10 Community Corrections, Probation, and Parole

Overview

When discussing corrections, people often think of prisons or jails. However, incarceration represents only a minor portion of the broader field of corrections. In reality, only a small fraction of individuals convicted of crimes receive sentences that include incarceration, while the vast majority receive non-incarceration sentences, often involving fines, probation, or intermediate sanctions. Probation allows an offender to remain in the community under the supervision of a probation officer instead of serving time in jail or prison. Similarly, intermediate sanctions provide alternative sentencing options that avoid or limit incarceration, such as home confinement, electronic monitoring, and split sentencing, which provide judges more discretion to impose an appropriate punishment for less severe criminal offenses. Probation and intermediate sanctions are sentencing options typically granted to offenders convicted of less severe crimes, first-time offenders, or those deemed to benefit more from rehabilitation within the community. By utilizing a range of sentences, the criminal justice system aims to rehabilitate sanctioned individuals by addressing the root causes of crime while simultaneously holding them accountable with effective and appropriate punishments tailored to fit different types of offenses and offenders.

While only a minority of offenders are sentenced to incarceration, this group is highly likely to be released and reintegrated into the community. Statistics indicate that among individuals sentenced to incarceration, about 95% will eventually return to society (Hughes & Wilson, 2003). In some instances, individuals are granted early release from prison and returned to society under a parole system. The number of those under parole, combined with individuals sentenced to probation and intermediate sanctions, constitutes the total population of offenders who reside in the community under some form of correctional supervision. Specifically, this supervision is managed by community corrections, which plays a crucial role in managing and rehabilitating offenders while ensuring public safety.

Community corrections encompass a significant portion of the criminal justice system. In 2022, the total population under correctional supervision in the U.S. accounted for about 2% of the total adult population (Buehler & Kluckow, 2024). Within this framework, more than two-thirds of individuals were under community corrections supervision. This includes offenders released under parole supervision, those serving sentences of probation, and those subject to various forms of intermediate sanctions, which collectively far exceed the number of individuals incarcerated. Community corrections are vital for an effective and efficient criminal justice system, tasked with managing offenders, promoting rehabilitation, and facilitating the reintegration of previously incarcerated individuals into society.

Figure 10.1

As of 2022, probation stands as the most widely used sentencing option in the U.S., as illustrated in Figure 10.1. According to Buehler & Kluckow (2024), nearly 2,990,900 individuals were serving probation sentences across federal, state, local, and tribal jurisdictions on any given day in 2022. In addition, 698,800 individuals were under parole supervision during the same period. This totals approximately 3,689,700 individuals under community supervision in 2022 (Buehler & Kluckow, 2024). In other words, there were approximately 1,400 individuals per 100,000 adult U.S. residents under community supervision in 2022.

The following chapter provides a comprehensive exploration of community corrections, starting with an examination of intermediate sanctions. Intermediate sanctions are diverse punishments that provide alternatives to incarceration for less severe criminal offenses. They include strategies such as community service, day reporting programs, and electronic monitoring.

Following the discussion on intermediate sanctions, the chapter delves into the topic of probation. Although probation is not technically classified as an intermediate sanction, it is often grouped within this category due to its function as a non-incarceration sentence imposed by the court. Probation allows offenders to serve their sentences in the community under the supervision of a probation officer, provided they comply with specified conditions aimed at rehabilitation and public safety.

The chapter then transitions to a focus on incarceration, examining the role of risk and needs assessments during the intake and release processes within correctional facilities. It accentuates their critical role in determining the appropriate levels of supervision, interventions for individuals who are incarcerated, and developing program conditions for those under the purview of community corrections. Additionally, the chapter discusses various types of prison release, which vary based on jurisdiction as well as the needs, history, and circumstance of the individual.

Lastly, the chapter investigates parole, detailing the procedures and considerations involved in granting early release from prison. Parole seeks to facilitate the reintegration of offenders into society by providing structured support and supervision while promoting accountability and reducing recidivism rates.

Throughout the chapter, an emphasis is placed on understanding the complexities of community corrections, balancing goals of successful rehabilitation of individuals while maintaining public safety, and the integration of evidence-based practices to enhance the effectiveness of these correctional strategies.

10.1 Alternatives to Incarceration: Intermediate Sanctions

In response to the rising prison rates during the 1960s and 1970s (Tonry, 1995), policymakers sought alternative punishments to incarceration. The increasing number of inmates not only strained state budgets but also highlighted the inadequacies of existing punishment options—imprisonment, probation, or fines—each of which was not always suitable for all types of criminal offenses. Imprisonment was generally considered costly and excessively harsh for many crimes, whereas probation and fines were often viewed as too lenient. To address these concerns, a variety of intermediate sanctions were developed, offering a range of midrange, alternative punishments.

According to retribution and deterrence theories, effective punishments must align in severity with the perceived seriousness of the crime. Intermediate sanctions meet these criteria by offering a range of options to help ensure punishments are proportionate to the offenses committed, thereby reducing the likelihood of both over-punishment and under-punishment of individuals convicted of criminal offenses.

Today, judges have a variety of intermediate sanctions at their disposal to determine appropriate punishments based on the severity of the crime. Figure 10.2 below illustrates the sequence of intermediate sanctions, ordered by increasing severity.

