Pages: 9

As global prison populations continue to grow in every global region, governments—looking for strategies to solve the problems in their overcrowded, sometimes violent, and costly prison systems—are slowly—albeit grudgingly—beginning to recognize the potential benefits of (1) expanding non-custodial sanctions and (2) releasing more individuals from prison and jail via community supervision. A recent report by Prison Reform International (2023, 11) found that “in many countries there are new and ongoing initiatives to expand the range and application of alternatives to imprisonment.” However, the community corrections systems of most countries are under-resourced, and under-researched, which leads to community corrections programs that are not fully implemented as designed, with unknown performance metrics available for review, and a paucity of high-quality evaluation research supporting the calls for additional resources, and the expansion of this system. Even in those countries that have recently expanded their community corrections populations, “these are not decreasing prison populations raising concerns of net-widening” (Prison Reform International, 2023, p. 11), perhaps due to two of the same problems facing prison managers: crowding and lack of resources. It is certainly possible that an overcrowded community corrections system with inadequate resources will fuel even higher prison populations. When viewed in this context it may make sense to focus attention not only on the underutilization of community corrections but also on the potential misutilization of community corrections. There is much to be learned from knowledge exchange regarding the design, management, and performance of community corrections systems operating in each global region.

Pages: 507

No chapter abstract available.

Pages: 43

According to the most recent data from the World Prison Brief, approximately 11% of the global prison population is held in African prisons. Ten of the world's 50 largest prison systems are in Africa, including the two countries we profile from this region: Kenya, which has the 36th largest prison population globally, and South Africa, which has the 12th largest prison population. Between 2000 and 2021, the African region's prison population increased by 32.4%; the global prison population increased 24.3% during this period. Unfortunately, we cannot provide similar baseline data on either the size of Africa's community corrections population, or community corrections population trends for the countries in this region.

Pages: 22

The community corrections system in South Africa is tasked with the supervision and management of over 60,000 people convicted of criminal offenses who are placed on community-based alternatives to incarceration. The agency provides comprehensive supervision services and situates its approach in a needs-based, restorative, and rehabilitative framework, while also emphasizing the community's role in supporting and promoting reintegration. This chapter provides an overview of the Community Correctors sub-area of the Department of Correctional Services in South Africa, including describing the supervised populations, practices and policies, key legislation, and other information related to understanding how South Africa is increasing alternatives to incarceration and endeavors to create a community-driven and evidence-based system of Community Corrections.

Pages: 19

The development of community corrections in Africa, particularly with respect to probation, is closely linked to the colonial regimes. Probation system in Kenya was established about seven decades ago and has been expanded and transformed into a distinct, indispensable part of the criminal justice system. This chapter reflects on the background of probation in Kenya from a developmental explanation and examines the concept of probation along a legal and penological axis, as well as from an organizational perspective. It traces the development of probation in Kenya and explores its organizational features, its capacity both in human and institutional terms, and its internal and external influences over time. Most significantly, the chapter examines the practice of probation within various service domains, user categories, and phases of trial, sentencing and post penal stages. It discusses tools in use for risk, needs, and strengths assessment. Finally, the chapter examines emerging practices and future prospects of probation.

Pages: 69

According to data provided in the most recent World Prison Brief, 16 of the top 50 largest prison populations are housed in prisons across this region, which represents 38.8% of the global prison population. Asia's prison population has increased 38.4% between 2000 and 2021. As we found when we looked at intra-regional differences in prison population trends for other global regions, there was significant variation across sub-regions of Asia, which was highlighted by the authors of the most recent World Prison Population List: Prison population trends since 2000 in Asia have varied greatly between the different parts of the continent: total prisoner numbers in south-eastern Asia and in western Asia (Middle East) rose by 116% and 119% respectively while the total in central Asia fell by 44%. China and India, with their high national populations, strongly influence the overall Asian prison population level, but show contrasting trends: the total prison population in China rose by 18%, and in India by 76%. Excluding these two countries, the Asian prison population rose by 52%. (2021: 18)

