Response Guides Series

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

No. 12

Monitoring 

Offenders on 

Conditional Release

Lacey Schaefer

John E. Eck

Francis T. Cullen

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Response Guide Series

No. 12

Monitoring Offenders on 

Conditional Release

Lacey Schaefer

John E. Eck

Francis T. Cullen

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2010-CK-WX-K005 awarded by the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained 

herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent 

the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

References to specific agencies, companies, products, or services should 

not be considered an endorsement of the product by the author(s) or 

the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to 

supplement discussion of the issues. 

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the 

date of this publication. Given that URLs and websites are in constant 

flux, neither the author(s) nor the COPS Office can vouch for their 

current validity.

© 2014 Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Inc. The U.S. Department 

of Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to 

reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and authorize others to use, this 

publication for Federal Government purposes. This publication may be 

freely distributed and used for noncommercial and educational purposes.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

Published 2014

ISBN: 978-1-932582-85-7

Contents

Contents

About the Response Guides Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Goals of this Guide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Police Interests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Overview of Community Supervision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Descriptive Statistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Goal Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Varieties of Offender Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Conditions of Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Best Practices in Offender Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Rehabilitation and Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Police Partnerships with Probation and Parole. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Organizational Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Innovative Collaborations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Policing Special Offender Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Sex Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Prostitutes and Johns and Drug Dealers & Drug Buyers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Drunk Drivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Gang Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Chronic Nuisance Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Chronic Violent Offenders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Potential Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Implications for Police and Offender Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

About the Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

| 1 |

About the Response Guides Series

About the Response Guides Series

The Response Guides are one of three series of the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. The 

other two are the Problem-Specific Guides and Problem-Solving Tools.

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police summarize knowledge about how police can reduce 

the harm caused by specific crime and disorder problems. They are guides to preventing 

problems and improving overall incident response, not to investigating offenses or 

handling specific incidents. Neither do they coverall all of the technical details about how 

to implement specific responses. The guides are written for police—of whatever rank or 

assignment—who must address the specific problems the guides cover. The guides will be 

most useful to officers who:

•	 Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles and methods

•	 Can look at problems in depth

•	 Are willing to consider new ways of doing police business

•	 Understand the value and the limits of research knowledge

•	 Are willing to work with other community agencies to find effective solutions to 

problems

The Response Guides summarize knowledge about whether police should use certain 

responses to address various crime and disorder problems, and about what effects they 

might expect. Each guide:

•	 Describes the response

•	 Discusses the various ways police might apply the response

•	 Explains how the response is designed to reduce crime and disorder

•	 Examines the research knowledge about the response

•	 Addresses potential criticisms and negative consequences that might flow from use of 

the response

•	 Describes how police have applied the response to specific crime and disorder problems, 

and with what effect

The Response Guides are intended to be used different from the Problem-Specific Guides. 

Ideally, police should begin all strategic decision making by first analyzing the specific 

crime and disorder problems they are confronting, and then using the analysis results to 

devise particular responses. But certain responses are so commonly considered and have 

such potential to help address a specific crime and disorder problems that it makes sense 

for police to learn more about what results they might expect from them.
| 2 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

Readers are cautioned that the Response Guides are designed to supplement problem analysis, 

not to replace it. Police should analyze all crime and disorder problems in their local context 

before implementing responses. Even if research knowledge suggests that a particular 

response has proved effective elsewhere, that does not mean the response will be effective 

everywhere. Local factors matter a lot in choosing which responses to use.

Research and practice have further demonstrated that, in most cases, the most effective 

overall approach to a problem is one that is unlikely to provide you with sufficient 

information on which to base a coherent plan for addressing crime and disorder problems. 

Some combinations of responses work better than others. Thus, how effective a particular 

response is depends partly on what other responses police use to address the problem.

These guides emphasize effectiveness and fairness as the main considerations police 

should take into account in choosing responses, but recognize that they are not the only 

considerations. Police use particular responses for reason other than, or in addition to, 

whether or not they will work, and whether or not they are deemed fair. Community 

attitudes and values, and the personalities of key decision-makers, sometimes mandate 

different approaches to addressing crime and disorder problems. Some communities and 

individuals prefer enforcement-oriented responses, whereas others prefer collaborative, 

community-oriented, or harm-reduction approaches. These guides will not necessarily alter 

those preferences, but are intended to better inform them. 

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a philosophy that promotes 

organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problemsolving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public 

safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.” These guides emphasize 

problem solving and police-community partnerships in the context of addressing specific 

public safety problems. For the most part, the organizational strategies that can facilitate 

problem solving and police-community partnerships vary considerably and discussion of 

them is beyond the scope of these guides.

These guides have drawn on research findings and police practices in the United States, 

the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. 

Even though laws, customs and police practices vary from country to country, it is apparent 

that the police everywhere experience common problems. In a world that is becoming 

increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be aware of research and successful 

practices beyond the borders of their own countries.
| 3 |

About the Response Guides Series

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the research literature and reported police 

practice, and each guide is anonymously peer-reviewed by a line police officer, a police 

executive and a researcher prior to publication. The review process is independently 

managed by the COPS Office, which solicits the reviews.

For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit the Center for ProblemOriented Policing online at www.popcenter.org. This website offers free online access to:

•	 The Problem-Specific Guides series

•	 The companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools series

•	 Special publications on crime analysis and on policing terrorism

•	 Instructional information about problem-oriented policing and related topics

•	 An interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise 

•	 An interactive Problem Analysis Module

•	 Online access to important police research and practices

•	 Information about problem-oriented policing conferences and award programs.
| 4 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

Acknowledgments 

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the Center for Problem-Oriented 

Policing, whose officers are Michael S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate 

Director), and Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director). While each guide has primary 

authors, other project team members, COPS office staff, and anonymous peer reviewers 

contributed to each guide by proposing text, recommending research, and offering 

suggestions on matters of format and style. 

The project team that developed the guide series comprised Herman Goldstein (University 

of Wisconsin Law School), Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), John E. Eck (University 

of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott (University of Wisconsin Law School), Rana Sampson 

(Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm Weisel (North Caroline State University).

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and Savannah, Georgia, police 

departments provided feedback on the guide’s format and style in the early stages of 

the project. 

Kimberly Nath oversaw the project for the COPS Office. Phyllis Schultze conducted 

research for the guide at Rutgers University’s Criminal Justice Library. Nancy Leach 

coordinated the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing’s production process. Marian E. 

Haggard edited this guide.
| 5 |

Introduction

Introduction

The routine convergence of three elements is necessary for a persistent crime problem: 

offenders, targets, and places. In addition, people who would normally prevent those 

crimes—controllers—must be missing or ineffective. This basic formula is often depicted 

by the crime problem triangle (see Figure 1). The elements in the inner triangle are 

necessary for crime, and the controllers in the outer triangle are sufficient for the 

prevention of crime. Police and researchers have developed and tested a variety of 

prevention options for all six elements. 

The Goals of this Guide

This guide focuses on offenders; specifically, people who have already been convicted 

of crimes and who are under community supervision ordered by courts or correctional 

authorities. Although many of these individuals are not actively engaged in offending, the 

past behavior of people on probation and parole suggests that they have a heightened 

risk of committing a crime. Consequently, reducing the risks of offending for people on 

probation and parole can be an ingredient in sustainable solutions to crime problems.

In this guide we discuss how offenders are supervised by correctional agencies while on 

community release. These offenders can cause problems for police (e.g., recidivate and 

prompt calls for service), so understanding community supervision can be extremely 

useful for solving such problems. This response guide provides a review of the most 

effective practices for monitoring offenders on conditional release. For police and their 

partners, this will help them better understand community supervision, and appreciate the 

benefits and potential hurdles in their collaborations with community corrections agencies. 

For probation and parole authorities, 

this guide may help them develop an 

understanding of the ways police officers 

can assist offender supervision and 

community reintegration.

Figure 1. The Crime Problem Triangle
| 6 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

Police Interests

There are four reasons why offenders under community supervision are important to police:

•	 First, individuals on probation and parole have an elevated risk of recidivism. Knowing 

that this population of people is more likely to commit crime than the general 

population makes them a group of concern. 

•	 Second, offenders on supervised release reside in the community instead of jail or prison. 

As such, individuals on probation or parole will be tempted by accessible targets or 

facilitating crime places. As the police seek to make targets less vulnerable and places less 

conducive to crime, addressing offenders under community supervision can also be an 

important component to reducing crime problems. While corrections agencies focus on 

court compliance and rehabilitation after the crime, the police have a distinct interest in 

preventing crime. 

•	 Third, the police represent the best line of defense in protecting victims and witnesses in 

criminal court cases. Doing so requires that the police are knowledgeable of community 

supervised offenders in their jurisdiction. 

•	 Fourth, these offenders are known; criminal justice agencies have some control over them, 

and the police in particular have leverage over offender conduct. This is important if there 

is reason to believe such offenders are connected to the crime problem being addressed. If 

they are, then police agencies should enlist another set of partners—probation and parole 

authorities—in their crime prevention efforts. 

For these reasons, police departments may be interested in collaborating with community 

corrections agents. Yet in order to effectively partner with community correctional authorities, 

police need to know what strategies work. What sorts of supervision can curtail crime and 

what sorts may increase crime? What services are effective at curbing offending and what 

programs are ineffective? Researchers have come a long way in uncovering effective practices 

in deterring and treating offenders—not 100 percent of the time, but better than past 

alternatives. Equally important, we also know what practices do not work well. 

This guide reviews such information, providing police with an overview of the best practices 

for managing offenders in the community. Specific recommendations for police wishing to 

partner with probation and parole authorities are also provided. A later section discusses 

strategies for use with special populations of offenders under community correctional 

control; however, the guide is written with a special emphasis on adult probationers and 

parolees that are at a high risk of committing additional crimes. 
| 7 |

Introduction

To be clear, we are not advocating that police departments assist in the monitoring of 

all offenders under community correctional supervision. However, some offenders on 

probation and parole are central contributors to common crime problems that police 

try to solve. As such, police departments may find it helpful to collaborate with formal 

offender supervisors. Although police officers will have a narrow role to play in preventing 

crime among high-risk probationers and parolees, it is important that they have a working 

appreciation for the larger goals of community supervision and the different strategies 

used to accomplish these goals. Only then can the research on the effectiveness of different 

offender monitoring tactics be presented to them, including specific recommendations 

tailored for how the police can best help. 

| 9 |

Overview of Community Supervision

Overview of Community Supervision

Correctional supervision in the community is a contract between the offender and the 

court: The individual’s freedom is conditional, meaning that any behavior that violates 

certain rules can result in the revocation of community release and a return to incarceration. 

An offender can be conditionally released to community supervision for three reasons: 

pre-trial release/bail, probation, or parole (either mandatory or discretionary). Each of 

these groups is subject to different supervision conditions, and as such, the police can use 

different strategies to prevent reoffending among these different offenders. 

Prior to detailing these strategies, it is imperative to first describe the problem. Importantly, 

changes in legislature and judicial practices have greatly impacted corrections populations. 

Many jurisdictions have removed the possibility for prisoners to earn their release, and 

many more offenders are being sentenced to incarceration (see Figure 2); this directly 

increases the number of offenders who will ultimately be supervised in the community, 

either through diversion or post-release supervision. With so many probationers and 

parolees, the communities absorbing these offenders must develop strategies to effectively 

prevent more crime. 

Figure 2. Individuals in prison or in jail, 1980–2009

Source: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Prison

198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008

Jail

0
| 10 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

Although criminal justice spending has grown over time, it has not matched the increased 

number of offenders being monitored in the community. Police and community corrections 

agencies are being required to do more with less; even though caseloads have risen and 

support for reentry services has diminished, the public still demands community safety. 

These constraints must be balanced by using practices that are demonstrated to be useful. 

Given the context the police must work in, the need for effective monitoring practices is 

greater now than ever. 

Descriptive Statistics

Though there is no way to know how many actively offending individuals are on 

conditional release, we know that the number of people on probation or parole at any one 

time is quite high. At the end of 2010, nearly five million offenders (about 1 in 48 adults 

in the United States) were under conditional release (see Figure 3). Of the 1.6 million 

offenders in American prisons, the overwhelming majority (around 95 percent) will be 

returned to the community, at the rate of approximately 700,000 individuals per year. 

Figure 3. Individuals under probation or parole, 1980–2010

Source: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

Probation

198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008

Parole

0

2010
| 11 |

Overview of Community Supervision

In 2010, the number of offenders under community supervision declined, following 30 

years of increases. Of the 4,887,900 offenders on conditional release, probationers account 

for 83 percent of this total (see Table 1). Property offenders receive probation more 

often, while violent and drug 

offenders are a larger proportion of 

parolees. The average community 

supervision term is 

22 months for probation, and 

18 months for parole. 

Rates of failure in probation 

supervision are much lower 

than for parole, although the 

raw number of offenders not 

completing the supervision 

term is higher for probationers. 

In 2010, nearly two-thirds 

of probationers satisfactorily 

completed the terms of their 

community sentence, while only 

35 percent of parolees successfully 

completed their supervision. There 

is certainly room for growth, and 

some strategies are more effective 

than others; research consistently 

reports that recidivism is reduced 

when the emphasis of supervision 

is on service (risk reduction) as 

opposed to surveillance (risk 

control).1 Criminal justice agents 

can contribute to crime prevention 

by understanding and altering the 

characteristics that place offenders 

at a high risk for reoffending. 

Table 1. Characteristics of offenders under 

community supervision, 2010

Characteristics Probation Parole

Gender

Male 76% 88%

Female 24 12

Race

White 55% 42%

Black 30 39

Hispanic/Latino 13 18

American/Alaskan Native 1 1

Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1 1

Most serious crime

Violent 19% 27%

Property 28 24

Drug 26 35

Weapon 0 3

Public-order 18 0

Other 10 12

Status of supervision

Active 73% 82%

Residential/Treatment program 1 0

Supervised out of jurisdiction 2 4

Inactive 6 7

Warrant status 6 0

Absconder 9 6

Other 3 2

Average length of supervision

In months 21.7 17.9

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
| 12 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

Goal Conflict 

Police, courts, and corrections officials may have very different ideas of what success looks 

like for offenders on conditional release. These differences are important, because they 

reflect diversity in the goals that each agency has. Simply, interventions are usually judged 

by their ability to lower rates of recidivism; not so simply, how recidivism is measured 

affects what results are observed. There are two important and related points that readers 

should be aware of: 

•	 First, there is a murky distinction between technical violations and official recidivism. 

Technical violations refer to when offenders break the rules of the supervision term 

(such as failing to seek employment or associating with a known gang member), 

while recidivism formally refers to those instances where offenders under community 

corrections sentences commit a new crime. Both can result in an arrest, although for 

different reasons. Technical violations of parole conditions accounted for more than 

one-third of all prison admissions in 2003, while only 10 percent of parolees returned 

to prison due to a new conviction.2 Similarly, nearly half of all jail inmates are on 

probation or parole at the time of their arrest.3 Thus, readers should appreciate the 

difference between the types of rearrest for community supervised offenders; one is due 

to a technical violation (like consistently showing up late for an Alcoholics Anonymous 

course) and one is due to committing a new crime (a breach of law regardless of the 

offender’s supervision status). It is important to note that many technical violations are 

unrelated to criminal propensity, especially when generic rules of supervision are broken. 

•	 Second, like other patterns of behavior, small relapses are not a total failure (e.g., 

cheating on a diet or smoking one cigarette while trying to quit). The revocation of a 

probation or parole sentence may not be a good reflection of persistence in crime, as the 

rules that were violated may be inconsequential to offending. This is important, because 

short-term compliance may be a necessary precursor to more lasting behavioral change, 

especially when the conditions of supervision are carefully designed to address the 

factors that cause that individual to commit crime. Yet, desisting from crime is a gradual 

and cumulative process, so many outcomes should be used to measure success. The 

effectiveness of community supervision should be assessed by “intermediate” measures 

(such as stable employment and participation in treatment) in addition to “hard” 

outcomes (like convictions for new crimes). Though an individual may remain involved 

in crime, their level of offending may decrease substantially while under supervision. 

This can be used to promote additional change within the offender, until their criminal 

identity is entirely eliminated and full desistance is observed. 
| 13 |

Overview of Community Supervision

When criminal justice agencies define success and measure outcomes very differently, 

this can mean that the goals of different agencies conflict with one another. Police have 

the immediate goal of reducing a crime problem of interest, preferably in a period of 

months. Community corrections officials have the more distant goal of reducing offending; 

rehabilitation takes many months, and the time to success is often measured in years, as 

relapses in progress are expected. These goals may sound similar, yet evaluating whether 

these goals are being met is different for each agency: Police look for absolute, definitive 

signs of success (e.g., thefts from auto in the target area have decreased by half), while 

correctional authorities look for comparative, subtle signs of success (e.g., the offender 

reports less anger since drug use has decreased). 

These differences in what police and probation/parole authorities are trying to achieve 

may make partnerships difficult. With this kind of goal conflict there is unfortunately no 

global solution, yet importantly, the goal of enhancing public safety is shared. Police and 

community corrections agencies are encouraged to exploit the leadership and resources 

of local administrative and community networks. By soliciting many partners, conflicting 

goals are more likely to each be represented in the collaboration. Though no specific 

solution to this conflict exists, we can provide seven useful points to consider based on 

successful interventions: 

•	 The more specific problem solvers are in defining their problem, and the more 

information that is known about the problem, the more likely it is that a leverage point 

can be located and exploited for a solution. A failure to create clearly-outlined goals will 

make it more difficult to resolve the goal conflict. 

•	 The goals of a problem-solving effort should be expanded to include short-term and 

long-term solutions. When the immediate goal of resolving a crime problem is met 

and maintained, efforts can shift toward improving offender monitoring and treatment 

over time. 

•	 Partners should set clear and measurable goals for offender monitoring that are 

directly tied to community safety (e.g., increase the median time between relapse). 

This commitment can be built into solutions that will reduce chances for offenders to 

recidivate. 

•	 Problem solvers should isolate a small group of offenders whose behavior they 

are trying to change. In this way, recidivism is better understood and more easily 

corrected. Moreover, police will be able to identify the offenders that need to be 

removed from the community. 
| 14 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

•	 By creating a specific definition of the crime problem and identifying a specific group of 

offenders to be targeted, police–community partnerships can provide precise assistance 

to the offender desistance process. This intensive focus will reduce the number of 

relapses, increase the time between relapses, and decrease the seriousness of relapses. 

•	 Problem solvers should identify the factors that contribute to offender failure, locating 

the situations that cause recidivism. To improve offender outcomes, probation and 

parole authorities will likely need police partnerships to help solve specific problems. 

•	 Offenders may be consulted in classifying the crime problem and developing solutions. 

Incorporating this expertise will help solve that crime problem, and will add to the 

rehabilitation of that individual by expanding his/her pro-social network and attitudes.
| 15 |

Varieties of Offender Monitoring

Varieties of Offender Monitoring

Community supervision has several goals. Practically, these types of sanctions provide 

alternatives to incarceration; this unburdens the system, especially when the individual has 

committed a minor crime or is a first-time offender. Conceptually, community supervision 

is a conditional form of release. Probation and parole are trials where the offender must 

demonstrate that they can be trusted to live freely. When they fail to meet the stipulations 

of their conditional release, they are incarcerated. 

This section of the guide discusses the different kinds of community supervision 

strategies that are used to monitor offenders on probation and parole. It is important 

for police to appreciate what tactics are used with what offenders, as well as what 

practices are the most effective. 