Figure 10.2

The systematic ordering of punishment by severity facilitates a structured approach for determining discipline for individuals convicted of criminal offenses. This method commences with milder sanctions such as fines and forfeitures, diversion programs, community service, and probation. It then progresses to intermediary punishments like day reporting centers, intensive supervision, electronic monitoring, and home confinement, culminating in more severe punishments such as shock incarceration, split sentencing, incarceration, and capital punishment. Specifically, intermediate sanctions comprise of the punishments stemming beyond the traditional punishments of fines, probation, and imprisonment.

In addition to providing punishments tailored to the severity of the crime, intermediate sanctions offer several other benefits. They allow judges the flexibility to consider the individual’s status, such as distinguishing between first-time and repeat offenders, which is crucial since juvenile and first-time offenders are typically sentenced less severely than repeat offenders. Additionally, if the initial sanctions fail to modify the individual’s behavior, intermediate sanctions allow the ability to appropriately escalate corrective measures. Furthermore, intermediate sentencing programs, such as drug rehabilitation and anger management, support rehabilitation and restorative justice efforts.

When properly implemented, intermediate sentencing can be an effective cost-saving measure compared to incarceration. For instance, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) found that electronic monitoring saves state taxpayers an estimated $17,644 per individual compared to more severe sanctions such as intensive supervision and incarceration (2023). This financial benefit was a primary reason for the widespread acceptance of intermediate sentences in the 1970s and 1980s (Tonry, 1995), and it remains a key factor in their continued use today.

While intermediate sanctions generally cost less than incarceration, their true benefit is only realized when the sentence is appropriate for the specific offender and the program demonstrates positive outcomes without increasing risk to the community (Craddock, 2009). Additionally, judges must actively use intermediate programs for these cost savings to materialize. In the 1980s and 1990s, judges were often reluctant to utilize intermediate sanctions due to concerns that they would be perceived as being soft on crime and held accountable for any subsequent criminal behavior (Tonry, 1995).

Figure 10.3

10.1.1 Fines

Fines are a long-standing form of sanction in the legal system, continuing to be widely used due to their effectiveness in generating revenue and their straightforward application. In 2020, local governments amassed approximately $9 billion from fines and fees, highlighting their significant role in augmenting public finance (Nastasi, 2023). Typically imposed for minor infractions such as traffic violations, fines also play a role in more serious criminal cases, though they are seldom the sole form of punishment in a sentence.

Beyond punitive measures, fines, along with associated court fees and surcharges, are often utilized to restore losses to victims and to cover the costs of court administration and processing (Martin et al., 2018). This dual purpose underscores the importance of fines in maintaining both order and justice within society. However, the imposition of monetary penalties has raised concerns regarding their disproportionate impact on individuals with lower economic status, exacerbating financial instability among those least able to afford them. For example, a substantial fine of $10,000 that might be a manageable expense for a high-income earner, can be financially crippling for someone with a modest income or for incarcerated individuals working for minimal wages of $0.12 an hour. This disparity highlights ongoing concerns about the fairness and equity of monetary sanctions within the justice system. Despite these challenges, fines remain a prevalent tool in the criminal justice system, balancing the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and revenue generation.

10.1.2 Forfeitures

Forfeiture is a legal process through which the government seizes property involved in or derived from criminal activity. This process takes two forms: civil forfeiture and criminal forfeiture . Civil forfeiture empowers the government, typically law enforcement agencies, to seize assets suspected of criminal involvement, including houses, vehicles, cash, and other items. The government only needs to establish that it is more likely than not that the property was used for or derived from criminal activity, a standard known as “preponderance of the evidence” (Nelson, 2016). If this standard is met, the agency can retain or sell the property and keep the proceeds. Importantly, civil forfeiture operates under a lower burden of proof compared to criminal cases, enabling authorities to take action even if criminal charges against individuals are not pursued or successful.

In contrast, criminal forfeiture occurs only after an individual has been convicted of a crime. Following a conviction, the government can seize any property or assets linked to the criminal offense, which may then be used or sold, often to fund law enforcement efforts or provide victim restitution. This type of forfeiture requires a higher standard of proof aligned with the criminal conviction itself.

Both civil and criminal forfeitures are integral to law enforcement strategies aimed at disrupting criminal enterprises by depriving them of their assets, thereby dismantling the financial infrastructure supporting illegal activities. While forfeiture is a potent tool in combating crime, it raises significant legal and ethical considerations concerning due process and potential impacts on individuals with legitimate claims to seized property. Consequently, the use of forfeiture remains a contentious issue, subject to ongoing scrutiny and debate within legal and policy circles, balancing the pursuit of justice with safeguards for individual rights.

10.1.3 Diversion Programs

Two common diversion programs are pre-arrest diversion and Pretrial diversion . Pre-arrest diversion programs are implemented when law enforcement agencies collaborate with non-criminal justice community programs as an alternative to arrest. These programs often focus on individuals suffering from mental health or substance abuse disorders, aiming to address their specific needs while reducing incarceration rates. By diverting individuals before they enter the criminal justice system, pre-arrest diversion helps manage underlying issues while avoiding the negative impacts of formal processing. In contrast, pretrial diversion programs are applied after an individual is arrested but before a conviction is established. Unlike pre-arrest diversion, pretrial diversion involves the criminal justice system retaining oversight of the individual. In this program, the criminal justice system defers charges, providing the individual with the opportunity to complete a treatment plan. Successful completion of the program results in the charges being dropped, while failure to complete the program leads to the reinstatement of charges. Both programs aim to provide rehabilitative support and reduce the burden on the criminal justice system, but they differ in their implementation timing and the level of control retained by legal authorities.

