Two Issues for Reintegration Discussion

Prior to beginning work on this discussion, review a state’s department of corrections

Twitter (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

You can consider any of the Twitter pages for state correctional departments listed in the Recommended Resources this week, or you can do an Internet search to locate a specific state’s department of corrections Twitter page. The Twitter page must be the official account of that state department of corrections. For example, you could explore Tweets from one of the Twitter pages listed in the resource list for Week 2, or you could review the Twitter page for a state’s department of corrections of your choosing. Select a Tweet and explain how the content relates to a social justice issue and a criminal justice issue for release from incarceration and/or for reintegration after correctional supervision.

Print
5/12/19, 8)32 PM
Parole and Postprison Conditional
Release
9
Jessica Hill/Associated Press
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to
Distinguish parole, mandatory release, and term of supervised release as the primary means of conditional release from prison in the United States.
Discuss milestones in the history and development of discretionary release parole and antecedents to present practices.
Identify and discuss issues related to discretionary release parole decision making.
Present and discuss common aspects of conditional release.
Describe the scope and nature of reentry as a key concern in conditional release.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch0…=content&clientToken=542b8662-c512-aae3-1062-33a7d7c95762&np=ch09
Page 1 of 18
Print
5/12/19, 8)32 PM
Introduction
In 2013 approximately one third of the offenders leaving prison in the United States were released unconditionally. That is, they served their full sentences and were released
without having to register for parole or another form of supervision. The remaining two thirds were released conditionally—that is, released to discretionary or mandatory parole
or to another form of supervision (Petersilia & Threatt, 2017). Those who are released from prison without conditions are free to return to the community and are largely
unconstrained by the criminal justice system—as ex-felons, though, they may have certain restrictions, such as not being allowed to carry a firearm. However, as ex-offenders,
they may still face de facto restrictions, such as difficulty finding housing, transportation, employment, health care, and other necessities with little or no assistance.
However, those who are released on parole or another form of conditional release supervision are required to report to an agency (in the states, to agents of the state’s
Department of Corrections; in the federal system, to agents of the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services) that monitors them for rules violations and can help them integrate into
the community. For many offenders, having someone to turn to for assistance is critical to taking care of themselves and to living a law-abiding lifestyle. For members of the
community, the offender’s accountability is tied to considerations for public safety and may include aspects of restorative justice, appropriately responding to victims, and other
concerns.
This chapter discusses conditional release from prison in the United States. As with probation, many of the essential features of parole and other forms of conditional supervised
release have been in place since the latter half of the 19th century. In this chapter, we will distinguish parole from mandatory release and term of supervised release (TSR). We
will briefly examine the history and development of parole as the antecedent to current forms of conditional release. We then discuss parole decision making and examine
common features of conditional release supervision. We conclude the chapter by discussing reentry—a key concern for offenders, agency personnel, and community members.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch…=content&clientToken=542b8662-c512-aae3-1062-33a7d7c95762&np=ch09
Page 2 of 18
Print
5/12/19, 8)32 PM
9.1 Distinguishing Parole, Mandatory Release, and TSR
At the end of 2016, there were 874,800 adult offenders under various forms of conditional release in the United States (Kaeble, 2018). Table 9.1 shows the distribution of this
population that was on parole by state and federal systems. Note that the table shows the total numbers of parolees for the federal system, for the states in aggregate, and for each
state. This allows you to examine particular states, compare states of interest, and determine changes in the parole population during this time period.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics defines “parole” as “a period of conditional supervised release in the community following a prison term,” and for the bureau’s statistical
purposes, “parolees include individuals released through discretionary or mandatory supervised release from prison, released through other types of postcustody conditional
supervision [such as from military prisons], or sentenced to a term of supervised release from prison” (Kaeble, 2018, p. 2). It is important to understand that the bureau’s use of
the term parole to cover such a wide array of release circumstances masks some important distinctions in the forms of conditional release. Keep this in mind as you examine the
national information provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Table 9.1: Adults on parole, 2016
Region and jurisdiction
Parole population, 12/31/2016
Number on parole per 100,000 U.S. adult residents, 12/31/2016
U.S. total
874,777
349
Federal
114,385
46
State/district
760,392
303
Alabama
8,562
227
Alaska
1,812
326
Arizona
7,500
140
Arkansas
23,792
1,038
California
93,598
309
Colorado
10,186
236
Connecticut
3,379
119
Delaware
District of Columbia
387
52
4,025
713
Florida
4,566
27
Georgia
22,386
285
Hawaii
1,367
122
Idaho
5,054
402
Illinois
29,428
298
Indiana
8,385
165
Iowa
6,051
251
Kansas
4,830
220
Kentucky
15,383
448
Louisiana
30,907
864
21
2
Maryland
10,305
220
Massachusetts
1,851
34
Michigan
…
216
Minnesota
7,075
167
Mississippi
8,645
381
Missouri
17,792
377
Montana
1,074
131
Nebraska
1,088
76
Nevada
5,261
230
New Hampshire
2,436
226
New Jersey
15,128
217
New Mexico
2,780
175
New York
44,426
285
North Carolina
12,726
161
Maine
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch…=content&clientToken=542b8662-c512-aae3-1062-33a7d7c95762&np=ch09
Page 3 of 18
Print
5/12/19, 8)32 PM
North Dakota
804
138
Ohio
19,634
218
Oklahoma
1,895
64
Oregon
24,711
760
Pennsylvania
111,087
1,097
Rhode Island
460
54
South Carolina
4,347
112
South Dakota
2,687
410
Tennessee
12,092
234
Texas
111,287
537
Utah
3,707
172
Vermont
935
185
Virginia
1,650
25
Washington
11,322
198
West Virginia
3,550
244
Wisconsin
20,401
453
Wyoming
842
189
. . . Not known.
