One Size Fits None:

How ‘standard conditions’ of probation set people up to fail

Courts and probation agencies impose a standard set of rules on everyone under their supervision, before tacking on any extra restrictions. Our national review finds these mandatory rules are often unnecessarily burdensome and incredibly vague, making it all too easy to “fail” at probation and land behind bars.

By Emily Widra    Tweet this
October 2024
Press release

Table of Contents
Methodology
The basics of probation
50-state analysis of probation conditions
Financial burdens
Employment requirements
Movement and travel restrictions
Association and relationship restrictions
Searches
Other discriminatory rules
Vague conditions
Disproportionate impact on the already-marginalized
Substance use disorders and mental health
Race and ethnicity
Unstable housing
Poverty
Unstable housing and homelessness
Conclusion and recommendations
Appendix Tables
Standard probation conditions
Probation fees in standard conditions

More than 1 in 10 people admitted to state prisons every year have committed no new crime, but have simply broken one or more of the many conditions, or rules, of their probation. All of this unnecessary incarceration is the predictable result of widely-adopted probation conditions that are so vaguely defined, so burdensome, and so rigidly applied that they actually broaden the scope of what counts as “recidivism.” Through these conditions, courts and probation authorities create punishable offenses that go far beyond criminal law, setting people up to fail. And because the vast majority of people under correctional control are on probation — 2.9 million people,1 far surpassing the 1.9 million people incarcerated — these trap-like conditions make probation a major driver of mass incarceration, not the “alternative” it’s supposed to be.

Shrinking the massive probation system — and the number of people incarcerated from community supervision — is central to ending mass incarceration. Doing so requires challenging existing “standard conditions” that (a) are often in conflict with one another, (b) exacerbate the challenges people on probation are already facing, and (c) empower probation officers — rather than courts — to make subjective decisions that can lead to revocation and incarceration. Examining these conditions clarifies why probation often functions as an on-ramp to incarceration instead of an alternative, and can help advocates and policymakers reorient probation systems away from incarceration.

Unfortunately, standard probation conditions are often difficult to locate and parse, vary between jurisdictions, and use complicated and unclear language, so to aid in this effort, we collected and analyzed the standard conditions for 76 jurisdictions across all 50 states and Washington, D.C., creating one of the most comprehensive compilations of these rules to date.


Methodology

Our study builds upon the foundational work of legal scholars Professor Fiona Doherty and Professor Kate Weisburd. We adopted much of the methodology and analytical approach from Professor Doherty’s 2016 publication, “Obey All Laws and Be Good: Probation and the Meaning of Recidivism.” Professor Doherty analyzed standard probation conditions in 15 states, focusing on the ways in which the most common standard conditions — like “obey the law” (with no distinction between civil and criminal law), “be good” (i.e., be a “good citizen” or “conduct oneself properly”), and “avoid injurious or vicious habits” (with no definition of such terms) — all expand the discretionary power of probation officers and pave the way for technical violations and subsequent revocations. As Professor Doherty explains, standard probation conditions “make a wide variety of noncriminal conduct punishable with criminal sanctions” and “construct a definition of recidivism that contributes to overcriminalization.”

Professor Weisburd’s 2023 publication, “Carceral Control: A Nationwide Survey of Criminal Court Supervision Rules,” provides an analysis of the rules of criminal court supervision in all 50 states. Her study focuses on the ways that supervision rules limit and restrict privacy, bodily autonomy, and more across various systems of court supervision including probation, parole, electronic monitoring, and programs focused on domestic violence, mental health, sex offenses, and DUIs. At the heart of Professor Weisburd’s analysis is the implication that supervision is another form of carceral control: “criminal court control is often not a true alternative to incarceration, but rather an alternative form of incarceration.”

To see just how widespread these vague moral mandates and impossible requirements are within probation systems, and to create a fuller catalog of probation conditions in every state for further study, we collected standard probation conditions from 76 jurisdictions from courts, probation agencies, and departments of corrections.2 We collected these documents from agency websites and through direct requests when we were unable to locate publicly-available information. Our sample includes standard conditions from all 50 states and Washington, D.C. However, not all states have a single set of statewide standard conditions. In states where conditions vary by city or county, collecting documents from every jurisdiction was not feasible, so we set a more modest goal of collecting standard conditions from at least two counties3 in each of those states (and when possible, we used standard conditions from the most populous counties in the state).4

Read the entire methodology



The basics of probation and technical violations

pie chart showing that probation accounts for the majority of people under correction control

In prior work on probation and parole, we’ve focused on some specific, difficult-to-satisfy supervision conditions — like securing employment, paying relentless fees, and restrictions on whom people can be in contact with — as examples of why supervision too often results in incarceration for noncriminal or “technical” violations.5 These conditions are exactly what set people up to fail on probation: With so many rules and regulations — many having little to do with underlying offenses or individual needs — inadvertent and minor violations are almost inevitable.6 Probation authorities often respond to violations by doubling down, intensifying supervision by adding rules or raising the stakes of noncompliance, making it even harder to succeed.

Probation conditions fall into two general categories:

  • Standard, general, or mandatory conditions are rules (often defined in statute) that every person on probation in a given jurisdiction are expected to follow.7 In this report, as in almost all jurisdictions, we refer to these as “standard conditions.”
  • Discretionary or special conditions are imposed on top of the standard conditions. These are determined at the discretion of the court and/or probation officer and many state statutes allow for a wide breadth of special conditions, including particularly outrageous conditions. For example, judges in Indiana, Wisconsin, and Texas have ordered people on probation to not have children as a condition of their community supervision.8

“Technical” violations occur when probation officers file a formal “violation of probation” with the court for behaviors that break probation conditions, such as missing curfew, failing a drug test, or missing a check-in meeting; they are behaviors that only count as lawbreaking for people under community supervision.9 Following formal violations, probation officers make a recommendation to the court to either revoke or continue a person’s probation (with or without additional time and/or conditions).10 Most often, revocation is recommended after multiple violations, but as we explain below, these can quickly stack up because the conditions themselves make it hard to comply. Ultimately, a judge makes the final decision, and when someone’s probation is revoked, they are most often incarcerated in jail or prison.11 This happens a lot: in 2022, less than half of people (46%)12 who “exited” probation did so after successfully completing their supervision terms. The rest came off supervision for other reasons, like revocations, and more than 150,000 people were incarcerated in a jail or prison while serving their probation sentences.

Probation conditions vary within states

The standard rules of probation can differ between counties or by offense level.

In some states, probation standards differ between counties or by offense level. Probation systems operate at either the state or local (city or county) level. But since conditions are typically set by the state court system or judiciary, even where probation is administered by the city or county, a single set of standard conditions are often used statewide (e.g., Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, and South Dakota). In states with centralized probation systems, standard conditions are statewide and set by the state Department of Corrections (e.g., New Mexico) or written in statute (e.g., Michigan, Hawaii, Montana, and Rhode Island). In our research, we identified at least 11 states that have distinct standard conditions from county to county: California, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas. In most of these states, we located standard conditions for at least two of the most populous counties.

