Stay Informed

Get the latest updates:

Prison Policy Initiative newsletter (?)
And our other newsletters: Research Library updates (?) Prison gerrymandering campaign (?)

Email:
Name (optional):
State (optional):

Excessive, unjust, and expensive

Fixing Connecticut's probation and parole problems

By Leah Wang and gabriel sayegh    Tweet this
May 2023

Table of Contents

Introduction

Probation

Incarceration is one mistake away

Fees, monitoring, & other burdens

Consequences of noncriminal violations

Parole

Tangled web of parole programs

Lost gains while behind bars

Revocation undermines success

The promise of probation & parole reform in Connecticut

A framework for reform

A fairer, less costly approach

Conclusions

In the United States, the number of people under the surveillance of probation and parole systems is nearly twice the number of those behind bars. Community supervision, which refers mainly to probation and parole, is “too big to succeed.” (Simply defined, probation is a court-ordered “suspended” sentence served in the community, typically with a set period of supervision; parole is a conditional release after incarceration.) This is true throughout the country — and Connecticut is no exception, particularly in terms of its outsize probation system, which jeopardizes the well-being and progress of more than 30,000 people and their families.

Chronically underfunded and overly punitive, probation rarely serves as an alternative to incarceration, as it was originally intended. And people released from prison to parole supervision often struggle to rebuild their lives during the reentry process. But the sheer size of these populations is not the biggest problem: noncriminal “technical” violations of probation and parole — like missing a curfew or testing positive for alcohol or other drug use — are known drivers of mass incarceration, sending hundreds of thousands of people nationwide into jails and prisons every year. (Connecticut is one of six states that has a unified system of jails and prisons; the Department of Correction [DOC] manages both types of incarceration.)

In Connecticut, as in other states, excessive consequences for these noncriminal violations can result in incarceration. This approach disproportionately burdens communities of color and is a costly endeavor for the entire state; research and experience tell us that most community supervision does not contribute to public safety and that probation and parole populations can and must be reduced. Other states have made such changes, offering Connecticut guidance about the steps to take for reform. For instance, in 2021, New York passed the transformative Less Is More law to help break cycles of supervision and incarceration.

This report provides lawmakers and advocates fundamental information to advance essential probation and parole reforms in Connecticut, changes that will reduce unnecessary incarceration and supervision; increase fairness, justice, and public safety; and save taxpayer dollars and other resources. The report reviews the policies and data related to community supervision and technical violations in Connecticut and describes concrete ways to improve these systems. It also gives an overview of New York’s recent parole reforms, with recommendations for lawmakers and others working to shape meaningful legislation in Connecticut and beyond. Given the immediate and ongoing signs of success in New York, any state can look to the provisions of the Less Is More Act to help determine ways to reduce excessive supervision and incarcerated populations.

What follows is a deep dive into the policies and practices that entangle too many people in the web of ongoing supervision and cycles of imprisonment in Connecticut. Those who are on probation and parole live in fear of arrest and incarceration for nearly any action that could constitute a violation — a gross misuse of resources and a disservice to families in Connecticut. By allowing people to remain in their communities, the state can better provide residents the help they may need in the place where they’re most likely to succeed. Connecticut has a momentous opportunity to reshape the probation and parole systems and deliver racial, economic, and procedural justice to people under supervision.

For the 30,000 people on probation in Connecticut, incarceration is one mistake away.

As of January 1, 2023, 30,723 people — almost 1% of the population — were on probation in Connecticut.¹ These 30,000 people are by far the most under any form of “correctional control” statewide: That is three times the number of people Connecticut incarcerates.² After year upon year of declines mirroring a national trend, the probation population took an upturn in late 2021 and rose steadily in 2022.³ Every month, roughly 1,700 people in Connecticut begin probation, about 1,200 complete it, and several dozen people on probation are incarcerated for a violation.⁴

Although many perceive probation as a “lenient” sentence or lift it up as a model “alternative to incarceration,” it subjects tens of thousands of people in Connecticut to supervision and surveillance every day and at significant cost. What’s worse, probation’s onerous conditions act as a trip wire to incarceration. According to the Connecticut DOC’s publicly available data, supervision violations are the most common “offense” that puts people behind bars: 1 in 10 people in state prisons are listed under the offense “violation of probation or conditional discharge.” Connecticut is not unique in this manner, but reforming the system in meaningful ways would offer the state an opportunity to lead by example, reducing the unintended harms of its probation practices. State lawmakers and advocates should seize the opportunity to make the greatest impact possible by addressing the ways that probation can easily ensnare people in cycles of incarceration and surveillance.