Source: From “Probation and Parole in the United States, 2016,” by D. Kaeble, 2018 (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus16.pdf
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus16.pdf (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus16.pdf)
(https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus16.pdf) ).
Offenders who are placed under supervision after prison through discretionary release have gone before a parole board or commission. This form of conditional release is
usually associated with the term parole. A person sentenced to prison applies to a parole board, which can decide whether to allow conditional release. The offender must abide
by certain conditions and be supervised by a parole officer, who has the authority to recommend a return to prison if the offender violates the law or the conditions of
supervision. In this situation, a return to prison requires a hearing and another decision by the parole board or commission. Approximately 44% of the inmates on conditional
release in the United States in 2016 entered supervision through discretionary release (Kaeble, 2018).
Under mandatory release, an offender is placed on community supervision as a matter of legislation, rather than because of the actions of a parole board or commission. The
offender’s prison sentence includes a term on community supervision (usually expressed as a percentage of the total time, or as their total incarceration time minus any time for
good behavior and/or automatic reduction, known as “gain time”) to follow incarceration. With mandatory release, the sentencing judge does not determine the length of the
time on supervision. That is determined as prescribed by the law and is administered through correctional officials. This situation is often referred to as “extended supervision.”
Sometimes the supervising agent is called a “parole officer,” but that can be misleading. The supervising agent has the authority to recommend a return to prison if the offender
violates the law or the conditions of supervision. In this situation, a return to prison requires a probable cause hearing before correctional officials or, in the case of the federal
system, under the auspices of the U.S. Parole Commission (USPC), which acts as the administering authority. There is no parole board for this offender. The USPC acts as an
administrative authority but does not make a discretionary decision to grant conditional release. About 27% of offenders who entered supervision from prison in 2016 in the
United States entered through mandatory release (Kaeble, 2018).
Term of supervised release (TSR) means that the law authorizes the sentencing judge to impose both a term of incarceration and a term on supervision in the community. In
this case, the judge determines the length of both terms, within parameters set by law. There is a supervising agent who has the authority to recommend a return to prison. In this
situation, a return to prison or a change in the supervision status requires a hearing before the judge (or if necessary, before another judge in the same jurisdiction). About 2% of
offenders who entered supervision from prison in 2016 in the United States entered through TSR. It is significant, however, that 99% of federal inmates on postprison
supervision entered through TSR in 2016, while less than 1% of state inmates were reported to have entered through TSR (Kaeble, 2018). This marks a significant difference
between the federal and state prison systems.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics added “term of supervised release” as a category in 2008 to provide information on the federal system and across the states. As stated, ordering
TSR has become an important practice in the federal judiciary. However, data concerning states’ use of TSR is not as readily available; some states began reporting TSR in
2008, while others were still not reporting as of 2016. Table 9.2 shows adults entering conditional release, by type of entry, in 2016. The table allows us to compare the federal
jurisdiction and use of TSR to the states in aggregate and to examine individual states of interest.
