Community Corrections

Probation is a court-ordered period of correctional supervision in the community and is generally used as an alternative to incarceration. Parole is a period of conditional supervised release in the community following a prison term. In Europe, probation is often used as the default term for community corrections.

Community sanctions and measures

These termsmeans sanctions and measures which maintain offenders in the community and involve some restrictions on their liberty through the imposition of conditions and/or obligations. The term designates any sanction imposed by a judicial or administrative authority, and any measure taken before or instead of a decision on a sanction, as well as ways of enforcing a sentence of imprisonment outside a prison establishment.

Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the Council of Europe (Probation Rules)

These rules guide the establishment and proper functioning of probation agencies. These rules apply also to other organisations in their performance of the tasks covered in these rules, including other state organisations, non-governmental and commercial organisations.

Resources

See Also

• Parole.
• Incarceration Laws
• Recidivism
• Probate
• Parolee
• Incarceration Laws
• Prison Overcrowding
• Parole Officer
• Supervision

Further Reading

• 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.
• Bundesmat für Statistik. (2012). Community service orders by gender, nationality, and age. Retrieved from https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/19/03/05/key/vollzug_von_sanktionen/alt_vollz.html.Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2016). Estimated number of persons supervised by U.S. adult correctional systems, by correctional status, 1980-2014. Washington, DC.
• 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.
• Chan, J., & Ericson, R.V. (1981). Decarceration and the economy of penal reform. Toronto: Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto.
• 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.
• Cohen, S. (1985). Visions of social control: Crime, punishment, and classification. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.
• 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.
• Council of Europe. (2010). Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the Council of Europe Probation Rules.
• 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. (2011). Doing the programme or doing me? The pains of youth imprisonment. Punishment & Society, 13(5), 592-610.
• 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.
• Curry, C. (2016). Do parole revocations contribute to racial disproportionality in imprisonment? A multilevel analysis of state prison admissions from 1990-2009. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (Order No. 10110004).
• 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.
• Durnescu, I., Enengl, C., & Grafl, C. (2013). Experiencing supervision. In F. McNeill & K. Beyens (Eds.), Offender supervision in Europe (pp. 19-50). Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Eaglin, J. M. (2013). Against neorehabilitation. SMUL Rev., 66, 189.
• Fader, J. J. (2013). Falling back: Incarceration and transitions to adulthood among urban youth. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
• Farrall, S. (2002). Rethinking what works with offenders: Probation, social context and desistance from crime. Cullompton, U.K.: Willan.
• Farrall, S., Hunter, B., Sharpe, G., & Calverley, A. (2014). Criminal careers in transition: The social context of desistance from crime. Oxford: Oxford 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.
• Harding, D. J., Morenoff, J. D., Dobson, C. C., Lane, E. R., Opatovsky, K., Williams, E.-D. G., & Wyse, J. (2016). Families, prisoner reentry, and reintegration. In L. M. Burton, D. Burton, S. M. McHale, V. King, & J. Van Hook (Eds.), Boys and men in African American families (pp. 105-160). Cham, Germany: Springer International.
• 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. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/02/05/profiting-probation/americas-offender-funded-probation-industry.
• Hylton, J. H. (April 1981). Community corrections and social control: The case of Saskatchewan, Canada. Contemporary Crises, 5(2), 193-215.
• 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. (2013). Community sanctions and European penology. In T. Daems, S. Snacken, & D. Van Zyl Smit (Eds.), European penology? (pp. 171-191). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
• McNeill, F. (2016). The fuel in the tank or the hole in the boat? Can sanctions support desistance? Edinburgh: University of Glasgow.
• 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.
• Morgenstern, C., & Larrauri, E. (2013). European norms, policy, and practice. In F. McNeill & K. Beyens (Eds.), Offender supervision in Europe (pp. 125-155). Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
• 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.
• Offender Supervision in Europe Network, COST Action IS1106. (2016). Seen and heard.
• O’Malley, P. (2015). Rethinking neoliberal penality. Legal Studies Research Paper, University of Sydney Law School.
• Padfield, N. (2010). England and Wales. In N. Padfield, D. van Zyl Smit, & F. Dunkel (Eds.), Release from prison: European policy and practice (pp. 104-134). Portland, OR: Willan.
• 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. (2003). When prisoners come home:Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• 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.
• Raynor, P. (2007). Community penalties: Probation, “what works,” and offender management. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), Oxford handbook of criminology (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• 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.
• Rhine, E. E., & Taxman, F. S. (forthcoming). American exceptionalism in community supervision: a comparative analysis of probation in the United States, Scotland, and Sweden. In K. Reitz (Ed.), American Exceptionalism in Crime and Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• 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.
• Scottish Prisons Commission. (2008). Scotland’s choice: Report of the Scottish Prisons Commission, July 2008. Edinburgh, Scotland.
• Scull, A. (1984). Decarceration. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.
• 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., & Dezember, A. (2017). The value and importance of risk and need assessment (RNA). In F. Taxman (Ed.), Handbook on risk & needs assessment: Theory & practice. The ASC Division on Corrections & Sentencing Handbook Series. Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge.
• 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.
• Taxman, F. S., & Maass, S. (2016). What are the costs and benefits of probation? In F. McNeill, I. Durnescu, & R. Butter (Eds.), Probation: 12 Essential Questions (pp. 179-196). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Taxman, F. S., Perdoni, M. L., & Harrison, L. D. (2007). Drug treatment services for adult offenders: The state of the state. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 239-254.
• Tonry, M. (1998). Sentencing matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Tonry, M. (2011). Making peace, not a desert. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(3), 637-649.
• Tonry, M., & Lynch, M. (1996). Intermediate Sanctions. Crime and Justice, 20, 99-144.
• Tournier, P. V., & Robert, P. (1992). Foreigners and delinquency: Facts and figures. Paris: l’Harmattan.
• 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.
• Vanstone, M. (2004). Supervising offenders in the community: A history of probation theory and practice. Farnham, U.K.: Ashgate Publishing.
• Vanstone, M. (2016). What is probation’s role in successful social integration (resettlement) of people leaving prison? A piece in the jigsaw. In F. McNeill, I. Durnescu, & R. Butter (Eds.), Probation: 12 Essential Questions (pp. 129-152). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• 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.
• Weaver, B., Tata, C., Munro, M., & Barry, M. (2012). The failure of recall to prison: Early release, front-door and back-door sentencing, and the revolving prison door in Scotland. European Journal of Probation, 4(1), 85-98.
• 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.
• Wiegand, T. (2002). Criminal law reform: Continental Europe. In J. Dressler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice. New York: Macmillan Reference.
• 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.