10.1.4 Community Service

Community service emerged as a popular alternative to imprisonment and fines for lower-level offenders in the 1960s (McDonald, 1986). Initially conceived as a standalone penalty, it has since been integrated into a broader spectrum of sanctions, often in conjunction with fines, probation, or post-incarceration measures. The essence of community service lies in requiring offenders to perform a specified number of hours of unpaid labor as part of their sentence, tailored to both the needs of the community and the capabilities of the offender (Bouffard & Muftic, 2006). Community service tasks range widely, from environmental projects like cleaning up trash and building walking trails, to providing assistance in homeless shelters and community centers.

Integrating community service into the criminal justice system offers several advantages. Firstly, it provides communities with additional labor resources that can address local needs and improve public spaces. Secondly, it offers offenders an opportunity to contribute positively to society, fostering a sense of accountability and community engagement. Moreover, engaging in meaningful work through community service can promote rehabilitation among these individuals by imparting new skills and fostering a deeper understanding of the consequences of their actions on society.

Community service represents a multifaceted approach to justice that not only addresses the immediate consequences of offenses but also seeks to rehabilitate individuals under correctional supervision and strengthen community bonds. Its flexibility and potential for positive societal benefit make it a valuable component of the criminal justice system.

10.1.5 Day Reporting Centers

Day reporting centers play a crucial role within the criminal justice system by providing structured programs and services for individuals who require intensive supervision and rehabilitation. These facilities mandate regular attendance, often on a daily basis, and offer a variety of programs tailored to address the needs of participants, including counseling, substance abuse treatment, vocational training, and social skills development (Clarke, 1994). Typically, day reporting centers cater to individuals who have repeatedly violated probation conditions, failed to meet court-mandated obligations such as fines, or are identified as high-risk of re-offending. Day reporting centers vary significantly, ranging from the diversity of programs and services offered to differences in administrative and monitoring procedures. This variability poses a challenge in accurately measuring the success of these programs (Marciniak, 2000). As a result, research outcomes on day reporting centers are varied, with some studies highlighting their potential cost savings and success in reducing recidivism rates, while others underscore the complexities and mixed results associated with these programs (Boyle et al., 2013). Despite these challenges, day reporting centers continue to serve as critical components in efforts to rehabilitate offenders and enhance public safety through structured supervision and targeted interventions.

10.1.6 Intensive Supervision Probation or Parole

Intensive supervision probation and/or parole (ISPP) is a rigorous supervision strategy designed to closely monitor high-risk offenders without resorting to incarceration. Unlike traditional probation or parole, ISPP assigns officers smaller caseloads, enabling them to provide more intensive oversight, increased contact, and support to each client. Although precise requirements vary based on the individual offender, this approach typically involves frequent face-to-face meetings, regular urinalysis testing, unannounced visits to clients’ residences, and strict compliance requirements tailored to the individual risk level and needs.

Figure 10.5

While ISPP aims to reduce recidivism by fostering structured support and accountability for high-risk offenders, it also poses challenges such as a higher likelihood of technical violations, like missed appointments or failed drug tests, due to its increased scrutiny and stringent conditions (Hyatt & Barnes, 2017). Managing these violations requires officers to balance enforcement with rehabilitation goals. They must recognize that overly punitive responses, such as revoking probation or parole, will lead to incarceration, which is costly and may impede the offender’s program outcome. Therefore, it is important for officers to exercise flexibility and discretion when addressing technical violations, ensuring that responses are fair and proportionate. An approach of this nature is essential for maintaining the effectiveness of ISPP programs, which aim to promote accountability while equipping offenders with the necessary support and resources for rehabilitation. By combining structured supervision with targeted interventions, ISPP plays a vital role in enhancing public safety and facilitating the successful rehabilitation and reintegration of individuals recently released from incarceration.

10.1.7 Electronic Monitoring

Electronic monitoring is a widely used tool in community corrections, often implemented in conjunction with other sanctions, such as home confinement, intensive supervision, and probation. This approach utilizes two primary technologies: Radio Frequency (RF) devices and the Global Positioning System (GPS). RF devices, typically attached around an individual’s ankle, communicate with a frequency unit installed in the home and potentially other designated locations like work or school. The system sends alerts to a monitoring center when the individual enters or departs the specified range, making it an effective tool for enforcing curfews and ensuring compliance with location restrictions. On the other hand, GPS monitors, also worn on the ankle, provide continuous tracking of an individual’s location, offering an increased degree of oversight suitable for individuals who have a higher-risk of committing a new or serious crime. Both RF and GPS electronic monitoring devices enable community corrections officers to supervise a larger number of individuals from a remote location, reducing the frequency of in-person check-ins.

Figure 10.6

However, research indicating the effectiveness of electronic monitoring devices are mixed (Renzema & Mayo-Wilson, 2005). Some research, such as the study by Padgett et al. (2006), suggests that electronic monitoring can reduce recidivism, increase program participation, and prevent escapes. Conversely, other studies, including those by Jolin & Stipak (1992) and Cadigan (1991), report that electronic monitoring had no significant impact on these categories, although their findings showed possible adverse effects such as increased recidivism rates, likely attributed to the higher propensity of detecting violations among electronically monitored offenders. Despite these mixed results, electronic monitoring continues to play a critical role in modern correctional strategies.

