Abstract

Probation practitioners argue that large caseloads limit their effectiveness, but prior research has not supported that assertion. In fact, with exceptions, strong studies of small caseload intensive probation supervision have produced undesirable findings: no reduction in recidivism and increased technical revocations. However, probation standards and practices have changed considerably since this earlier research, suggesting that new studies may yield different results. This study introduced reduced caseloads (approximately 54 medium- to high-risk probationers per officer) into an agency with officers fully trained in implementing evidence-based practices, a combination of supervision strategies based on known predictors of criminal recidivism. We evaluated the intervention's effect on recidivism and technical revocations of probation using a quasi-experimental design (difference-in-differences). We used survival analysis to estimate that the smaller caseload reduced the rate of recidivism by roughly 30%; technical violations increased by 4%. We conclude that reduced caseloads in agencies using modern supervision practices reduce recidivism.

Abstract

The right of one charged with [a] crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impar-tial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with [a] crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him. You can't give me too many cases, too many clients, too many prosecutors, and then tell me I have to conduct a farce of a trial when you know I am not ready. A system that will force me to be-tray my client by failing to represent him adequately at trial, is a system I won't play along with. You can't make me fail my client.