Ruhland
Ebony Ruhland studies probation and parole, how community-based sentences and sanctions work, and the effects that they have on individuals, their families and their communities. She started her work at the University of Minnesota Law School’s Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, served as a research director at Robina and now is an associate professor of criminal justice at Rutgers University.
When it comes to community supervision research, what do you think is important for state lawmakers to know?
I really want them to take away and understand that more people are on community supervision, on probation and parole combined, than are actually in prison. It’s an area that we really need to focus on. People are aware of mass incarceration. But are we aware of mass supervision? We have to be aware that the majority of the people are sentenced to probation or will end up on parole once released from prison.
Often people think that community supervision is easier than it is in prison. But people are piled on with so many conditions, and that can make it very challenging for people to succeed. It’s important to understand what conditions are needed to help the individual rehabilitate and to keep the public safe.
Community Supervision Interview Series
This is the first in a four-part series exploring community supervision, which encompasses probation and parole. The series features interviews with people whose work touches community supervision.
Is there anything particularly surprising to you in the research that you’ve done?
The monetary sanctions were really surprising to me. We were asking about general probation conditions and how is it following conditions. Are there too many? Are there too few?
It was really the individuals on supervision that said, “You need to study fines and fees.” Some of these jurisdictions I write about have 50 to 100 fees that people could be assessed. This varies by jurisdiction, but people are getting pressure to pay these fees, and they’re getting consequences for not paying fees.
The revenue generation of our criminal justice system is something that surprised me and continues to surprise me.
Can you explain what rigorous and causal research means?
Causal research is a very specific thing. You want to have an experimental design where you have a treatment and a control group. One group receives services, or the new intervention, and the other group receives business as usual. You test those differences in the groups, and you control for the environment.
The other key aspect of the causal research is that it’s random. People are randomly enrolled into the group because, if we just asked for volunteers, we get a selection bias where we’re getting those that are more motivated.
If we can see differences between two groups, then if the intervention group did better, we can be more confident that this intervention works because of the ways in which the research design was set up.
Other research can be rigorous, even though there’s a stereotype that because it’s qualitative, it can’t be rigorous, or because it’s a descriptive study, it can’t be rigorous. But it can still be a rigorous study.
What makes it rigorous is when we use good practices, use good sampling strategies, use good analytical methods and good data collection.
Any final thoughts you’d like to share?
We need to continue utilizing the evidence. We know what works; we know what doesn’t. There’s still obviously always room for research and intervention and that causal research, but we do know what works—and let’s implement what works.
Amanda Essex is a program principal in NCSL’s Criminal Justice Program.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity. These interviews are provided for informational purposes only and do not necessarily reflect NCSL views. Viewpoints expressed are those of the interview subject.