10.1.8 Home Confinement

Home confinement , also known as house arrest, is a court-ordered sanction frequently used during pretrial release or as an alternative to incarceration. This form of intermediate sanction restricts an individual’s movement while simultaneously permitting participation in pre-approved activities such as work, school, medical appointments, religious services, and rehabilitation programs. By allowing individuals to remain active within their communities, home confinement facilitates rehabilitation and helps preserve positive relationships with family, friends, employers, educational institutions, and religious organizations (Hurwitz, 1986). Akin to other intermediate sanctions, home confinement is a cost-effective measure that reduces the financial burden on taxpayers. The dual benefits of fostering community ties and minimizing public expense make home confinement a valuable tool in the criminal justice system.

10.1.9 Shock Incarceration: Correctional Boot Camps

Correctional boot camps , a form of shock incarceration , are intensive correctional intervention programs where offenders can earn a reduced jail or prison sentence upon successful completion of a short-term, rigorous, military-style program. Typically lasting a few weeks to a few months, these programs are designed to instill discipline, structure, and a sense of responsibility in participants through highly regimented routines and strict enforcement of rules. Targeted primarily at younger, non-violent, and first-time offenders, boot camps aim to deter future criminal behavior by accentuating hard work and adherence to a structured lifestyle. Often used interchangeably with shock incarceration, correctional boot camps are the most common method of this approach.

Shock incarceration gained popularity in the 1980s and 1990s on the premise that these programs could effectively rehabilitate offenders and lower recidivism rates (Horney et al., 2000). The fundamental principle behind shock incarceration is to establish a structured environment that emphasizes hard work, responsibility, accountability, and discipline, with the goal of transforming participants and instilling positive behavioral changes. Despite their initial appeal, the use of these programs has sparked controversy, particularly regarding participant safety and their long-term effectiveness on rehabilitation, which continue to be subjects of extensive debate. (For additional information on safety concerns, explore these news articles about alleged abuse and cases of wrongful deaths of youth correctional boot camp participants.)

While research suggests that boot camps may achieve short-term compliance and initial behavioral improvements, they often fail to sustain lasting changes and are ineffective at fostering long-term rehabilitation or reducing future criminal activity; in some cases, participants may even exhibit increased criminal behavior after completing the program (MacKenzie & Rosay, 1996). This discrepancy underscores the need for a comprehensive approach to rehabilitation and recidivism reduction that extends beyond the immediate impacts resulting from shock incarceration correctional boot camps. It is crucial to address the underlying factors contributing to criminal behavior in order to facilitate positive, long-term behavioral change. This approach is essential for sustainable rehabilitation efforts and achieving reduced recidivism rates over time.

10.1.10 Split Sentencing

Split sentencing is a judicial practice wherein a judge issues a sentence during the sentencing hearing that requires a convicted offender to serve part of their sentence in an incarceration facility followed by a period of community supervision, typically probation. This approach generally involves a relatively short incarceration period, often served in a jail, followed by a longer term of probation. During the probation period, the offender must comply with specific conditions such as regular check-ins with a probation officer, participation in counseling or drug treatment programs, and adherence to curfews.

This sentencing method is frequently employed for first-time offenders as a means of emphasizing the seriousness of their offenses and the consequences of future violations, while also aiming to decrease incarceration rates and reduce. For instance, instead of sentencing a low-level drug offender to an extended jail term, a judge might impose 30 days in jail followed by two years of community supervision. Split sentencing seeks to balance punitive measures with rehabilitative opportunities, providing offenders a chance to reintegrate into society under supervision and support, which in turn aims to reduce recidivism and enhance public safety. This method underscores the judicial system’s dual goals of accountability and rehabilitation.

10.1.10.1 Shock Probation

Shock probation is a judicial practice aimed at deterring future criminal behavior by exposing offenders to the harsh realities of incarceration for a short period before releasing them into the community under supervised probation. Typically, offenders serving shorter jail sentences can request early probationary release. If the judge denies the request, the offender continues serving a longer period of incarceration, reinforcing the punitive nature of their sentence and its deterrent effect. Conversely, if the judge grants the request, the offender is released into the community after a brief but impactful stint in jail, intended to “shock” them into realizing the severe consequences of criminal activity. This initial period of incarceration is followed by a longer probation term where the offender must adhere to specific conditions such as regular check-ins with a probation officer, participation in counseling or drug treatment programs, and compliance with curfews. Shock probation seeks to achieve two main goals: providing offenders with an immediate experience of imprisonment to discourage future criminal behavior and facilitating their reintegration into society under structured probationary supervision. This balanced approach aspires to reduce recidivism by combining the shock of incarceration with the rehabilitative support of community supervision. By granting early release, the judicial system offers offenders an opportunity to reintegrate into society while ensuring accountability for their actions, reflecting both deterrence and rehabilitation objectives within the criminal justice system.