Pages: 15

Since early 2000s, China has been building a community correction system to tackle prison overcrowding and high correctional cost while reducing recidivism and facilitating offender reintegration into the community. The central government has enacted laws and regulations to guide all community correction practices. However, since the system was an expansion of the pilot programs first implemented on the local levels, the structure and organization of the community correction agencies maintain considerable variation across jurisdictions although they all operate under the same legal framework and regulatory requirements. Despite all the problems and challenges it has faced, the system has grown rapidly and has achieved promising outcomes in a relatively short period of time. This article provides an overview of the development of community corrections in China and its major characteristics. The overview focuses on the rationale behind the correctional reform, its legal underpinning, its mission and objectives, organizational characteristics, staffing, supervision practices, and potential barriers to developing effective community correctional programs.

Pages: 14

This chapter maps India's approach to community corrections which is largely defined by probation. There are no specific legislations that create provisions for alternatives to sentencing, (except for children under the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015), these have only been passed out by courts using their discretionary powers. Given the colonial influence in India's history, it is relevant to introduce the readers to the developments around probation services in the pre-independence era. It is also important to observe the evolution of correctional services since India gained independence and discuss the passing of the Probation of Offenders Act (1958). Currently, there is limited yet growing knowledge on the use and impact of probation. Increased attention and efforts to revive probation in India and effective community sentencing measures will address issues of overcrowding in prisons and promote rehabilitation of remanded and incarcerated persons.

Pages: 25

Japan's probation system, operating under the Ministry of Justice, has a long history of private-public partnership and voluntarism. This chapter traces that history to the system's present configuration, which centers the role of community volunteers—hogoshi (JP), in reintegrating people into their communities after their release from penal and correctional institutions. The circumstances of adult and juvenile individuals, and the varied conditions of probation and parole, are explained. We chart the increasing role of rehabilitation over time, undergirded by the risk-need-assessment and good lives models. Finally, we look to a future in which a robust system of rehabilitation and repair, founded on neighborly cooperation, leads to a society whose citizens live with dignity and safety.

Pages: 13

The probation system in South Korea is a prominent form of community corrections. The Crime Prevention Policy Bureau (CPPB), operating under the Ministry of Justice, holds the primary authority for overseeing probation services in the country. The CPPB is responsible for a broad range of tasks, including the supervision of probation services, management of community service orders, intervention orders, and pre-sentence investigations. This chapter provides an overview of different types of Korean community corrections and delineates a historical trajectory of probation in South Korea. This chapter also discusses organization and supervision practice, major related laws, and the future prospect of community corrections in South Korea.

Pages: 148

European prisons hold about 13.6% of the global prison population. Eight of the 50 largest prison systems globally are in Europe. Examination of prison population trends in Europe for the period 2000–2021 reveals that Europe is the only global region that has experienced a significant reduction in its prison population (a 27% reduction). However, the authors of the World Prison Brief present a more nuanced assessment of this recent region-wide decline: Europe is the only continent that has seen a fall in its total prison population since 2000. The scale of the decrease is heavily influenced by the figures for the Russian Federation: Russia's prison population is by far the largest in Europe and has fallen by 56%. Excluding the Russian Federation, the prison population in Europe has risen by 5% since 2000. Russia is not the only part of Europe that has seen a large fall in its prison population: prisoner numbers in central and eastern Europe (excluding Russia) have fallen by 49% since 2000. By contrast, there has been growth in the other regions of Europe: 2% in western Europe, 3% in northern Europe and 19% in southern Europe. (2021: 18)

Pages: 24

Since its introduction into legislative provision in the late 19th century, probation in England and Wales has undergone considerable changes in both its organization and the practices underpinning its work with those under its supervision. This is certainly a feature of probation at present in England and Wales as the newly unified Probation Service seeks to re-build and re-assert itself after the failure of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms that split probation services along the lines of risk. In this chapter, the authors trace the key developments that have shaped probation in England and Wales and outline the current organizational structures and staffing before discussing the challenges facing the organization.

Pages: 21

Finland has a long history of probation—its probation service is over 150 years old. Personnel do social work with clients using the desistance paradigm, the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model, and the good lives model (GLM). The profession is defined as criminal justice social work and probation is considered part of the criminal justice chain. The working culture can be described as innovative and client-oriented. Treatment, rehabilitation, programs, interventions, digitalization, and social support are included in client work. Values, attitudes, thinking patterns, and behavior are targeted through the evidence-based practices of probation work. Probation staff promote desistance and engage in change work with clients, supporting them as they serve community sanctions and fulfill the conditions of supervision.

Pages: 21

In France, state probation works with networks of associative partners made up of professionals, not volunteers, with consequently very different professional cultures. State probation merged with the prison services in 1999, which has gradually led to a “penitentiarization” of its professional culture. This has also led to penitentiary gigantism and omnipotence, which is reinforced by the fact that the prison services are in charge of drafting laws that are hardly amended in parliament, as well as directly enacting decrees and circulars. To put it simply: the prison services make the laws and produce them in a way that serves their interests. In recent years, their main objective has been to reduce prison overcrowding by relying on alternative sentences and measures; this has failed, as the prison population continues to grow. Over a few decades, the professional culture of probation officers has changed from social workers (Perrier, 2012) and “assist and advise” to that of legal clerks (de Larminat, 2012) and, more recently, to that of proto-criminologists (Dindo, 2020). Another significant feature of recent years has been the gradual destruction of reentry and supervision judges (in essence problem-solving courts) by reforms written by the prison services, whose aim is to have full control over the implementation of sentences and probation. With the progressive marginalization of these judges, due process has also been sidelined. In its place, bureaucratic and managerial management has replaced the previous alliance between due process, individualization, and rehabilitation. At the same time, the last twenty years have seen a considerable increase in the power of prosecutors, who are now in charge of most felony cases and who allocate them to alternative management procedures. This has also contributed to the marginalization of due process. On a more positive note, some prosecutors use their power to create quasi-problem-solving programs.

Pages: 20

Probation services in the Netherlands are private nonprofit organizations that are fully financed by the national Government and perform three main tasks: advise, supervision, and community services. The focus is on preventing recidivism and supporting people under supervision to live a crime-free life. The organizations have a unique position in the criminal justice system, working with suspects in the pre-trial phase period shortly after their arrest until sentencing and supervising people who spend the last phase of a prison sentence in the community, people convicted to a suspended sentence, and community sentences. Therefore, probation services cooperate with other criminal justice organizations, healthcare, social services, and local authorities to reach its aims. Recently, probation services intensified cooperation with prison staff in prisons in order to improve detention and reintegration plans and offer support during detention. On average, supervision lasts two years. Three levels of intensity can be disseminated that may vary during supervision. Of the legally defined conditions, treatment is the most imposed. People under supervision have a voice in the implementation or decision-making during supervision, e.g., in the procedure around developing supervision plans and in the decision-making process in cases of breach. The proportion of supervision orders that end unsuccessfully is around 25%. About 35% of the people under supervision are convicted for a new offense during or within two years after supervision. Recent developments in the Dutch probation services are a growing victim awareness, more involvement of volunteers during supervision, and intensifying local cooperation.

Pages: 15

The National Probation Service in Romania is a public service that covers both adults and juveniles. The organization is responsible for delivering both traditional probation and parole—conditional release. The system was radically reformed in 2014 when its competencies were significantly enlarged and its place within the criminal justice system was enhanced. As articulated in its mission statement, the main role of the service is to reduce prison overcrowding while improving community safety by rehabilitating individuals. Coordinated by the National Directorate of Probation under the authority of the Ministry of Justice, the Probation Service has local units in each county of the country. The Probation Service in Romania combines its correctional model (risk-need-responsivity or RNR) with monitoring. Especially after the reform in 2014, the number of individuals under probation supervision increased, raising suspicions of net widening. Due to the high caseload, the general perception is that monitoring tends to play a more prevalent role. Increasing professionalization and enhancing capacity are priorities for the coming years.

Pages: 24

In Spain, the execution of alternative sentences and measures—known as community sanctions or community corrections—as well as custodial sentences, is the responsibility of the Prison Administration. Although some sentences or measures may be controlled or supervised by the State Security Forces, the Spanish penitentiary administration is responsible for the execution of most of the sentences and measures imposed in the Spanish criminal justice system. It is a complex criminal enforcement system, but also comprehensive because one system is responsible for both incarceration-based and community-based sentences (Montero & García, 2016). All probation measures common to probation systems around the world can be found in the Spanish penal system, including community work, the suspension of the execution of the sentence, conditional release or parole, and supervised liberty or freedom under telematic control (Aranda Ocaña, 2015; Montero Pérez de Tudela, 2020a, 2020b) . This chapter describes our assessment of the current system of alternative penalties and measures—community corrections—in Spain.

Pages: 21

In Türkiye, the primary goal of crime and punishment policy is to protect all facets of society from criminal activity, to rehabilitate the person who committed the crime, to make them regret their crime, and to help them become a contributing member of society. Probation is a crucial component of modern enforcement systems and has been used for many years in numerous other countries. In the 2000s, Türkiye underwent drastic reforms to enforcement, including the establishment of a probation system under the management of the Ministry of Justice General Directorate of Prisons and Detention Houses. The Probation Department within the General Directorate is the central organization and ensures the regular and efficient operation of each directorate and the protection boards sited in the provinces. In Türkiye, the Probation Department is tasked with overseeing both probation and parole, so references in this chapter to probation encompass both supervision responsibilities. The protection boards in the provincial organization constitute the aid aspect of probation services. Representatives of various institutions and nongovernmental organizations serve on the protection boards. This chapter analyzes probation policy formation and development processes, presenting the current situation in Türkiye and offering the opportunity to make comparisons with systems in other countries.

Pages: 36

The Middle East is a global region that includes at least 17 countries: Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Syrian Arab Republic, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. (see Figure 1). Some researchers also include Turkey in this region, while others include in in Europe; at the request of our country author, we include Turkey in our review of Europe. We recognize that some describe the region as encompassing an even wider geographic area called the “greater Middle East”, which would include Afghanistan, the Comoros, Djbouti, Maghreb, Pakistan, Sudan, and Somalia. We have followed the more commonly used geographic breakdown.

Pages: 34

Israel's criminal justice system differs from that of many other western countries. The two community corrections: probation and parole are separated from one another and work independently. Yet, both are driven by a strong ideology of rehabilitation and reintegration, as described and explained throughout this chapter. The chapter begins with a short historical and correctional context followed by two distinct sections: one for probation and the other for parole. We first review the Israeli version of probation—Sherut Mivhan—and continue to discuss the Israeli version of parole—Prisoners Rehabilitation Authority (PRA). The Israeli probation service provides a host of services aligned with the social welfare ideology of the country; the services are provided under the responsibility of the Ministry of Welfare and Social Affairs, are anchored in the penal code of the country, and are considered as an integral part of the country's criminal justice system. The agency is responsible for the intake, supervision, treatment, and rehabilitation of those suspected of illegal activity, individuals found guilty of a criminal offense, and victims. The Israeli version of parole is tasked with the re-entry and reintegration of criminal incarcerated individuals (i.e., different from national security prisoners not discussed in this chapter) after their release from incarceration. Accordingly, this chapter on the Israeli parole section discusses the release from prison/Re-entry and the reintegration initiatives through PRA programs, PRA organizational structure, and PRA activities in the community, including PRA and COVID-19. We conclude with a summary that emerges from our discussion according to which the Israeli ideology and approach to community corrections is that of rehabilitation and reintegration of those who broke the law; and that the Israeli society, regardless of the crimes committed, considers individuals found guilty of a criminal offense as part of the community, and society is vested in their full integration and participation, although such ideology may not always be reflected in reality.