Table 9.2: Adults entering parole, by type of entry, 2016
Total reported
Discretionarya
Mandatoryb
Reinstatementc
TSRd
Othere
Unknown or not reported
U.S. total
422,975
187,341
116,303
11,575
75,974
5,026
26,756
Federal
45,469
289
0
0
45,180
0
0
State/district
377,506
187,052
116,303
11,575
30,794
5,026
26,756
Jurisdiction
Alabama*
2,515
2,506
9
…
…
0
0
Alaska*
717
143
325
249
~
0
0
Arizona
11,481
27
11,374
80
0
0
0
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch…=content&clientToken=542b8662-c512-aae3-1062-33a7d7c95762&np=ch09
Page 4 of 18
Print
5/12/19, 8)32 PM
Arkansas*
10,868
California*
26,007
…
Colorado
7,657
2,727
Connecticut
2,591
1,235
Delaware*
129
…
1,330
199
District of Columbia
9,085
1,783
0
0
0
0
…
…
3,305
1,475
…
0
26,007
0
150
0
0
…
0
1,356
0
0
…
…
0
129
0
0
1,131
0
0
Florida
6,110
34
5,363
0
700
13
0
Georgia*
9,434
9,434
0
0
0
0
0
Hawaii*
629
629
0
0
0
0
0
Idaho*
3,055
1,701
…
1,347
…
7
0
Illinois*
23,889
18
23,006
90
~
559
216
Indiana
7,056
0
7,056
0
0
0
0
Iowa
3,810
3,810
0
0
0
0
0
Kansas
4,465
0
3
153
4,215
34
60
Kentucky*
10,757
6,618
4,138
0
0
1
0
Louisiana
15,888
575
14,974
285
26
28
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
Maryland*
4,295
1,962
2,333
…
…
0
0
Massachusetts
2,111
1,998
0
113
0
0
0
Maine*
Michigan
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
Minnesota*
7,129
2
6,659
0
0
468
0
Mississippi
6,597
4,770
621
0
0
862
344
Missouri*
13,255
10,142
837
1,248
~
1,028
0
Montana
533
533
0
0
0
0
0
Nebraska*
1,537
1,320
0
211
~
6
0
Nevada*
3,365
2,271
1,209
155
~
0
0
New Hampshire*
1,461
785
0
573
~
103
0
New Jersey
5,539
3,339
2,200
~
0
0
0
New Mexico*
2,384
…
…
…
2,133
251
0
New York
20,443
5,272
6,439
0
7,867
865
0
North Carolina*
13,647
31
281
~
13,335
0
0
North Dakota
1,545
1,545
0
0
0
0
0
Ohio
8,085
72
7,809
204
0
0
0
Oklahoma*
383
383
~
~
~
0
0
Oregon
9,561
2,294
7,186
4
11
66
0
Pennsylvania*
61,179
57,542
0
3,637
0
0
0
Rhode Island*
239
239
~
~
~
0
0
South Carolina
2,460
809
1,651
0
0
0
0
South Dakota*
1,788
500
1,175
…
20
93
0
Tennessee
3,353
3,267
6
75
0
5
0
Texas
35,398
34,110
403
509
~
376
0
Utah
2,640
2,452
0
77
0
111
0
Vermont
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
Virginia
711
258
453
0
0
0
0
Washington
5,782
224
5,134
424
0
0
0
West Virginia*
2,113
2,071
42
0
0
0
0
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
Wisconsin
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch…=content&clientToken=542b8662-c512-aae3-1062-33a7d7c95762&np=ch09
Page 5 of 18
Print
Wyoming
5/12/19, 8)32 PM
691
615
0
76
0
0
0
. . . Not known.
~ Not applicable.
* Some or all data were estimates.
ancludes persons entering due to a parole board decision.
bIncludes persons whose release from prison was not decided by a parole board and persons entering due to determinate sentencing, good-time provisions, or emergency releases.
cIncludes persons returned to parole after serving time in a prison due to a parole violation. Depending on the reporting jurisdiction, reinstatement entries may include only parolees who were originally released from prison through a
discretionary release, mandatory release, or a combination of both types. May also include those originally released through a TSR.
dIncludes persons sentenced by a judge to a fixed period of incarceration based on a determinate statute immediately followed by a period of supervised release in the community.
eSee Methodology in “Probation and Parole in the United States, 2016” for examples of commonly provided categories.
Source: From “Probation and parole in the United States, 2016,” by D. Kaeble, 2018 (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus16.pdf
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus16.pdf (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus16.pdf)
(https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus16.pdf) ).
There are important factors for us to consider regarding discretionary release parole, mandatory release, and TSR. First, federal or state laws determine which process will be
followed. Offenders convicted under federal jurisdiction fall under laws passed by the U.S. Congress. Offenders convicted under a state jurisdiction fall under the laws of that
state. Therefore, differing forms of conditional release exist. Even within a single jurisdiction, offenders may fall under different forms of conditional release. This is because
there have been changes to both federal and state laws, particularly since the 1980s, regarding conditional release. When changes occur, offenders who were sentenced prior to a
change in the law fall under the previous form, and those sentenced after the change fall under the new form.
In addition, the process for obtaining conditional release is different for each form, as is the process of revoking or rescinding conditional release and returning the offender to
prison. With discretionary release, the parole board or commission must make the decision. With mandatory release, correctional administrators (or in the federal system, the
USPC) make the decision. With TSR, a judge makes the decision. Therefore, the locus of control is different with each form.
Discretionary release parole and mandatory release supervision are not judicial functions. With discretionary release, the authority to grant or revoke parole, as well as the
authority to establish its conditions, lies with various parole boards and commissions. These organizations are administratively identified with the executive branch of
government. Parole authorities make discretionary decisions that affect the nature of sentences imposed on convicted offenders, but their decision making occurs during the
execution phase of the sentence. Another way to say this is that parole authorities’ decisions influence the convicted offender’s effective sentence.
As previously stated, mandatory release is when an offender is released to community supervision as a
matter of law. With mandatory release, a judge imposes a sentence of incarceration, but the law specifies
the portion of the sentence that is to be served under community supervision. If the offender violates the
conditions of supervision, the authority to revoke release rests with the supervising authority: correctional
administrators who are part of the executive branch of government. Although these administrators may
influence the actual or effective sentence, they are limited in what they are legally allowed to do. They
may rescind conditional release or decide to change the conditions of supervision, but they may not add to
the sentence.
With TSR, however, a judge imposes both the term of incarceration and the term of supervised release.
This makes the conditional release process a judicial function. In this case, judges have the authority to
impose sentences; parole boards, commissions, and correctional administrators do not. This allows a
judge to exercise additional options that are only available to the judiciary. As previously stated, TSR has
not yet become a prominent feature of conditional release in the states, but some state legislatures have
amended laws to allow for this form of conditional release. (Refer to Table 9.2 to compare the federal use
of TSR to the states in aggregate and to examine particular states of interest.)
Seabrook’s Parole Hearing Grilling
At a parole hearing, the full panel of the parole board
questions a convicted murderer, attempting to determine
whether he could murder again. The decision on whether
or not to release this inmate and any conditions placed on
him are entirely up to the parole board. Why do you think
parole boards were created rather than leaving parole
decisions up to individual judges?
Seabrook’s Parole Hearing Grilling
From Title: Halfway House: Prison without Bars
(https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=100753&xtid=45444)
These three forms of conditional release have different implications for processes, decision making, and
possible outcomes. However, the core notions of conditional release developed from 19th-century origins.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch…=content&clientToken=542b8662-c512-aae3-1062-33a7d7c95762&np=ch09
Page 6 of 18
Print
5/12/19, 8)32 PM
9.2 The History and Development of Parole
There are a number of antecedents and milestones in the emergence and establishment of parole and other forms of conditional release. In 1870 conditional release became the
basis of a “new penology,” which was articulated at a meeting of the National Prison Association (which later became the American Correctional Association) in Cincinnati,
Ohio (Mays & Winfree, 2009; Walker, 1980). This new penology, among other things, focused on gradually releasing inmates from prison. Correctional leaders became
advocates of this approach and worked with legislatures to enact laws establishing gradual release and, later, conditional release. These laws were a product of processes that had
been in place for years and were finally formalized. They clarified decision-making responsibilities and set up a formal practice for implementing the process of parole
(Petersilia, 2003; Walker, 1980).
Walker (1980) explains that parole—which has a somewhat similar history to probation—became established because its conceptual foundations served a number of purposes.
These included providing additional avenues for criminal justice officials to practice discretionary leniency and individualize justice, presenting an option that was both less
expensive and more convenient than incarceration, and presenting a somewhat palatable strategy for dealing with overcrowding (a perennial problem in corrections).
“Parole” followed other strategies for early discretionary release, which included executive pardons, release for good behavior, and commutations of sentences. Because it was
used so liberally, however, the power to pardon became problematic, placing governors in the awkward position of frequently having to address requests for pardons. Also, the
liberal use of the pardoning power engendered controversy over its arbitrary application. Parole would promise, at least in principle, to provide a more coherent and politically
acceptable means for discretionary release.
New York passed the first “good time” law in 1817 (Walker, 1980). Gradually, other states followed suit, and Congress passed the first federal good-time law in 1870 (U.S.
Parole Commission [USPC], 2003). Good-time laws reduce the length of incarceration in recognition of or exchange for good behavior and adherence to rules. Good-time laws
may serve multiple purposes; maintaining control over inmates was perceived to be among the most important (Walker, 1980). Parole promised to serve similar purposes.
Alexander Maconochie and Walter Crofton
Historians generally credit the practice of parole to Alexander Maconochie’s development of
the “mark system” during the 1840s at the British penal colony on Norfolk Island, near
Australia, and to Walter Crofton’s establishment of the Irish system of parole (“ticket of
leave”) during the 1850s.
