Community supervision is the most frequently used correctional sentence, requiring individuals to adhere to court-ordered conditions. Using a sample of 304 adults under probation supervision, this study investigated the influence of the type and number of special conditions on probation outcomes. Our findings revealed that the type of special conditions significantly predicted probation outcomes. Specifically, individuals ordered to a higher number of treatment conditions were more likely to experience negative outcomes, including technical violations, rearrest, and revocation. Individuals ordered to more control conditions had a higher number of technical violations and were over five times more likely to be revoked. Requiring a higher total number of court-ordered conditions increased the likelihood of technical violations, and greater odds of rearrest and revocation. Findings illustrate the importance of evaluating the imposition of court-ordered conditions, highlighting the potential for the excessive use of conditions to inadvertently undermine the effectiveness of the probation system.
AlwardL. (2022). Assessing the Relative Influence Of Interpersonal Relationship Factors On Probationer Rule Compliance. University of Central Florida.
2.
AndresenW. C. (2019). Residential drug treatment for high-risk probationers: Evaluating the link between program integrity and recidivism. Federal Probation, 83, 42.
3.
BarrosS.OliveiraC.AraújoE.MoreiraD.AlmeidaF.SantosA. (2022). Community intervention programs for sex offenders: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, Article 949899. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.949899
4.
BeckA. T. (1995). Cognitive therapy: Past, present and future. In MahoneyM. J. (Ed.), Cognitive and constructive psychotherapies: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 29–40). Springer.
5.
BelurJ.ThorntonA.TompsonL.ManningM.SidebottomA.BowersK. (2020). A systematic review of the effectiveness of the electronic monitoring of offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 68, 101686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2020.101686
6.
BlaskoB. L.FriedmannP. D.RhodesA. G.TaxmanF. S. (2015). The parolee–parole officer relationship as a mediator of criminal justice outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(7), 722–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814562642
7.
BlattmanC.ChaskelS.JamisonJ. C.SheridanM. (2022). Cognitive behavior therapy reduces crime and violence over 10 years: Experimental evidence (No. w30049). National Bureau of Economic Research.
8.
BontaJ.Wallace-CaprettaS.RooneyJ. (2000). Can electronic monitoring make a difference? An evaluation of three Canadian programs. Crime & Delinquency, 46(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128700046001004
9.
BrenoA. J.BhatiA.VanDeinseT.MurphyA.CuddebackG. S.TaxmanF. S. (2023). Effective Probation Strategies to Respond to Signals of Poor Progress on Community Supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 50(8), 1140–1162. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231165278
10.
CarsonE. A.KluckowR. (2023). Prisoners in 2022—Statistical Tables. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
11.
ChamberlainA. W.GriciusM.WallaceD. M.BorjasD.WareV. M. (2018). Parolee–parole officer rapport: Does it impact recidivism?International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(11), 3581–3602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17741593
12.
ChengS. Y.DavisM.Jonson-ReidM.YaegerL. (2021). Compared to what? A meta-analysis of batterer intervention studies using nontreated controls or comparisons. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(3), 496–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019865927
13.
CohenT. H.CookD.LowenkampC. T. (2016). The supervision of low-risk federal offenders: How the low-risk policy has changed federal supervision practices without compromising community safety. Federal Probation, 80(1), 3–11.
14.
Council of State Governments. (2019). Confined and costly: How supervision violations are filling prisons and burdening budgets. Justice Center.
15.
CrouchB. M. (1993). Is incarceration really worse? Analysis of offenders’ preferences for prison over probation. Justice Quarterly, 10(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/074188293000091711
16.
DeschenesE. P.TurnerS.GreenwoodP. W.ChiesaJ. (1996). An experimental evaluation of drug testing and treatment interventions for probationers in Maricopa County, Arizona. RAND Corporation.
17.
DohertyF. (2015). Obey all laws and be good: Probation and the meaning of recidivism. Georgetown Law Journal, 104(2), 291–354.
18.
DurnescuI. (2011). Pains of probation: Effective practice and human rights. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(4), 530–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X10369489
19.
DrakeE. K.AosS.MillerM. G. (2009). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications in Washington State. Victims and Offenders, 4(2), 170–196.
20.
ElliottR.BohartA. C.WatsonJ. C.MurphyD. (2018). Therapist empathy and client outcome: An updated meta-analysis. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 399. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000175
21.
FultonB.StichmanA.TravisL.LatessaE. (1997). Moderating probation and parole officer attitudes to achieve desired outcomes. The Prison Journal, 77(3), 295–312.
22.
GallagherJ. R.WahlerE. A.LefebvreE.PaianoT.CarltonJ.Woodward MillerJ. (2018). Improving graduation rates in drug court through employment and schooling opportunities and medication-assisted treatment (MAT). Journal of Social Service Research, 44(3), 343–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2018.1472173
23.
GalvinM. A.DavidsonK. M.KleimanM. (2021). Substance involvement and probation outcomes: Evidence from a cohort study. Journal of Drug Issues, 52(3), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220426211062560
24.
GendreauP.GogginC.FultonB. (2000). Intensive probation in probation and parole settings. In HollinC. R. (Ed.), Handbook of offender assessment and treatment (pp. 195–204). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
GuerreroE. G.MarshJ. C.DuanL.OhC.PerronB.LeeB. (2013). Disparities in completion of substance abuse treatment between and within racial and ethnic groups. Health Services Research, 48(4), 1450–1467. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12031
27.
HenwoodK. S.ChouS.BrowneK. D. (2015). A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of CBT informed anger management. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25, 280–292.
28.
HicksW. D.HolcombJ. E.AlexanderM. A.ClodfelterT. A. (2020). Drug testing and community supervision outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(4), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819898219
29.
HowellsK.DayA.WilliamsonP.BubnerS.JaunceyS.ParkerA.HeseltineK. (2005). Brief anger management programs with offenders: Outcomes and predictors of change. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 16(2), 296–311.
30.
HyattJ. M.BarnesG. C. (2017). An experimental evaluation of the impact of intensive supervision on the recidivism of high-risk probationers. Crime & Delinquency, 63(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128714555757
31.
IratzoquiA.MetcalfeC. (2017). Set up for failure? Examining the influence of monetary sanctions on probation success. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 28(4), 370–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403415586595
32.
KaebleD. (2023). Probation and parole in the United States, 2021. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
33.
KinlockT. W.GordonM. S.SchwartzR. P.FitzgeraldT. T.O’GradyK. E. (2009). A randomized clinical trial of methadone maintenance for prisoners: Results at 12 months postrelease. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 37(3), 277–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2009.03.002
34.
KlingeleC. (2013). Rethinking the use of community supervision. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 103(4), 1015–1070.
35.
KnudsenE.JohannessonM. P. (2019). Beyond the limits of survey experiments: How conjoint designs advance causal inference in political communications research. Political Communication, 36(2), 259–271.
36.
KossonD. S.WalshZ.AndersonJ. R.BrookM.SwoggerM. T.VerborgR. (2019). Evaluation of a cognitive-behavioral intervention for high-and medium-risk probationers. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 37(4), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2394
37.
KownackiR. J.ShadishW. R. (1999). Does alcoholics anonymous work? The results from a meta-analysis of controlled experiments. Substance Use & Misuse, 34(13), 1897–1916. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826089909039431
38.
LandenbergerN. A.LipseyM. W. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive–behavioral programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(4), 451–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-005-3541-7
39.
LowderE. M.Northcutt BohmertM.DiazC. L.YingM.GrommonE.HatfieldT. (2022). Patterns of compliance and noncompliance during probation: Identifying pathways to probation revocation. Crime & Delinquency. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221143942
40.
MaldonadoA. I.MurphyC. M. (2021). Readiness to change as a predictor of treatment engagement and outcome for partner violent men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7–8), 3041–3064. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518770188
OlsonD. E.LurigioA. J. (2000). Predicting probation outcomes: Factors associated with probation rearrest, revocations, and technical violations during supervision. Justice Research and Policy, 2(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.3818/JRP.2.1.2000.73
43.
