Two years after the end of Roe v. Wade, most women on probation and parole have to ask permission to travel for abortion care
Since the 2022 Dobbs decision, 21 states have restricted abortions earlier than the Roe v. Wade standard. Now, more of the 800,000 women on probation and parole must seek abortion care out-of-state — but for many, whether they can get there depends on an officer’s decision.
by Wendy Sawyer, June 18, 2024
June 24 marks two years since the Supreme Court stripped Americans of their constitutional right to abortion. The court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization permitted state governments to limit and even ban abortion care — and they did. As a result, the share of patients who cross state lines for abortion care has almost doubled, from about 1 in 10 to almost 1 in 5. Traveling out-of-state for health care, including abortions, is a hardship for anyone, but it is especially challenging for people on probation or parole.
According to The New York Times, since the Dobbs decision, 21 states have implemented abortion rules more restrictive than the standard under Roe v. Wade.1 Fourteen states now ban abortion altogether, and most other states ban abortion after a certain point in pregnancy. And while some of these less-restrictive bans preserve abortion as an option for most people who need one, these bans are nonetheless as obstructive for people who need abortion care after their state’s time limit.2 In all, 41 states have some kind of abortion ban in place post-Dobbs, whether “total bans” or bans based on gestational duration.3 In every one of these states, standard conditions4 of probation and/or parole require permission to travel out of state, county, or another specified area.5
Map 1 The vast majority of states have some kind of abortion ban as well as standard conditions of both probation and parole that restrict interstate travel. Click here to see a map of abortion bans in place as of May 2024.
Map 2 Probation is the most common form of correctional control for women in the U.S., and almost every state has a standard condition of probation restricting travel. Probation populations here exclude federal. Click here to see a map of abortion bans in place as of May 2024.
Map 3 While fewer women are on parole supervision compared to probation, nearly all live in states that restrict interstate travel for everyone on parole. Parole populations here excluded federal. Click here to see a map of abortion bans in place as of May 2024.
To understand how this post-Dobbs landscape impacts women under the U.S.’ massive system of community supervision, we examined standard supervision conditions in each state, along with the number of women who must comply with them. We find that the one-two punch of abortion and supervision restrictions impacts an estimated 4 out of 5 women6 (82%) on probation or parole nationwide.7 That means that for the vast majority of people under community supervision, the ability to seek abortion care out-of-state is left not to the pregnant person, but to the discretion of a correctional authority, typically their probation or parole officer.
Specifically, we find that, excluding federal probation and post-release supervision,8 82% of women on probation and 85% of women on parole live in states that (1) either completely ban abortion or restrict it based on gestational age and (2) list travel restrictions as a standard condition of supervision.
Every state and D.C. restrict the movement of people on probation or parole
For our analysis, we first looked at rules related to travel in the standard conditions of probation and parole in each state and D.C. (These are summarized in the table below.) We find that probation agencies in all but two states (Ala. and Iowa) generally require permission to leave the state, county, or other designated area. Four of these states empower the court or probation officer to set the boundaries for travel restrictions on an individual basis.9 Rules restricting interstate travel are just as common in the context of parole and post-release supervision: 40 states have a standard condition requiring permission to leave the state. Among the states that do not, five (Ark., Iowa, Mont., N.M., and Pa.) require permission to leave an even smaller area — the county or district.10 West Virginia and D.C. require permission to travel, but individualize the specific geographic boundaries in the supervision contract.
Excluding federal supervised populations, the vast majority of women on probation (98% or 672,000) and parole (96% or 60,000) live in states where their standard supervision conditions require permission to leave the state, if not an even smaller geographic area. Every single state and D.C. require permission to travel for either their probation or parole population — and almost all require permission for both.
It’s important to note that “standard conditions” are just part of the picture of probation and parole conditions, because courts can — and very frequently do — impose any number of additional “special conditions.”11 So even if travel restrictions are not included in the standard conditions that apply to everyone on probation or parole, they may still be imposed at the discretion of the court or community supervision agency.
Limited abortion care options are made worse by these standard conditions
We next looked at each state’s abortion bans and restrictions alongside their standard conditions of probation and parole. This analysis gets to how quickly state laws foreclose the possibility of in-state abortion care for women under either form of community supervision, forcing them to request permission to seek care in another state instead.12 We find that the much tighter restrictions imposed by states since the Dobbs decision put over 400,000 more women in this precarious position than there were under the protections of Roe v. Wade. Alarmingly, we find that only 1 in 6 women on probation or parole can access abortion care at any stage of their pregnancy without needing permission to cross state lines.
Delving deeper, our analysis shows that, excluding federally supervised populations:
- Over half (53%) of women on probation and parole live in the 21 states that the Times identified as banning abortion care at an earlier point than the standard set by Roe v. Wade (i.e., the highly variable point of “fetal viability”). Less than 3% of these women are able to travel across state lines without permission.
- Nearly one-third (31%) of all women on probation and parole live in states that now have a total abortion ban. Of these, just 4% have no standard condition restricting travel.
- Another 17% of women on community supervision live in states that ban abortions at six weeks — a point at which more than 1 in 4 women are not yet aware of their pregnancy.
- Only 16% live in places without abortion bans and can access abortion care at any gestational point without crossing state lines.
Importantly, even when parole or probation authorities approve interstate travel, the process of getting a “travel permit” takes time and logistical coordination — and sometimes even fees.1314 This necessarily delays abortion care, increasing the risk of complications and often further limiting access.15 For example, a woman on probation in South Carolina who only becomes aware of her pregnancy when she’s eight weeks along will have to travel out-of-state for an abortion. But if it takes two weeks for her to get permission to travel, a non-surgical abortion is likely no longer an option, as the necessary medications are only approved for use until 10 weeks’ gestation.
For hundreds of thousands of women, access to abortion care is limited by their state’s abortion laws and community supervision travel restrictions
| State | Estimated women on probation, 2022 | Estimated women on parole or post-release supervision, 2022 | Estimated total women on probation and/or parole, 2022 | Probation: Need permission to leave state or even smaller area | Parole: Need permission to leave state or even smaller area | Abortion ban laws (as of May 15, 2024) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ala. | 9,820 | 810 | 10,630 | No | Yes | Total ban |
| Alaska | 500 | 83 | 583 | Yes | Yes | No ban or gestational limit |
| Ariz. | 14,780 | 900 | 15,680 | Yes | No | Ban at 15 weeks’ gestation |
| Ark. | 13,280 | 4,120 | 17,400 | Yes | Yes | Total ban |
| Calif. | 36,113 | 2,900 | 39,013 | Yes | Yes | Ban at viability |
| Colo. | 19,052 | 1,190 | 20,242 | Yes | Yes | No ban or gestational limit |
| Conn. | 6,400 | 130 | 6,530 | Yes | Yes | Ban at viability |
| Del. | 2,260 | 20 | 2,280 | Yes | Yes | Ban at viability |
| D.C. | 570 | 60 | 630 | Yes | Yes | No ban or gestational limit |
| Fla. | 42,798 | 210 | 43,008 | Yes | Yes | Ban at 6 weeks’ gestation |
| Ga. | 80,346 | 1,860 | 82,206 | Yes | Yes | Ban at 6 weeks’ gestation |
| Hawaii | 3,285 | 200 | 3,485 | Yes | Yes | Ban at viability |
| Idaho | 7,612 | 1,020 | 8,632 | Yes | Yes | Total ban |
| Ill. | 18,777 | 1,450 | 20,227 | Yes | No | Ban at viability |
| Ind. | 24,163 | 530 | 24,693 | Yes | Yes | Total ban |
| Iowa | 6,870 | 850 | 7,720 | No | Yes | Ban at 22 weeks’ gestation |
| Kan. | 3,834 | 550 | 4,384 | Yes | Yes | Ban at 22 weeks’ gestation |
| Ky. | 16,880 | 2,220 | 19,100 | Yes | Yes | Total ban |
| La. | 6,660 | 1,670 | 8,330 | Yes | Yes | Total ban |
| Maine | 960 | No parole program | 960 | Yes | No parole program | Ban at viability |
| Md. | 10,014 | 500 | 10,514 | Yes | Yes | No ban or gestational limit |
| Mass. | 8,079 | 90 | 8,169 | Yes | Yes | Ban at 24 weeks’ gestation |
| Mich. | 28,108 | 730 | 28,838 | Yes | Yes | No ban or gestational limit |
| Minn. | 21,270 | 510 | 21,780 | Yes | Yes | No ban or gestational limit |
| Miss. | 6,680 | 1,190 | 7,870 | Yes | Yes | Total ban |
| Mo. | 10,867 | 2,910 | 13,777 | Yes | Yes | Total ban |
| Mont. | 2,435 | 160 | 2,595 | Yes | Yes | Ban at viability |
| Neb. | 3,160 | 100 | 3,260 | Yes | Yes | Ban at 12 weeks’ gestation |
| Nev. | 2,798 | 591 | 3,389 | Yes | Yes | Ban at 24 weeks’ gestation |
| N.H. | 907 | 182 | 1,089 | Yes | Yes | Ban at 22 weeks’ gestation |
| N.J. | 25,904 | 530 | 26,434 | Yes | Yes | No ban or gestational limit |
| N.M. | 2,375 | 290 | 2,665 | Yes | Yes | No ban or gestational limit |
| N.Y. | 13,020 | 1,260 | 14,280 | Yes | Yes | Ban at 24 weeks’ gestation |
| N.C. | 15,990 | 1,050 | 17,040 | Yes | Yes | Ban at 12 weeks’ gestation |
| N.D. | 1,630 | 170 | 1,800 | Yes | Yes | Total ban |
| Ohio | 49,619 | 1,520 | 51,139 | Yes | Yes | Ban at 22 weeks’ gestation |
| Okla. | 4,944 | 480 | 5,424 | Yes | Yes | Total ban |
| Ore. | 5,940 | 2,830 | 8,770 | Yes | Yes | No ban or gestational limit |
| Pa. | 21,752 | 7,725 | 29,476 | Yes | Yes | Ban at 24 weeks’ gestation |
| R.I. | 2,355 | 20 | 2,375 | Yes | Yes | Ban at viability |
| S.C. | 5,910 | 260 | 6,170 | Yes | Yes | Ban at 6 weeks’ gestation |
| S.D. | 1,382 | 810 | 2,192 | Yes | Yes | Total ban |
| Tenn. | 14,947 | 1,550 | 16,497 | Yes | Yes | Total ban |
| Texas | 91,135 | 11,452 | 102,587 | Yes | Yes | Total ban |
| Utah | 2,460 | 460 | 2,920 | Yes | Yes | Ban at 18 weeks’ gestation |
| Vt. | 600 | 100 | 700 | Yes | Yes | No ban or gestational limit |
| Va. | 14,157 | 40 | 14,197 | Yes | Yes | Ban at third trimester |
| Wash. | 16,328 | 880 | 17,208 | Yes | Yes | Ban at viability |
| W. Va. | 1,660 | 730 | 2,390 | Yes | Yes | Total ban |
| Wis. | 10,010 | 2,270 | 12,280 | Yes | Yes | Ban at 22 weeks’ gestation |
| Wyo. | 1,410 | 160 | 1,570 | Yes | No | Ban at viability |
| U.S. total (excluding federal) | 712,806 | 62,321 | 775,127 |
A travel restriction is just one of many barriers to healthcare for people on probation and parole
Interstate travel restrictions are just one of the barriers women — or for that matter, everyone on probation and parole — face when it comes to accessing health care. As we’ve already touched upon, some standard conditions restrict travel across much smaller areas, such as counties or court districts. Similarly, people on electronic monitoring — an increasingly common condition of community supervision that amounts to a form of “e-carceration” — are regularly blocked from leaving their home, workplace, or other approved locations. As we have explained before, people on electronic monitoring often report being denied permission to see a doctor or go to the pharmacy to have prescriptions filled.
Even in the few places that don’t impose restrictions on movement, financial costs often put healthcare out of reach for people on probation and parole. As we’ve found in previous research, people on community supervision tend to have lower incomes, with about 60% reporting annual incomes below $20,000. About 25% don’t have health insurance to cover the cost of even basic care — despite reporting worse overall health and greater levels of need.16 Probation and parole conditions often come with additional expenses as well, such as monthly fees and the costs of drug testing or electronic monitoring devices, which leave even less money for healthcare.
Finally, for women on probation and parole who need abortion care, there is a special risk of further criminalization, either for violating the conditions of their supervision or for the abortion itself. A recent law review article details the various laws used historically and currently to criminalize abortion seekers and providers, paying special attention to laws targeting people who choose “self-managed abortions” when they are unable to access care from the formal healthcare system. A report by researchers at If/When/How describes 61 cases, across 26 states, in which people were investigated or arrested for allegedly ending their own pregnancy or helping someone else end theirs. All were from 2000-2020 — in other words, pre-Dobbs. Efforts to criminalize abortion have only gained momentum since.
Conclusions
Ultimately, Dobbs not only made abortion care much less accessible for everyone who may become pregnant; it created new risks of criminalization as well. For people under supervision, those risks are intensified by the travel restrictions found in standard conditions across the country. As the Community Justice Exchange and Repro Legal Defense Fund explain in their organizing guide, “In states where clinical abortion is banned or inaccessible … [self-managed abortion] will likely be the abortion option most accessible to people under carceral surveillance, putting them at a risk for criminalization that people who can travel freely do not face.”
For this reason (among others), state legislators, courts, and community supervision agencies should minimize the number and restrictiveness of standard conditions imposed on everyone on probation and parole — and greatly reduce the use of these massive supervision programs in general. Courts should limit who they place on supervision, individualize supervision conditions, and apply those conditions only for as long as necessary to achieve results. This approach is far more likely to set people up for success than relying on restrictive, one-size-fits-all rules that only act as tripwires to further criminalization and punishment.
Certainly, whether it’s appropriate to restrict someone’s movement is among the most situation-dependent decisions supervision authorities can make, whether for work, family, religious, educational, or — as we’ve discussed here — health reasons. Restricting where people can go inevitably blocks many from accessing the resources they need, which in turn creates health and safety risks for both individuals and communities. These very real and life-threatening consequences must be taken into account and not discounted simply because of a criminal legal status.
Author’s note: Amelia Wittig and Emily Widra provided the foundational research for our analysis of standard probation conditions by collecting and categorizing the relevant forms, web pages, and statutes that stated whether travel restrictions apply to everyone on probation. These sources are on file with the author. As part of a forthcoming report on probation conditions more broadly, we plan to upload the publicly-accessible documents and those we were given permission to share, and to provide a summary table with links in our Data Toolbox.
Our data sources, methodology, and important caveats
For this analysis, we looked at (1) the number of women on probation and parole in each state and in D.C., (2) the standard conditions of probation and parole in each state and D.C., and (3) the abortion laws in each state and D.C. However, none of these data points were straightforward, so we had to create some population estimates and rely on some assumptions, explained here.
Estimating state probation and parole populations by sex: The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports the number of people on probation and on parole (or post-release supervision) by state and sex in its annual Probation and Parole in the United States report. These data form the basis of our estimates for the number of women on probation and parole in each state. Unfortunately, some states do not report these populations by sex or are missing sex data for a portion of the population. In all, almost 27% of the probation population nationwide, and almost 8% of the parole population, are missing sex data. We looked for the missing data in publicly available reports from state probation and parole agencies, but only found it for probation populations in Illinois (23.5% female) and Kansas (25.8% female).
To avoid seriously underestimating the number of women impacted by the laws and policies we examine here, we assigned a sex to the nearly 800,000 people on probation whose sex was not reported. We did so by applying the percentage of all people on probation reported as female among those whose sex was known (24%) to each state’s count of people on probation whose sex was unknown. In other words, we assumed that the ratio of males to females among the population whose sex was reported was the same among the population whose sex was not reported. (For Illinois and Kansas, we applied the percentages that we found from state reports.) Finally, we added each state’s reported number of women on probation to our calculated estimate of women on probation whose sex was not reported to arrive at our final estimate for each state’s female probation population.
We repeated the process to assign a sex to the nearly 54,000 people on parole nationwide whose sex was unknown. For parole, the percentage of people reported as female among those whose sex was known was 11%, so we assumed that 11% of each state’s sex-unknown parole population were female. As a last step, we compared the sums of our final estimates of each state’s female probation and parole populations to those published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in its Correctional Populations in the United States, 2022 report. Our estimates amounted to almost exactly what BJS reported (less than a 0.1% difference), suggesting that our method is similar to what BJS used to estimate these total populations.
Standard conditions of probation and parole: Standard conditions of parole as of 2020, by state, have been collected, categorized, and discussed in Wiggins, et al.’s Parole Rules in the United States: Conditions of Parole in Historical Perspective, 1956-2020. We relied entirely on their analysis when it came to travel restrictions for parole. It’s worth noting, however, that Maine no longer has a parole program as of 2022, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Previously, parole was available to those sentenced before May 1, 1976 — that is, before the state abolished discretionary parole. Despite having no one on parole at this point, Wiggins, et al. (2021) report that as of 2020, Maine had a standard condition of parole restricting out-of-state travel.
Unfortunately, the same comprehensive approach has not yet been applied to standard conditions of probation — largely because of the added difficulty of collecting these documents (which are not always publicly available) from states that have county-run probation systems for felony and/or misdemeanor probation. While some of those states have statewide standard conditions outlined in statute or elsewhere, some of them may have as many variations of standard conditions as there are counties — or even cases. Not to be deterred, we collected standard conditions for felony probation from everywhere that has a single set of standard conditions for the whole state. For those states where the conditions may vary by county, we looked for a sample of documents, prioritizing the most populous counties and felony probation conditions. For the purposes of our analysis — and this is an important caveat – we assumed that the standard conditions we found were representative of the whole state. This means that we may overestimate the number of women on probation in these states impacted by travel restrictions in the standard conditions we found, but we reasoned that those conditions would at least apply to women in the largest population centers for which we could locate documents. Moreover, we found that travel restrictions were the norm, not the exception, and we believe it is more likely than not that standard conditions in the counties from which we did not collect documents also restrict interstate travel.
The states for which we used county or city probation conditions to represent the state’s typical standard probation conditions, and the specific jurisdictions we used as our sample for these states, are summarized in the table below:
| State | Representative county(s) or city(s) | Probation requires permission to leave (county/state/other) | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calif. | Los Angeles | County | |
| Riverside | State | ||
| Ind. | Hamilton | State | |
| Porter | Area of the court’s jurisdiction | ||
| Monroe | None | These conditions were revised in 2023 to be minimally burdensome. | |
| Boone | State | Advance notification is required, not permission. | |
| Kan. | Shawnee | County | |
| Wyondotte | Area within100 miles radius of home, or area within 250 miles of Kansas border | Two different standard conditions documents show different travel restrictions, and it is unclear whether these reflect different levels of probation (i.e., felony vs. misdemeanor), changes over time, or something else. The condition referencing 250 miles outside of Kansas requires “notifying” an officer, not obtaining permission. | |
| N.Y. | New York City | Area of the court’s jurisdiction | |
| Suffolk County | Area of the court’s jurisdiction | ||
| Ohio | Cuyahoga | County | |
| Montgomery | State | ||
| Okla. | Tulsa | State | This appears to be a statewide condition, but we could not confirm that. |
| Ore. | Multnomah | State | |
| Clackamas | State | ||
| Pa. | Philadelphia | County | |
| Allegheny | State | ||
| Montgomery | Adjoining counties | ||
| Bucks | Adjoining counties | ||
| Delaware | State | ||
| Tenn. | Shelby | None | |
| Knox | State | ||
| Rutherford | County | ||
| Texas | Harris | County | |
| Tarrant | County | ||
| Travis | County |
Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Vermont have statutes or standard conditions that empower probation officers or the court to determine the boundaries of an individual’s travel restrictions. The language used in these conditions varies: “My designated area of supervision is [blank] and I will not leave this area without my officer’s permission” (Ky.); “the defendant shall… remain within a specified area as directed” (Miss.); and “Your probation officer may restrict or prohibit travel to any state…” (Vt.). In Kansas, a legislative research memo explains that, “Other than a few statutorily required probation conditions… the conditions of probation, in large part, are left to the discretion of the district court…” The referenced statute lists 14 conditions that the court “may” impose, which include most of the common standard conditions found elsewhere, among them, “remain within the state unless the court grants permission to leave.” Because the conditions we found in each of these states suggest even greater discretionary power than the one-size-fits-all standard conditions, we included these among states that require permission for our analysis.
Abortion access laws: For our categorization of abortion bans, we relied on the work of the Guttmacher Institute (as of May 15, 2024), which breaks down which states have “total bans” and those that ban abortion based on gestational age or “viability.” To distinguish between which states have implemented laws restricting abortions “earlier in pregnancy than the standard set by Roe v. Wade” (that is, “viability”), we relied on The New York Times’ categorization (as of May 1, 2024).
Footnotes
-
The decision in Roe v. Wade protected the right to choose an abortion until the highly variable point of fetal “viability,” which the Court described as “the interim point at which the fetus becomes… potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.” That point, the court opinion continues, is “usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.” ↩
-
A recent article from The New York Times noted “… in the first half of 2023, almost a quarter of women living in states with near-total bans – who may have otherwise sought an abortion – did not get one.” ↩
-
“Total bans” are laws which only allow abortions in extremely limited circumstances, such as when the pregnancy presents a threat to the life or health of the pregnant person, when it results from rape or incest, or when there is a diagnosed “lethal fetal anomaly.” The specific exceptions to abortion bans vary by state. Bans based on gestational duration – often measured as time since the last menstrual period – range from as early as six weeks to the highly variable point of “fetal viability.” ↩
-
“Standard conditions” of probation and parole are the default conditions that everyone on supervision must abide by. “Special conditions” are additional rules and restrictions that may be imposed separately or on an individual basis. ↩
-
One important caveat to this finding is that not all states have statewide standard conditions of probation. In some states, probation (or at least misdemeanor probation) is managed at the county or city level instead of by a central state probation agency. In some of these states, standard conditions vary by jurisdiction, or courts may set different conditions for each supervised person. Because collecting standard conditions from every probation department in these states was not feasible, we attempted to gather those from the most populous counties, and used those as proxies – or representatives – of the whole state. See the Methodology for more details. ↩
-
The use of “women” reflects the gender binary inherent to the data, which come from administrative sources that report male and female sex as opposed to gender identity. These sources therefore obscure the numbers of intersex, nonbinary, and transgender people on probation and parole who are able to become pregnant but are categorized in the data as “male.” The probation and parole restrictions we detail are not gender-specific, which means they also limit these individuals’ ability to access abortion care in the same ways we discuss in this briefing. ↩
-
This figure includes only women on probation in the four states where only probation conditions restrict travel (Ariz., Maine, Mass., and Wyo.), only women on parole in the two states where only parole conditions restrict travel (Ala. and Iowa), and both populations in the 34 states where both probation and parole conditions restrict travel. Our analysis excludes federal probation and post-release supervision populations because we don’t have data showing how women under federal supervision are distributed across the states. The data source for all probation and parole populations is the most recent available (from 2022), the Bureau of Justice Statistics report Probation and Parole in the United States, 2022. See the Methodology for details. ↩
-
We excluded federal probation and post-release supervision because people can live in any state under federal supervision, and we don’t have data showing how women are distributed across the states. ↩
-
Four states – Kan., Ky., Miss., and Vt. – have statutes or standard conditions that transfer discretionary power to determine the boundaries of an individual’s travel restrictions to probation officers or the court. The language used in these cases varies: “My designated area of supervision is [blank] and I will not leave this area without my officer’s permission” (Ky.); “the defendant shall… remain within a specified area as directed” (Miss.); and “Your probation officer may restrict or prohibit travel to any state…” (Vt.). In Kansas, the statute related to probation conditions lists 14 conditions that the court “may” impose, which include most of the common standard conditions found elsewhere, among them, “remain within the state unless the court grants permission to leave.” This is not listed as a mandatory condition, but the statute is clearly written to give district courts the most control over conditions, and the sample conditions documents we found included travel restrictions. Because the rules in each of these states suggest even greater decision-making power than the one-size-fits-all standard conditions, we include these among states that require permission in our analysis. ↩
-
As of 2022, Maine no longer has a parole program, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (previously, parole was available to those sentenced before May 1, 1976 – that is, before the state abolished discretionary parole.) We did not count Maine among the states with standard conditions restricting travel for this reason, but Wiggins, et al. (2021) report that as of 2020, Maine, too, had a standard condition of parole restricting out-of-state travel. ↩
-
For a 2015 law review article, probation expert Ronald Corbett requested information from members of the National Association of Probation Executives about the standard and special conditions imposed in their jurisdictions. The sample he received showed a range of seven to twenty-four standard conditions in each jurisdiction, plus three to five special conditions. In the same article, Corbett includes this comment from a 2014 interview with a retired Texas Probation Director: “…we have witnessed the growth in the number of special conditions of probation, and now it is not uncommon for offenders to be saddled with up to a couple of dozen.” ↩
-
The other option is to arrange a “self-managed abortion” – that is, “an abortion that takes place outside of the formal medical system, through any number of means, such as a medication regimen, herbs, or other long-standing cultural practices,” as the Community Justice Exchange and Repro Legal Defense Fund describe it in Dobbs Was Not The Beginning. Of course, self-managed abortions come with their own legal risks and logistical barriers, which that organizing guide explains. ↩
-
A recent article in The New York Times noted that “Many traveling patients faced multiday trips, lost income and child care costs.” ↩
-
In Maine, for example, 17-A MRS §1807(8) states, “…the Department of Corrections may impose on a person applying for such permission an application fee of $25. …Permission to leave may not be denied or withdrawn solely because the person is not able to pay the application fee or the additional fee. When a person fails to pay a fee imposed under this subsection, the department may refuse to process the application or may withdraw permission to leave if the failure to pay is attributable to the person’s willful refusal to pay or to a failure on the person’s part to make a good faith effort to obtain the funds required for the payment.” ↩
-
For instance, people on probation or parole in Missouri – a state with a total abortion ban – are advised that “you are required to discuss your travels with your Probation and Parole Officer at least 15 days in advance to allow time for the proper paperwork to be prepared.” ↩
-
As we detail in the linked briefing based on our analysis of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), people under community supervision report substance use disorders at four times the rate – and mental health disorders at twice the rate – found in the general U.S. population. Twenty-five percent of people on probation and 27% of people on parole were uninsured at the time of the survey, even though many have incomes low enough to qualify them for Medicaid. Public health researchers Winkelman, Phelps, Mitchell, Jennings, & Shlafer (2020) analyzed the same survey data (but from 2015-2016) and found that people under community supervision are more likely to report fair or poor health, more chronic conditions, a diagnosis of COPD, hepatitis B or C, or kidney disease than people in the general population. The community supervision population also has higher rates of disabilities, with particularly high rates of cognitive disabilities. ↩
Ironic and sad that recognition of travel restrictions of women seeking abortions is worth writing about yet registered sex offenders restrictions on travel segregating family and impeding employment is ignored.
Hey James, I know the immense obstacles facing those on registries often go overlooked. We have another project in the works about the restrictions registries impose on people, and hope to publish it soon.
Do these numbers include juveniles?
Hey Julie – no, these numbers do not include youth (except youth sentenced to adult parole and probation, which is pretty rare). To our knowledge, there isn’t a public dataset showing how many people are on juvenile probation/juvenile parole on any given day. Sorry we can’t be of more help here.