Photo by Reneé Thompson on Unsplash
Maurice St Matthews
University of New Haven
There are currently 3.6 million adults under community supervision, either on probation as an alternative to prison or on parole after being released from prison, thereby transferring the supervision of these individuals from a carceral institution to the community (Kaeble, 2024). The two common ways in which probationers and parolees can have their supervision revoked include the commission of a new crime or by violating the conditions of their supervision. Technical violations can encompass a range of sanctioned behavior, from drug-positive urinalysis to failure to attend required meetings (Hamilton & Campbell, 2013; Zettler & Martin, 2020). Many scholars have examined technical violation outcomes, arguing that the response to these violations and decisions to revoke community supervision should be similar if the criminal justice system is fair (Hamilton & Campbell, 2013; Henry, 2021; Lowder et al., 2022; Morash et al., 2019; Ruhland & Scheibler, 2022; Wilson, 2023; Zettler & Martin, 2020). This research indicates Black individuals under supervision are more likely to receive harsher punishments for technical violations and have their supervision revoked at far greater rates compared to their white counterparts.
From a reintegration standpoint, the intended purpose of community supervision is to assist in enhancing rehabilitation and behavioral success, which can only happen through an equal and effective system. This paper will examine the systemic factors that contribute to racially disparate outcomes in revocations between Black individuals under supervision and their white counterparts. By examining the interplay of factors associated with revocation, such as a combination of technical violations, practitioner discretion, and surveillance practices, the current study will show how these factors link to perpetuate racial disparities within community supervision systems. Through an overview of relevant and contemporary literature, the paper will provide a thorough understanding of the community obstacles faced, focusing on how the rehabilitative goals of community supervision systems are focused too much on enforcement and how this mission distortion can produce harmful consequences. By understanding how racial disparate outcomes emerge within community supervision systems, justice practitioners and academic researchers can work towards a more equitable system that supports reintegration, restoring the rehabilitative mission of community supervision systems, and void of cyclical systemic racial biases. Additionally, reducing revocation rates will allow more individuals to remain within the community as opposed to increasing prison admissions due to nonlegal infractions.
Literature Review
Ortiz and Jackey (2019), utilizing a critical race perspective, contend that the criminal justice system is inherently racist. Alexander (2011) cites slavery, Jim Crow, and the prison system, where within each proceeding institution, Black men have been the subject of control, emphasizing that each system throughout American history legalized control, which transforms into a more covert form of control, maintaining its surveillance and monitoring to control marginalized populations. Researchers understand the nation’s racial history and the significance of examining the relationship between our contemporary systems, such as those that make-up the community supervision system and technical violations given the racial inequalities within probation, parole, and other correctional settings (Hamilton & Campbell, 2013; Henry, 2021; Lutze et al., 2012; Mechoulan & Sahuguet, 2015; Morash et al., 2019; Skeem et al., 2023; Steinmetz & Anderson, 2016). What is understood less is how the practices from which these violations emanate, while aiming to support rehabilitation, yield adverse effects for racial groups.For instance, failure to meet financial obligations can also lead to supervision revocation. Some scholars hold that this inability to satisfy financial conditions increases the chance of revocation if the fees outlined in community supervision terms are higher (Lowder et al., 2022). In addition, individuals who do not attend their correctional programs, such as mandatory treatment, risk the revocation of their community supervision, leading to their re-incarceration (Hamilton & Campbell, 2013; Phelps et al., 2023; Zettler and Martin, 2020). It is important to note that these revocations are due to program violations, not new crimes.
Practitioner discretion is also crucial to revoking community supervision, as the choice to report and provide suggestions on responses to violations is within probation or parole officer authority. However, whether an individual under supervision returns to prison as a sanction for their behavior is generally a judge’s decision. Probation and parole violation hearings possess a lower standard in proving infractions than in trials for new crimes (Boppre et al., 2024; Ruhland & Scheibler, 2022). Within these violation hearings, the judge typically will consider the officer’s recommendation on the best response to the infraction. Depending on the officer’s supervising approaches, that is, whether they are rehabilitative or enforcement-oriented, will influence how the officer responds to the violation (Ruhland & Scheibler, 2022). While some probation officers respond to technical violations by imposing a harsher set of rules for former Adults in Custody (AICs) to follow, other officers respond by intensifying treatment, such as requiring additional programming sessions (Morash et al., 2019).