The conditions of probation can also vary depending on the offense level: felony versus misdemeanor, especially where felony and misdemeanor probation are overseen by different agencies. For example, the standard conditions published by the Kentucky Department of Corrections are specific to community supervision for felony offenses. Meanwhile, in other jurisdictions, the standard probation conditions apply explicitly to both misdemeanor and felony probation (e.g., Illinois, Hawaii, and Porter County, Indiana). In some places, it is unclear in the documents outlining conditions whether they apply to both felony and misdemeanor probation (e.g., Arizona, North Carolina, and Oregon).

Understanding just which disparate systems govern probation supervision in a given state, county, or city is crucial to identifying where and how to address the overuse of probation and the restrictive and unnecessary standard probation conditions that do nothing to address public safety.

Revocation is not the only harmful outcome of imposing such burdensome conditions and focusing on violations. Other punishments short of revocation, including “graduated sanctions” — like “flash incarceration” or electronic monitoring — are very damaging in their own right. Moreover, the constant implied threat of being taken away from family and community for noncriminal behavior can impart a significant emotional toll, whether or not an individual actually ever faces revocation. Family members and loved ones are also directly impacted by both the conditions of probation — which often undermine family and social relationships — and the threat of revocation and incarceration of their loved one.13 As we discuss in our recommendations, fewer, clearer rules should be coupled with other measures geared toward holistically supporting and encouraging people toward success without the threat of incarceration looming around every corner.


50 state analysis: Probation conditions expand carceral control

Probation is often described as an “alternative” to incarceration, and many conditions even frame probation as a privilege that’s been granted in lieu of incarceration in a jail or prison.14 But this “privilege” comes with such a long list of requirements that it’s hard to imagine anyone completing their probation sentence without an infraction that could lead to incarceration. Across all jurisdictions, we found evidence of some concerning patterns in standard probation conditions:

  • Standard conditions tend to be counterproductive and burdensome. These conditions impose on almost every aspect of people’s day-to-day lives, often restricting their access to support systems and employment opportunities, ultimately increasing the likelihood of “failing” probation.
  • Many conditions expand the definition of criminal conduct far beyond criminal law. More everyday behaviors — that people who aren’t on probation engage in frequently — are criminalized. The violation of most standard conditions would not constitute the breaking of a criminal law, but is still considered a form of recidivism that can lead to sanctions, including incarceration.15
  • The discretionary nature of most standard conditions expands the authority of probation agencies and officers. The use of broad, poorly-defined standard conditions shifts the power to make important decisions away from the courts and into the hands of probation staff who determine whether violations have occurred and how to respond to those violations.
  • Standard probation conditions have a disparate impact on marginalized people and their families. People on probation have higher rates of physical and mental health conditions, higher rates of unemployment and poverty, lower educational attainment, and are disproportionately people of color. Imposing additional inflexible and often irrelevant conditions on people facing significant challenges in supporting themselves and their families inevitably complicates their efforts to “succeed” at probation.

Financial burdens

Probation imposes significant financial burdens through standard conditions. People on probation are expected to pay a number of fees and expenses while, at the same time, other conditions of their probation limit their employment and income opportunities. Because over half of people on probation have annual incomes below $20,000, recurring fees can quickly become unaffordable or impossible to pay.16 In our sample, 65 jurisdictions require financial obligations — including fines, fees, restitution, and monthly supervision fees — in their standard probation conditions;17 we highlight the most common types below.

Probation supervision fees: People on probation in most states are expected to financially contribute to their own supervision. These pervasive probation “user” fees are often monthly obligations and can cost people hundreds of dollars a year. In our sample, 34 jurisdictions18 require supervision fees with the cost of probation supervision for twelve months ranging from $170 to $917.19

bar chart showing the number of jurisdictions in our sample with financial standard probation condtions and the number of jurisdictions with probation fees, by cost for 12 months of supervision For the underlying data on jurisdictions with probation fees required in standard probation conditions, see Appendix Table 2.

Dependent support: More than thirty jurisdictions in our sample mandate the financial support of legal dependents in standard conditions.20 Many (64%) of these conditions are framed as rigid mandates and only 12 offer the probation officer the discretion to determine if an individual is meeting their financial obligations to the “best of [their] ability” or making a “very reasonable effort” to support their dependents. While most conditions stipulate that people on probation must support dependents, 11 jurisdictions added a clause requiring people to meet their “family responsibilities,” “family obligations,” or “[their] share of household expenses.” Marion County, Indiana takes this a step further, including a clause requiring “establishing paternity if not done previously.” These conditions impose additional expenses, but even more so, serve as fodder for future revocations: a probation officer could use someone’s inability to make child support payments as grounds for revocation, regardless of their financial constraints or the fact that family support has little or nothing to do with why they are on probation in the first place.

Drug test expenses: Forty-seven jurisdictions (62%) have conditions requiring drug or alcohol testing, and almost a third (30%) of those jurisdictions explicitly state that the person on probation is responsible for the costs of those tests.21 Drug testing can be ordered as often as three times a week, and the average cost of these tests is between $15 and $20 per test. By definition, where testing appears in the standard conditions, everyone on probation is subject to these tests regardless of whether their underlying offense involved drugs.22


Employment and workplace conditions

Almost every jurisdiction includes a condition regarding employment or education expectations for people on probation, but these conditions are often in conflict with others, making compliance harder to navigate successfully.

Mandatory full-time employment or study: More than 80% of the jurisdictions (62) have conditions regarding employment or the pursuit of “a course of study or vocational training,” with 27 of those jurisdictions requiring employment or education, seemingly without exception. Full-time employment may be out of reach for many people on probation. People with criminal legal system involvement report alarmingly high rates of unemployment: in 2022, more than half (51%) of people who were on probation in the past twelve months did not have full-time employment.23 At the same time that they are expected to work, people on probation are also expected to attend meetings with their probation officers and treatment programs, which can seriously limit the number of hours they have available to seek and maintain full-time employment.

Moreover, these conditions leave little room for flexibility to meet individual needs, such as child- or elder care. In one unique case, the conditions in Idaho include: “I will seek and maintain employment, or a program, including being a stay-at-home parent, approved by my PPO.” No other policy we found covered stay-at-home parenting or expanded the clause beyond three approved categories: full-time employment, full-time education, or vocational training.

Informing employers of probation status: Even when there are job opportunities for people on probation, the standard conditions often impede the process of seeking employment. In some places, people on probation are required to disclose their probation status to prospective and current employers: in both New Hampshire and South Dakota, the standard conditions state that people on probation must notify their employer of their supervision status, with an additional clause in South Dakota requiring disclosure of “the nature of your crime.” In a job market already stacked against those with criminal convictions, these disclosures can hurt the chances of workers and job-seekers who are on probation.

Unannounced visits from probation officers — even at work: Most (62%) jurisdictions in our sample include a standard condition regarding unannounced probation officer visits. These are often blanket statements requiring the person on probation to allow visits from a probation officer at any time and any place — including their place of employment. Professor Weisburd describes this as the process by which the “workplace is … transformed into a surveilled space.” Again, these workplace visits impede compliance with other conditions that require full-time employment: Professor Doherty points out that workplace visits could easily “damage a probationer’s standing at work for the security of her position,” especially in situations where employees have little schedule flexibility or where employers are uncomfortable with these intrusions.

Other types of restrictions limit work and education opportunities as well, such as rules dictating where people on probation can go and with whom they can “associate,” which we discuss in more detail in the next sections. For example, many jobs are off-limits because they require irregular or short-notice out-of-county travel, such as catering or driving a delivery truck, or because they are in places that serve alcohol.24 In Cuyahoga County, Ohio, people on probation are prohibited from “any job caring for the elderly, children, or mentally disabled without the permission of the Judge or Probation Department,” severely limiting the employment options for people with experience working in those fields (nurses, caregivers, janitorial jobs in hospitals, nursing homes, or schools).25 And a particularly tricky situation may arise when the standard conditions prohibit “association” with other people with criminal convictions, because employers who are willing to hire someone on probation may also hire other people with past convictions — so taking a job can mean inadvertently violating an association restriction every day at work.


Movement and travel restrictions

bar chart showing number of jurisdictions in our sample with different types of movement restricting standard probation conditions

Almost all jurisdictions we studied (74) restrict where people on probation can go, with more than half prohibiting people from leaving their “community,”26 county27 or district,28 or “region of residence”29 without a probation officer’s permission. More than half of the jurisdictions (57%) explicitly prohibit out-of-state travel without prior authorization from the court or the probation agency; 35 jurisdictions prohibit travel outside an even a smaller geographic area like a county, city, or “adjoining counties.” In three jurisdictions, the court itself (as opposed to a probation officer) must grant permission to leave the state. While this does limit the discretion of the probation officer, it simply pushes the discretionary decision further up the chain, and complicates the process for obtaining permission to leave the state.

A particularly concerning consequence of movement restrictions is the limited access to abortion care: as we recently found, 82% of women on probation live in states that ban abortion or restrict it based on gestational age. Women on probation in these states must get probation authority approval to travel out of state for this medical care, which is not guaranteed and can be accompanied by multiple delays.30 And in jurisdictions with restrictive abortion laws and standard conditions requiring court approval to travel out of state — including West Virginia and counties in Indiana in our sample — we can assume that courts will not grant travel permits to people on probation for abortion care (West Virginia and Indiana have total bans on abortion).

map of U.S. states showing hte number of women on probation living in each state that has abortion bans and standard conditions that restrict interstate travel The vast majority of states have some kind of abortion ban as well as standard conditions of probation that restrict interstate travel. See our June 2024 briefing for more details, data notes, and sourcing: Two years after the end of Roe v. Wade, most women on probation and parole have to ask permission to travel for abortion care.

Curfews: Seven jurisdictions in our sample explicitly mention curfews in their probation conditions, and all of these leave full decision-making about curfews to the probation officer. Restricting the hours during which someone can be outside of their house limits their opportunities to seek and maintain employment, attend supervised visits with children, care for family members, participate in treatment programs, and more. While the exact curfew hours are not specified in the standard conditions we reviewed, curfew conditions enable probation officers to exert more unchecked control over the lives of people they supervise.

In addition, many standard conditions require people on probation to either notify or receive advance permission from probation staff to change their residence31 or even spend a night away from home.32 They often state that these notifications must happen immediately,33 while others specify a brief time period in which the probation officer must be notified.34 When no reporting timeline is defined in the standard conditions, probation officers are again granted the authority to determine if the person notified them “immediately” or delayed too long, warranting a technical violation.

Prohibiting certain establishments: Standard conditions barring individuals from certain establishments (any place selling alcohol or where drugs may be used) impose another, often unnecessary, restriction on the movement of people on probation. For those who do not have current or past problems with drugs or alcohol, these restrictions have no relevance to their criminal legal status and needlessly limit the places they can work and socialize. Moreover, where these conditions exist, entering a place as innocuous — and, in fact, often necessary for finding employment — as a public library could hypothetically result in a violation: In a 2018-2019 survey of public libraries across five states, researchers found that 45% of libraries reported on-site drug or alcohol use in the past month, and 12% of libraries reported an on-site drug overdose in the prior year. Public libraries can be particularly important places for people on probation: they often offer free job and career services like job fairs, trainings, and advertising, as well as free access to computers and the internet. These blanket conditions about where people can and cannot go place an undue, and often impossible, burden on the person on probation.

Electronic monitoring (EM): While no standard conditions in our sample included mandates about electronic monitoring (EM),35 we know that people on probation are often subjected to EM in the form of ankle monitors and other surveillance devices that track and record their movements and behaviors. In The Case Against E-carceration, authors James Kilgore, Emmett Sanders, and Professor Weisburd explain that EM services are a tool to restrict and control people: “electronic monitoring, like prison, restricts liberty, limits privacy, disrupts family relationships, and jeopardizes financial security.” While there are extremely limited data on the overlap between probation and EM, its use across various types of court supervision, including pretrial release, probation, parole, home confinement, and work release has increased dramatically in recent years. Electronic monitoring conflicts with probation work requirements in similar ways as other movement restrictions: People on EM may have to go through extremely complicated and lengthy processes just to gain approval to attend a job interview, and by limiting their working opportunities to a fixed schedule or a fixed location, EM drastically limits the possibility for work in industries like food service, waste management, or construction.

The various movement restrictions people on probation face range from who and where they can live to the type of job they can have and extend to where they can travel for medical care or to visit loved ones. Movement restrictions limit privacy, undermine relationships, jeopardize financial security, and repeatedly strip freedom from individuals on probation.36


Relationship or “association” restrictions

More than a third of jurisdictions in our sample (31) have standard conditions restricting social associations of some kind. These restrictions prohibit interactions between people on probation and large swaths of the population, typically banning contact with people with felony convictions, other people on community supervision, people with any criminal record, or people currently or formerly incarcerated in a jail or prison. As we have explained before in a deep-dive on these conditions, restrictions on personal contact or “association” can be exceedingly broad, isolating, and costly for people on probation.

A number of jurisdictions also have what appear to be impossible association conditions that prohibit contact with anyone who has ever been a victim or witness in any case,37 people who are “likely to influence me to commit a crime,”38 anyone currently involved in “criminal activity,”39 or people that are “of disreputable or harmful character” (once again, undefined).40 While these conditions may be interpreted more generously (i.e., contact is prohibited with a victim or witness in any of your cases), the conditions as written allow for the narrowest interpretations to be made by individual probation officers.

Reducing probation revocations

How some jurisdictions are working to reduce probation revocations

Ten jurisdictions have partnered with the Institute for State & Local Governance (ISLG) and Arnold Ventures on the Reducing Revocations Challenge. This project explores the drivers of probation revocation in each participating locality, and then proposes strategies to address those underlying issues. Some of the initial findings and recommendations of these research projects include:

  • In Denver, Colorado, researchers found that 70% of people whose probation was revoked by the Denver Adult Probation Department were revoked for “technical” violations, most commonly missed appointments (66%) and missed drug tests (63%), and the vast majority of these revocations occurred in the first few months of their probation terms. Researchers identified lack of reliable transportation, family and work obligations, and drug testing requirements as the major obstacles to successfully meeting probation conditions. In 2021, the Department responded by developing an Individualized Intervention Program for “high-risk” individuals, which included reducing the burden of having to appear at so many appointments; instead, probation staff prioritize meeting with people in their communities.
  • In Harris County, Texas, people on probation must adhere to an average of 28 conditions, and the Reducing Revocations Challenge research identified a maximum of 82 conditions. About 1 in 6 probation cases closed (16%) in the four-year study period were due revocations for “technical,” noncriminal violations of probation conditions — a greater share than revocations for new crimes (12%). Given the excessive number of conditions people contend with, it is unsurprising that among the initial recommendations was the recommendation to “reconsider eliminating all conditions related to technical violations.”
  • In Monroe County, Indiana, “more serious” violations like new criminal offenses and failure to appear in court were “infrequent forms of noncompliance,” each occurring in just 16% or fewer probation cases where the client was deemed noncompliant. The most common forms of noncompliance in this sample were failing to appear at probation appointments and substance use-related violations. The recommendations in Monroe County included fewer and more targeted standard conditions, as well as rephrasing conditions to align more closely with a harm-reduction approach to substance use treatment.56
  • In Ramsey County, Minnesota, most probation violations in the study sample resulted in incarceration: 63% of people with probation violations were either kept on probation but still incarcerated in jail (38%) or had their probation revoked and were incarcerated in jail (19%) or prison (5%). In interviews with probation officers, lawyers, and judges, the researchers found that “some indicated that such noncompliance may be caused by underlying issues such as substance abuse problems, homelessness, or poverty,” which are all in direct conflict with the standard probation conditions requiring no drug use, a stable home address, and the payment of fines and fees. The researchers include a recommendation that probation system actors “focus on addressing the basic needs of people on probation,” by identifying unmet needs and improving integration with social services.

Six other jurisdictions are also participating in the Reducing Revocations Challenge. For the reports identifying the drivers of revocations in all of these communities, and what researchers recommend to address those problems, see the project’s Case Study webpage. Most jurisdictions have not yet published the results of the implementation phase of the challenge, but these will inevitably be crucial resources for addressing counterproductive probation conditions in many other places.

Association restrictions not only bar contact with many people (especially in heavily policed and criminalized communities), but they offer little room for individualization, as most do not offer the explicit opportunity for approval of specific relationships by either the court or the probation agency.41 In our study’s sample, only one jurisdiction’s standard condition related to associations includes an important caveat: in Arkansas, “contact with convicted felons at work, in counseling programs, in church, or in other locations and circumstances specifically approved by the Court or your supervising officer is not prohibited.” This simple clarification eliminates much of the inherent tension we see elsewhere between association restrictions and other probation requirements.


Searches

Thirty-six jurisdictions (47%) have standard conditions regarding probation officer searches. Many of these conditions (15) explicitly state that people on probation waive their Fourth Amendment rights, allowing warrantless searches. Standard conditions in 16 jurisdictions mention that “suspicion” or “reasonable grounds” are required, and only ten specify that the suspicion must be of a crime or probation violation.42 These searches are not limited to the property of the person on probation: people living and working with people on probation are subjected to the invasion of privacy at work or at home.43 Families become subjected to the probation department’s surveillance, which can extend to conditions stipulating that searches can occur at “any time” of day or night (seven jurisdictions)44 and can be conducted by people outside of the probation agency itself (six jurisdictions), including any law enforcement45 or anyone the probation officer appoints as an “agent.”46


Other unnecessary and discriminatory rules around conduct

Standard conditions, because they apply to all people on probation in a given jurisdiction, often have little to do with the specific conviction offense or an individual’s circumstances. Broad and unnecessary rules around conduct while on probation expand the oversight of the probation office beyond what makes sense for the individual or as a response to their specific offense.

Drug and alcohol use: Most jurisdictions (45) include a standard condition prohibiting the use of drugs or alcohol, regardless of substance abuse history or drug-related offenses.47 While the bulk of these conditions prohibit “illegal drugs” (which is redundant since these are already prohibited by law), 16 jurisdictions outright prohibit alcohol use. By prohibiting alcohol use, these jurisdictions again expand the definition of what kinds of behaviors can result in sanctions or even incarceration to behaviors that are not even illegal. An additional 11 jurisdictions include vague limits on alcohol use with clauses like “excessive consumption” of alcohol, and only one jurisdiction (Nevada) uses the language of “excess” defines that limit (0.08 blood alcohol content or higher). In the ten other jurisdictions requiring people on probation to not “drink alcohol to excess,” the amount of alcohol that constitutes an “excess” is determined at the discretion of the probation officer.

Clothing or appearance: While rare in our sample, court supervision conditions can and do set rules about the physical appearance and clothing of people under supervision. For example, South Dakota’s standard probation conditions prohibit wearing or presenting “gang clothing or signs.” In Hamilton County, Ohio, the standard probation conditions require people on probation to “dress appropriately when reporting,” again leaving the judgement of what’s “appropriate” to the probation officer. In her research, Professor Weisburd found a number of court supervision conditions addressing clothing, including requirements to “wear modest clothing” and avoid “clothes with holes” or other clothing in “poor taste” including a long list of specific types of clothes. Inevitably, she argues, such rules around clothing serve to “legitimize and perpetuate discriminatory norms rooted in particular conceptions about gender, race, disability, and sexuality.”

Unnecessary — and often irrelevant — standard conditions create opportunities for probation officers to find individuals in violation of probation conditions, regardless of the relevance for public safety. Rather than facilitating the success of people on probation, such conditions open up individuals to discrimination based on substance use, gender, race, and poverty.


Vague conditions that expand criminalization

The standard conditions we reviewed were riddled with vague language that leave far too much room for interpretation by individual probation officers. By default, any undefined or ambiguous condition grants the probation officer the power to define the terms when determining whether a violation has occurred, shifting the power to decide what is “recidivism” or “criminal behavior” away from the courts and into the hands of individual probation officers.48 Without explicit definitions of the language used — “good behavior” or “devotion” to a job, for example — people on probation are expected to comply with rules that are only made clear when they “violate” them. And while probation officers have the authority to both define and enforce probation conditions, and to recommend revocation, there is often little that people on probation can do to challenge their decisions.

Be “good:” Many jurisdictions in our sample included conditions ordering people on probation to “be of good conduct” or “conduct themselves as a good citizen”49 (12 jurisdictions) and “avoid injurious or vicious habits” (nine jurisdictions).50 But these phrases are not defined, granting the probation officer vast discretion in determining if an individual is acting as a “good citizen” or successfully avoiding the ambiguous “vicious habits.”51

bar chart showing the number of jurisdictions in our sample that used vague, undefined language in their probation conditions

Be “truthful:” About one-third of the jurisdictions in our sample include a condition requiring people on probation to “be cooperative and truthful” at all times or with their probation officers.52 Not only do these clauses leave the determination of honesty to the probation officer, they are easily used to “stack” an additional violation on top of others. For example, if a person says they have not used drugs, but their urine tests positive — which is entirely plausible even if they did not use drugs recently — it’s up to the officer to decide whether to investigate further or whether to report the individual for violating two conditions: one prohibiting drug use and one requiring “truthfulness.”

Other subjective language: The commonly-used work or education conditions, which require people on probation to be employed or a full-time student, also frequently include subjective language. Many of these conditions require individuals to “work faithfully,”53 “devote yourself,”54 or “diligently seek and maintain” work.55 Ultimately, the probation officer determines whether someone is “faithfully” or “diligently” participating in their employment or education, allowing probation officers to use their own personal judgement to determine what counts as a violation.

The subjectivity built into these conditions gives probation officers extensive power over people on probation, without sufficient clarity around the expectations supervised people need to meet to successfully complete their probation sentences.


The burdens of probation conditions disproportionately impact marginalized people and their families

Like every aspect of the criminal legal system, community supervision disproportionately impacts people who are already marginalized along the lines of race, class and economic status, gender, disability, health status, and mental health conditions. This fact underscores the ways in which many — if not all — of these rigidly-applied standard conditions are counterproductive and just how important it is to limit the discretion of individual probation staff and minimize the impact of any implicit or explicit bias. Even more broadly, the standard conditions structure itself — that is, a long list of rigid, often incompatible requirements — presents problems for people who are already disadvantaged.57

bar chart comparing the percent of people on probation with substance use disorders, with mental health conditions, living in poverty, and unemployed compared to the U.S. total population

Too many conditions: The jurisdictions in our sample imposed an average of 12 standard conditions on every person on probation. Some jurisdictions had as few as six or seven standard conditions, while 11 jurisdictions had more than 15 standard conditions. These conditions are, by definition, not tailored to individual needs or related to the type of offense. Simply keeping track of this many standard conditions sets people up to fail: the sheer number of conditions is in and of itself a barrier to successful probation completion.58 People on probation are expected to remember all of these conditions and to change their regular routines to meet the standard probation conditions. For example, in most jurisdictions people on probation can no longer spend time with family, friends, or coworkers who have any criminal record; some people on probation may no longer enter establishments serving alcohol; and in other jurisdictions, people on probation are expected to remember and appear at an overwhelming amount of meetings, appointments, and programs. As we discussed in the “financial conditions” section, the excessive number of conditions also disproportionately burdens indigent people, who do not have the financial resources to meet many of these conditions. People with mental health and substance use problems are also likely to struggle; they may be unable to keep track of all the conditions and may need to prioritize treatment over other requirements.

Substance use disorders and mental health conditions: Compared to the total U.S. population, people on probation face higher rates of substance use disorders and mental health conditions.59 These individuals face additional barriers in adhering to long lists of standard conditions; in particular, roughly one-quarter of people on probation with mental health conditions (24%) or substance use disorder (44%) are not receiving the treatment they need. Substance use and mental illnesses can make it harder to comply with some conditions including full-time employment and attending meetings and appointments; for example, individuals may need to frequently attend medication-assisted treatment clinics during the workday.

Race and ethnicity: Probation, like jail and prison systems, is riddled with racial disparities. While only 12% of the U.S. adult population is Black, more than one-fifth of people on probation are Black.60 American Indian or Alaska Native people are also overrepresented in probation populations across the country: for example, in North Dakota in October 2024, 24% of people on probation are Native compared to 5% of the statewide population. Not only are Black, Native, and other people of color disproportionately impacted by probation, but they are also disparately affected by certain standard conditions. Racially-coded prohibitions on “gang affiliation” and prohibitions on certain styles of clothing target people of color over their white counterparts, enshrining racial discrimination in these jurisdictions’ most widely-applied probation policies.61

Housing insecurity and homelessness: While most standard conditions of probation require individuals to have a residential address, one’s probation status itself can create barriers to consistent, safe housing. Conditions prohibiting association with other people with felony records, victims of past crimes, or people with gang affiliations can block people from stable housing opportunities with family or friends. Meanwhile, unhoused people are particularly vulnerable to revocations: they are more likely to interact with the police,62 and probation requires everyone to notify their probation officers of any contact with law enforcement.

Poverty: People on probation report higher rates of poverty and unemployment: in 2022, 28% of people on probation were living in poverty, compared to 15% of the total U.S. population.63 Similarly, they are more likely to report being unemployed in the last 12 months (9%) than U.S. adults in general (4%). Poor (and unhoused) people often struggle to access affordable and reliable transportation, which they need in order to attend programming, meetings, and appointments required by probation. They are also unlikely to have funds available to pay probation fees and other court-ordered expenses. In these ways, the rigidity of standard conditions not only make it hard for people to comply, it may also force them to choose between meeting their basic needs and trying to stay out of jail.


Conclusions and recommendations

Where probation is used as a true alternative to incarceration, and where revocations are minimized, probation can keep people who are involved in the criminal legal system from the harms of imprisonment. But too often, it is used as a default sanction that sets people up to fail, and revocations frequently result from understandable “violations” that are unrelated to public safety concerns. In this way, probation has the effect of “widening the net” of people under correctional control and even driving up incarceration. Furthermore, the criminalization of many behaviors — such as homelessness or drug use — that are more accurately described as social or health concerns (and that have better social- or health-service solutions) has contributed to the massive scale of probation and other forms of correction control. It’s time for every jurisdiction to reduce and rethink its use of probation.

Make large-scale changes to the use of probation.

  • Reduce the use of probation: Probation should instead only target people who require additional support to remain law-abiding; those who pose less risk should receive less restrictive and resource-intensive sanctions. Reducing caseloads, probation authorities would be better able to offer community-based, individualized services that support — rather than undermine — individuals’ work, education, and family priorities.
  • Practical reforms to reduce probation caseloads and revocations: limit probation terms,64 transition to “goal-based” rather than “time-based” probation completion,65 end incarceration for “technical” violations and for people awaiting hearings related to their noncriminal violations, eliminate other sanctions for noncompliance that make it harder for people to adhere to probation conditions (e.g., suspending driver’s licenses), and address statutory restrictions that inhibit access to housing, education, and healthcare for people with convictions.

Pare down standard conditions to the essentials.

  • Evaluate standard conditions — and include directly impacted people in this process: Decision-makers should ask directly impacted people to identify problems with conditions and potential solutions.66 Because standard conditions, their implementation, and probation populations all vary across jurisdictions, this kind of analysis is important to ensure any changes to conditions will be effective.
  • Eliminate unnecessary and ineffective conditions:All standard probation conditions merit reconsideration, but there are some that stand out as particularly unnecessary and ineffective, and that all jurisdictions should eliminate. Drug testing should be a “special” condition ordered only when necessary,67 since drug use is not associated with reoffending and is often not even related to the offense for which someone is put on probation. Jurisdictions should eliminate counterproductive standard conditions like supervision fees and association and movement restrictions, as well as conditions that restrict behaviors unrelated to criminal law, such as how a person dresses for meetings.
  • To take action, first determine which authorities set standard conditions in your area: In most jurisdictions, standard probation conditions are set at the state level in statute or by state judiciaries; if they are found in state statutes, changes will require legislative action. In other places, state statutes do not specify standard conditions, but instead authorize local courts and/or probation authorities to set them.68 Appendix Table 1 is a great starting point for figuring out which states do and don’t set conditions by statute.

Empower probation officers to use their discretion to support success.

  • As long as probation conditions leave so much discretion to individual line staff, probation officers should be encouraged to take an individualized approach to their caseload and use their discretion to support — rather than punish — people on probation. In particular, probation officers are uniquely positioned to identify individual challenges and to strategize around those difficulties.

While our critique of standard conditions clearly shows the need for changes and suggests starting points for this major undertaking, it is just a start. Changing standard conditions so that they improve — rather than work against — the effectiveness of probation as a non-carceral response will require further scrutiny by researchers and practitioners, who can assess how conditions are enforced locally and how they impact probation outcomes and community safety.





