There’s no national consensus as to what we want from parole and probation employees or agencies.
Parole and probation agents supervise and assist people with long histories of violence, substance abuse, and mental health backgrounds.
What could possibly go wrong?
I was the director of public information for the Maryland Department of Public Safety for 14 years. The Division of Parole and Probation was one of my 12 police and correctional agencies. I found many parole and probation agents to be among the best-informed professionals in the justice system. They understood crime and criminals.
We supervised a lot of people with violent histories. Most were repeat criminal offenders. The vast majority had substance abuse histories and many had mental health issues.
What could go wrong with single parole and probation agents making home visits or encountering offenders in the community? Because agents have the power to return offenders to prison via the parole commission or the courts for violation hearings, and considering their criminal, mental health, and substance abuse histories, there is always the potential for intense confrontations and violence.
The article below is from the Baltimore Banner and it recounts the shock and awe of Maryland officials and members of the legislature over the murder of a parole and probation agent. Their reaction is beyond disingenuous. Maryland officials have always known that agents faced considerable risks while in the field.
Baltimore Banner
Baltimore Banner: “State inspectors cited the corrections department with health and safety violations after parole agent’s killing. Maryland parole and probation agents are exposed to unacceptable workplace hazards that include the possibility of “being shot, punched, kicked, scratched, stabbed, strangled, bit and/or spit on, when interacting with parolees, probationers and individuals on mandatory release,” according to a state labor department citation recently issued to the corrections department.”
“The citation, issued late last month and recently reviewed by The Baltimore Banner, hits the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services’ Division of Parole and Probation with a “serious” violation: not providing a job or workplace “free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees.”
“It references the May 2024 fatal stabbing of Agent Davis Martinez, which has led to leadership changes, a halting of home visits to parolees and the subsequent grilling of corrections officials by state lawmakers. But the citation also refers to other, unspecified assaults that “have resulted in injuries including sprains, contusions, lacerations, fractures and concussions.”
“On May 31, local authorities found Martinez dead in a registered sex offender’s Chevy Chase apartment. Martinez had not reported to work after a home visit with Emanuel Edward Sewell. Sewell has been charged in connection to Martinez’s death. Police radio chatter obtained by The Banner revealed that Martinez had reported Sewell as uncooperative,” Baltimore Banner.
The Alternative Universe of Parole and Probation
There is an endless national debate regarding what parole and probation agencies should do. Advocates insist that supervision agencies are too heavy-handed and the job of community supervision should be more like social work than law enforcement.
The previous US Department of Justice and the Maryland Department of Public Safety insisted that offenders be referred to as “clients” who must be served, not supervised. Questions: the criminal who raped your daughter is a client to be served? The offender who robbed your mother at gunpoint causing a lifetime of emotional distress is treated as a person in need rather than someone who needs supervision? Maryland’s answer is yes. The US Department of Justice’s answer has been yes in the past. Is there any wonder why trust in government is at rock bottom per polls?
There are parole and probation agencies in the US that are law enforcement entities. They carry firearms and make arrests. They are equipped with bulletproof vests and radios. This is one example of the schizophrenic nature of community supervision in the United States.
No national consensus exists on what parole and probation agents can or should do.
Offenders on community supervision have countless violations of their terms as set by the courts and the parole commission. The overwhelming majority of those released from prison are rearrested or incarcerated and many have hundreds of technical offenses (i.e., escape by moving without authorization, not showing up for appointments, not paying fines or making victim restitution, being threatening while in the community). Those on probation are less serious yet, per national data, most are felons.
Yes, agents are supposed to assist offenders with housing or substance abuse or mental health or employment but they have caseloads that routinely exceed 200 offenders for every agent. It is abundantly obvious that their jobs are impossible regardless of what an agent does to either supervise or assist.
Why Does Maryland And Other States Allow This?
As stated, there is no consensus nationally as to what we want from parole and probation agents. It’s the job of community supervision agencies to keep people out of prison as their primary objective. Prison is expensive. Parole and probation is relatively inexpensive in comparison. So whatever you do, don’t return the offender to prison unless they have done something truly egregious.
