By The Confederation of European Probation.

Probation organisations are dynamic organisations that usually have a tradition of accommodating and assimilating appropriate working methods commonly accepted within the society in which they operate. In a probation context, these working methods broadly aim to support both the essence and goals of probation. We can see evidence of this in the ongoing professional discussions, development projects, and technology being used and incorporated into probation practice. The purpose of these practice recommendations is to support jurisdictions to reflect upon certain issues before developing and using technology, undergoing digitalisation or considering hybrid working models. First, it is recommended for all organisations providing probation services to consider the goals of probation when considering using technology and digitising services. The second recommendation is to consider the essence of probation and the goals of probation when choosing technology or digitalised working processes. In practice, this could mean, for example, that the chosen technology should enhance building a positive and constructive working relationship with the client and facilitating rehabilitation and undertaking change work with the probation client. Another practical positive impact could be that co-work with other stakeholders and service providers becomes more flexible. The third aim of the practice recommendations is to share the benefits and good practices in using technology and digitalisation with members of the Confederation of European Probation (CEP) and other counterparts. The core purpose of these practice recommendations is to highlight the recommendations of the Council of Europe, such as the Probations Rules, Recommendations on community sanctions and measures, Electronic Monitoring and Artificial Intelligence defined, regarding the use of technology and digitalisation in probation. The fourth aspect is that all members of the European Union must consider and comply with the EU Directive on Data Protection and Security (GDPR). 

Utrecht, NETH: CEP Expert Group on Technology , 2024. 33p.

By Alex Roth, Sandhya Kajeepeta, and Alex Boldin

Probation—a court-ordered period of supervision in the community for people convicted of criminal charges—has traditionally been viewed as an alternative to incarceration, and sentencing more people to probation rather than prison was long proposed as a solution to the problem of mass incarceration. (See “A brief history of probation” on page 2.) However, as the number of people on probation in the United States has grown massively and probation supervision has become more punitive over the past few decades, more recent reports have focused on how probation is contributing to mass incarceration. These reports explain how increasingly large numbers of people are having their probation supervision revoked and are then being sentenced to incarceration, often for noncompliance with conditions of supervision rather than new criminal charges. Although most of these reports mention both prisons and jails when discussing how probation violations have contributed to mass incarceration, they provide almost no specific information about how such violations affect jail populations. The information about probation’s impact on jails included in some of these reports is often extremely old and sometimes incorrect, propagated from reports that cite previous reports in a sort of game of statistical “telephone.” Meanwhile, other reports simply acknowledge the reality that there is no good national data on how probation contributes to incarceration in local jails. The lack of information about probation’s impact on jail populations is problematic because far more people are admitted to jails than prisons every year and jails are a driving force in mass incarceration generally, and jail populations are also marked by significant racial disparities. This brief will summarize what we do know about probation and how it can contribute to jail populations. It will also present an analysis of data from nine cities and counties participating in the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge (SJC), a national initiative that seeks to address over-incarceration by changing the way the  United States thinks about and uses jails. The Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) was able to obtain more detailed jail data from these sites than is available at the national level. This analysis offers examples of how probation affects jail incarceration and the kind of data and analysis that is needed at the national level. Finally, this brief will highlight work being done in two SJC sites—St. Louis County, Missouri, and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania— to reduce the number of people on probation in their jails. This brief is intended both to spur greater consideration of the problem of probation’s contribution to jail populations and to suggest ways to address it.  

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2021. 50p.

By Emily Widra

More than 1 in 10 people admitted to state prisons every year have committed no new crime, but have simply broken one or more of the many conditions, or rules, of their probation. All of this unnecessary incarceration is the predictable result of widely-adopted probation conditions that are so vaguely defined, so burdensome, and so rigidly applied that they actually broaden the scope of what counts as “recidivism.” Through these conditions, courts and probation authorities create punishable offenses that go far beyond criminal law, setting people up to fail. And because the vast majority of people under correctional control are on probation — 2.9 million people, 1 far surpassing the 1.9 million people incarcerated — these trap-like conditions make probation a major driver of mass incarceration, not the “alternative” it’s supposed to be. Shrinking the massive probation system — and the number of people incarcerated from community supervision — is central to ending mass incarceration. Doing so requires challenging existing “standard conditions” that (a) are often in conflict with one another, (b) exacerbate the challenges people on probation are already facing, and (c) empower probation officers — rather than courts — to make subjective decisions that can lead to revocation and incarceration. Examining these conditions clarifies why probation often functions as an on ramp to incarceration instead of an alternative, and can help advocates and policymakers reorient probation systems away from incarceration. Unfortunately, standard probation conditions are often difficult to locate and parse, vary between jurisdictions, and use complicated and unclear language, so to aid in this effort, we collected and analyzed the standard conditions for 76 jurisdictions across all 50 states and Washington, D.C., creating one of the most comprehensive compilations of these rules to date. 

