PROGRESS: an enhanced supervision program for high-risk criminal offenders.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Overall, a relatively small number of offenders commit the majority of crimes in the United States. Or, to illustrate this numerically, 100 different individuals do not commit 100 different crimes; instead, more like 20 people perpetrate that number of offenses. (1) Because a significant number of previously convicted criminals repeat their illegal acts following incarceration, does a method or means exist whereby government entities can deter such recidivism? Can local agencies take action?

While most corrections departments place formidable rules of supervision on criminal offenders in their care and custody, the methods they use may well determine whether offenders return to their criminal behavior. Can improved and intensified monitoring of these individuals on probation/parole reduce criminal activity and, thereby, recidivism?

Program Development

The Wausau, Wisconsin, Police Department and the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC)/Division of Community Corrections in Marathon County believed that a concentrated effort to ensure compliance with rules of supervision could result in reduced criminal activity and recidivism. To this end, these two agencies formed a partnership to develop a program to help increase rule compliance. Developed specifically to work with high-risk offenders, or those deemed by the DOC to require the most supervision, such as gang members, violent criminals, and sex offenders, the two agencies called their effort Proactive Gang Resistance Enforcement, Suppression, and Supervision or, more simply, by the acronym PROGRESS.

The agencies designed the program to allow probation/parole agents to conduct systematic home visits on high-risk offenders during the hours of least expectation. (2) They felt that to ensure effective placement, supervision, and compliance, offenders needed rules, limits, structure, and consistency. Home visits could afford the agencies the opportunity to determine or detect risk factors before offenders violated their rules of supervision. The program had two basic objectives: 1) for offenders to become aware of the increased certainty of detection of rule violations and 2) for offenders to experience the immediate consequences of such violations. In short, the agencies wished to stress the certainty of punishment, not the severity. They hoped that these objectives would cause offenders to, ultimately, voluntarily comply with the rules of supervision or at least react with a greater degree of compliance.

Program Implementation

The process of conducting home visits on high-risk offenders necessitated a creative, flexible, and adaptable partnership between the DOC and the police department. This included defining each partner's goals and objectives, identifying and securing resources, establishing procedures, and gaining support from such other entities as the district attorney's office, the sheriff's department, and the city council. Moreover, because the process required DOC probation/parole agents and Wausau Police Department officers to work nonstandard hours, the agencies had to recruit experienced agents and officers possessing traits best suited for the task, such as good communication skills, resourcefulness, and the ability to make decisions on their own.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Probation/parole agents always led the home visits with the police officers available as support and to provide safety and immediate action if custodial detention or criminal activity was discovered. (3) First-time home visits were comprehensive and, thus, more time consuming than follow-up visits. During first-time visits, probation/parole agents discussed the rules of supervision not only with the offender but also with other occupants of the home, when applicable. They performed a walk-through of the residence to ensure that the living situations complied with these rules and recorded such items as the number and location of exits plus the location and sleeping arrangements for the offender and other occupants. This process allowed agents to meet the offender's family or other occupants, thereby enabling them to assess the offender's environment and to offer support and assistance.

Which offenders the agents visited and when they contacted them varied, depending on the rules of supervision. Regardless, agents always completely documented all home visits. They recorded such information as the time of contact and those present at the home. At those visits when the offender was not available, agents left notice of their presence and any instructions for the offender.

Program Results

Working at least once a week and averaging about 30 visits per night, the PROGRESS team conducted nearly 130 nights of home visits during the 2 years of operation (October 1999 through September 2001). The team worked approximately 1,150 hours, averaging about 5 hours a night. It made nearly 2,500 offender contacts in about 4,000 home visits and slightly more than 1,100 contacts with offenders' families or friends. The team found roughly 200 offenders in violation of supervision.

The majority of violations involved alcohol and curfew infractions followed by contact with unauthorized persons. Violations per contact by year demonstrated a reduction of 43 percent from October 1999 through September 2000, which showed a rate of 1 per 13 visits, compared with October 2000 through September 2001, which revealed a violation rate of 1 per 26 visits. Interestingly, the beginning quarter (October through December 1999) reported a ratio of 1 violation per every 7 visits, while the ending quarter (July through September 2001) recorded a ratio of 1 violation per every 39 visits.

Not all violations of supervision resulted in custodial arrests. About 20 individuals on high-risk supervision had their probation/parole revoked as a direct result of violations or crimes discovered during home visits. About 15 people received formal alternatives to revocation (i.e., not ending their probation/parole but imposing new, more stringent rules of supervision). Police arrests for discovery of criminal violations or outstanding warrants showed a fairly consistent decrease during the program. In over 20 cases, officers arrested friends and family members for encouraging offenders to violate their rules of supervision.