Pages: 131

The United States, Canada, and Mexico represent the North America region. The United States has the distinction of having the largest correctional population in the world, both in terms of number of people incarcerated and on community supervision with the highest per capita rate of using the correctional system. Missing from this collection in the North American region is Mexico which has the 9th largest prison population and an unknown size of the community corrections system (see Chapter 25 in this collection).

Pages: 15

Corrections in Canada are divided into two separate systems: the federal correctional system and the provincial/territorial correctional systems as outlined by the Criminal Code of Canada. Adults (age 18 and older) who are sentenced to custodial terms of two years or greater are under the responsibility of the federal system. Correctional Services Canada administers federal sentences, including any community supervision. For adults in the federal system, community supervision is almost always a part of their sentence. These individuals may be granted parole by the Parole Board of Canada after having served one-third of their custodial sentence or, on Statutory Release; a presumptive release after serving two-thirds of their custodial sentence. For adults who are sentenced to custodial terms of less than two years, periods of probation, and other types of sentences, the correctional systems of the province or territory are responsible for administering these sentences. The provinces and territories are also responsible for all justice-involved youth (aged 13–17), governed by Youth Criminal Justice Act, a federal statue. Adults involved in provincial and territorial corrections are governed by the Criminal Code of Canada and the Prisons and Reformatory Act. Community supervision in Canada, regardless of whether it is federal, provincial, or territorial, is more similar than different, with the greatest differences noted between the federal system and the provincial/territorial systems. Virtually all of Canada's correctional system have been influenced by the Risk-Need-Responsivity model, routinely use risk-needs assessments and community supervision focusses on addressing criminogenic needs and typically employ community agencies to provide treatment and other rehabilitative services. The special case of “change agent” community corrections in British Columbia, one Canadian province, is described as it has successfully implemented and integrated a variety of evidence-based practices.

Pages: 33

The correctional system in California, U.S.A. is one of the largest in the world, responsible for nearly 300,000 people on community-based forms of supervision. Probation and parole agencies in California are tasked with promoting a client-centered post-conviction experience aimed at addressing underlying needs through service referrals and monitoring and compliance activities to ensure successful completion of supervision. In this chapter, we will describe the adult community-based supervision system of probation and parole in the state of California, including its history, legislation, organizational structure, and implementation of community corrections reforms in risk/need classification, supervision, treatment, and control of individuals placed in this state's community corrections system. The use of technology and other innovations are also discussed.

Pages: 17

With 191,739 people serving felony probation or parole sentences, Georgia has the largest supervision population in the United States. In Georgia, one in 23 adults is under some form of community supervision, compared with the U.S. national average of one in 66. This chapter describes the history and development of the Georgia Department of Community Supervision and details the state's Person-Centered Supervision model and its use of technology, evidence-based principles, and data to enhance the effectiveness of probation and parole to address criminogenic drivers and reduce recidivism.

Pages: 16

This chapter provides an overview of probation in Florida, United States. In Florida, there are two unique probation systems—the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC) that oversees the supervision of those convicted of felonies and county-level probation responsible for those convicted of misdemeanor offenses. To start, we provide an overview of key statutes that impact how probation is delivered across the state. Next, we provide an overview of felony probation, including a discussion of the qualifications and duties of probation officers, various probation types, admission statistics, and available programming options. Finally, we provide a comprehensive overview of county-level misdemeanor probation, specifically focusing on Seminole County Sheriff's Office Adult Probation and Pretrial Diversion.

Pages: 25

The community corrections system in the state of Massachusetts is constituted by the work of two state agencies—the Massachusetts Probation Service, mainly supervising cases in the community and as an alternative to incarceration, and the Massachusetts Parole Board, responsible for post-incarceration supervision. This chapter provides profiles of both, with information provided by the respective agencies, including communiques from agency leadership and interviews with key administrators. The information is supplemented by statistical reports and other agency-related documents. It describes existing programs to reduce recidivism and support the reentry of formerly incarcerated individuals into their communities.

Pages: 21

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is a unique part of the United States in which to examine the structure and changing policies of community corrections. With a large population, varied geographic regions and demographic profiles, and statutes that differ markedly from comparable states, the approach taken to community supervision in Pennsylvania is unlike virtually any other in America. The following chapter examines this distinctive setting with a particular focus on changes wrought by the coronavirus pandemic, and how the numbers of offenders under non-institutional supervision have changed in recent years. In particular, the impacts of a concerted statewide effort to reduce the size of its incarcerated population on how community supervision is now administered are discussed. The chapter concludes with a summary and set of recommendations emanating from a number of observers both inside and external to Pennsylvania, and provides a template for how a new gubernatorial administration could approach probation, parole, and other aspects of community corrections going forward.

Pages: 36

11.2% of the global prison population is in South America (1,272,338). Six of the world's largest prison systems are in this region: Brazil (ranked 3 of 50), Argentina (15), Columbia (18), Peru (22), Venezuela (35), and Chile (43). Brazil's prison population has seen significant population increases since 2000; it is the largest prison system in South America; 40% of the 835,643 individuals incarcerated in Brazil are in pre-trial detention. The entire region has experienced exponential growth in the prison population from 2000–2021, with a 200% increase reported in the latest World Prison Population List.

Pages: 14

This chapter looks at strategies currently pursued in the Colombian justice system for preventing or reducing system involvement in the context of a country where grave human rights violations are common in the treatment of its incarcerated population, yet which remains devoted, at the political level, to a punitive model of corrections. Existing non-prison sanctions in use in the three branches of corrections—the police (diversion measures), courts (specialized courts, the primary example in Colombia being the juvenile justice system), and prisons (community corrections) are reviewed. Issues plaguing the system in its current configuration, most notably, the overburdening of judges charged with duties usually reserved for probation and parole officers, are examined. The authors call for a full systems analysis and the creation of new institutions and services to overhaul the existing system and orient it toward a community-based, reparative model that will better serve the citizenry.

Pages: 20

During the past two decades, Chile has enacted several laws and guidelines aimed at reforming and modernizing its criminal justice system, including expanding the use of non-custodial sanctions and reforming the use of parole. Today, most individuals under criminal justice supervision in Chile are serving non-custodial sentences surpassing the number of individuals serving prison sanctions, and only a small fraction are released from prison under parole. In this chapter, we provide an overview of the reforms and the use of alternatives to incarceration in Chile, exploring the main trends and particularities of each non-custodial sanction and parole. To achieve this goal, we describe the main features of Gendarmería, the agency in charge of all adults’ sanctions in Chile. In addition, we describe the outcomes of each non-custodial sentence and parole, focusing on the recidivism rates found in Gendarmería's reports and academic research. We conclude by suggesting future research areas to better understand and evaluate the use of non-custodial sanctions and parole in Chile.

Pages: 39

The Oceanic region is comprised of the following countries: Australia, New Zealand, Papa New Guinea, French Polynesia, Fiji, Solomon Islands, and Somoa. We have included chapters describing the community corrections systems of the two largest countries in this region, Australia and New Zealand.

