< PreviousIMPACT OF COVID-19 ON COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES BY: JILL VIGLIONE, PH.D., LUCAS M. ALWARD, AND ASHLEY V. LOCKWOOD41 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION THE IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC ON COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Much of the experience of traditional community supervision relies on face-to-face interactions between the supervision officer and individual on supervision (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). However, the global COVID-19 pandemic introduced significant challenges to this supervision process. With many states instituting stay-at-home orders in the first several months, and with the need to follow safety guidelines such as those presented by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), community corrections agencies were forced to quickly rethink how they do business. Given the obvious lack of pre-existing research on how to change supervision protocols in the midst of a global pandemic, working out the best solutions has not been easy. Accurate and comprehensive information on the prevalence of COVID-19 outbreaks among clients and community supervision staff is scant as yet. Individuals with a lower socioeconomic status and without access to health care are most vulnerable during the current pandemic (Ahmed, Ahmed, Pissarides, & Stiglitz, 2020), suggesting possible risk factors for community supervision populations. These populations are already medically vulnerable, having increased risk of contracting infectious diseases due to the prevalence of preexisting medical risk factors (e.g., asthma, hepatitis, and sexually transmitted diseases) (Clark et al., 2013; Vaughn, DeLisi, Beaver, Perron, & Abdon, 2012) as well as disproportionate levels of social and economic disadvantage (Vaughn et al., 2012), behavioral risk factors such as substance use (Fearn et al., 2016), and mental illness (James & Glaze, 2006) compared to the general population. The pandemic has also brought other hardships, including increased unemployment and housing and food instability, all of which have created significant challenges for correctional agencies and the populations they supervise. COVID-19 Guidelines for Corrections In an attempt to spearhead agency response to COVID-19, Executives Transforming Probation & Parole (EXiT), a coalition consisting of current and former community supervision executives and the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera, 2020) released statements with recommendations for community supervision agencies across the United States. These guidelines included prevention strategies such as placing immediate limits on office visits for those on parole and probation, suspending or limiting the processing of technical violations, reducing intake to only those with an absolute need to be on probation and parole, reducing probation and parole terms, and providing training for staff and guidance for probationers and parolees. Vera also recommended sharing of educational information on COVID-19 with individuals on community supervision and utilizing CDC-informed screening tools.1 Lastly, the Vera guidelines provided specific guidance on responding to COVID-19 that included creating medical care plans, training staff, and implementing policies to protect staff who become ill. Taken together, the Vera guidelines present transformations for the field of community supervision, especially regarding changes to methods of responding to noncompliance and integration of public health strategies. Community corrections agencies will likely need to continue with such altered supervision practices for the foreseeable future, given there have been 42 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 44, NUMBER 4 THE IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC ON COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS nearly 5.5 million confirmed cases and over 170,000 deaths in the United States as of August 2020 (Dong, Du, & Gardner, 2020). The aim of the current study is to shed light on how community corrections agencies have implemented changes to prevent, contain, and respond to COVID-19 to date. The data collected here provides a timely picture of what has been happening in community supervision agencies, including the various efforts they have made to prevent, contain, and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and the new policies and procedures they had to implement to succeed. Methods Data for this study are part of an ongoing, longitudinal, mixed method study to examine how community supervision agencies are adapting to the COVID-19 pandemic. The information reported here was collected by administering surveys to community supervision administrators across the United States during June through August 2020. To start, we collected contact information for community supervision agencies across the United States. The make-up of each state’s contact list varied depending on the structure of its community corrections system. For example, eight states were organized by regions and had a regional director complete the survey for multiple counties, while two states operated at the state level and had one representative respond to the survey. An e-mail was also distributed through the Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence! (ACE!) list-serve. Twelve