Community Supervision in the United States

Community Corrections or Supervision Definition

The supervision of criminal offenders in the resident population, as opposed to confining offenders in secure correctional facilities. The two main types of community corrections supervision are probation and parole. Community supervision is also referred to as community correction.

Parole

Parole refers to criminal offenders who are conditionally released from prison to serve the remaining portion of their sentence in the community. Prisoners may be released to parole by a parole board decision (discretionary release/discretionary parole), according to provisions of a statute (mandatory release/mandatory parole), through other types of post-custody conditional supervision, or as the result of a sentence to a term of supervised release. In the federal system, a term of supervised release is a sentence to a fixed period of supervision in the community that follows a sentence to a period of incarceration in federal prison, both of which are ordered at the time of sentencing by a federal judge.

Parolees can have a number of different supervision statuses, including active supervision, which means they are required to regularly report to a parole authority in person, by mail, or by telephone. Some parolees may be on an inactive status, which means they are excluded from regularly reporting, and that could be due to a number of reasons. For instance, some may receive a reduction in supervision, possibly due to compliance or meeting all required conditions before the parole sentence terminates, and therefore may be moved from an active to inactive status. Other supervision statues include parolees who only have financial conditions remaining, have absconded, or who have active warrants. Parolees are also typically required to fulfill certain conditions and adhere to specific rules of conduct while in the community. Failure to comply with any of the conditions can result in a return to incarceration.

Probation

Probation refers to adult offenders whom courts place on supervision in the community through a probation agency, generally in lieu of incarceration. However, some jurisdictions do sentence probationers to a combined short-term incarceration sentence immediately followed by probation, which is referred to as a split sentence. Probationers can have a number of different supervision statuses, including active supervision, which means they are required to regularly report to a probation authority in person, by mail, or by telephone.

Some probationers may be on an inactive status, which means they are excluded from regularly reporting, and that could be due to a number of reasons. For instance, some probationers may be placed on inactive status immediately because the severity of the offense was minimal or some may receive a reduction in supervision and therefore may be moved from an active to inactive status. Other supervision statuses include probationers who only have financial conditions remaining, have absconded, or who have active warrants. In many instances, while on probation, offenders are required to fulfill certain conditions of their supervision (e.g., payment of fines, fees or court costs, participation in treatment programs) and adhere to specific rules of conduct while in the community. Failure to comply with any conditions can result in incarceration.

