Community Supervision and Employment

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221112565
• Published date: 01 May 2022
• Date: 01 May 2022
• Subject Matter: Overcoming Barriers to Living-Wage Employment

ANNALS, AAPSS, 701, May 2022 61

DOI: 10.1177/00027162221112565

Community

Supervision and

Employment

By

JESSE CAPECE

1112565ANN THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMYCOMMUNITY SUPERVISION AND EMPLOYMENT

research-article2022

Evidence suggests that steady employment is a key

component in reducing the likelihood that people

under community supervision will return to prison.

Largely unexplored, however, is the extent to which

employment outcomes and self-perceptions of employ-

ability among people under community supervision are

affected by stipulations mandated upon release from

prison. These stipulations include measures like visits

with a probation office, court appearances, or drug and

mental health treatments. This article review research

on the relationship between the stipulations of com-

munity supervision and employment outcomes. It pre-

sents evidence from a new study that explores

relationships between release stipulations, probation

officer support, feelings of employability, and employ-

ment outcomes. The new evidence suggests that there

is a negative relationship between community supervi-

sion and employment outcomes and perceptions of

employability. I argue for alternative policies that could

productively reshape community supervision.

Keywords: reentry; probation; employment; employ-

ability; incarceration

Introduction

After Charles was released from prison, his

brother helped him get a job with a painting

contractor. Charles was excited; summer was

coming, and the contractor had many houses to

paint during the warm months. Charles knew,

however, that his probation required much of

him. Each week, he had to meet with his proba-

tion officer. Twice a month, he had to physically

appear in court to pay the various court fees,

restitution, and back child support he owed.

Jesse Capece is an associate professor at the Rhode

Island College School of Social Work. His research

explores how community supervision impacts the

employment opportunities of people who have been

incarcerated. Prior to working in academia, Dr. Capece

worked as a direct practitioner in Providence, RI, serv-

ing people who were or had been in prison.

Correspondence: jcapece@ric.edu

62 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Charles was also mandated to weekly mental health counseling; and because he

had marijuana in his pocket when he was arrested, he was sentenced to an out-

patient drug treatment program that met weekly. The drug possession charge

also made Charles eligible for random drug tests. Since missing any of these

engagements could have landed Charles back in prison, he disclosed his situation

to his new employer. Discouraged, the employer said he needed people who

could show up all day, every day, and without interruption. The contractor told

Charles that he would not hire him after all.

Charles’s story comes from my time as a social worker, when I worked in direct

service with people who were incarcerated. In many ways, Charles’ experience

was not unique. Most of the almost five million people on probation or parole in

the United States (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2020) must attend a host of man-

dated appointments. These can include regular meetings with probation or

parole officers; court appearances to pay fees, restitution, child support, and/or

arrearages; substance use treatment; mental health counseling; and participation

in specialized counseling (like domestic violence or anger management). Failure

to adhere to this constellation of stipulations can lead to a probation/parole viola-

tion and, as a result, a return to prison. Yet for many people like Charles, these

stipulations can interfere with the ability to find or keep a job.

This article reviews research on this understudied but critical issue: the rela-

tionship between the stipulations of community supervision and employment

outcomes. Since little evidence suggests that extensive stipulations reduce recidi-

vism, I formulate alternative policy recommendations to productively reshape

community supervision.

Supervision, Stipulations, and Employment

Of the nearly two million people incarcerated in the United States, an estimated

97 percent will be released (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2020). The vast majority

of these individuals will transfer immediately to either probation—where some-

one is mandated to additional community supervision following a prison sen-

tence); or parole—where someone leaves prison early and finishes their prison

sentence outside of the physical building (they may then transition to probation).

They will join the 3.6 million people already on probation—some of whom were

sentenced directly to probation without ever being incarcerated—or the 875,000

people already on parole (Pew Charitable Trusts 2018).

The ostensible purpose of this expansive system of supervision is to keep peo-

ple out of brick-and-mortar prison facilities. Community supervision aims to pre-

vent recidivism by helping individuals thrive in their community—a simple goal,

but one that can contain several objectives. As a result, community supervision

often involves many mandates, each of which theoretically contributes to the indi-

vidual’s ability to thrive. Someone who struggles with a substance use disorder, for

example, may be mandated to drug treatment; someone living with mental health

disruptions may be mandated to therapy or treatment; someone who has