PetersiliaJ. (1990). When probation becomes more dreaded than prison. Federal Probation, 54, 23.
44.
PetersiliaJ. (1997). Probation in the United States. Crime and Justice, 22, 149–200.
45.
PetersiliaJ.TurnerS. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. Crime and Justice, 17, 281–335.
46.
Pew Center on the States. (2007). When individuals break the rules: Smart responses to probation and parole violations. Public Safety Policy Brief, 3, 1.
47.
PhelpsM. S. (2020). Mass probation from micro to macro: Tracing the expansion and consequences of community supervision. Annual Review of Criminology, 3, 261–279. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041352
48.
PhelpsM. S.OsmanI. H.RobertsonC. E.ShlaferR. J. (2022). Beyond “pains” and “gains”: Untangling the health consequences of probation. Health & Justice, 10(1), 29.
49.
PhelpsM. S.RuhlandE. L. (2022). Governing marginality: Coercion and care in probation. Social Problems, 69(3), 799–816. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spaa060
50.
PleggenkuhleB.KrasK. R.HuebnerB. M. (2021). Twice punished: Perceived procedural fairness and legitimacy of monetary sanctions. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 37(1), 88–107.
51.
Reingle GonzalezJ. M.WaltersS. T.LerchJ.TaxmanF. S. (2018). Gender differences in substance use treatment and substance use among adults on probation. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 44(4), 480–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/00952990.2018.1427103
52.
RenzemaM.Mayo-WilsonE. (2005). Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate to high-risk offenders?Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-005-1615-1
53.
RuhlandE. L.HolmesB.PetkusA. (2020). The role of fines and fees on probation outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(10), 1244–1263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820918877
54.
RuhlandE. L.LinkN. W. (2020). Fines, fees, and debt in community corrections: Past, present, and future. In LattimoreP. K.HuebnerB. M.TaxmanF. S. (Eds.), Handbook on moving corrections and sentencing forward. Routledge.
55.
RuhlandE. L.ScheiblerE. (2022). Probation officer discretion in monitoring and violating supervision conditions. Probation Journal, 69(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505211041578
56.
SalonerB.BandaraS. N.McGintyE. E.BarryC. L. (2016). Justice-involved adults with substance use disorders: Coverage increased but rates of treatment did not in 2014. Health Affairs, 35(6), 1058–1066. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0005
57.
SchulenbergJ. L. (2007). Predicting noncompliant behavior: Disparities in the social locations of male and female probationers. Justice Research and Policy, 9(1), 25–57. https://doi.org/10.3818/JRP.9.1.2007.25
58.
ShannonL. M.JacksonA.PerkinsE.NealC. (2014). Examining gender differences in substance use, participant characteristics, and treatment outcomes among individuals in drug court. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(6), 455–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2014.931747
59.
SteinmetzK. F.HendersonH. (2016). Inequality on probation: An examination of differential probation outcomes. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 14(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2015.1030527
60.
Stevens-MartinK.OyewoleO.HipolitoC. (2014). Technical revocations of probation in one jurisdiction: Uncovering hidden realities. Federal Probation, 78(3), 16–20.
61.
SturgessD.WoodhamsJ.TonkinM. (2016). Treatment engagement from the perspective of the offender: Reasons for noncompletion and completion of treatment—A systematic review. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(16), 1873–1896. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X15586038
62.
SturmA.MengerA.de VogelV.HuibersM. J. (2020). Predictors of change of working alliance over the course of probation supervision: A prospective cohort study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64(8), 753–773. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X19878554
TaxmanF. S.PerdoniM. L.HarrisonL. D. (2007). Drug treatment services for adult offenders: The state of the state. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2006.12.019
TkaczJ.SevertJ.CacciolaJ.RuetschC. (2012). Compliance with buprenorphine medication-assisted treatment and relapse to opioid use. The American Journal on Addictions, 21(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1521-0391.2011.00186.x
67.
TonryM.LynchM. (1996). Intermediate sanctions. Crime and Justice, 20, 99–144.
ZettlerH. R.MartinK. D. (2020). Exploring the impact of technical violations on probation revocations in the context of drug court. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 1003–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09529-1