Maconochie experimented with what is today known as the indeterminate sentence. He
assigned a number of “marks” or points (to be earned on the basis of work and good behavior)
to each sentence. “Under this arrangement the convict could progress through several grades . .
. and in due course earn a ticket of leave” (Walker, 1980, p. 95).
Meanwhile, in 1853 the English Parliament passed an act allowing prison inmates to receive
Convicts laboring at the British penal colony on
early release (on a “ticket of leave”) under police supervision (Abadinsky, 2012). In Ireland, Norfolk Island. It was here that Alexander
Walter Crofton, the leader of the Irish prison system, instituted a conditional release program Maconochie pioneered the “mark system.”
that influenced later developments in the United States. As Abadinsky (2012) summarizes, the
Irish system also involved levels or stages:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hulton Archive/Getty Images
The first stage involved solitary confinement for nine months. During the first three months, the inmate was on reduced rations and was allowed no labor whatsoever. It
was reasoned that after three months of forced idleness, even the laziest prisoner would long for something to do. He would then be given full rations, instructed in
useful skills, and exposed to religious influences.
In the second stage, the convict was placed in a special prison to work with other inmates, during which time he could earn marks to qualify for a transfer to the
third stage.
Stage three involved transportation to an open institution, where the convict, by evidencing signs of reformation, could earn release on a Ticket of Leave.
Ticket of Leave men were conditionally released and, in rural districts, supervised by police; those residing in Dublin, however, were supervised by a civilian employee
who had the title of Inspector of Released Prisoners. He worked cooperatively with the police, but it was his responsibility to secure employment for the Ticket of Leave
men. He required them to report at stated intervals, visited their homes every two weeks, and verified their employment: in short, he was the forerunner of the modern
parole officer. (p. 145)
The Irish system provided supporters of parole in the United States with several essential elements for the practice. It also provided “new penology” advocates with a milestone
undertaking that could indirectly reinforce their support for individualized justice and expanding the discretionary power of those in control of what we presently refer to as
“corrections.” Still, it took time to formally institutionalize parole as a feature of U.S. penal practice.
Zebulon Brockway
Zebulon Brockway was a prominent official who advocated making conditional release a formal part of American correctional practice (Petersilia, 2003; Walker, 1980).
Brockway was superintendent of Elmira Reformatory (see Chapter 1) from 1877 to 1900, where he introduced a mark system and a set of “innovative” programs (primarily
education and industrial programs) intended to individualize the penal effort. Early release was initiated as a part of the inducements and practices supporting the discretionary
ideals of the indeterminate sentence. Decisions to grant inmates parole status were made by the institutional board of managers. Parolees remained under the supervision of
reformatory officials for 6 months, reporting each month to an assigned “guardian” (Abadinsky, 2012). However, due to the large number of inmates and the demands this placed
on the system, Elmira Reformatory could not individually treat its prisoners. As a result, the reformatory was no more successful than other prisons (Walker, 1980) Despite these
challenges, Brockway’s system was replicated in several reformatories in other states. However, by 1900 parole remained a limited element of U.S. corrections.
The Progressive Era
During the Progressive era, parole became much more widely used; by 1915, 34 states had adopted it. Parole for federal prisoners became available in 1910 (USPC, 2003).
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch…=content&clientToken=542b8662-c512-aae3-1062-33a7d7c95762&np=ch09
Page 7 of 18
Print
5/12/19, 8)32 PM
Parole fit within the strategies of those who saw themselves as Progressives and those who partnered with them (Rothman, 1971). Progressives sought to reform U.S.
correctional practices primarily through the use of discretionary and individualized responses to each inmate (Rothman, 1971). That parole was based more on impressionistic
logic than “proven” principles did not deter the Progressives. And, for those interested in making corrections options more discretionary, as well as those looking for strategies
that might be politically palatable, parole and probation seemed like a good fit. Alliances were formed, and the practices were rapidly adopted.
Current Notions
Today discretionary release parole functions as a set of strategies that serves multiple aims.
Discretionary release parole has been said
1.
2.
3.
4.
“to provide a timely release from prison, enhancing the potential that the sentence served will
meet the needs of the inmate and adequately protect society” (Culbertson & Ellsworth, 1985,
p. 130);
“to lessen the harshness of some long prison sentences” (Culbertson & Ellsworth, 1985, p.
131);
“to provide a ‘safety-valve’ for overpopulated prisons” (Culbertson & Ellsworth, 1985, p.
131); and
“to provide prison authorities with a tool which can be used to maintain social control over
prison populations” (Culbertson & Ellsworth, 1985, p. 132).
