.1 37.8 2.9 Item 3: Maintaining a residence 199 38.7 32.2 16.6 12.6 2.0 Tracking Obstacle s Scale 2.6 Item 1: Paying court costs 195 11.8 23.6 36.4 28.2 2.8 Item 2: Paying monthly COS 200 12.0 30.0 31.5 26.5 2.7 Item 3: Number of probation conditions 198 26.8 30.3 27.3 15.7 2.3 Punitive Obstacles Scale 2.4 Item 1: F inding time to do CS hours 193 17.6 31.1 32.1 19.2 2.5 Item 2: Finding time to do work crew 162 29.6 22.2 29.6 18.5 2.4 Item 3: Paying restitution 162 27.8 22.8 27.2 22.2 2.4 Living Environment Scale 1.8 Item 1: Avoiding drinking al cohol 193 40.9 36.8 17.1 5.2 1.9 Item 2: Avoiding using drugs 191 55.0 35.1 7.3 2.6 1.6 Item 3: Lack of family support 197 46.2 38.6 10.2 5.1 1.7 Item 4: Neighborhood conditions 198 43.9 32.3 15.2 8.6 1.9

PAGE 304

304 three items that require probationers to take responsibility (i.e., find a job, find a good job and maintain a residence). The two items related to employment had mean scores that equated to agree to disagree equated to agree and the remaining item, number of probation conditions, equated to disagree ponses mainly corresponded to the answer of agree which indicated the probationers considered the scale items to be potential obstacles. Summary of the mean scores. The majority of the obstacle scales and scale items had mean scores that corresponded w ith the response of disagree The response of disagree indicated that probationers did not consider the scales items to be potential answer option, agree which indicated th at they viewed the items as being potential strongly disagree or strongly agree Percentages and f requencies: Factor analysis based s cales T ransportation attendance obs tacle scale. responses per item (Table 7 1). Between 25 to 30% of interviewees strongly disagreed that the four scale items were potential obstacles of their probation success. Fewer than 7% (N= 14, 6.9%) strongly agre ed that the condition of finding time to report to the probation office monthly was an obstacle for them. However, slightly more strongly agreed that finding transportation to work, to the probation office and to community service location was an obstacle for them successfully completing probation. More

PAGE 305

305 individuals did not see reporting monthly and finding transportation as obstacles than felt them to be obstacles for completing probation. Responsibility obstacle scale. (Table 7 1). Nearly 40% (N=77, 38.7%) of the interviewees strongly disagreed that maintaining a residence was an obstacle for t hem, while only 13% (N= 25, 12.6%) strongly agreed it wa s an obstacle. The other two scale items addressed employment as a potential obstacle. A similar percentage of probationers strongly disagreed that finding a job was an obstacle for them as who strongly agreed that finding a job was an obstacle. When it came to finding a good job, only 16% (N= 31, 15.8%) strongly disagreed it was an obstacle. Nearly 40% (N=74, 37.8%) of the sample strongly agreed that finding a good job would be an obstacle for them. It appears that probationers do not consider maintai ning a residence to be an obstacle, while an equal number of probationers considered finding a job to be an obstacle as did not. However, when it came to finding a good job, more probationers considered that to be an obstacle than did not. Tracking obstacles scale sed of three items, two of which were possible financial obstacles (Table 7 1). Slightly more than 10% of the sample felt that paying their court costs and paying their monthly cost of supervision was not an obstacle for them. However, nearly 30% of the sample did consider them to be obstacles for them successfully completing their probation. The third scale item, number of probation conditions was the reverse. Nearly 30% (N= 53, 26.8%) strongly disagreed that the number of conditions they have to comply with was a potential obstacle for them. Sixteen percent (N= 31, 15.7%) of the respondents did

PAGE 306

306 consider the number of probation conditions was an obstacle for them. The two financial requirement s comprising the scale were seen by over a quarter of the probationers as being obstacles for them successfully completing probation, while over a quarter considered the number of conditions they were required to complete or adhere to was not an obstacle. Punitive obstacles scale (Table 7 1). Nearly 30% of the interviewees indicated that they strongly disagreed that finding time to do work crew days and paying their restitution was or could be an obstacle for them. In terms of finding the conditions to be obstacles, nearly 20% (N= 30, 18.5%) did consider finding time to do work crew days an obstacle while slightly more than 20% (N= 36, 22.2%) report ed paying restitution is or would be an obstacle. The third scale item had a similar percentage of probationers reporting it (i.e., finding time to do community service hours) to not be an obstacle as reported the condition to be an obstacle. More interv iewees considered finding time to do work crew days and paying restitution to not be obstacles than considered them to be obstacles. Finding time to do community service hours had a similar number of respondents reporting it to be an obstacle as did not. Notification scale. The final obstacle scale had the highest percentage of participants indicating the scale items to not be obstacles than any other obstacle scale (Table 7 1). Over 40% of those interviewed felt that avoiding drinking alcohol the support of their family and the conditions of their neighborhood were not obstacles for them successfully completing probation. Even more (over 55% (N= 105, 55.0%)) of the sample reported that avoiding using drugs was not an obstacle for them. This then,

PAGE 307

307 was considered an obstacle by the least number of people. Less than 10% of the sample identified the four scale items as being possible obstacles for them successfully completing their probation sentence. More probationers strongly disagreed with the items in this scale as being obstacles than strongly agree items being obstacles. Summary of frequencies and percentages Of the seventeen potential obstacles that co mpo sed the five obstacles scale, thirteen possible obstacles were viewed by more probationers as not being obstacles than were viewed by probationers as being obstacles. In other words, the majority of lis ted potential obstacles had most probationers reporting that they were not obstacles for the probatio ners successfully completing their probation. Four potential obstacles were reported as being obstacles by more of the interviewees than were reported as not being obstacles. The conditions of finding a good job, paying court costs, paying monthly cost o f supervisions and finding time to do community service hours were reported as being obstacles by more probationers than by probationers reported as not being obstacles. Finding a good job had the highest percentage of respondents reporting it to be an ob stacle, while avoiding using drugs had the fewest percentage of respondents indicating it to be an obstacle. success on probation t han there reported obstacles. Correla tions and Regressions: Obstacles for Completing Probation After I examined the frequencies, I ran correlations with the five obstacles scale and the twenty three independent variables (Tables 7 2 and Appendix K for correlations by scale item). The indepen dent variables used were categories as being a personal characteristic, a previous criminal history or a current offense and probation sentence

PAGE 308

308 Table 7 2. Correlations of obstacles scales and personal characteristics v ariables Age Race Gender Ethnicity Marital Status Parental Status Years of Education Employment Status Sample Transportation Attendance Obstacles Scale 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.15* 0.12 0.02 0.01 Responsibility Obstacle Scale 0.17* 0.02 0.10 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.08 0 .16* 0.14 Tracking Obstacles Scale 0.12 0.06 0.12 0.14 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.04 Punitive Obstacles Scale 0.08 0.01 0.11 0.21* 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.11 0.15 Living Environment Scale 0.15* 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.07 0. 12 0.19 0.10 0.09 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 309

309 Table 7 3. Correlations of obstacles scales and previous criminal history v ariables Previous History Seriousness History Prior Violent Offense Prior Probation Prior Violation Jail History Prior Sentence History Transportation Attendance Obstacles Scale 0.17* 0.01 0.08 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.03 Responsibility Obstacle Scale 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.13 0.02 0.07 0.05 Tracking Obstacles Scale 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.10 0.05 0.08 0.06 Punitive Obstacles Scale 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.07 0.07 0.10 Living Environment Scale 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.14 0.01 0.08 0.14 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 310

310 Table 7 4. Correlations of obstacles scales and current offense and p robat ion se ntence v ariables Current Offense Type Violent Offense Plea Bargain Charge Level Reduction Violation of Probation New Law Violation Technical Violation Severity Transportation Attendance Obstacles Scale 0.13 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.19 Responsibility Obstacle Scale 0.02 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.22 Tracking Obstacles Scale 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.12 Punitive Obstacles Scale 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.16* 0.07 0.05 0.13 0.22 Living E nvironment Scale 0.02 0.09 0.05 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 311

311 variable; the twenty three independent variables were the ones used in both the severity and difficulty analysis. Next, I ran ordinary least squares linear (OLS) regr ession regressions for the variables correla ted at the bivariate level ( Appendix L for regression tables that included all the independent variables). Transportation attendance obstacles scale Parental status which measured whether a participant had a chi ld (or children), and previous history which measure whether a participant had at least one previous arrest, were the only significant independent variables at the bivariate level (Table s 7 2). Next, an OLS regression model was estimated with the two var iables and the tation attendance obstacle scale 1 Parental status and previous history failed to remain significant (Table 7 3). Whether an individual had a child or children and/or whether a person had a criminal history we re not predictors of whether they considered reporting monthly to the probation office and finding transportation to get to the probation office, their place of employment and/or community service location was an obstacle for them. Responsibility o bstacle scale There were two personal characteristics, age and employment status that were 2 3 1 For each obstacle scale I ran a regression mod el with all twenty three independent variable regardless of whether the variables were significant at the bivariate level Offense type was the only significant transportation 0.43, p= 0.010) (Appendix L ). The model estimated indicated as the severity of individuals likelihood of them identifying that reporting monthly to the probation agency and finding transportation were obstacles for them successfully com pleting their probation When I ran the full models some variables that were not significant at the bivariate level became significant when all the variables were placed in the model. It is possible that offense type do es no t predict well individually, b ut does joint ly However, since the F statistic was non significant, there is little to no predictive capability in the mode l. 2 Two independent variables were identified as significant predictors when an OLS model was estimated with all the independent v Appendix

PAGE 312

312 continued to be significant when the OLS model was estimated ( age : b= 0.12, p=0.014; employment status : b= 0.276, p= 0.029) (Table 7 2 and 7 3). The negative relationship between age and the scale items suggested that as age decreased the likelihood of the person reporting the conditions to be obstacles increased. Additi onally, those who reported currently being unemployed were more conditions to be potential obstacles for them completing probation. Those who were employed and those who were older were more likely to indicate that finding a job, finding a good job and maintaining a residence were not obstacles for them successfully completing their probation sentence. Tracking obstacle scale N one of the independent variables were significantly correlated with the dependent variables and scale 4 (Table 7 2 and Appendix L). None of the independent variables were c orrelated with the scale compos ed of financial obstacles (i.e., paying court costs and paying cost of superv ision) and the obstacle of having too many probati on conditions to adhere to or complete. L) Sample (b= 0.49, p= 0.047) and violation of probation (b=0.65, p= 0.045) were significant predictors. Probationers who compo sed the convenient sample and who had received a violation of probation were more likely to identify the scale items as being potential obstacles for them It is possible that when combined with the other variables, their joint predictive capability was seen. However, it should be noted that the pr edictive capability of the model is non existent or limited because the F statistic was non significant. 3 In order to assess multicollinearity I used two collinearity diagnostic factors. Multicollinearity was not a problem in any of the models since th ere were no variables with tolerance value below 0.4 0 or had a variance inflation factor (VIF) a bove 2 .5 4 Though none of the variables were correlated at the bivariate level, when I ran OLS regression with all the independent variables, technical violat ion (b= 0.68, p= 0.031) was a significant predictor. Probationers who had received a technical violation were more likely to identify the scale items as being potential obstacles for them. The significant relationship may be due to chance or due to techn ical violations needed to be in conjunction with other variables in order for the relationship to appear. The F statistics was non significant, indicating the model had little or no predictive capability.

PAGE 313

313 Punitive obstacles scale One personal characteristic, ethnicity and one current offense and probation sentence variable, charge level reduction were correlated a t the bivariate level for the 5 (Table s 7 2). Both ethnicity (b= 0.87, p= 0.008) and charge level reduction (b= 0.36, p= 0.038) remained significant in the OLS regression (Table 7 3). Hispanics were more likely to consider the s cale items as being obstacles, as were those who had their current charge reduced from a more severe criminal offense. In comparison to non Hispanics and probationers who did not have their original charges reduced, Hispanics and those whose criminal offe nse was reduced from a felony or a first degree misdemeanor were more likely to consider finding time to complete work crew days and/or community service hours and paying restitution were potential obstacles for them successfully completing probation. Ta ble 7 3. Predicting obstacle of p robation Scale Transportation Attendance Obstacles Scale Variable b Standard Error Beta Parental status 0.20 0.13 0.12 Previous history 0.25 0.14 0.14 Constant 2.55 0.12 R square 0.04 Adjusted R square 0.03 Standard error of the estimate 0.83 Degrees of freedom 2 F value 3.73* N 182 5 As was the case with the reduced models, ethnicity (b= 1.22, p= 0.023) and technical violations (b= hen the full model was run ( Appendix L). Marital status (b= 0.82, p= 0.042) also was significant. Hispanics, those who were not marri ed and those potential obstacles for them completing probation The variable, marital status may have become significant due to chance or because when combined with other variables, its joint predictive capability is seen. It should be noted that the predictive capability of the model may be limited, because the F statistic was non significant.

PAGE 314

314 Table 7 3. Continued Scale Responsibility Obstacles Scale Variable b Standard Error Beta Age 0.01* 0.01 0.18 Employment status 0.28* 0.13 0.16 C onstant 3.09 0.21 R square 0.06 Adjusted R square 0.05 Standard error of the estimate 0.86 Degrees of freedom 2 F value 4.07** N 192 Punitive Obstacles Scale Variable b Standard Error Beta Ethnicity 0.87** 0.32 0.21 Charge level reduction 0.36* 0.17 0.17 Constant R square 0.07 Adjusted R square 0.06 Standard error of the estimate 0.84 Degrees of freedom 2 F value 5.63** N 151 Living Environment Scale Variable b Standard Error Beta Age 0 .01* 0.00 0.15 Constant 2.02 0.13 R square 0.02 Adjusted R square 0.02 Standard error of the estimate 0.55 Degrees of freedom 1 F value 4.39* N 188 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 315

315 Living environment scale Age was correlated with the 6 (Table s 7 2 and 7 3). A model with age as predictor was run and age remained significant (b= 0.01, p=0.037) (Table 7 3); as age increased the likelihood of them items as obstacles decreased. Age predicted whether probationers perceived avoiding alcohol and/or drugs, their level of family support and their neighborhood conditions to be obstacles for them successfully completin g their sentence of probation. Summar y of correlations and regressions There were very few variables that were significantly correlated and in the case of with the few variables that were significant at the bivariate level and none of the obstacles scales had more than three variables correlated. Age was the variable that was a significant predicator for more than one scale, with those being younger being more likely to agree that the scale items as bein g obstacles. The independent variables race gender marital status years of education sample seriousness history prior violent offense prior violation jail history prior sentence history current offense type violent offense plea bargain violat ion of probation, new law violation, technical violation and severity were not significant at the bivariate level for any of the obstacles scales. 6 I ran OLS regression with all the independent variable living environment s variable and pr ior probation (b= 0.39, p= 0.032) and violent offense (b= 0.80, p= 0.006 ) were significant (Appendix L) Individuals who had served a prior sentence of probation and were on probation for a violent offense were more likely to report the scale items to be potential obstacles. When combined with other variables, their predictive model may be seen, though the model itself had limit to no predictive power because the F static was non significa nt.

PAGE 316

316 items being obstacles. Qualitative Analysis In addition to examining quantitative data, I also examined qualitative data for theme s that may further help answer Research Q uestion 2c, which focused on obstacles that probationers do or may face that could prevent them from compl eting that you will face or are facing that could prevent you from successfully completing or he recorded looking for themes pertaining to potential obstacles. I identified six obstacles that were repeatedly reported by probationers (Table 7 4). Table 7 4. Qualit ative themes of the obstacles for p robation Obstacles N % Financial 46 22.8 Community service hours 21 10.4 Transportation 19 9.4 Alcohol and/or drugs 15 7.4 People, places and things 16 7.9 Health conditions 7 3.5 No obstacles 36 17.8 Refused/ot her 42 20.8 Potential Obstacles Financial obligations Interviewees frequently expressed concern that they considered the financial obligations that their probation sentence imposed on them to be obstacles for them successfully completing their sentence of probation (Table 7 4). Roughly 23% (N= 46, 22.8%) of probationers considered the conditions of paying court costs, cost of

PAGE 317

317 supervision and restitution, as well as the financial costs required to complete probation conditions involving court ordered tre atment programs and classes, were reported to be potential reasons why they would not successfully complete probation. Probationers reported they would not be able to afford to pay and therefore, not comp lete the probation condition. When asked to identif y any potential obstacles, a fifty three year old, White, male, public order offender stated: I would say, uh, the financial limitations are perhaps the most difficult, um, being as ked to do are not difficult, um, but considering my circumstances of that sort of things. A fifty five year old, White, female, violent offender also shared this sentiment, as evident b ho was thirty apartment and not being able to pay for the probation, uh, yeah, just like the overall five year old, Whit e, that not being able to pay the financial obligations imposed on them could pot entially lead them to unsuccessfully complete their probation sentences. Community service hours community service hours (Table 7 4). Ten percent (N=21, 10.4%) of the interv iewees

PAGE 318

318 expressed concern that they may not be able to complete all their required community service hours and that failure to complete the community service hours could lead to e. I work full sixty two year old, White, male, public order offender, while a twenty ni ne year old, one year old, White, female, public order offender also expressed difficulty finding t ime to perform her community service on time because their hours of operation really conflict with my two years old, shared the sentiment as evident by her statement: Trying to get all of my community service hours done in the short amount of time that I had with a full time job not to mention the place where I do my community service hours. They have so many to connect with them especially during the week and the afternoon to get to them. Being able to complete their court ordered community service hours was seen as a potential obstacle by some of those interviewed. Transportati on In addition to the not being able to pay their financial obligations and/or complete their community service hours, probationers also listed transportation as a potential obstacle (Table 7 4). Since probationers are often required to go to various loca tions in order to complete their probation conditions (e.g., community service locations, treatment programs locations, probation agencies), nearly 10% (N=19, 9.4%) of the

PAGE 319

319 probationers expressed concern that not being able to drive themselves to the variou s locations may prevent them from completing their probation. Often these probationers had lost their licenses due DUI charges, while others never possess ed licenses or had their licenses suspended or revoked prior to being placed on probat ion. When asked to identify any obstacles that she may face while on probation, a twenty one year three year old, White, five year old, White woman, who was serving a probation sentence for a public order offense sai being an obstacle by some probationers, since some conditions required t hem to go various locations. Alcohol and/or drugs responses I noted that some probationers (N=15, 7.4%) admitted a potential obstacle for them was avoiding substances (i.e., alcohol and drugs) (Table 7 4). They expressed that if they were not able to stop drinking alcohol and/or using drug, they may fail to successfully complete their probation. A forty three year was facing any potential obsta cles. A drug offender, who was a twenty five years old stop but the next day, but if I choose to get mad on a day when I have to go in that Another drug offender, who was forty four years old

PAGE 320

320 obstacle for them successfully completing probation was that they may have difficulty not drinkin g alcohol and/or using drug s. People, places and things The fifth obstacle I identified while performing a content analysis was that some probationers felt particular people, places and things may hinder them successfully completing probation (Table 7 4). Nearly 8% (N=16, 7.9%) of the probationers identified particular people, places and things as obstacles for them. When asked if he was facing any potential obstacles that may prevent him from successful completing or adhering to his probation, a twenty five year old, Black, male, public order offender twenty three, year old, Black, male, violent offender shared this sentiment, as evident in interviewees considered certain people, places and things to be obstacles for them suc cessfully completing probation. Health conditions The final obstacle identified by probationers was that their health conditions may prevent them from completing their pr obation sentence (Table 7 4). Fewer than 5% (N=7, 3.5%) of the sample identified their health conditions as an obstacle. A fifty nine year old, Black, male, violent offender stated : take pain pills for it but you know that only last for a little while and I have to keep taking them o r I may end up in the hospital

PAGE 321

3 21 when he was asked if he was facing any potential obstacles. Another probationer, who was a forty four year me question. A twenty five year old, White, female, public order offender also expressed that her condition was an obstacle for her. completing my community service hours on time. probationers were identified as being potential obstacles for them successfully completing their sentences of probation. No Potential O bstacles H owever, when asked to identify some possible obstacles that they were or could be facing that could potentially prevent them from successfully completing their probation, some probationers stated that they were not facing any obstacles (Table 7 4). Nearly 20% (N= 36, 17.8%) of the sample did not identify any possible obstacles. Many of five year old, White, female, violent offender or old, White, male, violent offender when they were asked the question. A forty three year old, White woman, who was serving probation for a public probationers did state that there were potential obstacles that might prevent them fro m successfully completing probation, a portion of the sample did report that they did not feel they were facing anything that would prevent them from successfully completing or adhering to their probation sentences.

PAGE 322

322 Summary of Obstacles Based on particip ended responses, I identified six obstacles that were frequently reported by participants. The participants reported that the required financial components of their probation (e.g., court costs, cost of supervision, restitution, treatment progr am fees) are obstacles for them. Participants also expressed concern about them being able to complete all their required community service hours. The third obstacle I identified was transportation to the various locations they are required to go in orde r to fulfill some of their pr obation conditions. Several interviewee s candidly admitted that avoiding alcohol and/or drugs would be obstacles for them. Other probationers felt that particular people, places and things might hinder their success on probat ion, while others said that their health conditions was an obstacle for them completing their probation conditions. Though the majority of those interviewed identified one of six obstacles (e.g., financial obligations, community service hours, transportat ion, alcohol and/or drugs, people, place and things and health conditions), a portion of them did report that they did not feel they were facing any obstacles that could prevent them from successfully completing their probation sentences. Chapter Summ ary In this chapter, I answered the sub as potential obstacles that would hinder them from completing or adhering to the obsta disagree indicating that individuals did not find the items to be obstacles. Examining the percentages, more of the listed possible obstacles were identified by participants a s not being obstacles than there were reported to be obstacles. The obstacle of avoiding

PAGE 323

323 using drugs had the fewest number of participants reporting it to be an obstacle, while the obstacle of finding a good job had the greatest number of participants rep orting it to be a potential obstacle for their successful completion of probation. There were few variables significant at the bivariate level and Age was the only variable that was a significant predicator for more than one scale. Younger probationers w ere more likely to agree with the scale items being obstacles for them successfully completing or adhering to their probation conditions. Qualitative data collected further helped answer the question. Through content analysis, I identified six obstacles t hat probationers reported facing that could potentially hinder their ability to successfully adhere or complete probation. Probationers identified being able to financially afford all their financial obligations, completing their community service hours, avoiding alcohol and/or drugs amongst those who drink and/or use as being possible obstacles. Other probationers reported that particular people, places and things and their health con ditions as being potential obstacles for them completing their probation sentence. However, some probationers did indicate that they were not facing any possible obstacles.

PAGE 324

324 C HAPTER 8 DISCUSSION AND CONCL USIONS s for both research questions and review previous literature. Then, I describe the limitations of the study and make suggestions for future research. Finally, I make policy suggestions Summary of Findings Using official records and self report data, the examining the frequencies and percentages of the probation condition received by the interviewees. The majority of the participants repor ted that the eleven standard conditions included in the interview instrument applied to them. The exception to this was that nearly a third of the probationers did not realize that their probation officers were allowed to visit their residences and over 5 0% of them did not know that their probation officers could visit their places of employment. Official records indicated that over half of the probationers had at least one treatment condition as part of their probation sentence; the percentage was higher according to the self report data. Official estimates of punitive conditions were similar to self report estimates. There were nineteen additional probation conditions (e.g ignition interlock device, letter of apology, parenting class, etc.) received b y the interviewees that were not included in the interview instrument. The additional conditions were not commonly imposed on probationers and often the interviewees did not self report having receiving the additional conditions. Overall, the probationer s being supervised by Alachua County Probation appeared to be familiar with most of the probation conditions that they are required to follow or complete.

PAGE 325

325 perceptions of the answering the sub probation condition s included in the study do appear to be fall on a continuum (Table 8 1). Most of the standard and treatment conditions were perceived by the probationers as being less severe than punitive conditions. rting the condition to be not severe the condition of notifying the probation officer of changes in residence was license suspended and/revoked was identified as being the most severe condition. Probationers often reported that they viewed probation conditions as being not severe if the conditions were perceived to be not difficult to complete, as helpful, and/or as reasonable. Conditions were typically viewed as being extremely severe if they were perceived as difficult to complete, expensive and/or if the conditions were thought to their probation conditions to be severe. The sec ond sub that probatio ners do consider the perceived severity of probation conditions in determining the perceived difficulty of complying or adhering to probation conditions. The percentage of probationers that reported probation conditions to be not severe was

PAGE 326

326 similar to the percentage of probationers that reported probation conditions to be not difficult Table 8 1. Condition continuum b ased on extremely s evere responses p ercentages Conditions % Condition Classification 40.7 Punitive C omplete a jail sentence 37.3 Punitive Pay court costs 24.1 Standard Complete work crew days 23.4 Punitive Abide with order of impoundment 22.2 Punitive Abide by curfew 20.8 Punitive Pay monthly cost of supervision 17.2 Standard Complete mandatory community service hours 16.6 Punitive Allow probation officer to visit employment site 16.0 Standard Pay restitution 13.8 Punitive Complete community service hours in lieu of fees 13.6 Punitive Try to obtain employment 13.4 Standard Submit to rando m screens 13.3 Treatment No contact with victim 12.1 Punitive Report to probation once a month 10.9 Standard Do not possess or consume alcohol 10.3 Treatment Commit no new law violation 10.1 Standard Allow probation officer to visit residence 9.7 S tandard 8.9 Treatment Do not possess or consume drugs 8.1 Treatment Answer truthfully to inquiries by probation officer 7.9 Standard Participate in drug treatment 7.8 Treatment Maintain employment/enrollment 7.5 Standa rd Attend one victim impact panel 6.6 Punitive 6.3 Treatment Participate in alcohol treatment 6.1 Treatment Participate in mental health treatment 6.0 Treatment Complete Milepost class 5.9 Treatment Notify probation officer of changes in employment 5.6 Standard Complete anger management 5.6 Treatment Notify probation officer of changes in residence 5.4 Standard Participate in employment program 4.7 Treatment Nearly half of the probationers identified most of the standard and treatment conditions to be not difficult while most probationers reported the punitive conditions to be more difficult to follow or complete. The condition of notifying the probation officer of changes in employment was identified as being the least difficult to comply or complete,

PAGE 327

327 condition most difficult to comply with or complete. Probationers identified a condition as being not difficult if the condition did not require a lot of time or effort to complete, there was flexibility as to when they were able to complete the condition and if they financially could afford condition. Conditions were classified as being very difficult to adhere to or complete if the cond relationships and/or other aspects of their lives, if the conditions restricted them from committing behaviors they enjoyed doing or did on a regular basis and if the probationers were not able to financ ially afford to pay the conditions. Overall, the mainly determined by the perceived severity of the conditions and their current finan cial situations. Besides answerin difficulty of probation, the question was also answered by examining possible obstacles probationers are facing or will face. I answered the sub probationers see as potential obstacles that would hinder them from completing or qualitative data. More proba tioners identified the obstacles listed in the interview instrument as not being obstacles for them successfully completing probation than identified them as being obstacles. Avoiding using drugs was the least likely obstacle, while finding a good job was perceived as being the greatest obstacle. Being able to financially afford all the financial obligations, completing the community service hours,

PAGE 328

328 drugs amongst tho se who drank and/or used, avoiding particular people, places and things and current health conditions were identified as being potential obstacle by the probationers who stated they were currently facing an obstacle or could potentially be facing an obstac le that could prevent them from successfully completing probation. Comparison of Current Results to Previous Research The only researchers that focused specifically on the perceptions of probation conditions have been Petersilia and Deschenes (1994a, 1994b ). They had forty eight male inmates rate how hard it would be for them to comply with thirteen different probation conditions. Petersilia and Deschenes (1994b) concluded that the inmates perceived that they would have little difficulty complying with th e conditions. The current study supported their conclusions and produced similar results. With a few exceptions, the majority of probation conditions included in the interview instrument were identified by the probationers as being not difficult or relat ively easy to comply with or complete. limited significant differences between the inmates who indicated that the conditions of probation would be easy to comply with or complete and those who indicate d the conditions as being difficult to comply with or complete. In their study, the race, marital status, parental status, employment history, prior prison experience and perceived safety of inmates were not significantly related to their perceptions of p robation difficulty. The only significant difference was between those inmates with no history of drug or alcohol use and those who had used, with those with no history being more likely to report that they would find it difficult to attend a weekly o utpa tient treatment program.

PAGE 329

329 findings. When I ran regressions there were a limited amount of differences between those who reported conditions as being easy to comply with and those w ho reported conditions as being more difficult. Gender was the only personal characteristics demographic that was a significant predicator for multiple difficulty scales. Women were more likely to report that paying the financial conditions, completing w ork crew days and jail sentences and allowing probation officers to visit their homes and employment sites as being more difficult to adhere or complete than men. Petersilia and Deschenes (1994b) only surveyed men and therefore, did not incorporate gender in their analysis. Though race race was a predictor for some of the probation conditions in this study. Non W hite probationers were more likely to report the conditions of answe ring truthfully to inquiries by a probation officer, having to submit to random screens, and completing community service hours as being difficult to comply with or complete than White probationers. As was the case in the Petersilia and Deschenes (199 4b) study, marital status parental status and employment perceptions of probation difficulty. Due a limited number of individuals reporting prior prison experience, a prior prison experience variable w as not included in the analysis. However, prior prison experiences were incorporated in the prior sentence history variable ( Independent Variable section). The prior sentence history variable, as well as five other previous criminal history variables, wa s not a significant predictor of perceived condition difficulty. A variable measuring the perceived safety of the individual was not inc luded since my sample was compo sed of probationers versus currently incarcerated

PAGE 330

330 inmates. Additionally, this study did not include questions pertaining to the this study had similar results to Petersilia and D results Petersilia and Deschenes (1994a, 1994b) did not ask about severity and difficulty separately. However, in an effort to make a clear distinction between severity and difficulty, probationers interviewed for this study were first asked a bout their perceptions probation conditions. In addition to gender significant predictor for multiple difficulty scales a nd variables. Probationers who perceived probation conditions to be more severe were more likely to identify probation conditions as being difficult to follow or complete in comparison to those who perceived the probation conditions as being not severe W ith the literature examining perceptions of probation being so limited, I also examined the literature that focused on perceptions of the severity of different types of criminal justice system, as well as their personal characteristics, influences their perceptions of the punitiveness or severity of criminal sanctions (May & Wood, 2010). Though the support is limited, this study offers some support for previous research. characteristics, previous criminal history characteristics and current offense and prob ation conditions, as well as their perceptions of potential obstacles.

PAGE 331

331 the punitiveness and severity of criminal sanctions, with Blacks being more likely to view alternative sanctions as being more punitive than Whites (May & Wood, 2010; Wood & May, 2003). In this study, race sever ity scale. Non Whites were more likely to report that the conditions of committing no new law violation, reporting to probation once a month, answering truthfully to all inquiries by probation officer, and notifying the probation officer of changes in res idence and/or employment as being severe than White participants. Significant differences between women and men suggest that perception of severity vary based on gender, with women typically being more willing to participate in alternative sanctions than men (May et al., 2005; Wood & Grasmick, 1999; Wood et al., 2005). In t his study there we re differ ences based on gender when it came to particular conditions. Women were more likely to indicate that paying the monthly cost of supervision and court costs as being severe than the male probationers Previous research also suggests that there are differences associated with age; older offenders typically report alternative sanctions to be more severe than younger offenders (Crouch, 1993; May et al., 2005; M ay & Wood, 2010; Spelman, 1995; Wood et al., 2005). The results from this study provide limited support for previous findings. person indicating certain probation con ditions as being severe decreased. The younger probationers were more likely to find the probation conditions included the interview instrument to be more severe than older probationers. Those conditions were typical

PAGE 332

332 stand ard and treatment conditions. A ge was also a significant predictor of agreement with potential obstacles. Younger probationers were more likely to identify finding a job, finding a good job, maintaining a residence, avoiding alcohol and/or drugs, their level of family support and their neighborhood conditions as potential obstacles for them successfully completing their sentence of probation than were older probationers. Age was a significant predictor of perceptions of severity and perceiving items as being obstacles more s o than any other demographic. Offenders with higher levels of education considered incarceration as being more severe than probation compared to individuals reporting lower levels of education (Crouch, 1993). In this study as the self reported education level increased so did the likelihood of probationers reporting that the conditions of probationer officers visiting their homes and employment sites as severe. Individuals with mor e exposure or experience with the criminal justice system, including prison experience, hold different preferences and beliefs about severity. Generally, they views of prison sentences as being less severe and alternative sanctions as being more severe th an individuals with less exposure or experience with the criminal justice system (Crouch 1993; May et al., 2005; May & Wood, 2010; McClelland & Alpert, 1985). Th e results from this study offer support for prior findings since ries influenced their perceptions of probation. Individuals who had received a new law violation during the course of their current probation sentences were more likely to report paying the monthly cost of supervision and the court costs to be severe than those who had not violated. Additionally, the

PAGE 333

333 probationers who had received multiple criminal sanctions (i.e., probation, jail and prison) were more likely to report that participating in and completing certain treatment programs and victim based probati on conditions as being severe than those with less extensive crim inal sanctions experience. severity and difficulty. This study lends limited support to Petersilia and Deschene s' (1994b) findings, in which only one predictor was identified. Additionally, this study lends limited support to prior research that identified race, gender, age, years of education and prior criminal justice experience as ption of severity (Crouch 1993; May et al., 2005; May & Wood, 2010; McClelland & Alpert, 1985; Spelman, 1995; Wood & May, 2003; Wood & Grasmick, 1999; Wood et al., 2005). However, none of the personal characteristics demographics, prior criminal justice e xperience demographics or current sentence and probation characteristics were difficulty or potential obstacles. This study contributes to the previous research that suggests that the relationship between offenders and perceived punitive ness or severity is complex. Study Limitations Though this study did contribute to the field since was the first to examine limitations to the study. There Despite using multiple strategies to recruit participants I only interviewed 202 probationers. Additionally, the study was originally designed to have random sample but in an effort to increase the sample size I included probationers who were

PAGE 334

334 conveniently sampled. The small sample size and the inclusive of the convenience The study is also limited because the entire sample was recruited from one probation agency. Since all of the 202 participants were being monitored by Alachua agencies is li emphasis of the agencies (i.e., service oriented, surveillance oriented or service and surveillance o riented). Furthermore, the probation conditions given by the probation agencies and court may vary ns of probation conditions. In addition to all the participants being under the supervision of one agency, the participants were also all misdemeanor probationers 1 Though research about misdemeanor probation is needed, slightly more than half of all probationers (N= 1,665,216; 51%) on probation are there for a felony (Glaze & Bonczar, 2010). This study does shed limited in th eir ability to be applied to felony probationers. Felony probationers may have more conditions to adhere to or complete and/or different types of probation conditions ( e.g., more punitive conditions, more standard conditions) which may 1 Some probationers were also serving a probation sentence for a felony conviction (which is supervised by the Florida Department of Corrections), but they were asked to only discuss their misdemeanor probation.

PAGE 335

335 There were also limitations associated wi th recruiting participants ( Appendix A). Of the origin ally randomly sampled 450 probationers, I was not able to have direct contact with thirty two probationers (6.2%), while another seven probationers (1.4%) failed to report to the probation agency during the entire course of the study. One hundred and four teen probationers (22.1%) randomly sampled became ineligible to participate (e.g., violated, mail in status, etc.) during the course of the study. Those who were not interviewed may have different perceptions of probation than those I interviewed. Additi onally, the number of probationers interviewed from each particular officers had over twenty but less than thirty probationers participate. Three probation officers had over ten but less than nineteen of their probationers participate. One probation officer had thirty one probationers participate, while another only had seven on thei r probation officer. The willingness of the probation officers to assist the researchers in recruiting participants also varied which more than likely impacted which probatione rs participated in the study. I also experienced some limitations while collect ing the official data. Some However, it is not clear whether the records that do not contain juvenile record information are actually an indication that the person does no t have a juvenile record or an indication that this information simply missing from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and Florida Crime Information Center (FCIC) files I examined. Because of this problem, I was not able to include juvenile reco rd information in the analysis.

PAGE 336

336 Also, each state has a different format for reporting criminal history information. I recorded the presence of an out of state history, the state(s) where the history is from and as much additional information as possible but the states vary in how much information is included in the NCIC report. It is possible that I did not get a complete picture of some people out of state criminal history because of the missing information. The NCIC/FCIC reports also did not includ example, I do not know about all the probation, jail and/or prison sentences received because they were not included in the criminal history report. keeping which limited my official data collection. Some probation officers did not maintain as complete records of le to collect as detailed information about their probationers as I was able to collect about probationers whose probation officers maintained more complete records. For example, some probation officers did not indicate whether their probationers were eva luated and referred to anger management, etc.). From the court records I was able to establish the person was assigned to be evaluated for programming but I was no t always able to identify reporting violation of probations. Some probation officer s did not record all the violations and descriptions of the violations, while others provided detailed descriptions

PAGE 337

337 of the violations. The differences in record keeping among probation officers limited some of the data I was able to collect. The study al so had limitations stemming from the interview instrument. There were no questions that specifically asked probationers about their probationer officer or the probation agency. Their views of their probation officer may influence their perceptions about probation and the conditions. Additionally, their view of Alachua County Probation may influence their views on the severity and difficulty of their conditions of probation depending on what they feel the goal of the agency is. Based on Petersilia and De schenes (1994b) research there was a question that asked probationers to rate the perceived difficulty of their probation sentence. However, a question asking probationers to rate the perceived severity of their probation sentence was not included. Tho ugh I created an overall severity varia ble by combining the individual s rating of the probation conditions, a direct measure would have been preferred. I also did not include any questions that would allow me to examin e dural Justice. Procedural J ustice measures would severe and difficult they perceive the conditions would be for t hem to adhere or complete. Suggestions for Future Researc h Future research should first address the limitations associated with the study. First, researchers should try to include more participants. Future studies should also sample probationers from multiple probation agencies in order to increase the ability to agencies, future research should sample felony probationers as well as misdemeanor

PAGE 338

338 probationers. Including more participants, participants from various probation agenc ies and/or both felony and misdemeanor probationers would allow for greater generalizability and the ability to compare across groups. A lthough we u sed multiple approaches to increase the sample size, researchers should try to incorporate other strategies for recruiting participants Researchers may consider trying to reach probationers via social networks (e.g., Facebook, MySpace, etc.) They may also attempt to re ach them through violation of probation court appearances or try to interview them while t he probationers are housed in jail waiting for their violation of probation hearing. Researchers may also consider having an online survey for those who express concern or unwillingness to participate in an in depth interview. The online survey would not allow all the information sought to be gathered that an in depth interview would be able to gather but the majority of the information could be collected using that format. Researchers may not have a lot of control of what is reported in FCIC/NCIC in term court records or court case records and record the information missing from the FCIC/ NCIC. Researchers may also attempt to obtain information missing from the information in hardcopy form, which the researchers could use to fill in information missing from th views of their probationer officer and/or the probation agency. A question that asks

PAGE 339

339 probationers to rate the perceived severity of their probation sentence should also be included future studies. Additionally, in an effort to better explain indivi perceptions measures of Procedural J ustice should be added. In this study, probationers were asked about thirty two conditions of probat ions. Future research may include more or include probation conditions that are more relevant to the particular pro bation agencies being studied. examined current probationer beyond probation. Individuals required to adhere to or complete pretrial conditions should be asked about their pretrial conditions. Additionally, those on day reporting should be asked about their exp eriences with their day reporting conditions. Some of the criminal sanctions that are imposed may be thought of as punishment by criminal justice officials but not felt as a punishment by the offenders. There is limited research on of probation, and none about their views of p retrial and day reporting. The final suggestion for future research is criminal justice system workers should be asked the same questions as the probationers. While previous researchers have asked criminal j ustice employees about their views about the severity and/or difficulty various types of criminal sanctions, Petersilia and Deschenes (1994a) were the only ones to ask criminal justice workers about probation conditions. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, ju dges and probation officers should be asked to rate the severity and difficulty of the probation conditions. This would allow for a comparison between the groups and between the probationers. Prior researchers suggest that judges,

PAGE 340

340 prosecutors, and defens e attorneys do not always take great care when setting probation conditions or type of supervision (Clarke, 1979). By asking them about their perceptions it may shed light on why conditions are given to probationers. Though this study expanded the litera probation. Policy Implications One of my goals for this study was to make policy recommendations. D espite, probation being the most commonly used sanction, there is little consensus about the actual function of probation and probation officers (Klockars, 1972). I t is unclear whether probation sentences are meant to rehabilitate, punish or rehabilitate and punish (Blackmore, 1981; Czajkoski, 1965; Van Laningham et al., 1966), which makes it If the mission of probation is to be punishment and the focus is on surveillance, this study suggests t hat most probationers do not consider the criminal sanction to be a severe punishment or a difficult punishment to comply or complete. If the mission of probation is to help and the focus is on providing services, probationers appear to identify some of t he conditions as judge probation conditions and whether they are being perceived as they should be probationers. This study stron gly suggests that the field of C ri minology and those who work within the criminal justice system define and state purpose of probation. This would allow the perceptions of probationers to be better interpreted and state whether the probation conditions are accomplishing their goals.

PAGE 341

341 A ssuming that probation is meant to be punitive, this study identified which conditions are viewed as being the most punitive. The condition of completing a jail and/revok ed was probation condition that was identified by the most probationers as being extremely severe If the mission of probation is to be punitive, those assigning probation conditions may want to utilize the probation conditions of completing a jail senten In terms of making policy recommendations that may help in reducing the likelihood of individuals violating the terms of their probation due to a technical violation, I identified w hich conditions were viewed as being the most difficult to adhere to and complete by current probationers (Table 8 2). The conditions of a jail sentence and being the mos t difficult to comply with or complete. In an effort to help their probationers avoid receiving a violation of probation, probation officers may consider helping probationers find alternative forms of transportation, such as helping them obtain monthly bu s passes and ensuring their probationers are familiar with reading bus schedules. Probation officers may also consider helping probationers find adequate child care for their children while they are incarcerated and/or ways to ensure the probationers do n ot lose their jobs, both of which are difficulties that probationers may exp erience while incarcerated. Table 8 2. Condition continuum b ased on very d ifficult responses p ercentages Conditions % Condition Classification 47.5 Punitive Complete a jail sentence 42.1 Punitive Abide with order of impoundment 29.3 Punitive Pay court costs 24.1 Standard

PAGE 342

342 Table 8 2. Continued Conditions % Condition Classification Abide by curfew 21.8 Punitive Pay restitution 20.5 Punitive Complete work crew days 19.7 Puniti ve Pay monthly cost of supervision 17.6 Standard Complete mandatory community service hours 13.4 Punitive Complete community service hours in lieu of fees 13.3 Punitive Try to obtain employment 12.0 Standard Allow probation officer to visit employme nt site 10.9 Standard 9.2 Treatment No contact with victim 8.9 Punitive 7.3 Treatment Participate in alcohol treatment 6.5 Treatment Attend one victim impact panel 5.4 Punitive Participate i n mental health treatment 5.4 Treatment Participate in drug treatment 5.3 Treatment Maintain employment/enrollment 4.4 Standard Complete Milepost class 4.1 Treatment Participate in employment program 4.0 Treatment Do not possess or consume alcohol 3.8 Treatment Allow probation officer to visit residence 3.1 Standard Do not possess or consume drugs 2.2 Treatment Commit no new law violation 2.0 Standard Submit to random screens 1.7 Treatment Report to probation once a month 1.5 Standard Answ er truthfully to inquiries by probation officer 0.5 Standard Notify probation officer of changes in residence 0.5 Standard Notify probation officer of changes in employment 0.5 Standard The qualitative data suggested that the financial obligations asso ciated with probation are often obstacles for probationers. A more service oriented stance to probation would suggest that probation officers should aid probationers in finding solutions for paying. The probation officers may consider helping probationer s locate and secure employment, creating feasible payment plans and schedules and/or identifying non financial payment solutions (e.g., community service hours, work crew days).

PAGE 343

343 ve not asked you about conditions of probation or sanction severity that you feel I should noted three policy recommendations recommended by probationers. The first polic y recommendation was that the fees should be reduced. A thirty three year old, Black, one year old, White, second policy recommendation made by probationers was that probationers should be o ld, White, male, violent offender when he was asked the question. A thirty five year old, White, question. The final recommendation made by the probationers was that probatio five year old, Black, female, public order offender and highlighted this recommendation the best. While I h ave recommended probation is to punish, and some strategies to aid probationers if the goal of probation is to be service s to make probation less difficult for them, either through reducing fees or reporting requirements. The recommendation of adding more treatment conditions suggested that probationers feel the mission of probation should be more treatment oriented than su rveillance oriented.

PAGE 344

344 Chapter Summary obstacles for successfully completing probation. Pr obation conditions do fall within a probation are that probation conditions are typically not severe Additionally, probationers do consider the perceived severity of prob ation conditions when identifying the perceived difficulty of complying or adhering to probation conditions, though the majority of probation conditions were perceived as being not difficult The majority of listed obstacles were not viewed as obstacles b y the probationers for them successfully completing their probation sentences ; t his study identified six common obstacles. This builds upon by sampling current probatione rs and including more conditions of perceptions of criminal sanctions identified in previous research. Policy suggestions were made following a discussion of the st future research. This study only started the examination and exploration into the criminal justice sanction within the United St ates, much more research is needed.

PAGE 345

345 APPENDIX A NOT INTERVIEWED CLAS SIFICATION Of the 517 individuals comprising the total sample, 315 individuals were not interviewed They were not interviewed for various reasons and were categorized into seven groups based on those reasons (Table A 1 ). The first group of those who were compo sed seventy nine individuals who set up an interviewed and then failed to show up for their scheduled interview. A dditionally these individuals did not call to cancel their interviews second group, sed of individuals who had direct contact with the res earcher and stated that he or she would either call or email the researcher to set up an interview but never did. There were eight individuals who agreed to participate but failed to contact the researcher for an interview time. Ten individuals agreed to participate, set up and interview but then cancelled their interview. Typically, Table A 1 Sample c lassifications N % Interviewed 202 39.1 Not Interviewed No show 79 15.3 Will contact 8 1.5 Cancelled 10 1.9 No direct contact 32 6.2 Fail ed to report 7 1.4 Refused No interest 47 9.1 Done with both incentives 18 3.5 Ineligible Violated 63 12.2 End of sentence 9 1.7 Early termination 17 3.3 Mail in status 20 3.9 Administrative 5 1.0 Total sample 517 100

PAGE 346

346 individ uals would cancel during the reminder call and did not set up another interview Thirty two of the originally sampled individuals reported throughout the course of the study but I was unable to conne ct with them directly. In most cases, the probationer did not report during his or her designated times and came during times when I was either not there or was not anticipating him or her and therefore not looking for the person. Other times I missed th e person due to the high volume of individuals reporting at the same time. These individuals should still have received three letters describing the study, one mailed to their homes and two from the ir probation officer s The group of thirty two individua group was compo sed of seven individuals who failed to report to the Court Services building during the months the study was being conducted. Though these individuals did not report to pr obation during the five months data were being collected, no violation reports were written. Since letters describing the study were mailed to their home addresses, the individuals in this group may still have been aware of the study, except in one case w here the letter was returned as undelivered. I was never given the Sixty five of the probationers with whom I had direct contact refused to participate in the study. If the person indicated he or she was not interested because he or she had completed both incentives given for participating in the study, (s)he was classified five people who refused w ere placed in this category. The remaining forty seven individuals were

PAGE 347

347 The largest group comprising those who were not interviewed was the ineligible group, which was divided into five subgroups. Sixty th ree individuals were categorized during the course of the study. Nine probationers completed th eir probation during the course of the study and were placed in the classification indicated the person completed his or her entire probation sentence. An group. This indicated that their prob ation term ended early due to their good behavior and that they had successfully completed the conditions of their probation early than scheduled. One of the study criteria was that the person was required to report monthly to the probation office. Duri ng the course of the study twenty individuals were moved to mail in status, which allowed them to mail their monthly status report to the probation office and did not require them to report in person to the probation office. These individuals were placed mail oup, was compo sed of five people. This group was made up in individuals who during the course of the data collection process had their probation sentence stayed, t heir probation sentence moved to another county and in two cases the people where admitted to a mental health facility and probation terminated. In all five cases, the people no longer met the sample criteria for the study.

PAGE 348

348 APP ENDIX B LETTER TO PROBATION ERS Division of Criminology, Law, & Society 3323 Turlington Hall, P. O. Box 117330 College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Gainesville, FL 32611 7330 (352) 392 0265 TEL Dear Mr. /Ms., (352) 392 6568, FAX We are Saskia Santos and Katheryn Zambrana, and we are currently students at the University of terms and conditions they are required to complete, as well as issues surrounding fear of crime and the community. Specifically, we would like to see what you think of the conditions of your probation and how you view crime. This study is completely sep arate from Court Services and probation staff. Participation is voluntary, so if you decide not to take part in the study it will NOT affect your probation status. If you do decide to participate, you have the right to stop at any time with no consequences You can also choose to only respond to those questions that you want to. There is no cash incentive for participating. However, if you choose to participate you are eligible to receive 5 hours of community service credit. Those who are not required to co mplete community service hours will be eligible for 1 month cost of supervision credit You are only eligible for one of the credit options. If you agree to be in this study, there are two options for setting up an interview: Scheduling with us via telep hone or e mail which is listed below Signing up in person on the day y ou report to Court Services If you choose to wait to schedule an interview until the day that you report, we will be available during that time to answer any questions that you have and to try to set up an interview with you. The interview should last about one hour. During the interview we will ask questions, some of which will be digital recorded in order to better understand your experiences with being on probation and a member o f the community. Your answers will be confidential and private. Only the researchers know what you said. Please feel free to contact us via phone or e mail. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to hearing from you! Please Contact Either : Saskia Santos, Katheryn Zambrana Cell: 352 278 4728 Cell: 352 278 4728 Email: saskia1@ufl.edu Email: kzambrana@ufl.edu Supervisor: Jodi Lane, Ph.D. University of Florida P.O. Box 117330 Gainesville, FL 32611 352 392 0265 ext. 212 Since rely, Saskia Santos Katheryn Zambrana

PAGE 349

349 APPENDIX C FOLLOW UP LETTER TO PROBATI ONERS Division of Criminology, Law, & Society 3323 Turlington Hall, P. O. Box 117330 College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Gainesville, F L 32611 7330 (352) 392 0265 TEL (352) 392 6568 FAX Dear Mr. /Ms. TYPE IN NAME We are Saskia Santos and Katheryn Zambrana, current University of Florida students in the Criminology, Law and Society Graduate Program. We invite you to participate i n an independent research study We want to understand how probationers view the terms and conditions of their probation, as well as hear their views on fear of crime and community issues Specifically, we would like you to tell us your thoughts on the te rms and conditions of your probation and to share with us your views of crime. This study is completely separate from Court Services and the probation staff. Participation is voluntary ; so if you decide not to take part in the study it will NOT affect your probation status. There is no cash incentive for participating. However, if you choose to participate you are eligible to receive 5 hours of community service credit. If you are not required to c omplete community service hours, you will be eligible f or 1 month cost of supervision credit You are only eligible for one of the se credit options. If you would like to set up an interview please c ontact e ither: Saskia Santos Katheryn Zambrana Cell: 352 278 4728 Cell: 352 278 4728 Email: saskia1@ufl.e du Email: kzambrana@ufl.edu Supervisor: Jodi Lane, Ph.D. 352 392 0265 ext. 212 The interview should last about one hour. During the interview we will ask questions, some of which will be tape recorded, in order to better understand your exper iences with being on probation and as a member of the community. Your answers will be confidential and private. Only the researchers will know what you said. If you have any questions or concerns, p lease feel free to contact us via phone or e mail. Thank you W e look forward to hearing from you! Approved by University of Florida Institutional Review Board 02 Protocol # 2010 U 0347 For Use Through 05 13 2011 Sincerely, Saskia Santos Katheryn Zambrana ___________________ ____________________

PAGE 350

350 APPENDIX D CRIMINAL HISTORY FOR M Criminal History Form Cover Sheet Note: Upon completing this form pleas e remove this cover page from the criminal history form and place it in the designated envelope

PAGE 351

351 1. Subject Number: _________________ Criminal History Form 2. Researcher (enter name): ______________ 3.Criminal history retrieved: _____________ ____( mm/dd /yy) 4. Criminal history form completed : ___________ ____ ( mm/dd/yy) 5. Date of birth : ___________ ______ ( mm/dd/yy) 6. Sex (circle one) : Male 1 Female 0 7. Race (circle one) : White 1 Black/African American 2 Other Specify______________________ Crimi nal history: Use additional form if more space is needed Offense: copy verbatim each offense in the order it appears on the criminal record a. Degree: list if 1,2,3 degree and M if misdemeanor and F if felony b. State: list state where occurred c. Case nu mber (number cases in order) d. Date a rrested e. Outcome: code 1=probation, 2= jail days, 3= prison time, 4= case dropped, 5= other f. Details: if outcome was: 1 or 3= list sen tence in mos, 2= list days, 5 = specify other 8.________________________ _____ ______ _______ ______ ____ ______________ _________________ 9.________________________ ___________ _______ ______ ____ ______________ _________________ 10._______________________ ___________ _______ ______ ____ ______________ _________________ 11.______ _________________ ___________ _______ ______ ____ ______________ _________________ 12._______________________ ___________ _______ ______ ____ ______________ _________________ 13._______________________ ___________ _______ ______ ____ ______________ _____ ____________ 14._______________________ ___________ _______ ______ ____ ______________ _________________ 15._______________________ ___________ _______ ______ ____ ______________ _________________ 16._______________________ ___________ _______ ______ __ __ ______________ _________________ Current Offense: Circle yes or no and complete column a Yes No Case number(s): if yes, list case number 17. Possession of marijuana not more than 20 grams 1 0 _____________________________ 18. Alcohol possession by person under 21 years of age 1 0 _____________________________ 19. Driving under the influence of alcohol 1 0 _____________________________ 20. Driving while license suspended or revoked 1 0 _____________________________ 1 0 _____________________________ 22. Criminal mischief over 200 dollars under 1000 dollars 1 0 _____________________________ 23. Larceny: petit first degree property 100 to under 300 dollars 1 0 _____________________________ 24. Retail theft 1 0 ______ _______________________ 25. Worthless check 1 0 _____________________________ 26. Trespass 1 0 _____________________________ 27. Resisting or obstruct officer without violence 1 0 _____________________________ 28. Battery: touch or strike 1 0 _________ ____________________ 29. Domestic battery: touch or strike 1 0 _____________________________ 30. Other (specify___________________________________) 1 0 _____________________________

PAGE 352

352 Current Offense: Circle yes or no and complete column a Yes No Case num ber(s): if yes, list case number 31. Other (specify___________________________________) 1 0 _____________________________ 32. Other (specify___________________________________) 1 0 _____________________________ 33. Other (specify______________________ _____________) 1 0 _____________________________ 34. Other (specify___________________________________) 1 0 _____________________________ 35. Length of current probation sentence: __________months 36. Expected probation termination date: ___________ __ ____ ( mm/dd/yy) New law violation: copy verbatim the offense in order offense occurred and complete columns a, b and c a. Date: list date of offense by mm/dd/yy b. Outcome: code 1=extended sentence, 2= additional condition(s), 3=days in jail, 4=other c. Details: if outcome was: 1= list term, if 2= list condition, if 3= how many days, if 4= specify other 37.__________________________ ___________ ________________ _________________________ 38.__________________________ ___________ ________________ _______ __________________ 39.__________________________ ___________ ________________ _________________________ 40. __________________________ ___________ ________________ _________________________ 41. __________________________ ___________ ________________ ___ ______________________ 42. __________________________ ___________ ________________ _________________________ 43. __________________________ ___________ ________________ _________________________ Types of technical violations: if technical violation occu rred complete columns a, b and c Number of violations: indicate number b. Outcome: code 1=extended sentence, 2= condition(s), 3=days in jail, 4= other c. Details: i f outcome was: 1= list term, if 2= list condition, if 3= how many days, if 4= specify other 44. Report to probation office once a month ________ ____________ ______________ 45. Answer truthfully to inquiries by PO ________ ____________ ______________ 46. Notify PO of changes in residence ________ ____________ ______________ 47. Notify PO of c hanges employment/education ________ ____________ ______________ 48. Try to obtain employment ________ ____________ ______________ 49. Maintain employment/school enrollment ________ ____________ ______________ 50. Allow PO to visit residence ________ ____________ ______________ 51. Allow PO to visit employment site ________ ____________ ______________ 52. Pay monthly cost of supervision ________ ____________ ______________ 53. Pay court cost ________ ____________ ______________ 54. Complete communi ty service (CS) hours in lieu of fees _______ ____________ ______________ 55. Complete mandatory CS hours ________ ____________ ______________ 56. Complete work crew days ________ ____________ ______________ 57. Complete a jail sentence ________ _______ _____ ______________

