The Pennsylvania Community Corrections Story

The sentencing of Philadelphia rap artist Meek Mill to imprisonment for probation violations committed a decade after his original offense has focused attention on probation and parole practices nationally and in Pennsylvania (NBC News 2017; Jay-Z 2017). Unfortunately, Pennsylvania serves as a good example of how high rates of probation and parole can go hand-in-hand with, and contribute to, high incarceration rates. Pennsylvania has the highest incarceration rate in the Northeast, coupled with the third highest percentage of its citizens on probation and parole in the country. According to the Council of State Governments Justice Center (2017). Pennsylvania’s incarceration rate increased by 16% from 2005 to 2014, compared to New York’s and New Jersey’s which have declined by 18% and 24%, respectively. While one out of every 53 adults is supervised by probation and parole nationally, in Pennsylvania, one out of every 34 adults is under community supervision, a rate 36% higher than the national average (Kaeble and Bonczar 2016). Only Georgia and Idaho have higher rates of community supervision than Pennsylvania

Too big to succeed: The impact of the growth of community corrections and what should be done about it

In this new report, some of the nation’s leading community corrections administrators discuss the consequences of the tremendous growth in probation and parole supervision in the United States over the past several decades. They argue that the number of people under supervision needs to be cut in half. Originally designed as alternatives to incarceration, the authors find that probation and parole are a deprivation of liberty in their own right and have become key drivers of mass incarceration by serving as a trip wire to reincarceration for many of those under supervision. The authors argue that community corrections populations have risen alongside prison and jail populations but that community corrections has not been funded adequately to meet the needs of a population of individuals beset by poverty, unemployment, inadequate housing, mental illness and substance use. Since it is highly unlikely that governments will increase funding to probation and parole, the only realistic alternative is to reduce the number of people under community corrections and preserve some of the funds to provide assistance to those who remain under supervision. The paper discusses several examples of jurisdictions that have done so

Two months later: Outcomes of the March 27th order to release people jailed for technical violations during the pandemic

This research brief assesses the impact of a March 27, 2020 announcement from the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), indicating that it would release up to 1,100 people jailed in county facilities for accusations of technical parole violations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It concludes that the state released around three-quarters of those originally anticipated by the NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. It additionally finds that in the two months since the directive was issued, more than 160 people accused of technical parole violations were newly sent to the Rikers jails. This number appears to be accelerating and is projected to surpass the number of people released by June or early July, 2020. The brief concludes with recommendations for policy and practice

Racial Inequities in New York Parole Supervision

The scope and conditions of parole supervision in New York have profound impacts for people serving supervision sentences. Numerous conditions are a constraint on their liberty, serve as trip wires to incarceration, and can disrupt the process of community reintegration needed for successful reentry after leaving prison. Parole supervision fuels mass incarceration everywhere, but particularly in New York as New York sends more people back to prison for non-criminal, technical parole violations than any state except Illinois. Nearly six times as many people are reincarcerated in state prisons for technical violations such as missing an appointment, being out past curfew, or testing positive for alcohol as were reincarcerated for a new criminal conviction. Moreover, people held on parole violations are now the only population increasing in New York City jails, threatening plans to close the notorious Rikers Island jails complex. Together, incarceration for technical violations costs New York State and localities over $600 million annually. Importantly, the harmful impacts of parole policies disproportionately fall on Black and brown communities. Black and Latinx people are significantly more likely than white people to be under supervision, to be jailed pending a violation hearing, and to be incarcerated in New York State prisons for a parole violation . This report examines these racial and ethnic inequities in New York parole supervision and revocation, and offers further context by summarizing existing research on disparities in supervision practices nationally

Less is More in New York: An Examination of the Impact of State Parole Violations on Prison and Jail Populations

As the number of people in New York’s state prisons and local jails, including Rikers Island, has been declining, one population is on the rise – persons incarcerated for state parole violations. This, even as city and state leaders agree that the Rikers Island should close and that more attention should be paid to the parole violation issue. This research brief examines this issue in greater detail, focusing on its impact on New York City’s jail population at this critical time. It concludes with recommendations to reduce unnecessary incarceration of persons on parole as well as to shrink the overall parole population and focus parole supervision and supports on those who need it the most

