EX-CONS AS PAROLE OFFICERS?

Another blogger, "doc," made some comments on my latest blog, "Parole Officer Types." He concluded with, "I'd be interested in your thoughts on how you would match up the criminals and the POs." I tried to respond directly, but doc has not yet elected to publicly share his Profile. So, I will respond to him with this blog.

I do not believe matching up criminals with parole officers is the answer to effective supervision. There are too many logistical barriers. Because there are so many different types of criminals, each with their own qjuirks, it would almost take one parole officer for each parolee, and that would be an impossibility. By and large, parolees are assigned to parole officers based on where they live, so that they will be in a managable geographic area. Unfortunately, that's just the way it has to be.

It is of the upmost importance that the parole officer be both street-wise and con-wise, as well as brave. Unfortunately, college doesn't prepare you for that. Idealism is fine, but it matters little because case loads are too large for the parole officer to put that idealism to work. Protection of society from criminals has to be the primary consideration in the supervision of parolees. That is why I believe well educated ex-cops and former correctional officers make the best parole officers. Conversely, that is also why many MSWs are among the worst parole officers.

Managable case loads are extremely important. When I started out as a California parole agent, I had a "regular" case load. It was supposed to have no more than 70 parolees in it. However, I started out with 85 parolees, about 20 of whom were in jail, and they had to be seen at least once a week.

Because of my background as a narcotics officer, I was eventually assigned to the state's civil addict rehabilitation program. Case loads in this specialized program were not to exceed 30 parolees (I started out with more than 40) because it required frequent visits to the parolee's home and place of work. I was also required to conduct weekly group therapy sessions and surprise drug tests. Furthermore, you cannot properly supervise a bunch of drug addicts without conducting a certain amount of surveillance on them.

"doc" believes in specialization, but in California's civil addict program, the parole failure rate exceeded 60 percent. As an ex-cop, I had a lower failure rate, but it was still close to 50 percent. California also had special case loads for "high interest" cases with parolees whose crimes made major news headlines - child predators, gangsters, serial rapists, celebreties who committed violent crimes, etc.. These case loads were extremely small because the parole agent had to see each of his parolees in the field at least once a week.

In order for parole to succeed in protecting society, parole officers must not only be street-wise and con-wise, but they must also provide the kind of supervision that will be effective in preventing and detecting criminal behavior. That requires SURPRISE field visits to the parolees' homes and work sites. No parolee "reporting to his parole officer" crap, unless ordered to do so for a specific reason. Those office visits are, with few exceptions, worthless and a waste of the parole officer's time. Office visits that are not conducted for a special reason, enable the parole officer to know only what the parolee wants him to know.

As for those field visits, none of this 8-5 Monday through Friday business. Not only should field visits be conducted on a surprise basis, but those to the parolee's home should be conducted after dark, and occasionally on weekends. That is the only way a parole officer will be able to keep on top of the parolee's activities. Home visits by appointment have little valuse because, as with the office visits, the parole officer will see only what the parolee and his family want the officer to see.

It is important that, except in emergency cases, parole officers be required to adhere to a strict work schedule. Case loads should never exceed 80 parolees. For those case loads of 70-80, the parole officer should be limited to just two days in the office for paper work and for special appointments. For the remaining three days, two should be required for after dark home visits and, in some cases, surveillances. Some field work should be conducted on weekends. These case loads should require at least one home visit every three months, or more if necessary.

For special case loads of 30-40, there should be only one office day, with three evenings scheduled for home visits. And, of course, there has to be some weekend scheduling for those after dark home visits and surveillances. These case loads should require at least one home visit each month, or more if necessary.

Such work schedules will eliminate most MSWs from being parole officers because they will be too scared to go out after dark, especially into high-crime, gang-infested neighborhoods. After all, they didn't earn a masters degree to get shot, stabbed or have the shit kicked out of them. Good riddance! For the protection of society, parole needs to be much more of a law enforcement model than a social work one. The parole agency should also hire professional counselors to which parolees can turn or be assigend to for needed counseling.

This brings me back to the street-wise and con-wise parole officer. When I supervised the civil addict parolees, all of the addicts that were to be assigned to me or who had been returned from my case load, were housed in one dorm at the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC). A correctional couselor was in charge of each CRC dorm. I was required to make frequent visits to (my) dorm and particiapate in the group couseling sessions which were conducted daily. That had me working closely with the correctional counselor for that dorm.

One day I learned that my dorm had a new counselor and that he was an ex-con who had done fderal prison time. What?!!! Me, an ex-cop having to work with an ex-con? Holy shit!!! Well, it took only the first visit for me to realized that I would be dealing with the best correctional counselor I've ever encountered. He was so wise to their ways, that the inmates in his dorm did not get away with anything.

A favorite pastime for the inmates at CRC was to stop up the toilets so they could visit inmates in other dorms when they had to take a crap. Well, those fun and games came to a quick stop. The ex-con counselor would not allow his cons to leave their dorm, would not call for a plumber, and made the inmates unplug the toilets themselves.

Another problem in the dorms was the theft of personal belongings. Each inmate had a footlocker and pad lock for his belongings. But as will happend, the inmates would frequently forget to lock their footlockers. You'll never guess what the ex-con counselor did the first time a footlocker theft was reported to him. Surpirse! He took away all the pad locks. That brought an end to the thefts because now the inmates were forced to police themselves.

What's the point? California had hired a number of ex-cons as correctional couselors and in most cases they turned out to be the best of the lot. Then why can't we hire some ex-cons as parole officers? California could not because its parole agents were state peace officers, and the law prevented anyone from becoming a peace officer if he had a felony conviction on his record.

I believe that a carefully screened ex-con, one who has been discharged from his sentence and has for a number of years led a conforming and productive life, would make an outstanding parole officer. He would be street-wise and con-wise, and most likely brave enought to venture into gang-infested neighborhoods after dark. His parolees would not be able to con him because he's been there and knows all their tricks. As an ex-cop and former parole agent, I would strongly urge that the laws be changed in order to enable selected ex-cons to become parole officers.

"doc," if you read this blog, I hope that I have responded to the comments you made, and that I have done so to your satisfaction.