Highlights
There is little indicating that “evidence-based” programs work or that revocations are mostly for technical violations, or that the great bulk of our resources should focus on the highest risk offender or that you will get successful outcomes for cognitive behavioral therapy
Parole and probation best practices, like much of the justice system, seem to be guesswork. There are no fully evaluated and replicated evidence-based programs for parole and probation.
Author
Quote
“We improve the criminal justice system by exposing and correcting its flaws, not by pretending those flaws don’t exist.” The Marshall Project.
Article
I have immense respect for parole and probation agents. I spent close to 30 years representing them (along with additional justice and law enforcement agencies) as a senior spokesperson. Parole and probation agents probably know more about criminal offenders than most criminologists.
The problem with parole and probation (and this applies to most of the justice system) is a lack of data. Everyone states that we should be evidence-based when, quite frankly, the evidence regarding offender supervision is iffy at best. To my knowledge, there are no fully evaluated and replicated evidence-based programs for parole and probation regardless of the statements offered by a variety of sites.
Parole and Probation Basics
Parole and probation numbers are available via Bureau of Justice Statistics documents on correctional populations and offender characteristics.
Most on probation are felons (62 percent) and 22 percent are violent. The percentages increase if you include criminal history. Most state prisoners on parole or mandatory release are violent or have violent histories. The people agents supervise have commonly have mental health and substance abuse issues. Many have been abused or neglected by their parents or previously victimized by crime.
Most state parole and probation agencies have very high ratios of agents to offenders. Caseloads of 150-200 (or more) to one are not uncommon.
Based on these characteristics, parole and probation caseloads are immensely challenging, which is why the turnover of agents is high.
Federal community supervision agencies generally have smaller, more manageable caseloads and better resources.
Is There An “Effective” Evidence-Based Approach To Parole And Probation Supervision?
Advocates will tell you with certainty that parole and probation agencies should use evidence-based practices like intermediate sanctions for violations instead of revocations (i.e., returns to court or the parole commission for violation hearings) and will insist that most violations are for technical reasons (i.e., not reporting, not making restitution, escape) rather than new crimes. Most suggest that higher-risk offenders should be a priority regarding resource allocations. They embrace cognitive behavioral theory as effective.
The data below challenges those assertions.
Pew-Reforming Parole and Probation
The verbiage below from Pew provides an overview as to changes they support as to parole and probation strategies.
Since late 2020, at least 20 states have passed measures to update and improve their community supervision systems. That these efforts moved forward during this historic period reflects the scope of the issue: At the end of 2020, almost 3.9 million Americans—or 1 in 66 adults—were on probation or parole, more than double the number in jails and state and federal prisons (1.8 million).
Several of these state reforms focus on three key objectives: reducing the amount of time people stay on probation, changing rules about revoking probation, and lowering or eliminating fees. Those three goals are also highlighted in The Pew Charitable Trusts’ new brief, “Five Evidence-Based Policies Can Improve Community Supervision,” which assesses the extent to which the 50 states have enacted five important data-informed community supervision policies. And those policies, in turn, are part of a larger set of more than 50, advanced in Pew and Arnold Ventures’ 2020 community supervision framework, that state and local officials can use to shrink and strengthen supervision systems.
US Sentencing Commission Evaluation-Federal Offenders
Federal agencies supervising offenders in the community have spent a great deal of time and training during the last ten to fifteen years on “evidence-based” practices. Federal parole and probation agencies generally have smaller caseloads and better resources than their state counterparts.
Program examples include the use of intermediate sanctions, motivational interviewing and gaining the trust of offenders, cognitive behavioral therapy, and risk assessments.
Evaluation
The United States Sentencing Commission evaluates recidivism (new arrests) and in a recent report on violent offenders, they state, “The recidivism rates of violent and non-violent offenders released in 2005 and 2010 remained unchanged (emphasis added) despite two intervening major developments in the federal criminal justice system—the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker (editor’s note-restrictions on sentence calculations) and increased use of evidence-based practices (emphasis added) in federal supervision, Recidivism of Federal Offenders.
