The Waupun prison sits in the middle of a residential neighborhood (Photo | Wisconsin Examiner)

Most of those speaking at the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) online public hearing on community supervision – parole, probation and extended supervision – said the system is  too rigid. Instead of helping people successfully integrate back into society, they said, the system creates a tripwire of rules that can easily be broken and result in too many people being ordered back to prison when supervision is revoked.

The public hearing on July 8 took up proposed rules to amend the DOC’s Administrative Code because of a law passed in April 2014, Act 196, that directs the creation of a system of appropriate short-term sanctions for violation of conditions of supervision. The law sets out  eight criteria, including minimizing the impact on the offender’s employment and family, and offers rewards for those complying with conditions of supervision.

Of the 18 members of the public who spoke at the hearing, most addressed the need for implementing the spirit of the 2014 law to create a less burdensome system of community supervision and reduce the number of revocations that in 2023 represented over 30% of those entering prison and in 2024 reached nearly 60%.

Several people who had been on community supervision or were still serving on supervision also spoke and asked that the DOC do more than just provide accountability and make the system less oppressive and also offer resources, such as help obtaining housing.

One of the first to speak was Tom Gilbert, an advocate for WISDOM, a statewide network working on reform of the prison and criminal justice systems and other social justice issues. Gilbert, whose son has twice had supervision revoked, has been pushing since 2019 for the DOC to implement Act 196.

“Act 196 is a good law passed with broad bipartisan support, and it calls for a cultural shift in how the Department of Corrections administers its supervision programs,” he said. 

“For many years, WISDOM has called on the department to implement the law and thereby provide a solid alternative to thousands of revocations each year,” he added. 

However, Gilbert said, when he read DOC’s proposed rules for implementing the law he was upset that the DOC only stated the eight criteria without creating or describing a system for “new and revised policies and practices.”

Gilbert accused the DOC of not wanting to fulfill the intent of the law.

“This cannot be an oversight. It is a conscious omission,” he said. “To me, it signals that the DOC is not committed to creating a system of short-term sanctions, that it is not serious about shifting the community corrections program from an operation that sabotages the successful reentry of people into their communities to an operation that is focused on healing individuals, families and communities by providing the treatments and supports needed to accomplish that goal.”

Gilbert challenged the DOC’s current protocol of calling 90 days of jail a short-term sanction because, he said, even 60, 30, 21, or 14 days in jail has a negative impact on employment and family.

He also challenged the DOC’s perspective that the rules revision would only impact those on community supervision, vendors and DOC staff.

 “The decisions you and your agents make every day regarding people under your supervision widely affect families, employers, health care providers, social service providers, schools — in  other words, whole communities and this whole state,” Gilbert said. “The proposed rules should be revised by adding back the language from Act 196 that explains its whole purpose — creating a system of short-term sanctions.”

Sean Wilson, senior director of organizing and partnership of Dream.Org, a national non-profit working on social justice issues, was also critical of the proposed rule for offering no description for short-term sanctions.

“There’s no real short-term sanctions framework,” Wilson said. “Instead of building a system that redirects people before they spiral back into incarceration, this proposal simply restates the existing law; meanwhile, revocations without new convictions in Wisconsin still account for 40% of our prison admissions.” (The rate rose from 40% early in 2024 to nearly 60% at the end of the year)

“Here in this state, there are no guardrails to prevent over-punishment,” Wilson added. “The proposal leaves full revocation on the table for things like substance abuse, missed check-ins, minor violations that are far too often treated as major. There’s no real focus on rehabilitation. There’s no clear investment in helping people reintegrate successfully, and no mention of support, supportive services, trauma-informed care, or reentry pathways.”

He said the rules are “vague about how sanctions will be applied, who will review them, and how racial disparities, which are deeply embedded in our system, will be addressed.”

He also raised concerns about private contractors offering supervision, creating a “financial incentive that undermines fairness and accountability.”

Carol Rubin, a former administrative judge, also encouraged the implementation of Act 196 and was also critical of the proposed rules not fleshing out the intent of the 2014 law.

“I want to express my dismay that DOC has delayed issuing formal rules for Act 196 for 11 years, despite being ordered to issue rules in 2014 by the Wisconsin Legislature,” she said. “In the meantime, thousands of individuals have been denied the benefit of a real, short-term sanction system with trained agents that could have stabilized their new lives in the community.”

Rubin said the DOC should provide examples of how short-term sanctions should be employed to minimize the impact on employment.

“For a low violation, consider imposing a short-term sanction that does not restrict the hours that a client could be available for employment, such as a verbal or written reprimand,” she said. “For a medium or high violation, consider a brief house arrest or weekend jail sanction of two days or less that will not interfere with the client’s current or future hours of employment; if appropriate, a weekend home arrest could be repeated.”

Liz Monroe noted that the DOC’s manual for Evidence Based Response to Violations (EBRV) has two mentions of using rewards, including stating that rewards are “more effective than only using sanctions” and that incentives and rewards are “helpful for compliance and positive behaviour and that there should be at least four rewards for every sanction.”