Conditions of Supervision 

The rules the offender must abide by can be highly varied. Community supervision can 

incorporate a number of different conditions, and these should vary according to the 

offender’s risks for reoffending. The court sometimes requires that particular conditions 

be part of a case plan; other times, community corrections officers tailor the supervision 

agreement for an offender, choosing from a number of possible rules and requirements. 

Different conditions of community supervision point to different goals. The singular goal 

of supervisors is for the offending of their clients to cease; yet, how this goal is achieved 

varies, as there are different strategies for controlling offenders. Control may stem from 

internal or external sources, such as emotion management or threats of punishment; or, 

situational contingencies that link internal and external control together. This situational 

control is produced through two forms of pressure. Indirect pressure occurs when the 

supervising officer works with the objective of getting the offender to comply independently. 

Direct pressure occurs when the supervising officer works to ensure that environmental 

factors create incentives for the offender to avoid criminal behavior. 
| 16 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

As such, there are different targets for change with community supervised offenders (see 

Figure 4). First, the general environment includes general threats of deterrence, such as 

the consequence of incarceration for misbehavior. Second, most often, offender supervisors 

aim to control the more immediate environment, such as by placing stringent restrictions 

on surroundings and activities (e.g., abstinence from drugs or alcohol). Third, rehabilitation 

aims to alter the cognitive processes of offenders. None of these three layers can stand 

alone in preventing recidivism; a quality supervision plan should include conditions that 

address all three factors, independently and in combination. Offenders must associate prosocial thoughts (C) with immediate situational triggers (B) that lead to the less visible threat 

of incarceration (A). Police play a crucial role in this supervision plan, helping offenders 

to identify and appreciate links between the environment, their reaction to it, and what 

consequences are likely to occur. Police officers’ frequent contact with offenders makes them 

excellent facilitators for training probationers and parolees to reassess their environments. 

Figure 4. Targets of change with community supervised offenders
| 17 |

Varieties of Offender Monitoring

Each of these targets for change has different recommended strategies for reducing 

recidivism. Though new technologies have emerged, many of these community supervision 

practices have not changed much since they were established. While some conditions are 

necessary for public safety, others are generic and only loosely linked to weak criminological 

theory. Typical stipulations in an offender’s case plan include:

•	 Be of good conduct and obey all laws

•	 Comply with the orders of the court

•	 Obtain the supervising officer’s permission before relocating or leaving the state

•	 Meet with the supervising officer as scheduled

•	 Submit to reasonable searches of person and property

•	 Do not associate with any person having a criminal record

•	 Do not be in the presence of illegal substances or use alcohol in excess

•	 Do not be in possession of any weapon

•	 Abide by any other special conditions 

Table 2 on page 18 provides an overview of some of the popular “add-ons” to the 

traditional components of offender monitoring. Supervision conditions that are tailored 

to the risks and needs of the individual offender show the greatest promise of reducing 

recidivism; these programs involve graded sanctions, an emphasis on individual change, 

and reintegrative treatment. Some community corrections conditions were consistently 

shown to be counterproductive; programs that are generically applied despite the 

individual’s risks, or heightened control through surveillance or behavior restrictions, all 

failed to reduce recidivism. Intensive supervision often leads to increases in technical 

violations, a huge contribution to the failure of community supervision.4, 5
| 18 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

Table 2. Components of traditional probation and parole

Component Definition Research findings

Alternative 

sentencing courts

Problem-solving adjudication, aimed at changing 

offender behavior; includes comprehensive, 

coordinated supervision

Strong research findings, especially when courts 

include graduated sanctions

Boot camps Military-based regimen combining physical 

exercise and hard manual labor; often composed 

of volunteer offenders

Weak empirical support; some programs 

associated with increased recidivism

Community 

service

A symbolic form of victim restitution, involves 

court-ordered unpaid work to public service or a 

charitable organization

Mixed evaluation outcomes; positive results when 

combined with short detention or treatment

Day reporting 

centers

An effort to integrate control with treatment, 

offenders frequently check in with their officer 

and programs

Minimal positive support; sanctions may 

overemphasize control rather than change

Fines/restitution Aims to quantify victim harm, requiring offenders 

to compensate for damage done; matched to 

ability to pay

Few research findings to support use beyond 

necessary reimbursement

Home detention Employed as pretrial detainment or a means 

to restrict movement; used with electronic 

monitoring to verify presence

Moderate empirical support; although it increases 

control, it may be a form of net widening

Residential 

treatment centers

Often referred to as “halfway houses;” facilities 

that attempt to centrally locate many community 

corrections resources

Minimal evaluations support generic use; may be 

useful if problem-specific or reintegrative

Shock 

incarceration

Short period of incapacitation, followed by 

community supervision, designed to “shock” the 

offender into desisting

Moderate research support, when brief detention 

is combined with community treatment

Treatment 

mandate

Requiring an offender to participate in a program; 

may include individualized use or generic application

Mixed research findings; success of treatment 

depends on program type and offender motivation

Work release Aim to bridge offenders between incarceration 

and community life; build social skills, including 

obtaining work

Moderate to strong support, when the goal is 

reentry rather than solely securing employment

Best Practices in Offender Supervision 

Though buzzwords such as “evidence-based” and “best practices” may sometimes seem 

like empty rhetoric, true research-driven approaches can increase public safety. Agencies 

that desire to provide the best public service should be well versed in the policing research 

that identifies the supervision strategies most and least effective in combating crime. While 

there are dozens of strategies for reducing recidivism among probationers and parolees, the 

majority fall into one of two categories: rehabilitation or control (see Table 3 on page 19). 

Both supervision approaches have techniques that work to prevent crime—some that do 

not change offender behavior and others that cause more crime. 
| 19 |

Varieties of Offender Monitoring

Table 3. Two models of offender community supervision

Rehabilitation Control

Primary objective To change or limit the influence of internal

factors that cause the individual to commit 

crime

To change or limit the influence of external factors 

that cause the individual to commit crime

Methods Counseling, medication, guided rehearsal, 

behavior modification

Environmental crime prevention, drug testing, 

electronic monitoring, threat of arrest/incarceration

Indicator of 

success

A reduction in criminogenic risk A reduction in offending

Target population Offenders with antisocial beliefs, substance 

abusers, mentally ill

Repeat offenders, individuals exposed to 

environmental triggers (e.g., unstructured leisure time)

What works Principles of effective intervention 

(risk, need, responsivity)

Graduated sanctions, directed deterrence

What doesn’t 

work

Nondirective treatment (generic classes, 

talking cures), subcultural approaches

Punishing smarter, zero tolerance

Role of courts Use leverage to mandate necessary 

treatment and services

Follow through on threats of incarceration for failure 

to comply with supervision conditions

Role of 

corrections

Create a case plan specifically tailored to the 

individual needs of the offender

Revise the case plan to reduce or strengthen external 

controls based on the offender’s progress

Role of police Service referral, encourage pro-social behavior, 

reward reform, use graduated freedoms

Recruit offender handlers, create place managers, 

strengthen target guardians, use graduated sanctions

Rehabilitation 

Despite a long period when correctional policy maintained that offender treatment was 

a wasted effort, research now demonstrates the opposite. With the use of quality risk 

and needs assessments, the development of effective correctional interventions,6 and a 

massive knowledge base of what works to prevent recidivism, offender treatment has 

returned to the mainstream. Crime prevention works when punishments and control 

are used in the background while the primary focus is individualized treatment.7

Hundreds of empirical studies have shown that there are several principles that reduce 

reoffending (see Table 4 on pages 20–21).8 Evaluations of community supervision 

programs demonstrate that the use of these principles can produce substantial 

reductions in reoffending.9
| 20 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

Table 4. Principles of successful supervision

Principle Definition Example

1. Define success as 

recidivism reduction and 

measure performance

Agencies must aim to work beyond 

public safety, with a more narrow goal of 

reducing recidivism; definitive benchmarks 

for measuring such must be provided.

Officers work with the intention of 

minimizing each individual’s criminal 

activity; offenders are reassessed 

systematically to determine whether that 

goal is being addressed/met.

2. Tailor conditions of 

supervision

Conditions of release ought to be relevant Offenders should undergo substance 

abuse treatment only when their drug 

or alcohol use is clearly linked to their 

participation in criminal activity.

to the individual offender and should be 

focused on those factors that are thought 

to contribute to criminal behavior.

3. Focus resources on 

moderate- and high-risk 

offenders

Intensive interventions targeted at low-risk 

individuals may increase their offending; 

scarce resources should be provided to 

those with the greatest gains to be made.

The assessment of an individual’s risk of 

reoffending will determine how much 

control they are subjected to and how 

much treatment they are afforded.

4. Frontload supervision 

resources

The period immediately following release 

poses the greatest risk for recidivism 

and offender needs; resources should 

be concentrated in the first weeks of 

supervision.

Community agencies begin case planning 

for offenders entering community 

supervision before official release and 

require more meetings in the first month 

of supervision.

5. Implement earned 

discharge

Lower risk offenders can earn an end 

to their supervision (or a reduction in 

the number or strictness of guidelines) 

by complying with stipulations or 

demonstrating positive change.

A non-violent offender may reduce the 

number of desk visits with his supervising 

officer from one per week to one 

per month following 90 days of 

model behavior.

6. Implement place-based 

supervision

Offenders should be supervised in the 

communities in which they live; this will 

provide access to and understanding 

of the individual’s surroundings and 

relationships.

Officers have geographic-based caseloads 

so that resources are allocated by place; 

the agent becomes familiar with the 

offender’s actual environment, beyond 

what a desk visit provides.

7. Engage partners to explain 

intervention capacities

Additional community organizations should 

be incorporated into offender treatment, 

particularly given the multiple needs of 

community supervised offenders.

Probation agencies may solicit 

partnerships with outlets for group 

therapy and pro-social ties or with 

organizations that can aid in housing, 

employment, or health assistance.

8. Assess criminogenic risk 

and need factors

Agencies ought to use a reliable 

assessment to identify the risk and 

need factors that are associated with 

the offender’s criminal behavior; these 

findings create a case plan.

On intake, an officer employs a 

standardized assessment, making note of 

those factors that place the offender at 

high risk for recidivating; the officer works 

to reduce those specific needs.
| 21 |

Varieties of Offender Monitoring

Principle Definition Example

9. Develop and implement

supervision case plans that 

balance surveillance and 

treatment

The supervision of offenders in 

the community should incorporate 

mechanisms of control, as well as outlets 

for treatment, aimed at monitoring and 

changing the offender.

An offender is required to undergo one 

home visit and one desk visit per week 

with random drug testing; the offender 

must also attend substance abuse and 

impulse control treatment.

10. Involve offenders to

enhance their engagement 

in assessment, case 

planning, and supervision

Rather than a contact-driven approach, 

officers should incorporate a behavioral 

management model where the offender 

is an active participant in developing the 

case plan.

During the initial interview, the offender 

helps the supervising officer to prioritize 

the desired goals of supervision and to 

establish standards of motivation and 

acceptable outcomes.

11. Engage informal social

controls to facilitate 

community reintegration

Officers cannot maintain persistent 

contact and do not know offenders 

well; they can rely on the offenders’ 

relationships with family and friends to 

produce positive change.

In developing the case plan, an officer 

might inquire about the offender’s support 

system, developing ways in which their 

family can be engaged toward reducing 

recidivism risk.

12. Incorporate incentives

and rewards into the 

supervision process

Offender motivation may increase 

when positive reinforcement is present; 

to support pro-social change, good 

behaviors should be noted and rewarded, 

incentivizing compliance.

Following three months of no technical 

violations and a positive attitude, 

the supervising officer may award a 

certificate of achievement, ask them 

to mentor, and lower the frequency of 

reporting.

13. Employ graduated,

problem-solving 

responses to violations of 

supervision conditions in a 

swift and certain manner

Minor violations can be handled best in 

the community; the sanction should be 

reflective of the severity of the infraction 

and must be quick and certain to enhance 

deterrence.

After failing an office drug test, the 

officer requires the offender to perform 10 

hours of community service the following 

weekend; the second occurrence will 

result in 30 days in jail.

Source: The Pew Center on the States (2008), Putting Public Safety First: 13 Strategies for Successful 

Supervision and Reentry

Much has also been learned about what types of programs do not reduce recidivism. 

This is important, because resources are being wasted on ineffective practices, and some 

strategies may actually increase offending, thereby jeopardizing public safety. Interventions 

that do not try to change the characteristics that are known to cause crime are likely to 

fail. Popular subcultural, medical, and new age “treatments” (such as pet therapy, cosmetic 

surgery, baking classes, or drum circles) cannot logically prevent crime because they are not 

addressing what causes people to break the law. 
| 22 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

Control

Tough-on-crime initiatives argue that increasing control over offenders will reduce 

recidivism. Advances in technology have made heightened surveillance of offenders 

possible, such as through drug testing and electronic monitoring. Evaluations show that 

many programs have substantially increased their observation of offending activity, though 

reoffending rates have not changed; this is due to an increased detection of technical 

violations that may not be related to criminal activity, and to a failure to incorporate 

treatment components. Numerous studies show that an increase in toughness, surveillance, 

or control does not correspond with positive offender change or improved public safety. In 

fact, many studies demonstrate that these “punishing smarter” strategies overwhelm the 

system. While popular, one of the most ineffective practices is intensive supervision;10

watching offenders more closely does not reduce crime, but only draws more attention to 

the misbehavior that can revoke community release. 

After a number of blanket approaches to offender control failed to reduce reoffending, 

many jurisdictions began experimenting with focused deterrence (see “Focused Deterrence” 

on page 23). These strategies intensify enforcement on those individuals responsible for 

much of the offending within a high crime area. Evaluations of these interventions have 

shown substantial promise in crime reduction. The principle components of focused 

deterrence are 1) communicating a clear, unambiguous threat to a small number of active 

networked offenders, 2) coupling the message of intolerance with active community 

support, and 3) providing services to offenders wanting to exit crime. For offenders who 

desire to change their lifestyle after being targeted by law enforcement, greater success is 

achieved when treatment is provided as a substitute to crime. Many high-risk offenders 

targeted with focused deterrence are on probation or parole, and police departments can be 

excellent members of these multi-agency initiatives. 

Rehabilitation and Control

Given the limitations of traditional supervision, community corrections agencies recognized 

the need to balance rehabilitation and control (refer back to Figure 4 on page 16). While 

correctional rehabilitation is a necessary ingredient to preventing crime, individuals at high 

risk of committing additional crimes must be subject to some level of control as a safeguard. 

Multi-agency collaborations allow for the marriage of two seemingly incompatible goals: 

Offenders can be actively monitored so that risk is managed and short-term compliance 

is achieved, while still focusing on services that address the factors necessary for long-term 

behavioral change. 
| 23 |

Varieties of Offender Monitoring

Focused Deterrence

While many evaluations of focused deterrence interventions show a reduction in local 

crime, this Guide argues that the reason for this success goes beyond heightened law 

enforcement.

Mark Kleiman’s 2009 book, When Brute Force Fails, offers an excellent explanation for 

why this is so. An atmosphere of zero-tolerance can be developed without proud use of 

incarceration. The key is to clearly specify the new rules of the crime and law game, and 

then deliver the promised consequences any time one of these rules is broken.

David Kennedy’s 2011 book, Don’t Shoot, provides a number of examples of how to 

accomplish this task. Among these include: emphasizing certainty of punishment rather 

than severity, concentrating on law enforcement efforts as opposed to dispersing them, 

communicating specific threats to individual offenders, and enforcing the rules of 

conditional release to support community corrections efforts.

Related to offender monitoring and treatment, focused deterrence means targeting 

resources toward individual offenders. Rather than hoping that generic threats of 

punishment influence their behavior, police should tailor the treatment options and 

consequences of crime to the specific offender.

One tactic that uses these best practices is proactive community supervision.11 Excessive 

scrutiny of offenders’ compliance with rules is not effective; the closer offenders are 

watched, the more they are observed violating their supervision conditions. So rather than 

emphasizing meticulous control, this proactive community supervision model manages 

behavior. Offenders’ behavior is carefully monitored and measured, rewarded and punished 

as necessary, until pro-social change is observed. Features of these programs include 

evidence-based standardized offender risk assessments, matching supervisees to services that 

effectively reduce the propensity to commit crime, emphasizing achievement through the 

reinforcement of positive behavior, and maintaining an environment where offenders make 

small improvements and lessons can be learned from relapses.12
| 24 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

These proactive problem-solving partnerships are one of the most effective ways of producing 

pro-social behavior among community supervised offenders.13 Nevertheless, behavioral 

management strategies require multiple community partnerships, and the police are pivotal 

in shaping the actions of offenders on release. The following section outlines specific 

strategies for police collaborations with community corrections agencies, demonstrating how 

partnerships can effectively prevent crime among probationers and parolees. 
| 25 |

Police Partnerships with Probation and Parole 

Police Partnerships with Probation and 

Parole

Although probation and parole authorities maintain central responsibility for the 

monitoring of offenders on conditional release, research shows that partnerships with 

community organizations are highly beneficial.14 Evaluations of these partnerships show 

that they are successful because each agency provides information, capabilities, and 

approaches that complement those of others involved in the collaboration. Although 

potential barriers and hurdles do exist, commitment to an interagency goal of reducing 

crime among probationers and parolees limits some of these roadblocks. 

The police are the most influential partner in offender supervision strategies. The very 

nature of their public role—to maintain law and order—has relevance for these offenders. 

Police officers work to ensure that community members follow the law, and they become 

extremely familiar with the chronic offenders in their jurisdiction. As community 

corrections agents cannot keep constant tabs on the offenders under their control, it is 

a practical necessity to incorporate the knowledge base and interpersonal relations skills 

of the police. Yet, as the police cannot help to supervise all offenders on probation and 

parole, community corrections agencies should identify for police partners those offenders 

that are at the highest risk of recidivism. 

In addition to the police, offenders’ communities are crucial in encouraging positive 

supervision outcomes. Community agencies are often responsible for making targets 

and places less conducive to crime, they can create crime controllers (see Figure 1 on 

page 5), and they are invaluable bedrocks of treatment options. When police strengthen 

relationships with community service providers, officers can advocate for offenders needing 

treatment and can encourage treatment providers to reduce crime opportunities. To be 

effective, police and social service providers must focus on each offender’s individual 

risks for recidivism rather than a rule-based zero-tolerance strategy. By using community 

policing approaches, neighborhood involvement in probation and parole supervision is 

incorporated. These community collaborations help the police to make neighborhood 

residents a part of the solution for offenders on supervision. 
| 26 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

Organizational Strategies

“What prevents effective partnerships between two justice entities that have the same 

mission? One answer that I have heard often is that police spend much of their time 

getting offenders off the street while probation and parole officers are trying to keep 

these same offenders in the community.”

—Carl Wicklund, Executive Director, American Probation 

and Parole Association.15

Indeed, police–corrections collaborations can be effective, but the traditional roles of each 

organization may hinder the chance to achieve offender change. A balanced mission is 

needed, which is best achieved in a community policing framework.16 Jurisdictions seeking 

to establish a police–corrections partnership should be prepared for three goal-related 

problems, as identified by David Murphy’s research on corrections-police partnerships.17

First, officers identify mission creep as problematic, in which their roles and responsibilities 

expanded beyond what was manageable. Second, mission distortion is common, where 

officers’ identity in relation to their professional role becomes blurred. Third, officers 

complain of organizational lag, where agency nonparticipation slow the ability of officers 

to make progress. These potential problems can be overcome in partnerships with foresight 

and a commitment to success. Quality collaborations include a clearly defined mission 

statement, an established understanding of each agencies role, and clear ways to reach the 

stated goals.18 Two organizational strategies are most effective in meeting these criteria. 