Community supervision systems tend to share a singular commonality: surveillance and monitoring. Along with a low tolerance for violations, individuals under supervision undergo surveillance and monitoring, constructing the context for violations to occur, thus increasing the likelihood of revocations (Hamilton & Campbell, 2013). Correctional programming generally seeks to target the criminogenic factors of AICs, but the community system response to absenteeism or failure to meet financial obligations can conflict with the re-entry and re-integrative objectives of the system itself; burdening released AICs with a plethora of intermediate sanctions and disproportionate support (Ostermann & Salernno, 2016).
Lutze et al. (2012) builds on the decoupling of practices observed within community supervision systems by citing Martinson’s (1974) “nothing works” report, which motivated the shift from rehabilitative measures to one of enforcement via zero-tolerance policies and increased surveillance. The mission distortion of community supervision systems brought on by this rehabilitative shift uncovers a tension between rehabilitation and enforcement measures (Hamilton & Campbell, 2013; Ostermann & Salerno, 2016; Sundt et al., 2016). Given the shift, many community supervision systems have begun to take a proactive approach to limit recidivism by operating with the underlying assumption that within a fair system, programs will have a similar rehabilitative effect on all, regardless of race and gender. Still, many studies note the different outcomes in violations based on gender and race (Boppre et al., 2024; Henry, 2021; Ostermann & Salerno, 2016; Steinmetz & Anderson, 2016).
Additionally, the technical violation-to-prison pipeline often leads to re-incarceration, which is especially true for minority AICs (Boppre et al., 2024). Studies have shown how these disparities intersect with race and gender, noting that Black and Hispanic male probationers often experience revocation for technical violations (Steinmetz, 2016). For Black parolees, the disparities are twofold in comparison to White parolees, given that the former undergo longer periods for their parole request to be approved, and they experience higher revocation rates for both technical violations and new crimes (Henry, 2021; Mechoulan & Sahuguet, 2015). Also, Black parolees often cannot find jobs, and for intensely supervised Black probationers, when employer bias meets intrusive monitoring and surveillance, the odds a potential employer would hire a convicted criminal plummet even more (Couloute, 2024; Phelps, 2023; Zettler & Martin, 2020).
Some studies say these racially differential outcomes are due to an AIC’s extensive criminal history or practitioner discretion, given these factors are strongly associated with higher revocation rates and recommendations for community supervision cancellation (Hamilton & Campbell, 2013; Henry, 2021). However, the results from these studies demonstrate there is no single explanation for the disparate revocations of Black AICs compared to their white counterparts. Instead, strong empirical evidence that the revocation of Black men is due to the interplay of factors, such as practitioner discretion, assessed risk, and intense monitoring and surveillance, that they must traverse is the mirroring of more significant institutional problems within a landscape experiencing a tension between rehabilitation objectives and enforcement practices. In the next section, three contemporary articles explore the topic of racially differential outcomes in revocation through a variety of methodological approaches.
Contemporary Research Methodology and Findings
Harding et al. (2022) emphasized the failure of contemporary community supervision systems, explaining how they are tantamount to entrapment by placing AICs in a web of punitiveness. Based on their review of ten studies, the community supervision landscape is marked by racial disparities as Black and Hispanic men are disproportionately overrepresented. Through an extensive examination of community supervision systems, particularly probation and parole, Harding et al. (2022) pinpoints gaps in contemporary research. Overall, the contemporary research on community supervision reform provides eight central themes: (1) employment disadvantages within the labor market, (2) education and job training, (3) the stigma within the labor market, (4) freelance in the labor market, (5) access to health services and healthcare, (6) housing, (7) supervision conditions and consequences, and (8) tax policy. The study suggests evidence-based recommendations to mitigate reintegration barriers through a rehabilitative model.