As a reward for compliance, she encouraged reducing the supervision time, such as 30 days of compliance resulting in 30 fewer days on supervision.

Barbie Jackson, vice president of MOSES, an affiliate of WISDOM, asked for a description that “clearly defines short-term sanctions to assure that they focus on helping people avoid harmful behaviors and fulfill societal obligations, minimize disruption of the impacted person’s employment, minimize the effect on the impacted person’s family and establish incentives and rewards for compliance and positive behavior.”

Jeremy Dings, who said he had been originally sentenced to five years in prison but ended up serving 12 because of two revocations, talked about how he was unable to help his family during a health crisis after he broke a rule and was revoked. He was allso not allowed to attend his mother’s funeral.

“People on supervision have families, too, just like all of you,” he said. “Revocation for rule violation ends the person’s employment and their ability to support their family and themselves.”

Marianne Oleson, operations director for Ex Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO), noted she had been on supervision for eight years and still had 18 more years to serve.

“I’ve rebuilt my life. Started over with nothing, and dedicated myself to helping others,” she said, “but despite everything I’ve done, I wake up every day with 18 more years of supervision ahead of me, not because I’ve reoffended, not because I’m a danger, but because the system has failed to evolve with science.”

She contended that recent research on community supervision says the ideal period is three to five years.

Oleson noted that her clients include many who have been revoked and sent back to prison for a technical rule violation. 

She said the present system often does not have the goal of rehabilitation but “surveillance disguised as support.”

“People on supervision are trying to live,” said Oleson. “We’re parenting, working, healing and giving back, but we live in fear that one misstep will erase years of progress. You have a chance to change that, to lead with justice instead of fear. Please rewrite this to reflect what the courts, the research and those of us directly impacted are telling you. Our futures matter. Please treat us like they do and we do.”

JenAnn Bauer of West Bend who had been in prison and on supervision said that “excessive supervision” creates challenges for rebuilding a life.

“Every job, every lease, every new agent and every step forward comes with extra scrutiny and extra risk,” she said. “I have done everything the system has asked of me. I pay taxes, I’ve reintegrated, I’ve contributed. These things don’t just affect the formerly incarcerated. They affect our families, our children and future generations. When a parent is stuck under financial pressure or the constant threat of being sent back for a technical violation, it creates instability that reaches far beyond one individual, it holds entire families hostage and in survival mode, and that affects the health, safety and future of whole communities and our entire state.”

Robert Thibault, vice president of Prison Action in Milwaukee, said he had been on supervision for 15 years and had experienced a “huge inconsistency” in how supervision was administered depending on the parole or probation officer (PO), adding the attitude of a PO over the interpretation of “arbitrary rules” could result in a revocation.

Meah Flowers of Madison talked of having family members going in and out of prison and the disruption that revocation causes. She encouraged implementing Act 196 to help families.

Eric Howland said there is an expectation that those coming into community supervision obtain employment, housing and a positive social network, but a 90- or 60-day jail sentence for a supervision violation negatively impacts those goals.

Why 11 years?

The DOC has not yet responded to questions from the Examiner on why it has taken 11 years to implement Act 196.  

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Alternatives to incarceration could drastically cut lock-up rate in Wisconsin. This week the Department of Corrections will finally take up a 2014 law that aimed to do just that. | Getty Images

The Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) will hold a public hearing this week on Act 196, legislation that received bipartisan support and was signed into law in April 2014 by then-Gov. Scott Walker. The law aimed to create sanctions for people who violate the conditions of their parole, probation and extended supervision as an alternative to revocation, which sends people back to prison sometimes for small infractions that violate the terms of their release. The hearing on implementing a new rule, 11 years after the law was signed, will finally take place on Tuesday, July 8 at 10 a.m.

The public can join the virtual hearing by going to a DOC link and selecting the “hearing information” section. The text of the rule is also available online at the same hearing link.  

Act 196 states the intent to “Develop a system of short-term sanctions for violations of conditions of parole, probation, extended supervision, and deferred prosecution agreement (an agreement not to prosecute pending the accused meeting requirements such as drug treatment).”

A sentence for a criminal violation, besides fines and fees, typically includes a period of incarceration and supervision outside incarceration via parole, probation, or extended supervision.

If a condition of supervision, such as the requirement to remain sober or stay away from minors, is not meant, the probation officer has the option of requesting a revocation hearing before an administrative judge that could result in the person serving a portion or the remainder of the “supervised” sentence behind bars.

Act 196 states “short-term sanctions” should include “examples of high, medium and low level sanctions and what factors to consider when determining which level of sanction to apply.”

The law is not  just punitive. Act 196 also says the DOC is to determine “how to reward offenders for compliance with conditions of parole, of probation, of extended supervision or of the agreement (such as deferred prosecution).”

The 2014 law also states the DOC should “minimize the impact on the offender’s employment” and also minimize “the impact on an offender’s family.”

The 2014 law would appear to meet the stated goals of the DOC and Gov. Tony Evers to lower the revocation rate for Wisconsin that has resulted in thousands returning each year to prison.