states required approval from a centralized review board. Two states approved participation, two declined to participate, and eight had not yet approved participation. Electronic surveys were distributed to all identified administrators using Qualtrics (Snow & Mann, 2013). See Viglione and colleagues (2020) for a full description of the methods. Sample A total of 1,295 community supervision administrators (chiefs, supervisors, directors) were invited to participate in the study. Of those individuals invited to complete the survey, 337 responded (31%), while an additional 10 completed the survey via the ACE! list-serve e-mail. Agencies from 42 states were represented2. Characteristics of participating agencies are presented in Table 1. Directors reported the use of videoconferencing and other technologies was the single most beneficial change made in response to COVID-19. Directors reported the biggest challenge currently facing the field of community supervision was the inability to hold individuals accountable. 43 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION THE IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC ON COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Table 1: Sample characteristics (N = 347) Variable% (n) M (SD)MinimumMaximum Regions Served Rural75.5% (197) Suburban27.7% (33) Urban23.1% (32) Rural/Suburban21.7% (27) Rural/Urban16.0 % (12) Suburban/Urban14.5% (6) Rural/Suburban/Urban12.2% (38) Region of U.S. Northeast14.9% (52) Midwest33.7% (117) West22.7% (79) South28.5% (99) Populations Served Adults90.8% (315) Youth45.8% (159) Felony83.9% (291) Misdemeanor77.5% (269) Type of Supervision County Probation63.1% (219) State Probation38.3% (133) Federal Probation 1.0% (3) State Parole24.5% (85) County Parole11.8% (41) Caseload 89.3 (52.05)1450 Total Supervision Population4324 (19609)1250000 20-49935.5% (120) 500-99921.1% (70) 1000-499931.3% (104) 5000+12.0% (40) Officers with Caseloads 51 (231)13500 Office Status Open99.1% (344) Closed 0.9% (3) Measures The survey contained a variety of questions designed to identify changes agencies have made in response to COVID-19 (Table 2). Questions focused on prevention, containment, and response strategies, as well as changes agencies have made to supervision practices.44 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 44, NUMBER 4 THE IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC ON COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Table 2: Survey Measures Variable Measure Prevention Strategies Meeting locations (face- to-face; in office; in field), frequency of meetings Use of Technology Technology used for supervision (e.g., “telephone calls,” “texting,” “e-mail,” “postcards,” “video conferencing”); frequency of technology use Responses to Behaviors Frequency of various strategies used (e.g., technical violations,” “revocations,” “drug testing”); frequency violations issued (e.g., “failing a drug/ alcohol test,” “pay fines”). Agency Policies Collection of supervision fees; early terminations; percentage of terminated cases Containment Strategies Use of a screening tool to identify exposure to and risk for COVID-19 infection, sharing information and guidance about prevention Response Strategies Medical care plans; COVID-19 training; paid sick leave Impact of COVID-19 Percentage of officers furloughed or laid off; estimates of positive COVID-19 cases among clients and staff Director Perceptions Perceptions of most beneficial strategy implemented and most pressing issue Analytic Plan All survey data were exported to Qualtrics and uploaded to SPSS version 26 for analysis. Because the focus of this study is to examine the landscape of community corrections during the COVID-19 pandemic, a series of descriptive analyses were conducted. Given that the focus of this study is exploratory in nature, inferential analyses were not conducted. Results Prevention Strategies Of the 347 agencies participating in the survey to date, over half reported they were supervising individuals face-to-face in the office, while 50% reported supervising individuals face-to-face in the field. Only 15% of agencies reported they were not seeing any individuals, in any capacity, face to face (Table 3). Of those meeting in the office, less than half reported they met somewhere other than usual office space such as the lobby or a classroom where there was more space to social distance. Of those meeting in the field, nearly three-quarters reported officers met with individuals outside of their homes while less than half reported they met somewhere else, such as a community park or place of employment.45 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION THE IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC ON COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Table 3: Face-to-Face Contact Strategies (N = 347) % (n) In office63.4% (220) In office, somewhere other than usual office space 46.4% (102) In office, no change23.3% (58) In office, designated place (e.g., lobby, classroom) 37.0% (50) Outside office, parking lot, curbside 22.1% (30) In office, behind barrier/ plexiglass 11.0% (15) In field50.1% (174) In field, outside home89.1% (155) In field, park, place of employment 11.0% (15) In field, no change11.5% (20) No face-to-face meetings occurring 15.3% (53) Of the 294 agencies who reported some face-to-face contact (office or field), 27% reported they met with all individuals on their caseloads as they normally would. However, 56% reported they met with high-risk individuals, with fewer reporting meeting with those considered moderate risk (35%) or low risk (10%). Additionally, 41% of directors reported they saw individuals who needed to be drug tested while 48% of agencies saw new clients. Approximately 48% of directors reported officers were seeing individuals with substance use issues less frequently, while 43% reported officers were seeing those with mental health issues less frequently. The only group more likely to be seen at the same frequency were individuals convicted of sex offenses (66%). Use of Technology The most used technology to continue active supervision of individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic was telephone calls. A large percentage of agencies reported their officers were also using texting, e-mail, and videoconferencing (Figure 1). Approximately 10% of directors reported use of other technology, including smartphone applications, website reporting, kiosks, electronic monitoring, and social media. Of all strategies, videoconferencing was most likely to be an entirely new technology implemented in response to COVID-19. Most directors reported individuals were using telehealth services for mental health and substance use, with less than half noting these were new technologies in their office. Figure 1: Agency Use of Technology46 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 44, NUMBER 4 THE IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC ON COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Responses to Behavior The largest increase in use of supervision and case management strategies was reported for electronic monitoring/GPS (Figure 2). The majority of directors reported decreased use of drug testing, community service requirements, revocations, and technical violations. Most directors reported their office processed fewer violations for all non-compliance, except for commission of a new crime and possession of a firearm. Figure 2: Response to Behaviors Agency Policies Over half of agencies reported they were collecting supervision fees but were not issuing violations for late fees (Figure 3). Roughly a quarter of agencies reported they made alterations in their collection process, such as permitting online, mail-in, or phone payments, while 2.4% of agencies halted collection of fees altogether. Less than a quarter of agencies reported they had terminated supervision terms early because of COVID-19 (Table 4). The majority reported these individuals were those in full compliance with all conditions of probation or were considered low risk. Most agencies reported they received fewer new clients referred for supervision, with the majority of those reporting a 21% to 40% decline in caseloads. Just over a quarter of agencies reported receiving increased referrals since the start of the pandemic, with the majority reporting a 1% to 10% increase in caseloads. Figure 3: Agency Supervision Modifications47 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION THE IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC ON COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Table 4: Supervision Terminations and Change of Client Referrals Early termination of supervision (n = 330) % (n) Yes20.3% (67) No67.3% (222) Not sure12.4% (41) Agency plans to terminate supervision terms in the future (N = 328) % (n) Yes3.7% (12) Maybe28.0% (92) No68.3% (224) New Client Referrals (n =329)% (n) Decrease in new clients71.4% (235) Increase in new clients7.9% (26) Nearly three-quarters required staffs to wear masks, while 68% required masks for individuals on supervision (Figure 4). The majority of agencies provided face masks for staff and over half provided masks for individuals on supervision. Additional strategies implemented included temperature screenings of all individuals prior to entering the building, increased sanitization of office spaces, enforced social distancing, and installation of plexiglass barriers. Figure 4: Agency Use of Prevention Strategies Containment Strategies Over half of participating agencies reported implementing a screening tool to identify individuals who may have been exposed to COVID-19 (Figure 5). Roughly 73% of directors shared guidance about prevention with their staff, while 55% shared guidance with individuals on supervision. Other less common strategies reported were requiring clients to sign a form stating they do not have COVID-19 and/or do not currently have symptoms, requiring staff to report symptoms each day before coming to work, posting a sign with common symptoms on the front door, and requiring staff to log all contacts. Response Strategies Nine percent of directors reported creating medical care plans with guidance on accessing emergency care, a transportation plan, and medical insurance (Figure 5). Less than half of participating agencies reported providing training to their staff on procedures to respond to COVID-19 (38%). However, 63% of directors implemented a paid sick leave policy while 25% reported having a plan for staffing substitutions and/ or agency operations if staff were to fall ill. Approximately 25% of agencies had not yet implemented any policies to support staff who became ill with COVID-19.48 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 