These remain the generally accepted aims of discretionary release parole today.
Spencer Weiner/Los Angeles Times/Associated Press
As overcrowded prisons remain a problem,
revoking those who violate conditions yet do not
commit a new crime adds to the incarceration
problem. How does this represent an issue for
supervising agents?
Parole also presents an opportunity to get offenders involved in programs that can help them
be successful after incarceration. Supervising agents conduct risk and needs assessments for
those in their caseload. They work with the offender to connect him or her to useful resources.
Parole supervision also has the important public safety aim of monitoring a parolee’s
adherence to laws and to rules.
Although a large shift toward determinate sentencing laws in the federal system (in 1987) and
in many states acted to decrease the use of discretionary release, its use has grown significantly
over the past decade. As noted earlier, in 2016 it accounted for roughly 44% of releases nationwide, up from just over 26% in 2008 (Kaeble, 2018; Glaze & Bonczar, 2009).
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch…=content&clientToken=542b8662-c512-aae3-1062-33a7d7c95762&np=ch09
Page 8 of 18
Print
5/12/19, 8)32 PM
9.3 “Parole” Decision Making
Brockway’s discretionary early release system vested authority for parole decision making in
an institutional board of managers. By the 1920s debates in various states concerning the
objectivity and variability of parole decision making led to the establishment of decisionmaking bodies that were independent of direct institutional management. During this period,
there was a general movement to centralize correctional administration (McElvey, 1977). This
movement added to the impetus to create decision-making bodies organized with
administrative identities that were either independent of the large correctional systems
(independent boards or commissions) or within them, as semiautonomous elements
(consolidated boards). Institutional boards eventually died away, but since that time there has
been a variety of discretionary release parole decision-making arrangements that generally
follow the independent and consolidated schemes. Of course, in recent years, mandatory
release and TSR have changed the nature of the decision-making function; likewise, changes
to these forms of conditional release will eventually result in changes to, or even the
elimination of, parole boards or commissions. For example, the USPC still operates, but it will
phase out as the last of those persons eligible for parole exit the federal system—that is, those
who were imprisoned before the law was changed. In 2010, 658 offenders obtained
conditional release through the USPC’s discretionary decisions, out of the 47,873 offenders
released to postprison supervision (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011c).
John Spink/Atlanta Journal Constitution/Associated Press
Given debate over various parole board
practices, some critics are hoping to eliminate
them altogether. Do you think that parole
boards serve a useful function?
Criticism and Debates
Over the past century, debates over discretionary board decision making and discretionary
release in general have focused on several issues. In an abstract sense, neo-retributionists have
questioned whether discretionary release parole is actually punishment, or rather the amelioration of punishment. Neo-retributionists also have questioned whether parole is
defensible as a rehabilitative venture.
In an applied sense, many have critically scrutinized the practices of discretionary boards or commissions, particularly their objectivity and attempts at rational decision making.
These issues have been present since the 1920s. The composition of discretionary boards/commissions and the manner in which board/commission members acquire their
positions have been questioned in various systems, resulting in different arrangements in the states and the federal government. In particular, attention has been paid to whether
board members should be directly appointed by a sitting politician (which is the case in some states, where positions are filled by the governor, who determines a candidate’s
qualifications), as opposed to more elaborate schemes (which exist in other states, where board members’ general qualifications are predetermined, there is a screening and
nominating panel, and the appointment process is governed by established regulations). The latter is thought to result in the appointment of those most qualified to decide parole
matters.
Many have questioned the procedures of various discretionary parole authorities. Some are concerned about the fact that most parole boards have not published explicit
decision-making criteria, retain a high degree of discretion and/or flexibility in decision-making processes, and conduct activities in the absence of a high degree of public
visibility. One point to keep in mind is that parole authorities are required to conduct their activities within parameters established by state legislatures or Congress. Legislative
bodies typically provide parole authorities with broad-based autonomy—the idea is and has been discretionary release.
Discretionary Decisions
Today parole boards have the benefit of being able to examine and respond to criticisms that have been levied over time. Where state legislatures have deemed it appropriate,
discretionary release parole continues, and where changes have been made, there are still persons who were imprisoned prior to the changes.
Parole boards have different numbers of members, different procedures for how offenders can
apply for parole, and different decision-making processes, depending on which state they serve
(the USPC has its own procedures for these issues). Today most parole boards or commissions
publish their procedures, policies, decision-making principles, and other materials that make it
clear to inmates, families, and other stakeholders how decisions are made. For example, the
Massachusetts Parole Board’s (2012) policy statement on decision making regarding parole
includes its general purpose, the statutory and regulatory framework for operation, a statement
of values and the beliefs of board members, its principles of operation, and other details. The
statement makes clear that the board has a broad legal mandate for discretion, and also lays out
the various methods, procedures, and tools that board members may use in making their
decisions. It is important to note that the board “recognizes the need for transparency in the
decision making process” and encourages board members to exercise “consistency and equity
in the discharge of their responsibilities” (Massachusetts Parole Board, 2012, p. 4). The
document is instructive in detailing the parole board’s philosophy and operational details, as
well as how it exercises its discretionary authority.
