How Parole and Probation “No-Association” Conditions Hamper Successful Reentry
Once upon a time, parole and probation officers actually helped those under their supervision. In the rehabilitation-oriented 1970s, for example, they assisted in finding housing and employment, knowing that more support for a newly released prisoner made reoffending less likely. That approach changed during the get-tough-on-crime era which began in the 1980s and continues to this day. Now, parole and probation officials are more inclined to strictly enforce supervision conditions, sending people back to prison for “technical” violations.
But according to a report issued on November 8, 2023, by Prison Policy Initiative (PPI), a data driven non-profit organization that advocates for criminal justice reform, “no-association” conditions of community supervision that prohibit contact with those who have past criminal records—even family members, and even when the offense occurred decades before—often hinder successful completion of community supervision.
Approximately 3.7 million people are on parole or probation in the U.S., relying heavily on support networks of family, friends, co-workers and counselors. “Though research supports the unique benefits of these social connections,” the report noted, “many states actually prohibit people on supervision from this contact, under the false impression that it will lead people into criminalized behaviors.”
PPI counted 29 jurisdictions—including D.C. and the federal prison system—with standard parole rules that include no-association conditions. Another 10 jurisdictions have similar restrictions that are discretionary. The rules are sometimes vague; for example, Mississippi prohibits parolees from associating with “persons of bad reputation,” though the law doesn’t provide guidance on calculating a reputational score. Alabama and Georgia, which has the nation’s largest probation population, bar association with “persons of disrepute or harmful character,” again with no guidelines. A standard condition in California requires those on probation to “refrain from becoming abandoned to improper associations.” As PPI notes, such rules are not only vague but archaic.
Restrictions most often prohibit associating with those who have felony convictions, or sometimes any convictions, or who are also on parole or probation. But this can bar spouses from having contact with each other. It can keep parents and their adult children apart or prevent siblings from interacting. It also prevents visiting family members in prison or jail, affecting a huge share of released prisoners; a 2016 report by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 59% of state and federal prisoners had an immediate family member who had been incarcerated.
Restrictions can extend to counselors, therapists, co-workers and even members of reentry support services who have past criminal records. However, it’s those who have been through the criminal justice system themselves, including people previously on parole or probation, who can best provide advice and support to help navigate the supervision system and reentry process. While parolees and probationers may be able to request permission to associate with a specific person, granting the request is up to supervision officials, most carrying overly large caseloads, with zero incentive to risk blowback should there be a reoffense.
No-association conditions are also subject to interpretation. Does “association” mean living with someone? Seeing him or her socially? Phoning, texting or emailing? “Liking” a post on Facebook? According to law professor Fiona Doherty, such conditions are “purposefully—indeed, rigorously—unclear.”
The PPI report cited several egregious examples of no-association conditions: A Texas probationer returned to prison for four years “for being seen near enough to a ‘crack house’ to be in association with people who sell drugs or engage in other illegal activity”; a federal prisoner on supervised release sent back to prison for 18 months “for speaking to a fellow member of his treatment group on the subway.”
Association restrictions can limit where people on community supervision live and work, and whom they can rely on for financial support—despite standard conditions requiring parolees and probationers to maintain housing and employment. Such rules, according to the report, “make it even harder to find housing and work, arrange for transportation, participate in treatment programs, or otherwise succeed in reentry.”
Given that some 24 million people in the U.S. have felony records, and up to 80 million have a criminal record of some type, no-association conditions for parolees and probationers are obviously too restrictive. “The senselessness and cruelty of association restrictions undermine the very purpose of supervision, which includes helping people get the resources and build the relationships they need to achieve stability in the community,” PPI stated. Such restrictions “perpetuate harmful assumptions” about those with criminal records, “set people up for failure,” and “should be abolished as a condition of probation or parole.” See: Guilty by Association: When Parole and Probation Rules Disrupt Support Systems, PPI (Nov. 2023).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login