Resources

Aebi, M. F., Delgrande, N., & Marguet, Y. (2015). Have community sanctions and measures widened the net of the European criminal justice systems? Punishment and Society, 17(5), 575–597.
Albonetti, C. A., & Hepburn, J. R. (1997). Probation revocation: A proportional hazards model of the conditioning effects of social disadvantage. Social Problems, 44(1), 124–138.
Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York: New Press.
Alm, S. S. (2016). HOPE Probation. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(4), 1195–1214.
Alper, M. (2016). By the numbers: Parole release and revocation across 50 states. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota: Robina Institute of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice.
Alper, M., Corda, A., & Reitz, K. (2016). American exceptionalism in probation supervision. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota: Robina Institute of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 7–27.
Apel, R. (2016). The effects of jail and prison confinement on cohabitation and marriage. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665(1), 103–126.
Armstrong, S., & Weaver, B. (2013). Persistent punishment: User views of short prison sentences. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 52(3), 285–305.
Austin, J., Cadora, E., Clear, T., Dansky, K., Greene, J., Gupta, V., et al. (2013). Ending Mass Incarceration: Charting a New Justice Reinvestment. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
Austin, J., & Krisberg, B. (1981). Wider, stronger, and different nets: The dialectics of criminal justice reform. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18(1), 165–196.
Aviram, H. (2016). The Correctional Hunger Games: Understanding Realignment in the Context of the Great Recession. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 664(1), 260–279.
Barker, V. (2009). The politics of imprisonment: How the democratic process shapes the way America punishes offenders. New York: Oxford University Press.
Beck, A. (1999). Trends in U.S. correctional populations: Why has the number of offenders under supervision tripled since 1980. In K. Haas & G. Alpert (Eds.), The Dilemmas of Corrections (pp. 44–100). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Blackmon, D. (2008). Slavery by another name: The re-enslavement of black Americans from the Civil War to World War II. New York: Doubleday.
Blomberg, T. (1977). Diversion and accelerated social control. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 68(2), 274–281.
Blomberg, T. G., & Lucken, K. (2000). American penology: A history of control (2d ed.). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Bonczar, T. P. (1997). Characteristics of adults on probation, 1995. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Boone, M., & Herzog-Evans, M. (2013). Decision-making and offender supervision. In F. McNeill & K. Beyens (Eds.), Offender supervision in Europe (pp. 51–96). Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bradley, M., & Engen, R. (2014). Leaving prison: A multilevel investigation of racial, ethnic, and gender disproportionality in correctional release. Crime & Delinquency, 62(2), 253–279.
Burke, P. (2007). When offenders break the rules: smart responses to parole and probation violations, Washington, DC, Pew Center on States.
Bushway, S. D. (2011). So policy makers drive incarceration: Now what? Criminology & Public Policy, 10, 327–333.
Byrne, J. (2009). Maximum impact: Targeting supervision on higher-risk people, places, and times. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts.
Camp, C. G., & Camp, G. M. (2000). Corrections Yearbook 2000: Adult Corrections (No. NCJ 189195). Middletown, CT: Criminal Justice Institute.
Caplow, T., & Simon, J. (1999). Understanding prison policy and population trends. Crime and Justice, 26(Prisons), 63–129.
Carson, A. E., & Golinelli, D. (2013). Prisoners in 2012: Trends in admissions and releases, 1991–2012 (No. NCJ 243920). Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC
Cavender, G. (1982). Parole, a critical analysis. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press.
Clear, T., & Frost, N. (2013). The punishment imperative: The rise and failure of mass incarceration in America. New York: New York University Press.
Clear, T. R. (2011). A private‐sector, incentives‐based model for justice reinvestment. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(3), 585–608.
Cohen, R. (1995). Probation and parole violators in state prison, 1991. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Comfort, M. (2016). “A twenty-hour-a-day job”: The impact of frequent low-level criminal justice involvement on family life. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665(1), 63–79.
Corbett, R. P., Jr. (2015). The burdens of leniency: The changing face of probation. Minnesota Law Review, 99(5), 1697–1732.
Corda, A., Alper, M., & Reitz, K. (2016). American exceptionalism in parole supervision. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota: Robina Institute of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice.