John Tlumacki/© 2011 The Boston Globe/Getty Images
The Massachusetts Parole Board conducting a
parole hearing. What is significant about the
board’s policy statement and overall approach
to parole decisions?
Other parole boards have their own procedures. For example, the website of the Michigan
Department of Corrections (2013) states the factors the Michigan Parole Board considers when
it makes decisions, which include
the crime for which the prisoner is serving; prior criminal record, institutional behavior
and adjustment, programming [that is, any programming in which the inmate participated
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch…=content&clientToken=542b8662-c512-aae3-1062-33a7d7c95762&np=ch09
Page 9 of 18
Print
5/12/19, 8)32 PM
while incarcerated], the parole guidelines score, any information obtained from the
prisoner interview, and information from victims and other relevant sources.
It is common for boards or commissions to enumerate these factors. However, the decisions remain discretionary, in that how these factors are weighted or integrated is up to the
members, within the setting of the board’s deliberations.
Eligibility for discretionary release parole is a matter of law. For those who are eligible, obtaining parole commonly involves submitting an application, presenting relevant
information, participating in prehearing interviews, and appearing before the parole board or commission (or in some cases, a smaller panel of board members). The parole
board will usually notify interested law enforcement officials and other criminal justice officials, victims and/or victim’s families, and other stakeholders about an inmate’s
upcoming hearing.
Both the Massachusetts Parole Board and the Michigan Parole Board utilize “parole guidelines” as a tool to help board members make decisions about inmates who apply for
parole. In the next section, we discuss parole decision guidelines as a tool for discretionary decisions. As you read, consider the difficulty of predicting human behavior and what
bearing this has on designing a tool for making accurate decisions about individuals.
Decision-Making Guidelines
Many parole boards and commissions make use of parole decision-making guidelines. These can help reduce or eliminate problems inherent in discretionary decision making.
Adopted by many states, such guidelines are intended to formalize the decision-making process and make decision criteria explicit.
Parole decision-making guidelines are suggested decisions based on the development of weighted factors that concern (a) the offense committed and its specific circumstances
and (b) the offender and factors specific to his or her personal history. Other factors (such as institutional record) may also be considered when deciding to grant or deny parole,
as well as its conditions. Parole decision-making guidelines were initially introduced to reduce discretion and disparity in parole boards’ decisions. Advocates also pointed out
that the development of such guidelines would require boards to explicitly issue a paroling policy statement (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1988). The adoption of such guidelines
was not intended to eliminate parole authorities; rather, guidelines were designed to make their decisions more objective and rational.
While parole guidelines are used in many states and the federal system, they do not provide a panacea for problems associated with discretionary release. The primary concern
regarding guidelines involves the difficulty of predicting people’s behavior. Parole guidelines are based on what can be ascertained about the offense and the offender in terms of
what seems relevant to describing (some say predicting) an offender’s likelihood of successfully completing the parole sentence and remaining a law-abiding person thereafter.
These factors are established by research, conducted on large numbers of offenders and parolees, that assesses variables that are most closely associated with an offender’s
potential for success or, conversely, those associated with an offender’s propensity to act violently (his or her “social dangerousness”).
Developing and implementing decision-making guidelines is inherently difficult work; predicting human behavior is complicated and can be inaccurate. The question, then, is
how much inaccuracy can be tolerated. Hawkins and Alpert (1989) focus on the prediction of violent behavior to illustrate potential sources of inaccuracy. As they state:
The assessment of the degree of inaccuracy which should be tolerated in predictions of social dangerousness hinges on the ratio of two types of error. The first error
involves persons predicted as good risks, but who later prove to commit one or more violent acts. In prediction jargon, they are termed false negatives. The second
type of error is false positive. These individuals are predicted as dangerous but do not commit a violent act, that is, would not offend if released. They have been
termed poor risks, but falsely labeled as regards the target behavior—being violent. There would be two types of accurate predictions, true positive (predicted as
violent and turns out to be so) and true negative (predicted as not violent and was so). (Hawkins & Albert, 1989, p. 121)
Legislators and other public officials must decide how strongly the decision-making authority must guard against the possibility of such errors. This decision reflects the degree
of risk to be tolerated in conjunction with pragmatic concerns, such as overcrowding and budget issues.
