Community Supervision & Public Safety

Addressing substance use: There has been substantial interest in whether programs targeting substance use, in particular, can be beneficial components of community supervision. Using drugs and alcohol can lead to poor decisions and illegal behavior, even when that substance use itself is legal. Those whose past criminal behavior was (in part) due to substance use could benefit from targeted programming that reduces their consumption of drugs or alcohol. While there is more promise here than elsewhere, particularly regarding swift, certain, and fair (SCF) sanctioning, results have still been mixed.
**
Among probationers and parolees with substance use issues, SCF sanction programs focus on responding to failed drug tests quickly and consistently, with immediate, short sanctions (e.g., a night or two in jail). Studies of these programs have largely found positive effects. For example, an RCT of one of the first such models, the HOPE program in Hawaii (Hawken and Kleiman, 2009), found that the program significantly decreased future incarceration time. Results of similar programs in other jurisdictions have also been largely positive (Hawken and Kleiman, 2011; Grommon, Cox, Davidson and Bynum, 2013; Hawken et al., 2016; Davidson, King, Ludwig and Raphael, 2019). As additional examples, Kilmer et al. (2013) evaluated the staggered rollout of an SCF program in South Dakota for individuals with alcohol-related convictions, and found that the program decreased repeat DUI arrests and domestic violence arrests, as well as deaths (Nicosia et al., 2016). O’Connell et al. (2016) and Doleac et al. (2020) investigated the effects of an RCT of an SCF program for high-risk probationers with a failed drug test and found suggestive evidence that it decreased both future arrests and incarceration. On the other hand, Lattimore et al. (2016) replicated the HOPE study in Pennsylvania [N.b. The replication was in AR, MA, OR, and TX] and found no impact of the program on future arrests, perhaps due to differences in the eligible probationer population in that setting. And in earlier work, Harrell and Roman (2001) conducted an RCT of structured graduated sanctions for failing drug tests and found no effects of the policy on new arrests relative to the default sanction regime.
**
In terms of supervision requirements or services targeted at clients’ specific needs, so far only SCF sanctions targeting substance use show beneficial effects. Based on evidence from other criminal justice contexts, increasing access to mental health care (including CBT) is a particularly promising avenue for supervision programs to pursue in the future.
**
In terms of specific research questions, we would prioritize the following: First, what types of supervision requirements are effective, and for whom? Existing evidence largely pushes us toward reducing supervision requirements, with the possible exception of SCF sanctions for those whose criminal behavior is a function of substance use. Are there other programs that are exceptions to the broader “less is better” rule?