vera.org/publications/the-perils-of-probation-how-supervision-contributes-to-jail-populations
vera.org/downloads/publications/the-perils-of-probation.pdf
Probation has been viewed traditionally as an alternative and solution to the problem of mass incarceration. However, as the number of people on probation has grown massively and probation supervision has become more punitive over the past few decades, recent reports have focused on how probation is actually contributing to mass incarceration.
But there is little information about probation’s impact on jail populations in particular. To remedy this, Vera obtained detailed data from nine cities and counties participating in the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge (SJC), a national initiative that seeks to address over-incarceration by changing the way the United States thinks about and uses jails. This report explores how probation drives jail populations in racially disparate ways—through stringent and difficult to meet probation conditions that can result in revocation and through the detention of people awaiting violation hearings.
**
Perhaps the biggest way that probation contributes to increased jail populations is through the detention of people awaiting violation hearings. In many jurisdictions, there is a strong presumption—or even a requirement—that people be detained pending probation violations, and once a detainer is filed, there are usually very few chances for a person to be released. People can be detained in jail for weeks or months waiting for a final violation hearing, even for minor technical violations. Often, the only alternative to waiting for a hearing is to accept a plea deal and be sentenced to the time they have already served in jail. This means even people who are innocent or have good defenses to violations end up pleading guilty to avoid spending more time in jail.
People who are found to have violated probation are also frequently sanctioned with jail time, either administratively (i.e., sanctions imposed by probation officers that don’t require a judge’s approval) or after a hearing, and attempts in many states to reduce revocations to prison for technical violations may lead to increased jail populations through heavier reliance on jail sanctions and jail sentences after revocation for these violations. Although jail sanctions for violations are common, there is very little evidence that they are effective at reducing violations or new offenses while people are on probation. Studies have found that jail sanctions either result in higher recidivism rates or are no more effective than community-based sanctions, such as community service or mandated treatment, suggesting that less expensive and disruptive non-jail sanctions should generally be used instead.61
61 Although the “swift, certain, and fair” (SCF) approach to sanctions, modeled on Hawaii’s HOPE Program, has been cited in favor of the use of quick jail sanctions, support for that approach is mixed at best. Evaluations of the HOPE Program showed some success with this approach, but evaluations of the SCF model in other jurisdictions found the use of jail sanctions either ineffective or in some cases harmful. See Boman, Mowen, Wodahl, et al., “Are Enhanced Treatment Sanctions Preferable to Jail Sanctions?” 2019, 359; and Reichert, Drug Testing in Community Corrections, 2020.