The first strategy, which is the most common type of collaboration, involves police and 

community corrections agencies maintaining clear boundaries. Rather than creating one 

organization, these two separate agencies find ways to otherwise share information with 

one another, sometimes in an equally accessible database. In other partnerships, probation 

officers and police officers meet to exchange information on what is known about and what 

is expected of offenders under community supervision. This open communication should 

continue beyond meetings, and police should feel comfortable (even obligated) to contact 

supervising officers when additional information is obtained or needed. At minimum, these 

agencies must work together so that police, in routine work, have a clear idea of the highrisk offenders in their jurisdiction. 
| 27 |

Police Partnerships with Probation and Parole 

The second strategy, which has been popularized in recent years, involves police and 

corrections agents merging roles. Many jurisdictions (mostly in the United Kingdom) are 

creating multi-agency collaborations referred to as “polibation.” These partnerships create 

a complementary nature between departments by providing cross-training to officers.19

In one program, a single professional is assigned to provide one-on-one support for an 

individual offender from pre-release to the expiration of their term. This polibation 

officer coordinates agency activities, and motivates probation/parole and police to balance 

compliance with supervision conditions and treatment efforts.20 The presence of a 

polibation officer allows for others to focus on rehabilitation or control, with the central 

organizer balancing these competing goals. 

Innovative Collaborations

For interagency partnerships to be mutually beneficial and enhance public safety, four 

features should be present.21 First, the goals, roles, and responsibilities of each partnering 

agency must be clearly defined. Next, the missions of probation/parole versus police must 

be balanced, organizationally and in practice. Third, each agent/agency must respect the 

rights and responsibilities of other involved parties. Finally, the organizational structure of 

the partnership may need to be modified, and re-modified, to fully support a blossoming 

partnership. 

For a brief review of some successful partnerships, see Table 5 on pages 28–29 (readers 

should note that not all of these programs are still in existence, although much can still be 

learned from what elements worked in each of these programs). A common theme in these 

collaborations is increased communication, fostering teamwork, and increasing reciprocity 

between agencies. Problem-oriented pairings are best, such as fugitive apprehension units 

or specialized enforcements, in which the police help to target high-risk probationers 

and parolees. Successful collaborations exhibit three important points in the supervision 

process: 1) engagement of the offender in the process of change through the assessment of 

their crime-causing characteristics and development of a plan to address these factors, 2) 

involvement in early behavioral changes through the use of targeted services and controls, 

and 3) sustained change through compliance management techniques.22

Police should partner with community corrections officers as formal controls (constant 

surveillance) give way to informal controls (such as through family or treatment providers). 

For low-risk offenders, police should work on establishing rapport, providing positive 

reinforcement to probationers and parolees observed engaging in pro-social behavior. For 

high-risk offenders, police may work in a control capacity (such as enforcing curfew), but 

may also encourage or help offenders who are having difficulty in meeting pro-social needs. 
| 28 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

Table 5. Noteworthy interagency collaborations 

Collaboration (location) Overview Strategic components for police

Reentry Partnership 

Initiative (multiple sites 

throughout the United 

States)23

These initiatives seek collaboration 

among a number of community 

organizations, led by probation/

parole and police. The reentry 

process is viewed as a communitywide system that works collectively 

to increase public safety and 

encourage offender change.

During the institutional phase, police may help 

determine who to include in the partnership 

(offender classification); in the structured 

reentry phase, police may oversee community 

boards that review offender progress and make 

accommodations to the reentry plan; in the 

community reintegration phase, officers work 

to enforce supervision conditions and make 

recommendations for pro-social engagements that 

will limit criminal behavior.

Violence Reduction 

Partnership (Indianapolis, 

IN)24; Cincinnati Initiative 

to Reduce Violence (CIRV; 

Cincinnati, OH)25

These innovate programs included 

an interagency strategic response 

to achieve homicide reductions 

among chronic, at-risk offenders 

and victims.

Community treatment resources are matched to 

high-risk offenders, who are identified through 

collection of shooting data and information 

obtained from Street Workers. Notification 

meetings are held for those offenders deemed 

most influential in the hope that the message of 

zero-tolerance violence will be delivered to their 

criminal associates. This focused deterrence, 

pulling-levers approach seeks to respond to 

continued violence with severe sanctions.

Project Addressing 

Repeat Criminality 

(ARC; England)26

This program targets persistent drug 

offenders, offering them a form of 

intensive supervision. The project 

relies on individualized assistance, 

through multi-agency collaboration 

in case planning.

Both correctional and law enforcement officers 

work with offenders on creating and abiding 

by the supervision plan. Offenders are viewed 

as active participants in their own community 

supervision. Rather than focusing on heightened 

surveillance, this intensive program tries to locate 

areas to exploit offender change, with attitudinal 

shifts being more important than avoiding 

behavioral relapse.

Operation IMPACT 

(New York State)27

This initiative aims for a data-driven 

approach to policing, relying on 

an exchange of information, tools, 

and resources between police and 

probation/parole.

This highly focused initiative emphasizes law 

enforcement partnerships, crime analysis, and 

intelligence development/sharing, relying on 

one another for expertise and assistance. Uses 

a “no caseload” approach, where officers are 

assigned geographic units only. Officers work in 

the community, making frequent home, street, 

and work/school visits. Officers invest in high-risk 

offenders, making effort to involve them in prosocial activities.
| 29 |

Police Partnerships with Probation and Parole 

Collaboration (location) Overview Strategic components for police

Supervision Management 

and Recidivist Tracking 

Partnership (SMART; 

Redmond, WA)28

Police and community corrections 

officers work together to make 

street sweeps, targeting high-risk 

crime areas to enforce the law and 

violations of supervision conditions.

This partnership operates on the assumption 

that police should be familiar with community 

supervised offenders within their beat. Though 

this program requires officers to step outside their 

traditional professional roles, the intervention is 

highly effective but not costly. By collaborating 

(such as through weekly ride-alongs), the 

officers may work together to identify community 

supervised offenders and ensure they are within 

their conditions and the law.

Project Spotlight (TX)29 A comprehensive approach to crime 

reduction that emphasizes offender 

accountability but balances control 

with assistance.

To balance the control of offenders and 

individualized treatment, officers work with each 

individual in creating their own case plan. Each 

offender details their own supervision provisions, 

treatment goals, and supervision conditions/

sanctions. By employing small caseloads, frequent 

contacts, and multi-agency coordination, the 

success of the intervention can be attributed to 

the motivation of individual officers.

Operation Night Light 

(Boston, MA)30; 

Operation Nightwatch 

(St. Louis, MO)31

These police-probation partnerships 

work to increase compliance with 

supervision conditions among highrisk offenders.

To achieve deterrence, police and probation 

officers are paired to enhance supervision. 

High-risk offenders are given geographic 

restrictions, and officers make frequent curfew 

checks, even visiting popular youth hangouts to 

search for probationers. Community members 

are incorporated into each individual’s case plan 

to encourage pro-social behavior and report 

violations of supervision.

Community Safety 

Partnerships (multiple 

sites in the United 

Kingdom)32

An effort to reduce recidivism 

among supervised offenders 

by providing a holistic and 

individualized approach to case 

planning.

This multi-agency collaboration relies on three 

mechanisms. First, strategic planning identifies 

the specific profile of the offender’s activity, their 

risk and needs, and their likely pathway out of 

crime. Second, problem-solving approaches to 

operational activities are used, such as through 

information sharing and targeted policing. 

Third, case management is required to make 

individualized choices and modifications to 

treatment/supervision when necessary.
| 30 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

To help police departments and community corrections agencies create meaningful 

partnerships, we have outlined specific ways officers can assist in monitoring offenders 

on conditional release. Ideally, collaborations should exercise actions that emphasize both 

rehabilitation and control. 

Rehabilitation 

While traditional treatment approaches, such as offender participation in rehabilitation 

programs, are outside the control of the police, there are many things officers can do to 

stimulate and maintain law-abiding behavior among probationers and parolees: 

1. Service referral: Police officers who are familiar with the resources available in their 

community can refer offenders to services and encourage/help them to follow through. 

2. Offense interruption: Not only can police disrupt pending criminal activity (e.g., 

breaking up a large group or monitoring a street segment), they can be advocates for 

and models of pro-social choices. 

3. Encourage pro-sociality: Motivation to change is an important component of 

treatment success, and police officers play an influential role in encouraging offender 

change. 

4. Reward reform: When engaging with offenders, police officers should provide praise 

and other reinforcements when they observe positive behavior. 

5. Use discretion/graduated freedoms: The interaction style used by police should 

become more lenient and upbeat as offenders demonstrate gradual desistance. 
| 31 |

Police Partnerships with Probation and Parole 

Control

Because offenders on conditional release have a demonstrable pattern of breaking the law, 

the police play a pivotal role in detecting, preventing, and responding to relapses in antisocial behavior. In particular, interagency collaborations provide an opportunity for police 

to enforce conditions of supervision agreements and provide superior surveillance of and 

information about high-risk supervisees; this allows community corrections agents with 

useful data and the ability to focus on offender treatment. There are five specific tools that 

police officers can use to help prevent community supervised offenders from recidivating: 

1. Maintain leverage: Police represent formal social control, and can use the threat 

of arrest and supervision revocation (usually leading to incarceration) to provoke 

compliance. 

2. Recruit offender handlers: Officers familiar with an offender’s peer group (friends, 

family, mentors, and neighbors) can influence these individuals to help police these 

offenders and encourage pro-social behavior. 

3. Create place managers: To disrupt the attraction of offenders to their normal 

crime hot spots, police can solicit the help of additional controllers to monitor for 

misbehavior among community supervised offenders (from breeching a probation 

stipulation like being out past curfew, to anti-social behavior and law violations). 

