On March 12, Mohamed Bailor Jalloh, walked into a classroom at Old Dominion University and opened fire, killing one person and wounding two others. In 2017, Jalloh was convicted of providing material support to ISIS. The Justice Department asked for a 20-year prison sentence. He served less than nine and was ordered to serve five years on federal supervised release.
Jalloh was monitored by a federal probation officer to ensure he was not breaking the law and complying with his other terms of release. Jalloh’s dangerous rap sheet, which included attempts to procure weapons for an attack in the United States and to send money to ISIS, should have warranted intense supervision. Instead, according to a law enforcement affidavit, his probation officer visited his home once every six months. The last visit was in November. The attack happened in March.
Once every six months. For a man with a terrorism conviction who prosecutors said had expressed a desire to carry out a mass shooting similar to the 2009 Fort Hood attack.
We are not blaming the officer, but Jalloh’s case is emblematic of a system stretched so thin that it cannot do its most basic job: focus attention on the people who pose the greatest risk. Put simply, we need to right-size the caseload by empowering probation officers and judges to focus on the most dangerous.
There are currently more than 110,000 people on federal supervised release. From 1995 to 2015, the system nearly tripled in size, with resources that have not kept pace. The Justice Department has warned Congress that “the number of individuals on supervision have increased dramatically, while resources for probation offices have not” and that “probation offices can experience high caseloads and may lack appropriate resources” to do the job effectively. It’s not surprising then that some people will not get the attention their risk level demands. In fact, it is a predictable consequence of a system under strain.
The solution is not complicated, and remarkably, it has bipartisan and law enforcement support. The Safer Supervision Act of 2025 would require judges to justify who gets supervised, reward compliance for those who earn it, and free officers to focus on the people who pose the greatest risk.
The bill requires judges to conduct an individualized assessment before imposing supervised release, explaining on the record why it is or is not appropriate for each person. In fiscal year 2024, only about 23 percent of federal sentences formally required supervised release by statute.
Yet, more than 90 percent of people sentenced to federal prison received a term of imprisonment. This individualized assessment will help concentrate supervision resources on those who actually need it.
While judges can currently end a supervised release term early, the process is confusing and vague, leading to individuals unnecessarily remaining under supervision. To solve this, the bill creates a presumption of early termination once a person has served at least 50 percent of their term, or 66.6 percent if convicted of a violent offense. This is not a free pass. It requires demonstrated good conduct, substantial compliance with supervision conditions, and a court finding that early termination will not jeopardize public safety.
When an individual who has been compliant and poses a very low risk of reoffending remains on a caseload, that bandwidth could be directed towards someone who genuinely needs greater oversight. By safely reducing the caseloads of people who have earned that reduction, probation officers can devote more time, more visits, and more meaningful engagement to those who present real danger to the community.
And research backs this up. Studies have found that when officers have reduced caseloads, recidivism falls, and resources are distributed more efficiently to those who need them most. Data also shows that federal supervisees who were released early reoffend at a lower rate than those who did not terminate supervision early across all risk levels.
The ODU attack should prompt hard questions about how someone with Jalloh’s history was being seen only twice a year. Supervised release, when applied well, is a genuine public safety tool. When applied to nearly everyone automatically and administered by officers buried under impossible caseloads, it can become an inefficient formality.
The Safer Supervision Act will help ensure that the most dangerous people under supervision receive the most attention, increase reentry success, and give officers the capacity to do their jobs effectively. This is smart on crime, and an easy public safety solution.
John Koufos is a former criminal trial attorney and leads Cottage Four, advising the private and public sectors on technology, healthcare and justice issues. John has tried complex organized crime cases, worked with the Trump Administration on the First Step Act, and regularly assists law enforcement leaders around the country to advance smart on crime policies. Follow John on X @JGKoufos [x.com]
Greg Glod is a Senior Consultant at Cottage Four, focused heavily on public-private partnerships and state and federal advocacy. Greg is a public safety and justice expert, and co-hosts award-winning War on Drugs podcast, which examines our nation’s approach to drug and crime policy. Follow Greg on X @GregGlod
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
(Featured Image Media Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Public/Jessica Rodriguez Rivas)
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