Program Evaluation

The PROGRESS program achieved its ultimate goal of increasing rule compliance. The program's objectives of offenders becoming aware of the increased certainty of rule violation detection along with experiencing the immediate consequences for such violations contributed greatly to the program's success. Statistics indicated a steady decline in the number of rule compliance violations, which decreased from 14 percent in the first year to 3 percent in the second. The program has proven successful in other areas as well, such as the reduction in arrests by law enforcement officers for criminal offenses detected during home visits and the increase in the number of offender contacts initiated. The number of police arrests declined from a high of 12 during the first quarter to 2 for the last quarter. The program attributed the increase in the number of offender contacts initiated to the decreases in rule violations. Although rule violations are time consuming, the decrease in the number of violations allowed additional time for home visits. Finally, the program worked so well in the first year of monitoring high-risk gang and violent crime offenders that the DOC added high-risk sex offenders to the list of homes to visit.

Besides these quantitative outcomes, some unexpected benefits occurred as well. For example, the media presented several excellent articles about the program. In addition, the program garnered positive responses from the offenders involved, as well as their families. Perhaps most notable, many offenders exhibited a much higher level of interaction with agents and officers, even to the point of helping in investigations.

The PROGRESS program also had a positive effect on the relationship between the DOC and the police department. The partnership enabled each agency's members to discover the importance of the other's operations, encouraging flexibility, creativity, trust, and respect. Improved information sharing helped officers investigate and solve crimes and provided probation/parole agents with information on high-risk offenders' known associates. Both agencies benefitted greatly from the exchange of information and the atmosphere of cooperation. In the final analysis, the program's success resulted primarily from the dedication of the personnel involved and the close collaboration between the DOC and the Wausau Police Department.

Conclusion

Recognizing that only a few individuals commit the majority of crimes represents a well-known problem, but finding ways to combat this has been a challenge. Too often, the law enforcement and the corrections sides of the equation have not joined together to pursue workable partnerships. The Wausau Police Department and the Wisconsin Department of Corrections/Division of Community Corrections in Marathon County, however, developed a program that demonstrated PROGRESS in this area.

The Proactive Gang and Resistance Enforcement, Suppression, and Supervision program revealed how law enforcement officers and probation/parole agents can form a team that not only punishes offenders who violate their rules of supervision but also helps offenders attempting to change their past criminal behavior and become productive members of society. Such efforts deserve the support of communities searching for strategies to help reduce crime by decreasing recidivism.

                      PROGRESS Activity Report
                 October 1999 through September 2001

                                                    1st    2nd    Total
                                                    Year   Year

Evenings Worked                                     55     69     124

Offender Contacts Initiated                      1,586  2,361   3,947
Each agent made about 28 unscheduled,
unannounced home visits per evening
primarily for surveillance, resident
verification, and community support.
Agents could return to a house a second
time the same evening.

Offender Contacts                                 1,076  1,389  2,465
Offenders located during the evening at their
residence, workplace, or other locations.
Agents documented all information gathered.

Offenders Not at Home                               508    830  1,338
As visits were unscheduled, no assurance
existed that offenders would be home.
Agents made valuable collateral contacts.
If unable to locate offenders, agents
left notice for offenders to contact them
within 24 hours.

Violations of Supervision                           116     83    199
Offenders taken into custody or ordered in
on a violation of supervision as detected
or witnessed by the agents upon contact.

Police Arrests                                       32     16     48
Offenders taken into custody generally for
newly discovered criminal violations or
outstanding warrants.

Collateral Contacts                                 523    581  1,104
Contacts made with or without the offender
present. Generally family members or
significant others, but also were
acquaintances present at the home.

Collateral Arrests                                   23     21     44
Offenders' acquaintances or family members
taken into custody/arrested during contact
with offenders in PROGRESS program.

Agent/Officer Hours                                 586    595  1,181
Total number of probation/parole agent and
police officer hours worked during program.
Each agency dedicated about 24 hours per month.

Endnotes

1 For example, in 1999, less than 1 percent of known gang members committed 38 percent of assaults in Wausau, Wisconsin. In 2000, less than 1 percent of the people on supervision in Marathon County, Wisconsin, were responsible for 45 percent of aggravated assaults.

2 The author points out that law enforcement officers and probation/parole agents must comply with the terms of the parole agreement, state law, and the U.S. Constitution when making home visits, which are legal if included as one of the conditions of parole/probation by the court sentencing the defendant. See 534 U.S. 112, 122 S.Ct. 587.

3 For an informative overview of Fourth Amendment issues, see Thomas D. Colbridge, "Probationers, Parolees, and the Fourth Amendment," FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, July 2003, 22-32.

Define Partner Goals

Law Enforcement Agencies

Protect and serve the community

Enforce federal, state, and local laws

Develop proactive programs

Partner with the community

Probation/Parol Agencies

Protect and serve the community

Hold offenders accountable

Develop offender competency

Partner with the community