10.1.10.2 Shock Parole

Shock parole is a procedural mechanism within the criminal justice system intended to facilitate the early release of prison inmates who demonstrate promising signs of rehabilitation and low risk of recidivism. This form of parole is typically granted to inmates serving indeterminate sentences, allowing them to return to the community before completing their full sentence, but under strict conditions of parole supervision. The parole board’s decision to grant shock parole is contingent on a comprehensive assessment guided by statutory guidelines. These criteria include evaluating the inmate’s institutional record, behavior during incarceration, participation in rehabilitation programs, and readiness for community supervision, all while assessing potential risks to public safety.

Unlike shock probation, which involves inmates appealing to a judge for early release from shorter jail sentences, shock parole applies specifically to inmates serving longer, indeterminate prison sentences. The primary objectives of shock parole are to incentivize positive behavior and engagement in rehabilitative programs during incarceration and to provide inmates with an early opportunity for reintegration into society under structured supervision and monitoring.

By granting early parole under controlled conditions, the criminal justice system seeks to alleviate prison overcrowding, reduce costs, and support successful community transitions for offenders. This approach endeavors to integrate the punitive aspects of incarceration with the rehabilitative goals of parole, ultimately striving to reduce recidivism rates and facilitate successful transition of offenders back into the society.

10.1.11 Challenges with intermediate Sanctions

Intermediate sanctions play a crucial role in the criminal justice system by allowing for effective punishment of individuals by offering alternatives to incarceration, thereby reducing prison overcrowding, lowering costs, while mitigating stigmatization and enhancing rehabilitation efforts through tailored interventions. However, several potential issues can undermine their effectiveness. These include improper program placement of individuals, insufficient resources, biases in implementation, and the unintended consequence of expanding the “net” of those under supervision. Addressing these issues is vital to maximize the effectiveness of intermediate sanctions in the criminal justice system.

10.1.11.1 Implementing Effective Intermediate Sanctions

One significant issue is the proper matching of individuals with suitable sanctions based on their risk level, criminal history, and rehabilitation needs. Improper placement can lead to sanctions that are either ineffective or disproportionate, failing to achieve rehabilitation and program goals.

The effectiveness of intermediate sanctions is often evaluated based on two primary metrics: cost reduction compared to imprisonment and the impact on recidivism rates relative to probation (Tonry & Lynch, 1996). However, determining the optimal punishment for individual offenders can be a complex decision. For example, assigning a first-time DUI offender to a rehabilitation program instead of imposing fines or probation may not yield desired outcomes, especially if substance abuse is not a factor. Research has shown that certain intermediate sanctions, such as correctional boot camps, can inadvertently increase recidivism rates compared to probation (MacKenzie & Rosay, 1996). This issue is compounded when individuals who do not respond well to highly structured environments are enrolled in these programs (Tonry & Lynch, 1996). Therefore, the selection of the appropriate sanction for each offender is paramount to ensure effectiveness and cost-efficiency, benefiting both the individuals involved and taxpayers alike.

10.1.11.2 Bias in Decision-Making

Bias decision-making and implementation also pose potential challenges in the realm of intermediate sanctions. Biases based on race, ethnicity, or socio-economic status can result in disparities in sentencing and the implementation of intermediate sanctions, compromising fairness and equity within the criminal justice system. These sanctions often hinge on discretionary decisions made by judges or other governing authorities, which can introduce the potential for discrimination based on extralegal factors such as gender, ethnicity, race, and socioeconomic status.

For example, research by Engen et al. (2003) revealed disparities in sentencing practices in Washington State, where male, African American, Hispanic, and younger offenders were less likely to receive intermediate sanctions and more likely to be sentenced to incarceration compared to their female, White, and older counterparts. Similarly, Franklin et al. (2017) documented biases influencing federal judges’ decisions to impose intermediate sanctions rather than imprisonment, highlighting the impact of extralegal factors on sentencing outcomes. Addressing biases in decision-making is essential to ensure fair and equitable application of intermediate sanctions in the criminal justice system.

10.1.11.3 Adequate Resources

Resource availability is another concern in the effective implementation of intermediate sanctions. Achieving successful outcomes depends on securing adequate funding, staffing, and infrastructure to support robust supervision and comprehensive treatment programs. Insufficient resources can significantly hamper the effectiveness of sanctions, compromising efforts to address the root causes of criminal behavior and hindering rehabilitation efforts for offenders. A lack of resources negatively impacts the quality of supervision and essential support services, which are crucial for facilitating rehabilitation and reducing recidivism rates among offenders, thereby diminishing the potential for positive program outcomes. Therefore, securing sufficient resources is imperative to optimize the effectiveness of intermediate sanctions and achieve long-term reductions in recidivism rates.

10.1.11.4 Net-Widening

Net-widening is a significant and unintended consequence of intermediate sanctions, wherein the population under supervision by the criminal justice system expands beyond the anticipated scope. Originally, intermediate sanctions were designed to serve as alternatives to incarceration, aimed at reducing the incarcerated population, lowering costs, and offering more rehabilitative sentencing options. However, instead of providing a substitution for incarceration, the majority of intermediate sanctions have been imposed on individuals who would otherwise have received fines or probation (Tonry & Lynch, 1996). As a result, this has inadvertently increased the number of individuals under the supervision of the criminal justice system, thus “widening the net.” Contrary to the original goals, this expanded supervision has resulted in an increase in the number of people incarcerated, thereby escalating costs and administrative burdens without corresponding improvements in rehabilitation efforts. This outcome underscores the importance of careful policy design and implementation to ensure that intermediate sanctions achieve their intended objectives without generating additional systemic challenges that negatively affect the criminal justice system.