4. Strengthen target guardians: Because officers are familiar with the elements of a 

situation that attract offenders, the police can help design and implement solutions 

that change or protect these targets. 

5. Use discretion/graduated sanctions: Recognizing that zero-tolerance leads to high 

failure rates, police should be sensitive to the gradual process of offender change; 

punishments should be proportional to the misconduct, and can be used as teachable 

moments. 

| 33 |

Policing Special Offender Groups

Policing Special Offender Groups

Many probationers and parolees belong to a special category of offenders that require unique 

supervision conditions. While there are a great number of special offender groups, we 

have chosen five classifications that the police are most likely to encounter. And although 

each category has dozens of research studies about what works in preventing crime, space 

limitations here prevent a full review. In addition to encouraging pro-social behavior among 

offenders and monitoring probationers and parolees for compliance with the conditions 

of their supervision, there are special tasks for which the police are well suited.33, 34 Many 

of the jobs detailed could be molded to fit other classes of special offenders, and we 

encourage readers to reference the endnotes for more detailed information about a particular 

intervention. We have selected a few example tasks to illustrate how the police are situated to 

assist community corrections in monitoring offenders. 

Sex Offenders 

Two stipulations common to sex offender supervision have excellent opportunities for 

police aid. First, many individuals are required to enroll in a sex offender registry, several 

of which require some form of electronic monitoring; this gives officers the ability to 

track the movements of these offenders. Second, most sex offenders are restricted in their 

whereabouts; police should be knowledgeable of and enforce these space restrictions 

(e.g., an offender cannot be within 500 yards of a playground). The police are also well 

positioned to provide offender identification and victim notification services.35 In addition 

to past victims, officers can provide expert training about victim avoidance measures. 

Prostitutes & Johns and Drug Dealers & Drug Buyers

Many sex and drug solicitation and sales offenses stem from general social disorder. 

According to broken windows policing, minor community incivilities can open the 

floodgates to more serious offending; by improving neighborhood conditions, it sends the 

message to offenders that that place is not conducive to crime.36 The police are a crucial 

part of multi-agency and community-wide interventions aimed at disrupting early signs 

of these offenders.37 Aside from place management, officers are ideally situated to assist 

corrections agents in conducting meetings and property/person searches. 
| 34 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

Drunk Drivers

Many offenders convicted of driving while intoxicated receive special conditions as part 

of their provisional release. Police can assist in enforcing supervision stipulations.38 For 

example, many offenders are prohibited from consuming alcohol, or being in attendance of 

any place or event where alcohol is knowingly served; they may also have a court-ordered 

curfew or general restrictions on driving. Officers can accompany corrections agents during 

curfew checks, and should encourage compliance with (and reprimand violations of) 

supervision conditions. 

Gang Members 

Being in a gang is not a crime, but the social activities involved with such associations 

can often lead to crime. Most offenders on community supervision are restricted from 

socializing with gang members, possessing a weapon, or being around drugs or alcohol. 

Police departments are most effective at targeted enforcement as part of a larger focused 

deterrence initiative (see “Focused Deterrence” on page 23).39 As part of these interventions, 

probation and parole officers often perform home visits, where police can assist corrections 

in conducting home searches, making service referrals, and reinforcing the deterrence 

(“pulling levers”) message.40

Chronic Nuisance Offenders 

One of the most effective approaches to combating chronic nuisance offending is 

community-oriented policing.41 Additionally, using a problem orientation allows the police 

to enforce public disorder ordinances that are contributing to reoffending. In relation to 

community supervised offenders in particular, police officers can meet with offenders prior 

to their release to help outline the conditions of their freedom, clarify expectations, and 

provide the threat of enforcement for violations of their case plan. 

Chronic Violent Offenders

Focusing policing efforts on high-rate serious offenders has the potential to prevent more 

crimes with less effort; however, doing so requires a multi-agency intervention, and a wealth 

of community resources for offenders seeking to desist.42 In aiding probation and parole 

agencies, police officers can provide expert surveillance and perform supervision condition 

compliance checks during home visits.43 Police departments can additionally provide victim 

notification and education resources. Again, when the offenders are known, a targeted 

enforcement approach (see “Focused Deterrence” on page 23) works best. 
| 35 |

Conclusion

Conclusion 

Because offenders on conditional release can relapse and commit new crimes, police 

have a vested interest in monitoring these individuals and preventing recidivism. As the 

information in this guide has discussed, there are a number of tactics that are proven to be 

effective at reducing relapse among community supervised offenders; equally important, 

there are several strategies that do not work, and can even make things worse. Although 

police–corrections partnerships are young, we hope that the ideas presented in this guide 

will provide readers with practical solutions for policing conditionally released offenders. 

Potential Challenges 

While police want to maximize public safety, a number of offender’s rights must also 

be considered. To ensure that police–probation/parole partnerships do not violate the 

Constitutional rights of offenders, there are two potential limitations that police should be 

mindful of. 

First, experience with past police–community corrections partnerships reveal a number 

of civil liberties concerns. Most problematic are warrantless searches. Much collaboration 

involves police officers accompanying probation or parole agents to do home visits or 

curfew checks. This creates the “stalking horse” phenomenon, in which police gain access 

to offenders’ homes through their partnering visit.44 Police may accompany probation or 

parole on warrantless home visits so long as they are under direction of the community 

corrections agent, and the search is performed for probationary purposes. When the 

probation/parole officer is being guided by police, or when home visits serve police 

purposes, resulting gains are illegal.

Second, many innovative programs rely on sharing information relevant to supervised 

offenders; and though the potential benefits of data exchanges are innumerable, many 

barriers are present. The National Institute of Justice identifies three steps to overcoming 

obstacles in data sharing:45

•	 First, exact confidentiality laws must be known, with particular attention to the scope 

and quality of the data. Organizations must find out what limitations exist for intraagency information sharing. Often, permission can be gained to bypass confidentiality 

restrictions following approval of new crime reduction partnerships. 

•	 Second, policies for data entry and access may need to be modified. When information 

cannot be freely exchanged due to existing procedures, changes must be made to data 

storage and retrieval systems so that agents from either side may access the shared 

database. 
| 36 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

•	 Third, staff should be made aware of the benefits of improved and expanded information 

flow. When job performance will be affected, staff should be trained on how to work 

within the bounds of the new data sharing procedures. In particular, staff can learn how 

to maximize the other agency’s data without interrupting existing processes. 

Implications for Police and Offender Monitoring 

Any problem-solving effort that only deals with offenders risks being unsustainable. New 

offenders may replace rehabilitated offenders unless the opportunities for crime are also 

reduced. Problem-solving efforts must address more than one side of the crime triangle (see 

Figure 1 on page 5).

Offender-only solutions are not only vulnerable to offender replacement, they may be less 

effective than solutions that marry monitoring and rehabilitation to crime opportunity 

blocking. The reason for this is simple: An offender undergoing rehabilitation who is 

routinely tempted by crime opportunities is more likely to relapse than a similar offender 

who is not tempted. By blocking temptations, chances of relapse decrease. We suggest that 

there is an important synergy between opportunity blocking and rehabilitation. Problemsolving solutions that combine both treatment and control can convert active offenders to 

former offenders faster, and can prevent new offenders from being created. 

The most effective collaborations will use police in a specific capacity for which they are 

useful, rather than in a general support role for corrections agencies. Using the information 

in this guide, there are specific implications for how police can assist in monitoring offenders 

on conditional release. Referring back to the crime triangle (see Figure 1 on page 5), police 

can follow six guidelines to help reduce recidivism of probationers and parolees, thereby 

increasing public safety: 

•	 Offender: Police should understand and support the principles of effective correctional 

supervision (see Table 4 on pages 20–21). When resources are targeted at offenders 

who are at greatest risk of reoffending, when the services given match the specific needs 

of offenders, and when delivered in settings conducive to offender change, recidivism 

reductions will be great. Police officers can focus on high-risk offenders, and engage in 

crime prevention tactics that are proven effective. 

— Handler: Police on their own are very important offender handlers. Communityoriented policing should maximize informal social control, by soliciting the help 

of the offender’s family, friends, and neighbors. When the police recruit additional 

handlers, these individuals act as an extended arm of law enforcement, and send the 

message that an offender’s entire social circle is committed to their success. 
| 37 |

Conclusion

•	 Place: Police can direct resources so places become less suitable for offending. 

Community-oriented policing can accomplish this by helping neighborhood residents 

to take ownership of their areas; by reducing or correcting minor incivilities, the 

surroundings convey that more serious crime will not be tolerated. 

— Manager: Police should recruit the owners of crime-prone places. Officers can 

solicit cooperation from managers of locations that are frequented by probationers 

and parolees. Given the extensive knowledge that police have of the daily routines 

of community supervised offenders, this information can be exploited to seek the 

assistance of place managers in limiting reoffending. 

•	 Target/Victim: Police can work to make targets of crime less attractive and potential 

victims of crime less vulnerable. By understanding the routine activities of offenders 

under community supervision, officers can focus their resources on the targets and 

victims most likely to fall prey to probationers and parolees. 

— Guardian: Police should enlist informal guardians of potential targets and victims. 

Officers can educate residents about the threat of crime created by offenders 

on conditional release. By heightening surveillance within a neighborhood, law 

enforcement is able to extend itself to the most capable protectors of targets and 

victims vulnerable to crime. 

Police agencies represent an invaluable tool in improving outcomes for conditionally 

released offenders, and police–community corrections partnerships should be pursued. 

