Copyright Forbes
A Growing Focus on Post-Prison Supervision In recent discussions on criminal justice reform, attention has shifted from sentencing laws to what happens after prison. The federal supervised release system, originally intended to help people transition successfully back into the community, has become a major point of debate among policymakers, researchers, and reform advocates. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich recently wrote in a Fox News commentary that improving how the United States manages supervision after incarceration could be “the next frontier in criminal justice reform.” His statement aligns with recent reports from the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC), which show that the number of individuals on federal supervised release continues to grow each year. In fiscal year 2024, more than 90 percent of individuals sentenced to federal prison also received a term of supervised release, according to the USSC’s most recent QuickFacts report. That figure has risen by nearly 11 percentage points since 2020, suggesting that supervision is now one of the largest components of the federal correctional system. High Revocation Rates and Rising Costs Congress has acted on cost savings before when it comes to prisons. In 2018, Congress passed and President Donald J. Trump signed the First Step Act. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had a difficult time implementing but recent advancements with new BOP Director William Marshall, have led to major improvements in implementation. The USSC data show that of 51,576 supervision cases closed in 2024, one-third ended in revocation. About 23 percent of those revocations were for technical violations—missed appointments, curfew breaches, or other non-criminal infractions. These violations often result in a return to prison even when no new crime has been committed. Each technical revocation can cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars per individual per year. When scaled nationally, these re-incarcerations represent billions of dollars in additional prison expenditures annually. MORE FOR YOU Critics of the current system say these costs do little to enhance public safety. Instead, they argue, technical violations could be addressed through graduated sanctions, counseling, or community-based interventions that are less costly and more effective at promoting stability Expanding Use of Supervised Release The USSC’s data indicate that the use of supervised release has become almost universal in federal sentencing. In 2024, it was imposed in nearly 99 percent of cases involving Black defendants, 98 percent for White defendants, and 83 percent for Hispanic defendants. The average term of supervised release was 47 months, following an average prison term of just over five years. In 1.4 percent of cases, individuals were sentenced to life terms of supervision, most often related to sexual abuse and child exploitation offenses. As of September 2024, 121,777 individuals were under post-conviction supervision in the federal system. Nearly 90 percent of those individuals were serving terms of supervised release, while fewer than 10 percent were on probation. Among this population, 41 percent were convicted of drug offenses and 18 percent of firearms offenses. The data show that revocations continue to play a large role in federal reentry outcomes. Of all cases closed during the year, 33.9 percent ended in revocation, while 18.1 percent closed due to early termination for good behavior. Policy Proposals to Improve Efficiency In response to these trends, members of Congress have introduced the Safer Supervision Act, which would reform how federal supervision is managed. The proposal seeks to reduce the length and intensity of supervision for low-risk individuals while maintaining stricter oversight for those at higher risk of reoffending. The legislation would also allow compliant individuals to earn early termination, reducing caseloads for probation officers and lowering incarceration costs linked to technical violations. The U.S. Sentencing Commission has encouraged similar reforms. Its 2024 Primer on Supervised Release notes that supervision should “serve rehabilitative purposes distinct from those of incarceration” and that early termination for compliance is an effective way to “encourage lawful conduct and efficient use of supervision resources.” Examples from State-Level Reforms Several states have already implemented changes to reduce unnecessary supervision and revocations. In Pennsylvania and California, reforms championed by the nonprofit REFORM Alliance have shortened supervision terms and reduced the number of people sent back to prison for technical violations. According to data from those states, these measures have improved reentry outcomes while lowering costs associated with incarceration. The reforms also provided clearer incentives for compliance, allowing low-risk individuals to return to full community participation sooner. I spoke with Jessica Jackson, CEO of REFORM Alliance who said, “Red, blue, and purple states alike have proven that when you right-size supervision and focus resources where they are needed most, outcomes improve for people on supervision and communities." Jackson told me that members of Congress who introduced the Safer Supervision Act were especially inspired by outcomes in conservative states like Arizona, Iowa, South Carolina, and Missouri, that saw dramatic improvements and reductions in recidivism from these same evidence-based principles. Jackson said, "It's past time to bring the common-sense improvements made to probation and parole systems across the country to federal supervision. ” Barriers to Reintegration Advocates for reform have also raised concerns about the social and economic barriers faced by individuals on supervised release. In some states, being under federal or state supervision can be classified as a form of incarceration, preventing access to professional licensing or employment opportunities. Dr. Sreedhar Potarazu, a Maryland-based physician and policy advocate, has called attention to how these restrictions make it harder for returning citizens to reintegrate successfully. He and others have been exploring how data and technology could be used to improve the supervision process, making it more cost-effective and equitable. Technology and Data-Driven Supervision Emerging technology is being considered as part of the solution. Researchers and reform advocates are studying how artificial intelligence and predictive analytics could help probation officers identify which individuals are most likely to succeed on supervision, allowing resources to be directed more effectively. Such systems could also flag cases that require additional support or intervention, reducing the likelihood of revocations. Pilot programs and studies in several states suggest that using data to guide decision-making can improve compliance rates and reduce overall costs. Toward a More Efficient Federal System The federal government’s reliance on supervised release has grown significantly over the past decade, yet the outcomes have not always aligned with the goals of rehabilitation and public safety. The USSC’s latest data show that the system remains resource-intensive, with a large portion of revocations stemming from non-criminal behavior. Reform proposals like the Safer Supervision Act aim to align federal policy with evidence-based practices that prioritize efficiency, fairness, and cost reduction. By scaling back unnecessary supervision and focusing on support rather than punishment, experts say the system could better achieve its intended purpose: helping individuals succeed after incarceration. Will Congress Act The latest federal data make clear that supervised release has become a defining feature of the U.S. criminal justice system. While it was originally designed to promote reintegration, it now contributes to a costly cycle of re-incarceration that often fails to improve public safety. Ongoing discussions in Congress, along with findings from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, suggest that targeted reform could both reduce government spending and improve fairness for individuals reentering society. As policymakers consider these proposals, the growing consensus among researchers and advocates is that supervision should be smart, tailored, and focused on lasting reintegration—not endless oversight.