44, NUMBER 4 THE IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC ON COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Table 5: COVID-19 Cases in Office and Agency Response to Testing Confirmed cases of COVID-19 in office (n = 262) % Yes Clients40.1% Staff16.1% No Clients35.5% Staff82.4% Not sure Clients24.4% Staff1.5% Director Perceptions Directors were asked to report the most beneficial policy implemented in their agency in response to COVID-19 to date (Figure 6). Of the 347 directors who responded, the most reported beneficial policy was the use of remote supervision and technology to continue supervising individuals (49%). The next most frequent responses were mask requirements/ use of PPE (18.4%), rotating schedules/ skeleton crews (7.8%,) and reducing/limiting face-to-face contacts (4.9%). Figure 6: Most Beneficial Strategy Reported (N = 347) Directors were also asked to report the most pressing issue for community corrections agencies currently (Figure 7). The most common issue directors reported was the limited ability to conduct drug tests (14.7%). Figure 5: Agency Containment and Response Strategies Impact of COVID-19 Approximately 40% of offices reported at least one confirmed case of COVID-19 among individuals on supervision, while 16% reported at least one confirmed case among officers. In these offices, the majority reported fewer than 10 positive cases (Table 5). In offices where a client tested positive, 32% placed the individual on remote supervision until either they tested negative or 14 days had passed. In offices where a staff member tested positive, 55% increased cleaning protocols and/or hired a cleaning service, 50% required the officer to quarantine until they tested negative, 40% conducted contact tracing, 21% required any other staff who came into contact with the individual to quarantine until they tested negative, and 17% closed the office temporarily. 49 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION THE IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC ON COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS In these cases, directors noted they suspected increased levels of drug use but could not conduct drug tests as frequently due to remote work, safety concerns, limited resources/ staffing to process tests, or closure of labs. The second most common issue reported was the inability to hold individuals on supervision accountable (14.1%). This challenge stemmed from a limited ability to use incarceration as a sanction, the impact of court closures or backlogs, and/or an inability to obtain arrest warrants. Approximately 13% of directors reported that the inability to meet face-to-face was a challenge, often due to the perceived inability to stay current with the individual and provide an adequate level of supervision. Another 8% reported the lack of available services and resources were the largest issue, while 7% noted that budget strains were the most pressing issue due to a reduction in fee collections. Figure 7: Most Pressing Issue Reported (N = 347) Discussion The largest, and perhaps most obvious, change reported across community corrections agencies was the decrease in face-to-face supervision practices. Less than three-quarters of agencies surveyed reported they were still meeting with individuals in the office, and of those who were, agencies largely prioritized individuals assessed as higher risk followed by those who were new clients. Agencies instructed officers who conducted field visits to do so either outside the individual’s home or in another outdoor location (e.g., community park, place of employment) rather than enter the home as they normally would. In place of this face-to-face contact, agencies reported a large increase in the use of technology (e.g., telephone calls, videoconferencing, e-mail, and texting) to supervise caseloads. For most agencies, the use of videoconferencing was an entirely new technology. Directors reported the use of videoconferencing and other technologies was the single most beneficial change made in response to COVID-19. The use of technology not only allowed agencies to prioritize the health and safety of their staff and clients, but it also removed some traditional barriers for individuals on supervision. For example, with the increased flexibility allowed by technology, it became easier to accommodate work schedules when arranging a meeting with an officer, and the need to arrange transportation was also eliminated. A critical path forward for future research is to examine the implementation of technologies to supervise individuals and provide support and a range of services. Directors reported the biggest challenge currently facing the field of community supervision was the inability to hold individuals accountable. Court system delays, limited use of warrants and processing of violations, and reduced use of jails for probation violations left many directors feeling as though they must prioritize only the most serious violations with few alternatives. Given the nature of the pandemic and the attention given to reducing crowding within jails and prisons, this challenge is one community corrections agencies may face for the foreseeable future. There is research support for the use of alternative, community-based responses to noncompliance and systems of graduated sanctions, which aim to provide Next >