Mass probation: Toward a more robust theory of state variation in punishment
| Author | Michelle S Phelps |
| Published date | 01 January 2017 |
| Date | 01 January 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1462474516649174 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Punishment & Society
2017, Vol. 19(1) 53–73
!The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1462474516649174
pun.sagepub.com
Article
Mass probation: Toward
a more robust theory of
state variation in
punishment
Michelle S Phelps
University of Minnesota, USA
Abstract
Scholarship on the expansion of the U.S. carceral state has primarily focused on impris-
onment rates. Yet the majority of adults under formal criminal justice control are on
probation, an ‘‘alternative’’ form of supervision. This article develops the concept of
mass probation and builds a typology of state control regimes that theorizes both the
scale and type of punishment states employ. Drawing on Bureauof Justice Statistics data
from 1980 and 2010, I analyze whether mass probation developed in the same places,
affecting the same demographic groups and driven by the same criminal justice trends,
as mass imprisonment. The results show that mass probation was a unique state
development, expanding in unusual places like Minnesota and Washington. The conclu-
sions argue for a reimagining of the causes and consequences of the carceral state to
incorporate the expansion of probation.
Keywords
carceral state, imprisonment, probation, state variation
Introduction
The rapid expansion of mass imprisonment in the U.S. stands as one of the most
important social transformations of the past 40 years and an integral part of
racialized social control (Alexander, 2010; Tonry, 1995; Western, 2006). As
researchers continue to explore the mechanisms that propelled mass imprison-
ment, it is clear that the expansion had two proximal determinants driven by
criminal justice actors (including police, prosecutors, judges, bureaucrats, and
Corresponding author:
Michelle S Phelps, Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Email: phelps@umn.edu
policy-makers): decisions that sent more individuals to prison and kept them incar-
cerated for longer periods (Raphael and Stoll, 2013). Much of this research focuses
on state variation, attempting to explain why these processes were so much more
pronounced in Southern and Sunbelt states, which tend to be more racially diverse
and politically conservative, as compared to Midwestern and Northeastern states,
which tend to be less diverse and more progressive (Campbell and Schoenfeld,
2013).
Throughout this literature, it is often assumed that imprisonment rates—as the
most extreme form of supervision—represent the expansion of criminal justice
control more broadly. Yet inmates in state and federal prisons are a minority of
those under formal criminal justice supervision nationwide; the majority (56% in
2014) are under probation supervision, serving their sentences in the community.
At its peak in 2007, nearly 4.3 million—or one in every 53 U.S. adult resi-
dents—were on probation, compared to just under 1.6 million incarcerated in
state and federal prisons (Kaeble et al., 2015).
While probation is defined as an ‘‘alternative’’ to prison, research suggests that it
serves as a ‘‘net-widener’’ that increases overall supervision (Aebi et al., 2015;
Phelps, 2013). Probation also imposes substantial harms on supervisees
(Durnescu, 2010), including onerous conditions that give probation officers tremen-
dous power and discretion (Doherty, 2016). Failure to meet these demands can lead
to revocation, sending probationers into jails and prisons (Klingele, 2013). Thus, as
Doherty argues, probation is less a ‘‘potential solution to the problem of over-
incarceration’’ than ‘‘part of the continuum of excessive penal control’’ (2016: 291).
Yet with few exceptions, scholarship on the causes and consequences of the car-
ceral state has only indirectly explored this parallel buildup, skewing representa-
tions of the penal field (McNeill, 2013).
To address this gap, I develop the concept of mass probation, examining the
expansion of this form of social control in the U.S. Relying on Bureau of Justice
Statistics (hereafter BJS) data from 1980 to 2010, my primary question is whether
mass probation developed in the same places, affecting the same demographic
groups and driven by the same criminal justice trends (increasing felony convictions
and longer time served), as mass imprisonment. I pay particular attention to state-
level variation, developing a typology of control regimes that considers both the
scale and form of criminal justice supervision. I also analyze whether criminaliza-
tion and sentence length patterns explain differences across the regimes. To the
extent that states’ imprisonment and probation trajectories diverge, accounts of the
sociopolitical causes and consequences of the carceral state cannot be complete
without incorporating probation.
The results demonstrate that mass probation was a unique state development.
First, its expansion affected a less racially skewed population than imprisonment;
today, there are more white probationers than prisoners of any racial/ethnic cat-
egory. Second, probation rates exploded in some low imprisonment states, like
Minnesota and Washington, which have been commended as progressive outliers
that resisted the punitive turn. The results suggest that the effects of increasing
54 Punishment & Society 19(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial