There is some indication that the conduct of probationers who have been convicted of offenses against the person is better than the behavior of offenders found guilty of property offenses. Probationers in the assault and sex offense classifications were associated more frequently with favorable outcome than offenders in the burglary or larceny groupings. However, the relationships are most frequently neutral, and in some cases reversals occur. On the whole, the type of offense did not bear any universally significant relationship to behavior during the probation period. In addition to relating the offense for which probation was granted to outcome on probation, an analysis was made to determine whether violators tend to revert to the same type of crime. That is, when probationers violate by committing a new offense, do they tend to return to the same kind of crime as the type for which they had previously been convicted? This analysis was made for Los Angeles, Calif.; Wisconsin State Board of Control; Essex County, N. J.; Suffolk County, Mass.; and Rhode Island. The data for Los Angeles, Calif., shows that those probation violators convicted originally of burglary, larceny, forgery, and counterfeiting had a tendency to return to the same type of crimes on probation. This tendency was most marked for burglary. For this crime 34 percent of those cases who violated on probation and were previously convicted of burglary committed burglary on probation. On the other hand, only 11 percent of the probation violators who had originally been convicted of robbery committed burglary on probation, and 12 percent of those originally convicted of larceny committed burglary on probation. A similar tendency was shown for larceny; 46 percent of the probationers whose original offense was larceny and who violated on probation committed larceny while on probation. This percentage is significantly higher than that shown for any of the other crimes. Twenty-one percent of those probationers who had originally been convicted of motor vehicle law violations and who subsequently violated the terms of release by committing a new offense, again were implicated in motor vehicle offenses. This percentage is significantly higher than the percentage of violators in any other offense group who committed motor vehicle law violations on probation. The results of the analysis for Rhode Island were not as significant as they were for Los Angeles, Calif., because of the smaller number of cases involved. However, they revealed a distinct tendency for the burglars to return to burglary on probation and for those convicted of larceny to revert to larceny on probation. The data for Suffolk County, Mass., also show that persons convicted of burglary and larcency who subsequently violated probation were inclined to return to the same type of crimes. The same situation prevailed in Essex County, N. J. Here there was a sufficient number of cases to indicate that the assault cases, in addition to the burglary and larceny cases, had a tendency to revert to the same type of crime. The statistics for the Wisconsin State Board of Control show essentially the same tendency of probationers to commit the same type of crime. The cases for Wisconsin were sufficient in number to indicate that, in addition to burglary and larceny, forgery and sex offenses are crimes to which probation violators returned. Although the analysis presented at the beginning of this section does not disclose a significant universal relationship between the offense and outcome on probation, the tendency for reversion to the same type of crime may be of some significance. Although the crimes themselves are not indicative of the likelihood that a criminal will violate on probation, this much may be said: When persons convicted of certain crimes do violate on probation, the crimes committed will tend to be the same as those for which they had been previously convicted. Summary. The analysis of 19,171 cases in 24 probation departments show that the offense for which probation was granted had no universal significant relationship to outcome on probation. However, analysis of the types of crimes committed by probation violators indicates that there was a marked tendency toward reversion to the same type of offense. Briefly, the results may be summarized as follows: (1) Probationers convicted of offenses in the burglary and larceny classifications had an unfavorable outcome on probation in 6 (out of 23) and 7 (out of 24) departments, respectively. However, in one unit burglars had a favorable outcome. (2) Sex offenders and persons convicted of assault had a favorable outcome in 4 and 5 units, respectively, out of 19 departments. In 2 departments, however, the outcome of offenders in the assault group was unfavorable. (3) In 7 out of 15 departments, violators of motor vehicle laws had a favorable outcome on probation. (4) Most frequently, the relationship between offense and outcome was not significantly favorable or unfavorable. (5) When probationers violated the terms of release by committing a new offense the tendency was to commit a crime within the same offense classification as the offense for which probation had been granted. In light of the findings, there seems to be no particular justification for the statutory provisions excluding persons convicted of certain offenses from probation. While in some few departments there is an indication that probationers in the burglary and larceny offense groups had an unfavorable outcome, these results were not universal and therefore do not warrant the rigid statutory exclusion found in many jurisdictions. In the great majority of instances, the nature of the offense does not appear to be significantly associated with outcome on probation. However, when violation does occur, probationers seem inclined to return to a crime similar in nature to the original offense. STEADINESS OF EMPLOYMENT Administrators and students of probation everywhere recognize that suitable and regular employment during and after the probation period is one of the primary aids of any rehabilitative program. Every effective probation department realizes that continued idleness does not lead to satisfactory readjustment in the community; hence, strenuous efforts are made to obtain employment for probationers. It is the purpose of this section to examine the relationship between employment and conduct during the probation period in order to ascertain whether the degree or steadiness of employment is significantly associated with the behavior of probationers. The extent or degree of employment during the probation period may be measured in a variety of ways. For example, the total number of months the probationer was employed or the amount of his earnings during the period might have been used. However, the measure used in this section is termed "steadiness of employment" and is defined as that proportion of the probation period during which the probationer was actually employed from the time of release on probation to the time of discharge or revocation. Thus, if a probationer had a probation period of 6 months and was employed 3 months, his "steadiness of employment" would be 50 percent. The categories used in this analysis are "no employment," "less than 50 percent," "50 percent or more but less than 100 percent," "100 percent," "inapplicable" and "unknown." The first four categories are self-explanatory. The "inapplicable" group includes those cases for which the term "steadiness of employment" would be meaningless: Relief work, part-time employment, and odd jobs. The "inapplicable" group also includes those cases which, for any reason, were immediately incarcerated after release. The "unknown" group contains those cases for which there was no information concerning employment. The data for 19 of the 24 units analyzed, representing a total of 14,385 cases, were sufficiently complete to permit an analysis of the relationship between steadiness of employment and outcome on probation. Table XXVI shows the proportion of cases which fell in each of the categories of "steadiness of employment," as defined above, for the 19 units. It will be seen that the percentages for the "no employment" group range from 6 percent to 20 percent of the total cases considered for each unit. The "inapplicable" and "unknown" groups include a large proportion of the cases studied for most of the probation units. These groups will be studied later to determine what effect they may have had on the analyses. |