By Clarence Okoh & Isabel Coronado

Community supervision, or community corrections, refers to a court-ordered period of correctional supervision served outside of a correctional facility. Some policymakers insist that “community supervision” is a viable path to combat mass incarceration. However, mounting evidence makes clear that “mass supervision” is not a solution; instead, it is a leading driver of mass criminalization, especially in Black communities and other communities of color. Mass supervision’s broad range of economic, legal, and social disadvantages trap millions of individuals in cycles of carceral predation and second-class citizenship. To address this crisis, policymakers must envision an entirely new paradigm to support the needs of individuals returning home from correctional facilities. This paradigm must break cycles of correctional punishment while insisting on systemic redress and repair for communities that have carried the heaviest burdens of mass criminalization.

This report offers insights to help policymakers create that new paradigm. For this report, we interviewed over two dozen community advocates, practitioners, and systems-impacted individuals concentrated in three states–Arizona, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin–to understand better how state community supervision systems impede or support economic opportunity, with a particular focus on parole supervision.

What emerged from those conversations was a consensus about the need for a new legal and policy paradigm that we term “community repair.” Community repair offers an entirely different relationship between the state and systems-impacted individuals. Community repair is an anti-carceral policy approach that advocates for removing corrections and law enforcement from the reentry process altogether—recognizing that public investments in meeting basic needs such as employment, housing, and health care hold the most significant promise in disrupting mass supervision and incarceration. This framework goes further by insisting that the state must address present harms and redress the multigenerational harms of mass supervision on families and communities impacted by the criminal legal system.

Based on our conversations with stakeholders and an extensive scan of policy developments at the state and national levels, we offer recommendations for harm reduction and systems transformation of community supervision.

Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy - CLASP, 2022. 28p.

By M. Camello, M., R. Shute, & J.D. Ropero-Miller

Individuals on community supervision are often required to abstain from alcohol and drug use and are typically subjected to substance use monitoring to verify sobriety, as a condition of their supervision. Providing reliable, timely, and cost- effective monitoring of alcohol and drug use for persons on community supervision as a condition of their release is a serious challenge given high-volume caseloads and concerns with public safety. This technology brief highlights technologies and solutions used to monitor alcohol and drug use for persons on community supervision. This is the third document in a four-part series on technologies to support the monitoring and supervision of individuals on pretrial release, probation, and parole (i.e., community supervision).

Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International. 2023. 22p.

By Michelle S. Phelps

Between 1980 and 2007, probation rates in the United States skyrocketed alongside imprisonment rates; since 2007, both forms of criminal justice control have declined in use. Although a large literature in criminology and related fields has explored the causes and consequences of mass incarceration, very little research has explored the parallel rise of mass probation. This review takes stock of our knowledge of probation in the United States. In the first section, I trace the expansion of probation historically, across states, and for specific demographic groups. I then summarize the characteristics of adults on probation today and what we know about probation revocation. Lastly, I review the nascent literature on the causal effects of probation for individuals, families, neighborhoods, and society. I end by discussing a plan for research and the growing movement to blunt the harms of mass supervision.

Annual Review of Criminology, Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2020. 3:261–79

By Sara Rahman

LCM is a multiagency approach to offender management where the Department of Communities and Justice, the NSW Police Force and NSW Health work in partnership to provide tailored case management and wraparound support to offenders under Community Corrections supervision. This support may include referrals to housing services, disability services, health and mental health services, drug and alcohol services, victim services, and relationship services in addition to any rehabilitation programs.
We study whether LCM is associated with changes in four outcomes: any reoffending, serious drug, violent, and property reoffending, domestic violence reoffending, and return to custody, each within 12 months of referral.
To do this, we compare reoffending rates of LCM offenders with reoffending rates of a matched control group.
We supplemented this analysis with an event study analysis comparing offending before and after referral to LCM versus a matched group with similar community order start dates.
Crime and Justice Bulletin No. CJB257

Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2023. 37p.

