skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 76817 Find in a Library
Title: TAPC (Texas Adult Probation Commission) Shock Probation Survey, 1980
Author(s): J Kozuh; R Guenther; R Plattsmier; D Buckmaster
Corporate Author: Texas Adult Probation Cmssn
Division of Information Services
United States of America
Date Published: 1980
Page Count: 22
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
Texas Adult Probation Cmssn
Austin, TX 78753
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America
Document: PDF
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: A survey of 87 Texas probation departments, which was conducted by the Texas Adult Probation Commission, is presented; the survey evaluates the use of shock probation.
Abstract: Shock probation, a rehabilitation technique by which a defendant is given a brief taste of prison or jail and is then placed on probation for the remainder of the sentence, was authorized by the legislature effective August 19, 1977. Of the 87 departments responding to the survey (out of 106 queried), 75 reported having used shock probation. From these 75 departments, 1078 adults were placed on shock probation during the time span from August 29, 1977 to April 8, 1980. Of this number, 808 are still on probation, and 221 had unsuccessful probations. Survey responses indicate that prior knowledge of subsequent shock probation by the defendant is an important factor in this approach; 66 percent of the departments expressed the opinion that in order for shock probation to be really effective, a defendant should not be informed of being placed on shock probation until recalled from incarceration. In constrast, it was reported that 65 percent of all felony shock probationers had prior knowledge of subsequent shock probation. The effectiveness of shock probation was rated in various ways. Overall, 71 percent of the responding departments rated shock probation as effective, 22 percent thought it too soon to evaluate the effectiveness, and 5 percent thought it was not very effective. Concerning the impact of shock probation on the prison population, it was estimated that approximately 64 percet of the shock probationers would likely have been incarcerated for sentence duration if shock probation had not been available. Two footnotes, three tables, and five figures are provided in the survey. (Author abstract modified.
Index Term(s): Effectiveness; Probation or parole services; Probation outcome prediction; Probationers; Split sentences; Surveys; Texas
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=76817

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.