Utah HB 290: Probation and Parole Amendments
(1) The purpose of the commission is to develop guidelines and propose recommendations to the Legislature, the governor, and the Judicial Council regarding:
(c) appropriate, evidence-based probation and parole supervision policies and services that assist individuals in successfully completing supervision and reduce incarceration rates from community supervision programs while ensuring public safety, including:
(i) treatment and intervention completion determinations based on individualized case action plans;
(ii) measured and consistent processes for addressing violations of conditions of supervision;
(iii) processes that include using positive reinforcement to recognize an individual’s progress in supervision;
(iv) engaging with social services agencies and other stakeholders who provide services that meet offender needs; and (v) identifying community violations that may not warrant revocation of probation or parole.
(6) The commission shall establish graduated [sanctions] and evidence-based processes to facilitate the prompt and effective response to an individual’s progress in or violation of the terms of probation or parole by the adult probation and parole section of the Department of Corrections, or other supervision services provider, in order to implement the recommendations of the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice for reducing recidivism and incarceration, including:
[(a) sanctions to be used in response to a violation of the terms of probation or parole;]
(a) responses to be used when an individual violates a condition of probation or parole;
(b) responses to recognize positive behavior and progress related to an individual’s case action plan;
[(b)] (c) when [violations] a violation of a condition of probation or parole should be reported to the court or the Board of Pardons and Parole; and
[(c)] (d) a range of sanctions that may not exceed a period of incarceration of more than:
(i) three consecutive days; and
(ii) a total of five days in a period of 30 days.
New Mexico SB 141: Sanctions for Technical Violations of Probation and Parole
An act relating to criminal justice reform; providing statewide procedures for imposing sanctions for technical violations of probation and parole; requiring escalating non-incarceration sanctions before imposing carceral sentencing.
(Adjourned Sine Die)
A. The adult probation and parole division of the corrections department shall provide for graduated responses to technical violations of supervision conditions in a swift, certain and proportional manner. Before seeking formal resolution in a court pursuant to Section 31-21-15 NMSA 1978 or before the board pursuant to Section 31-21-14 NMSA 1978, the probation and parole officer shall impose graduated sanctions pursuant to this section starting with the non-detention sanctions specified in Subsection B of this section.
B. A probation and parole officer shall determine whether sanctions are necessary for a technical violation and, if they are, may impose graduated non-detention sanctions for a technical violation in the following manner:
(1) for a first violation sanction, up to three days of community service, restrictive curfew, global positioning system monitoring or other non-detention sanction; and
(2) for a second violation sanction, up to five days of community service, restrictive curfew, global positioning system monitoring or other non-detention sanction.
C. After imposing the non-detention sanctions pursuant to Subsection B of this section, the probation and parole officer may pursue detention sanctions. If a probationer declined to enter a waiver of formal resolution pursuant to Section 31-20-5 NMSA 1978 or if a parolee declined to enter a waiver of formal resolution pursuant to Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978, the probation and parole officer shall promptly report the alleged violation to the court or the board for adjudication and sanctions. If a waiver was given, the probation and parole officer may impose a limited detention sanction not to exceed the following graduated sanctions:
(1) for a third violation sanction, up to three days in jail;
(2) for a fourth violation sanction, up to seven days in jail; and
(3) for a fifth and subsequent violation sanction, formal resolution in a court pursuant to Section 31-21-15 NMSA 1978 for a probationer and formal resolution by the board for a parolee.
D. A probation and parole officer may decline to sanction a technical violation or may impose a lesser sanction than provided in this section. If a violation is not sanctioned, it shall not be counted as a sanction for purposes of progressive sanctions outlined in Subsections B and C of this section. If a probation and parole officer believes that additional detention is necessary or that graduated sanctions have failed, the probation and parole officer shall seek formal resolution of a technical violation in a court pursuant to Section 31-21-15 NMSA 1978 for a probationer or formal resolution by the board for a parolee.
E. If a probationer or parolee fails to complete any part of the community service imposed pursuant to Subsection B of this section, the probationer or parolee shall be detained in a Co. jail for the remainder of the community service term specified in that subsection.
F. Once sanctions are imposed pursuant to this section, a probationer or parolee shall not be subject to further technical violation sanctions for the same technical violation instance unless the probationer or parolee fails to comply with the sanctions imposed pursuant to this section. This prohibition on cumulative punishment shall also apply to conduct occurring prior to the technical violation, about which the probation and parole officer knew or had reason to know, and that the probation and parole officer did not allege or cite when the probation and parole officer imposed the sanction.
G. To impose non-judicial detention sanctions under this section, the director shall issue a written statement to the jail detaining the probationer or parolee affirming that the adult probation and parole division of the corrections department has complied with Subsections A and B of this section and that this statement shall serve as sufficient warrant for detention of a probationer or parolee. Time served in detention as a non-judicial sanction shall be counted as time served for the period of probation or parole.”
Texas HB 358: Prevent Probation Revocations through Treatment and Graduated Sanctions
HB 358 protects people on probation from receiving unnecessary and costly technical violations. It requires the use of graduated sanctions, such as modification of probation conditions or program placement for fewer than three violations, emphasizing treatment over incarceration.
Florida HB 885: Juvenile Justice Programs and Detention
The bill requires that alternative consequence components be designed to provide swift and appropriate incentives, as well as consequences, for technical violations. While such alternative consequence components are not required, if a child’s probation program includes an alternative consequence component, the bill requires the child’s disposition order to specify the appropriate incentives intended to motivate the child toward compliant behavior, as well as the consequences, applicable to each technical violation. As such, the bill may allow DJJ and courts to more efficiently and appropriately respond to low-level technical violations.
Kentucky HB 580: Parole Officers Need Time and Money
HB 580 would create flexibility for a more proportionate response to probation and parole violations rather than defaulting to revocation and incarceration. More specifically, the proposed legislation would give probation and parole officers the ability to apply graduated sanctions if a person makes a mistake and commits a technical—in other words, non-criminal—violation of their parole or probation conditions.
Under these circumstances, a swift and certain administrative response is more impactful and cost-effective than the severe penalty of incarceration. This creates second chances for those who need tailored rehabilitation or behavioral interventions.
Reducing officer caseloads—and making strategic decisions about who will most benefit from supervision and how to address a violation—can go a long way toward making community supervision more effective. Generally, the people who are on probation have committed low-level offenses. Indeed, across the nation, about 80% of individuals on community supervision committed nonviolent crimes.
(2) Except as provided in KRS 439.3108, the court shall[may] not: 13 (a) Revoke a sentence of probation or conditional discharge unless the court 14 has considered all other sanctions, including but not limited to graduated 15 sanctions adopted by the Department of Corrections for violations of the 16 conditions of community supervision; and 17 (b) Revoke or modify the conditions of a sentence of probation or conditional 18 discharge except after a hearing with defendant represented by counsel and 19 following a written notice of the grounds for revocation or modification.