The phenomenon of net-widening can manifest at both the front-end and back-end stages of the criminal justice system. Front end net-widening occurs when individuals who would typically have been diverted from formal legal proceedings—through warnings, fines, or minimal sanctions such as probation—are instead subjected to more stringent interventions or supervision. This can happen at various points, including during law enforcement actions, pretrial proceedings, and decisions made by prosecution attorneys. For example, law enforcement officers and prosecutors may choose to arrest or charge individuals for offenses like drug possession with the expectation that the offender will enter a rehabilitative treatment program rather than receiving minimal fines or a prison sentence (O’Hear, 2009). While this approach aims to provide therapeutic interventions, it inadvertently raises the number of individuals under formal supervision.

Once within the purview of the criminal justice system, these individuals undergo increased scrutiny and an increased risk of being charged with new offenses. They may face consequences ranging from heightened surveillance to incarceration. Moreover, failure to comply with the conditions of their supervision—such as leaving the jurisdiction without permission, violating curfews, consuming alcohol, or missing mandatory meetings—can also result in further punitive measures, including incarceration. Front-end net-widening thus underscores the complexities and unintended consequences of directing individuals into more intensive forms of supervision, potentially exacerbating both the workload and punitive outcomes within the criminal justice system.

Back-end net-widening refers to the phenomenon where ex-offenders, upon release from incarceration, continue to be subjected to stringent supervision by the correctional system. This supervision typically takes the form of parole or other post-release programs that impose strict conditions on ex-offenders. Although the intention of intermediate sanctions is to ensure public safety while supporting reintegration, overly restrictive conditions can lead to technical violations and revocation , resulting in individuals being reincarcerated for minor infractions.

Figure 10.7

The implications of back-end net-widening are multifold. Firstly, releasing individuals from correctional facilities helps to manage population levels within incarceration facilities and avoids the haphazards of operating at full capacity. Problematically, when facilities operate below their maximum capacity, there is a heightened inclination to incarcerate individuals under community correctional supervision for new crimes or technical violations to fill remaining space. This practice not only undermines principles of punishment consistency and fairness, but also exacerbates ongoing issues related to overcrowding. Moreover, the cycle of re-incarceration due to technical violations or new offenses among individuals under community supervision further complicates the goal of rehabilitation and reintegration. It underscores the delicate balance required in post-incarceration supervision and the need for policies that prioritize effective community reentry without perpetuating reliance on incarceration as a default response.

Addressing back-end net-widening necessitates a nuanced approach that balances supervision requirements with rehabilitation goals, ensuring that individuals have meaningful opportunities to successfully reintegrate into society while minimizing the risk of recidivism. This approach necessitates continuous evaluation of supervision practices, resource allocation, and policy adjustments to achieve sustainable reductions in recidivism rates and effectively ensure public safety.

10.1.11.5 Addressing Intermediate Sanction Challenges

Addressing the challenges surrounding intermediate sanctions requires strategic planning, ongoing evaluation, and a commitment to equitable practices. Proper placement of individuals into appropriate sanctions, ensuring adequate resources, unbiased sentencing and program implementation, and mitigating the unintended consequences of net-widening are critical to maximize the effectiveness of intermediate sanctions. By adopting these measures, stakeholders can improve the efficacy of these interventions in achieving both punitive and rehabilitative objectives within the criminal justice system.

Figure 10.8

10.2 Probation

Probation in America serves as a crucial component of the criminal justice system, offering an alternative to incarceration for individuals convicted of offenses ranging from minor infractions to more serious crimes. Rooted in principles of rehabilitation and community safety, probation allows individuals to remain in their communities under court supervision while adhering to specific conditions set forth by a judge. These conditions typically include regular check-ins with a probation officer, compliance with rehabilitation programs, restitution payments to victims, and restrictions on activities or associations. The overarching goal of probation is twofold: to promote offender accountability and to facilitate their successful reintegration into society while reducing the burden on correctional facilities. By providing structured support and monitoring, probation aims to reduce recidivism rates and encourage law-abiding behavior among those under community supervision.

Probation in America has evolved significantly since its inception, reflecting shifts in societal attitudes towards crime, punishment, rehabilitation, and community safety. Originating in the late 19th century as a progressive response to overcrowded prisons and a growing recognition of the potential for rehabilitation, probation offered an alternative to incarceration for non-violent offenders. The concept was formalized and popularized by figures like John Augustus , whose compassionate approach in the mid-1800s demonstrated that many individuals charged with minor offenses could be effectively managed in the community under supervision, rather than being incarcerated pretrial.

Throughout the 20th century, probation expanded as states adopted probationary systems, recognizing its potential to reduce incarceration rates, address overcrowding in prisons, and provide a more cost-effective means of addressing criminal behavior (County of San Mateo, n.d.). By the mid-20th century, probation had become a standard sentencing option nationwide, with probation officers playing pivotal roles in assessing offenders’ suitability for community supervision, monitoring their compliance with court-ordered conditions, and providing supportive services aimed at rehabilitation.