Comfort, M. (2016). “A twenty-hour-a-day job”: The impact of frequent low-level criminal justice involvement on family life. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665(1), 63–79.
Cox, A. (2015). Fresh air funds and functional families: The enduring politics of race, family, and place in juvenile justice reform. Theoretical Criminology, 19(4), 554–570.
Crouch, B. M. (1993). Is incarceration really worse? Analysis of offenders’ preferences for prison over probation. Justice Quarterly, 10(1), 67–88.
Cullen, F. T. (2005). The twelve people who saved rehabilitation: How the science of criminology made a difference. Criminology, 43(1), 1–42.
Cunniff, M. A., & Shilton, M. K. (1991). Variations on felony probation: Persons under supervision in 32 urban and suburban counties. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
DeMichele, M. (2014). Electronic monitoring: It is a tool, not a silver bullet. Criminology & Public Policy, 13(3), 393–400.
DeMichele, M. T. (2007). Probation and parole’s growing caseloads and workload allocation: Strategies for managerial decision making. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Program, Department of Justice.
Doherty, F. (2016). Obey all laws and be good: Probation and the meaning of recidivism. Georgetown Law Journal, 104(2), 291–354.
Durnescu, I. (2008). An exploration of the purpose and outcomes of probation in European jurisdictions. Probation Journal, 55(3), 273–281.
Durnescu, I. (2011). Pains of probation: Effective practice and human rights. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(4), 530–545.
Fader, J. J. (2013). Falling back: Incarceration and transitions to adulthood among urban youth. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Feeley, M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449–474.
Fitzgibbon, W., Graebsch, C., & McNeill, F. (2016) Pervasive punishment: Experiencing supervision. In M. Brown & E. Carrabine (Eds.), Handbook of visual criminology. London: Routledge.
Garland, D. (1985). Punishment and welfare: A history of penal strategies. Aldershot, U.K.: Gower.
Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Garland, D., & Young, P. (1983). The power to punish: Contemporary penality and social analysis. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Glaze, L. E., & Bonczar, T. P. (2011). Probation and parole in the United States, 2010. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Gottschalk, M. (2015). Caught: The prison state and the lockdown of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Grattet, R., Lin, J., & Petersilia, J. (2011). Supervision regimes, risk, and official reactions to parolee deviance. Criminology, 49(2), 371–399.
Grattet, R., Petersilia, J., Lin, J., & Beckman, M. (2009). Parole violations and revocations in California: Analysis and suggestions for action. Federal Probation, 73, 2–11.
Gray, M. K., Fields, M., & Maxwell, S. R. (2001). Examining probation violations: Who, what, and when. Crime & Delinquency, 47(4), 537–557.
Green, D. P., & Winik, D. (2010). Using random judge assignments to estimate the effects of incarceration and probation on recidivism among drug offenders. Criminology, 48(2), 357–387.
Greene, J. A., & Mauer, M. (2010). Downscaling prisons: Lessons from four states. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
Hallsworth, S. (2002). The case for a postmodern penality. Theoretical Criminology, 6(2), 145–163.
Harris, A. (2016). A pound of flesh. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. (2009). Managing drug involved probationers with swift and certain sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE: Executive summary. Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Reference Services.
Huebner, B. M., & Bynum, T. S. (2008). The role of race and ethnicity in parole decisions. Criminology, 46(4), 907–938.
Hughes, T., Wilson, D. J., & Beck, A. (2001). Trends in state parole, 1990–2000 (No. NCJ 184735). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Human Rights Watch. (2014). Profiting from probation: America’s “offender-funded” probation industry. New York.
Ireland, C. S., & Prause, J. (2005). Discretionary parole release: Length of imprisonment, percent of sentence served, and recidivism. Journal of Crime & Justice, 28(2), 27–46.
Jannetta, J., Breaux, J., Ho, H., & Porter, J. (2014). Examining racial and ethnic disparities in probation revocation. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Kaebele, D., & Glaze, L. (2016). Correctional populations in the United States, 2015. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Kaeble, D., & Bonczar, T. P. (2016). Probation and parole in the United States, 2015. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Kassebaum, G. (1999). Survival on parole: A Study of Post-Prison Adjustment and the Risk of Returning to Prison in the State of Hawaii. Honolulu, HI: Social Science Research Institute Department of the Attorney General.