PAGE 353

353 Types of technical violations: if technical violation occurred complete columns a, b and c Number of violations: indicate number b. Outcome: code 1=extended sentence, 2= condition(s), 3=days in jail, 4= other c. Details: i f outcome wa s: 1= list term, if 2= list condition, if 3= how many days, if 4= specify other 58. Pay restitution ________ ____________ ______________ 59. Submit to random screens (breathalyzer/urinalysis) ________ ____________ ______________ 60. Do not possess or co nsume alcohol ________ ____________ ______________ 61. Do not possess or consume illegal drugs ________ ____________ ______________ 62. Participate in alcohol treatment ________ ____________ ______________ 63. Participate in drug treatment ________ __ __________ ______________ 64. Participate in mental health treatment ________ ____________ ______________ 65. Participate in employment program ________ ____________ ______________ 66. Complete Milepost class ________ ____________ ______________ 67. Co mplete DART program ________ ____________ ______________ ________ ____________ ______________ 69. Complete anger management ________ ____________ ______________ 70. No contact with victim ________ ___________ ______________ 71. Attend alcohol safety education school ________ ____________ ______________ 72. Attend 1 victim impact panel ________ ____________ ______________ 73. license (DL) suspended/revoked ________ ____________ ______________ 74. Abide with order of impoundment ________ ____________ ______________ 75. Abide by curfew ________ ____________ ______________ 76. Other (_____________________________) ________ ____________ ______________ 77. Other (_____________________________) ______ __ ____________ ______________ 78. Other (_____________________________) ________ ____________ ______________ 79. Other (_____________________________) ________ ____________ ______________ 80. Other (_____________________________) ________ ____________ ______________ Probation conditions: circle one and specify where applicable Yes Specify No 81. Commit no new law violation 1 0 82. Report to probation office once a month 1 0 83. Answer truthfully to inquiries by probation officer 1 0 84. Notify PO of changes in residence 1 0 85. Notify PO of changes in employment/education 1 0 86. Try to obtain employment 1 0 87. Maintain employment/school enrollment 1 0

PAGE 354

354 Probation conditions: circle one and specify where applicable Yes Specify No 88. A llow PO to visit residence 1 0 89. Allow PO to visit employment site 1 0 90. Pay monthly cost of supervision (specify amount) 1 $_________ 0 91. Pay court cost (specify amount) 1 $_________ 0 92. Complete CS hours in lieu of fees (specify hours) 1 _________hrs 0 93. Complete mandatory CS hours (specify hours) 1 _________hrs 0 94. Complete work crew days (specify days) 1 ________days 0 95. Complete a jail sentence (specify days) 1 ________days 0 96. Pay restitution (specify amount) 1 $_________ 0 97. Submit to random screens (breathalyzer and urinalysis) 1 0 98. Do not possess or consume alcohol 1 0 99. Do not possess or consume illegal drugs 1 0 100. Participate in alcohol treatment 1 0 101. Participate in drug treatment 1 0 102. P articipate in mental health treatment 1 0 103. Participate in employment program 1 0 104. Complete Milepost class 1 0 105. Complete DART program 1 0 1 0 107. Complete anger management 1 0 108. No co ntact with victim 1 0 109. Attend alcohol safety education school 1 0 110. Attend 1 victim impact panel 1 0 111. Driver s license (DL) suspended/revoked (specify months) 1 ________mos 0 112. Abide with order of impoundment 1 0 113. Abide by curfe w 1 0 114. Other (specify________________________________) 1 0 115. Other (specify________________________________) 1 0 116. Other (specify________________________________) 1 0 117. Other (specify________________________________) 1 0 118. Other ( specify________________________________) 1 0

PAGE 355

355 APPENDIX E INFORMED CONSENT Title: An in depth study of supervised probationers in Alachua County Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in the study. Purpose of the research study : We are Saskia Santos and Katheryn Zambrana and we are currently students in the working on a project that hopes to bation e xperience and their community experience, specifically factors related to fear of crime. What you will be asked to do in the study : Y ou will be asked to answer a series of questions about your experiences with being on probation, your fear of c rime and your community. For most of the questions, the researcher will present you with a card with the answer options and you will be asked to pick which option best fits your answer. The researcher will then record the option you selected on the survey. For s ome of the questions the researcher will ask whether you are willing to have your responses tape recorded. Unless you object, when the researcher comes to such a question, the researcher will turn on the digital recorder ask the question, and turn of f the digital recorder once you have finished responding. Please note that d uring the interview the researcher will not place your name or anything that could be used to figure out who you are on the survey. You are asked to please not say your name/nic kname or talk about specific things that could be used to identify you or anyone else while you are being digital recorded If you do say anything that can be used to i dentify you, it will be left out during transcription. Please remember that there are no your views on probation and probation conditions, as well as gain insight into your fear of crime and community. If you agree to let us interview you, please sign this consent form and ret urn it to the researcher. Time required : It should take between about 45 minutes to an hour but could be longer depending on your pace. Benefits : You will not be paid for participating in the interview. However, if you do participate you are eligible t o receive 5 hours of community service credit Those who are not required to complete community service hours will be eligible for 1 month cost of supervision credit You are only eligible for one of the credit options. Risks and confidentiality : Taking part in study creates little risk to you. Your responses will be kept private to the extent provided by law. The researchers in this study are not associated with Court Services or probation staff. No one other than those working on this study will know yo ur responses. We will not put your name or other identifiers on any of the responses

PAGE 356

356 you give. Rat her, the survey will have a subject number attached to it. We will keep a list of names and subject numbers separate to make sure that if someone reads your s urvey answers, he or she would not be able to determine that they are yours. Your answers that are recorded will be transcribed using only the subject number and any identifying information recorded (e.g., names) will be left out of the transcript ion The tapes will be transcribed word for word within 40 days; the tapes will then be destroyed/erased so your voice cannot be recognized later There will be no link between your name and your survey responses; so not even the researchers will be able to tell wh o said what You r name will not be used in any report. Instead, we will only report answers for the group as a whol e (for example, how individuals answer ed in each response category). Voluntary participation : You do not have to answer the questions or be recorded Your participation is completely voluntary. Nothing will happen if you do not want to join the study; it will not affect your probation status. Right to withdraw from the study : You have the right to leave th e study and stop the interview at any time. You can answer some questions and not answer other questions. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study : Saskia Santos, M.A., Department of Sociol ogy and Criminology & Law, 3323 Turlington Hall, P.O. Box 117330, Gainesville, FL 326 11 7330, phone (352) 278 4728 fax (352) 392 6568, email saskia1@ufl.edu Katheryn Zambrana, Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, 3323 Turlington Hall, P.O. Box 117330, Gainesville, FL 32611 7330, phone (3 5 2) 278 4728, fax (352) 3 92 6568, email kzambrana@ufl.edu Jodi Lane Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, 3323 Turlington Hall, P.O. Box 117330, Gainesville, FL 32611 7330, p hone (352) 392 0265 x212 fax (352) 392 6568, email jlane@ufl.edu Whom to conta ct about you rights as a research participant in this study : If you have questions about being involved in this research, you may contact: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250, telephone (352) 392 0433 Agreement : I have read this consent form. I voluntarily AGREE to answer the questions for this study and I have received a copy of this form. ____________________________________________ ___________________ Sign your name above if you agree to participate Date ____________________________________________ Print your name above ____________________________________________ ___________________ Principle investigator Date

PAGE 357

357 APPENDIX F PROTECTIONS FOR PART ICIPANTS Since the study use d human subject s, I took certain measures and precautions to protect the participants of the study and ensure that their responses remain ed co nfidential. The interviews were not conducted in a location where the conversation could be overheard by individuals outside of the research project. In the cases when there was not enough privacy, the person was asked to complete the survey by filling in the responses on his or her own. None of the information obtained from study participants was made available to anyone outside this research project. I took precautions to minimize the risk of others linking a particip ant to his or her responses and used interview tapes and transcriptions. The list of participants with their subject numbe r that linked the informed consent, criminal history form and the in terview instrument together was kept password protected The list was kept separate from all study material that contained parti cip ants responses. No personal id entifying information, such as court case numbers, was collected on the interview instrument. The recordings us ed during the interviews were erased following transcrip tion, which occurred within forty five days of the interview. All identifying informati on recorded during the intervi ew (e.g., names, nicknames) was removed from the transcripts. The undergraduate research assistants that were assigned to transcribe the interviews were required to sign a letter of confidentiality. The research assistants w ere never provided with the names of individuals participating in the study. They only received a recording with the

PAGE 358

358 No identifiers were kept in the data file that could tie the participant s to their respons es and instead r esponses were coded in data files using the participant s subject number. The researcher s were certified through Florida Department of Law Enforcement on the proper h andling criminal h istories and were legally bound to the confidentiality agreement entere d upon certification. The emails sent to the probation officers with the names of the probationers eligible to receive credit for participating never indicate d whether the participants com pleted the interview or any of the nformed consent f orm, which the probationers were required to si gn in order t o participate, informed them of their rights as a participant and who to contact if they had any questions regarding the study.

PAGE 359

359 APPENDIX G INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT AN IN DEPTH STUD Y OF SUPERVISED PROB ATIONERS IN ALACHUA COUNTY TO BE COMPLETED BY INTERVIEWER: I nterview Number : Probationer s Name: Consent Date: (dd/mm/yy) Date of Interview: (dd/mm/yy) Location of Interview: Interviewer Name: Time Interview Began : AM PM Time Interview Ended : AM PM Date Criminal History Retrieved: (dd/mm/yy) Date Criminal History Form Completed: (dd/mm/yy) Please use the extra sheets of paper provided for any additional notes if the space provided on the instrument in n ot enough. When taking notes be sure to indicate the question number.

PAGE 360

360 Read] First, I am going to ask you some questions about you. Code Number 1. How long have you lived in your neighborhood? _________ (circle: days, mos, y rs) 2. What type of place do you live in? (Read options & circle one) (Ferraro, 1995) Single family house 1 An apartment 2 A duplex 3 A condominium 4 A trailer house 5 A rooming house 6 Other Specify ________________ DK 98 RF 99 3. How would you def ine your neighborhood? (Read options & circle one) The block you live on 1 The blocks around your home 2 Your housing development 3 (Lane, et al., 1997) A section of your city 4 Your county 5 Other Specify ____________ DK 98 RF 99 4. How lon g have you lived at your current residence? (enter number and circle) ____________________ days/ mos/ yrs DK 98 RF 99 5. How many people live in your household? (enter number) _______________________ DK 98 RF 99 6. Do you have children? (circle one) (If no, skip to #9) Yes 1 No 0 DK 98 RF 99 7. How many children do you have? (enter number) ____________________ DK 98 RF 99 8. Do your children (or child) live with you? (circle one) Yes 1 No 0 DK 98 RF 99 9. What is y our current marital status? (circle one) (do not read answer options) Married 1 Widowed 2 Divorced 3 Separated 4 Never married 5 Living with a partner 6 DK 98 RF 99 10. How would you describe your race? (circle one) (do not read answer options) White 1 Black/African American 2 Other Specify_____________ DK 98 RF 99 11. How would you describe your ethnicity? (circle one) (do not read answer options) Hispanic 1 Non Hispanic 0 DK 98 RF 99 12. What is your current employment status? (circle one) (do not read answer options) Full time 1 Part time 2 Not employed 3 Other Specify__________ DK 98 RF 99

PAGE 361

361 13. What is highest level of education you have obtained? (circle one) (do not read answer options) 9 th Grade 9 10 th grade 10 11 th grade 11 High school 12 GED 13 Some college 14 Other Specify_____________ DK 98 RF 99 [Read] Now I am going to ask you some questions about you being on probation 14. How long is your probation sentence? (enter number) ____________________mos DK 98 RF 99 15 How much of your probation sentence have you served? (enter number) ____________________mos DK 98 RF 99 16. Did you receive probation as the resul t of a plea agreement? (circle one) Yes 1 No 0 DK 98 RF 99 What are the charge(s) that you are serving probation for ? (circle yes or no) (do not read answer options) Yes No 17. Possession or use of drug paraphernalia 1 0 18. Possession or use of n arcotic equipment 1 0 19. Possession of marijuana not more than 20 grams 1 0 20. Alcohol possession by person under 21 years of age 1 0 21. Driving under the influence of alcohol 1 0 22. Driving while license suspended or revoked 1 0 23. No vali 1 0 24. Criminal mischief over 200 dollars under 1000 dollars 1 0 25. Larceny: petit first degree property 100 to under 300 dollars 1 0 26. Retail theft 1 0 27. Worthless check 1 0 28. Trespass 1 0 29. Resisting or obstruct officer without violence 1 0 30. Battery: touch or strike 1 0 31. Domestic battery: touch or strike 1 0 32. Other (specify________________________________________) 1 0 33. Other (specify________________________________________) 1 0 34. Other (spe cify________________________________________) 1 0 35. Other (specify________________________________________) 1 0

PAGE 362

362 36. Have you received any violations for this sentence? (circle one) (If no, skip to #82) Yes 1 No 0 DK 98 RF 99 Was the violation a new law violation? (If yes, list verbatim the offense in the order the offense occurred and complete columns a, b and c) (If no, skip to #44) Date (indicate the date that the offense by mm/dd/yy). Outcome (code the outcome of the violation: 1= extended proba tion sentence, 2= additional condition(s), 3= days in jail, 4= other) Details (explain each condition. If 1 list new term, if 2 list new condition, if 3 how many days, if 4 specify other) 37. ______________________________ ______________ ____________ ______________________ 38. ______________________________ ______________ ____________ ______________________ 39. ______________________________ ______________ ____________ ______________________ 40. ______________________________ ______________ ________ ____ ______________________ 41. ______________________________ ______________ ____________ ______________________ 42. ______________________________ ______________ ____________ ______________________ 43. ______________________________ ______________ ___ _________ ______________________ Was the violation a technical violation? (If yes, list verbatim the offense in the order the offense occurred and complete columns a, b and c) (do not read answer options) (If no, skip to #82) Number of times it occurred ( indicate number) Outcome (code outcome of the violation: 1= extended probation sentence, 2= additional condition(s), 3= days in jail, 4= other) Details (explain each condition. If 1 list new term, if 2 list new condition, if 3 how many days, if 4 spec ify other) 44. Report to probation office once a month __________ _____________ ___________________ 45. Answer truthfully to inquiries by probation officer __________ _____________ ___________________ 46. Notify PO of changes in your residence _________ _____________ ___________________ 47. Notify PO of changes in your employment/education __________ _____________ ___________________ 48. Try to obtain employment __________ _____________ ___________________ 49. Maintain employment/school enrollment __________ _____________ ___________________ 50. Allow PO to visit your residence __________ _____________ ___________________ 51. Allow PO to visit your employment site __________ _____________ ___________________ 52. Pay monthly cost of supervision _________ _____________ ___________________ 53. Pay court cost __________ _____________ ___________________ 54. Complete CS hours in lieu of fees __________ _____________ ___________________ 55. Complete mandatory CS hours __________ _____________ _____ ______________ 56. Complete work crew days __________ _____________ ___________________ 57. Complete a jail sentence __________ _____________ ___________________ 58. Pay restitution __________ _____________ ___________________ 59. Submit to random scr eens __________ _____________ ___________________ 60. Do not possess or consume alcohol __________ _____________ ___________________

PAGE 363

363 Was the violation a technical violation? (If yes, list verbatim the offense in the order the offense occurred and compl ete columns a, b and c) (do not read answer options) Number of times it occurred (indicate number) Outcome (code outcome of the violation: 1= extended probation sentence, 2= additional condition(s), 3= days in jail, 4= other) Details (explain each conditi on. If 1 list new term, if 2 list new condition, if 3 how many days, if 4 specify other) 61. Do not possess or consume illegal drugs __________ _____________ ___________________ 62. Participate in alcohol treatment __________ _____________ __________ _________ 63. Participate in drug treatment __________ _____________ ___________________ 64. Participate in mental health treatment __________ _____________ ___________________ 65. Participate in employment program __________ _____________ ____________ _______ 66. Complete Milepost class __________ _____________ ___________________ 67. Complete Daily Alternative Reporting Tracking (DART) program __________ _____________ ___________________ __________ _____ ________ ___________________ 69. Complete anger management __________ _____________ ___________________ 70. No contact with victim __________ _____________ ___________________ 71. Attend alcohol safety education school __________ _____________ _________ __________ 72. Attend 1 victim impact panel __________ _____________ ___________________ 73. license (DL) suspended/revoked __________ _____________ ___________________ 74. Abide with order of impoundment __________ _____________ ______________ _____ 75. Abide by curfew __________ _____________ ___________________ 76. Other (_________________________________) __________ _____________ ___________________ 77. Other (_________________________________) __________ _____________ ___________________ 78. Other (_________________________________) __________ _____________ ___________________ 79. Other (_________________________________) __________ _____________ ___________________ 80. Other (_________________________________) __________ _____________ ___________________ 81. Other (_________________________________) __________ _____________ ___________________ [Read] I am going to ask about criminal sanctions and whether you have been sentenced to them in the past. Please indicate whether you have by answering yes or no. Yes If yes, indicate length of time served (circle one) No DK RF 82. Probation (prior to current sentence) 1 ______________________mos/yrs 0 98 99 83. Intensive supervision probation 1 ______________________mos/yrs 0 98 99

PAGE 364

364 Yes If yes, indicate length of time served (circle one) No DK RF 84. Jail 1 ______________________mos/yrs 0 98 99 85. Prison 1 ______________________mos/yrs 0 98 99 86. Day reporting 1 ______________________mos/yrs 0 98 99 87. Electronic monitoring 1 ______________________mos/yrs 0 98 99 88. Boot camp 1 ______________________mos/yrs 0 98 99 (If no to having served a prior sentence of probation, skip to #134 ) 89. Did you receive any violations for your prior probation sentence(s)? (circle one) (If no, skip to #134) Yes 1 No 0 DK 98 RF 99 Was the violation a new law violation? (If yes, list verbatim the offense in the order the offense occurred and complete columns a, b and c) (If no, skip to #97) Date (indicate the date that the offense by mm/dd /yy). Outcome (code the outcome of the violation: 1= extended probation sentence, 2= additional condition(s), 3= days in jail, 4= other) Details (explain each condition If 1 list new term, if 2 list new condition, if 3 how many days, if 4 specify oth er) 90.______________________________ ______________ ____________ ______________________ 91. ______________________________ ______________ ____________ ______________________ 92. ______________________________ ______________ ____________ _______________ _______ 93.______________________________ ______________ ____________ ______________________ 94. ______________________________ ______________ ____________ ______________________ 95. ______________________________ ______________ ____________ ___________ ___________ 96. ______________________________ ______________ ____________ ______________________ Was the violation a technical violation? (If yes, list verbatim the offense in the order the offense occurred and complete columns a, b and c) (do not read answer options) (If no, skip to #134) Number of time it occurred (indicate number) Outcome (code outcome of the violation: 1= extended probation sentence, 2= additional condition(s), 3= days in jail, 4= other) Details (explain how each condition was. If 1 list new term, if 2 list new condition, if 3 how many days, if 4 specify other) 97. Report to probation office once a month __________ _____________ ___________________ 98. Answer truthfully to inquiries by PO __________ _____________ ______________ _____ 99. Notify PO of changes in your residence __________ _____________ ___________________ 100. Notify PO of changes in your employment/education __________ _____________ ___________________ 101. Try to obtain employment __________ _____________ ____ _______________ 102. Maintain employment/school enrollment __________ _____________ ___________________ 103. Allow PO to visit your residence __________ _____________ ___________________

PAGE 365

365 Was the violation a technical violation? (If yes, list verbatim the offense in the order the offense occurred and complete columns a, b and c) (do not read answer options) (If no, skip to #134) Number of time it occurred (indicate number) Outcome (code outcome of the violation: 1= extended probation sentence, 2= addi tional condition(s), 3= days in jail, 4= other) Details (explain how each condition was. If 1 list new term, if 2 list new condition, if 3 how many days, if 4 specify other) 104. Allow PO to visit your employment site __________ _____________ ________ ___________ 105. Pay monthly cost of supervision __________ _____________ ___________________ 106. Pay court cost __________ _____________ ___________________ 107. Complete CS hours in lieu of fees __________ _____________ ___________________ 108. Comp lete mandatory CS hours __________ _____________ ___________________ 109. Complete work crew days __________ _____________ ___________________ 110. Complete a jail sentence __________ _____________ ___________________ 111. Pay restitution __________ __ ___________ ___________________ 112. Submit to random screens __________ _____________ ___________________ 113. Do not possess or consume alcohol __________ _____________ ___________________ 114. Do not possess or consume illegal drugs __________ ____ _________ ___________________ 115. Participate in alcohol treatment __________ _____________ ___________________ 116. Participate in drug treatment __________ _____________ ___________________ 117. Participate in mental health treatment __________ ____ _________ ___________________ 118. Participate in employment program __________ _____________ ___________________ 119. Complete Milepost class __________ _____________ ___________________ 120. Complete DART program __________ _____________ _____________ ______ __________ _____________ ___________________ 122. Complete anger management __________ _____________ ___________________ 123. No contact with victim __________ _____________ ___________________ 124. Attend alcohol safety education school __________ _____________ ___________________ 125. Attend 1 victim impact panel __________ _____________ ___________________ 126. license (DL) suspended/revoked __________ _____________ ___________________ 127. Abide with order of impoundment __________ _____________ ___________________ 128. Abide by curfew __________ _____________ ___________________ 129. Other (_________________________________) __________ _____________ ___________________ 130. Other (_ ________________________________) __________ _____________ ___________________ 131. Other (_________________________________) __________ _____________ ___________________ 132. Other (_________________________________) __________ _____________ ___________ ________ 133. Other (_________________________________) __________ _____________ ___________________

PAGE 366

366 [Read] Now I want to ask you more specific questions about your current probation and your views on the severity of the conditions. I am going to list p ossible conditions of probation. Please indicate whether they apply to you by answering yes or no. (circle one and specify where applicable) Yes Specify No DK RF 134. Commit no new law violation 1 0 98 99 135. Report to probation office once a month 1 0 98 99 136. Answer truthfully to inquiries by probation officer 1 0 98 99 137. Notify PO of changes in your residence 1 0 98 99 138. Notify PO of changes in your employment/education 1 0 98 99 139. Try to obtain employment 1 0 98 99 140. Maint ain employment/school enrollment 1 0 98 99 141. Allow PO to visit your residence 1 0 98 99 142. Allow PO to visit your employment site 1 0 98 99 143. Pay monthly cost of supervision (specify amount) 1 $_______ 0 98 99 144. Pay court cost (specify amount) 1 $_______ 0 98 99 145. Complete CS hours in lieu of fees (specify hours) 1 _______hrs 0 98 99 146. Complete mandatory CS hours (specify hours) 1 _______hrs 0 98 99 147. Complete work crew days (specify days) 1 _______days 0 98 99 148. Compl ete a jail sentence (specify days) 1 _______days 0 98 99 149. Pay restitution (specify amount) 1 $_______ 0 98 99 150. Submit to random screens (breathalyzer and urinalysis) 1 0 98 99 151. Do not possess or consume alcohol 1 0 98 99 152. Do not poss ess or consume illegal drugs 1 0 98 99 153. Participate in alcohol treatment 1 0 98 99 154. Participate in drug treatment 1 0 98 99 155. Participate in mental health treatment 1 0 98 99 156. Participate in employment program 1 0 98 99 157. Compl ete Milepost class 1 0 98 99 158. Complete DART program 1 0 98 99 1 0 98 99 160. Complete anger management 1 0 98 99 161. No contact with victim 1 0 98 99 162. Attend alcohol safety education school 1 0 98 99

PAGE 367

367 (circle one and specify where applicable) Yes Specify No DK RF 163. Attend 1 victim impact panel 1 0 98 99 164. license (DL) suspended/revoked (specify months) 1 _______mos 0 98 99 165. Abide with order of impoundment 1 0 98 99 166. Abide by curfew 1 0 98 99 167. Other (specify______________________________) 1 0 98 99 168. Other (specify______________________________) 1 0 98 99 169. Other (specify______________________________) 1 0 98 99 170. Other (specify______________ ________________) 1 0 98 99 171. Other (specify______________________________) 1 0 98 99 172. Other (specify______________________________) 1 0 98 99 173. [Read] Are there any conditions which I have not asked you about, but that you are required to complete or adhere to? If so, what are they? [Read] I am going to ask you to the rate the severity of the conditions of your probation. The response options are not severe, somewhat severe, severe and extremely severe (Hand participant red answer card) (Read all the conditions and circle the answer option the participant selected, next turn tape recorder on and read column a and column b) (for all conditions circle one and then complete columns a and b with tape recorder on) Not severe Somewhat severe Severe Extremely severe DK RF a. Why do you feel the condition is severe? (ask of each one coded 4) Why do you feel the condition is not severe? (ask of each one coded 1) 174. Commit no new law violation 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 175 Report to probation once a month 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 176. Answer truthfully to inquiries by PO 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 177. Notify PO of changes in residence 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 178. Notify PO of changes in employment/education 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________

PAGE 368

368 (for all conditions circle one and then complete columns a and b with tape recorder on) Not severe Somewhat severe Severe Extremely severe DK RF a. Why do yo u feel the condition is severe? (ask of each one coded 4) b. Why do you feel the condition is not severe? (ask of each one coded 1) 179. Try to obtain employment 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 180. Maintain employment/school enrollment 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 181. Allow PO to visit residence 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 182. Allow PO to visit employment site 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 183. Pay monthly COS 1 2 3 4 98 99 _________ ______ _______________ 184. Pay court costs 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 185. Complete CS hours in lieu of fees 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 186. Complete mandatory CS hours 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 187. Complete work crew days 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 188. Complete a jail sentence 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 189. Pay restitution 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 190. Submit to random screens 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 191. Do not possess or consume alcohol 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 192. Do not possess or consume illegal drugs 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 193. Participate in alcohol tre atment 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 194. Participate in drug treatment 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 195. Participate in mental health treatment 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 196. Participate in employme nt program 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 197. Complete Milepost class 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 198. Complete DART program 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________

PAGE 369

369 (for all conditions circle one and then complet e columns a and b with tape recorder on) Not severe Somewhat severe Severe Extremely severe DK RF a. Why do you feel the condition is severe? (ask of each one coded 4) b. Why do you feel the condition is not severe? (ask of each one coded 1) 199. Complet Intervention 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 200. Complete anger management 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 201. No contact with victim 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 202. Attend alcohol safety edu cation school 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 203. Attend 1 victim impact panel 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 204. DL suspended/revoked 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 205. Abide with order of impoundment 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 206. Abide by curfew 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 207. other (specify___________) 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 208. other (specify___________) 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ ____ ___________ 209. other (specify___________) 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 210. other (specify___________) 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ 211. other (specify___________) 1 2 3 4 98 99 _______________ _______________ Turn off tape recorder once column a and column b are completed. [Read] The next set of questions asks you about your perception about the likelihood that you will be able to complete or follow the probation condition. The response options are not difficult, re latively easy, about 50/50, somewhat difficult and very difficult (Hand participant yellow answer card) (Read all the conditions and circle the answer option the participant selected, next turn tape recorder on and read column a and column b) (for all co nditions circle one and then complete columns a and b with tape recorder on) Not difficult Relatively easy About 50/50 Somewhat difficult Very difficult DK RF a. Why do you feel __ is very difficult? ( ask for coded 5) b. Why do you feel ___ is not dif ficult? ( ask for coded 1) 212. Commit no new law violation 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 213. Report to probation once a month 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________

PAGE 370

370 (for all conditions circle one and then complete columns a and b with tape recor der on) Not difficult Relatively easy About 50/50 Somewhat difficult Very difficult DK RF a. Why do you feel __ is very difficult? ( ask for coded 5) b. Why do you feel ___ is not difficult? ( ask for coded 1) 214. Answer truthfully to inquiries by PO 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 215. Notify PO of changes in residence 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 216. Notify PO of changes in employment/education 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 217. Try to obtain employment 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 _____ _____ __________ 218. Maintain employment/school enrollment 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 219. Allow PO to visit residence 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 220. Allow PO to visit employment site 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 221 Pay monthly cost of supervision 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 222. Pay court costs 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 223. Complete CS hours in lieu of fees 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 224. Complete mandatory CS hours 1 2 3 4 5 9 8 99 __________ __________ 225. Complete work crew days 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 226. Complete a jail sentence 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 227. Pay restitution 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 228. Submit to random screens 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 229. Do not possess or consume alcohol 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 230. Do not possess or consume illegal drugs 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 231. Participate in alcohol treatment 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________

PAGE 371

371 (for all conditions circle one and then complete columns a and b with tape recorder on) Not difficult Relatively easy About 50/50 Somewhat difficult Very difficult DK RF a. Why do you feel __ is very difficult? (ask for coded 5) b. Why do you feel ___ is not difficult? (ask for coded 1) 232. Participate in drug treatment 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 233. Participate in mental health treatment 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 234. Participate in employment progr am 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 235. Complete Milepost class 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 236. Complete DART program 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ Intervention 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 238 Complete anger management 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 239. No contact with victim 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 240. Attend alcohol safety education school 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 241. Attend 1 victim impact panel 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 242. DL suspended/revoked 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 243. Abide with order of impoundment 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 244. Abide by curfew 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 245. other (specify _________) 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 246. other (specify __________) 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 247. other (specify __________) 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 248. other (specify __________) 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ _____ _____ 249. other (specify __________) 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ 250. other (specify___________) 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 __________ __________ (Adapted Petersilia & Deschenes 1994b) [Read] 251. What do you think about the difficulty of your sentence of probation? (circle one and complete column a) Not difficult 1 Relatively easy 2 About 50/50 3 Somewhat difficult 4 Very difficult 5 DK 98 RF 99 Why do you feel this way? Please explain _________________

PAGE 372

372 252. [Read] What do you think are some possi ble obstacles that you will face or are facing that could prevent you from successfully completing or adhering to your conditions of probation? Turn tape recorder off. [Read] Now I am going to ask you some things that possibly could be an obstacle for a person on probation. Please indicate your level of agreement on whether the following items are obstacles for you Your response options are strongly disagree, disagree, agree and strongly agree. (Hand participant green card) (circle one) Strongly Disagre e Disagree Agree Strongly Agree DK RF 253. Finding a job 1 2 3 4 98 99 254. Finding a good paying job 1 2 3 4 98 99 255. Maintaining a job 1 2 3 4 98 99 256. Finding time to report monthly 1 2 3 4 98 99 257. Finding time to do CS hours 1 2 3 4 98 99 258. Finding time to do work crew 1 2 3 4 98 99 259. Transportation to work 1 2 3 4 98 99 260. Transportation to report monthly to probation office 1 2 3 4 98 99 261. Transportation to CS location 1 2 3 4 98 99 262. Transportation to work crew 1 2 3 4 98 99 263. Maintaining a residence 1 2 3 4 98 99 264. Paying court costs 1 2 3 4 98 99 265. Paying monthly cost of supervision 1 2 3 4 98 99 266. Paying restitution 1 2 3 4 98 99 267. Participating in treatment 1 2 3 4 98 99 268. Avoiding drinking alcohol 1 2 3 4 98 99 269. Avoiding using drugs 1 2 3 4 98 99 270. Neighborhood conditions 1 2 3 4 98 99 271. Lack of family support 1 2 3 4 98 99 272. Number of probation conditions 1 2 3 4 98 99 273. Turn tape recorder on. [Read] What are some poss ible things that would help increase the chances of you completing probation? Do you have any suggestions on how to remove or reduce the number of obstacles that you may face while on probatio n? Turn tape recorder off.