Wilson’s (2023) research reviewed thirty-five studies on probation and parole revocation within the last two decades, emphasizing that these studies are inconsistent in defining and measuring revocations. Specifically, Wilson (2023) utilized and expanded on Newman and Gough’s (2020) systematic review model, which provides inclusion and exclusion guidelines to strengthen the connection between searching approaches and research goals. Data collection included empirical studies and technical reports between 1994 and 2021 that were interested in operationalizing revocation in relation to probation and parole populations, while studies that did not focus wholly on revocation were omitted (Wilson, 2023). After the exclusion and inclusion criteria, Wilson (2023) used Google Scholar to initiate the search process and search terms, such as “probation revocation,” “parole revocation,” and “community corrections revocations,” with the first 100 results for each term being reviewed.
However, not all results made it to the final sample. The first screening process excluded studies based on the established criteria and removed duplicate studies (Wilson, 2023). The articles that passed the initial screening then were put through the inclusion criteria (i.e., U.S.-based empirical or technical article with revocation as the central focus) in the second coding process (Wilson, 2023). Wilson (2023) explained that by the end of the second screening, only forty-eight articles remained. Finally, in the third coding process, Wilson (2023) evaluated operationalization of revocation as a dependent measure. Additionally, the third process excluded studies that used “recidivism” interchangeably with “revocation,” reducing the forty-eight articles from the second stage to a final number of thirty-five articles (Wilson, 2023). Finally, Wilson (2023) placed the desired data within a spreadsheet for aggregate analysis and more coding of variables, such as race and ethnicity, to standardize the different measurements in the studies.
Finally, Couloute (2024) sought to explore how the experiences of previously incarcerated Black men work to shape their identities and perspectives. Essentially, the purpose of this study is to understand how Black men’s interactions with the criminal justice system yield criminalized subjectivities, and how they rationalize and navigate the obstacles of re-entering back into the community. This may provide some insight into how Black males comprehend their experience under community supervision given the totality of their obligations.
According to Couloute (2024), criminalized subjectivity was coined by Clair (2021), which involves the “unique understandings and visions attendant to being a person, or part of a community, routinely subject to legal control and exploitation sanctioned by the criminal law” (p. 5). Criminalized subjectivity emphasizes that constant social and legalized control molds the perceptions, self-image, and experiences of the marginally supervised, a concept that reinforces Du Bois’s ideas of the social divide, such as the “Veil”. By adopting this theoretical foundation, Couloute (2024) connects the experiences of Black male criminalization and allows for examining institutional racism through mass incarceration, a process linked to community supervision systems.
Utilizing an ethnographic approach in Hartford, Connecticut, Couloute (2024) examined the experiences of twenty-seven previously incarcerated Black men. Hartford, Connecticut, was chosen for this study for three main reasons: (1) It has a reputation for progressive criminal justice reforms; (2) Black residents are disproportionately represented in Connecticut’s prison system; and (3) Lucius Couloute is a Black man from Hartford, allowing him to establish rapport with much of the participants. Couloute (2024) recruited participants and met with them in public settings, such as a library or coffee shop. Regarding the age of these participants, the youngest was 25 years old, and the oldest was 68 years old, with the median age being 40. Many participants only had a high school education, and while none had a full-time job, some had a part-time one. Lastly, many were convicted for violent offenses, such as robbery or assault, and the median time spent in prison was 36 months.
Couloute’s (2024) interviews were semi-structured, and the scope of topics began with concentrating on the question, “What would you say to the governor or a state senator about your criminal justice experiences?” (p. 47). Couloute (2024) utilized deductive and inductive techniques to analyze the interviews and to let themes emerge, based on theory and non-theory. It is important to note that the goals of this research were to: (1) Understand how formerly incarcerated Black men understand and speak about unfairness of the criminal justice system; (2) Code themes from their experiences of inequalities to build a knowledge of how shared carceral experiences impact incarceration.
Harding et al.’s (2022) review of the ten studies identified critical points of contemporary community supervision, emphasizing their failure by entrapping people, mainly Black men, as they were overrepresented within the studies in cycles of criminal justice involvement. The authors concluded that the system is unnecessarily punitive, which goes beyond harming individuals under supervision, to harming their families and communities as well. For instance, the authors cite Holzer (2022) to explain how former AICs face multiple obstacles in the labor market, such as a high dependence on government assistance. This may explain the high prevalence of homelessness described by Augustine and Kushel (2022) and why parolees and probationers, respectively three times more likely to be unemployed, two times as likely to be poor and about seventy percent of released AICs are rearrested within three years (Harding et al., 2022). Notably, Harding et al. (2022) review Capece’s (2022) article that explains how community supervision systems, particularly probation and parole, often interfere with employment rather than supporting it. Harding et al.’s (2022) review, coupled with Couloute’s (2024) study, illustrates that the economic challenges go beyond individual behavior or practitioner bias and reflects the tension between supervision practices that interfere with rehabilitation and reintegration efforts.
Wilson’s (2023) systematic review of thirty-five revocation studies within the last two decades revealed that revocation was operationalized differently depending on the main objective for examination, but most studies included technical violations and lawful violations. In terms of violation trends, a majority of the studies point to technical violations as the main reason for revocations (Wilson, 2023). However, this is not to say that practitioner discretion and decision-making do not have some impact, given that the race of the individual under supervision reportedly influences a practitioner’s decision to recommend revocation (Wilson, 2023). According to Wilson (2023), not only did Black men possess a higher risk for revocation, but those with darker skin tones experience a higher revocation likelihood, demonstrating deeper institutional bias as noted by Harding et al. (2022) and the unequal experiences of formerly incarcerated Black men in Couloute’s (2024) interviews.
Based on the interviews conducted, Couloute’s (2024) findings reveal how formerly incarcerated Black people are absent from policy discussions. Essentially, the interviews suggested that the participants strongly understood where criminal justice reform should occur, and they shared their opinions as a call for procedural justice. Some participants, such as David, discussed the importance of fairness and support, especially for individuals who maintain that they were wrongfully convicted. Similarly, a majority of the interviewees highlighted multiple justice system failings based on unfair treatment, such as delayed release, aligning with empirical findings regarding Black parolees who experience longer waiting times for their parole to be approved (Henry, 2021; Mechoulan & Sahuguet, 2015).
Interviewee Reggie’s explanation of the need for structural programs that focus on effective reintegration was notable. Other interviewees agreed, such as Kareem and David, who explained that the barriers to successful reintegration (most notably possessing a criminal record) made it harder for them to obtain employment (Couloute, 2024). Focusing on ways to gain employment helps strengthen employment discrimination as a re-entry obstacle, as described by the interviewees in Couloute’s (2024) study, which connects empirical understanding of carceral setting practices with the experience of criminalized Black men (Mechoulan & Sahuguet, 2015; Phelps, 2023; Zettler & Martin, 2020).
Policy Implications
Many of the policy implications suggested by current research concentrate on reforming the entire system, because the inequalities and disparities raised are due to institutional racism (Couloute, 2024; Harding et al., 2022; Wilson, 2023). To reduce racial bias against Black men, considering the experiences of the formerly incarcerated is paramount (Couloute, 2024; Harding et al., 2022). Couloute (2024) notes that the system functions on retribution. Harding et al. (2022) assert it is precisely a decoupling of practices, specifically commitment to enforcement and surveillance over proclaimed rehabilitative goals, which necessitates reform, especially when the evidence establishes that community supervision systems, namely probation and parole, do not effectively prevent crime.
By directing the attention of policymakers to the institutional and systemic causes of these inequalities, we can move from systemic discrimination to “legal envisioning,” where communities construct systems in which fairness and re-entry support are the norms, not carceral control and enforcement (Couloute, 2024). Focusing on re-entry, this would mean restoring stripped rights, such as voting, which would ensure all individuals, especially ones who are disproportionately represented in our systems, have a voice (Couloute, 2024).
Whereas Couloute (2024) calls for systemwide reform through institutional improvement by uniting those with criminalized experiences, Harding et al. (2022) seek reform by nearly dismantling community supervision systems and limiting their punitive practices, such as through shorter supervision lengths. Wilson (2023) takes a somewhat different approach to reform by concentrating on the role of practitioner discretion, stating that revocation decisions depend on discretion, which leads to racial and even gender-disparate outcomes. Wilson (2023) therefore suggests creating tools that guide decision-making, commenting that “These findings emphasize the need for more consistency in revocation decision-making, potentially obtained through structured decision-making instruments,” which may not completely remove the choice from the practitioner but instead structure their decision-making while limiting their bias (p. 21).