Kassebaum, G., & Davidson-Coronado, J. (2001). Parole decision making in Hawaii: Setting minimum terms, approving release, deciding on revocation, and predicting success and failure on parole. Manoa, HI: Social Science Research Institute University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Kerbs, J. J., Jones, M., & Jolley, J. M. (2009). Discretionary decision making by probation and parole officers: The role of extralegal variables as predictors of responses to technical violations. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25(4), 424–441.
Killias, M., & Villetaz, P. (2008). The effects of custodial vs non-custodial sanctions on reoffending: Lessons from a systematic review. Psicothema, 20(1), 29–34.
Killias, M., Villettaz, P., & Zoder, I. (2006). The Effects of Custodial vs. Non-Custodial Sentences on Re-Offending: A Systematic Review of the State of Knowledge. Report to the Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group. Institute of Criminology and Criminal Law, University of Lausanne, Switzerland
Kingsnorth, R. F., Macintosh, R. C., & Sutherland, S. (2002). Criminal charge or probation violation? Prosecutorial discretion and implications for research in criminal court processing. Criminology, 40(3), 553–578.
Klein, M. W. (1979). Deinstitutionalization and diversion of juvenile offenders: A litany of impediments. Crime and Justice, 1, 145–201.
Klingele, C. (2013). Rethinking the use of community supervision. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 103(4), 1015–1070.
Klingele, C. (2016). The promises and perils of evidence-based corrections. Notre Dame Law Review, 91(2), 2.
Kohler-Hausmann, I. (2013). Misdemeanor Justice: Control without Conviction. American Journal of Sociology 119(2), 351–393.
LaVigne, N., Bieler, S., Cramer, L., Ho, H., Kotonias, C., Mayer, D., et al. (2014). Justice Reinvestment Initiative State Assessment Report. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Lemert, E. M. (1981) Diversion in juvenile justice: What hath been wrought. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18(1), 34–46.
Lerman, A. E., & Weaver, V. M. (2014). Arresting Citizenship: The Democratic Consequences of American Crime Control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leverentz, A. (2010). People, places, and things: How female ex-prisoners negotiate their neighborhood context. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 39(6), 682–708.
Lin, J. (2010). Parole revocation in the era of mass incarceration. Sociology Compass, 4(12), 999–1010.
Lin, J., Grattet, R., & Petersilia, J. (2010). Back-end sentencing and reimprisonment: Individual, organizational, and community predictors of parole sanctioning decisions. Criminology, 48(3), 759–795.
Loeffler, C. E. (2013). Does imprisonment alter the life course? Evidence on crime and employment from a natural experiment. Criminology, 51(1), 137–166.
Logan, W. A. (2003). The importance of purpose in probation decision making. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 6(2003), 171–232.
López, G. P. (2014). How mainstream reformers design ambitious reentry programs doomed to fail and destined to reinforce targeted mass incarceration and social control. Hastings Race & Poverty LJ, 11, 1.
Lowman, J., Menzies, R. J., & Palys, T. S (1987). Transcarceration: Essays in the sociology of social control. Aldershot, U.K.: Gower.
Lynch, M. (2000). Rehabilitation as rhetoric the ideal of reformation in contemporary parole discourse and practices. Punishment & Society, 2(1), 40–65.
Manza, J., & Uggen, C. (2008). Locked out: Felon disenfranchisement and American democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
May, D. C., Wood, P. B., & Eades, A. (2008). Lessons learned from punishment exchange rates: Implications for theory, research, and correctional policy. The Journal of Behavior Analysis of Offender and Victim Treatment and Prevention, 1(2), 187.
McMahon, M. (1992). The persistent prison? Rethinking decarceration and penal reform. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
McNeill, F. (2009). What works and what’s just? European Journal of Probation, 1(1), 21–40.
McNeill, F., & Beyens, K. (Eds.). (2013). Offender supervision in Europe. Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
McNeill, F., Durnescu, I., & Butter, R. (Eds.). (2016). Probation: 12 essential questions. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
McNeill, F., Farrall, S., Lightowler, C., & Maruna, S. (2012). Re-examining “evidence-based practice” in community corrections: Beyond “a confined view” of what works. Justice Research and Policy, 14(1), 35–60.
McNeill, F., & Robinson, R. (2016). Explaining probation. In I. Durnescu, F. McNeill, & R. Butter (Eds.), Probation: 12 essential questions. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Miller, R. J. (2014). Devolving the carceral state: Race, prisoner reentry, and the micro-politics of urban poverty management. Punishment & Society, 16(3), 305–335.
Morenoff, J. D., & Harding, D. J. (2014). Incarceration, prisoner reentry, and communities. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 411–429.
Morning Consult & Vox. (2016). National tracking poll.
Morris, N., & Tonry, M. (1991). Between prison and probation: Intermediate punishments in a rational sentencing system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nagin, D. S. (2016), Project HOPE. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(4), 1005–1007.
Natapoff, A. (2015). Misdemeanors. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11, 255–267.
Nguyen, A. P., Harding, D. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Bushway, S. D. (2016). The effects of community supervision on recidivism and labor market outcomes: Evidence from a natural experiment. Presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
Northcutt Bohmert, M. (2016). The role of transportation disadvantage for women on community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(11), 1522–1540.
O’Malley, P. (2015). Rethinking neoliberal penality. Legal Studies Research Paper, University of Sydney Law School.
Padfield, N., van Zyl Smit, D., & Dunkel, F. (Eds.). (2010). Release from prison: European policy and practice. Portland, OR: Willan.
Pager, D. (2007). Marked: Race, crime, and finding work in an era of mass incarceration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Petersilia, J. (2002) Reforming probation and parole. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.
Petersilia, J. (2004). What works in prisoner reentry-reviewing and questioning the evidence. Federal Probation, 68(4), 4–8.
Petersilia, J. (2014). California prison downsizing and its impact on local criminal justice systems. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 8.
Petersilia, J. (2016). Realigning corrections, California style. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 664(1), 8–13.
Pew Center of States (Pew). (2012). Public opinion on sentencing and corrections policy in America. In collaboraton with Public Opinion Strategies and The Mellman Group,Washington, DC..
Pew Center of States (Pew). (2016). Missouri policy shortens probation and parole terms, protects public safety. Washington, DC.
Phelps, M. (2013). The paradox of probation: Community supervision in the age of mass incarceration. Law & Policy, 35(1–2), 51–80.
Phelps, M. (2015). The curious disappearance of sociological research on probation supervision. In Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Annual: Global Perspectives (Vol. 7; pp. 1–30). New York: AMS Press.
Phelps, M. (2016). Possibilities and contestation in twenty-first-century US Criminal Justice downsizing. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 12, 153–170.
Phelps, M. (2017). Mass probation: Toward a more robust theory of state variation in punishment. Punishment & Society, 19(1), 53–73.
Phelps, M. (forthcoming). Mass probation and criminal justice disparities. In J. Ulmer & M. Bradley (Eds.), Punishment decisions: Locations of disparity. The ASC Division on Corrections & Sentencing Handbook Series. Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge.
Rabuy, B., & Wagner, P. (2016) Correctional control: Incarceration and supervision by state. Northampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative.
Rengifo, A., & Stemen, D. (2012). The unintended effects of penal reform: African American presence, incarceration, and the abolition of discretionary parole in the United States. Crime & Delinquency, 61, 719–741.
Rengifo, A. F., Stemen. D. (2010). Context and impact of organizational changes in state corrections agencies: A study of local discourses and practices in Kansas and Michigan. Final Report to the National Institute of Corrections Grant #09PEI32GKA7. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, Washington, DC.
Rengifo, A. F., & Stemen, D. (2013). The impact of drug treatment on recidivism: Do mandatory programs make a difference? Evidence from Kansas’s Senate Bill 123. Crime & Delinquency, 59(6), 930–950.
Richie B. (2001). Challenges incarcerated women face as they return to their communities: Findings from life history interviews. Crime & Delinquency, 47(3), 368–389.
Rios, V. M. (2011). Punished: Policing the lives of Black and Latino boys. New York: NYU Press.
Robinson, G. (2002). Exploring risk management in probation practice: Contemporary developments in England and Wales. Punishment & Society, 4(1), 5–25.
Robinson, G. (2016). The Cinderella complex: Punishment, society and community sanctions. Punishment and Society, 18(1), 95–111.
Robinson, G., Burke, L., & Millings, M. (2015). Criminal justice identities in transition: The case of devolved probation services in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology, 56(1).
Robinson, G., & McNeill, F. (Eds.). (2016). Community punishment: European perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Robinson, G., McNeill, F., & Maruna, S. (2013). Punishment in society: The improbable persistence of probation and other community sanctions and measures. In J. Simon & R. Sparks (Eds.), The Sage handbook of punishment and society. London: SAGE.
Robinson, G., & Raynor, P. (2006). The future of rehabilitation: What role for the probation service? Probation Journal, 53(4), 335–347.