Pages: 21

This chapter provides a brief historical and contemporary overview of probation in Australia. It discusses the terminology applied to community-based supervision and the adoption of the term community corrections, as well as the changing role of probation officers, or community corrections officers, as they are now commonly known in Australia. It outlines the various community corrections dispositions in different states. While there are differences in some of the sentencing and supervisory policy and practices of community-based corrections across states, the legislation and organizational structures of community correctional organizations are quite similar across jurisdictions in Australia. The chapter uses the largest state New South Wales (NSW) as a case example to provide more detail on the specific workings of community corrections in Australia. The chapter then takes a similar approach to discussing youth justice in the various states and in NSW. The goal of this chapter is to provide a succinct and contemporary overview of community corrections in Australia.

Pages: 16

Aotearoa New Zealand has a single national correctional system—Ara Poutama Aotearoa (the Department of Corrections)—within which a workforce of probation officers provides sentence oversight for people both on probation supervision (community sentences) and post-imprisonment oversight (“parole”). Probation Officers also assess individuals in order to provide advice to the criminal courts on sentencing options, variations in existing sentences, and sentence non-compliance-related prosecutions. Finally, they contribute to pre-release assessments that support the decision-making of the New Zealand Parole Board. Parole Board decisions determine both when some prisoners will be released—those eligible for early release, and those on indeterminate sentences—and the conditions of the post-release supervision for a larger group of prisoners who have reached mandatory release dates. But much of the work of probation officers is in managing sentences. New Zealand has a hierarchy of relevant community sentences, from intensive forms of supervision for people at high risk of serious crime, electronic monitoring, and home detention through to community work. Most sentences, and probation officers’ roles more generally, encompass a monitoring and compliance component and a rehabilitation/desistance support component, guided by the Risk-Need-Responsivity model, and associated tools for assessing changes in risks, needs and protective factors. The majority of people serving community and custodial sentences in New Zealand are non-European; more than half are indigenous New Zealand Māori. The current strategic plan of Ara Poutama Aotearoa—Hōkai Rangi—focuses intensively on initiatives and innovations to reduce the proportion of Māori caught up in the system. Challenges associated with the COVID pandemic have slowed progress, but a number of new programs underway—if their potential is realized—could transform practice over the next few years, by focusing more on holistic wellbeing and building partnerships with indigenous communities.

Pages: 138

No chapter abstract available.

Pages: 22

In this chapter, we provide an estimate of the number of individuals placed under correctional control globally based on data collected through the global community corrections initiative www.globcci.org. Using all available country-level data, our total corrections population estimates include individuals placed in carceral settings and community corrections. We offer the following assessment: the size of the global corrections population is currently close to 24 million, with 11.5 million people in the prison system (i.e., 48% of the estimated total) and 12.5 million individuals in the community corrections system (52% of the estimated total corrections population). We also collected and analyzed available country-level data on the performance of the community corrections systems in the 20 countries included in this Handbook. Four measures of the performance of community corrections were reviewed: completion of probation and parole terms without incident, revocations, rearrest/reconviction while under supervision, and return to prison. Using these four measures, intraregional and interregional variation in the performance of community corrections systems was identified. While the current state of evaluation research assessing the effectiveness of these community corrections systems can be characterized as poor, the results of our preliminary review are revealing, and provide additional support for the development of a global community corrections database with a wide range of performance measures.

Pages: 10

This chapter provides an in‐depth exploration of the global structure of community corrections, highlighting the diversity in the organization and delivery of probation and parole services across different jurisdictions. It discusses the variety of community corrections components, such as pretrial supervision, probation, parole, and electronic monitoring, and how these are implemented differently in various countries. This chapter also delves into the mission and vision of community correction organizations, emphasizing their roles in rehabilitation, public protection, and offering alternatives to custody. Furthermore, it examines the typologies of probation services and their organization, ranging from combined prison and probation services to independent NGOs and county‐level organizations. Finally, the chapter reflects on the impact of organizational structures on the effectiveness of community corrections, suggesting that more research is needed to understand which models best serve public interest and supervision outcomes.