For Couloute (2024), the best way to achieve the goal is through creating and promoting grassroots organizations, where the formerly incarcerated rally together, call for change at the local level for the trials they have undergone, and state their desire to see barriers removed. It is important to note that Couloute’s (2024) policy implications include extensive reform at every level within the criminal justice system beyond arrest. The author calls for better access to legal representation for marginalized defendants and modifications to the conditions of prison, to include rehabilitative efforts focused on job training and mental health (Couloute, 2024; Wilson, 2023). Concerning the former, Harding et al. (2022) place heavy emphasis on employment and educational training. Rehabilitation and re-integration into society necessitates stability, and this stability, according to Harding et al. (2022), is achieved by giving AICs job training and career positions. Wilson (2023) suggests that community colleges, for instance, aid in building protective factors against revocation.
Regarding community corrections, Couloute (2024) notes rehabilitative measures like housing and employment support and other protective factors should be the primary objective when individuals are released from prison. Harding et al. (2022) express that in addition to employment, housing for AICs needs to be stable, which can be achieved through reentry planning and housing referrals. Given that many employers may possess bias in hiring individuals with a criminal record, Harding et al. (2022) recommend three approaches to mitigate employer bias and employment barriers: (1) Individuals should receive a clean record and certificates to show potential employers, as a way to reduce uncertainty in hiring someone with a criminal record; (2) Provide tax incentives to businesses to increase labor market willingness in hiring anyone with a criminal record – including AICs; and (3) Seek a legislative approach at the state and federal level to combat bias against AICs with a criminal record. If we combine Harding et al.’s (2022) recommended policies, focused on less supervision time and a labor market with incentives to hire felons, with Wilson’s (2023) suggested policies of less monitoring and structured decision-making, this should create less interference in the employment of individuals under community supervision systems, helping them to be stable and lessening revocation rates.
Future Research
For Harding et al. (2022), future research will have to focus on alternatives to probation and parole, which operates on a waning crime control model. These researchers advocate for the reduction of supervision lengths; it would be interesting to see this implemented in a longitudinal study within probation, parole, or halfway houses to examine how the length of supervision impacts revocation and recidivism rates. Furthermore, studies investigating how laws protect the formerly incarcerated from labor market bias should determine whether tax incentives lead to racially disparate outcomes among the formerly incarcerated, potentially uncovering a new legal context in which marginalized groups face lesser employment challenges.
Wilson (2023) explains that future research attempting to understand the operationalization of probation and parole revocation must further differentiate revocations from reincarceration. Additionally, a majority of the studies within this review utilized a quantitative approach; therefore, future studies should adopt qualitative techniques to increase understanding of the nuance of revocation processes (Wilson, 2023). Similarly, the role of practitioner discretion needs explored further, given how officer recommendations can lead to racially disparate revocation outcomes. In fact, a future study may find it beneficial to utilize a mixed-methods approach to investigate the role and extent of practitioner discretion on revocation outcomes. Wilson (2023) was interested in structural decision-making tools, and given that assessment tools are not always followed, future research on their effectiveness and relevance in reducing bias is needed. Finally, given that the multiple studies included in Wilson’s (2023) review did not solely focus on Black men, an intersectional framework should be used by future researchers who are attempting to investigate revocation or other justice phenomena across gender and race.
Couloute’s (2024) work expanding on Du Bois’ “The Veil” creates further ways for future researchers to understand its role and the mechanisms that maintain the ignorance of the people compared to those who are criminalized. Within the context of racially disparate revocation outcomes, we can link Couloute’s (2024) theoretical framework with Wilson’s (2023) focus on practitioner discretion, creating an investigation that seeks to determine the extent of obliviousness of practitioners regarding different revocation outcomes and the degree it affects their discretion. Also, Couloute’s (2024) concept of “legal envisioning” is the foundation of his grassroots policy recommendations, citing the Full Citizens Coalition as an example of the formerly incarcerated working together and striving to undo the harm caused by carceral systems. More research should be conducted on the emergence of this group and similar groups to determine what makes them successful.