PAGE 373

373 [Read] I am going to ask about you r perceptions about different types of criminal sanctions. First, I am going to ask you to rate the severity of several sentencing sanctions. If you are not familiar with any of the sanctions, please let me know and I can des cribe them to you. The response options are not severe, somewhat severe, severe and extremely severe (Hand participant red card) Read all the conditions and circle the answer option the participant selected, next turn tape recorder on and read column a and column b) (for all sanctions circle one and then complete columns a and b with tape recorder on) Not severe Somewhat severe Severe Extremely severe DK RF a. Why do you feel _____ is severe? (ask for each one coded 4) b. Why do you feel ____ is not severe? (ask for each one coded 1) 274. $100 fine 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 275. $1000 fine 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 276. $5000 fine 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 277. 1 year regular probation 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 278. 3 yea rs regular probation 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 279. 5 years regular probation 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 280. 1 year Intensive supervision probation 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 281. 3 years Intensive supervis ion probation 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 282. 5 years Intensive supervision probation 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 283. 3 months in jail 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 284. 6 months in jail 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 285. 1 year in jail 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 286. 1 year in prison 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 287. 3 years in prison 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 288. 5 years in prison 1 2 3 4 98 99 ___________ _____________ 289. 3 months day reporting 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 290. 6 months day reporting 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 291. 1 year day reporting 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 292. 3 months electronic moni toring 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 293. 6 months electronic monitoring 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 294. 1 year electronic monitoring 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 295. 3 months boot camp 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 296. 6 months boot camp 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ 297. 1 year boot camp 1 2 3 4 98 99 ____________ _____________ (Adapted from Petersilia & Deschenes 1994b)

PAGE 374

374 298. (Hand participant orange card) [Read] Which of the listed co nditions do you find to be the MOST severe? Why? 299. [Read] Which of the listed conditions do you find to be the LEAST severe? Why? 300. [Read] If you were able to make policy recommendations regarding the types of criminal sanctions that are used i n our criminal justice system, what would you recommend? 301. [Read] Is there anything that I have not asked you about conditions of probation or sanction severity that you feel I should know? Turn tape recorder off. [Read] Now that I have asked you about probation, I would like to ask you about how personally afraid you are of the following crimes. For each of the following crimes please indicate if you are not afraid, somewhat afraid, afraid, or very afraid. (H and participant purple card) In the pas t year how personally afraid have you been of: (circle one) Not Afraid Somewhat Afraid Afraid Very Afraid DK RF 302. Being approached by a beggar or panhandler 1 2 3 4 98 99 303. Having someone break into your home while you are there 1 2 3 4 98 99 30 4. Being raped or sexually assaulted 1 2 3 4 98 99 305. Being murdered 1 2 3 4 98 99 306. Being attacked by someone with a weapon 1 2 3 4 98 99 307. Having your car stolen 1 2 3 4 98 99 308. Being robbed or mugged on the street 1 2 3 4 98 99 309. Ha ving your property damaged 1 2 3 4 98 99 310. Being threatened by someone 1 2 3 4 98 99 311. Being beaten up by someone 1 2 3 4 98 99 312. Being shot at while walking down the street 1 2 3 4 98 99 313. Having your property damaged by graffiti or tag ging 1 2 3 4 98 99 314. Having someone break into your home while you are away 1 2 3 4 98 99 315. Having someone commit a home invasion robbery against you 1 2 3 4 98 99 316. Being the victim of a drive by or random shooting 1 2 3 4 98 99

PAGE 375

375 (circle one ) Not Afraid Somewhat Afraid Afraid Very Afraid DK RF 317. Being physically assaulted or attacked by someone without a weapon 1 2 3 4 98 99 318. Being harassed by someone 1 2 3 4 98 99 319. Being a victim of a car jacking 1 2 3 4 98 99 320. Having yo ur money or property taken from you without force or weapon 1 2 3 4 98 99 321. Having your money or property taken from you with force or weapon 1 2 3 4 98 99 322. Being around drug use or sales 1 2 3 4 98 99 (Adapted from Ferraro, 1995 ; Lane, 2006; L ane et. al. 1997 ; Lane et al. 2005 ) 323. [Read] Are there any other crimes that you are personally afraid of that are not listed here? 324. Turn tape recorder on. [Read] Which of the crimes are you MOST afraid of? Why? 325. [Read] Which of the crim es are you LEAST afraid of? Why? Turn tape recorder off. 326. [Read] Now that you have indicated how personally afraid you are, I would like to know if you have been a victim of any of the previously listed crimes in the last year? (Read options & cir cle one) Yes 1 No (skip to # 328) 0 DK (skip to # 328) 98 RF (skip to # 328) 99 327. Turn tape recorder on. [Read] Please describe which ones and what happened to you? Turn tape recorder off. 328. [Read] Has your family been a victim of any of t he previously listed crimes in the last year? (Read options & circle one) Yes 1 No ( skip to # 330 ) 0 DK (skip to # 330 ) 98 RF (skip to # 330 ) 99 329. Turn tape recorder on. [Read] Please describe which crimes and what happened and to whom? Turn tape recorder off.

PAGE 376

376 330. [Read] In general, are you more, less, or equally afraid for other people living in your home as you are for yourself? (Read options & circle one) More Afraid 1 Less Afraid 2 Equally Afraid 3 DK 98 RF 99 (Lane et al., 1997) [Read] Now I would like you to think about your family members. Of those living in your home, please indicate how personally afraid you are that each of the following family members will be a victim of a crime ? Please tell us how afraid, somewhat afraid, afraid, or very afraid you are that ( Hand participant purple card) (circle one) Not Afraid Somewhat Afraid Afraid Very Afraid N/A DK RF 331. Your father will be a victim of crime 1 2 3 4 97 98 99 332. Your mother will be a victim of crime 1 2 3 4 97 98 99 333. Y our husband will be a victim of crime 1 2 3 4 97 98 99 334. Your wife will be a victim of crime 1 2 3 4 97 98 99 335. Your partner will be a victim of crime 1 2 3 4 97 98 99 336. Your son(s) will be a victim of crime 1 2 3 4 97 98 99 337. Your daug hter(s) will be a victim of crime 1 2 3 4 97 98 99 338. Your brother(s) will be a victim of crime 1 2 3 4 97 98 99 339. Your sister(s)will be a victim of crime 1 2 3 4 97 98 99 340. Other (please specify) ____________ 1 2 3 4 97 98 99 341. Turn tap e recorder on. [Read] Are you more afraid for them than yourself? Why? Turn tape recorder off. [ Read]: You have indicated how personally afraid you are for you and your family of the crimes listed. I would like you to indicate how likely it is that in t he next year you will become a victim of the following crimes. Is it not likely, somewhat likely, likely, or very likely that you will ( Hand participant pink card) (Read options & circle one) Not Likely Somewhat Likely Likely Very Likely DK RF 342. Be ap proached by a beggar or panhandler 1 2 3 4 98 99 343. Have someone break into your home while you are there 1 2 3 4 98 99 344. Be raped or sexually assaulted 1 2 3 4 98 99 345. Be murdered 1 2 3 4 98 99 346. Be attacked by someone with a weapon 1 2 3 4 98 99 347. Have your car stolen 1 2 3 4 98 99 348. Be robbed or mugged on the street 1 2 3 4 98 99 349. Have your property damaged 1 2 3 4 98 99 350. Be threatened by someone 1 2 3 4 98 99

PAGE 377

377 (Read options & circle one) Not Likely Somewhat Likely L ikely Very Likely DK RF 351. Be beaten up by someone 1 2 3 4 98 99 352. Be shot at while walking down the street 1 2 3 4 98 99 353. Have your property damaged by graffiti or tagging 1 2 3 4 98 99 354. Have someone break into your home while you are a way 1 2 3 4 98 99 355. Have someone commit a home invasion robbery against you 1 2 3 4 98 99 356. Be the victim of a drive by or random shooting 1 2 3 4 98 99 357. Be physically assaulted or attacked by someone 1 2 3 4 98 99 358. Be harassed by someon e 1 2 3 4 98 99 359. Be a victim of a car jacking 1 2 3 4 98 99 360. Have your money or property taken from you without force or weapon 1 2 3 4 98 99 361. Have your money or property taken from you with force or weapon 1 2 3 4 98 99 362. Be around d rug use or sales 1 2 3 4 98 99 ( Adapted from Ferraro, 1995; Lane, 2006; Lane et al. 1997; Lane et. al. 2005 ) [Read]: Now I would like to ask you about the crimes that you have committed in the past, please indicate if you have taken part in any of the following crimes by indicating yes or no? Please remember that your answers are confidential. (Read options & circle one) Yes No DK RF 1 0 98 99 364. Raped or sexually assaulted someone 1 0 98 99 365. Attacked someone with a weapon 1 0 98 99 366. Stolen a car 1 0 98 99 367. Robbed or mugged someone on the street 1 0 98 99 1 0 98 99 369. Threatened someone with a weapon 1 0 98 99 370. Beaten up or physically assaulted someone 1 0 98 99 371. Shot at someone while walking down the street 1 0 98 99 1 0 98 99 1 0 98 99 374. Committed a home invasion r obbery against someone 1 0 98 99 375. Participated in a drive by or random shooting 1 0 98 99 376. Harassed or threatened someone 1 0 98 99 377. Car jacked someone 1 0 98 99

PAGE 378

378 Yes No DK RF 378. Dealt or delivered drugs (made, sold, or moved) 1 0 98 99 379. Possessed drugs (marijuana, cocaine, crack, etc) 1 0 98 99 380. Been in a gang 1 0 98 99 1 0 98 99 1 0 98 99 383. Approach someone on the st reet asking for money or trying to panhandle 1 0 98 99 384. Turn tape recorder on. [Read] Do you feel that taking part in these activities has made you feel more or less afraid? Why? 385. [Read] Do you feel that taking part in these activities has made you feel more or less afraid for your family? Why? Turn tape recorder off. 386. [Read] Do you feel that your participation in crime makes it more or less likely that your family will be (Read options & circle one) Much l ess likely 1 Less likely 2 More likely 3 Much more likely 4 DK 98 RF 99 [Read]: Now I would like to ask you about some of things you have done to protect yourself from crime. Please remember your answers are confidential and if you prefer not to answer a question you may skip it. In order to feel safer from being a victim of crime, Yes No DK RF 387. Buy or secure a gun 1 0 98 99 388. Carry a gun 1 0 98 99 389. Carry a weapon other than a gun when yo u went out 1 0 98 99 390. Arrange to go out with someone so you would not be alone 1 0 98 99 391. Avoid certain areas of your neighborhood or community 1 0 98 99 392. Join a gang for protection 1 0 98 99 393. Hangout with gang members 1 0 98 99 394. Buy an alarm or security system 1 0 98 99 395. Install extra locks on your home or car 1 0 98 99 396. Buy a watchdog 1 0 98 99 397. Added outside lighting 1 0 98 99 398. Limit or change your daily routine because of crime 1 0 98 99 (Adapted from Fe rraro, 1995; Lane, 2009; Lane et al., 1997; Lane & Meeker, 2004)

PAGE 379

379 399. Turn tape recorder on. [Read] What crime(s) were you trying to avoid by taking the previously listed options? Please explain. 400. [Read] Do you feel that doing these things have he lped keep you safe? Please explain how. 401. [Read] Now we have reached the last section of the questionnaire. Here I would like to ask you about the neighborhood you live in. Please think of your current neighborhood when answering the following quest ions. How would you describe the people who live in your neighborhood in terms of income? How many of them live in poverty? 402. [Read] How would you describe the people who live in your neighborhood in terms of education? 403. [Read] If you had a pr oblem, could you rely on your neighbors for help? (Read options & circle one) Yes 1 No 0 DK 98 RF 99 404. [Read] What, specifically, do you think you could rely on your neighbors for? Why? 405. [Read] What could you not rely on them for? Why? Tur n tape recorder off. 406. [Read] Can you trust your neighbors? ( Read options & circle one) (Earls et al., 1994) Never 1 Some of the time 2 All of the time 3 DK 98 RF 99 407. [Read] Would your neighbors be willing to help one another? (Read options & circle one) (Sampson & Raudenbush, 2001) Yes 1 No 0 DK 98 RF 99 408. [Read] Would your neighbors do something if they saw unattended kids misbehaving? (Read options & circle one) (Sampson & Raudenbush, 2001) Yes 1 No 0 DK 98 RF 99 409. [Read] Would your neighbors do something if they saw a crime occur? (Read options & circle one ) (Sampson & Raudenbush, 2001) Yes 1 No 0 DK 98 RF 99

PAGE 380

380 410. [Read] How much do you feel like you belong to your (Read options & circle one) ( F erraro, 1995; Lane et al., 1997) part of it 1 Sometimes I feel a part of it 2 I feel very much a part of it 3 DK 98 RF 99 411. [Read] Which of the following best illustrates how racially mixed your neighborhood is: (Read options & cir cle one) Not very mixed: Most people are of the same race 1 Somewhat mixed: Some people of different race 2 Very mixed People are of various racial backgrounds 3 DK 98 RF 99 412. [Read] When thinking of those who live near your home, if you were to move away in the next year, how many would you really miss? (Read options & circle one) (Ferraro, 1995) None 1 Some of them 2 A lot of them 3 All of the them 4 DK 98 RF 99 413. [Read] How often do people move in and out of your neighborhood? (Read options & circle one) (Sampson & Raudenbush, 2001) Rarely 1 Sometimes 2 Often 3 DK 98 RF 99 414. [Read] Do you see strangers in your neighborhood? (Read options & circle one) (Ferraro, 1995) Never 1 Almost never 2 Sometimes 3 Very often 4 DK 98 RF 99 [Read ]: The next questions ask about how safe you feel in your neighborhood. Please indicate if you feel very unsafe, somewhat unsafe, somewhat safe, or very safe. ( Hand participant blue card) (Adapted from Ferraro, 1995) (circle one) Very unsafe Somewhat unsaf e Somewhat safe Very safe DK RF 415. How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood during the day 1 2 3 4 98 99 416. How safe do you feel out alone in your neighborhood at night 1 2 3 4 98 99 417. How safe from crime do you feel inside your h ome during the day 1 2 3 4 98 99 418. How safe from crime do you feel inside your home during the night 1 2 3 4 98 99 419. How safe do you feel living in your neighborhood? 1 2 3 4 98 99 420. [Read] Is there any area in your neighborhood where you wo uld be afraid to walk alone at night? (Read options & circle one) Yes 1 No 0 DK 98 RF 99 421. [Read] Is there any area in your neighborhood where you would be afraid to walk alone at during the day? (Read options & circle one) Yes 1 No 0 DK 98 RF 99 422. [Read] In the past year, do you feel safer, not as safe, or about the same in your community? (Read options & circle one) (Lane et al., 1997) Safer 1 Not as safe 2 About the same 3 DK 98 RF 99

PAGE 381

381 [Read]: Based on the following crimes listed, do you fee l that your community has a lot, moderate amount, small amount, or none of the following crimes? (Hand participant light blue card) (circle one) None Small Amount Moderate Amount A lot DK RF 423. Property crime like burglary or theft 1 2 3 4 98 99 424. V iolent crime like assault or murder 1 2 3 4 98 99 425. Drug related crimes (selling or distributing) 1 2 3 4 98 99 426. Property crimes by gangs 1 2 3 4 98 99 427. Violent crimes by gangs 1 2 3 4 98 99 (Adapted from Lane et al., 1997) [Read] I am goi ng to ask you some questions about the neighborhood you live in, as you define it. I would like you to think of your neighborhood and some of the problems in your community and how serious they are. Please indicate if the following items are a big problem, somewhat of a problem, problem, or not a problem. ( Hand participant light purple card) (circle one) Not a problem Somewhat of a problem A problem A big problem DK RF 428. Litter, broken glass, or trash on sidewalks or streets 1 2 3 4 98 99 429. Graffit i on buildings or walls 1 2 3 4 98 99 430. Vacant or deserted homes, cars, or storefronts 1 2 3 4 98 99 431. Buildings that are falling apart or run down 1 2 3 4 98 99 432. Drinking in public 1 2 3 4 98 99 433. People selling drugs on the streets 1 2 3 4 98 99 434. Groups of teens or adults hanging out and causing trouble 1 2 3 4 98 99 435. Poverty or financial hardship 1 2 3 4 98 99 436. Language differences between residents 1 2 3 4 98 99 437. Cultural differences between residents 1 2 3 4 98 99 438. Too many people living in one home 1 2 3 4 98 99 439. Gunfire 1 2 3 4 98 99 440. Gangs 1 2 3 4 98 99 441. People drunk on the streets 1 2 3 4 98 99 442. Unsupervised youth 1 2 3 4 98 99 443. Kids behaving badly 1 2 3 4 98 99 444. People movin g in and out a lot 1 2 3 4 98 99 445. Needles on the street 1 2 3 4 98 99 446. People using drugs 1 2 3 4 98 99 1 2 3 4 98 99

PAGE 382

382 (Adapted from Earls et al., 1994 95; Ferraro, 1995; Lane et al. 1997; Sampson & Raudenbush, 2001 ). 448. Turn tape recorder on. [Read] Specifically, what crimes are MOST problematic to you in your neighborhood? Why? 449. [Read] What crimes are LEAST problematic to you in your neighborhood? Why? Turn tape record er off. 450. [Read] Overall, in the past year, would you say your community has become a better place to live, has gotten worse, or is about the same as it used to be? (R ead options & circle one) (Lane et al., 1997) Worse 1 Better 2 About the same 3 DK 98 RF 99 451. [Read] Do you think that crime in your neighborhood has increased, remained the same, or decreased in the last year? (R ead options & circle one) (Lane et al., 1997) Increased 1 Stayed the same 2 Decreased 3 DK 98 RF 99 452. Turn tape recorder on. [Read] If you have noticed an increase in crime, which crimes would you indicate to have increased? 453. [Read] Is there anything about fear of crime that you feel is important for me to know that I have not asked you about? Turn tape r ecorder off and thank the participant for participating.

PAGE 383

383 AP PENDIX H ANSWER CARD OPTIONS Red Card Not Severe Somewhat Severe Severe Extremely Severe Yellow Card Not difficult 90% chance I can do it 1 Relatively easy 75% chance I can do it 2 Abou t 50/50 chance I can do it 3 Somewhat difficult 25% chance I can do it 4 Very d ifficult 10% chance I can do it 5 Green Card Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

PAGE 384

384 Orange Card $100 fine $1000 fine $5000 fine 1 year regular pr obation 3 years regular probation 5 years regular probation 1 year intensive supervision probation 3 years intensive supervision probation 5 years intensive supervision probation 3 months in jail 6 months in jail 1 year in jail 1 year in pris on 3 years in prison 5 years in prison 3 months day reporting 6 months day reporting 1 year day reporting 3 months electronic monitoring 6 months electronic monitoring 1 year electronic monitoring 3 months boot camp 6 months boot camp 1 year boot camp

PAGE 385

385 APPENDIX I NOT INTERVIEWED SAMP LE DESCRIPTION Table I 1. Not interviewed sample description of based on official d ata No Showed N= 79 Will Contact Researchers N= 8 Cancelled N= 10 No Direct Contact N= 32 Codes N % N % N % N % Demographi cs Age Mean age 31.7 30.3 29.6 38.4 Age range 19 66 20 45 22 38 20 64 Gender Female 0 23 29.1 1 12.5 4 40.0 13 40.6 Male 1 56 70.9 7 87.5 6 60.0 19 59.4 Race White 1 30 38.0 8 100.0 6 60.0 16 50.0 Black 2 49 62.0 0 0.0 4 40.0 16 50.0 Asian 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Juvenile Justice System History History present Yes= 1 20 25.3 1 12.5 1 10.0 7 21.9 Mean age of first arrest 15.7 17.0 14.0 15.4 Mean number of arrests 2.1 1.0 1.0 2.3 Violation of probation present Yes= 1 4 20.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 14.3 Adult Justice System History History present Yes= 1 68 86.1 5 62.5 8 80.0 22 68.8 No Florida (FL) history Yes= 1 3 4.4 0 0.0 1 10.0 1 4.5 FL & 1 addit ional jurisdiction 1 12 17.6 0 0.0 1 10.0 2 9.1 FL & 2 additional jurisdiction 2 3 4.4 1 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 FL & 3 additional jurisdiction 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Arrest history Mean age of first arrest 21.2 21.0 21.5 23.8 Mean number of arrests 7.4 5.2 5.9 7.5

PAGE 386

386 Table I 1. Continued No Showed N= 79 Will Contact Researchers N= 8 Cancelled N= 10 No Direct Contact N= 32 Codes N % N % N % N % Mean seriousness history 4.7 4.0 4.7 3.8 Range seriousness history 0 15 0 10 0 15 0 14 Probation history Prior probation present Yes= 1 43 63.2 5 100.0 7 87.5 16 72.7 Mean number of probation 2.5 1.8 2.0 1.9 Mean longest probation sentence (in months) 17.4 45.6 30.0 21.1 Violation of prob ation Violation of probation present Yes= 1 37 54.4 4 80.0 3 37.5 11 50.0 Mean number of violations 2.9 1.3 1.3 2.8 Mean number of new law violations 2.2 2.0 2.0 1.2 Jail history Jail sentence present Yes= 1 32 47. 1 1 20.0 4 50.0 8 36.4 Mean number of jail sentences 3.3 2.0 2.3 2.8 Mean longest jail sentence (in days) 151.0 180 79.3 85.5 Prison history Prison sentence present Yes= 1 9 13.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 13.6 Mean number of prison s entences 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 Mean longest prison sentence (in months) 115.4 0.0 0.0 32.0 Parole violation present Yes= 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Sanction seriousness history Mean sanction history 1.3 0.9 1.5 1.3 Range sanc tion history 0 6 0 3 0 3 0 6 Alternative sanction(s) present Yes= 1 3 4.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.5

PAGE 387

387 Table I 1. Continued No Showed N= 79 Will Contact Researchers N= 8 Cancelled N= 10 No Direct Contact N= 32 Codes N % N % N % N % Pretrial release violation present Yes= 1 1 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.5 Pretrial diversion present Yes= 1 9 13.2 0 0.0 1 12.5 3 13.6 Current Probation Type of offense Public order 1 35 44.3 8 100.0 7 70.0 22 68.8 Drug 2 5 6.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.1 Pr operty 3 14 17.7 0 0.0 2 20.0 4 12.5 Violent 4 25 31.6 0 0.0 10 10.0 5 15.6 Charges Mean number of current charges 1.4 1.4 1.5 15.0 Reduction in charges Yes= 1 19 24.1 1 12.5 1 10.0 6 18.8 Reduction in counts Yes= 1 4 5.1 0 0.0 2 20.0 3 9.4 Reduction in offense level Yes= 1 7 8.9 0 0.0 3 30.0 7 21.9 Sentence Mean sentence length (in months) 10.9 10.5 10.8 12.6 Sentence range (in months) 6 15 6 12 6 12 12 60 Violation of probation Vi olation of probation present Yes= 1 16 20.3 3 37.5 1 10.0 5 15.6 New law violation present Yes= 1 10 62.5 1 33.3 0 0.0 3 60.0 Mean number of new law violations 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.7 Technical violation Yes= 1 14 87.5 3 100.0 1 100.0 3 60.0 Mean number of technical violations 3.5 1.7 5.0 2.6

PAGE 388

388 Table I 2 Not interviewed sample description of based on official d ata refused Failed to Report N= 7 Refused No Interest N= 47 Refused Done with Both Incentives N= 18 Ineligible Violated N=63 Codes N % N % N % N % Demographics Age Mean age 38.1 37.2 39.0 34.7 Age range 25 49 20 68 21 66 20 63 Gender Female 0 1 14.3 8 17.0 3 16.7 16 25.4 Male 1 6 85.7 39 83.0 15 83.3 47 74.6 Race White 1 1 14.3 21 44.7 15 83.3 21 33.3 Black 2 6 85.7 25 53.2 3 16.7 42 66.7 Asian 3 0 0.0 1 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 Juvenile Justice System History History present Yes= 1 0 0.0 5 10.6 0 0.0 15 23.8 Mean age of first arrest 0.0 16.6 0 1 4.6 Mean number of arrests 0.0 1.5 0 6.2 Violation of probation present Yes= 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 26.7 Adult Justice System History History present Yes= 1 7 100.0 35 74.5 9 50.0 55 87.3 No Florida (FL) history Yes= 1 1 14.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 FL & 1 additional jurisdiction 1 2 28.6 6 17.1 0 0.0 7 12.7 FL & 2 additional jurisdiction 2 0 0.0 1 2.9 0 0.0 2 3.6 FL & 3 additional jurisdiction 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Arrest history Mean age of first arrest 21.6 25.1 25.9 20.5 Mean number of arrests 12.1 6.8 6.0 13.4 Mean seriousness history 5.6 3.2 2.2 6.5 Range seriousness history 0 15 0 11 0 10 0 15