Recidivism Reconsidered: Preserving the Community Justice Mission of Community Corrections

In the following discussion, we describe the logical and practical problems that arise when recidivism is used as the principal outcome measure for community corrections agencies. We recognize that recidivism will always be a feature of justice policy and practice. Recidivism offers a simple and familiar outcome measure for judging the effectiveness of justice interventions. Pointing out the logical flaws of recidivism will not diminish its salience for audiences disinclined to question its utility. Our purpose in this discussion is not to end the use of recidivism as a justice system measure but to illustrate its limits and to encourage the development and use of more suitable measures — namely, positive outcomes related to the complex process of criminal desistance

Can we eliminate the youth prison? (And what should we replace it with?)

Over the past two decades, the number of young people in youth prisons in United States has quietly declined by two-thirds. As it has done so, youth crime has continued to plummet nationally and in individual states with large declines in youth incarceration. Is this a signal that America can do without youth prisons at all? And, if so, what should we replace them with

The Future of Youth Justice: A Community Based Alternative to the Youth Prison Model

Whether the benefits and costs of youth prisons are weighed on a scale of public dollars, community safety, or young people’s futures, they are damaging the very people they are supposed to help and have been for generations. It is difficult to find an area of U.S. policy where the benefits and costs are more out of balance, where the evidence of failure is clearer, or where we know with more clarity what we should be doing differently. This ill-conceived and outmoded approach is a failure, with high costs and recidivism rates and institutional conditions that are often appalling. Our approach to youth in trouble with the law requires a watershed change to one that is more effective, more informed by evidence of what works, more likely to protect public safety, more developmentally appropriate, more humane, and more community based. Every youth prison in the country should be closed and replaced with a network of community-based programs and small facilities near the youth’s communities. Closing these failed institutions requires a clear-headed, common-sense, bipartisan policy approach, and a commitment to replace these facilities with effective alternatives that are already available

Moving Beyond Youth Prisons: Lessons from New York City’s Implementation of Close to Home

In the mid-1990s, New York’s youth prison system reflected the dominant paradigm across the country – a heavy reliance on incarceration for young people caught up in the juvenile justice system. During this time, roughly 3,800 youth convicted of crimes annually were sent to large facilities, operated either by the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) or by private providers contracted by OCFS. These facilities were largely located in upstate New York, far from youths’ homes and communities, particularly for youth from New York City (Sickmund et al. 2017; New York State (NYS) Office of the State Comptroller 2001). Upon returning home from these placements, youth often felt disconnected, resulting in poor outcomes. A 2009 study indicated that by age 28, 71 percent of boys released from New York State’s juvenile placement system spent some time in an adult jail or prison (Coleman, Do Han Kim & Therese 2009). Fast forward twenty years, and things in New York looked dramatically different. By 2016, New York City no longer sent any youth from its Family Court to state-operated youth prisons. Today, only around 100 New York City youth are placed from Family Court into any kind of residential facility, about a dozen of whom are in a locked facility. Not only are there dramatically fewer youth in residential placements, but those who do get placed now go to smaller, more home-like settings that attend to public safety without mirroring the punitive, correctional approaches embodied by previous youth prisons. This case study outlines what happened in the intervening years to achieve these remarkable results. By sharing New York City’s story, we offer a roadmap for other jurisdictions looking to realign their juvenile justice systems, adapting the lessons learned about what worked and what did not to meet their specific circumstances

Community-Based Responses to Justice-Involved Young Adults

In this paper, we propose a different kind of criminal justice for young men and women. We propose new institutional methods and processes for young adult justice, for those ages 18 to 24, that can meet the realities of life for today’s disadvantaged youth involved in crime and the criminal justice system. What we envision seeks to extend the reach of the juvenile court while also using it as a basis for a new system that reflects a modern understanding of the transition into adulthood. Our central recommendation is that the age of juvenile court jurisdiction be raised to at least 21 years old1 with additional, gradually diminishing protections for young adults up to age 24 or 25. Such a system recognizes the diminished capacity for responsible decision-making in youth while harnessing the opportunities presented by their ability to grow, adapt and change. Additionally, such a system would recognize the diminished opportunities and greater demands that now face young adults, particularly in the disadvantaged communities that supply the adult correctional system