Both groups were followed for eight years, well within the range of the development of “evidence-based” efforts.
The focus of the report was not on supervision techniques, but the data suggests that “evidence-based” efforts for this population are not working for violent and nonviolent offenders.
If you search for evidence-based practices in parole and probation on CrimeSolutions.Gov, (DOJ’s effort to evaluate programs and practices) there is little dealing directly with the topic. There are programs and practices “mentioning” evidence-based efforts but no evaluations on the concept itself.
Technical Violations
Advocates state that most violations for parole and probation are based on technical violations, not new crimes. But the evidence doesn’t support their assertion.
A press release from the Bureau of Justice Statistics offers the following statement: “Almost all prisoners who were re-arrested (96% of released sex offenders and 99% of all released offenders) were arrested for an offense other than a probation or parole violation.”
US Sentencing Commission(direct quotes):
Of the cases for which the basis for the revocation could be determined, 63.3 percent were for new crimes and 36.7 percent were for technical violations. However, the Commission could not determine the basis for the revocation in a substantial portion of the revocations studied—38.7 percent —because presentence investigation reports are not uniform in reporting whether a revocation has occurred, and they frequently do not provide details on the nature of the revocation.
Because the reason is unknown for so many revocations, a more accurate reading of the data is that at least 38.9 percent of the revocations were for new crimes, but that figure could be as high as 77.5 percent if all the revocations for unknown reasons were for new crimes. Similarly, at least 22.5 percent of all revocations resulted from a technical violation, but that figure could be as high as 61.1 percent if all revocations for unknown reasons were for technical reasons, US Sentencing Commission.
The bottom line based on the Bureau of Justice Statistics report? Insisting that most revocations from parole and probation agencies are for technical violations are unsupported by the best available evidence. Data from the US Sentencing Commission suggests that new crimes while under federal supervision could be as high as 77.5 percent.
If you search for technical violations on the CrimeSolutions.Gov, (DOJ’s effort to evaluate programs and practices) there is little dealing directly with the topic.
Going Beyond Low-Risk Offenders
Advocates state that a focus on riskier offenders should be the priority. While this seems intuitive, there is data suggesting that once you move beyond low-risk offenders, the chances for success diminish.
This is partially based on two Milwaukee County Diversion Programs. One focused on deferring low-risk offenders (putting them in treatment) that CrimeSolutioins.Gov (the federal effort to rate program effectiveness) deemed effective. The diversion program treatment group for low-risk offenders had a rearrest rate (for any offense) of 17% compared to a rearrest rate of 28% for the comparison group, which is a difference of 11%, Crime Solutions.Gov.
The other Milwaukee County Diversion Program focused on medium-risk offenders and was found not to be successful. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in rearrest rates and days to first rearrest at the 2-year follow-up. Crime Solutions.Gov.The program had no effects.
The moral of the story is that when prosecutors go beyond low-risk offenders and hand off the cases to community supervision agencies, the chances for failure increase.
Maybe a focus on low-risk offenders through alternative programs clears the deck for the time to supervise those posing a greater risk to public safety. It’s more than possible that putting all low-risk offenders on community supervision in minimum supervision programs (i.e., treatment, community service, restitution) should be our first priority.
If you search for supervising high-risk offenders on the CrimeSolutions.Gov, (DOJ’s effort to evaluate programs and practices) there is little dealing directly with the topic.
Recidivism Data
Beyond the Milwaukee evaluations, federal recidivism data based on arrests and incarcerations after prison or while on parole and probation show that the great majority of offenders return to crime. Most are reincarcerated.
There is one older evaluation of probation from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Within 3 years 43% of state felons on probation were rearrested for a felony. Half of the arrests were for a violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, or aggravated assault) or a drug offense. Results showed that within 3 years of sentencing, 62 percent either had a disciplinary hearing for violating a condition of their probation or were arrested for another felony.