By Molly Robustelli; Colby Dawley; Molly Buchanan.; Carrie Chapman; Maura McNamara; Amanda Coscia; and Christian Schiavone

Across the United States, the majority of people under correctional supervision serve their sentence on probation or parole. As of 2020, data show that while just under 2 million people are incarcerated in either prison or jail, about 3.9 million individuals are on probation or parole.1 Of the 1.8 million individuals who exit probation or parole annually, almost half do not successfully complete supervision. Of those who do not complete their supervision, 211,000 will return to prison or jail.2 This has made revocation from probation or parole a leading driver of incarceration in the United States.3 Florida has one of the largest community supervision populations in the country. By the end of 2020, the state had 183,900 individuals on community supervision. Florida ranks fifth highest in the nation for its probation population in the same period, while the state’s parole population is ranked 32nd highest at just over 4,000 individuals. 4 The impact of revocations on the state’s prison population is significant. Florida corrections leaders recognize this challenge and have been working to identify and implement strategies that reduce revocations from community supervision. Despite previous reform efforts, thousands of individuals continue to enter Florida’s prisons due to a revocation of community supervision.5 In January of 2019, the Florida Department of Corrections requested assistance from the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) in analyzing the factors driving revocation trends in an effort to reduce revocations and recidivism while strengthening community supervision practices. Over 18 months, CJI assessed Florida’s community supervision system, analyzing individual-level and case-level data, reviewing the administrative and legal frameworks governing community supervision, conducting focus group interviews with stakeholders across the state, and disseminating a survey to understand practices on the ground. Through this assessment, CJI found that: • Florida’s revocation rate has consistently hovered near 48 percent since 2012; • Among all revocations from 2010 to 2019, 57 percent were due to technical violations; • Revocation rates are highest for those on three types of supervision: community control, drug offender probation, and felony probation; • Six of the top 10 violations linked to revocations in 2019 were for technical violations; • Nearly one in three revocations resulted in state prison time, but the use of jail has increased over the past decade; • There have been efforts to implement an alternative approach to responding to violations, but responses vary by judicial circuit, limiting the effectiveness and equitable use of these practices; and • A number of barriers impacted individuals’ success on supervision, including limited resources in the community to respond to the needs of individuals on community supervision and a misalignment between the conditions ordered and the areas that should be targeted to reduce recidivism. Based on these findings, CJI identified 14 potential opportunities to safely reduce revocations and improve community supervision outcomes in Florida. These opportunities fall into three overarching goals, which include, addressing barriers to success, focusing resources on the highest-risk population, and ensuring sustainability of evidence-based practices.

Boston: Crime and Justice Institute, 2022. 39p.

By Rochisha Shukla, Ammar Khalid and Arielle Jackson

Through its participation in the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge, Pima County, Arizona, strengthened its transitional housing program as part of a multifaceted approach to address housing instability among people with histories of criminal legal system involvement, including people serving probation. As part of this program, Pima County’s Adult Probation Department provided referrals and financial assistance to people on probation in need of immediate housing. In this study, the Urban Institute assessed the effects of receiving transitional housing support on people serving probation, especially in terms of jail incarceration.

WHY THIS MATTERS

Housing instability, especially chronic homelessness, has been found to have strong links to jail incarceration. Not only are people with histories of criminal legal system involvement at higher risk of facing homelessness, but homelessness can be a major cause of further system involvement. This is particularly true for people serving probation, whose probation conditions require them to report and maintain a valid address, a violation of which can result in jail incarceration.

WHAT WE FOUND

Our main takeaways include the following:

The Adult Probation Department prioritized people with higher risk and needs when making decisions about funding for transitional housing. Accordingly, people who received financial support from the department to access transitional housing were more likely to have been charged with a felony at the time of original sentencing, more likely to be classified as higher risk based on criminogenic risk scores, generally had more formal violation petitions filed against them, were more likely to be on the Intensive Probation Supervision caseload than the Standard Probation Supervision caseload, and were more likely to have sentences entailing incarceration and probation terms.

The odds of a probation termination to jail were not significantly different for people who received APD funding for transitional housing and those who did not. These null effects, however, could owe to the program being in its early stages, which translated to small number of people served and limited data available on people who received transitional housing support.

Although we did not observe that transitional housing support had any effects on the odds of being incarcerated in jail, interviewed stakeholders perceived this support for people on probation to be a crucial stabilizing force and extremely meaningful to their well-being.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2022. 18p.