PAGE 389

389 Table I 2 Continued Failed to Report N= 7 Refused No Interest N= 47 Refused D one with Both Incentives N= 18 Ineligible Violated N=63 Codes N % N % N % N % Probation history Prior probation present Yes= 1 3 42.9 23 65.7 7 77.8 44 80.0 Mean number of probation 2.0 2.0 2.7 3.2 Mean longest probation senten ce (in months) 42.0 18.6 12.9 29.6 Violation of probation Violation of probation present Yes= 1 4 57.1 13 37.1 4 44.4 40 72.7 Mean number of violations 3.0 2.7 3.3 4.5 Mean number of new law violations 1.0 1.8 0.0 3.2 J ail history Jail sentence present Yes= 1 3 42.9 16 45.7 5 55.6 39 70.9 Mean number of jail sentences 6.3 3.1 3.4 4.6 Mean longest jail sentence (in days) 211 147.9 75.6 161.3 Prison history Prison sentence presen t Yes= 1 2 42.9 5 14.3 2 22.2 21 31.2 Mean number of prison sentences 4.3 3.2 1.0 3.8 Mean longest prison sentence (in months) 120 166.6 16.5 622.6 Parole violation present Yes= 1 1 33.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.8 Sanction seriousness history Mean sanction history 2.6 1.5 1.3 2.9 Range sanction history 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6

PAGE 390

390 Table I 2 Continued Failed to Report N= 7 Refused No Interest N= 47 Refused Done with Both Incentives N= 18 Ineligible Violated N=63 Codes N % N % N % N % Alternative sanction(s) present Yes= 1 0 0.0 1 2.9 0 0.0 4 7.3 Pretrial release violation present Yes= 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.8 Pretrial diversion present Yes= 1 0 0.0 3 8.6 0 0.0 2 3.6 Current Probation Type of offense Public order 1 4 57.1 26 55.3 11 61.1 24 38.1 Drug 2 2 28.6 4 8.5 2 11.1 12 19.0 Property 3 1 14.3 7 14.9 2 11.1 13 20.6 Violent 4 0 0.0 10 21.3 3 16.7 14 22.2 Charges Mean number of current charges 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.4 Reduction in charges Yes= 1 1 14.3 11 23.4 3 16.7 10 15.9 Reduction in counts Yes= 1 0 0.0 2 4.3 0 0.0 2 3.2 Reduction in offense level Yes= 1 1 14.3 6 12.8 2 11.1 13 20.6 Sentence Mean sentence length (in months) 10.3 11.4 11.0 10.2 Sentence range (in months) 6 12 6 12 6 12 6 12 Violation of probation Violation of probation present Yes= 1 1 14.3 13 27.6 3 16.7 54 85.7 New law violation present Yes= 1 1 100.0 6 46.2 2 66.7 32 Mean number of new law v iolations 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.3 Technical violation Yes= 1 1 100.0 9 69.2 3 100.0 52 96.3 Mean number of technical violations 4.0 1.9 3.0 3.8

PAGE 391

391 Table I 3 Not interviewed sample description of based on official d ata ineligible Ineligible End of Sentence N= 9 Ineligible Early Termination N= 17 Ineligible Mail in Status N= 20 Ineligible Administrative N=5 Codes N % N % N % N % Demographics Age Mean age 31.2 29.2 31.3 40.4 Age range 22 46 20 43 20 51 22 57 Gender Female 0 1 11.1 2 11.8 3 15.0 1 20.0 Male 1 8 88.9 15 88.2 17 85.0 4 80.0 Race White 1 4 44.4 13 76.5 16 80.0 3 60.0 Black 2 5 55.6 4 23.5 2 10.0 1 20.0 Asian 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 10.0 1 20.0 Juvenile Justice Sys tem History History present Yes= 1 0 0.0 1 5.9 3 15.0 1 20.0 Mean age of first arrest 0 0.0 17.0 15.3 15.0 Mean number of arrests 0 0.0 1.0 6.3 3.0 Violation of probation present Yes= 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 66.7 0 0.0 Adult Justice Syst em History History present Yes= 1 6 66.7 8 47.1 12 60.0 3 60.0 No Florida (FL) history Yes= 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 FL & 1 additional jurisdiction 1 0 0.0 1 5.9 1 8.3 0 0.0 FL & 2 additional jurisdiction 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 F L & 3 additional jurisdiction 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 8.3 0 0.0 Arrest history Mean age of first arrest 23.2 22.1 24.1 20.7 Mean number of arrests 2.3 4.8 8.9 2.3 Mean seriousness history 3.2 2.9 3.1 3.0 Range seriousness his tory 0 8 0 10 0 15 0 10

PAGE 392

392 Table I 3 Continued Ineligible End of Sentence N= 9 Ineligible Early Termination N= 17 Ineligible Mail in Status N= 20 Ineligible Administrative N=5 Codes N % N % N % N % Probation history Prior probat ion present Yes= 1 1 16.7 5 62.5 5 41.7 1 20.0 Mean number of probation 1.0 2.4 3.4 1.0 Mean longest probation sentence (in months) 12.0 9.6 20.4 12.0 Violation of probation Violation of probation present Yes= 1 0 0.0 4 50.0 7 58.3 1 20.0 Mean number of violations 0 0.0 2.5 2.7 1.0 Mean number of new law violations 0 0.0 2.3 1.8 1.0 Jail history Jail sentence present Yes= 1 1 16.7 3 37.5 5 41.7 1 33.3 Mean number of jail sentences 2.0 3.3 2.8 1.0 Mean longest jail sentence (in days) 90 130 115.2 364.0 Prison history Prison sentence present Yes= 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 25.0 0 0.0 Mean number of prison sentences 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 Mean longest prison sentence (in months) 0.0 0.0 400.0 0.0 Parole violation present Yes= 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Sanction seriousness history Mean sanction history 0.3 0.7 1.2 0.6 Range sanction history 0 2 0 3 0 6 0 3 Alternative sanction(s) present Yes= 1 0 0.0 1 12.5 1 8.0 0 0.0

PAGE 393

393 Table I 3 Continued Ineligible End of Sentence N= 9 Ineligible Early Termination N= 17 Ineligible Mail in Status N= 20 Ineligible Administrative N=5 Codes N % N % N % N % Pretrial release violation present Yes= 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Pretrial diversion present Yes= 1 2 22.2 2 25.0 0 0.0 1 33.3 Current Probation Type of offense Public order 1 3 33.3 8 47.1 13 65.0 4 80.0 Drug 2 3 33.3 4 23.5 1 5.0 0 0.0 Property 3 0 0.0 3 17.6 3 15.0 1 20.0 Violent 4 3 33.3 2 11.8 3 15.0 0 0.0 Charges Mean number of current charges 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.2 Reduction in charges Yes= 1 3 33.3 8 47.1 3 15.0 0 0.0 Reduction in counts Yes= 1 1 11.1 0 0.0 1 5.0 0 0.0 Reduction in offe nse level Yes= 1 5 55.6 2 11.8 6 30.0 0 0.0 Sentence Mean sentence length (in months) 10.0 10.9 11.1 10.8 Sentence range (in months) 6 12 6 12 6 12 6 12 Violation of probation Violation of probation present Yes= 1 1 11.1 0 0.0 4 20.0 0 0.0 New law violation present Yes= 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 10.0 0 0.0 Mean number of new law violations 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 Technical violation Yes= 1 1 100 0 0.0 4 20.0 0 0.0 Mean number of technical violations 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0

PAGE 394

394 APPENDIX J PERCENTAGES AND FREQ UENCIES BY SUBSAMPLE Table J 1 Percentages for severity scales based on factor a nalys is by s ubsample Severity scales based on factor analysis Random Subsample N=153 Convenience Subsample N=49 N NS SS S ES Mean N NS SS S ES Mean t Routine Condition Scale 1.5 1.6 0.40 Item 1: No new law violation 149 69.1 14.1 8.1 8.7 1.6 49 65.3 6.1 14.3 14.3 1.8 1.15 Item 2: Report monthly 153 64.7 15.0 9.2 11.1 1.7 49 53.1 18.4 18.4 10.2 1.9 1.10 Item 3: A nswer truthfully 153 75.2 7.8 7.8 9.2 1.5 49 75.5 6.1 14.3 4.1 1.5 0.30 Item 4: Notify PO of changes in residence 153 75.2 9.8 9.8 5.2 1.5 49 77.6 4.1 12.2 6.1 1.5 0.12 Item 5: Notify PO of changes in Employment 148 70.9 13.5 9.5 6.1 1.5 49 75.5 8.2 12.2 4.1 1.5 0.40 Offender Specific Scale 1.8 1.7 0.74 Item 1: Participate in mental health treatment 87 57.5 13.8 23.0 5.7 1.8 46 50.0 26.1 17.4 6.5 1.8 0.19 Item 2: Participate in employment program 84 58.3 19.0 20.2 2.4 1.7 43 53.5 27.9 9.3 9.3 1.7 0.44 Item 3: Complete 81 53.1 12.3 23.5 11.1 1.9 43 62.8 23.3 8.2 4.1 1.6 2.06* Item 4: Complete anger management 83 53.0 13.3 27.7 6.0 1.9 43 65.1 16.3 14.0 4.7 1.6 1.61 Item 5: No contact with victim 80 58.8 13.8 15.0 12.5 1.8 44 61.4 20.5 6.8 11.4 1.7 0.66 Item 6: Attend one victim impact panel 105 61.0 19.0 12.4 7.6 1.7 46 60.9 21.7 13.0 4.3 1.6 0.66 Likert Scale: NS= Not severe 1, SS= Somewhat severe 2, S= Severe 3 and EX= Extremely Sev ere 4 T test of Independent Samples p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 395

395 Table J 1 Continued Severity scales based on factor analysis Random Subsample N=153 Convenience Subsample N=49 N NS SS S ES Mean N NS SS S ES Mean t Offense Specific Scale 1.7 1.9 1.29 Item 1: Submit to random screens 133 57.9 15.8 14.3 12.0 1.8 47 36.2 21.3 25.5 17.0 2.2 2.27* Item 2: Do not possess or consume alcohol 137 57.7 20.4 13.1 8.8 1.7 48 45.8 22.9 16.7 14.6 2.0 1.49 Item 3: Do not possess or consume dru gs 138 76.1 7.2 9.4 7.2 1.5 47 63.8 14.9 10.6 10.6 1.7 1.18 Item 4: Participate in alcohol treatment (TX) 117 56.4 21.4 17.9 4.3 1.7 46 41.3 21.7 26.1 10.9 2.1 2.05* Item 5: Participate in drug TX 97 47.4 23.7 22.7 6.2 1.9 44 43.2 27.3 18.2 11.4 2.0 0.54 course 114 50.9 24.6 17.5 7.0 1.8 46 45.7 26.1 23.9 4.3 1.9 0.38 Punitive Activity Scale 2.4 2.2 0.92 Item 1: Complete mandatory CS hours 133 39.8 24.1 19.5 16.5 2.1 48 33.3 29.2 20.8 16.7 2.2 0.44 Item 2: Complete CS hours in lieu of fees 121 47.1 22.3 18.2 12.4 2.0 48 52.1 18.8 12.5 16.7 1.9 0.11 Item 3: Complete work crew days 99 30.2 18.2 27.3 24.2 2.5 46 37.0 10.9 30.4 21.7 2.4 0.40 Item 4: Complete a jail sentence 107 20.6 10.3 29 .9 39.3 2.9 46 28.3 10.9 28.3 32.6 2.7 1.07 Likert Scale: NS= Not severe 1, SS= Somewhat severe 2, S= Severe 3 and ES= Extremely severe 4 T test of Independent Samples p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 396

396 Table J 1 Continued Severity scales based on factor anal ysis Random Subsample N=153 Convenience Subsample N=49 N NS SS S ES Mean N NS SS S ES Mean t Punitive Restrictive Scale 2.4 2.7 1.44 suspended/revoked 120 20.0 20.0 24.4 35.8 2.8 47 12.8 14.9 19.1 53.2 3.1 1.93 Item 2: Abide with order of impoundment 107 34.6 17.8 28.0 19.6 2.3 46 34.8 13.0 23.9 28.3 2.5 0.60 Item 3: Abide by curfew 79 31.6 16.5 35.4 16.5 2.4 41 31.7 7.3 31.7 29.3 2.6 0.96 Standard Financial Scale 2.4 2.4 0.33 Item 1: Pay monthly cost of supervision 150 26.0 34.7 20.0 19.3 2.3 48 27.1 31.3 31.3 10.4 2.3 0.46 Item 2: Pay court costs 146 20.5 30.8 23.3 25.3 2.5 49 24.5 24.5 30.6 20.4 2.5 0.36 Standard Visit Scale 1.9 1.8 0.47 Item 1: Allow PO to visit residence 147 57.1 24.5 8.2 10.2 1.7 49 57.1 22.4 12.2 8.2 1.7 0.00 Item 2: Allow PO to visit employment site 138 47.8 23.9 10.1 18.1 2.0 49 49.0 26.5 14.3 10.2 1.9 0.73 Standard Employment Scale 1.7 1.7 0 .04 Item 1: Try to obtain employment 138 57.2 16.7 10.9 15.2 1.8 49 55.1 18.4 18.4 8.2 1.8 0.26 Item 2: Maintain employment/enrollment 137 62.8 16.8 11.7 8.8 1.7 49 57.1 26.5 12.2 4.1 1.6 0.21 Likert Scale: NS= Not severe 1, SS= Somewhat severe 2, S= Severe 3 and ES= Extremely severe 4 T test of Independent Samples p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 397

397 Table J 2 Percentage for s everi ty scales and variables based on the literature by g roup Severity scales based on literature Random Subsample N=153 Convenience S ubsample N=49 N NS SS S ES Mean N NS SS S ES Mean t Severity Standard Scale 1.8 1.8 0.03 Item 1: Commit no new law violation 149 69.1 14.1 8.1 8.7 1.6 49 65.3 6.1 14.3 14.3 1.8 1.15 Item 2: Report to probation once a month 153 64.7 15 .0 9.2 11.1 1.7 49 53.1 18.4 18.4 10.2 1.9 1.10 Item 3: Answer truthfully to inquiries by PO 153 75.2 7.8 7.8 9.2 1.5 49 75.5 6.1 14.3 4.1 1.5 0.27 Item 4: Notify PO of changes in residence 153 75.2 9.8 9.8 5.2 1.5 49 77.6 4.1 12.2 6.1 1.5 0.12 Ite m 5: Notify PO of changes in Employment 148 70.9 13.5 9.5 6.1 1.5 49 75.5 8.2 12.2 4.1 1.5 0.40 Item 6: Try to obtain employment 138 57.2 16.9 10.9 15.2 1.8 49 55.1 18.4 18.4 8.2 1.8 0.26 Item 7: Maintain employment/enrollment 137 62.8 16.8 11.7 8.8 1. 7 49 57.1 26.5 12.2 4.1 1.6 0.21 Item 8: Allow PO to visit residence 147 57.1 24.5 8.2 10.2 1.7 49 57.1 22.4 12.2 8.2 1.7 0.00 Item 9: Allow PO to visit employment site 138 47.8 23.9 10.1 18.1 2.0 49 49.0 26.5 14.3 10.2 1.9 0.73 Item 10: Pay monthly cost of supervision 150 26.0 34.7 20.0 19.3 2.3 48 27.1 31.3 31.3 10.4 2.3 0.46 Item 11: Pay court costs 146 20.5 30.8 23.3 25.3 2.5 49 24.5 24.5 30.6 20.4 2.5 0.36 Likert Scale: NS= Not severe 1, SS= Somewhat severe 2, S= Severe 3 and ES= Extremely se vere 4 T test of Independent Samples p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 398

398 Table J 2 Continued Severity scales based on literature Random Subsample N=153 Convenience Subsample N=49 N NS SS S ES Mean N NS SS S ES Mean t Severity Treatment Scale 133 57.9 15.8 14.3 12.0 1.7 1.8 1.23 Item 1: Submit to random screens 137 57.7 20.4 13.1 8.8 1.8 47 36.2 21.3 25.5 17.0 2.2 2.27 Item 2: Do not possess or consume alcohol 137 57.7 20.4 13.1 8.8 1.7 48 45.8 22.9 16.7 14.6 2.0 1.49 Item 3: Do not possess or consume drugs 138 76.1 7.2 9.4 7.2 1.5 47 63.8 14.9 10.6 10.6 1.7 1.18 Item 4: Participate in alcohol TX 117 56.4 21.4 17.9 4.3 1.7 46 41.3 21.7 26.1 10.9 2.1 2.05* Item 5: Participate in drug TX 97 47.4 23.7 22.7 6.2 1.9 44 43.2 27.3 18.2 11.4 2 .0 0.54 Item 6: Participate in mental health TX 87 57.5 13.8 23.0 5.7 1.8 46 50.0 26.1 17.4 6.5 1.8 0.19 Item 7: Participate in employment program 84 58.3 19.0 20.2 2.4 1.7 43 53.5 27.9 9.3 9.3 1.7 0.44 Item 8: Complete Milepost class 60 61.7 6.7 28.3 3.3 1.7 41 53.7 24.4 12.2 9.8 1.8 0.23 Item 9: Complete ntervention 81 53.1 12.3 23.5 11.1 1.9 43 62.8 23.3 9.3 4.7 1.6 2.06* Item 10: Complete anger management 83 53.0 13.3 27.7 6.0 1.9 43 65.1 16.3 14.0 4.7 1.6 1.61 Item 11: Att course 114 50.9 24.6 17.5 7.0 1.8 46 45.7 26.1 23.9 4.3 1.9 0.38 Likert Scale: NS= Not severe 1, SS= Somewhat severe 2, S= Severe 3 and ES= Extremely severe 4 T test of Independent Samples p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 399

399 Table J 2 Continued Se verity scales based on literature Random Subsample N=153 Convenience Subsample N=49 N NS SS S ES Mean N NS SS S ES Mean t Severity Punitive Scale 2.3 2.2 0.44 Item 1: Complete mandatory CS hours 133 39.8 24.1 19.5 16.5 2.1 48 33.3 29.2 20 .8 16.7 2.2 0.44 Item 2: Complete CS hours in lieu of fees 121 47.1 22.3 18.2 12.4 2.0 48 52.1 18.8 12.5 16.7 1.9 0.11 Item 3: Complete work crew days 99 30.3 18.2 27.3 24.2 2.5 46 37.0 10.9 30.4 21.7 2.4 0.40 Item 4: Complete a jail sentence 107 2 0.6 10.3 29.9 39.3 2.9 46 28.3 10.9 28.3 32.6 2.7 1.07 Item 5: Pay restitution 93 34.4 28.0 24.7 12.9 2.2 45 37.8 24.4 22.2 15.6 2.2 0.03 Item 6: No contact with victim 80 58.8 13.8 15.0 12.5 1.8 44 61.4 20.5 6.8 11.4 1.7 0.66 Item 7: Attend one vi ctim impact panel 105 61.0 19.0 12.4 7.6 1.7 46 60.9 21.7 13.0 4.3 1.6 0.36 suspended/revoked 120 20.0 20.0 24.2 35.8 2.8 47 12.8 14.9 19.1 53.2 3.1 1.93 Item 9: Abide with order of impoundment 107 34.6 17.8 28.0 19.6 2.3 46 34.8 13.0 23.9 28.3 2.5 0.60 Item 10: Abide by curfew 79 31.6 16.5 35.4 16.5 2.4 41 31.7 7.3 31.7 29.3 2.6 0.96 Overall Severity Scale 1.9 1.9 0.54 All thirty two conditions Likert Scale: NS= Not severe 1, SS= Somewhat severe 2, S= Severe 3 and ES= Extremely severe 4 T test of Independent Samples p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 400

400 Table J 3 Percentages for difficulty scales based on factor analysis by s ubsample Difficulty scales based on factor analysis Random S ubsample N=153 Convenience Subsample N=49 ND RE 50/50 SD VD Mean ND RE 50/50 SD VD Mean t Mandatory Attendance Scale 1.9 1.9 0.08 Item 1: Participate in alcohol TX 49.1 17.3 19.1 10.0 4.5 2.0 37.8 33.3 13.3 4.4 11.1 2.2 0.62 Item 2: Par ticipate in drug TX 48.9 12.2 17.8 18.9 2.2 2.1 51.2 25.6 7.0 4.7 11.6 2.0 0.54 Item 3: Participate in mental health TX 51.2 15.5 13.1 17.9 2.4 2.1 48.9 28.9 6.7 4.4 11.1 2.0 0.20 Item 4: Participate in employment program 50.0 28.0 11.0 8.5 2.4 1.9 5 2.4 28.6 7.1 4.8 7.1 1.9 .02 Item 5: Complete Milepost class 53.6 10.7 12.5 21.4 2.1 2.1 53.7 22.0 12.2 4.9 7.3 1.9 0.65 Item 6: Complete i ntervention 53.2 6.5 14.3 14.3 2.3 2.3 54.8 23.8 11.9 4.8 4.8 1.8 1.79 Item 7: Complete anger manag ement 52.4 14.3 13.1 15.5 2.1 2.1 55.8 20.9 11.6 7.0 4.7 1.8 0.97 Item 8: Attend 49.5 18.1 10.5 15.2 2.1 2.1 41.3 26.1 15.2 8.7 8.7 2.2 0.27 Item 9: Attend one victim impact panel 57.8 19.6 7.8 8.8 5.9 1.9 56.5 26.1 10.0 2.2 4.3 1.7 0 .69 Likert Scale: Not difficult= 1, Relatively easy= 2, About 50/50= 3, Somewhat difficult= 4, and Very difficult=5 T test of Independent Samples p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 401

401 Table J 3 Continued Difficulty scales based on factor analysis Random Subsampl e N=153 Convenience Subsample N=49 ND RE 50/50 SD VD Mean ND RE 50/50 SD VD Mean t Monetary Concerns Scale 3.1 3.0 0.55 Item 1: Pay monthly cost of supervision 26.0 12.0 20.0 24.0 18.0 3.0 26.5 18.4 22.4 16.3 16.3 2.8 0.78 Item 2: Pay co urt costs 20.5 13.0 15.8 26.0 24.7 3.2 20.4 10.2 20.4 26.5 22.4 3.2 0.03 Item 3: Complete work crew days 29.0 18.3 14.0 20.4 43.0 2.8 25.0 20.5 18.2 13.6 22.7 3.0 0.29 Item 4: Complete a jail sentence 22.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 43.0 3.6 24.4 11.1 4.4 20.0 4 0.0 3.4 0.58 Item 5: Pay restitution 23.9 13.6 15.9 25.0 21.6 3.1 29.5 20.5 13.6 18.2 18.2 2.8 1.15 Accountability Scale 1.8 2.0 1.46 Item 1: Answer truthfully to inquiries by PO 85.5 10.5 3.3 0.0 0.7 1.2 77.6 16.3 2.0 4.1 0 .0 1.3 1.15 Item 2: Submit to random screens 71.3 15.5 9.3 3.1 0.8 1.5 59.6 25.5 8.5 2.1 4.3 1.7 1.16 Item 3: Complete mandatory CS hours 38.6 19.7 18.9 11.4 11.4 2.4 29.8 19.1 19.1 12.8 19.1 2.7 1.41 Item 4: CS hours in lieu of fees 39.5 22.7 13 .4 14.3 10.1 2.3 38.3 17.0 17.0 6.4 21.3 2.6 0.86 Likert Scale: Not difficult= 1, Relatively easy= 2, About 50/50= 3, Somewhat difficult= 4, and Very difficult=5 T test of Independent Samples p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 402

402 Table J 3 Continued Difficult y scales based on factor analysis Random Subsample N=153 Convenience Subsample N=49 ND RE 50/50 SD VD Mean ND RE 50/50 SD VD Mean t Drug Employment Scale 1.8 1.9 0.54 Item 1: Try to obtain employment 88.4 9.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.2 43.8 18.8 18 .8 10.4 8.3 2.2 0.47 Item 2: Maintain employment 44.9 15.4 16.2 10.3 13.2 2.3 52.1 31.3 6.3 6.3 4.2 1.8 0.55 Item 3: No possess or consume drugs 77.0 15.6 3.7 3.0 0.7 1.4 67.4 19.6 6.5 0.0 6.5 1.6 1.38 Notification Scale 1.2 1.3 1.37 Item 1: Notify PO of changes in residence 86.8 10.5 1.3 0.7 0.7 1.2 77.6 16.3 4.1 2.0 0.0 1.3 1.25 Item 2: Notify PO of changes in Employment 88.4 9.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.2 77.6 16.3 4.1 2.0 0.0 1.3 1.45 Restriction Scale 2.7 2.7 0.18 Item 1: Commit no new law violation 73.6 13.5 6.8 4.7 1.4 1.5 71.4 8.2 12.2 4.1 4.1 1.6 0.83 Item 2: DL suspended/revoked 19.0 6.0 4.3 24.1 46.6 3.7 13.0 8.7 13.0 15.2 50.0 3.8 0.28 Item 3: Abide with impoundment 29.4 14.7 8.8 16 .7 30.4 3.0 35.6 13.3 8.9 15.6 26.7 2.8 0.65 Likert Scale: Not difficult= 1, Relatively easy= 2, About 50/50= 3, Somewhat difficult= 4, and Very difficult=5 T test of Independent Samples p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 403

403 Table J 3 Continued Difficulty scales based on factor Random Subsample N=153 Convenience Subsample N=49 ND RE 50/50 SD VD Mean ND RE 50/50 SD VD Mean t Difficulty Visits Scale 1.7 1.9 0.45 Item 1: Allow PO to visit residence 69.0 13.0 7.6 7.6 2.8 1.6 63.8 23.4 6.4 8.5 12.8 2.1 0.02 Item 2: PO to visit employment site 64.7 9.6 7.4 8.1 10.3 1.9 51.1 21.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 1.6 0.86 Difficulty scales based on factor Difficulty Standard Scale 1.8 1.9 0.90 Item 1: Commit no new law violation 73.6 13.5 6.8 4.7 1.4 1.5 71.4 8.2 12.2 4.1 4.1 1.6 0.83 Item 2: Report once a month 72.4 13.8 4.6 7.9 1.3 1.5 53.1 22.4 16.3 6.1 2.0 1.8 1.74 Item 3: Answer truthfully to inquiries 85.5 10.5 3.3 0.0 0.7 1.2 77.6 16.3 2.0 4.1 0.0 1.3 1.15 Item 4: Changes in r esidence 86.8 10.5 1.3 0.7 0.7 1.2 77.6 16.3 4.1 2.0 0.0 1.3 1.25 Item 5: Changes in employment 88.4 9.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.2 77.6 16.3 4.1 2.0 0.0 1.3 1.45 Item 6: Try to obtain employment 44.9 15.4 16.2 10.3 13.2 2.3 43.8 18.8 18.8 10.4 8.3 2.2 0.47 Item 7: Maintain employment 65.2 16.3 7.4 6.7 4.4 1.7 52.1 31.3 6.3 6.3 4.2 1.8 0.55 Item 8: Allow PO to visit residence 69.0 13.0 7.6 7.6 2.8 1.6 63.8 23.4 6.4 8.5 12.8 2.1 0.02 Item 9: PO to visit employment site 64.7 9.6 7.4 8.1 10.3 1.9 51.1 21.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 1.6 0.86 Item 10: Pay COS 26.0 12.0 20.0 24.0 18.0 3.0 26.5 18.4 22.4 16.3 16.3 2.8 0.78 Item 11: Court cost 20.5 13.0 15.8 26.0 24.7 3.2 20.4 10.2 20.4 26.5 22.4 3.2 0.03 Likert Scale: Not difficult= 1, Relatively easy= 2, About 50/50= 3 Somewhat difficult= 4, and Very difficult=5 T test of Independent Samples p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 404

404 Table J 4 Percentage for difficulty scales and variables based on the literature by g roup Difficulty scales based on literature Random Subsample N=153 Convenience Subsample N=49 ND RE 50/50 SD VD Mean ND RE 50/50 SD VD Mean t Difficulty Treatment Scale 1.8 1.9 0.83 Item 1: Submit to random screens 71.3 15.5 9.3 3.1 0.8 1.5 59.6 25.5 8.5 2.1 4.3 1.7 1.16 Item 2: No alcohol 60.3 16.9 13.2 6.6 2.9 1.8 51.1 25.5 14.9 2.1 6.4 1.9 0.63 Item 3: No drugs 77.0 15.6 3.7 3.0 0.7 1.4 67.4 19.6 6.5 0.0 6.5 1.6 1.38 Item 4: Participate in alcohol treatment 49.1 17.3 19.1 10.0 4.5 2.0 37.8 33.3 13.3 4.4 11.1 2.2 0.62 Item 5: Participate i n drug treatment 48.9 12.2 17.8 18.9 2.2 2.1 51.2 25.6 7.0 4.7 11.6 2.0 0.54 Item 6: Participate in mental health TX 51.2 15.5 13.1 17.9 2.4 2.1 48.9 28.9 6.7 4.4 11.1 2.0 0.20 Item 7: Participate in employment program 50.0 28.0 11.0 8.5 2.4 1.9 52.4 28.6 7.1 4.8 7.1 1.9 0.02 Item 8: Milepost class 53.6 10.7 12.5 21.4 2.1 2.1 53.7 22.0 12.2 4.9 7.3 1.9 0.65 i ntervention 53.2 6.5 14.3 14.3 2.3 2.3 54.8 23.8 11.9 4.8 4.8 1.8 1.79 Item 10: Complete anger management 52.4 14.3 13 .1 15.5 2.1 2.1 55.8 20.9 11.6 7.0 4.7 1.8 0.97 Item 11: Attend 49.5 18.1 10.5 15.2 2.1 2.1 41.3 26.1 15.2 8.7 8.7 2.2 0.26 Likert Scale: Not difficult= 1, Relatively easy= 2, About 50/50= 3, Somewhat difficult= 4, and Very difficult=5 T test of Independent Samples p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 405

