By Sheldon Glueck (Author), Graeme Newman (Introduction)

Sheldon Glueck’s Probation and Criminal Justice (1931), a collection of papers from world wide experts, stands as one of the earliest systematic examinations of probation within the American penal system. Published at a time when probation was still consolidating its place as a regularized judicial practice, the book sought both to describe the institution as it existed and to evaluate its possibilities as a rational and humane alternative to imprisonment. Glueck, already well known as a criminologist and later famed for his longitudinal studies on criminal careers, approached probation with the same empirical rigor and critical balance that defined his scholarship.
The work provides a historical account of probation’s origins, tracing its roots to the nineteenth-century innovations of John Augustus in Boston, and situates its emergence within the broader reform movements of the Progressive Era. By the early 1930s, probation had spread widely across American jurisdictions, yet it lacked the uniformity, resources, and professional standards necessary for consistent success. Glueck’s central argument was therefore twofold: probation held genuine promise as an instrument of rehabilitation and social reintegration, but its potential could only be realized through careful administration, adequately trained personnel, and an honest reckoning with its limitations.
To read Probation and Criminal Justice today is to encounter both a historical document and a surprisingly contemporary critique. The themes Glueck emphasized—the professionalization of probation officers, the dangers of excessive caseloads, the necessity of balancing rehabilitation with accountability—are still at the heart of debates over community supervision. The persistence of these concerns is a testament both to the enduring complexity of probation as a penal tool and to the prescience of Glueck’s analysis.
In this sense, the book is more than a relic of early twentieth-century criminology. It is a reminder that penal reform, however well intentioned, remains fragile unless supported by adequate resources, clear objectives, and sustained public commitment. Probation has advanced since Glueck’s time in terms of reach, sophistication, and legitimacy, yet the paradoxes he identified continue to shape its practice.
For scholars, practitioners, and students of criminal justice, this volume offers not only a window into the early years of probation but also a mirror reflecting ongoing challenges in community-based corrections. Glueck’s careful and critical study thus retains its relevance: a classic text that still speaks to the unfinished project of building a fair, effective, and humane system of criminal justice.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. 211 p.

by Marina Duane, Jennifer Yahner, Erica Henderson, Malore Dusenbery, and Natalie Gilbert

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, in a community with high rates of opioid addiction, a jail in one county in rural Massachusetts showed that treating addiction for people cycling in and out of incarceration can be done better (Partners for a Healthier Community Inc. 2015). In 2020, the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office (FCSO) capitalized on its previously built infrastructure and system partners to offer all three federally approved medications for opioid use disorders (MOUDs) and provide therapeutic counseling remotely to incarcerated people as a critical component of treatment. While the majority of jails in the United States do not offer MOUDs as an option to start or continue treatment during incarceration, the FCSO was able to continue offering all three medications (buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone) during the pandemic and to meet diverse clinical needs of people coming into their jail. The FCSO also continued offering individual and group counseling via telehealth throughout the pandemic and shifted to a mix of telehealth and in-person services in 2022. understand what facilitated or hindered its successful application and how clients (that is, incarcerated people) and the professionals supporting them perceived the effects. Our findings fill a critical gap in knowledge about whether counseling can be effectively delivered via telehealth in correctional settings. We hope this brief provides useful knowledge to other jails across the country on how to shift to a treatment philosophy. In addition, we hope it gives other localities some ideas on how to create an infrastructure that is conducive to treating opioid use disorders (OUDs) with the dignity and prowess required to address the complexities of the unaddressed mental health needs that often accompany addiction. The results of this study are promising, as illustrated in the following highlights:  Over a decade ago, FCSO leadership set a vision and a strategy to become a nationally recognized facility that prioritizes high-quality behavioral health treatment rather than simply “warehousing” people. Such transformation took time, but our findings suggest that at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, most FCSO staff recognized their important role in curbing high rates of opioid addiction in Franklin County. Staff made significant strides in expanding behavioral health treatment and therapeutic counseling as its critical component.  By 2020, the FCSO was offering all three modalities of federally approved medications to treat opioid use disorders as continuation and induction options. While most jails in the United States still do not offer any MOUD treatment, FCSO provides a range of options to meet the complex needs of people with OUD diagnoses wherever they are in the recovery stage.  Our evaluation demonstrates ways in which the FCSO was able to provide high-quality one-onone counseling remotely at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, out of 31 surveyed clients, 90 percent reported a strong bond with their counselor, also known as therapeutic alliance, and 84 percent rated the quality of telehealth counseling as “good” or “excellent.” Furthermore, 87 percent of respondents said that counseling via telehealth helped them more effectively deal with problems in their lives, including addiction.  Although some FCSO behavioral health staff we interviewed reported it was challenging to do trauma work in jail with people struggling with addiction and who often get released quickly, overall, staff praised the FCSO’s decision to offer high-quality counseling and maximize clients’ time in therapy to address important mental health needs.

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute 2023. 17p.

By Jared Trujillo

The relationship between incarceration and poverty is circular, cyclical, and symbiotic – poverty is a cause of incarceration, and incarceration causes poverty. In the 1970’s and 1990’s, New York led the country in enacting draconian sentencing laws that required judges to sentence children and adults to longer periods of incarceration, while also reducing the ability of incarcerated people to earn time off of their sentences for participation in rehabilitative, vocational, and educational programming. For the past half century, these harsh sentencing laws have been the primary driver of mass incarceration in New York. As a result, generations of families with criminal legal system involvement have been damned to multigenerational poverty. This is most profound in low-income communities, particularly low-income Black and brown communities.

Incarceration often deprives children, partners, and other family members of a breadwinner. Even when breadwinners are released from incarceration, incomes for former imprisoned people are between ten and twenty percent lower than those who were never imprisoned. Even incomes for those formerly incarcerated in juvenile detention facilities are lower than the incomes of those who were not. Further, the children of incarcerated parents suffer from psychological, emotional, and educational trauma. These children are six times more likely to be incarcerated in their lives than their peers who do not have incarcerated parents. Romantic partners and co-parents of incarcerated people often struggle with anxiety, stress, and financial precarity. Mass incarceration in New York continues to be a policy choice, and sentencing reform is an important tool to fight individual and multigenerational poverty.

This article ultimately presents five legislative proposals that would reduce mass incarceration in New York. Repealing the juvenile offender statute will prevent children as young as 13 years old from being given life sentences; the Youth Justice and Opportunities Act would expand, strengthen, and establish alternative sentencing structures for people under 26 years old that would limit the length of incarceration while also sparing young people from the scarlet mark of a permanent criminal conviction; the Eliminate Mandatory Minimums Act would unchain judges from the rigidity and cruelty of New York’s current sentencing paradigm, while requiring them to consider noncustodial sentences and alternatives to incarceration; the Second Look Act would enable those who are already sentenced to long periods of incarceration to apply for a reduced sentence; and the Earned Time Act would enable incarcerated people to earn time off of their sentence for participating in educational, rehabilitative, or vocational programming.

26 CUNY L. Rev. 225 (2023). 42p.