Robinson, G., & Ugwudike, P. (2012). Investing in “toughness”: Probation, enforcement and legitimacy. The Howard Journal, 51(3), 300–316.
Rodriguez, N., & Webb, V. J. (2007). Probation violations, revocations, and imprisonment. The decisions of probation officers, prosecutors, and judges pre-and post-mandatory drug treatment. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18(1), 3–30.
Rothman, D. J. (2002) Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its alternatives in progressive America. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Ruhland, E. L., Rhine, E. E., Robey, J. P., & Mitchell, K. L. (2016). The continuing leverage of releasing authorities: Findings from a national survey. Robina Institute of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice: University of Minnesota..
Schlager, M. D., & Robbins, K. (2008). Does parole work? Revisited: Reframing the discussion of the impact of postprison supervision on offender outcome. The Prison Journal, 88(2), 234–251.
Scott-Hayward, C. S. (2011). The failure of parole: Rethinking the role of the state in reentry. New Mexico Law Review, 41(2), 421–465.
Scott-Hayward, C. S. (2013). Shadow sentencing: The imposition of federal supervised release. Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law, 18(2), 180–230.
Siegel, J. A., Harding, D. J., & Morenoff, J. D. (2016). Parole sanctions and earnings after release from prison. Presented at the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA.
Simon, J. (1993). Poor discipline: Parole and the social control of the underclass, 1890–1990. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Solomon, A. L., Kachnowski, V., & Bhati, A. (2005). Does parole work? Analyzing the impact of postprison supervision on rearrest outcomes. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Steen, S., & Opsal, T. (2007). “Punishment on the Installment Plan”: Individual-Level Predictors of Parole Revocation in Four States. The Prison Journal, 87(3), 344–366.
Steen, S., Opsal, T., Lovegrove, P., & McKinzey, S. (2012). Putting parolees back in prison: Discretion and the parole revocation process. Criminal Justice Review, 38(1), 70–93.
Stemen, D., & Rengifo, A. F. (2009). Mandating treatment for drug possessors: The impact of Senate Bill 123 on the criminal justice system in Kansas. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(3), 296–304.
Stevens-Martin, K., Oyewole, O., & Hipolito, C. (2014). Technical revocations of probation in one jurisdiction: Uncovering the hidden realities. Federal Probation, 78(3), 16.
Subramanian, R., & Delaney, R. (2014). Playbook for change? States reconsider mandatory sentences. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
Sykes, G. M. (1958). The society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Taxman, F. S. (2012). Probation, intermediate sanctions, and community-based corrections. In The Oxford handbook of sentencing and corrections (pp. 363–385). New York: Oxford University Press.
Travis, J. (2002). Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment. New York: The New Press.
Travis, J., & Lawrence, S. (2002). Beyond the prison gates: The state of parole in America. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
van Zyl Smit, Df, & Corda, A. (forthcoming) American exceptionalism in parole release and supervision: A European perspective. In K. Reitz (Ed.), American exceptionalism in crime and punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vera Institute of Justice. (2013). The potential of community corrections to improve safety and reduce incarceration. New York.
Visher, C., LaVigne, N., & Travis, J. (2004). Returning home: Understanding the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Wacquant, L. (2009). Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Weisberg, R., & Petersilia, J. (2010). The dangers of pyrrhic victories against mass incarceration. Daedalus, 139(3), 124–133.
Werth, R. (2011). I do what I’m told, sort of: Reformed subjects, unruly citizens, and parole. Theoretical Criminology, 16(3), 329–346.
Werth, R. (2013). The construction and stewardship of responsible yet precarious subjects: Punitive ideology, rehabilitation, and “tough love” among parole personnel, Punishment & Society, 15(3), 219–246.
Werth, R. (2016). Individualizing risk: Moral judgement, professional knowledge and affect in parole evaluations. British Journal of Criminology. .
Western, B., Braga, A. A., Davis, J., & Sirois, C. (2015). Stress and hardship after prison. American Journal of Sociology, 120(5), 1512–1547.
Wodahl, E. J., Boman, J. H., & Garland, B. E. (2015). Responding to probation and parole violations: Are jail sanctions more effective than community-based graduated sanctions? Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(3), 242–250.

Community Supervision

Community Supervision in the United States

Community Corrections or Supervision Definition

Parole

Probation

Resources

See Also

Further Reading

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply