As a recent eruption between members of the House Oversight Committee demonstrated, Congress doesn’t always model good behavior. But beyond the theatrics and gridlock that make headlines, many Americans might be pleasantly surprised to find encouraging examples of serious lawmakers working together.
The bipartisan Safer Supervision Act is just that. The legislation, co-authored by Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Chris Coons (D-Del.), aligns with the research on what works to make communities safer and provide second chances, building on the success of the First Step Act, on which a Democratic Congress and President Donald Trump found consensus.
The Safer Supervision Act, which is also encapsulated in similarly bipartisan House companion legislation co-authored by Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) and Wesley Hunt (R-Texas), parallels effective state reforms demonstrating that the success of probation and parole should not be measured by how many years someone serves. Instead, the benchmark must be whether the person desists from crime and emerges better able to positively contribute to their community. If a person on probation or parole can hold a job or care for their children, that strengthens our economic and social fabric.
The bill focuses on two key priorities. First, it requires that the conditions of federal probation and supervised release be tailored to an individualized assessment identifying a person’s risks and needs. This mandate stands in contrast to the practice in many jurisdictions, where everyone on probation must comply with a list of cookie-cutter conditions, including abstaining from alcohol. While abstinence makes sense in cases where excessive consumption of alcohol was related to the offense, attempting to enforce one-size-fits-all conditions on everyone is neither practical nor effective.
The problems created by such an approach are not theoretical. Imagine someone on probation whose crime had nothing to do with alcohol, and who is doing everything right on supervision. One night, they go out to dinner with family, and their probation officer happens to see them drinking. It’s a no-win situation, because if officers do nothing in such instances, it signals that they might not enforce other conditions, some of which may be important to public safety.
In addition to tying supervision conditions to an individual’s risk and needs, the Safer Supervision Act requires that initial conditions be adjusted over time based on the evolution of those risks and needs and a person’s performance. This aligns with how companies typically manage employees; Those who excel are often rewarded with raises, bonuses and promotions. Here, people on probation and supervised release who do everything right can earn the right to less stringent conditions, such as being required to report to officers less frequently.
The act also offers individuals the opportunity to obtain early termination of their supervision periods by establishing a track record of good conduct and fulfillment of all obligations, such as paying any restitution owed to a victim. As an extra layer of review, a judge would be required to confirm that early termination would not endanger public safety.
At first blush, some may view these incentives as soft-on-crime. But a vast body of research suggests this approach benefits public safety. A 2013 study found that similar probationers who received early termination were substantially less likely to reoffend than those who successfully completed their entire term.
More broadly, federal grants are supporting several jurisdictions implementing the concept of “dosage probation.” This approach is supported by research and analogues to medicine, wherein different people often require a different duration of treatment for the same illness.
Along the same lines, by freeing up some resources currently used for blanket supervision practices, the system can redirect its focus toward people who pose the highest risk of reoffending and are most in need of supervision.
Missouri is among 20 states to have adopted earned compliance credits that enable those on probation, and in some cases parole, to earn their way off of supervision by performing well. An evaluation of the state’s approach found that there was no negative effect on recidivism, and, interestingly, that probation and parole populations fell by 30 percent over six years, lightening the load on taxpayers.
With more than 121,000 people on federal community supervision and another 3.5 million people on state probation and parole, the stakes are high when it comes to adopting policies and practices that effectively promote personal accountability, public safety, and community reintegration.
And far too often, bipartisan efforts to address such significant issues are hampered by petty partisanship. Given this dynamic, it’s not surprising that Americans don’t expect much out of Congress. But the momentum behind the Safer Supervision Act suggests that the worker bees on both sides of the aisle haven’t lost their sting, and that common sense can prevail over nonsense.
Marc A. Levin, Esq. is chief policy counsel for the Council on Criminal Justice. Timothy Head is executive director of the Faith and Freedom Coalition and vice chair of the Council on Criminal Justice’s Board of Directors.