Northampton, MA: Prion Policy Initiative, 2024. 

By Sian Galsworthy

In 2019 Joseph McCann was sentenced to 33 life sentences for committing violent and sexual offences whilst subject to supervision by the National Probation Service (NPS), following his release from prison on license earlier that year. The subsequent Serious Further Offence (SFO) report prompted an independent review from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) which put forward several recommendations for change, to ensure the probation service could safely and effectively protect the public. This report presents the findings from an evaluation of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) Complex Cases pilot within the East of England Probation Region. Complex Cases have been defined as cases that meet six of eight specified criteria, which deem them complex and challenging for Probation Practitioners (PP) to manage. The pilot process consisted of triaging those cases that met six of the eight pre-determined criteria. If the practitioner required further support with their case following triage, the case was then referred to and heard at a multi-disciplinary panel which consisted primarily of senior members of Probation and Prison staff who could advise on how to best manage the case. The pilot formed part of the commitment to address the recommendation (8) put forward in the Joseph McCann HMIP report which was to: “Ensure probation staff have adequate time to become familiar with complex cases for which they assume responsibility” (HMIP, 2020) This evaluation has explored the views and experiences of those who have participated in the Complex Cases pilot, to identify how its development and subsequent roll out has been perceived so far, and if there is any early/indicative learning which can be identified for future scale-up of the pilot. The pilot commenced in the Summer of 2021, it is still active and expanding across the pilot Probation Region.   The objectives of this evaluation were: 1. To explore what has been successful about the initial roll out of the Complex Cases Pilot 2. To explore which aspects of the Complex Cases Pilot require improvement 3. To explore the effects of the Complex Cases Pilot on Probation Practitioners sense of confidence in managing the complexities of the case and practice/case management

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service , 2024. 60p.

 By Kourtnie Rodgers, Thomas Strauss 

In response to a critical need of the clients they serve, Twin Falls County Adult Misdemeanor Probation began a program to offer vouchers for clients with financial need in 2007. Vouchers are paid for with funding from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program and can be used for required pieces of probation including drug testing, substance abuse treatment, and assessments. The goal of providing these vouchers is to reduce the burden of fees for clients who cannot afford to pay for their required conditions and ultimately to reduce recidivism of drug- and/or alcohol-related offenses. Clients are also able to access treatment providers that they may otherwise not be able to afford. This evaluation presents the Idaho Statistical Analysis Center’s (ISAC) review of the program through data collected by Twin Falls County Adult Misdemeanor Probation between October 2018 and September 2021. 

Meridian, ID: Idaho Statistical Analysis Center, 2022. 19p.

By Kelly Lyn Mitchell and Ebony Ruhland

Since 2019, Ramsey County Community Corrections (RCCC) and the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice have collaborated on the Reducing Revocations Challenge, a CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance national initiative supported by Arnold Ventures that is dedicated to understanding the drivers of probation revocations and identifying ways to reduce them when appropriate. This study investigated the underlying causes of failure to maintain contact violations by interviewing individuals on probation in Ramsey County, Minnesota. A significant finding from our research is that "failure to maintain contact" with probation officers, often called "absconding" in other jurisdictions, is a prevalent violation, accounting for 29% of probation violations and 23% of revocations. Additionally, this study sought to understand how people on probation experienced being apprehended on a warrant, the issuance of which was reported to be a frequent response for failure to maintain contact violations. On the surface, the reasons for failure to maintain contact seemed straightforward. However, individual stories revealed much more complex situations, including struggles with substance abuse, lack of basic needs, and missteps by the probation department. This study also revealed several potential areas for improvement that could reduce failure to maintain contact violations in the future, such as assessing and addressing basic needs to increase compliance and reestablishing communication with individuals who are unresponsive but not necessarily hiding.

Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota, 2023. 38p.