Depending on the goals of the future scholarship on racial disparities of revocation decisions and outcomes, there is a variety of research to be accomplished. With this being said, all future researchers should be wary of the tension currently taking place within the community supervision landscape and how it perpetuates institutional racism, along with keeping individuals within a cycle of criminal justice involvement. Scholars who neglect this will fail to capture the true impact of the system and its adverse effects. To mitigate revocation by technical violations, community supervision systems should seek alternatives sanctions to technical violations aside from reincarcerating AICs. Wilson (2023) recommends structured decision-making tools to limit officer discretion and reducing individual bias, but to target the racially systemic issues, criminal justice practitioners need to abandon the control and monitoring system in favor for a rehabilitative model as Harding et al. (2022) notes, which can be achieved through working and considering the formerly incarcerated experiences as Couloute (2024) examines.
References
Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness. Revised edition. New York, New Press.
Boppre, B., Sundt, J., & Browne, G. E. (2024). Examining “mass probation” through an intersectional lens: The intracategorical effects of race and ethnicity on women and men’s probation outcomes in Kansas. Crime & Delinquency, 70(4), 1332–1360.
Couloute, L. (2024). “They need to go in there”: Criminalized subjectivity among formerly incarcerated black men. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 10, 23780231231224630. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231231224630
Hamilton, Z. K., & Campbell, C. M. (2013). A dark figure of corrections: Failure by way of participation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(2), 180–202.
Harding, D. J., Western, B., & Sandelson, J. A. (2022). From supervision to opportunity: Reimagining probation and parole. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 701(1), 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221115486
Henry, T. K. S. (2021). Revolving doors: Examining the effect of race and ethnicity on discretionary decision-making in parole revocations. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 46(2), 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09560-2
Lowder, E. M., Northcutt Bohmert, M., Diaz, C. L., Ying, M., Grommon, E., & Hatfield, T. (2022). Patterns of compliance and noncompliance during probation: Identifying pathways to probation revocation. Crime & Delinquency, 001112872211439.
Lutze, F. E., Johnson, W. W., Clear, T. R., Latessa, E. J., & Slate, R. N. (2012). The future of community corrections is now: Stop dreaming and take action. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 28(1), 42–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986211432193
Mechoulan, S., & Sahuguet, N. (2015). Assessing racial disparities in parole release. Journal of Legal Studies, 44(1). https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/jls/vol44/iss1/2
Morash, M., Kashy, D. A., Smith, S. W., & Cobbina, J. E. (2019). Technical violations, treatment and punishment responses, and recidivism of women on probation and parole. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(5), 788–810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417723425
Ostermann, M., & Salerno, L. M. (2016). The validity of the level of service inventory–revised at the intersection of race and gender. The Prison Journal, 96(4), 554–575.
Ortiz, J. M., & Jackey, H. (2019). The system is not broken, it is intentional: The prisoner reentry industry as deliberate structural violence. The Prison Journal, 99(4), 484–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885519852090
Phelps, M. S., Dickens, H. N., & Beadle, D. A. T. (2023). Are supervision violations filling prisons? The role of probation, parole, and new offenses in driving mass incarceration. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 9,
23780231221148631. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231221148631
Ruhland, E., & Scheibler, E. (2022). Probation officer discretion in monitoring and violating supervision conditions. Probation Journal, 69(2), 177–196.
Skeem, J. L., Montoya, L., & Lowenkamp, C. (2022). Understanding racial disparities in pretrial detention recommendations to shape policy reform (SSRN Scholarly Paper 4143498). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4143498
Steinmetz, K. F., & Anderson, J. O. (2016). A probation profanation: Race, ethnicity, and probation in a midwestern sample. Race and Justice, 6(4), 325–349.
Sundt, J., Salisbury, E., & Harmon, M. (2015). Is downsizing prisons dangerous? The effect of California’s realignment act on public safety. Criminology and Criminal Justice Faculty Publications and Presentations. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/ccj_fac/17
Wilson, A. (2023). Probation and parole revocations: Reviewing over two decades of revocation decisions in the United States. Criminal Justice Review, 073401682311703. https://doi.org/10.1177/07340168231170335
Zettler, H. R., & Martin, K. D. (2020). Exploring the impact of technical violations on probation revocations in the context of drug court. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(6), 1003–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09529-1