WISDOM, a statewide network working on reform of the prison and criminal legal systems and other social justice issues, is pleased the DOC is finally taking steps to implement the 2014 law into a rule.

“Adding more short-term community-based alternatives to revocation has the potential to significantly reduce the number of people sent to prison each year,” said Mark Rice, Transformational Justice Campaign Coordinator for WISDOM, a statewide network working to overhaul the criminal legal system and other unjust systems.

“Sending people back to prison for convictionless rule violations is fueling the overcrowding of Wisconsin’s prisons,” said Rice.

Tom Gilbert, a father whose son has been incarcerated and had supervision revoked and returned to prison, has led WISDOM’s efforts to get the DOC to implement Act  196.

“It is way past time for Wisconsin to transform its supervision program of people who have been released from their original sentence,” said Gilbert. “Revoking people back to prison for rule violations is counter-productive. Other states have moved to better methods of supervision and are closing prisons.”

But WISDOM officials also have concerns that DOC will use current practices of sanctions, such as 90-day jail confinements, that WISDOM say don’t meet the intent of ACT 196 to “minimize” the impact on employment and the family.

Wisdom officials are also concerned the DOC has not fleshed out how to implement ACT 196 by describing the actual “system of short-term sanctions.” The proposed rule to be considered at the July 8 hearing merely replicates language stated in Act 196 without specifying the actual short-term sanctions or the rewards for meeting the conditions of supervision.

“If the Department of Corrections truly implements both the letter and spirit of Act 196, we see the potential transformation of its community corrections programs to one that focuses on healing individuals and communities affected by crime,” said Gilbert.

Joining the public hearing

Members of the public who are not able to join the hearing online can use a call-in number for the meeting: (608) 571-2209, with conference code 930 614 929.

Persons making oral presentations at the meeting are also required to submit their comments in writing.

Written comments are also taken until August 8. Written comments can be mailed to DOC Administrative Rule Committee, Caitlin Washburn, Administrative Rules Coordinator, PO Box 7925, Madison, WI 53707-7925.

Written comments can also be sent via email to: DOCAdministrativeRulesCommittee@wisconsin.gov or can be submitted on  the DOC’s website: https://doc.legis.wisconsin.gov/code

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Update: This story was updated at 11:50 a.m. on Monday, July 7 to make requested edits to a quote by WISDOM’s Mark Rice.

Protestor Pat Braun carries a sign April 23, 2025, in Rapid City, South Dakota, to protest the cancellation of student visas. (Photo by Seth Tupper/South Dakota Searchlight) 

WASHINGTON — U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says his agency and the Department of Homeland Security will work to “aggressively revoke” visas for Chinese students.

Rubio’s announcement offered few details but said “under President Trump’s leadership, the U.S. State Department will work with the Department of Homeland Security to aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.”

Chinese students comprise the second-largest group of international students in the United States, behind Indian students. 

The move is part of the Trump administration’s continuing immigration crackdown and battle with higher education.

In an ongoing scuffle with Harvard University, a reflection of the administration’s efforts to crack down on “woke” institutions and go after campuses they say are harboring antisemitism, the government moved to halt the school’s ability to enroll international students last week.

But Harvard sued over the effort, and the revocation has been temporarily blocked in court.

Under the Trump administration, the State Department has revoked visas of international students who were involved in campus protests and other activities related to Israel’s war in Gaza. Some students were detained by immigration authorities as part of that effort.

Focus on China

In his Wednesday announcement, Rubio said the State Department would also “revise visa criteria to enhance scrutiny of all future visa applications from the People’s Republic of China and Hong Kong.” 

At the department’s Thursday press briefing, spokesperson Tammy Bruce declined to get into specifics regarding the number of students who would be impacted or what falls within “critical fields,” as Rubio’s statement noted.

Bruce said the United States “will not tolerate the CCP’s exploitation of U.S. universities, or theft of U.S. research, intellectual property or technologies to grow its military power, conduct intelligence collection or repress voices of opposition.”

More than 277,000 Chinese students studied in the United States during the 2023-24 academic year — making up nearly one-quarter of the more than 1,126,000 total international students in that school year, according to a report from the Institute of International Education and the State Department.

However, the total number of students from China declined slightly from the 2022-23 school year, when that figure stood at more than 289,000.

In the 2023-24 academic year, Chinese students made up one-quarter or more of the total international student population within California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington state and Wisconsin.

New York University, Northeastern University in Massachusetts and Columbia University in New York hosted the highest number of international students during that academic year.

Students from South Korea, Canada, Taiwan, Vietnam and Nigeria also comprised large groups of international students in the United States during the 2023-24 school year.  

The announcement raises myriad logistical questions over how the United States would carry out the effort, as well as how officials would determine who has “connections to the Chinese Communist Party.”

Meanwhile, the State Department temporarily paused new student visa interviews earlier this week as the administration prepares to expand the screening of applicants’ activity on social media, according to multiple reports.