Pages: 30

Rehabilitation-type programs are frequently associated with supervision services. In this chapter, we detail the variety of rehabilitative programs, interventions, or services that may be offered. Often, these are included in special conditions or general requirements of supervision. Some programs or services are offered by supervision staff (officers) or clinical staff that are employed by the supervision agency, another government agency, or a nongovernmental agency. This chapter outlines the evidence-based programs and interventions that exist. As few countries can describe the services or programs that they offer, we focus on the range of potential services or programs. We pay special attention to efforts to have officers deliver evidence-based treatments and practices in terms of how these enhance the working relationship between officers and people under supervision.

Pages: 26

Compliance is a major issue in community corrections given that noncompliance with the obligations—such as standard conditions or special conditions—can result in further liberty restrictions including incarceration. Few countries can describe their processes for dealing with compliance issues—either to incentive positive behavior or to sanction negative behavior. This chapter identifies several strategies that are used to address compliance-related issues. Many of the examples come from the United States, where revocations from supervision contributed to mass incarceration. Lessons from the United States suggest that managing compliance is one of the most challenging aspects in supervising individuals in the community. This is an area that requires more development from community correction organizations across the globe.

Pages: 16

The use of technology in community corrections has been steadily advancing for over 50 years. It has expanded in geographic coverage to nearly every region across the world, been adopted for use at all stages of the criminal legal system, and new technologies continue to be brought to market for the purpose of monitoring justice-involved people under community supervision. In this chapter, we provide a brief overview of the use of technology in a selection of the community corrections systems included in this volume. Across these systems, electronic monitoring (EM) is particularly common in both probation and parole systems. We use EM as a case study to illustrate how technologies develop, proliferate, and adapt for use within community corrections systems around the world. We conclude by discussing the ethics of EM use and its broader implications for the implementation of new technologies in community corrections.

Pages: 15

The country profiles included in this Handbook offer a rare look into the operations of 23 community corrections systems around the world. These profiles highlight the multifaceted composition of community corrections systems, revealing that many rely on nongovernmental entities to function. This chapter classifies these entities by type, relationship with the state, and services provided. Three types of entities are most prominent: (1) individual community members, (2) community associations and nonprofit organizations, and (3) private for-profit corporations. Some are almost entirely state-run while others operate with significant autonomy. They offer a blend of support (e.g., treatment, mentorship/friendship) and surveillance services (e.g., electronic monitoring, volunteer supervision), with some specializing in one or the other. Creating a typology of these entities reveals two key findings: (1) more robust organizational structures are associated with greater autonomy from the state and (2) entities with the most sophisticated structures (private corporations) are unique in their provision of strictly surveillance-oriented services. Both findings have implications for the legitimacy of the community corrections system, as the role of the state shrinks proportionately with the growth of nongovernmental entity responsibility.

Pages: 17

Our review of how community corrections systems are structured, implemented, and evaluated in 20 different countries around the world highlights both the similarities and differences in these systems, which we examine in six analytic chapters included in Section 2 of this Handbook. Our analyses produce insights regarding the size, composition, and goals of community corrections systems. They reveal difficulties faced by policymakers, practitioners, and researchers alike, such as lack of routinely collected and/or publicly available data. Almost universally, there is a failure to recognize probation as an entity that serves a specific purpose, not just an entity in lieu of prison. As community corrections expands and evolves around the world, such difficulties will continue to impact these systems and those within them. Thus, we offer four Grand Challenges for community corrections—aspirational goals that are difficult to achieve, inspire, and demand collective efforts and cooperation: (1) establish community corrections as a standalone sanction focused on desistance and rehabilitation, (2) support desistance-focused community corrections through relationship-building, culture change, and community support, (3) promote fair and just treatment for individuals on supervision and those who work in the field of community corrections, and (4) invest in individuals, families, communities, and community corrections to foster desistance and rehabilitation. These grand challenges are set forth to galvanize the global community to strengthen community corrections to serve a clear sentencing purpose.