After talking to dozens of my counterparts in agencies throughout the country, it’s my opinion that every governor wants correctional authorities to minimize their budgets. That means taking risks with public and agent safety. Considering the very high rearrest and reincarceration rates of released offenders, making the right decisions as to supervision and assistance levels while concurrently trying to appease those who feel that supervision is too heavy-handed and those wanting public safety becomes an impossible task.
Recidivism Of Probationers
There’s little national research on probation recidivism. The Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 43 percent of state probationers were rearrested for a felony over three years, but it’s a dated study. However, if we included misdemeanors and a longer measurement period, that number would be considerably higher.
65 percent completed probation according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics so there is an obvious overlap between new arrests and successful completions. Arrests and endless technical violations do not seem to stand in the way of a person “successfully” completing parole and probation.
Recidivism of Parolees And Those Mandatorally Released
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the US Department of Justice, 82 percent of those released from state prisons over ten years were arrested once again and 61 percent were returned to prison. They had 4.2 million arrests before incarceration. Forty-two percent had 5 to 10 previous incarcerations.
A Report On Parole And Probation From The Bureau Of Justice Statistics Of The USDOJ
Among adults on probation whose type of offense was known, 65% were on probation in 2022 due to a felony, up from 53% in 2012.
About 35% of adults on probation with a known offense in 2022 had a misdemeanor offense.
Among adults under community supervision for whom the most serious offense was known, 25% of those on probation and 39% of those on parole had committed a violent offense.
(Editor’s Note, the 25 percent violent figure for probation leaves out sex offenses, domestic violence, and other violent crimes. The actual percentage of violent probationers is 50 percent).
(Editor’s Note: Most parolees were sentenced for a violent crime per the Bureau of Justice Statistics thus the 39 percent violent figure above for parolees doesn’t make sense, especially when you include criminal history. Bureau of Justice Statistics data suggest that 62 percent of state prisoners are violent. 66 percent of male inmates are serving time for violent crimes. If you include prior criminal history, the great majority released from state prisons have violent histories).
Active probation supervision decreased from 73% of the probation population for whom status was known in 2012 to 64% in 2022. Inactive supervision means little to no contact.
About 80% of adults on parole with a known supervision status were under active supervision in 2022, while less than 1% had only financial conditions.
Conclusions
Parole and probation is at the center of an ideological war between advocates and law enforcement. Advocates want client services but law enforcement wants them off the street before they reoffend again.
There’s nothing wrong with the provision of services to help those who want to change but those services rarely exist because states refuse to foot the bill. There’s little to no data indicating that a service approach makes a difference in rates of recidivism. If a services approach was successful, states would pump millions into programs because it would reduce their fiscal load considerably.
Nationally, 82 percent of those released from state prisons over ten years were arrested once again and 61 percent were returned to prison. They had 4.2 million arrests before incarceration.
43 percent of state probationers were rearrested for a felony over three years. If you included all arrests and followed them for ten years, that 43 percent would easily be 63 percent or higher.
But the prime directive is keeping offenders out of prison whenever possible which means overlooking dozens of technical violations and crimes.
So we send ONE parole and probation agent out into the community without vests, radios, firearms, and arrest powers to supervise or assist people with multiple criminal histories and multiple charges for crimes of violence or other felonies.
And we are shocked when one dies and another state agency finds unacceptable workplace hazards that include the possibility of “being shot, punched, kicked, scratched, stabbed, strangled, bit and/or spit on?”
Somewhere along the line, we need national standards of what we want from community supervision agencies, how they will be equipped, what arrest powers they should have, and caseloads that are somewhere in the ballpark of being reasonable. If we want the provision of services, then let the state adequately fund them.
The state of Maryland and every other community supervision agency in the country know what I’m saying is true. But they do not want to spend the money and they sure as hell do not want to build more prisons.
I stated that examining US parole and probation is sort of like an alternative universe and some readers will be offended but after reading the above, can you come to any other conclusion?
Through new research from the US Department of Justice or dramatically increased funding from states, we may be able to make a difference in both the lives of offenders and parole and probation agents. It’s time to spend the money.
Comments