405 Table J 4. Continued Difficulty scales based on literature Random Subsample N=153 Convenience Subsample N=49 ND RE 50/50 SD VD Mean ND RE 50/50 SD VD Mean t Difficulty Punitive Scale 2 .7 2.7 0.02 Item 1: Mandatory CS hours 38.6 19.7 18.9 11.4 11.4 2.4 29.8 19.1 19.1 12.8 19.1 2.7 1.41 Item 2: CS hours in lieu of fees 39.5 22.7 13.4 14.3 10.1 2.3 38.3 17.0 17.0 6.4 21.3 2.6 0.86 Item 3: Complete work crew days 29.0 18.3 14. 0 20.4 18.3 2.8 25.0 20.5 18.2 13.6 22.7 2.9 0.29 Item 4: Complete a jail sentence 22.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 43.0 3.6 24.4 11.1 4.4 20.0 40.0 3.4 0.58 Item 5: Pay restitution 23.9 13.6 15.9 25.0 21.6 3.1 29.5 20.5 13.6 18.2 18.2 2.8 1.15 Item 6: No conta ct with victim 53.8 11.3 10.0 11.3 13.8 2.2 59.1 31.8 6.8 2.3 0.0 1.5 3.34** Item 7: Attend one victim impact panel 57.8 19.6 7.8 8.8 5.9 1.9 56.5 26.1 10.9 2.2 4.3 1.7 0.69 Item 8: DL suspended/revoked 19.0 6.0 4.3 24.1 46.6 3.7 13.0 8.7 13.0 15.2 5 0.0 3.8 0.28 Item 9: Abide with impoundment 29.4 14.7 8.8 16.7 30.4 3.0 35.6 13.3 8.9 15.6 26.7 2.8 0.65 Item 10: Abide by curfew 42.1 9.2 7.9 22.4 18.4 2.7 37.2 14.0 14.0 7.0 27.9 2.7 0.27 Overall Difficulty Variable 16.4 19.1 29. 6 21.1 13.8 3.0 18.8 27.1 18.8 27.1 8.3 2.8 0.83 Likert Scale: Not difficult= 1, Relatively easy= 2, About 50/50= 3, Somewhat difficult= 4, and Very difficult=5 T test of Independent Samples p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 406

40 6 Table J 5 Percentages for obstacl es scales based on factor analysis by g roup Obstacles scales based on factor analysis Random Subsample N=153 Convenience Subsample N=49 N SD D A SA Mean N SD D A AS Mean t Transportation Attendance Obstacles Scale 2.2 2.3 0.12 Item 1: Fin ding time to report monthly 153 30.1 47.7 16.3 5.9 2.0 49 30.6 36.7 22.4 10.2 2.1 0.92 Item 2: Transportation to work 141 27.0 28.4 24.1 20.6 2.4 48 20.8 27.1 37.5 14.6 2.5 0.44 Item 3: Transportation to report monthly 152 28.9 33.6 21.1 16.4 2.3 48 22.9 39.6 27.1 10.4 2.3 0.00 Item 4: Transportation to do CS hours 143 29.4 29.4 21.7 19.6 2.3 48 27.1 31.3 35.4 6.3 2.2 0.66 Responsibility Obstacle Scale 2.4 2.7 2.07 Item 1: Finding a job 151 29.1 21.9 26.5 22.5 2.4 4 7 17.0 23.4 29.8 29.8 2.7 1.64 Item 2: Finding a good job 149 17.4 19.5 27.5 35.6 2.8 47 10.6 10.6 34.0 44.7 3.1 1.84 Item 3: Maintaining a residence 150 42.0 32.0 14.0 12.0 2.0 49 28.6 32.7 24.5 14.3 2.2 1.44 Tracking Obstacles S cale 2.6 2.6 0.49 Item 1: Paying court cost 147 10.2 23.8 37.4 28.6 2.8 48 16.7 22.9 33.3 27.1 2.7 0.79 Item 2: Paying COS 151 10.6 30.5 31.8 27.2 2.8 49 16.3 28.6 30.6 24.5 2.6 0.73 Item 3: Number of probation conditions 151 25.8 33.8 25. 2 15.2 2.3 47 29.8 19.1 34.0 17.0 2.4 0.47 Likert Scale: Strongly disagree= 1, Disagree= 2, Agree= 3, and Strongly agree= 4 T test of Independent Samples p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 407

407 Table J 5 Continued Obstacles scales based on factor analysis Random Subsample N=153 Convenience Subsample N=49 N SD D A SA Mean N SD D A AS Mean t Punitive Obstacles Scale 2.3 2.6 1.90 Item 1: Finding time to do CS hours 144 18.1 31.9 31.3 18.8 2.5 49 16.3 28.6 34.7 20.4 2.6 0.51 Item 2: Finding time to do work crew 114 33.3 20.2 28.1 18.4 2.3 48 20.8 27.1 33.3 18.8 2.5 1.01 Item 3: Paying restitution 116 33.6 20.7 25.0 20.7 2.3 46 13.0 28.3 32.6 26.1 2.7 2.14 Living Environment Scale 1.7 1.9 1.15 Item 1: Avoiding dri nking alcohol 145 37.9 38.6 17.9 5.5 1.9 48 50.0 31.3 14.6 4.2 1.7 1.25 Item 2: Avoiding using drugs 144 54.9 36.8 6.3 2.1 1.6 47 55.3 29.8 10.6 4.3 1.6 0.61 Item 3: Lack of family support 150 50.0 26.7 8.7 4.7 1.7 47 27.7 40.4 23.4 8.5 2.1 1.79 It em 4: Neighborhood conditions 151 49.0 29.8 12.6 8.6 1.8 47 34.0 44.7 14.9 6.4 1.9 2.05 Likert Scale: Strongly disagree= 1, Disagree= 2, Agree= 3, and Strongly agree= 4 T test of Independent Samples p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 408

408 APPENDIX K CORRELATIONS Table K 1 Correlations of severity s cales and personal characteristics v ariables Correlations of Severity Scales and Personal Characteristics Variables Scales based on factor analysis Age Race Gender Ethnicity Marital Status Parental Status Years of Education Employment Status Sample Routine Condition Scale 0.15* 0.18* 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.02 0.11 0.07 0.03 Item 1: No new law violation 0.15* 0.08 0.11 0.05 0.14 0.04 0.12 0.11 0.09 Item 2: Report monthly 0.09 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.02 0. 02 0.01 0.13 0.08 Item 3: Answer truthfully 0.16* 0.16 0.00 0.07 0.13 0.03 0.13 0.02 0.02 Item 4: Changes in residence 0.17* 0.21** 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.01 Item 5: Changes in Employment 0.10 0.23** 0.01 0.08 0.09 0.04 0. 07 0.04 0.03 Offender Specific Scale 0.14 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.09 0.07 Item 1: Mental health treatment 0.08 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.10 0.11 0.03 0.21* 0.02 Item 2: Employment program 0.10 0.23** 0.01 0.08 0.09 0.04 0. 07 0.04 0.03 i ntervention 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.17 Item 4: Anger management 0.12 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.13 0.14 Item 5: No contact with victim 0.09 0.06 0.01 0/03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.08 0. 06 Item 6: Victim impact panel 0.03 0.13 0.02 0.00 0.13 0.03 0.02 0.17* 0.03 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 409

409 Table K 1. Continued Correlations of Severity Scales and Personal Characteristics Variables Scales based on factor analysis Age Race Gende r Ethnicity Marital Status Parental Status Years of Education Employment Status Sample Offense Specific Scale 0.21 0 03 0.02 0.05 0.15 0.09 0.02 0.09 0.12 Item 1: Random screens 0.13 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.17* Item 2: No alco hol 0.18* 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.12 Item 3: No drugs 0.25 ** 0.11 0.05 0.07 0.13 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.09 Item 4: Alcohol TX 0.21 ** 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.20* 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.17* Item 5: Drug TX 0.16 0.10 0.04 0.02 0.17* 0. 15 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.12 0.05 0.13 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.03 Punitive Activity Scale 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.08 0.12 0.08 Item 1: Mandatory CS hours 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.14 0. 03 Item 2: CS hours in lieu of fees 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.15 0.06 0.03 0.14 0.01 Item 3: Work crew 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.18* 0.03 Item 4: Jail sentence 0.05 0.00 0.13 0.02 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.04 0.09 Punitive Restrictive Scale 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.14 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.14 Item 1: DL suspended/revoked 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.03 0.05 0.15 Item 2: Impoundment 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.05 Item 3: Abide by curfew 0.12 0.0 3 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.09 Standard Financial Scale 0.03 0.02 0.17* 0.15* 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.02 Item 1: Pay COS 0.30 0.01 0.17* 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 Item 2: Pay court costs 0.07 0.05 0.13 0.20** 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.02 0.03 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 410

410 Table K 1. Continued Correlations of Severity Scales and Personal Characteristics Variables Scales based on factor analysis Age Race Gender Ethnicity Marital Status Parental Status Years of Education E mployment Status Sample Standard Visit Scale 0.11 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.17* 0.05 0.03 Item 1: Visit residence 0.11 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.07 0.11 0.04 0.00 Item 2: Visit emply 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.10 0.20** 0.07 0.05 Standard Employment Scale 0.16* 0.20 ** 0.02 0.01 0.13 0.04 0.13 0.16* 0.00 Item 1: Obtain emply 0.13 0.09 0.02 0.04 0.17* 0.02 0.13 0.16* 0.02 Item 2: Maintain emply 0.12 0.21** 0.06 0.00 0.09 0.03 0.11 0.14 0.02 Sc ales based on literature Severity Standard Scale 0.14 0.17* 0.07 0.04 0.10 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.00 Item 1: No new law vio 0.15* 0.18* 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.02 0.11 0.07 0.03 Item 2: Report monthly 0.15* 0.08 0.11 0.05 0. 14 0.04 0.12 0.11 0.09 Item 3: Answer truthfully 0.09 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.13 0.08 Item 4: Changes in residence 0.16* 0.16 0.00 0.07 0.13 0.03 0.13 0.02 0.02 Item 5: Changes in employment 0.17* 0.21 ** 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.01 Item 6: Try to obtain employment 0.13 0.09 0.02 0.04 0.17* 0.02 0.13 0.16* 0.02 Item 7: Maintain employment 0.12 0.21 ** 0.06 0.00 0.09 0.03 0.11 0.14 0.02 Item 8: Visit residence 0.11 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.07 0.11 0 .04 0.00 Item 9: Visit employment 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.10 0.20** 0.07 0.05 Item 10: Pay COS 0.30 0.01 0.17* 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 Item 11: Pay costs 0.07 0.05 0.13 0.20** 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.02 0.03 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<. 001

PAGE 411

411 Table K 1. Continued Correlations of Severity Scales and Personal Characteristics Variables Scales based on literature Age Race Gender Ethnicity Marital Status Parental Status Years of Education Employment Status Sample Severity Treatment Scale 0 .17 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.14 0.03 0.01 0.23* 0.13 Item 1: Screens 0.13 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.17* Item 2: No alcohol 0.18* 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.12 Item 3: No drugs 0.25 ** 0.11 0.05 0.07 0.13 0.03 0.06 0.0 7 0.09 Item 4: Alcohol TX 0.21 ** 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.20* 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.17* Item 5: Drug treatment 0.16 0.10 0.04 0.02 0.17* 0.15 0.05 0.11 0.05 Item 6: Mental health 0.08 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.10 0.11 0.03 0.21* 0.02 Item 7: Employment pr ogram 0.10 0.23** 0.01 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.03 Item 8: Milepost class 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.16 0.15 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.17 Item 10: Anger mgt 0.12 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.13 0.14 course 0.01 0.04 0.12 0.05 0.13 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.03 Severity Punitive Scale 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.14 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.05 Item 1: Mandatory CS 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.14 0 .03 Item 2: CS in lieu of 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.15 0.06 0.03 0.14 0.01 Item 3: Work crew 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.18* 0.03 Item 4: Jail sentence 0.05 0.00 0.13 0.02 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.04 0.09 Item 5: Pay restitution 0.07 0.07 0.19* 0.00 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.00 Item 6: No contact 0.09 0.06 0.01 0/03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.06 Item 7: Victim impact 0.03 0.13 0.02 0.00 0.13 0.03 0.02 0.17* 0.03 Item 8: DL suspended 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.03 0.05 0.15 Item 9: Impoundment 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.05 Item 10: Curfew 0.12 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.09 Overall Severity Scale 0.10 0.22 0.05 0.01 0.18 0.10 0.05 0.17 0.06 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 412

412 Table K 2. Correlations of severity scales and previous criminal history v ariables Correlations of Severity Scales and Previous Criminal History Variables Scales based on factor analysis Previous History Seriousness History Prior Violent Off ense Prior Probation Prior Violation Jail History Prior Sentence History Routine Condition Scale 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 Item 1: No new law violation 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.12 0.02 0.04 Item 2: Report monthly 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.1 0 0.04 0.09 0.10 Item 3: Answer truthfully 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.02 Item 4: Changes in residence 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.00 Item 5: Changes in Employment 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.08 Offender Specific Sca le 0.03 0.17 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.17 0.20* Item 1: Mental health treatment 0.16 0.13 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.13 0.20* Item 2: Employment program 0.08 0.15 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.19* 0.18* ntervention 0.05 0.18* 0.06 0.00 0. 00 0.16 0.15 Item 4: Anger management 0.01 0.13 0.04 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.12 Item 5: No contact with victim 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.16* 0.04 0.02 0.05 Item 6: Victim impact panel 0.09 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.04 Offense Specific Scale 0.16 0.12 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.15 0.15 Item 1: Random screens 0.09 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.04 Item 2: No alcohol 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.17* 0.15* Item 3: No drugs 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.13 0.07 0.02 Item 4: Alcohol t reatment 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.25** 0.21** Item 5: Drug treatment 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.06 0.12 0.24** 0.23** 0.16* 0.15 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.05 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 413

413 Table K 2. Continued Correlations of Severity Scales and Previous Criminal History Variables Scales based on factor analysis Previous History Seriousness History Prior Violent Offense Prior Probation Prior Violation Jail History Prior Sentence History Punitive Activity Scale 0.03 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.14 0.08 0.07 Item 1: Mandatory CS hours 0.06 0.04 0.13 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.03 Item 2: CS hours in lieu of fees 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.15* 0.14 0.13 Item 3: Work crew days 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.07 Item 4: Jail sentence 0.17* 0.07 0.08 0.02 0.11 0.04 0.01 Punitive Restrictive Scale 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 Item 1: DL suspended/revoked 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.01 Item 2: Abide with impoundment 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.14 0.10 Item 3: Abide by curfew 0.12 0.14 0.07 0.02 0.13 0.09 0.09 Standard Financial Scale 0.06 0.11 0.12 0.02 0.03 0.11 0.07 Item 1: Pay monthly COS 0.03 0.08 0.11 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.04 Item 2: Pay court costs 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.05 0.13 0.08 Standard Visit Scale 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.05 Item 1: PO to visit residence 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.02 Item 2: PO to visit employment 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.05 0 .09 0.08 0.06 Standard Employment Scale 0.13 0.18* 0.10 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.06 Item 1: Try to obtain employment 0.12 0.17* 0.09 0.01 0.09 0.07 0.06 Item 2: Maintain employment 0.10 0.18* 0.12 0.01 0.06 0.10 0.08 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 414

414 T able K 2. Continued Correlations of Severity Scales and Previous Criminal History Variables Scales based on literature Previous History Seriousness History Prior Violent Offense Prior Probation Prior Violation Jail History Prior Sentence History Sev erity Standard Scale 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.00 Item 1: No new law violation 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.12 0.02 0.04 Item 2: Report monthly 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.10 0.04 0.09 0.10 Item 3: Answer truthfully 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.00 0 .05 0.02 Item 4: Changes in residence 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.00 Item 5: Changes in emply 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.08 Item 6: Obtain employment 0.12 0.17* 0.09 0.01 0.09 0.07 0.06 Item 7: Maintain emply 0.10 0.18* 0.12 0.01 0.06 0.10 0.08 Item 8: Visit residence 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.02 Item 9: Visit employment 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.06 Item 10: Pay monthly COS 0.03 0.08 0.11 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.04 Item 11: Pay court costs 0.08 0.13 0. 13 0.07 0.05 0.13 0.08 Severity Treatment Scale 0.07 0.09 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.14 0.15 Item 1: Random screens 0.09 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.04 Item 2: No alcohol 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.17* 0.15* Item 3: No drugs 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.13 0.07 0.02 Item 4: Alcohol treatment 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.25** 0.21** Item 5: Drug treatment 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.06 0.12 0.24** 0.23** Item 6: Mental health TX 0.16 0.13 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.13 0.20* Item 7: Emply program 0.08 0.15 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.19* 0.18* Item 8: Complete Milepost 0.10 0.12 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.14 0.15 i ntervention 0.05 0.18* 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.15 Item 10: Anger management 0.01 0.13 0.04 0 .07 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.16* 0.15 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.05 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 415

415 Table K 2. Continued Correlations of Severity Scales and Previous Criminal History Variables Scales based on factor analysis Previou s History Seriousness History Prior Violent Offense Prior Probation Prior Violation Jail History Prior Sentence History Severity Punitive Scale 0.06 0.08 0.01 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.09 Item 1: Mandatory CS hours 0.06 0.04 0.13 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.03 Item 2: CS hours in lieu of fees 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.15* 0.14 0.13 Item 3: Work crew days 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.07 Item 4: Jail sentence 0.17* 0.07 0.08 0.02 0.11 0.04 0.01 Item 5: Pay restitution 0.09 0.16 0.10 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.08 Item 6: No contact with victim 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.16* 0.04 0.02 0.05 Item 7: Victim impact panel 0.09 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.04 Item 8: DL suspended/revoked 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.01 Item 9: Abide with impou ndment 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.14 0.10 Item 10: Abide by curfew 0.12 0.14 0.07 0.02 0.13 0.09 0.09 Overall Severity Scale 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.06 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 416

416 Table K 3 Correlations of severity s cales and current offense and probation sentence v ariables Correlations of Severity Scales and Current Offense and Probation Sentence Variables Scales based on factor analysis Current Offense Type Violent Offense Plea Bargain Charge Level Reduction Vi olation of Probation New Law Violation Technical Violation Routine Condition Scale 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.12 0.14 Item 1: No new law violation 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.05 0.09 Item 2: Report monthly 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.09 I tem 3: Answer truthfully 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.13 0.13 Item 4: Changes in residence 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.12 Item 5: Changes in Employment 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.14* 0.19** Offender Specific Scale 0.08 0.14 0.17 0.10 0.05 0.24* 0.23* Item 1: Mental health TX 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.05 0.06 0.01 Item 2: Employment program 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.08 0.12 0.06 ntervention 0.11 0.16 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.24** 0.29** Item 4: Anger management 0.11 0 .16 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.16 0.18* Item 5: No contact with victim 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.13 0.09 0.22* 0.21* Item 6: Victim impact panel 0.05 0.08 0.15 0.02 0.04 0.12 0.11 Offense Specific Scale 0.06 0.03 0.11 0.05 0.01 0.08 0.06 Item 1: Ra ndom screens 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.12 0.10 Item 2: No alcohol 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.17* 0.14 Item 3: No drugs 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.13 0.22** 0.19* Item 4: Alcohol treatment 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.08 Item 5: Drug TX 0. 05 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.06 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 417

417 Table K 3 Continued Correlations of Severity Scales and Current Offense and Probation Sentence Variables Scales based on factor analysis Current Offense Type Violent Offense Plea Bargain Charge Level Reduction Violation of Probation New Law Violation Technical Violation Punitive Activity Scale 0.06 0.11 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.06 Item 1: Mandatory CS hours 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.13 0.07 0.09 0.06 Item 2: CS hours in lieu of fees 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.17* 0.15* 0.07 0.12 Item 3: Work crew days 0.00 0.07 0.15 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.08 Item 4: Jail sentence 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.01 0.01 Punitive Restrictive Scale 0.10 0.10 0.18 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.10 Item 1: DL suspended/revoked 0.03 0.10 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.06 Item 2: Abide with impoundment 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.03 Item 3: Abide by curfew 0.06 0.03 0.10 0.18* 0.13 0.15 0.15 Standard Financial Scale 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.16* 0.14 Item 1: Pay monthly COS 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.12 0.10 Item 2: Pay court costs 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.18* 0.15* Standard Visit Scale 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.08 Item 1: PO to visit residence 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.07 Item 2: PO to visit employment 0.08 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.12 0.08 Standard Employment Scale 0.14 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.15* 0.12 Item 1: Try to obtain emplo yment 0.09 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.09 0.16* 0.09 Item 2: Maintain employment 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.11 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 418

418 Table K 3 Continued Correlations of Seve rity Scales and Current Offense and Probation Sentence Variables Scales bas ed on literature Current Offense Type Violent Offense Plea Bargain Charge Level Reduction Violation of Probation New Law Violation Technical Violation Severity Standard Scale 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.19* 0.18* Item 1: No new law violation 0.05 0.0 1 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.05 0.09 Item 2: Report monthly 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.09 Item 3: Answer truthfully 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.13 0.13 Item 4: Changes in residence 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.12 Item 5: Changes in employment 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.14* 0.19** Item 6: Try to obtain employment 0.09 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.09 0.16* 0.09 Item 7: Maintain employment 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.11 Item 8: PO to visit residence 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.07 Item 9: PO to visit employment 0.08 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.12 0.08 Item 10: Pay monthly COS 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.12 0.10 Item 11: Pay court costs 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.18* 0.15* Severity Treatment Scale 0.03 0.06 0.16 0.04 0.0 4 0.16 0.17 Item 1: Random screens 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.12 0.10 Item 2: No alcohol 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.17* 0.14 Item 3: No drugs 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.13 0.22** 0.19* Item 4: Alcohol treatment 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.0 8 Item 5: Drug treatment 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.07 Item 6: Mental health Treatment 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.05 0.06 0.01 Item 7: Employment program 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.08 0.12 0.06 Item 8: Complete Milepost class 0.03 0.05 0.15 0. 09 0.03 0.01 0.08 ntervention 0.11 0.16 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.24** 0.29** Item 10: Anger management 0.11 0.16 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.16 0.18* 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.06 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 419

419 Table K 3 Continued Correlations of Severity Scales and Current Offense and Probation Sentence Variables Scales based on literature Current Offense Type Violent Offense Plea Bargain Charge Level Reduction Violation of Probation New Law Violation Technical Violation Severity Punitive Scale 0.12 0.13 0.23* 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.09 Item 1: Mandatory CS hours 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.13 0.07 0.09 0.06 Item 2: CS hours in lieu of fees 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.17* 0.15* 0.07 0.12 Item 3: Work crew days 0.00 0.07 0.15 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.08 Item 4: Jail sentence 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.01 0.01 Item 5: Pay restitution 0.05 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.08 Item 6: No contact with victim 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.13 0.09 0.22* 0.21* Item 7: Victim impact pane l 0.05 0.08 0.15 0.02 0.04 0.12 0.11 Item 8: DL suspended/revoked 0.03 0.10 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.06 Item 9: Abide with impoundment 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.03 Item 10: Abide by curfew 0.06 0.03 0.10 0.18* 0.13 0.15 0.15 Ov erall Severity Scale 0.13 0.10 0.20 0.01 0.06 0.17 0.17 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 420

420 Table K 4 Correlations of difficulty scales and personal characteristics v ariables Correlations of Difficulty Scales/Variable and Personal Characteristics Variables Sc ales based on factor analysis Age Race Gender Ethnicity Marital Status Parental Status Years of Education Employment Status Sample Mandatory Attendance Scale 0.13 0.12 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.12 0.60 0.15 0.01 Item 1: Alcohol TX 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.0 7 0.16* 0.12 0.02 0.05 Item 2: Drug treatment 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.13 0.22** 0.08 0.10 0.05 Item 3: Mental health TX 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.11 0.19* 0.03 0.12 0.02 Item 4: Emply program 0.15 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.01 0 .00 Item 5: Milepost class 0.16 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.07 i ntervention 0.04 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.02 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.15 Item 7: Anger mgt 0.02 0.16 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.18* 0.06 0.17 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.22* 0.02 Item 9: Victim impact 0.11 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.17 0.02 0.05 Monetary Concerns Scale 0.02 0.01 0.19* 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.05 Item 1: Pay COS 0.00 0.01 0.15* 0.11 0 .13 0.06 0.03 0.08 0.06 Item 2: Pay court costs 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.17* 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 Item 3: Work crew 0.00 0.18* 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.21* 0.15 0.04 0.03 Item 4: Jail sentence 0.06 0.00 0.15 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.14 0.09 0.05 I tem 5: Pay restitution 0.17 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.06 Accountability Scale 0.04 0.19* 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.37** 0.13 Item 1: Answer truthfully 0.03 0.04 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.13 0.10 0.05 0.09 Item 2: Screens 0.01 0.04 0.20* 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.16* 0.10 Item 3: Mandatory CS 0.02 0.18* 0.10 0.70 0.00 0.19* 0.01 0.12 0.11 Item 4: CS in lieu of 0.05 0.15* 0.06 0.20* 0.03 0.18* 0.01 0.05 0.07 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 421

421 Table K 4 Co ntinued Corre lations of Difficulty Scales/Variables and Personal Characteristics Variables Scales based on factor analysis Age Race Gender Ethnicity Marital Status Parental Status Years of Education Employment Status Sample Drug Employment Scale 0.08 0.11 0.12 0. 01 0.12 0.03 0.09 0.24** 0.05 Item 1: Obtain employment 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.30** 0.03 Item 2: Maintain employment 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.08 0.01 0.09 0.07 0.13 0.40 Item 3: No drugs 0.07 0.13 0.12 0.04 0.10 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.12 Notification Scale 0.10 0.04 0.13 0.08 0.03 0.14* 0.04 0.04 0.11 Item 1:Changes in residence 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.03 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.10 Item 2: Changes in employment 0.08 0.00 0.13 0.06 0.03 0.16* 0.01 0.10 0.12 Restriction Scale 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.13 0.08 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.02 Item 1: No new law violation 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.12 0.11 0.01 0.07 Item 2: DL suspended 0.06 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.02 Item 3: Impoundment 0 .05 0.03 0.07 0.18* 0.01 0.14 0.08 0.09 0.05 Difficulty Visits Scale 0.02 0.00 0.19* 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.03 Item 1: Visit residence 0.03 0.03 0.19** 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.00 Item 2: Visit employment 0.02 0.03 0.17* 0.0 8 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.07 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 422

422 Tab le K 4 Continued Correlations of Difficulty Scales/Variables and Personal Characteristics Variables Scales based on literature Age Race Gender Ethnicity Marital Status Parental Status Years of Education Employment Status Sample Difficulty Standard Scale 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.21** 0.13 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.07 Item 1: No new law vio 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.12 0.11 0.01 0.07 Item 2: Report monthly 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.15* 0.17* 0.12 0.05 0.09 0.13 Item 3: Answer 0.03 0.04 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.13 0.10 0.05 0.09 Item 4: Changes in residence 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.03 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.10 Item 5: Changes in emply 0.08 0.00 0.13 0.06 0.03 0.16* 0.01 0.10 0.12 Item 6: Obtain emply 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.30** 0.03 Item 7: Maintain emply 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.08 0.01 0.09 0.07 0.13 0.40 Item 8: Visit residence 0.03 0.03 0.19** 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.00 Item 9: Visit emply 0.02 0.03 0.17* 0.08 0.09 0 .12 0.09 0.08 0.07 Item 10: Pay COS 0.00 0.01 0.15* 0.11 0.13 0.06 0.03 0.08 0.06 Item 11: Pay costs 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.17* 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 Difficulty Treatment Scale 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.00 0.05 0.12 0.04 0.16 0.05 It em 1: Screens 0.01 0.04 0.20* 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.16* 0.10 Item 2: No alcohol 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.00 0.11 0.18* 0.05 0.01 0.05 Item 3: No drugs 0.07 0.13 0.12 0.04 0.10 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.12 Item 4: Alcohol TX 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.16* 0.12 0.02 0.05 Item 5: Drug treatment 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.13 0.22** 0.08 0.10 0.05 Item 6: Mental health 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.11 0.19* 0.03 0.12 0.02 Item 7: Emply program 0.15 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.01 0.00 Item 8: Milepost class 0.16 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.04 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.02 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.15 Item 10: Anger mgt 0.02 0.16 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.18* 0.06 0.17 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.22* 0.02 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 423

