Iowa has taken the lead on probation reform

The most bizarre probation requirement I have seen a judge order a person to do was to wear a sign outside a high school that said, “I killed your teacher,” because of an accident involving the teacher, who was drunk at the wheel. The man’s sentence was probation, but the judge wanted to punish him more, because a teacher died, so he ordered him to wear the sign outside the school for the entire week. The kids saw the sign and reacted as you might expect. A young person pulled over and threatened to kill him. The man's probation officer had to call the judge and beg him to let the man out of the condition of his probation. After several calls, the judge finally agreed to let the man out of the order.

Why am I telling you this story? Because judges have been free to attach any conditions to probation terms, regardless of the reason. Probation should be about setting people up to be successful in society, not shaming or punishing them. Too often, breaking rules, not laws, results in people going to prison. I've worked in several jurisdictions across the country, including here in Iowa, and I have seen too many people go to prison for not following the rules. Technical conditions of probation sometimes include conditions like “do not lie,” “do not have contact with anyone who has a felony conviction,” or “do not go to places of ill-repute.” The yearly cost of incarcerating individuals for violating the non-criminal rules of probation is $2.8 billion across the country.

Incarceration for technical violations is counterproductive. Putting people in jails that are overcrowded lacking good mental health services for breaking rules makes people worse, not better. Disrupting employment, housing, and family relationships because people can’t afford to go to treatment, move without telling their probation officer, or testing positive for drugs, is counterproductive. For Black and Latino people, the outcomes are even worse. Disparate responses and quicker paths to revocations create unequal treatment that results in more Black and Latino people being incarcerated.

No state has completely eradicated the use of incarceration for technical violations. But more than 30 states have adopted policies to limit its use. Districts 1 and 5 in Iowa went from an average of 26 conditions of supervision for people on probation to seven and eight respectively, with no increase in new crimes and fewer revocations over recent years. Throughout the country, reducing the number of conditions on the front end and limiting revocations for technical violations on the back end does not lead to worse outcomes.

Effectively holding individuals accountable while promoting compliance requires a shift in approach. Instead of probation officers focusing on enforcing conditions of supervision, their role needs to shift to coach people on supervision to live within the conditions. Coupled with reducing the conditions of supervision, changing the approach will support the successful reintegration of individuals. Conditions should be tailored to address individual needs and goals, matched with resources and support systems. As we all know, incentivizing positive behavior is more effective in promoting rule compliance and participation in services than relying only on the threat of punishment.

It should go without saying, but I want to make sure it is clear, we should never order anybody to wear a sign. America has a lot to learn from what we started in Iowa. I hope that the reforms contribute to improved community safety across the country in the years to come.

Brian Lovins is the president of Justice System Partners and the Immediate Past President of the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA). He is also a steering committee member of Executives Transforming Probation and Parole.