The evolution of probation has been marked by several key developments. The establishment of formal probation departments and the professionalization of probation officers helped standardize practices and improve oversight. The introduction of evidence-based practices in the late 20th and early 21st centuries brought a more scientific approach to probation, perpetuating the use of risk assessment tools to tailor supervision strategies to individual offenders’ needs. This shift aimed to reduce recidivism by targeting criminogenic factors—such as substance abuse, lack of education, or unemployment—that contribute to criminal behavior.

Moreover, technological advancements have transformed probation supervision. Electronic monitoring systems, including GPS ankle bracelets, allow probation officers to supervise offenders’ movements in real-time, enforcing geographical restrictions and enhancing public safety. While these technologies have improved supervision capabilities, they have also sparked debates over privacy concerns and the balance between surveillance and rehabilitation.

In recent years, policy reforms have increasingly focused on enhancing probation outcomes through rehabilitation-oriented approaches rather than punitive measures. Jurisdictions have implemented graduated sanctions for probation violations, emphasizing swift and certain responses to non-compliance while avoiding immediate reincarceration whenever possible. These reforms aim to maintain continuity in offenders’ rehabilitation efforts while holding them accountable for their actions.

Overall, probation in America continues to evolve as policymakers, practitioners, and researchers seek to refine its effectiveness in promoting public safety, reducing recidivism, and facilitating the successful reintegration of individuals into society. By combining accountability with supportive interventions, probation remains a cornerstone of the criminal justice system’s efforts to balance punishment with rehabilitation.

10.2.1 Origins of Probation: John Augustus

Figure 10.9

In 1841, John Augustus, a Boston bootmaker and advocate for alcohol abstinence, pioneered the concept of probation, which would become the most widely used alternative to incarceration in the U.S. Augustus attended the court hearing of a “common drunkard” and, moved by the man’s plight, paid his bail on the condition that he abstain from alcohol and trouble while awaiting trial (Friedman, 1994). When Augustus returned to court three weeks later with the man, now sober and well-dressed, the dramatic transformation astonished the attendees (Panzarella, 2002). This marked the beginning of Augustus’s 18-year voluntary service as a probation officer until his death in 1859 (Friedman, 1994). During this time, he bailed out and supported 1,946 men and women, with only 10 failing to meet their bail conditions (Lindner, 2006). His success demonstrated that many individuals charged with minor crimes could be effectively managed in the community rather than in jail awaiting trial. Instead, Augustus argued these low-level offenders could post bond and be released back into the community under the promise to return to court for trial.

Augustus was very particular about whom he requested to be placed on probation. His careful selection process involved assessing the offender’s likelihood of success through discussions with both them and their family, becoming a foundational aspect of probation. Augustus is credited with creating one of the three key elements of probationary systems: investigation. The other elements, intake and supervision, developed as probation programs spread across the U.S. in the following years (County of San Mateo, n.d.). By the mid-1950s, probation systems were established nationwide, adopted by both the federal government and all states (Petersilia, 1997). Augustus’s pioneering work laid the groundwork for modern probation, promoting rehabilitation and community integration over incarceration, thereby shaping the evolution of criminal justice practices in the U.S.

10.2.2 Probation Today

Probation in America serves as a critical alternative to incarceration within the criminal justice system. It offers the convicted individual the opportunity to remain in the community under supervision, rather than being confined to jail or prison. Typically imposed for less serious offenses, first-time offenses, or juvenile cases, probation allows individuals to avoid the direct hardships of incarceration while still being held accountable for their actions.

Probation offers recently convicted individuals an alternative to incarceration, allowing them to opt for community supervision instead of serving time in prison. Typically, probation entails a longer period of supervision with conditions set by the court, which they must adhere to while residing in the community. However, if probation terms are violated, the individual may face incarceration based on the original sentencing decision, regardless of their probation period served. Therefore, probation may not be suitable for people who anticipate difficulties complying with probation conditions in the community, prompting them to consider serving their sentence in a correctional facility instead.

Once an individual accepts probation, they must adhere to specific conditions overseen by an assigned probation officer. These typically involve regular meetings with the probation officer, participation in rehabilitative programs, community service, and compliance with court-mandated rules. In the initial meeting, the probation officer conducts a comprehensive assessment to evaluate the probationer’s risk to public safety, likelihood for reoffending, and specific rehabilitation needs. Using this assessment, the probation officer develops a personalized supervision plan outlining the probation conditions. This plan often includes attending treatment programs, finding employment, fulfilling community service obligations, and maintaining regular contact with the probation officer.

Throughout the probationary period, officers monitor and support probationers to ensure compliance with court-mandated conditions. This includes conducting searches, arranging drug tests when necessary, and collecting evidence to verify adherence to probation terms. Successful completion of probation terms results in the offender’s release from formal supervision by the criminal justice system. However, failure to comply with the conditions can result in the probation officer documenting violations and recommending appropriate actions to the court, which may range from warnings to probation revocation and potential incarceration.

Figure 10.10

The effectiveness of modern probation is evaluated using various indicators, such as recidivism rates and the successful fulfillment of probation conditions. According to a study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), as depicted in the accompanying figure, in 2021, approximately 42.1% of probationers successfully completed their probation terms without reincarceration (Kaeble, 2023). Over the same period, 9.8% of probationers were incarcerated, 5.72% experienced other unsatisfactory outcomes, 8.9% died or exited due to other reasons, and 33.5% had exits from probation that were either unknown or unreported. These statistics underscore both the persistent challenges and achievements within the American probation system.