By Robin Olsen, Ammar Khalid, Ashlin Oglesby-Neal, Tessa Upin

Many states have enacted comprehensive justice system reforms to reduce the use of incarceration and community supervision with the aim of focusing resources on people at higher risk of reoffending and investing in strategies to achieve better outcomes for people and communities. In 2015, Nebraska and Utah passed legislation to create a structured approach for responding to supervision violations. This included the use of time-limited incarceration stays that are shorter than full revocations of supervision. We conducted interviews with stakeholders and analyzed administrative data in both states to examine the implementation and effects of the reform to community supervision incarceration responses. Our analysis found that violation responses have changed in both states, moving from revocations or other prereform incarceration sanctions toward structured, short jail stays or incarceration caps. Additionally, while overall incarceration stays associated with supervision violations increased in both states after the reforms, the number of full revocations from felony probation decreased in Nebraska and the proportion of violations that received an incarceration response decreased in Utah. The analysis also showed that successful completions for both states’ supervision systems either increased immediately after reforms were implemented or increased after a brief decrease. However, the analysis found that the use of time-limited incarceration responses did not make successful supervision completion more likely for particular cases in Nebraska, and in Utah, cases that received time-limited incarceration responses had higher recidivism rates than similar cases that did not. This brief offers recommendations that Nebraska, Utah, and other jurisdictions considering similar policies can consider to build on these pieces of legislation, including closely tracking both system-level and individual outcome metrics, establishing policies and practices that meet the goals of their approaches to supervision violation responses, and limiting the overall use of incarceration because of its potential criminogenic impact.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 53p.

By Coral Sirdifield, Charlie Brooker, Rebecca Marples

A narrative systematic review was undertaken of the literature concerning the health of people on probation or parole (community supervision). In this paper, we provide an up-to-date summary of what is known about substance misuse in this context. This includes estimates of the prevalence and complexity of substance misuse in those under community supervision, and studies of the effectiveness of approaches to treating substance misuse and engaging and retaining this population in treatment. A total of 5125 papers were identified in the initial electronic searches, and after careful double-blind review only 31 papers related to this topic met our criteria. In addition, a further 15 background papers were identified which are reported. We conclude that internationally there is a high prevalence and complexity of substance misuse amongst people under community supervision. Despite clear benefits to individuals and the wider society through improved health, and reduced re-offending; it is still difficult to identify the most effective ways of improving health outcomes for this group in relation to substance misuse from the research literature. Further research and investment is needed to support evidence-based commissioning by providing a detailed and up-to-date profile of needs and the most effective ways of addressing them, and sufficient funds to ensure that appropriate treatment is available and its impact can be continually measured. Without this, it will be impossible to truly establish effective referral and treatment pathways providing continuity of care for individuals as they progress through, and exit, the criminal justice pathway.    

Utrecht: Confederation of European Probation, 2020.

By Elias Neibart

In September 2021, New York Governor Kathy Hochul quietly signed into law the Less Is More: Community Supervision Revocation Reform Act, the state’s fourth major criminal justice reform enacted in the past three years. Less Is More made dramatic changes to the state’s parole system, specifically: Creating a system of earned time credits to incentivize good behavior;Significantly limiting reincarceration for “technical” violations of the terms of parole (i.e., a violation other than committing a new crime), and shortening the length of reincarceration;Limiting the presumption of detention for parole violators, such that technical violators are detained only if they abscond, and criminal violators detained only if a judge rules them at risk of absconding;Raising the burden of proof at revocation hearings and expediting their processing time;Shifting revocation hearings to court rooms and otherwise giving them the trappings of a court proceeding. These changes, supporters argued, were necessary to minimize the unnecessary and counterproductive reincarceration of petty technical violators—the parolee who is on the straight and narrow but who nonetheless finds himself back in prison due to a minor slip-up. In making these changes, however, they also made it harder to detain many serious offenders, including serious criminal violators; evidence from NYC jails show that detention of even violent criminal violators fell in the wake of Less Is More. In addition, it created a greater burden on victThis, we argue, is due to the broad-reaching procedural changes enacted by Less Is More. The lost presumption of detention, heightened evidentiary standards, and constraints placed on the use of technical violations—all of which apply not only to petty technical violators but to more dangerous parolees—have defanged the supervision system. While reforms that reward good behavior and do not over-punish minor violations are desirable, we propose a series of changes to blunt the unintended effects on the more serious offender population. Specifically, we suggest several reforms of the reformims, who are often now involved in revocation hearings in addition to new criminal proceedings.

New York: Manhattan Institute, 2022. 28p.