Footnotes

  1. Probation is a sentence to a period of time when a person may remain in the community, but is under the supervision of a probation office and must comply with specific conditions. Probation is ostensibly designed as an “alternative” to incarceration, but the number of people on probation has grown in parallel with the number of people in prisons and jails, and the use of jail or prison as a response to “violations” means that it often simply delays incarceration. (Parole, also under the umbrella of “community corrections,” is a type of conditional release from prison.)  ↩

  2. The focus of our report is narrower than Professor Weisburd’s; for her 2023 law review article, she analyzed almost 200 public records regarding various kinds of court supervision (not just probation), and also included additional “special” conditions that are imposed at the discretion of the court or probation agency on a case-by-case basis. Also, while our findings are consistent with many of Professor Weisburd’s, her primary sources were described, not published, so we could not include those documents in our analysis.  ↩

  3. In Iowa, we were only able to find standard conditions in the most populous county: Polk County.  ↩

  4. Wherever possible, we used primary documents such as blank court orders or state statutes; in places with less transparency, we used whatever information was publicly available, including documentation like “Frequently Asked Questions” sections of court websites and pamphlets handed out to people on probation.  ↩

  5. Conditions like these are not only seen in the probation context. As Professor Doherty writes in her 2019 exploration of what she calls “Testing Periods,” people are often expected to abide by a set of prospective rules for a period of time prior to sentencing, often as a condition of plea bargaining. Such Testing Periods can be seen throughout the criminal legal system and include probation, problem-solving courts, conditional plea agreements, deferred adjudication, and others. Professor Doherty explains that these Testing Periods shift the orientation of decision making from a retrospective analysis (of what criminal offense occurred, if any) to a prospective analysis (how well can someone adhere to a lengthy list of expectations).  ↩

  6. Numerous researchers have found that supervision often sets people up to fail. In “Governing Marginality: Coercion and Care in Probation” (2022), Michelle Phelps and Ebony Ruhland found that the constant risk of probation revocations can be interpreted as a “set-up” where people are at constant risk of further restrictions or incarceration. In her 2021 article for The Appeal, Professor Doherty describes the ways in which probation creates new hardships with few meaningful resources to meet the requirements of probation supervision.  ↩

  7. There are some conditions that are only mandatory for specific offenses. In many states and jurisdictions, for people convicted of sex-related offenses, there are mandatory probation conditions to complete treatment and/or register/appear on a public conviction registry. All sorts of offenses may have mandatory conditions: for example, in Illinois, anyone convicted of a methamphetamine-related offense is prohibited from purchasing or possessing any product containing pseudoephedrine unless prescribed by a physician, as a standard condition of their probation.  ↩

  8. Statutes often preface a long list of special conditions with language like this, from New Hampshire, “The probationer shall…comply with such of the following, or any other, special conditions as may be imposed by the court, the parole board or the probation/parole officer,” explicitly giving the court or the probation officer the discretionary power to impose any of the special conditions listed in the statute, or any other non-listed conditions.  ↩

  9. According to the CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance, in the face of “noncompliance” with probation conditions, probation officers generally have two options: filing a formal technical violation or issuing an informal sanction (like requiring community service or more frequent reporting).  ↩

  10. Revocation hearings — for “technical violations” or new criminal offenses — are much less formal than criminal proceedings and come with far fewer protections, despite the fact that periods of incarceration after revocation can exceed full sentences handed out by a court. For instance, while the criminal standard for conviction requires proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” a finding for revocation needs only to be based on a “preponderance of the evidence.” Hearing examiners in revocation hearings can also consider evidence that would be inadmissible or might not reach the standards of credibility required in a criminal case. And there is no right to a jury despite the fact that most recommended sentences for revocations are over 6 months. In Washington, D.C., sanctions for technical violations alone can include up to 16 months of incarceration or extended supervision.  ↩

  11. The frequency with which violations of standard probation conditions result in probation revocation varies significantly by jurisdiction. In a study of nine counties, researchers found that anywhere from 10% to 87% of probation violations result in revocations. When probation officers file a formal “violation of probation” with the court — rather than resolving the violation via sanction or other intervention — judges are likely to revoke probation: judges revoked 73% of all people who returned to court for a motion to revoke their probation in a four-year period. Almost half of revoked probations in that time period involved a failure to pay fees (47%) and about a fifth involved a failure to pay restitution (19%). In Harris County, Texas, alone, more than 13,000 probation cases resulted in “technical revocations” (not related to a new criminal offense) from 2014-2018.

    In addition, probation revocation does not always result in incarceration. There are a number of types of probation exits, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, these exits include:

    • Incarcerated with a new sentence
    • Incarcerated under the current sentence
    • Incarcerated to receive mandated treatment
    • Incarcerated for other/unknown reasons
    • Absconder
    • Discharged to warrant/detainer
    • Other unsatisfactory reasons (including discharges when they did not complete the conditions of probation or fulfill obligations).
     ↩

  12. This statistic includes exits for which the circumstances were not reported. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report Probation and Parole in the United States, 2022, Table 5, 45% of all “exits” from probation were reportedly due to successful completion, 31% had “unknown/not reported” reasons for exiting, and 23% were due to incarceration, death, or “unsatisfactory exit other than incarceration.” Excluding the large number of exits whose reasons were “unknown/not reported,” two-thirds of probation exits (66%) were due to successful completion versus 34% due to incarceration, death, or other “unsatisfactory” reasons.  ↩

  13. Professor Weisburd explores the impact of supervision conditions on family and co-habitants in “Carceral Control,” including unannounced home visits and required cooperation with court supervision (including communication with the supervising agent). In addition, the long list of requirements for people on probation limits the individual’s ability to participate in “reliable and consistent care or transportation for dependent family members.”  ↩

  14. Nevada: “Your conduct shall justify the opportunity granted to you by this community supervision.”
    Porter County, Indiana: “My behavior and attitude shall justify the opportunity granted to me by this Probation.”  ↩

  15. Professor Doherty aptly explains this phenomenon of broadening the definition of recidivism: “Because standard conditions reach beyond the criminal law, they necessarily also broaden the behavior that constitutes recidivism.”  ↩

  16. In 2022, 30% of people on probation in the past 12 months reported an annual income under $10,000 (the federal poverty limit for an individual in 2022 was $13,590).  ↩

  17. The statutes and standard conditions in many jurisdictions explicitly mention consideration of ability to pay when setting the financial obligations; however, it is impossible to know how often or thoroughly this is done in practice.  ↩

  18. In total, 36 jurisdictions in our sample had standard probation conditions requiring probation fees, but we know that two of these states — Massachusetts and Delaware — actually eliminated probation supervision fees. So while the most up-to-date conditions we could find for these jurisdictions still mention probation fees, we excluded these states from our total count of jurisdictions requiring probation fees.  ↩

  19. Only 16 jurisdictions in our sample actually stated the monetary amount for probation supervision in the standard conditions. For the remaining 18 jurisdictions with conditions mandating probation supervision fees in our sample, we identified the probation supervision fees in the relevant state laws. This is not an exhaustive list of states or jurisdictions that charge probation supervision fees, it is only a collection of jurisdictions that explicitly require probation supervision fees as a standard condition of probation in the documents we were able to find. To see our sources and the minimum required by each jurisdiction, see Appendix Table 2. For a comprehensive review of probation fees across the country, please see 50 State Survey: Probation & Parole Fees, a more detailed 2022 report from the Fines and Fees Justice Center.  ↩

  20. Professor Weisburd succinctly points out that while these rules of probation are imposed through the criminal court system, many people are additionally subject to regulations and restrictions imposed through the child welfare system.  ↩

  21. The language used in at least four of these jurisdictions suggests that people on probation are not always expected to cover the costs of drug tests. For example, in Travis County, Texas, the condition states, “Submit a urine or breath specimen at the direction of the Supervision Officer and pay all costs if required” and in Kentucky, the condition says, “I understand that I shall submit to alcohol and/or drug testing and shall pay for said testing if directed by my officer.”  ↩

  22. In addition to paying the costs of the frequent drug tests, at least four states have standard probation conditions holding the person on probation responsible for the expense of any treatment or programming that the probation department orders: Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, and Nebraska. For example, in Colorado, the person on probation is “responsible for the costs of treatment and services” for programs including “placement in a residential or outpatient program, counseling or treatment for drugs or alcohol, mental health, domestic violence, cognitive behavioral, offense specific or anger management.” Mental health and substance use treatment can be exorbitantly and prohibitively expensive, especially if the person on probation is not covered by commercial health insurance or Medicaid/Medicare.  ↩

  23. This percentage comes from the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) from SAMHSA. This is a public health survey that excludes an unknown number of people who were in jail or prison at the time they were eligible to participate in the survey, and so it inevitably undercounts the number of people on probation in the last twelve months, given that there were more than 76,000 people incarcerated from probation in 2022.  ↩

  24. Idaho: “I will not work in an establishment where alcohol is the primary source of income unless otherwise ordered by the Court/Commission or my PPO.”  ↩

  25. Even in the jurisdictions without standard probation conditions limiting the type of employment, state laws often bar people with felony convictions from certain jobs.  ↩

  26. Delaware County, Pennsylvania: “You will not travel outside of Pennsylvania or the community to which you have been Probationed/Paroled to as defined by your Probation/Parole Officer, without written permission.”  ↩

  27. Rutherford County, Tennessee: “I will get permission from my case manager before leaving the county of my residence or the State.”  ↩

  28. “District” appears to often refer to the probation agency (or court) district:

    • Montana: “The offender must obtain permission from his/her supervising officer or the officer’s designee before leaving his/her assigned district.”
    • Idaho: “I will not leave the State of Idaho or my assigned district without first obtaining permission from my PO.”
     ↩

  29. Alaska: “Secure the prior written permission of a probation officer of the Department of Corrections before changing employment or residence or leaving the region of residence where you are assigned.”  ↩

  30. For more information, see our detailed analysis on the effects of these travel restrictions in standard conditions.  ↩

  31. Hawaii: “The court shall provide, as an explicit condition of a sentence of probation… That the defendant notify a probation officer prior to any change in address or employment.”  ↩

  32. Arkansas: “You must obtain prior approval from your supervising officer to change your place of residence, stay away from your approved residence overnight, or leave Arkansas or another area established by the Court or your supervising officer.”  ↩

  33. Massachusetts: “You shall notify the probation officer immediately of a change of residence or employment.”  ↩

  34. Washington, D.C.: “You must also inform your supervision officer of a change in your employment or address within two days of the change.”  ↩

  35. While EM is not a standard condition in any jurisdictions in our sample, it is mentioned in at least four jurisdictions — Alabama, Nebraska, Shawnee County (Kansas), and Idaho — as an additional requirement that the court or probation officer may include and that could fall under standard conditions. The condition in Idaho states: “I will comply with the IDOC electronic monitoring program at the request of any IDOC agent. I will not tamper with or disconnect any monitoring equipment and will always keep it properly charged. I will adhere to any curfew, restricted areas, or related schedule requirements. I will promptly respond to and clear any equipment alerts and submit to breath testing when prompted to do so. I understand that I am responsible for care of the equipment issued to me and that I may be held financially and criminally liable for equipment that is damaged, lost, or not returned.”  ↩

  36. In “Carceral Control,” Professor Weisburd addresses how court supervision frequently and repeatedly strips people of their freedoms in more detail.  ↩

  37. Shawnee County, Kansas: “You will not have contact with victims, witnesses, or co-defendant(s), in this or any other cases.”
    Idaho: “I will not have any direct or indirect contact with any past or present victim(s) without the approval of my PPO.”  ↩

  38. Porter County, Indiana: “I shall not associate with anyone who is likely to influence me to commit any crime.” This condition appears to require the person on probation to — impossibly — predict someone else’s future behavior or intentions.  ↩

  39. At least six jurisdictions prohibit association with people who are “engaged in criminal activity.” This restriction implies that people are openly volunteering such information or that people on probation should be able to discern this somehow. Regardless of the person on probation’s dedication to inquiring of each person they interact with, they are the one punished (by violation and potentially revocation) if someone they have had contact with is found to be involved in “criminal activity.”  ↩

  40. Fifteen jurisdictions in our sample (48% of jurisdictions with association conditions) prohibit association with people of “disreputable or harmful character” or “individuals of bad reputation.”  ↩

  41. For more information on standard association conditions and the consequences of prohibiting relationships, see our analysis of just how restrictive and backwards these conditions are.  ↩

  42. The other six jurisdictions with mention of “suspicion” do not clarify what that suspicion has to be related to. In Kentucky, the warrantless search condition requires the probation officer to have “reasonable suspicion” of “illegal drugs, alcohol or other contraband.” In Colorado, the condition reads: “I will submit to a search …by probation, when there are reasonable grounds to search.”  ↩

  43. Washington, D.C.: “You must allow the supervision officer to seize any item that the officer reasonably believes is an item you are prohibited from possessing (for example, an illegal drug or a weapon), and that is in plain view in your possession, including in your home, workplace or vehicle.”  ↩

  44. Nevada: “You shall submit your person, property, place of residence, vehicle or areas under your control to search including electronic surveillance or monitoring of your location, at any time, with or without a search warrant or warrant of arrest, for evidence of a crime or violation of probation by the Division of Parole and Probation or its agent.”
    Utah: “Permit officers of Adult Probation and Parole to search my person, residence, vehicle or any other property under my control without a warrant at any time, day or night upon reasonable suspicion to ensure compliance with the conditions of the Probation Agreement.”  ↩

  45. South Carolina: “Before a defendant may be placed on probation, he must agree in writing to be subject to a search or seizure, without a search warrant, based on reasonable suspicions, of the defendant’s person, any vehicle the defendant owns or is driving, and any of the defendant’s possessions by: (1) any probation agent employed by the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services; or (2) any other law enforcement officer. “  ↩

  46. Suffolk County, New York: “Submit to a warrantless search of your person, property, residence or vehicle under probationer’s control, by a probation officer and his or her agent.”  ↩

  47. In 13 jurisdictions, there are drug and alcohol testing conditions, but no explicit standard condition prohibiting drug or alcohol use. For example, the drug testing condition in Wisconsin is: “You shall…make yourself available for tests and comply with ordered tests by your agent including but not limited to urinalysis, breathalyzer, DNA collection and blood samples,” but there is no standard condition regarding the use of drugs or alcohol.  ↩

  48. Ultimately, these vaguely-worded conditions permit what Professor Doherty describes as “a shadow policing and adjudication system” where probation officers are able to exert excessive influence in determining outcomes for people on probation.  ↩

  49. Shelby County, Tennessee: “Probationer shall not engage in conduct inconsistent with good citizenship.”
    Wisconsin: “You shall… avoid all conduct… which is not in the best interest of the public welfare or your rehabilitation.”
    New Hampshire: “The probationer shall… be of good conduct and obey all laws.”  ↩

  50. Mississippi: “The defendant shall…avoid injurious or vicious habits.”  ↩

  51. We only found one instance where the standard conditions actually seemed to include an example of “injurious or vicious habits.”
    Harris County, Texas: “Avoid injurious or vicious habits. (The use of illegal drugs and alcohol).”  ↩

  52. Ramsey County, Minnesota: “I will be truthful with my probation officer in all matters.”
    New Jersey: “You shall answer truthfully all inquiries made by your probation officer.”
    Arkansas: “You must always cooperate with your supervising officer and the Court. All written and oral statements made by you to your supervising officer must be truthful.”  ↩

  53. Mississippi: “The defendant shall… work faithfully at suitable employment so far as possible.”  ↩

  54. Maine: “You shall… maintain employment and devote yourself to an approved employment or education program.”  ↩

  55. New Hampshire: “The probationer shall…diligently seek and maintain lawful employment.”  ↩

  56. While outside the scope of this current publication, another important finding in the Monroe County, Indiana Reducing Revocations Challenge research was that when probation officers, probation officer supervisors, judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys were asked who has the “most influence on revocation decisions,” there was little consensus. One hundred percent of judges surveyed reported that the probation officer has the most influence, while 70% of probation officers reported that judges have the most influence. For a process that requires a hearing in front of a judge, there seems to be very little sense of responsibility over the revocation process that certainly merits further inspection.  ↩

  57. People with mental illnesses and/or substance use disorders may have difficulty adhering to some supervision requirements because of impaired judgement or decision-making, medication side effects, or specific symptoms of their illness (e.g. symptoms of psychosis). For more information, see the U.S. Courts’ Overview of Probation and Supervision Release Conditions (Chapter 3) and Van Deinse et al (2023), “Strategies for supervising people with mental illnesses on probation caseloads: results from a nationwide study.”  ↩

  58. As Professor Weisburd notes, people can be subject to two sets of rules at the same time, increasing the number of conditions they are expected to meet can extend far beyond what we present in this report: “a person on probation might be subject to the rules related to probation as well as rules governing [electronic] monitoring or another court program they are part of.”  ↩

  59. These estimates come from the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The substance use disorder variable (UD5ILALANY) used here reflects the respondents who reported symptoms that met the criteria for either an alcohol or drug use disorder in the past 12 months, based on the relevant DSM-5 criteria. The mental health condition variable (MICATPY) reflects respondents who reported indicators of mild mental illness, moderate mental illness, or serious mental illness in the past 12 months. The probation population is measured as people who reported that they were on probation any time in the past 12 months, compared to the U.S. total population, which reflects the whole, nationally representative survey population. The rates of substance use disorders and mental health conditions among people who report no probation supervision in the past twelve months are the same as the total presented here (17% with substance use disorders and 23% with mental health conditions).  ↩

  60. In 2020, an estimated 12% of adults in the U.S. identified as Black or African American alone, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The Bureau of Justice Statistics uses the same definition (Black alone) in Probation and Parole in the United States, 2022, which reports that 22% of adults on probation (and 31% of those whose race was reported in the data) are Black.  ↩

  61. South Dakota: “You shall not have affiliation with any gangs, their members, or associates, and that you not wear or present gang clothing or signs.”
    Hamilton County, Ohio: “During my probationary period, I will conduct myself properly, dress appropriately when reporting, and answer accurately all questions asked by probation personnel.”  ↩

  62. In Atlanta in 2022, 12.5% of people booked at the city jail were unhoused, while only 0.4% of the citywide population was unhoused. Nationally, formerly incarcerated people are almost 10 times more likely to be unhoused than the general public.  ↩

  63. These estimates come from the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The poverty variable (POVERTY3) reflects respondents who were living in poverty in the past 12 months, based on the U.S. Census poverty threshold. The probation population is measured as people who reported that they were on probation any time in the past 12 months, compared to the U.S. total population, which reflects the whole, nationally representative survey population.  ↩

  64. California law now limits most misdemeanor probation to one year, and most felony probation to two years, reducing the probation population by 33% and saving the state a projected $2.1 billion.  ↩

  65. In Georgia, it’s now easier for some people to end their probation early, thanks to clarified procedures around early termination.  ↩

  66. In Denver, Colorado, researchers surveyed people on probation about the obstacles they faced in meeting supervision requirements and incorporated the findings — including transportation challenges, conflicts between employment and treatment, and family obligations — into their recommendations for reducing probation revocations.  ↩

  67. In cases where additional restrictions are deemed necessary, courts and/or probation authorities can always add them as “special” conditions.  ↩

  68. In our sample, 40 jurisdictions (53% of the sample) have conditions set at the state level, with most conditions set by the state judiciary or in state statute (this includes Washington, D.C., where conditions are set in statute). In the 36 jurisdictions where conditions are set at the local level, all conditions are set by local courts or court-run probation departments. See Appendix Table 1 for information about who is responsible for standard conditions in each jurisdiction in our sample.  ↩

See all footnotes




About the author

Emily Widra is a Senior Research Analyst at the Prison Policy Initiative and is the author of States of Incarceration: The Global Context 2024. She is the organization's expert on health and safety issues behind bars, including COVID-19 in prisons. Her previous research also includes analyses of mortality in prisons and the combined impact of HIV and incarceration on Black men and women.


About the Prison Policy Initiative

The non-profit, non-partisan Prison Policy Initiative was founded in 2001 to expose the broader harms of mass criminalization and spark advocacy campaigns to create a more just society. Through big-picture reports like Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie, as well as in-depth reports on issues such as probation and parole, the organization helps the public more fully engage in criminal justice reform. The organization also launched, and continues to lead, the national fight to keep the prison system from exerting undue influence on the political process (a.k.a. prison gerrymandering).


Acknowledgments

All Prison Policy Initiative reports are collaborative endeavors, and this report is no different. The author would like to thank current staff members for their insights and editorial guidance and University of Michigan Law School student Amelia Wittig, who thoughtfully and thoroughly collected and organized standard conditions for most of the jurisdictions included in this report.

Additionally, the author would like to thank Professors Fiona Doherty and Kate Weisburd. Professor Doherty's work in "Obey All Laws" inspired this project and she shared invaluable information and insights from her work in the early drafting stages. Professor Weisburd's work in "Carceral Control" served as a crucial review of how criminal court supervision functions and impacts daily life, and her analysis of the ways in which supervision limits freedoms and impacts marginalized people was critical to this project.

Lastly, we would like to thank our donors and funders who make this work possible.



Stay Informed


Get the latest updates:



Share on 𝕏 Donate