Why we should rethink probation and parole

By Jesse Capece

Roughly 97% of the approximately 2 million people who are incarcerated in the United States will be released from prison or jail, and when they reenter the general population, they will join an estimated 5 million people who are already under community supervision (probation or parole) in the United States. The conditions of community supervision vary by state and by the circumstances of an individual’s particular case: people under Community supervision may, for example, be required to attend regular meetings with probation/parole officers, or have mandated court appearances, or be required to remit fines and debts, or go to drug treatment, mental health treatment, or various other crime-specific conditions like anger management or driver’s education.

This kind of conditional supervision seems to make sense: one might reasonably believe that a person who was in prison should be held accountable by a probation/parole officer and be enrolled in a variety of programs with the ostensible purpose of rehabilitation.

But a careful look at the totality of the conditions of community supervision shows how unreasonable it can be in practice. What I refer to as the constellation of stipulations that comprise supervision actually comes to occupy a significant portion of the supervisee’s time. For example, the median number of mandated community supervision related appointments that participants in my research attended was four per month (one participant was mandated to attend more than 25 appointments per month). An average of roughly one appointment per week takes time from one’s day, and so does the transportation to and from the appointments, meetings, and appearances. Transportation, particularly, is time-consuming for people who live in more suburban and rural areas. With so much of their time taken up with the obligations of community supervision, then, how are people on probation or parole supposed to search for a job? Or hold a job down if they manage to get one? How are they to excel at work, or earn a promotion? How can they take on more responsibilities if they must frequently take hours and days off to tend to their particular constellation of stipulations?

It is important for us to ask these questions because the underlying assumption of community supervision is that it promotes safety and reduces crime, and there is little evidence to suggest that community supervision actually does reduce recidivism. If all of the mandates we heap on people on probation and parole do not seem to reduce recidivism in any significant way, why are they mandates in the first place? Research that I have conducted (recently published in the ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science) explores the relationship between stipulations of community supervision and employment outcomes, showing that there is a negative relationship between mandated appointments and both the quality of a person on probation’s employment and their self-perceptions of employability. In other words: the more we require of people on community supervision in terms of meetings with probation or parole officers, the worse off they are when it comes to their own employment. This suggests that “less is more” when it comes to supervision – a non-trivial finding that demands further investigation at a minimum.

There is growing evidence to suggest that stable employment is a key component of successful transitions for people moving from the prison system back into their communities. Employment brings the obvious benefit of income to individuals, families, and communities, but it also brings the benefits of fostering pro-social relationships and feelings of self-worth and dignity. The accumulating evidence that suggests a negative relationship between community supervision and employment outcomes is, in my view, critical for policymakers to consider as they work to create alternative policies that could productively reshape community supervision.

read the article

Article Details
Community Supervision and Employment
Jesse Capece
First Published September 14, 2022
DOI: 10.1177/00027162221112565
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

About the Author

Featured

Jesse Capece is an Associate Professor of Social Work in the BSW program at Rhode Island College. His research focuses on the experiences of people after they leave the prison system, specifically experiences with finding, obtaining, and maintaining employment. Other areas of interest include how family members are impacted when a loved one is on probation or parole and the long-term effects of solitary confinement. Prior to working in academia Jesse worked as a direct practitioner, serving people who were or had been incarcerated in Rhode Island. Jesse earned his PhD. in Social Work from the University of Connecticut, his MSW from Rhode Island College, and his BA from the University of Rhode Island. Contact Jesse at jcapece@ric.edu.