As judges continue to order probation for people who don’t pose a risk to public safety, the state should make this system less punitive and more supportive for them. Through effective reform, Connecticut can offer commonsense incentives and fair, efficient processes to resolve compliance issues as people navigate probation requirements, treatment, work, family, and other responsibilities.

Probation supervision in Connecticut often comes with onerous fees, electronic monitoring, and other burdens that make it difficult for people to succeed.

Complying with court-ordered conditions of probation is practically a full-time job: Connecticut statute lists 17 “standard” conditions a judge can impose, including maintaining work or a course of study, undergoing treatment or counseling, meeting family obligations, and nebulous “other conditions.”⁵

Everyone on probation has at least one financial obligation as a condition of their probation sentence: a onetime $200 supervision fee. But Connecticut charges other fees, such as for drug testing or program participation. On a national scale, having to comply with all legal financial obligations as a standard condition of probation amounts to a mass extraction of wealth from some of the country’s poorest people and all but guarantees that many will end up behind bars. This is one reason that reforms like the ones New York recently enacted through the Less Is More Act could have an impact right away: Connecticut must prohibit incarcerating people for noncriminal violations of probation conditions (such as missed payments) that have more to do with financial insecurity than willful noncompliance.

Some people on probation in Connecticut have to wear an electronic monitoring (EM) device,⁶ usually called an ankle monitor or “tether.” Agencies that use EM claim it contributes to public safety, ensuring that people appear for their check-ins or court dates. But as research and countless firsthand accounts make clear, this surveillance technology is often used in ways that are discriminatory, financially exploitative, and ineffective.⁷ Fortunately, electronic monitoring is used infrequently among people on probation in Connecticut: As of July 2022, about 1 percent of adults on probation were required to use EM.⁸ In reducing the amount of time people are subject to community supervision, the state’s reforms should reduce the risk of accidentally violating one of the many absurd requirements for complying with EM, such as failing to charge the device.

Noncriminal violations of probation can land someone behind bars for weeks, even if they’ve never been sentenced to prison.

Because many people who are on probation in Connecticut were never sentenced to incarceration, being accused of a noncriminal violation could put them behind bars for the first time, an experience contributing to a litany of terrible consequences.

Someone who is accused of violating the conditions of their probation is typically arrested on a “violation of probation” warrant, as hundreds of people are in Connecticut every month.⁹ Alternatively, authorities can provide written notice for people to appear before a judge for an alleged violation, though no data exist regarding how often this type of notice is given. Connecticut should offer written notice as the norm, sparing many people the trauma of arrest.¹⁰

As soon as someone is taken into custody (“remanded”) or provided a notice to appear regarding a probation violation in Connecticut, a few troubling things happen:

1. The probation sentence is “interrupted,” even if the court determines that there was no violation.
   According to state law, time spent waiting for the revocation¹¹ process to play out doesn’t count toward completing a probation sentence. This is grossly unfair. Connecticut can easily solve this by repealing the statute that unjustly interrupts the probation sentence “clock.”
2. State law allows up to four months before a revocation hearing determines the final outcome for someone on probation.
   As if stopping the clock isn’t already frustrating and counterproductive, sometimes people must wait more than four months — 120 calendar days — for their hearing, such as when the courts try to resolve multiple charges at once. But as research has shown, even a few days in jail can be life-altering; 120 days can be catastrophic.
3. People may have an opportunity to post bail, but money bail is out of reach for many.
   Although the opportunity to be released on bail may sound reasonable, money bail is too often unaffordable,¹² leaving people who pose no threat to public safety locked up for weeks and months.¹³ The time spent behind bars awaiting a hearing comes at a steep cost to taxpayers too: At nearly $1,200 per week,¹⁴ it’s expensive to incarcerate someone in Connecticut. And that doesn’t account for lost income, lost housing and/or property, and severed connections with loved ones, which create devastating setbacks for families and entire communities.
4. Racial disparities in supervision keep communities of color under excessive surveillance.
   No discussion of probation in Connecticut should overlook the widely documented racial disparities found at every stage and level of the state’s entire criminal justice system — in policing and arrests, in pretrial and bail practices, in jails and prisons, and in community supervision programs, including probation and parole.¹⁵ Keeping communities of color under the surveillance of the criminal legal system via probation almost guarantees that people will end up incarcerated, re-incarcerated, or perpetually struggling to make ends meet due to fees and mandatory obligations that interfere with a stable life.

The tens of thousands of people impacted by probation in Connecticut every day stand to benefit immensely from less incarceration and delay — and from more fairness and opportunity to successfully complete supervision.

Connecticut’s tangled web of parole programs

Like most states, Connecticut has discretionary parole, but “parole supervision” extends to far more people than those the parole board releases. Several types of releases from state prisons can result in parole supervision and could therefore lead to re-incarceration for violations.

The following chart describes most types of parole supervision in Connecticut as of January 1, 2023. (The rest of this report refers to these types of supervision collectively as parole unless otherwise specified.)

Types of parole supervision in Connecticut¹⁶

These types of parole apply to people on supervision living in private residences and in state-sponsored halfway houses. This table does not include some people who are on special parole and in DOC custody after being re-incarcerated for a violation of their parole conditions.

Type of parole	Description	Population on January 1, 2023 17
Discretionary parole	Granted to parole-eligible people by the Board of Pardons and Paroles; this typically requires a parole hearing, but legislation passed in 2015 allows the board to grant parole without a hearing for people convicted of certain crimes.	753
Special parole	Part of a sentence handed down by a sentencing judge, served after all incarceration and other supervision (including discretionary parole) is completed. Special parole, which is unique to Connecticut (though other states use the name), is like an intense form of probation.	1,363
Transfer parole	A type of parole for people granted discretionary parole but who haven’t been released from prison yet. The Board of Pardons and Paroles can decide to release people to transfer parole prior to their determined date. For some people, however, this “head start” to parole comes at a cost of “stricter supervision.”	54
Transitional placement	Specifically for people who are not eligible for discretionary parole18 but have successfully completed a term in a state-sanctioned halfway house. While remaining under supervision, people are transferred to an approved community residence or private residence.	42
Transitional supervision	For people who have sentences of two years or less, transitional supervision is available after serving 50% of their sentence.	256

The disruptive role of special parole in Connecticut cannot be overstated. More people are serving this severe type of supervision sentence than are on discretionary parole — and this has been true since 2013. Fortunately, legislation that went into effect in January 2020 allows the Board of Pardons and Paroles to discharge people early from discretionary and special parole; as of August 2022, the board had granted more than 1,200 early discharges, primarily from special parole.¹⁹

Still, it should be concerning to lawmakers and advocates that so many people who have already completed a sentence of incarceration (and/or supervision) remain entangled in the state’s criminal legal system through special parole. The program is notorious; the ACLU of Connecticut has deemed it an “extreme” and “over-used” form of supervision that comes down hardest on Black and Latino residents.²⁰

Awaiting hearings behind bars, people accused of parole violations lose the gains they’ve made.

Like a probation violation, a parole violation can be “noncriminal” or “criminal” and can lead to time behind bars as the revocation hearing process plays out. Regardless of the violation type, people on parole supervision can be returned to DOC custody (“remanded”) with no right to bail, leaving them to the injustices and delays of the revocation hearing process. Every month, more than 100 people on parole supervision in Connecticut are remanded, accounting for over one-third of prison admissions (not including people who are pretrial and have not been convicted of a crime).²¹ And in 2021, half (49%) of all alleged parole violations were for noncriminal “technical” violations.²²

The injustice of automatic re-incarceration for noncriminal violations of parole begins immediately, because state law allows a remand to take place before someone even receives official paperwork explaining their alleged violation. After being remanded, someone may be in custody for up to — and sometimes exceeding — 60 business days (12 weeks) awaiting hearings and administrative actions. (By contrast, some states, including New York under the Less Is More Act, require a notice of violation to be delivered first and instead of automatic re-incarceration.)

During weeks behind bars, people can lose their footing and important ties in and to their community: According to a 2017 report from Yale Law School, among people awaiting parole revocation decisions in Connecticut, a staggering 79% of those surveyed lost their jobs and almost half (47%) lost their housing.

Of 821 parole revocation processes that resolved in Connecticut in 2021, more than one-third (36%) of cases led to parole being reinstated, suggesting that at least 300 people were in prison unnecessarily, likely for multiple months. And fewer than 5% of resolved violations resulted in parole being rescinded²³ or revoked.

Given how many people are eventually found not to be in violation of their parole, how many people could safely be released weeks and months earlier — or not locked up at all? The destabilizing results of sending people on parole back to prison for any slipup isn’t contributing to public safety; it’s simply a waste of time and money.

Other ways parole and revocation undermine success

1. The process is expensive — for everyone.
   Even though people in Connecticut aren’t charged fees for parole supervision²⁴ or electronic monitoring,²⁵ whenever someone is incarcerated the state eventually bills them for the cost of their incarceration, an indefensible “pay-to-stay” system driven by state statute.²⁶
   
   According to a class-action lawsuit filed by two Connecticut residents, the state charges people $249 a day for their incarceration, sentenced or not, under this “prison debt law.” Ending automatic re-incarceration for most noncriminal parole violations would spare many families these outrageous fees.
   
   Meanwhile, taxpayers foot the bill of re-incarceration for noncriminal violations: Several weeks of keeping someone behind bars costs an estimated $11,500 to $14,500 in Connecticut, according to a Yale Law School report on the parole revocation process. By reducing the use of incarceration for noncriminal violations of parole, the state can reinvest the savings in reentry programming — like supportive housing — known to dramatically improve a person’s chances of successfully transitioning back into society from prison.
2. The concept of “good time” or “time credits” doesn’t exist in Connecticut’s parole laws — yet.
   Currently, people on parole supervision don’t earn any time credits (or “good time”) — days of credit taken off their supervision term — for the days or months they’re in compliance. Earning such credits during supervision is standard practice in at least nine states, including New York now. The longer people have to be on parole, the more they need to juggle all the challenges of compliance and reentry — and the more likely they are to be brought back to prison for a minor mistake. As it stands now, people who have certain eligible types of parole can only hope that the appropriate authority will grant them an early termination. For discretionary parole, this is an onerous process with strict requirements; recent data suggest that only a handful of people are approved each month (and early termination numbers from special parole are slightly higher).²⁷ Conversely, some states have crucial policies granting good time, building in the potential for early termination from the very beginning. For example, in New York under the Less Is More law, people earn a 30-day reduction in their parole period for every 30 days they go without receiving a technical violation.
3. People going through revocation hearings don’t always receive due process.
   People facing parole violation allegations have the right to counsel (a lawyer) and a preliminary hearing (a court appearance in which someone can dispute a parole officer’s decision to remand them — and they may be released). But in practice, people on parole are not exercising these rights, putting themselves at greater risk of revocation and more prison time. The Yale report cited earlier found that people remanded for a violation of parole were largely unaware of their rights, even when they had been through the process before. In some cases, parole officers advised people to sign away their rights — or steered them in that direction — or didn’t provide them with opportunities to present evidence or call witnesses, two other rights afforded during revocation hearings.
   
   In Connecticut, state statute doesn’t specify where parole revocation hearings must take place; lawmakers should require that hearings cannot be held behind the walls of a correctional facility but in a more neutral setting, as New York implemented through its Less Is More Act.

The promise of probation and parole reform in Connecticut

With nearly 35,000 people on some form of supervision in Connecticut, the state could make probation and parole fairer and more effective by drawing on the principles of New York’s Less Is More law, which is based on successful reforms from other states. Such reforms would have a wide-ranging positive impact by interrupting cycles of incarceration and excessive surveillance. But how many people will be affected?

These are the estimated gains:

• Thousands of currently active arrest warrants can be lifted and valuable resources saved by not issuing and serving hundreds of warrants for probation violations month after month.
• At least 6,000 fewer people will be arrested within two years.²⁸
• Hundreds of people will immediately be eligible for release from Connecticut prisons, based on the noncriminal nature of their supervision violation.
• Prison populations in Connecticut could shrink by as much as 10 percent; 1 in 10 people in its state prisons are listed under “violation of probation or conditional discharge.”²⁹
• Once the state is through calculating earned time credits, thousands of people will soon be off supervision entirely, allowing probation and parole agencies to focus on people with the greatest needs and shrinking the overall footprint of mass supervision.
• Fewer people will face collateral consequences like losing their job, housing, or custody of their children because of unnecessary incarceration. This will affect thousands of people right away.

A framework for reform in Connecticut

Connecticut should adopt these core components to reform probation and parole and address overly punitive responses to violations of supervision:

• Restrict the use of incarceration for verified noncriminal (“technical”) violations. Incarceration should be eliminated as a sanction for many noncriminal violations.³⁰ Instead, when a violation is confirmed, more moderate consequences can result, like suspension of earned time credit (explained below) or a shorter capped period of incarceration proportionate to the seriousness of the violation.
• Eliminate automatic detention for noncriminal “technical” violations. Instead, people accused of most noncriminal violations — like being late to an appointment with a parole or probation officer — should be issued a written notice with a date to appear in court if deemed necessary.
• Apply earned time credit to supervision sentences. As a reward for a given period of compliance, people should be credited with time off of their period of supervision. Earned time incentivizes continued success under supervision and reduces caseloads, allowing probation and parole staff to focus on people who have the greatest needs.
• Bolster due process. Additional steps for reinforcing due process include speeding up the time from initial hearing to final disposition, providing more neutral public locations for revocation hearings, and guaranteeing the right to counsel during hearings.

Examples from other states: New York’s Less Is More Act

Until Less Is More legislation was passed in September 2021, New York held the distinction of imprisoning people for noncriminal violations of parole at more than six times the national average. And in 2019, Black people in New York were five times more likely than white people — while Latino people were 30 percent more likely — to be re-incarcerated for a noncriminal parole violation.

The impact of Less Is More was immediate. In late 2021, the smaller anticipated prison population — because fewer people would automatically be re-incarcerated for noncriminal violations — was a factor in the state’s decision to close six New York prisons. By the end of January 2022, even before most of the law’s provisions took effect, Less Is More had already led to sweeping measurable changes that affected New Yorkers dramatically: nearly 2,000 people on parole who had been incarcerated for noncriminal technical violations were released from jails and prisons. By March 2023, more than 17,000 eligible people in New York had been discharged early from parole, cutting the number of people on parole statewide by nearly 40%.

Overall, by reducing the use of incarceration as a response to noncriminal technical violations, Less Is More significantly helps people maintain and keep building on the progress they make during the reentry process, like securing employment and housing. Specifically, fewer people in New York are locked up for violations now and are no longer automatically brought into custody for most noncriminal violations (circumventing problems related to bail, among other consequences). And when they are detained while awaiting a revocation hearing, it’s not for nearly as long (a maximum of 55 days if they had not previously been detained, and 35 days if they were).

For years, state law was particularly harsh for people on parole, sending tens of thousands of New Yorkers back to jail or prison for minor noncriminal infractions and thwarting their momentum toward stability. But in just one year, Less Is More had an outsize impact on communities that are perpetually affected by mass supervision, in part because incarceration is costly and unnecessary for many people trying to rebuild their lives and livelihoods. Connecticut could move immediately to make similar changes to its community supervision programs and practices.

A fairer, less costly approach can protect Connecticut communities from unjust incarceration.

On any given day, Connecticut’s prisons are filled with people who are there because of supervision violations, at great cost to their loved ones and other taxpayers. In New York, Less Is More was envisioned and passed at a critical time, when nearly 34,000 people were on parole and the state led the nation in incarceration for noncriminal parole violations. Connecticut may not be a chart-topper in those ways, but as a proven leader in reforming its criminal legal system, the state can continue to have a meaningful impact on its people by adopting the provisions that New York State adopted.

The rest of the country can already look to Connecticut for major systems change: In 2021, it was the first state to make prison phone calls free for incarcerated adults and youth. That year, Connecticut took legislative steps toward ending prison gerrymandering, declaring that incarcerated people should be counted at home — and not where they are incarcerated — for redistricting purposes. In 2010, it was the sixth state to “ban the box,” improving employment opportunities for people with criminal records. And in 2005, Connecticut was the first to eliminate the crack/powder cocaine disparity of drug sentencing laws. Given that the state led in these areas of reform, reducing harm and incarceration by tackling supervision violations is a logical next step. Although in New York the Less Is More Act applies only to people on parole and not probation, Connecticut lawmakers and advocates should seize the opportunity to make the greatest impact possible by addressing the ways that both systems ensnare people in cycles of incarceration and surveillance.

Conclusions

Probation and parole are important tools for keeping people out of jails and prisons — and could even be helpful systems for connecting people with the community-based supports and services they’ve needed. Connecticut has numerous policy options — including New York State’s Less Is More approach — for modifying and scaling back supervision systems, focusing on people who have the greatest needs while steering clear of unreasonable conditions, fees, and other punishments. Only with serious, thorough reforms can supervision be a pathway out of and away from the carceral system in Connecticut.

Acknowledgements

The Prison Policy Initiative thanks our partners at the Katal Center for Equity, Health, and Justice for their insight and strategic guidance in producing this report. The author also thanks Wendy Sawyer for her support throughout the writing process. Finally, the organization thanks the individuals across the country who support our work, without whom this report would not have been possible.

Katal extends our deep gratitude and thanks to our partners at the Prison Policy Initiative — this report wouldn’t exist but for their dedicated efforts. We thank our members and volunteers for fighting — every day — for a more fair and just Connecticut. Thanks to Yonah Zeitz for the behind-the-scenes work to bring this report into the world and to Kenyatta Muzzanni for getting it started. We thank our editor, Jules Verdone, and our designer, Erica Asinas, for their attention to detail and production. And we thank our individual donors and foundation supporters who make our work possible.

About the authors

Leah Wang is a Research Analyst at the Prison Policy Initiative. She is the author of the recent report Punishment beyond prisons: incarceration and supervision by state, and of the organization’s report Chronic Punishment: The unmet health needs of people in state prisons. Her other work includes reports on diversion programs, how incarceration affects people’s experiences in the job market, and the importance of family contact for incarcerated people.

gabriel sayegh is the cofounder and co–executive director of the Katal Center for Equity, Health, and Justice. A community organizer and strategist for more than 20 years, gabriel has contributed to a wide range of collaborative grassroots movement efforts as a trainer, facilitator, and partner. He has developed and led campaigns to roll back the Rockefeller drug laws, prevent overdose deaths, end racially biased marijuana arrests, close the Rikers Island jail complex, pass bail reform, and more.

About the Prison Policy Initiative

The non-profit, non-partisan Prison Policy Initiative was founded in 2001 to expose the broader harm of mass criminalization and spark advocacy campaigns to create a more just society. The organization is known for its visual breakdown of mass incarceration in the U.S., as well as its data-rich analyses of how U.S. states vary in their use of punishment. Alongside reports like these, the organization leads the nation’s fight to keep the prison system from exerting undue influence on the political process (a.k.a. prison gerrymandering) and plays a leading role in protecting the families of incarcerated people from the predatory prison and jail telephone industry and the video calling industry.

About the Katal Center for Equity, Health, and Justice

Katal is a community organization that works in Connecticut and New York to strengthen the people, policies, institutions, and movements that advance equity, health, and justice for everyone. We envision a world where all communities have the resources and power to exercise self-determination and participate meaningfully in the democratic process.

• Home
• About
• Publications
• Issues
• Data
• Blog
• Contact
• Careers
• Donate

Contact us online or write us: Instagram Twitter Facebook RSS

Donate