423 Table K 4 Continued Correlations of Difficulty Scales/Variables and Personal Characteristics Variables Scales based on literature Age Race Gender Ethnicity Marital Status Parental Status Years of Education Employment Status Sample Difficulty Punitive Scale 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.07 0.14 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.00 Item 1: Mandatory CS hours 0.02 0.18* 0.10 0.70 0.00 0.19* 0.01 0.12 0.11 Item 2: CS hours in lieu of fees 0.05 0.15* 0.06 0.20* 0.03 0.18* 0.01 0.05 0.07 Item 3: Work crew days 0.00 0.18* 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.21* 0.15 0.04 0.03 Item 4: Jail sentence 0.06 0.00 0.15 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.14 0.09 0.05 Item 5: Pay restitution 0.17 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.06 I tem 6: No contact with victim 0.02 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.24** Item 7: Victim impact panel 0.11 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.17 0.02 0.05 Item 8: DL suspended/revoked 0.06 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.02 Item 9: Abi de with impoundment 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.18* 0.01 0.14 0.08 0.09 0.05 Item 10: Abide by curfew 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.03 Overall Difficulty Variable 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.27** 0.08 0.15* 0.04 0.00 0.06 p<.05 **p<. 01 ***p<.001

PAGE 424

424 Table K 5 Correlations of difficulty scales/variables and previous criminal history v ariables Correlations of Difficulty Scales/Variables and Previous Criminal History Variables Scales based on factor analysis Previous History Serious ness History Prior Violent Offense Prior Probation Prior Violation Jail History Prior Sentence History Mandatory Attendance Scale 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.21* 0.06 0.06 0.00 Item 1: Alcohol treatment 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.13 0.05 0.09 0.02 Item 2: Drug treatment 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.06 Item 3: Mental health TX 0.19* 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.09 Item 4: Employment program 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.11 0.03 0.10 0.03 Item 5: Milepost class 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.18 0.05 0.04 0 .02 ntervention 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.11 0.01 0.05 0.00 Item 7: Anger management 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.14 0.10 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.10 0.07 0.16* 0.07 Item 9: Victim impact panel 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.1 0 0.01 0.12 0.08 Monetary Concerns Scale 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.08 Item 1: Pay monthly COS 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.06 0.03 Item 2: Pay court costs 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.13 0.10 0.06 Item 3: Work crew days 0.10 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02 Item 4: Jail sentence 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.01 Item 5: Pay restitution 0.07 0.16 0.01 0.21* 0.11 0.15 0.21* Accountability Scale 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.09 0.11 0.04 Item 1: Answer tr uthfully 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.01 Item 2: Random screens 0.00 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.02 Item 3: Mandatory CS hours 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.14 0.15* 0.90 Item 4: CS hours in lieu of 0.10 0.03 0.12 0.01 0.11 0.10 0.03 Drug Employment Scale 0.03 0.19* 0.15* 0.02 0.12 0.01 0.00 Item 1: Obtain employment 0.02 0.14 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.01 Item 2: Maintain employment 0.01 0.14 0.13 0.03 0.11 0.01 0.03 Item 3: No drugs 0.07 0.16* 0.12 0.07 0.18* 0.02 0.00 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 425

425 Table K 5 Continued Correlations of Difficulty Scales/Variables and Previous Criminal History Variables Scales based on factor analysis Previous History Seriousness History Prior Violent Offense Prior Probation Prior Violation Jail History Prior Sentence History Notification Scale 0.10 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.08 0.07 Item 1:Changes in residence 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.06 Item 2: Changes in emply 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.08 Restriction Scale 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.09 0.10 Item 1: No new law violation 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.09 Item 2: DL suspended/revoked 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.10 Item 3: Impoundment 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.12 0.10 0.05 Difficulty Visits Scale 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.06 Item 1: Visit residence 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.09 Item 2: Visit employment 0.04 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 Scales based on literature Difficulty Standard Scale 0.09 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.11 Item 1: No new law violation 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.09 Item 2: Report monthly 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.10 0.09 Item 3: Answer truthfully 0.03 0 .03 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.01 Item 4: Changes in residence 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.06 Item 5: Changes in emply 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.08 Item 6: Obtain employment 0.02 0.14 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.01 Item 7: Maintain employment 0.01 0.14 0.13 0.03 0.11 0.01 0.03 Item 8: Visit residence 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.09 Item 9: Visit employment 0.04 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 Item 10: Pay monthly COS 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.06 0.03 It em 11: Pay court costs 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.13 0.10 0.06 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 426

426 Table K 5 Continued Correlations of Difficulty Scales/Variables and Previous Criminal History Variables Scales based on literature Previous History Seriousness History Prior Violent Offense Prior Probation Prior Violation Jail History Prior Sentence History Difficulty Treatment Scale 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.18 0.06 0.07 0.02 Item 1: Random screens 0.00 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.02 Item 2: No alcohol 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.11 Item 3: No drugs 0.07 0.16* 0.12 0.07 0.18* 0.02 0.00 Item 4: Alcohol treatment 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.13 0.05 0.09 0.02 Item 5: Drug treatment 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.06 Item 6: Mental health TX 0.1 9* 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.09 Item 7: Employment program 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.11 0.03 0.10 0.03 Item 8: Milepost class 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.18 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.11 0.01 0.05 0.00 Item 10: Anger managem ent 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.14 0.10 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.10 0.07 0.16* 0.07 Difficulty Punitive Scale 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.07 0.09 0.04 Item 1: Mandatory CS hours 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.14 0.15* 0.9 0 Item 2: CS hours in lieu of 0.10 0.03 0.12 0.01 0.11 0.10 0.03 Item 3: Work crew days 0.10 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02 Item 4: Jail sentence 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.01 Item 5: Pay restitution 0.07 0.16 0.01 0.21* 0.1 1 0.15 0.21* Item 6: No contact 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.04 Item 7: Victim impact panel 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.01 0.12 0.08 Item 8: DL suspended 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.10 Item 9: Impoundment 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.12 0.10 0.05 Item 10: Abide by curfew 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.17 0.10 0.14 Overall Difficulty Variable 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.07 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 427

427 Table K 6 Correlations of difficulty scales/variables and current offense and probation sentence v ariables Correlations of Difficulty Scales/Variables and Current Offense and Probation Sentence Variables Scales based on factor analysis Current Offense Type Violent Offense Plea Bargain Charge Level Reduction Violation of Probation New Law Violation Technical Violation Severity Mandatory Attendance Scale 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.15 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.42** Item 1: Alcohol TX 0.01 0.13 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.28* Item 2: Drug TX 0.03 0.09 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.04 0.11 0.36** Item 3: Mental health 0.08 0.03 0.09 0.18 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.39** Item 4: Employment program 0.15 0.02 0.11 0.12 0.03 0.11 0.09 0.37** Item 5: Milepost class 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.15 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.43** 0.05 0.0 6 0.05 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.31** Item 7: Anger mgt 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.12 0.10 0.06 0.01 0.32** course 0.10 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.08 0.14 0.32** Item 9: Victim impact 0.13 0.18* 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.08 0.32** Monetary Concerns Scale 0.13 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.35 Item 1: Pay COS 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.11 Item 2: Pay costs 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.08 0.13 0.07 0.05 0.20 Item 3: Work crew 0.19* 0.12 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.03 0 .06 0.39** Item 4: Jail sentence 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.02 0.05 0.31** Item 5: Pay restitution 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.31** Accountability Scale 0.15 0.07 0.02 0.13 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.22* Item 1: Truthfully 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.12 Item 2: Mandatory CS 0.13 0.07 0.03 0.13 0.14 0.03 0.00 0.14 Item 3: CS in lieu of 0.15 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.15 Item 4: Screens 0.05 0.11 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.07 0.08 0.28* p<.05 **p<. 01 ***p<.001

PAGE 428

428 Table K 6. Continued Correlations of Difficulty Scale s/Variables and Current Offense and Probation Sentence Variables Scales based on factor analysis Current Offense Type Violent Offense Plea Bargain Charge Level Reduction Violation of Prob ation New Law Violation Technical Violation Severity Drug Employment Scale 0.10 0.13 0.06 0.02 0.12 0.04 0.10 0.23* Item 1: Obtain employment 0.10 0.12 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.12 Item 2: Maintain employment 0.12 0.13 0.07 0.05 0.11 0.04 0.12 0.2 7* Item 3: No drugs 0.04 0.09 0.06 0.12 0.18* 0.08 0.06 0.15 Notification Scale 0.08 0.09 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.30** Item 1:Changes in residence 0.10 0.14* 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.27* Item 2: Changes in employment 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.31** Restriction Scale 0.12 0.17* 0.14 0.11 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.28* Item 1: No new law vio lation 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.22** Item 2: DL suspended 0.07 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.15 Item 3: Impoundment 0.07 0.09 0.14 0.22** 0.12 0.02 0.10 0.33** Difficulty Visits Scale 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.16 Item 1: PO to visit residence 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.13 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.21 Item 2: PO to visit employment 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.10 0.04 0.10 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 429

429 Table K 6. Continued Correlations of Difficulty Scales/Variables and Current Offense and Probation Sentence Variables Scales based on literature Current Offense Type Violent Offense Plea Bargain Charge Level Reduction Violation of Probation New Law Violation Technical Violation Severity Difficulty Standard Scale 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.36** Item 1: No new law vio 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.22** Item 2: Report monthly 0.07 0.08 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.24* Item 3: Answer truthfully 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.12 Item 4: Changes in residence 0.10 0.14* 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.27* Item 5: Changes in emply 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.05 0. 00 0.01 0.08 0.31** Item 6: Obtain emply 0.10 0.12 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.12 Item 7: Maintain emply 0.12 0.13 0.07 0.05 0.11 0.04 0.12 0.27* Item 8: Visit residence 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.13 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.21 Item 9: Visit employment 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.10 0.04 0.10 Item 10: Pay COS 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.11 Item 11: Pay court costs 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.08 0.13 0.07 0.05 0.20 Difficulty Treatment Scale 0.11 0.09 0.04 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.09 0. 41** Item 1: Random screens 0.05 0.11 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.07 0.08 0.28* Item 2: No alcohol 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.17 Item 3: No drugs 0.04 0.09 0.06 0.12 0.18* 0.08 0.06 0.15 Item 4: Alcohol treatment 0.01 0.13 0.02 0.06 0.05 0. 07 0.11 0.28* Item 5: Drug treatment 0.03 0.09 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.04 0.11 0.36** Item 6: Mental health TX 0.08 0.03 0.09 0.18 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.39** Item 7: Emply program 0.15 0.02 0.11 0.12 0.03 0.11 0.09 0.37** Item 8: Milepost cla ss 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.15 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.43** 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.31** Item 10: Anger mgt 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.12 0.10 0.06 0.01 0.32** 0.10 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.08 0.14 0.32** p <.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 430

430 Table K 6. Continued Correlations of Difficulty Scale s/Variables and Current Offense and Probation Sentence Variables Current Offense Type Violent Offense Plea Bargain Charge Level Reduction Violation of Probation New Law Violati on Technical Violation Severity Difficulty Punitive Scale 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.20 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.42** Item 1: Mandatory CS hours 0.13 0.07 0.03 0.13 0.14 0.03 0.00 0.14 Item 2: CS hours in lieu of fees 0.15 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.03 0.04 0 .15 Item 3: Work crew days 0.19* 0.12 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.39** Item 4: Jail sentence 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.02 0.05 0.31** Item 5: Pay restitution 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.31** Item 6: No contact with victim 0. 02 0.07 0.13 0.11 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.25* Item 7: Victim impact panel 0.13 0.18* 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.08 0.32** Item 8: DL suspended/revoked 0.07 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.15 Item 9: Abide with impoundment 0.07 0.09 0.14 0.22** 0.12 0. 02 0.10 0.33** Item 10: Abide by curfew 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.17 0.09 0.08 0.26* Overall Difficulty Variable 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.03 0.01 0.16 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 431

431 Table K 7 Correlations of obstacles scales and personal characteristics v ariables Correlations of Obstacles Scales and Personal Characteristics Variables Scales based on factor analysis Age Race Gender Ethnicity Marital Status Parental Status Years of Education Employment Status Sample Transportation Atte ndance Obstacles Scale 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.15* 0.12 0.02 0.01 Item 1: Time to report 0.15* 0.08 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.10 0.04 0.07 0.07 Item 2: Transport work 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.07 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 Item 3: Transport PO 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.05 0.00 Item 4: Transport CS 0.14 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.04 0.12 0.17* 0.02 0.04 Responsibility Obstacle Scale 0.17* 0.02 0.10 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.16* 0.14 Item 1: Find a job 0.14* 0.02 0.1 3 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.23** 0.11 Item 2: Find a good job 0.27** 0.03 0.13 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.09 0.14 0.13 Item 3: Maintain home 0.01 0.13 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.12 Tracking Obstacles Scale 0.12 0.06 0.12 0.14 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.04 Item 1: Paying cost 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.14 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.06 Item 2: Paying COS 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.05 Item 3: Condition 0.11 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.03 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.04 Puni tive Obstacles Scale 0.08 0.01 0.11 0.21* 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.11 0.15 Item 1: Time CS 0.12 0.07 0.04 0.19** 0.05 0.09 0.01 0.06 0.04 Item 2: Time WC 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.21** 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.11 0.08 Item 3: Restitution 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.16* 0.06 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.16* Living Environment Scale 0.15* 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.19 0.10 0.09 Item 1: Avoid alcohol 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.16* 0.01 0.04 0.09 Item 2: Avoid drugs 0.09 0.05 0.13 0.00 0.05 0.18* 0.13 0.02 0.05 Item 3: No family 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.14 0.00 0.10 0.12 0.14* Item 4: Neighborhood 0.12 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.27** 0.07 0.13 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 432

432 Table K 8 Correlations of obstacles scales and previous criminal hi story v ariables Correlations of Obstacles Scales and Previous Criminal History Variables Scales based on factor analysis Previous History Seriousness History Prior Violent Offense Prior Probation Prior Violation Jail History Prior Sentence History Tra nsportation Attendance Obstacles Scale 0.17* 0.01 0.08 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.03 Item 1: Time to report monthly 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.05 Item 2: Transportation to work 0.25** 0.02 0.09 0.11 0.05 0.04 0.01 Item 3: Transportation to re port 0.09 0.01 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.09 Item 4: Transportation to do CS 0.11 0.00 0.08 0.13 0.00 0.02 0.01 Responsibility Obstacle Scale 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.13 0.02 0.07 0.05 Item 1: Finding a job 0.05 0.03 0.09 0.14 0.04 0.10 0.07 Item 2: Finding a good job 0.11 0.03 0.03 0.18* 0.01 0.12 0.11 Item 3: Maintaining a residence 0.02 0.13 0.07 0.02 0.12 0.06 0.06 Tracking Obstacles Scale 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.10 0.05 0.08 0.06 Item 1: Paying court cos t 0.11 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.01 Item 2: Paying monthly COS 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.01 Item 3: Number of conditions 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.13 0.13 Punitive Obstacles Scale 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.07 0.07 0.10 Item 1: Time to do CS hours 0.15* 0.08 0.06 0.18* 0.14 0.13 0.12 Item 2: Time to do work crew 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.05 Item 3: Paying restitution 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.02 Living Environ ment Scale 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.14 0.01 0.08 0.14 Item 1: Avoid drinking alcohol 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.16* 0.03 0.13 0.17* Item 2: Avoid using drugs 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.09 0.02 0.02 Item 3: Lack of family support 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.12 Item 4: Neighborhood 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.12 0.04 0.05 0.04 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 433

433 Table K 9 Cor relations of obstacles scales and current offense and probation sentence v ariables Correlations of Obstacles Scales and Current Offense a nd Probation Sentence Variables Scales based on factor analysis Current Offense Violent Offense Plea Bargain Charge Level Violation of New Law Technical Violation Severity Type Reduction Probation Violation Transportation Attendance Obstacles S cale 0.13 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.19 Item 1: Time report 0.04 0.10 0.02 0.11 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.32** Item 2: Transport work 0.20** 0.12 0.11 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 Item 3: Transport report 0.14 0.05 0.12 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.18 Item 4: Transport CS 0.09 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 Responsibility Obstacle Scale 0.02 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.22 Item 1: Find a job 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.11 0.15 Item 2: Find a good job 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.11 0.09 0.03 Item 3: Maintain a residence 0.01 0.00 0.14 0.04 0.12 0.00 0.07 0.37** Tracking Obstacles Scale 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.12 Item 1: Pay COS 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.10 0.05 Item 2: Pay court cost 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.09 Item 3: Number of conditions 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.10 0.08 0.16 Punitive Obstacles Scale 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.16* 0.07 0.05 0.13 0.22 Item 1: Time to do CS hours 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.11 0.14 0.04 0.02 0.24* Item 2: Time to do work crew 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.11 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.28* Item 3: Paying restitution 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.11 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.03 Living Environment Scale 0.02 0.09 0.05 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 Item 1: Avoid drinking alcohol 0.13 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.11 0.13 Item 2: Avoid using drugs 0.06 0.16* 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.08 Item 3: Lack of family support 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.02 Item 4: Neighborh ood conditions 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.09 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 434

434 APPENDIX L REGRESSIONS Table L 1 Pred icting perceived severity t otal m odels Severity Scales Routine Condition Scale Offender Specific Scale Offense Specific Scale Variable b SE B b SE B b SE B Personal Characteristics Age 0.01 0.01 1.00 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.01 0.01 0.12 Race 0.17 0.22 0.80 0.06 0.22 0.08 0.19 0.21 0.12 Gender 0.10 0.18 0.06 0.24 0.19 0.17 0.03 0.17 0.92 Ethnicity 0.62 0.46 0.15 0.10 0.41 0.03 0.15 0.38 0.05 Marital status 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.56 0.31 0.25 0.28 0.25 0.13 Parental status 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.26 0.19 0.19 0.06 0.18 0.04 Years of education 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.03 Empl oyment status 0.19 0.06 0.32 0.41 0.19 0.28 0.17 0.17 0.11 Sample 0.27 0.22 0.14 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.17 0.03 Previous Criminal History Previous history 0.19 0.26 0.09 0.45 0.26 0.27 0.11 0.24 0.07 Seriousness history 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.02 0.04 0.12 Prior violent offense 0.10 0.22 0.06 0.02 0.23 0.01 0.06 0.23 0.03 Prior probation 0.12 0.24 0.07 0.13 0.24 0.09 0.08 0.23 0.06 Prior violation 0.06 0.24 0.07 0.08 0.16 0.05 0.02 0.14 0.01 Jail history 0.06 0.34 0.03 0.39 0.38 0.27 0.45 0.36 0.29 Prior sentence 0.02 0.11 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.22 0.06 0.12 0.13 Current Offense and Probation Current offense 0.02 0.13 0.04 0.05 0.13 0.09 0.08 0.13 0.13 Violent offense 0.24 0.39 0.12 0 .30 0.32 0.18 0.00 0.33 0.00 Plea bargain 0.24 0.22 0.12 0.37 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.10 Charge level reduction 0.02 0.26 0.10 0.16 0.21 0.09 0.00 0.20 0.00 Violation of probation 0.10 0.24 0.01 0.36 0.24 0.25 0.18 0.23 0.12 New law violat ion 0.38 0.35 0.17 0.05 0.34 0.02 0.07 0.34 0.03 Technical violation 0.07 0.29 0.04 0.20 0.27 0.12 0.14 0.26 0.07 Constant 3.09 0.98 2.07 0.71 2.44 0.74 R square 0.24 0.28 0.14 Adjusted R square 0.05 0.03 0.07 SEE 0.82 0.69 0.78 df 22 22 22 F value 1.25 1.12 0.67 N 86 115 125 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 435

435 Table L 1 Continued Severity Scales Punitive Activity Scale Punitive Restrictive Scale Standard Financial Scale Variable b SE B b SE B b SE B Personal Characteristics Age 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.05 Race 0.06 0.23 0.03 0.29 0.24 0.16 0.02 0.20 0.01 Gender 0.18 0.19 0.10 0.19 0.20 0.11 0 40 0.16 0.19 Ethnicity 0.02 0.41 0.01 0.09 0.43 0.02 0.48 0. 32 0.12 Marital status 0.66 0.29 0.23 0.41 0.30 0.17 0.29 0.24 0.10 Parental status 0.17 0.19 0.10 0.03 0.23 0.02 0.19 0.18 0.09 Years of education 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.08 Employment status 0.33 0.18 0.18 0.29 0.20 0 .16 0.04 0.16 0.02 Sample 0.14 0.19 0.08 0.40* 0.20 0.22 0.12 0.18 0.05 Previous Criminal History Previous history 0.11 0.27 0.05 0.28 0.29 0.13 0.00 0.22 0.00 Seriousness history 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.11 Prior violent offense 0.15 0.25 0.08 0.20 0.28 0.10 0.21 0.22 0.09 Prior probation 0.04 0.25 0.02 0.36 0.27 0.20 0.13 0.22 0.07 Prior violation 0.26 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.08 0.06 0.16 0.03 Jail history 0.37 0.36 0.19 0.21 0.42 0.11 0.58 0.33 0.26 Prior sentence 0.11 0.12 0.23 0.06 0.14 0.12 0.07 0.10 0.12 Current Offense and Probation Current offense 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.12 0.15 0.16 0.10 0.13 0.12 Violent offense 0.26 0.38 0.12 0.40 0.40 0.18 0.29 0.36 0.12 Plea bar gain 0.26 0.22 0.12 0.38 0.24 0.16 0.28 0.19 0.12 Charge level reduction 0.20 0.23 0.09 0.11 0.24 0.05 0.03 0.20 0.01 Violation of probation 0.38 0.26 0.20 0.18 0.29 0.09 0.26 0.23 0.12 New law violation 0.04 0.37 0.01 0.18 0.42 0.06 0.34 0.33 0.11 Technical violation 0.26 0.29 0.12 0.06 0.34 0.02 0.21 0.27 0.09 Constant 1.91 0.83 2.87 0.86 3.64 0.72 R square 0.16 0.23 0.16 Adjusted R square 0.02 0.03 0.04 SEE 0.90 0.89 0.97 df 22 22 22 F value 0. 89 1.17 1.37 N 107 181 175 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 436

436 Table L 1 Continued Severity Scales Standard Visit Scale Standard Employment Scale Severity Standard Scale Variable b SE B b SE B b SE B Personal Characteristics Age 0 .01 0.01 0.11 0.02* 0.01 0.19 0.01* 0.01 0.19 Race 0.19 0.20 0.09 0.29 0.19 0.15 0.28 0.15 0.20 Gender 0.10 0.17 0.05 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.08 Ethnicity 0.50 0.35 0.12 0.04 0.34 0.01 0.12 0.26 0.04 Marital status 0.01 0.25 0.00 0.14 0.24 0.05 0.19 0.18 0.09 Parental status 0.20 0.18 0.10 0.06 0.18 0.03 0.08 0.13 0.06 Years of education 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.05 Employment status 0.14 0.16 0.07 0.14 0.16 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.07 Sample 0.2 8 0.18 0.12 0.08 0.17 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.08 Previous Criminal History Previous history 0.13 0.23 0.06 0.16 0.22 0.08 0.13 0.17 0.08 Seriousness history 0.08* 0.04 0.30 0.04 0.03 0.16 0.00 0.03 0.01 Prior violent offense 0.09 0.23 0 .04 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.01 Prior probation 0.05 0.23 0.02 0.07 0.22 0.04 0.08 0.17 0.06 Prior violation 0.14 0.16 0.07 0.16 0.15 0.08 0.06 0.11 0.04 Jail history 0.57 0.33 0.26 0.16 0.32 0.08 0.31 0.24 0.20 Prior sentence 0.02 0. 10 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.13 0.04 0.08 0.10 Current Offense and Probation Current offense 0.02 0.13 0.02 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.09 0.09 Violent offense 0.15 0.36 0.06 0.21 0.35 0.09 0.06 0.26 0.04 Plea bargain 0.05 0.19 0.02 0.00 0.1 9 0.00 0.16 0.14 0.10 Charge level reduction 0.20 0.20 0.08 0.05 0.19 0.02 0.09 0.15 0.05 Violation of probation 0.11 0.24 0.05 0.05 0.23 0.02 0.10 0.17 0.07 New law violation 0.47 0.34 0.16 0.41 0.34 0.14 0.27 0.25 0.13 Technical violati on 0.01 0.27 0.00 0.22 0.27 0.10 0.11 0.20 0.07 Constant 1.60 0.77 2.69 0.73 2.73 0.55 R square 0.17 0.15 0.15 Adjusted R square 0.05 0.02 0.01 SEE 0.98 0.93 0.68 df 22 22 22 F value 1.39 1.16 1.08 N 169 159 105 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 437

437 Table L 1 Continued Severity Scales Standard Treatment Scale Severity Punitive Scale Overall Severity Scale Variable b SE B b SE B b SE B Personal Characteristics Age 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.19 Race 0.29 0.22 0.20 0.11 0.22 0.08 0.44* 0.20 0.37 Gender 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.24 0.19 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.15 Ethnicity 0.19 0.44 0.06 0.10 0.41 0.03 0.19 0.35 0.07 Marital status 0.09 0.28 0.05 0.56 0.31 0.25 0.3 0 0.27 0.17 Parental status 0.12 0.21 0.08 0.26 0.19 0.19 0.23 0.17 0.19 Years of education 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.07 Employment status 0.50 0.20 0.33 0.41* 0.19 0.28 0.59** 0.17 0.49 Sample 0.16 0.19 0.11 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.24 0.16 0.20 Previous Criminal History Previous history 0.03 0.28 0.02 0.45 0.26 0.27 0.31 0.24 0.22 Seriousness history 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.13 Prior violent offense 0.12 0.23 0.08 0.02 0.23 0.01 0.03 0.21 0.03 Prior probation 0.21 0.26 0.15 0.13 0.24 0.09 0.00 0.22 0.00 Prior violation 0.06 0.15 0.04 0.13 0.15 0.09 0.07 0.13 0.06 Jail history 0.32 0.38 0.21 0.39 0.38 0.27 0.43 0.33 0.35 Prior sentence 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.22 0.13 0.11 0.41 Current Offense and Probation Current offense 0.03 0.14 0.05 0.05 0.13 0.09 0.06 0.11 0.13 Violent offense 0.17 0.33 0.10 0.30 0.32 0.18 0.10 0.27 0.07 Plea bargain 0.20 0.24 0.11 0.37 0.22 0.21 0.23 0.20 0.16 Charge level redu ction 0.04 0.22 0.02 0.16 0.21 0.09 0.08 0.19 0.05 Violation of probation 0.20 0.24 0.13 0.36 0.24 0.25 0.00 0.21 0.00 New law violation 0.04 0.33 0.02 0.05 0.34 0.02 0.19 0.28 0.12 Technical violation 0.29 0.25 0.18 0.20 0.27 0.12 0.21 0.22 0.16 Constant 1.09 0.84 2.07 0.71 1.29 0.70 R square 0.28 0.28 0.38 Adjusted R square 0.03 0.03 0.11 SEE 0.72 0.69 0.56 df 22 22 22 F value 1.11 1.12 1.41 N 85 86 73 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 438

438 Table L 2 Pr edicting perceived d ifficulty t otal m odel Difficulty Scales Mandatory Attendance Scale Monetary Concern Scale Accountability Scale Variable b SE B b SE B b SE B Personal Characteristics Age 0.02 0.01 0.20 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.37 Race 0. 57 0.31 0.29 0.14 0.42 0.06 0.83 ** 0.29 0.49 Gender 0.13 0.26 0.06 0.19 0.35 0.08 0.63 0.24 0.36 Ethnicity 0.01 0.52 0.00 0.22 0.71 0.04 0.06 0.48 0.02 Marital status 0.19 0.40 0.07 0.16 0.55 0.05 0.72 0.37 0.29 Parental status 0.21 0.26 0.11 0.07 0.33 0.03 0.01 0.23 0.00 Years of education 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.13 0.07 0.25 Employment status 0.17 0.10 0.24 0.27 0.14 0.31 0.19 0.09 0.29 Sample 0.27 0.24 0.14 0.44 0.33 0.19 0.10 0.22 0.06 Pr evious Criminal History Previous history 0.22 0.35 0.10 0.14 0.47 0.05 0.31 0.32 0.15 Seriousness history 0.04 0.05 0.18 0.12 0.07 0.46 0.06 0.05 0.31 Prior violent offense 0.31 0.33 0.14 0.89 0.43 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.18 Prior probat ion 0.61 0.33 0.31 0.40 0.44 0.17 0.38 0.30 0.22 Jail history 0.27 0.52 0.13 0.31 0.67 0.13 0.71 0.46 0.40 Current Offense and Probation Current offense type 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.32 0.23 0.34 0.13 0.16 0.19 Violent offens e 0.75 0.42 0.31 0.38 0.55 0.14 0.27 0.38 0.13 Plea bargain 0.42 0.30 0.18 0.49 0.40 0.17 0.02 0.28 0.01 Charge level reduction 0.46 0.28 0.18 0.13 0.38 0.04 0.22 0.26 0.10 Violation of probation 0.09 0.32 0.05 0.35 0.42 0.15 0.00 0.28 0 .00 New law violation 0.51 0.43 0.19 0.10 0.56 0.31 0.32 0.39 0.13 Technical violation 0.08 0.35 0.04 0.72 0.43 0.28 0.19 0.30 0.10 Severity 0.95 *** 0.19 0.58 0.77 ** 0.26 0.40 0.57 ** 0.18 0.39 Constant 0.33 1.12 3.28 1.47 1.11 1.02 R square 0.54 0.38 0.45 Adjusted R square 0.31 0.08 0.20 SEE 0.82 1.11 0.77 Degrees of freedom 23 23 23 F value 2.3 0 ** 1.26 1.78 N 69 71 73 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 439

439 Table L 2 Continued Difficulty S cales Drug Employment Scale Notification Scale Restriction Scale Variable b SE B b SE B b SE B Personal Characteristics Age 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.07 Race 0.05 0.30 0.03 0.01 0.18 0.01 0.27 0.39 0.13 Gender 0.39 0.25 0 .21 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.22 0.33 0.10 Ethnicity 0.51 0.49 0.13 0.40 0.31 0.18 1.17 0.66 0.26 Marital status 0.56 0.38 0.21 0.07 0.24 0.05 0.55 0.51 0.18 Parental status 0.27 0.24 0.15 0.09 0.15 0.08 0.32 0.31 0.15 Years of education 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.19 0.04 0.09 0.06 Employment status 0.41 *** 0.09 0.62 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.17 0.13 0.22 Sample 0.11 0.23 0.06 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.30 0.04 Previous Criminal History Previous history 0.05 0.33 0.02 0.17 0. 20 0.14 0.13 0.43 0.05 Seriousness history 0.06 0.05 0.28 0.03 0.03 0.25 0.09 0.06 0.38 Prior violent offense 0.48 0.30 0.23 0.18 0.19 0.15 0.22 0.40 0.10 Prior probation 0.44 0.31 0.24 0.03 0.19 0.03 0.28 0.41 0.14 Jail history 0.11 0. 47 0.06 0.06 0.29 0.05 0.73 0.63 0.34 Current Offense and Probation Current offense type 0.22 0.16 0.30 0.12 0.10 0.28 0.15 0.22 0.18 Violent offense 0.28 0.38 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.28 0.72 0.51 0.30 Plea bargain 0.42 0.28 0.1 9 0.07 0.18 0.05 0.14 0.38 0.06 Charge level reduction 0.20 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.17 0.11 0.09 0.35 0.03 Violation of probation 0.63* 0.29 0.34 0.09 0.18 0.09 0.31 0.39 0.15 New law violation 0 93 0.40 0 37 0 63 0.25 0.43 0.03 0.53 0.01 T echnical violation 0.41 0.31 0.20 0.43* 0.19 0.37 0.12 0.41 0.05 Severity 0.52** 0.18 0.34 0.29* 0.11 0.34 0.38 0.24 0.22 Constant 0.96 1.04 2.07 0.65 1.33 1.34 R square 0.49 0.39 0.29 Adjusted R square 0.26 0.11 0.04 SEE 0.78 0.49 1.04 Degrees of freedom 23 23 23 F value 2.11* 1.39 0.89 N 73 73 73 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 440

440 Table L 2 Continued Difficulty Scales Difficulty Visits Scale Difficulty Standard Scale Difficulty Treatment Sca le Variable b SE B b SE B b SE B Personal Characteristics Age 0.02 0.01 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.25 Race 0.92 ** 0.32 0.47 0.23 0.15 0.24 0.53 0.27 0.30 Gender 0.38 0.27 0.19 0.17 0.13 0.18 0.23 0.23 0.13 Ethnicity 0.36 0.54 0 .08 0.25 0.25 0.12 0.07 0.45 0.02 Marital status 0.62 0.41 0.22 0.12 0.19 0.08 0.20 0.35 0.08 Parental status 0.03 0.26 0.01 0.06 0.12 0.06 0.24 0.23 0.14 Years of education 0.14 0.08 0.24 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.09 Employment s tatus 0.12 0.10 0.16 0.07 0.05 0.19 0.22* 0.09 0.34 Sample 0.55* 0.25 0.28 0.16 0.12 0.17 0.22 0.21 0.12 Previous Criminal History Previous history 0.72 0.36 0.30 0.16 0.17 0.14 0.27 0.31 0.13 Seriousness history 0.04 0.05 0.19 0.03 0.02 0.26 0.05 0.04 0.23 Prior violent 0.09 0.33 0.04 0.28 0.15 0.26 0.27 0.29 0.14 Prior probation 0.63 0.34 0.32 0.03 0.16 0.04 0.44 0.29 0.25 Jail history 0.60 0.52 0.29 0.17 0.24 0.17 0.23 0.46 0.12 Current Offense and Probation Current offense 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.08 0.54 0.15 0.15 0.21 Violent offense 0.48 0.42 0.20 0.34 0.20 0.30 0.69 0.37 0.32 Plea bargain 0.46 0.31 0.19 0.32 0.14 0.27 0.40 0.26 0.19 Charge level reduction 0.62* 0.29 0 .23 0.09 0.14 0.07 0.34 0.25 0.15 Violation of probation 0.56 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.15 0.25 0.20 0.28 0.11 New law violation 0.38 0.43 0.14 0.49 0.20 0.37 0.48 0.38 0.20 Technical violation 0.62 0.34 0.28 0.31 0.16 0.29 0.10 0.31 0.05 Severity 0.01 0.20 0.00 0.29 ** 0.09 0.36 0.86 *** 0.17 0.59 Constant 1.28 1.14 2.16 0.53 0.32 0.99 R square 0.49 0.52 0.56 Adjusted R square 0.25 0.30 0.34 SEE 0.86 0.40 0.72 Degrees of freedom 23 23 23 F value 2.05 2.33** 2.52** N 73 73 69 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 441

441 Tabl e L 2 Continued Difficulty Scales Difficulty Punitive Scale Overall Difficulty Scale Variable b SE B b SE B Personal Characteristics Age 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.18 Race 0.50 0.30 0.26 0.80 0.48 0.31 Gender 0.01 0.26 0.01 0.03 0.41 0.01 Ethnicity 0.48 0.51 0.13 1.11 0.80 0.20 Marital status 0.78 0.44 0.27 0.33 0.62 0.09 Parental status 0.14 0.25 0.08 0.06 0.39 0.02 Years of education 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.12 0.10 Employment status 0.25* 0.10 0.35 0.03 0.15 0.03 Sample 0.31 0.24 0.18 0.44 0.37 0.17 Previous Criminal History Previous history 0.19 0.36 0.09 0.65 0.53 0.21 Seriousness history 0.13* 0.05 0.61 0.09 0.08 0 .28 Prior violent offense 0.51 0.32 0.26 0.13 0.50 0.04 Prior probation 0.32 0.32 0.18 0.11 0.50 0.04 Jail history 0.11 0.51 0.06 0.14 0.77 0.05 Current Offense and Probation Current offense type 0.17 0.17 0.24 0.12 0.26 0 .12 Violent offense 0.31 0.40 0.14 0.72 0.62 0.24 Plea bargain 0.30 0.30 0.14 0.33 0.46 0.10 Charge level reduction 0.23 0.27 0.10 0.46 0.45 0.13 Violation of probation 0.21 0.32 0.12 0.30 0.48 0.11 New law violation 0.39 0.42 0.16 0. 65 0.64 0.18 Technical violation 0.30 0.34 0.15 0.67 0.50 0.23 Severity 0.67 0.19 0.46 0.34 0.29 0.15 Constant 1.77 1.11 3.88 1.69 R square 0.48 0.35 Adjusted R square 0.20 0.05 SEE 0.80 1.27 Degrees of freedom 23 23 F value 1.73 1.15 N 67 72 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 442

442 Table L 3 Predicting o bstacles t otal m odels Obstacle Scales Transportation Attendance Obstacle Scale Responsibility Obstacle Scale Tracking Obstacles Scale Variable b SE B b SE B b SE B Personal Characteristics Age 0 10 0.01 0.14 0.02 0.01 0.30 0.01 0.01 0.10 Race 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.08 0.33 0.04 0.25 0.30 0.16 Gender 0.17 0.25 0.07 0.33 0.28 0.18 0.16 0.25 0.10 Ethnicity 0.43 0.48 0.13 0.03 0.53 0.01 0 .79 0.49 0.23 Marital status 0.38 0.37 0.17 0.53 0.40 0.21 0.24 0.34 0.11 Parental status 0.11 0.25 0.07 0.10 0.27 0.05 0.13 0.23 0.08 Years of education 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.12 Employment status 0.11 0.27 0.07 0.26 0 .27 0.15 0.02 0.24 0.01 Sample 0.10 0.22 0.06 0.49* 0.24 0.29 0.30 0.22 0.19 Previous Criminal History Previous history 0.17 0.34 0.09 0.19 0.36 0.09 0.49 0.33 0.26 Seriousness history 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.1 7 0.03 0.04 0.15 Prior violent offense 0.24 0.29 0.14 0.25 0.33 0.13 0.12 0.30 0.07 Prior probation 0.06 0.31 0.04 0.11 0.27 0.07 0.12 0.25 0.08 Jail history 0.23 0.48 0.14 0.47 0.36 0.26 0.28 0.33 0.17 Current Offense and Proba tion Current offense type 0 43 0.16 0.67 0.07 0.17 0.10 0.04 0.16 0.06 Violent offense 0.73 0.38 0.39 0.15 0.42 0.07 0.37 0.38 0.20 Plea bargain 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.18 0.29 0.08 0.21 0.27 0.11 Charge level reduction 0.15 0.26 0 .07 0.24 0.29 0.10 0.20 0.27 0.09 Violation of probation 0.43 0.28 0.27 0.65 0.32 0.37 0.14 0.29 0.09 New law violation 0.51 0.39 0.23 0.18 0.44 0.07 0.68 0.40 0.31 Technical violation 0.37 0.31 0.21 0.04 0.34 0.02 0.68 0.31 0.39 Severity 0.19 0.20 0.15 0.37 0.22 0.25 0.13 0.20 0.10 Constant 3.01 1.00 2.98 1.11 3.73 1.01 R square 0.35 0.33 0.30 Adjusted R square 0.05 0.04 0.00 SEE 0.77 0.85 0.79 df 22 22 22 F value 1.15 1.13 0.99 N 72 72 73 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 443

443 Table L 3 Continued Obstacle Scales Punitive Obstacles Scale Living Environment Scale Variable b SE B b SE B Personal Characteristics Age 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.03 Race 0.15 0.32 0.09 0.11 0.22 0.09 Gender 0.05 0.26 0.03 0.21 0.18 0.18 Ethnicity 1.22* 0.52 0.34 0.09 0.35 0.03 Marital status 0.82* 0.40 0.33 0.18 0.26 0.11 Parental status 0.40 0.25 0.24 0.04 0.17 0.04 Years of education 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.27 Employ ment status 0.21 0.26 0.13 0.30 0.18 0.25 Sample 0.09 0.24 0.06 0.06 0.16 0.06 Previous Criminal History Previous history 0.07 0.35 0.04 0.06 0.24 0.05 Seriousness history 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.33 0.05 Prior violent offense 0. 08 0.32 0.04 0.16 0.22 0.12 Prior probation 0.15 0.26 0.09 0.39* 0.18 0.34 Jail history 0.20 0.36 0.12 0.11 0.24 0.09 Current Offense and Probation Current offense type 0.07 0.17 0.11 0.29* 0.11 0.61 Violent offense 0. 42 0.41 0.22 0.80** 0.28 0.57 Plea bargain 0.09 0.28 0.04 0.02 0.19 0.02 Charge level reduction 0.27 0.28 0.12 0.07 0.19 0.04 Violation of probation 0.10 0.32 0.06 0.31 0.21 0.26 New law violation 0.73 0.43 0.32 0.16 0.29 0.10 Technical vi olation 0.80* 0.34 0.43 0.02 0.23 0.02 Severity 0.06 0.21 0.05 0.10 0.14 0.11 Constant 2.72 1.08 R square 0.30 0.36 Adjusted R square 0.01 0.07 SEE 0.83 0.56 df 22 22 F value 0.97 1.26 N 71 72 p<.05 **p< .01 ***p<.001

PAGE 444

444 L IST OF REFERENCES Alachua County. (2010). County probation Retrieved on April 18, 2010 from http://www.alachua county.org/government/depts/courtserv/probation.aspx. Aldridge, M., & Eadie, T. (1997). Manufacturing an issue: The case of pr obation officer training. Critical Social Policy, 17, 111 124. American Association for Public Opinion Research (2009). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Retrieved on March 22, 2011 from http://www.aapor .org/Content/NavigationMenu/ResourcesforResearchers/Standar dDefinitions/StandardDefinitions2009new.pdf Anderson, E.A., & Spanier, G.B. (1980). Treatment of delinquent youth: The influence of Criminology, 17 505 514. Applegate, B.K., Smith, H.P., Sitren, A.H., & Springer, N.F. (2009). From the inside: The meaning of probation to probationers. Criminal Justice Review, 34 80 95. Barkdull, W.L. (1976). Probation: Call it control and mean it. Federal Probation, 40 3 8. Bates, S. (1960). When is probation not probation? Federal Probation 24 13 20. Blackmore, J. (1981). The politics of probation. Corrections Magazines, 7 12 16 Bork, M.V. (1995). Five year review of the United States probatio n data, 1990 94. Federal Probation, 59 27 32. Brennan, W.C., and Khinduka, S.K. (1970). Role discrepancies and professional socialization: The case of the juvenile probation officer. Social Work, 15 87 94. Casper, J.D., Tyler, T., & Fisher, B. (1988). Procedural justice in felony cases. Law & Society Review, 22 483 508. Clarke, S.H. (1979). What is the purpose of probation and why do we revoke it? Crime and Delinquency, 25 409 424. Clear, T.R., Harris, P.M., Baird, S.C. (1992). Probationer violation s and officer response. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20 1 12. Surveillance versus treatment. Justice Quarterly, 10 441 462. Crouch, B.M. (1993). Is incarceration prison over probation. Justice Quarterly, 10 67 88.

PAGE 445

445 Czajkoski, E.H. (1965). The need for philosophical direction in probation and parole. Federal Probation, 29 24 28. ormulating correctional goals: The interaction of environment, belief, and organizational structure. In D. Duffee (Ed.), Correctional management: Change and control in correctional organizations (pp. 75 102). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Erickson M.L., & Gibbs, J.P. (1979). On the perceived severity of legal penalties. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 70 102 116. Feeley, M.M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Crimin ology, 30 449 474. Fisher, W.E. (1977). Probation and parole revocation in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Law Review, 2 503 520. Florida Department of Corrections (2010). Florida corrections: Centuries of p rogress Retrieved on April 13, 2010 from http://www.dc. state.fl.us/oth/timeline/index.html. Flory, C.M., May, D.C., Minor, K.I., & Wood, P.B. (2006). A comparison of punishment exchange rates between offenders under supervision and their supervising officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34 39 50. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973). Glaser D. (1969). The effectiveness of prison and parole system Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs Merrill. Gl aze, L.E., & Bonczar, T.P. (2010 ). Probation and parole in the United States, 200 9 Retrieved on April 7, 2011 from http:/ /bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus09.pdf Gray, M.K., Fields, M., & Maxwell, S.R. (2001). Examining probation violations: Who, what, and when. Crime and Delinquency, 47 537 557. Greenberg, B.D. (1981). Probation conditions and the first amendment: When reasonableness is not enough. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 17 45 97. Groves, R.M., Fowler, F.J., Couper, M.P., Lepowski, J.M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey methodology Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hardman, D. G. (1960). The function of the probation officer. Federal Probation, 24 3 10.

PAGE 446

446 Harlow, R.E., Darley, J.M., & Robinson, P.H. (1995). The severity of intermediate penal sanctions: A psychophysical scaling approach for obtaining community perceptions. Journa l of Quantitative Criminology, 11 71 95. Harris, P., M., Clear, T.R., & Baird, S.C. (1989). Have community supervision officers changed their attitudes toward their work? Justice Quarterly, 6 233 246. Holgate, A.M., & Clegg, I.J. (1991). The path to prob ation officer burnout: New dogs, old tricks. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19 325 337. James, D.J. (2004). Profile of jail i nmates, 2002 Retrieved on March 8, 2011 from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf Jones, M. & Kerbs, J.J. (2007). P robation and parole offices and discretionary decision making: Responses to technical and criminal violations. Perspectives: The Journal of the American Probation and Parole Association, 31 35 42. Kinsey, K. (1992). Deterrence and alienation effects of I RS enforcement: An analysis of survey data. In J. Slemrod (ed.) Why People Pay Taxes Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Kleiman, M.A.R., Tran, T.H., Fishbein, P., M, T., et al. (2003). Opportunities and barriers in probation reform: A case study of drug testing and sanctions Berkeley, CA: California Policy Research Center. Klocka rs, C.B. (1972). A theory of probation supervision. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 63 550 557. Langan, P.A., & Levin, D.J. (2002). Bureau o f Justice Statistics special report: Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994 Retrieved on December 3, 2009 from www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf.rpr94.pdf. Lawrence, R. (1984). Professionals or judicial civil servants? An examination of the probation office Federal Probation, 48 14 21. Levin, M.H. (1983). Corporate probation conditions: Judicial creativity or abuse of discretion? Fordham Law Review, 52 637 662. Linder, C., & Savarese, M.R., (1984). The evolution of probation: Early salaries, qual ifications, and hiring practices. Federal Probation, 48, 3 10. MacKenzie, D.L., Browning, K., Skroban, S.B., & Smith, D.A. (1999). The impact of probation on the criminal activities of offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36 423 453.

PAGE 447

447 Maxwell, S.R., Gray, M.K., & Bynum, T. (1999). Probationer recidivism in Michigan: A collaborative study between the school of criminal justice and the Michigan Department of Corrections Retrieved on April 8, 2010 from http://www.ippsr.msu.edu/Publication s/ARMaxwell.pdf. May, D.C., Wood, P.B., Mooney, J.L., & Minor, K.I. (2005). Predicting offender generated exchange rates: Implications for a theory of sentence severity. Crime and Delinquency, 51 373 399. Mayzer, R., Gray, M.K., & Maxwell, S.R. (2004). P robation absconders: A unique risk group? Journal of Criminal Justice, 32 137 150. McCleary, R. (1978). Dangerous men: The sociology of parole Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. McClelland, K.A., & Alpert, G.P. (1985). Factor analysis applied to magnitude estima tes of punishment seriousness: Patterns of individual differences. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1 307 318. Federal Probation, 29 18 23. Minor, K.I., Wells, J.B., & Sims, C. (20 03). Recidivism among federal probationers: Predicting sentence violations. Federal Probation, 67 31 37. Moore, N.T., May, D.C., & Wood, P.B. (2008). Offenders, judges, and officers rate the relative severity of alternative sanctions compared to prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 46 49 70. Morgan, K.D. (1994). Factors associated with probation outcome. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22 341 353. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972). MyFloridaDefenseLawyer.com (2011). Classification of Florid a crimes Misdemeanors and felonies. Retrieved on April 10, 2011 from http://www.myfloridadefenselawyer.com/FlCriminalProcedures.html New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. (2007). New York State probation population 2007 profile Retrieved on April 8, 2010 from http://dpca.state.ny.us/pdfs/nysprobationreport2007profile.pdf. Norland, S., & Mann, P.J. (1984). Being troublesome: Women on probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 11 115 135. Ohlin, L.E., Piven, H., & Pappenfort, D.M. (1956). Major dilemmas of the social worker in probation and parole. National Probation and Parole Association Journal, 2 211 225.

PAGE 448

448 for change. Crime and Delinquency, 16 373 386. Olson, D.E., Lurigio, A.J., & Seng, M. (2000). A comparison of female and male probationers: Characteristics and case outcomes. Women and Criminal Justice, 11 65 79. Olson, D.E., & Weisheit, R.A., & Ellsworth, T. (2001). Getting down to business: A comparison of rural and urban probationers, probation sentences, and probation outcomes. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 17 4 18. Palmer E.J., Mcguire, J., Hatcher, R.M., Hounsome, J.C., et al. (2009). Allocation to offending behavior progra ms in the English and Welsh probation service. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36 909 922. Petersilia, J. (1985). Probation and felony offenders. Federal Probation, 49 4 9. Petersilia, J. (1995). A crime control rationale for reinvesting in community corr ections. Prison Journal, 75 479 496. Petersilia, J. (1997 a ). Probation in the United States. Crime & Justice, 22 149 200. Petersilia, J. (1997b). Probation in the United States: Practices and challenges. National Institute of Justice Journal, 233 2 8. Petersilia, J. (1998a). Probation in the United States: Part 1. Perspectives, 22 30 41. Petersilia, J. (1998b). Probation in the United States: Part 2. Perspectives, 22 42 49. Petersilia, J. (2002). Community corrections. In J.Q. Wilson & J. Petersili a (Eds.), Crime: Public policies for crime control (pp. 483 508). Oakland, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press. Petersilia, J., & Deschenes, E.P. (1994a). Perceptions of punishment: Inmates and staff rank the severity of prison versus intermediate sanctions. Prison Journal, 74 306 328. Petersilia, J., & Deschenes, E.P. (1994b). What punishes? Inmates rank the severity of prison vs. intermediate sanctions. Federal Probation, 58 3 8. Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1990). Comparing intensive and re gular supervision for high risk probationers: Early results from an experiment in California. Crime & Delinquency, 36 87 111. Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. In M. Tonry (ed ) Crime and justice: A review of research (v ol 22) (pp. 281 336). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

PAGE 449

449 Raynor, P. (1985). Social work, justice and control Oxford: Blackwell. Robinson, G. & McNeill, F. (2008). Exploring the dynamics of compliance with community penalties. Theoretical Criminology, 12 431 449. Rosecrance, J. (1987). A typology of presentence probation investigators. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 31 163 177. Schiff, M.F. (1997). Gauging the intensity of criminal sanctions: Developing the c riminal punishment severity scale (CPSS). Criminal Justice Review, 22 175 206. Sebba, L. & Nathan, G. (1984). Further explorations in the scaling of penalties. British Journal of Criminology, 23 221 249. Senate Committee on Corrections, Probation, and Parole. (1990). Criminal justice in an entrepreneurial environment: An examination of misdemeanor probation in Florida Tallahassee, FL: Florida Legislature. Sherman, L.W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Jo urnal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30 445 473. Sigler, R.T., & McGraw, B. (1984). Adult probation and parole officers: Influence of their weapons, role perceptions and role conflicts. Criminal Justice Review, 9 28 32. Silverman, M. (1993). Ethi cal issues in the field of probation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 37 85 94. Simon, J. (1993). Poor discipline: Parole and the social control of the underclass, 1980 1990 Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press Sims, B., & Jones, M. (1997). Predicting success or failure on probation: Factors associated with felony probation outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 43 ,314 327. Smith, M.E., & Dickey, W.J. (1999). Reforming sentencing and corrections for just punishment an d public safety Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Spelman, W. (1995). The severity of intermediate sanctions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32 107 135. Spica, A. (1977 ). The c orrectional novagram. Federal Probation, 41 47 51. Stickels, J.W. (2007). A study of probation revocations for technical violations in Hays County Texas, USA. Probation Journal, 54 52 61. Studt, E. (1978). Surveillance and service to parole Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institut e of Corrections. Taxman, F.S. (1995). Intermediate sanctions: Dealing with technical violators. Corrections Today, February 46 57.

PAGE 450

450 Taxman, F.S., & Cherkos, R. (1995). Intermediate sanctions: Dealing with technical violators. Corrections Today, 57 46 5 7. Thibaut, J. & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tomaino, L. (1975). The five faces of probation. Federal Probation, 39 42 45. Tonry, M. (2006). Purpose and functions of sentencing. Crime and Justice, 34 1 52. Tyler, T.R (1990). Why people obey the Law New Haven: Yale University Press. Tyler, T.R. (1994). Governing amid diversity: The effect of fair decisionmaking procedures on the legitimacy of government. Law & Society Review, 28 809 832. Tyler, T.R. (2003). Proced ural justice, legitimacy and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice, 30, 283 357. Tyler, T.R. (2006). Restorative justice and procedural justice: Dealing with rule breaking. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 307 26. Tyler, T.R. & Huo, Y.J. (2002). Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. New York: Russell Sage. Tyler, T.R., Sherman, L., Strang, H., Barnes, G.C., & Woods, D. (2007). Reintegrative p sychological mechanisms in the Canberra RISE drinking and driving experiment. Law & Society Review, 41 553 585. United States Department of Justice (2011). Pretrial diversion p rogram Retrieved on March 8, 2011 from http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia _reading_room/usam/title9/22mcrm.htm Van Laningham, D.E., Taber, M., & Dimants, R. (1966). How adult probation officers view their job responsibilities. Crime and Delinquency, 12 97 108. Von Hirsh, A., Wasik, M., & Greene, J. (1992). Scaling community punishments. In A. von Hirsh & A. Ashworth (eds.), Principled sentencing (pp. 368 388). Boston: Northeastern University Press. Weiss, I., & Wozner, Y. (2002). Ten models for probation supervision compared across eight dimensions. Journal of Offender Reha bilitation, 34 85 105. Whitehead, J.T. (1989). Burnout in probation and corrections New York, NY: Praeger Publishers. Whitehead, J.T., & Braswell, M.C. (2000). The future of probation: Reintroducing the spiritual dimension into correctional practice. C riminal Justice Review, 25 207 233.

PAGE 451

451 Whitehead, J.T., & Lindquist, C.A. (1985). Job stress and burnout among probation/parole officers: Perceptions and causal factors. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 29 109 119. Whit ehead, J.T., & Lindquist, C.A. (1992). Determinants of probation and parole officer professional orientation. Journal of Criminal Justice 2 0 13 24. Whitehead, P. (1990). Community supervision for offenders: A new model of probation Hants, UK: Gower. Wi lliams, A., May, D.C., & Wood, P.B. (2008). The lesser of two evils? A qualitative Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 46 71 90. Wood, P.B., & Grasmick, H.G. (1999). Toward the developm ent of punishment equivalencies: Male and female inmates rate the severity of alternative sanctions compared to prison. Justice Quarterly, 16 19 50. Wood, P.B., & May, D.C. (2003). Racial differences in perceptions of the severity of sanctions: A compari son of prison with alternatives. Justice Quarterly, 20 605 632. Wuensch, K. (2004 ). Principal Components Analysis SPSS Retrieved on March 23, 2011 from http://core.ecu. edu/psyc/wuenschk/MV/FA/PCA.doc

PAGE 452

452 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Saskia Daniele Santos earned a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology and Bachelor of Arts degree in criminology in 2003 from the University of Florida. Following two years working within the Florida prison system, she entered the graduate program in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society at the University of Florida in the fall of 2005 It was there that she earned her Master of Arts degree in 2007. She then enrolled in enrolled in the d octoral program at the University of Florida in Criminology, Law, and Society in 2007. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Florida in 2011. Her research interests include institutional corrections, community corrections, survey research, and program evaluation.