Police agencies also have a vital role to play when the emphasis of offender monitoring is 

the prevention of crime through the promotion of desistance. Notably, police may expand 

their tactics to include informal social control and community justice, and may serve as 

experts in surveillance and deterrence. Most importantly, when police are aware of the 

offenders in their community that are supervised on conditional release, they are in a 

unique position to enhance control and match offenders to services.

| 39 

|

Endnotes

Endnotes

1. Solomon, Kachnowski, and Bhati (2005). 

2. West, Sabol, and Greenman (2010).

3. Pew Center on the States (2008).

4. West, Sabol, and Greenman (2010).

5. Petersilia and Turner (1993).

6. Pew Center on the States (2010).

7. Taxman and Thanner (2006).

8. Gendreau, Cullen, and Bonta (1994).

9. Pew Center on the States (2008).

10. MacKenzie (2006).

11. Taxman, Yancey, and Bilanin (2006).

12. Sachwald, Eley, and Taxman (2006). 

13. Jannetta and Lachman (2011). 

14. Corbett, Fitzgerald, and Jordan (1996).

15. Wicklund (2010). 

16. Murphy (2005).

17. Murphy (2008). 

18. Jones and Flynn (2008).

19. Mawby and Worrall (2004).

20. Mawby, Crawley, and Wright (2007).

21. Burrell (1999).

22. Taxman (2002). 

23. Taxman, Young, and Byrne (2003).

24. Chermak and McGarrell (2004).

25. Engel, Corsaro, and Tillyer (2010).

26. Chui, Tupman, and Farlow (2003).
| 40 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

27. Condon (2003).

28. Morgan and Marrs (1998).

29. Evans (2001).

30. Reichert (2002).

31. Urban (2005).

32. Great Britain Ministry of Justice (2009).

33. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (2009).

34. Fort Myers Police Department (2010).

35. Tampa Police Department (1999).

36. Minneapolis Police Department (1999).

37. Arlington Police Department (2008).

38. Naperville Police Department (1998).

39. Roseville Police Department (2010).

40. Braga and Weisburd (2012).

41. Waukesha Police Department (2003).

42. Boston Police Department (2004).

43. Los Angeles Police Department (2009).

44. Murphy and Worrall (2007).

45. Parent and Snyder (1999).
| 41 |

References

References

Arlington Police Department. 2008. “Operation Spotlight.” Submission for Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Arlington, TX. 

Boston Police Department. 2004. “Boston Re-Entry Initiative.” Submission for Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Boston, MA. 

Braga, Anthony. A., and Weisburd, David. L. 2012. “The Effects of “Pulling Levers” 

Focused Deterrence Strategies on Crime.” Campbell Systematic Reviews 6:1–90.

Burrell, William D. 1999. “Getting the Most Out of Probation/Parole-Police Partnerships.” 

Community Corrections Report 7 (1): 1–12.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. 2009. “Electronic Monitoring Program 

(EMP).” Submission for Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in ProblemOriented Policing. Charlotte, NC. 

Chermak, Steven, and Edmund McGarrell. 2004. “Problem-Solving Approaches to 

Homicide: An Evaluation of the Indianapolis Violence Reduction Partnership.” 

Criminal Justice Policy Review 15 (2): 161–192.

Chui, Wing Hong, Bill Tupman, and Colin Farlow. 2003. “Listening to Young Adult 

Offenders: Views on the Effect of a Police-Probation Initiative on Reducing Crime.” 

Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (3): 263–281.

Condon, Christopher D. 2003. “Failing Crime Rates, Rising Caseload Numbers: Using 

Police-Probation Partnerships.” Corrections Today 65 (1): 44–48.

Corbett, Ron, Bernard Fitzgerald, and James Jordan. 1996. “Police/Probation Partnerships 

as an Officer Safety Strategy.” Topics in Community Corrections 13–15. NCJ 178341.

Engel, Robin S., Nicholas Corsaro, and Marie Skubak Tillyer. 2010. Evaluation of the 

Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence (CIRV). Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati 

Policing Institute.

Evans, Donald G. 2001. “Project Spotlight – Partnership in Supervision.” Corrections 

Today 63 (1): 110–111.

Fort Myers Police Department. 2010. “Prepare Offenders to Reintegrate Back Into 

the Community Through a Community Offender Probation and Education Unit 

(C.O.P.E.).” Submission for Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in ProblemOriented Policing. Fort Myers, FL. 

Gendreau, Paul, Francis T. Cullen, and James Bonta. 1994. “Intensive Rehabilitation 

Supervision: The Next Generation in Community Corrections?” Federal Probation 58 

(1): 72–78.
| 42 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

Great Britain Ministry of Justice. 2009. Reducing Reoffending, Cutting Crime, Changing 

Lives: Guidance on New Duties for Community Safety Partnerships in England and Wales.

London: Home Office.

Jannetta, Jesse, and Pamela Lachman. 2011. Promoting Partnerships Between Police and 

Community Supervision Agencies: How Coordination Can Reduce Crime and Improve 

Public Safety. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Jones, Justin, and Edward Flynn. 2008. “Cops and Corrections: Reentry Collaborations 

for Public Safety.” Corrections Today 70 (2): 26–29.

Kennedy, David M. 2011. Don’t Shoot: One Man, a Street Fellowship, and the End of 

Violence in Inner-City America. New York: Bloomsbury. 

Kleiman, Mark A.R. 2009. When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less 

Punishment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Los Angeles Police Department. 2009. “A Model for Large Metropolitan Police Agencies 

in Efficiently and Productively Addressing Street Level Violent Crime.” Submission 

for Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Los 

Angeles, CA. 

MacKenzie, Doris Layton. 2006. What Works in Corrections: Reducing the Criminal 

Activities of Offenders and Delinquents. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Mawby, Rob C., Peter Crawley, and Alan Wright. 2007. “Beyond ‘Polibation’ and Towards 

“Prisipolibation’? Joint Agency Offender Management in the Context of the Street 

Crime Initiative.” International Journal of Police Science and Management 9 (2): 122–

134.

Mawby, Rob C., and Anne Worrall. 2004. “‘Polibation’ Revisited: Policing, Probation and 

Prolific Offender Projects.” International Journal of Police Science and Management 6 

(2): 63–73.

Minneapolis Police Department. 1999. “The Hawthorne Huddle: Motivating Residents to 

Reclaim a Neighborhood.” Submission for Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in 

Problem-Oriented Policing. Minneapolis, MN. 

Morgan, Terry, and Stephen D. Marrs. 1998. “Redmond Washington’s SMART 

Partnership for Police and Community Corrections.” In Community Corrections: 

Probation, Parole, and Intermediate Sanctions, ed. J. Petersilia, 170–180. New York: 

Oxford University Press.

Murphy, David. 2005. Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work. New York: LFB 

Scholarly. 
| 43 |

References

Murphy, David. 2008. “Police-Probation Partnerships: Managing the Risks and 

Maximizing Benefits.” Justice Policy Journal 5 (1): 1–26.

Murphy, David, and John L. Worrall. 2007. “The Threat of Mission Distortion in PoliceProbation Partnerships.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and 

Management 30 (1): 132–149.

Naperville Police Department. 1998. “Drive Safe, Drive Sober Campaign.” Submission 

for Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Naperville, IL. 

Parent, Dale, and Brad Snyder. 1999. Police-Corrections Partnerships. Washington, DC: 

U.S. National Institute of Justice.

Petersilia, Joan, and Susan Turner. 1993. Evaluating Intensive Supervision Probation / 

Parole: Results of a Nationwide Experiment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Pew Center on the States. 2008. Putting Public Safety First: 13 Strategies for Successful 

Supervision and Reentry. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts. 

Pew Center on the States. 2010. State of Recidivism: Revolving Door of America’s Prisons.

Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Reichert, Kent. 2002. “Police-Probation Partnerships: Boston’s Operation Night Light.” 

Jerry Lee Center of Criminology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

Roseville Police Department. 2010. “Targeting Gangs: One Gangster at a Time.” 

Submission for Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented 

Policing. Roseville, CA. 

Sachwald, Judith, Ernest Eley, Jr., and Faye S. Taxman. 2006. “An Ounce of Prevention: 

Proactive Community Supervision Reduces Violation Behavior.” Topics in Community 

Corrections 31–38.

Solomon, Amy L., Vera Kachnowski, and Avi Bhati. 2005. Does Parole Work? Analyzing 

the Impact of Postprison Supervision on Rearrest Outcomes. Washington, DC: Urban 

Institute. 

Tampa Police Department. 1999. “Sexual Predator Identification and Notification 

(S.P.I.N.) Program.” Submission for Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in 

Problem-Oriented Policing. Tampa, FL. 

Taxman, Faye S. 2002. “Supervision: Exploring the Dimensions of Effectiveness.” Federal 

Probation 66 (2): 14–27.
| 44 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

Taxman, Faye S., and Meridith Thanner. 2006. “Risk, Need, and Responsivity (RNR): It 

All Depends.” Crime and Delinquency 52 (1): 28–51.

Taxman, Faye S., Christina Yancey, and Jeanne E. Bilanin. 2006. Proactive Community 

Supervision in Maryland: Changing Offender Outcomes. Baltimore, MD: University of 

Maryland; Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University.

Taxman, Faye S., Douglas Young, and James Byrne. 2003. Offender’s Views of Reentry: 

Implications for Processes, Programs, and Services. Washington, DC: U.S. National 

Institute of Justice.

Urban, Lynn S. 2005. Deterrent Effect of Curfew Enforcement: Operation Nightwatch in St. 

Louis. Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Justice. 

Waukesha Police Department. 2003. “Police & Partners: A Series of Successful ProblemSolving Efforts That Have Tremendously Impacted the Community.” Submission for 

Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Waukesha, 

WI. 

West, Heather C., William J. Sabol, and Sarah J. Greenman. 2010. Prisoners in 2009. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics.

Wicklund, Carl. 2010. “Police and Probation and Parole – A Relationship.” Community 

Policing Dispatch 3(6).
| 45 |

About the Authors

About the Authors

Lacey Schaefer

Lacey Schaefer is a postdoctoral research fellow in the Policing and Security program at 

the Institute for Social Science Research at the University of Queensland. Her publications 

apply criminological theory to correctional interventions, examining the intersection of 

research and practice. Schaefer previously worked for the University of Cincinnati Policing 

Institute, exploring the impact of community efforts on crime reduction interventions and 

the disruption of offending pathways. Her current research explores the individual and 

community predictors of crime controller actions, outlining the processes associated with 

crime opportunity reduction. Schaefer received her bachelor’s degree in psychology and 

sociology from Wichita State University, her master’s degree in sociology from Mississippi 

State University where she was awarded the prestigious Loftin Fellowship, and her 

doctorate in criminal justice from the University of Cincinnati. 

