Oregon's Structured Sanctioning
Ó
Carl Reddick
What a remarkable opportunity. A chance to weigh-in from the field as a Parole and Probation Officer. When the Community Correction Report asked for input from an actual journeyman PO, I saw this as an opportunity to write the type of articles that I always wished would have been written when I learned my craft in the olden days. That being said, I would describe this series of semi-regular columns as the only articles in this journal that don’t need footnotes. That being said let’s get acquainted. I hope that along the way we both learn something about how law enforcement looks at ‘ground zero’ in the Parole and Probation field.
Oregon is either ahead of the curve or way behind the times. You decide. In this State the PO’s are empowered to impose sanctions once the offender waives his right to a hearing. In other words, when Bobby or Johnny is positive for drugs or other violations we, the officers, have an entire menu of sanctions we can impose ranging from a verbal reprimand to jail time. The offenders rarely choose to appear in Court because, statistically, Court sanctions are much stiffer than PO imposed sanctions.
Once the violation has been confirmed the offender can waive a violation hearing. This frees up massive amounts of Court and District Attorney time. No warrants, no allegations, no Courtroom appearances, no release hearings. Let’s look at a few scenarios.
Say the offender is not reporting as directed. Sometimes this is a minor issue for the PO and sometimes it is a battle of wills. The PO is in the best position to know how much energy the system has expended in attempting to obtain compliance. The first time the offender fails to keep an appointment is far different than the 5th time. If we still had to write up the offender, we’d expend clerical time as well as officer time. If we still had to appear in court, as it was in the past, we’d simply be testifying to the same information we were discussing with the offender.
The Oregon Solution?
1st thru 3rd violation - verbal reprimand... No Court, no violation report
4th violation - Community Service... No Court, no violation report...copy of sanction to Court
5th violation - 3 days jail ... No Court, no violation report...copy of sanction to court
It is important to note here that these are my professional decisions. The PO in the office across the county line may see things differently and would make a decision more appropriate to the local community standards in his or her area. At all times both the officer and/or the offender have the option to appear in court. In fact, the Court has the option, once they receive a copy of the sanction report to overrule the PO and impose a completely different sanction, or not sanction at all.
Sound confusing? Actually it couldn’t be simpler. Let’s take another example. The offender has been contacting his wife in violation of a restraining order and/or a probation order. She has contacted the PO and expressed fear for her safety. The Oregon solution?
1st violation...15 days jail...No Court appearance...no violation report...copy of sanction to court
2nd violation..30 days jail..No Court appearance..no violation report..copy of sanction to the Court 3rd violation...detain offender...violation report... court appearance...Court decides
Again, the offender has waived his right to a hearing, the court has noted the sanction and has elected to take no action, the decision is the PO’s to make, given local community standards for this type of offender behavior.
‘Hold on just a minute’, my fellow officers and the ACLU must be thinking. What act of congress gave the PO’s this power? Actually it was an act of the Oregon Legislature, SB1145. It should also be noted that this Statute limits sanctions imposed by the officers to 30 days jail on their own signature and 60 days jail with their supervisors signature in probation cases. Parole cases are limited to 30 day sanctions with sanctions of 31 days or more only allowed with the approval of the State Board of Parole. In Oregon we act as both Parole and Probation officers unlike, say, California.
So what exactly are the ‘menu of sanctioning options’ available to the Oregon PO? Well, it varies county by county depending on available resources. In my county we have, in ascending order of severity; reprimands, community service, day reporting, mandated cognitive education, road crew, electronic home detention, and jail. Other counties, especially metropolitan ones, there are significantly greater resources which may include transitional housing in lieu of jail, weekend custody, educational programs, work camps, and so on. The point to be remembered is that these are sanctions to which both the PO and the offender mutually agree, and which the Court does not elect to override.
Let’s look at another scenario. An offender continues to drink alcohol. He is employed and has been assessed as a minor risk to the community. Not complaints have been received from the citizens.
The Oregon Solution?
1st violation...reprimand...No reports...no Court appearance
2nd violation...alcohol classes...No reports. No Court appearance...copy of sanction to the Court
3rd violation...continue in classes...Road Crew...No Court appearance...copy of sanction to the Court
4th violation...continue classes... 3 days jail. No Court appearance...copy of sanction to the court
5th and subsequent violations continue classes...increased length of jail sanctions...No Court appearance...copy of sanction to the court
Repeat as desired until Probation expires.
Remember, these are our solutions in our community with offenders on our caseloads. Human beings are complicated and other professional PO’s in other area may have different ideas which may produce better results. The Oregon legislature also wisely limited the total number of days an offender can serve for violations before a formal revocation hearing occurs. In the above examples the offender probably would have 60 custody units available to the local PO. Custody Units are the number of jail days (or the equivalent of jail days) available to the PO’s to use in incarceration situations prior to a formal revocation. Sometimes, for example, electronic home detention might count toward some of these custody units.
So what happens when the field PO runs out of custody units? Well, usually a well thought-out Probation violation report is sent to the court requesting a warrant. The Court can see the previous efforts of the Probation Department and the logic behind the imposition of sanctions. By the time a case reaches this point, a PV is the obvious next step. The judge has a copy of all the previous sanctioning reports. As you might guess, the outcome is almost a foregone conclusion. After the violation hearing, and after the offender has served his prison sentence, he is released on Parole to be greeted by, guess who? After all, did I mention that we are both Probation and Parole officers in the State of Oregon?
I don’t know if Oregon is behind or ahead of the curve. However, this is how it looks from the field in this state. The benefits include a Court docket that is remarkably free of probation violation hearings and a District Attorney caseload relieved by the same amount of filings. The sequence of imposition of sanctions follows a well-defined continuum. Innovative alternatives to custody are encouraged by the management. Education of the offender is always available, should the PO so elect. The expenditure of a finite number of ‘custody units’ means that alternatives are always considered by the line staff. The professional judgment of the PO’s is valued, recognized, and respected by the offenders, Courts, and administration.
Let’s take one final example. An offender has three probation cases. He is not to frequent places where children congregate because of past sex offenses.
1st violation...formal report to Court...close file to revoked.
See you in the next issue