About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

68 Fed. Probation 3 (2004)
Multicultural Competencies in Probation - Issues and Challenges

handle is hein.journals/fedpro68 and id is 3 raw text is: June 2004 3 Robert A. Shearer, Ph.D. Patricia Ann King, Ph.D., L.PC. SINCE JOHN AUGUSTUS introduced the notion of probation in 1841, the num- ber of probationers in the United States has grown exponentially. Today, probation is the most widely used sentencing option in the United States. As of 2001, there were 3,932,751 adult men and women on pro- bation (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002). Of this number, 22 percent (870,000) were women. Breaking the total down racially, one-third (1,228,700) were African-Ameri- can, one-half were white (2,175,600), one- eighth (469,800) were Hispanic, and persons of other race represented 2 percent (58,600). Two of the most demographically diverse states, Texas and California, led the nation in number of adults supervised in the commu- nity, together accounting for over one mil- lion persons. Furthermore, more than 2.1 million adults entered probation supervision during 2001. Since 1995, the annual number of probation entries has increased by 34 per- cent. Probationers are sentenced for a wide variety of offenses, and Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) data indicate that half were convicted of a felony and that a quarter were convicted of drug law violations. Also, three out of four were under active supervision, requiring that they report regularly to a pro- bation authority. Clearly, the vast numbers of persons supervised are a diverse group who exhibit a wide variety of treatment and supervision concerns that probation officers are expected to address. The questions and issues addressed in this discussion speak directly to the role of multicultural compe- tencies in probation as officers supervise this diverse group of offenders. From Nothing Works to What Works? From its inception in the 1800s, probation was considered a form of treatment. John Augustus, acknowledged as the first proba- tion officer, sought out offenders whom he thought could be rehabilitated. This idea dominated correctional thinking for many years. Cullen and Gendreau (2001) assert that positivism was the prevailing philosophy dur- ing the early years of modern criminology, with very specific ways of both explaining and controlling crime. They concluded that five principles underlie this philosophy. First, crime has definite causes that can be estab- lished through systematic scientific study. Second, punishment has limited effectiveness in an offender's rehabilitation. Third, inter- ventions should be matched to the offend- er. Fourth, using the correctional system to reform offenders is the only rational approach to crime control. And finally, treatment must be individualized because the causes of crime differ for each person. Leading writers in the field argued stren- uously for these principles. For example, Sutherland (1939) asserted that correctional interventions would be ineffective unless they targeted to change the actual causes of crime. He argued that offenders need contact with law-abiding role models and that treatment and supervision should be individualized. The Gluecks (1950) and Taft (1960) theorized that because crime has multiple causes, the scientific method should be utilized to ferret out the causes so that, once they were known, effective treat- ments could be provided. Cressey (1958) also saw the value in rehabilitation. While he believed that there were problems with correctional rehabilitation, he did not favor abolishing the concept. Rather, he believed that the appropriate use of science could establish effective principles of rehabilitation. This attitude prevailed through the 1960s, but the 1970s brought a radical ideological change attributed to the work of one man, Robert Martinson. In an article entitled What works? Ques- tions and answers about prison reform Mar- tinson (1974) revealed in a study of 231 program evaluations that very little worked in rehabilitating offenders. Although other researchers maintained that there were seri- ous flaws in the study, Martinson's argument became the rallying cry of a new generation of criminologists. Basically, the nothing works philosophy encompasses several principles, as outlined by Cullen and Gendreau (2001). First, nothing works effectively or reliably to rehabilitate offenders, and therefore noth- ing the state does to reduce crime will work. Further, since prisons have no effect on crime rates, only the most serious offenders should be incarcerated. Others should be placed into community corrections programs that will not work either, but at least the offenders will be less harmed. Additionally, criminolo- gists should not engage in what Cullen and Gendreau (2001) refer to as a penal science, or becoming tools of the state. Finally, they assert that all crime results from structural factors such as social and economic inequal- ity. Thus, rehabilitation efforts can never be successful because they do not change the root structural causes of crime.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most