John E. Eck

John E. Eck is a criminal justice professor at the University of Cincinnati, where he teaches 

police effectiveness, research methods, and crime prevention. His research has focused on 

the development of problem-oriented policing, police effectiveness, crime patterns, and 

crime prevention. Eck was a member of the National Academy of Science’s Committee to 

Review Research on Police Policy and Practices. He is the coauthor (with Ronald Clarke) 

of Crime Analysis for Problem-Solvers: In 60 Small Steps, as well as the coauthor of many 

publications on problem-oriented policing, crime mapping and crime prevention. Eck 

received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the University of Michigan, and his 

doctorate from the University of Maryland’s Department of Criminology.
| 46 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

Francis T. Cullen

Francis T. Cullen is Distinguished Research Professor in the School of Criminal Justice

at the University of Cincinnati, where he holds a joint appointment in sociology. In the

graduate program, he teaches Theory and Philosophy of Corrections, Early Intervention

in Criminal Justice, Structural Theories of Crime, and Criminal Justice Research

Practicum. Cullen has published over 200 works in the areas of criminological theory,

corrections, public opinion, white-collar crime, and sexual victimization. He is author of

Rethinking Crime and Deviance Theory: The Emergence of a Structuring Tradition and coauthor

of Reaffirming Rehabilitation; Corporate Crime Under Attack; Criminology; Criminological

Theory: Context and Consequences; and Unsafe in the Ivory Tower: The Sexual Victimization of 

College Women. He is a co-editor of Offender Rehabilitation: Effective Correctional 

Intervention; Contemporary Criminological Theory: Past to Present; Taking Stock: The Status of 

Criminological Theory; The Origins of American Criminology; and the Encyclopedia of 

Criminological Theory. He is a past President of the American Society of Criminology and 

the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. Cullen received his Ph.D. in sociology and 

education from Columbia University.
| 47 |

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series

1. Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly Dedel. 2006.

ISBN: 978-1-935676-64-5

2. Street Prostitution, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly Dedel. 2006.

ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

3. Speeding in Residential Areas, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott with David K.

Maddox. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-02-7

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. Rana Sampson. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms, 2nd Edition. Rana Sampson. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-05-3

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-07-X

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-09-6

11. Shoplifting, 2nd Edition. Ronald V. Clarke. 2013. ISBN: 978-1-932582-34-5

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

16. Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly

Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002.

ISBN: 978-1-932582-00-2

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-17-7

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-18-5

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003.

ISBN: 1-932582-22-3

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. Braga. 2004.

ISBN: 1-932582-31-2

24. Prescription Drug Fraud and Misuse, 2nd Edition. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La

Vigne. 2013. ISBN: 978-1-932582-37-6
| 48 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-35-3

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glensor and Kenneth J. Peak. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-39-8

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-43-6

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike Hough. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-45-2

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-50-9

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. Antonacci, and Joel B. 

Plant. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1932582-56-8

38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. Newman. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-59-2

39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-60-6

40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-63-0

41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley and Stephen Smallbone. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-65-7

42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-67-3

43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites. Rachel Boba and Roberto 

Santos. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

44. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Rob T. Guerette. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-72-X

45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-74-6

46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways. Todd Keister. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-76-2

47. Drive-By Shootings. Kelly Dedel. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-77-0

48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-78-9

49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and Diana York. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-79-7

50. Traffic Congestion Around Schools. Nancy G. La Vigne. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-82-7
| 49 |

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

51. Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities. Justin A. Heinonen and John E. Eck. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-83-5

52. Bicycle Theft. Shane D. Johnson, Aiden Sidebottom, and Adam Thorpe. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-87-8

53. Abandoned Vehicles. Michael G. Maxfield. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-88-6

54. Spectator Violence in Stadiums. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-89-4

55. Child Abuse and Neglect in the Home. Kelly Dedel. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-00-3

56. Homeless Encampments. Sharon Chamard. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-01-0

57. Stolen Goods Markets. Michael Sutton. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-09-6

58. Theft of Scrap Metal. Brandon R. Kooi. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-12-6

59. Street Robbery. Khadija M. Monk, Justin A. Heinonen, and John E. Eck. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-13-3

60. Theft of Customers’ Personal Property in Cafés and Bars. Shane D. Johnson, Kate 

J. Bowers, Lorraine Gamman, Loreen Mamerow, and Anna Warne. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-15-7

61. Aggressive Driving. Colleen Laing. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-18-8

62. Sexual Assault of Women by Strangers. Kelly Dedel. 2011. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-43-0

63. Export of Stolen Vehicles Across Land Borders. Gohar Petrossian and Ronald V. 

Clarke. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-935676-59-1 

64. Abandoned Buildings and Lots. Jon M. Shane. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-01-7

65. Animal Cruelty. Kelly Dedel. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-05-5

66. Missing Persons. Kenna Quinet. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-20-8

67. Gasoline Drive-Offs. Bruno Meini and Ronald V. Clarke. 2012. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-15-4

68. Chronic Public Inebriation. Matthew Pate. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-07-9

69. Drug-Impaired Driving. Joe Kuhns. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-08-6

70. Home Invasion Robbery. Justin A. Heinonen and John E. Eck. 2013. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-16-1

71. Physical and Emotional Abuse of the Elderly. Brian K. Payne. 2013. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-67-3 

72. Hate Crimes. Joshua D. Freilich and Steven M. Chermak. 2013. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-78-9

73. Pharmacy Robbery. Nancy La Vigne and Julie Wartell. 2014. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-29-1
| 50 |

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

Response Guides Series

1. The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns. Michael S. Scott. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

2. Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should You Go Down This Road?

Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

3. Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems. Michael S. Scott 

and Herman Goldstein. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

4. Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

5. Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns. Emmanuel Barthe. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-66-5

6. Sting Operations. Graeme R. Newman with assistance of Kelly Socia. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-84-3

7. Asset Forfeiture. John L. Worall. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-90-8 

8. Improving Street Lighting to Reduce Crime in Residential Areas. Ronald V. Clarke. 

2008. ISBN: 1-932582-91-6

9. Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks. Jim Hilborn. 2009. 

ISBN: 1-932582-92-4

10. Assigning Police Officers to Schools. Barbara Raymond. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-14-0

11. Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems. Martha J. Smith 

and Lorraine Mazerolle. 2013. ISBN: 978-1-932582-81-9

12. Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release. Lacey Schaefer, John E. Eck, and 

Francis T. Cullen. 2014. ISBN: 978-1-932582-85-7

Problem-Solving Tools Series 

1. Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police ProblemSolvers. John E. Eck. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

2. Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. Schultze. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-48-7

3. Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem-Solving. Scott H. Decker. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5

4. Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

5. Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety Problems. Sharon Chamard. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2

6. Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke and John E. Eck. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-75-4

7. Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown and Michael S. Scott. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-80-0
| 51 |

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

8. Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving.

Diane Zahm. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-81-9

9. Enhancing the Problem-Solving Capacity of Crime Analysis Units. Matthew B. 

White. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-85-1

10. Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion. Rob T. Guerette. 2009. 

ISBN: 1-932582-93-2

11. Analyzing and Responding to Repeat Offending. Nick Tilley. 2013. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-71-1

12. Understanding Theft of ‘Hot Products.’ Kate J. Bowers and Shane D. Johnson. 

2013. ISBN: 978-1-932582-77-2

13. Identifying and Defining Policing Problems. Michael S. Scott. 2014. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-86-4

Special Publications

Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps. Ronald V. Clarke and John E. 

Eck. 2005. ISBN:1-932582-52-5

Policing Terrorism: An Executive’s Guide. Graeme R. Newman and Ronald V. Clarke. 2008.

Effective Policing and Crime Prevention: A Problem-Oriented Guide for Mayors, City 

Managers, and County Executives. Joel B. Plant and Michael S. Scott. 2009. 

Implementing POP: Leading, Structuring, and Managing a Problem-Oriented Police 

Agency. Michael S. Scott and Stuart Kirby. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-61-1

Intelligence Analysis for Problem Solvers. John E. Eck and Ronald V. Clarke. 2013. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-55-3

For a complete and up-to-date listing of all available POP Guides, see the Center for 

Problem-Oriented Policing website at www.popcenter.org.

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series and other 

COPS Office publications, call the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770, 

via e-mail at AskCopsRC@usdoj.gov, or visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

Got a problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website at 

www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help you deal more 

effectively with crime and disorder in your community, including:

• Recommended readings in problem-oriented policing

and situational crime prevention

• A complete listing of other POP Guides

• A listing of forthcoming POP Guides

Designed for police and those who work with them to address 

community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great resource for 

problem-oriented policing.

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office).

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Nearly five million offenders are under conditional correctional supervision on 

any given day. In addition, approximately 95% of prisoners will be returned to the 

community, at the rate of nearly three-quarter million per year. These offenders 

represent a unique population that may produce a significant number of problems 

for police. Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release provides police officials 

with an overview of community supervision, discussing the characteristics of 

offenders, the varieties of monitoring strategies, and the identification of best 

practices in probation/parole–police partnerships. By providing police with this 

information, this guide can potentially aid in lowering law enforcement costs, 

increasing public safety, and encouraging reductions in recidivism among this 

growing population.

Scan this QR code with your 

smartphone for more information 

about the POP Guides Series, or visit 

www.popcenter.org.

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

145 N Street NE

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS Office programs, 

call the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770.

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

Published 2014

ISBN: 978-1-932582-85-7 e081314598