If you included misdemeanors, the percentage arrested would be much higher.
If parole and probation agencies had the desired impact, the number of failing offenders would not be this high.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
Documents on evidence-based practices in parole and probation cite the use of cognitive behavioral therapy as “evidence-based.”
A literature review of over 600 rehabilitation programs found that cognitive behavioral therapy reduced recidivism by 20 percent, which means that most offenders failed.
Most offender rehabilitation programs didn’t reduce recidivism.
Why Parole And Probation Supervision Matters (edited for brevity)
Per the National Institute For Criminal Justice Reform and the D.C. Criminal Justice Coordinating Council examining the skyrocketing number of homicides and shootings in Washington, D.C.:
Approximately 86 percent of homicide victims and suspects were known to the criminal justice system prior to the incident. Among all victims and suspects, about 46 percent had been previously incarcerated.
At least 23.3 percent of all homicide victims and suspects were under active supervision. At least 64 percent of all victims and suspects had been under any prior or active supervision and at least 76% of homicide suspects had active or prior community supervision.
Among all homicide victims and suspects, 13.3 percent were under active supervision by federal parole and probation and 12.4 percent were under active supervision by the federal pretrial services agency (adults in D.C. are supervised by federal agencies) Only 2.3 percent of victims and suspects were under active juvenile justice supervision and only 10.3 percent had ever been under prior or active juvenile justice supervision.
Thus the vast majority of homicide suspects and victims in D.C. had been under the supervision of federal parole and probation agents without good results. Parole and probation agents in D.C. probably are the best funded and best trained in the country. Their caseloads are small in comparison to underfunded state agencies. Yet per the report above, the results are less than satisfactory.
Conclusions
We haven’t scratched the surface of parole and probation research. For example, intensive supervision programs just seem to increase violations, not reduce them. As one agent stated, the more you watch them, the more you see violations, and the more you violate them.
There is encouraging data on GPS supervision. Electronic monitoring data on reductions of technical violations and returns to prison indicate the possibility of a more effective and humane way to supervise high-risk offenders. Specialty courts (like drug courts) have small reductions in reoffending. There are programs like Project Hope in Hawaii that claimed impressive results until replicated in a number of states with less than impressive results.
There’s nothing above that’s definitive. Readers need to understand that there are no fully evaluated and replicated evidence-based programs for parole and probation. It’s just that when talking to advocates about community supervision you get the feeling that’s it’s an exact science when it’s not.
To my knowledge, there is little indicating that evidence-based programs work or that revocations are mostly for technical violations, or that the great bulk of our resources should focus on the highest risk offender or that you will get successful outcomes using cognitive behavioral therapy. Maybe a focus on lower-risk offenders clears the deck for time to supervise those posing a greater risk to our safety.
I believe that parole and probation is like law enforcement in that both suffer from an immense lack of data as to effectiveness. But as a criminology professor once said, if you want to understand the power of law enforcement, remove them and see what happens.
The same holds for parole and probation agencies. Offender accountability is necessary for public safety. Being watched by parole and probation agents may reduce the volume of crime committed while on community supervision.
But in a paper offered by an evidence based organization states, “The eight principles of evidence-based practices in corrections undoubtedly provide a solid framework to reduce recidivism. However, there are many great ideas in theory that fail to translate to the front lines.” That statement describes the state of the art for parole and probation.
See More
See more articles on crime and justice at Crime in America.
Most Dangerous Cities/States/Countries at Most Dangerous Cities.
US Crime Rates at Nationwide Crime Rates.
National Offender Recidivism Rates at Offender Recidivism.
An Overview Of Data On Mental Health at Mental Health And Crime.
The Crime in America.Net RSS feed (https://crimeinamerica.net/?feed=rss2) provides subscribers with a means to stay informed about the latest news, publications, and other announcements from the site.
3 Replies to “The Questionable Evidence Of Parole And Probation Supervision”
Comments are closed.