Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Felony probation: A re-examination of public risk

  • Articles
  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The California Rand study focused major attention on the potential threat that felons on probation presented to the public. Their findings of a 65% rearrest rate during a 40-month follow-up of 1672 felons raised considerable concern but left one key question unanswered: are those disturbing results unique to California or are they representative of a nationwide crisis generated by the critical prison overcrowding problem? The authors of the present study replicated the Rand report for the State of Missouri in an attempt to answer those questions. A total of 2083 felons from the most urban population of Missouri were tracked for the same 40-month period utilized by Rand, with very different results. The Missouri rearrest rates were found to be a respectable 22%. The obvious conclusion is that felony probation is an effective alternate to prison in Missouri, and the Rand study may not be representative of felony probation in general.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, H.E., Eskridge, C.W., Latessa, E.J., & Vito, G.F. (1983)Probation and parole in America. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1986)Tracking offenders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camp, G.M., & Camp, C. (1986)The corrections year-book. South Salem, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illinois Criminal Justice Authority Research Bulletin. (1985)Repeat offenders in Illinois. Chicago: State of Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarrell, E., & Flanagan, T. (1985)Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics—1984. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia, J. (1985a)Probation and felony offenders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia, J. (1985b) Probation and felony offenders.Federal Probation, 49(2), 4–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia, J., Turner, S., Kahan, J., & Peterson, J. (1985a) Executive summary of Rand’s study— ’Granting felons probation: Public risks and alternatives.Crime and Delinquency, 31, 379–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia, J., Turner, S., Kahan, J., & Peterson, J. (1985b)Granting felons probation: Public risks and alternatives. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vito, G.F. (1987) Felony probation and recidivism: Replication and response.Federal Probation, 50(4), 17–25.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Southeast Missouri State University, Missouri, USA

    Johnny Mcgaha, Michael Fichter & Peter Hirschburg

Authors
  1. Johnny Mcgaha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Fichter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Hirschburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mcgaha, J., Fichter, M. & Hirschburg, P. Felony probation: A re-examination of public risk. AJCJ 12, 1–9 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02887535

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02887535

Keywords

Search

Navigation