While the majority of probationers successfully complete their terms, the significant proportion of incarcerations, unsatisfactory exit other than incarceration, and unknown exits highlights ongoing areas for improvement within the probation system. Strengthening support networks, expanding rehabilitation programs, and ensuring comprehensive supervision are essential steps toward reducing incarceration and other unsatisfactory exits from probation. Additionally, addressing the high rate of unknown or unreported exits is vital for improving data accuracy and enabling targeted interventions to assist probationers.

In recent years, there has been a notable shift toward evidence-based practices in probation supervision (Duwe, 2017). These approaches prioritize the use of risk and needs assessments to tailor supervision strategies to each probationer’s circumstances. By pinpointing specific criminogenic needs—factors contributing to criminal behavior—probation officers can implement targeted interventions aimed at mitigating these risks and preventing reoffending.

Moreover, advancements in technology have revolutionized probation supervision capabilities. Electronic monitoring systems, such as GPS ankle bracelets, enable real-time tracking of probationers, ensuring compliance with geographic restrictions and enhancing public safety. However, these technologies also raise concerns regarding privacy and the potential for excessive surveillance measures that exceed beyond necessary levels.

In response to these challenges, policy reforms across various states are focusing on improving probation outcomes through rehabilitative approaches rather than punitive measures. For instance, some jurisdictions have adopted graduated sanctions for technical violations, allowing probation officers to apply intermediate measures instead of immediate re-incarceration. This approach supports continuity in the probationer’s rehabilitation journey while effectively addressing instances of non-compliance.

In essence, probation is a structured approach aimed to foster rehabilitation, reduce recidivism, and support probationers in leading law-abiding lives within their communities. By striking a balance between accountability and support, the probation system plays a pivotal role in the administration of justice in America. It effectively reduces incarceration rates and associated costs while actively facilitating the reintegration of offenders into society, all while ensuring public safety.

10.2.3 Pre-Sentencing Investigation

A pre-sentencing investigation (PSI) is an integral component of the criminal justice process, conducted after a defendant is convicted by trial or enters a guilty plea but before the sentencing hearing. This investigation aims to furnish the sentencing judge with detailed information about the defendant, aiding in the determination of an appropriate sentencing.

Factors determining if a PSI is conducted include the type of crime, the jurisdiction, and indications of drug addiction or mental health issues. PSIs are typically performed by probation or parole officers, also known as community corrections officers.

The process involves the officer collecting a broad spectrum of information about the defendant. This includes conducting interviews with individuals who can provide relevant insights, such as the defendant’s family, friends, co-workers, victims, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and mental health or substance abuse professionals. These interviews help to paint a comprehensive picture of the defendant’s character and circumstances.

Beyond interviews, the officer reviews the defendant’s personal history, including their educational background, employment history, and physical and mental health records. The officer also meets with the defendant to understand the motivations behind the criminal behavior and to assess whether the defendant has accepted responsibility for their actions.

All gathered information is compiled into a pre-sentencing report (PSR), which is then submitted to the sentencing judge. The PSR includes the officer’s recommendations and provides an in-depth overview of the defendant’s background, character, and circumstances. This report is vital in assisting the judge to balance the goals of punishment, rehabilitation, and public safety, while ensuring a fair and appropriate sentence.

 

Community corrections officers (CCOs) play a crucial role in the criminal justice system, tasked with supervising and mentoring individuals who are on probation or parole. Their responsibilities include monitoring compliance with parole board and court-ordered conditions, conducting home visits, administering drug tests, ensuring access to essential resources such as treatment programs or employment services, and supporting offenders as they reintegrate into society. CCOs work collaboratively with law enforcement, social services, and community organizations to develop and implement individualized supervision plans tailored to address each offender’s specific needs and risks. Additionally, they prepare detailed records, maintain case reports, and provide testimony in court regarding an offender’s compliance and progress with program conditions.

CCOs typically work full-time hours but they must also be prepared for after-hours visits and emergencies, which may include evenings and weekends, to meet the needs of their caseloads and ensure thorough supervision. According to GovSalaries (n.d.), the average annual salary for a community corrections officer is approximately $58,515. This salary generally ranges from $46,447 to $75,513, depending on factors such as experience, location, and additional qualifications.

This position demands a combination of strong interpersonal skills, a thorough understanding of the criminal justice system, and the ability to manage potentially volatile situations with professionalism and integrity. To qualify as a CCO, candidates must possess a minimum of a bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution in criminal justice, social work, psychology, or a related field, as outlined by the Washington State Department of Corrections (n.d.). Upon hiring, new CCOs are required to complete a comprehensive training program provided by the state’s Department of Corrections. This program includes both classroom instruction and practical, on-the-job experience, covering topics such as legal procedures, case management, defensive tactics, and crisis intervention. The training program usually lasts several weeks, ensuring that CCOs are well-prepared to handle the diverse challenges of their role.

Overall, the job of a community corrections officer is indispensable within the criminal justice system. COOs are essential for maintaining public safety, ensuring offenders comply with conditions of their program, and providing the necessary support for their successful rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Their work not only helps to reduce recidivism rates but also fosters safer communities by addressing the underlying issues that contribute to criminal behavior. For more detailed insights into the profession and the impact of their work, please watch the following informative Probation Officers and Correctional Treatment Specialists Career video.