Somebody's watching me: examining the impact of probation officer caseloads on revocation rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are approximately one quarter of a million individuals on supervised probation in California.This is more than the number of people incarcerated in, or on parole from, state prisons, and equates to roughly one in every hundred California adults.As the most substantial means of correctional supervision in the state, probation is a crucial piece of public safety when policymakers consider potential changes to any statewide approach to criminal justice.Prior research into probation as a system indicated several critical factors for predicting the likelihood of a probationer's success or failure: education, criminal background, economic and family ties, race and ethnicity, and mental health.These important elements of a probationer's life are significant predictors of whether the probationer will complete the term of his or her supervision.However, these are systemic realities that are often hard to solve, or even clearly identify, through targeted policy decisions.However, there are other factors entirely within reach of policy intervention.One example is the use of standardized or well-defined and appropriate caseloads for probation officers.Historically, researchers have explored the impact of probation officer caseload sizes on outcomes and found mixed results, mostly because of the unique circumstances of each study.My research utilizes a regression analysis of probation revocations in California's 58 counties over eight years between 2010 and 2017.The primary focus of the regression is a
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".