Missed Officer–Probationer Contacts and Its Influence on Rearrest

Probation is the most common form of correctional sanction, with an estimated 3,789,000 adults on probation at 2015 year end (Kaeble & Bonczar, 2017). Probation serves as an alternative to incarceration that allows the offender to serve their criminal sentence in the community (Bonta, Rugge, Scott, Bourgon, & Yessine, 2008). One of the primary goals of probation is crime control (Champion, 1996), which is achieved through the imposition of conditions of supervision. The crime control model has expanded in recent years to include the use of graduated sanctions coupled with judicial monitoring and the use of swift and certain zero-tolerance policies (Harrell & Roman, 2001; Hawken & Kleiman, 2009). One of the ways that the crime control model manifests is through monitoring and surveillance of probationers, including the requirement to report to a probation officer. The frequency of contact with probation officers varies by supervision level, as higher risk probationers are generally required to report more frequently compared with those on low-risk supervision (Gray, Fields, & Maxwell, 2001). Although contact with probation officers is a central component of supervision, relatively few studies have examined how missed probation contacts influences probationer outcomes, especially concerning rearrest.