Overprediction describes a situation in which the paroling authority tries to reduce the potential for false negatives obtaining parole and in doing so denies parole to an
unknown number of false positives, who would not have committed a violent act but cannot demonstrate that fact. This situation can in turn compound the difficulty for further
research in a jurisdiction and is unpalatable to those who think it is unjust to unnecessarily retain an inmate.
Conversely, underprediction involves making decisions that grant parole to those who, according to the prediction scheme, are likely to engage in a violent act.
Underprediction presents a higher degree of risk to society, can cause image problems for the paroling authority, and can call the validity of the decision-making scheme into
question. In some states (see Chapter 7), “third-level alternatives” (such as intensive parole supervision schemes or electronic monitoring) are employed to grant parole to
“marginal cases.”
Violent behavior is even more difficult to predict because, relative to other behaviors, it is actually quite rare. Statistical prediction techniques are most accurate when the
analyzed behaviors approach a 50–50 ratio of occurrence/nonoccurrence (Walker, 2011). From a statistical perspective, the rarer an occurrence, the greater the margin for error.
Since a small number of offenders commit a large number of offenses, it is difficult to determine who will commit the next crime. The logic of making statistical predictions is
based on averages of large numbers and is not always an accurate indicator of future individual behavior. This introduces another qualification to the type of analysis that
contributes to guideline development.
Guideline development depends on the analysis of aggregated data; that is, looking at a large group of offenders in a given jurisdiction. Conclusions are drawn from this data
that inform the guidelines, which are in turn applied to decisions about offenders.
Guidelines can be used to structure discretionary release decisions. Where guidelines have been implemented and discretionary release has continued, there are generally
provisions that enable parole boards to make decisions that fall outside the guidelines. In this event, decision makers are usually required to state their reasons for doing so.
Additionally, guidelines may be modified and updated, giving some flexibility to the process. Advocates argue in favor of some flexibility; critics argue that too much of it
undercuts the effort to reduce potential disparity in decision making.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch…content&clientToken=542b8662-c512-aae3-1062-33a7d7c95762&np=ch09
Page 10 of 18
Print
5/12/19, 8)32 PM
9.4 Common Aspects of Conditional Release
Conditional release into the community involves a number of factors. The conditions of the release are among the first things to consider.
Conditions
The conditions to be observed by those placed on supervised release vary from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction. However, as Chapter 8 covered, jurisdictions usually have general conditions of
supervision—which all those on conditional release in the jurisdiction must follow—and
special conditions of supervision—which are particular to individuals and ordered by the
parole board, commission, or judge. As an example, the Applying Criminal Justice: Standard
(General) Conditions for Parole in New Mexico feature box presents the general conditions for
persons on parole in New Mexico.
Jason Olson/Deseret Morning News/Associated Press
Besides the general conditions all parolees need
to follow, some are required to fulfill specific
conditions, such as polygamist Tom Green
having to swear fidelity to only one woman.
Applying Criminal Justice: Standard (General) Conditions for Parole in New Mexico
Reporting: I will report to my Parole Officer as directed. I will not abscond from parole, as evidenced by my failure to report where I cannot be located, after
reasonable efforts, at my place of approved residence and employment.
Other State: If I am paroled or transferred to the custody of another State, I will abide by the rules in effect in that State, as well as the parole conditions
imposed by the New Mexico Adult Parole Board.
Travel/Personal Status: I must seek and obtain permission from my Parole Officer before changing residence. I must secure a travel permit from my Parole
Officer before any travel out of the county to which I am being supervised.
Conduct:
a. I will demean myself as a law-abiding citizen. I will notify and advise my Parole Officer of any arrest within 24 hours (felony or misdemeanor).
b. I must maintain acceptable behavior and conduct which shall justify the opportunity granted to me by the New Mexico Adult Parole Board.
Controlled Substances: I will not illegally possess, use, or sell any narcotic drug, controlled or synthetic substance, or drug paraphernalia. I will not consume or
buy intoxicating beverages, nor will I enter what is commonly known as a bar or lounge where intoxicants are sold.
Drug Test: I will submit to substance testing at my Parole Officer’s discretion.
Association: I will not knowingly associate with any person who is a detriment to my parole. I will have no gang contact, attire, or paraphernalia.
Weapons: I will not buy, sell, own or have in my possession, at any time, firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons of any kind.
Employment: I will seek and maintain verifiable employment, education, or community service (if not employed) and notify my Parole Officer immediately in
the event of termination or change of employment.
Home Visits: I will permit my Parole Officer or Corrections Officials to visit me at all reasonable times, places, and will submit to reasonable warrantless
searches per New Mexico Corrections Department policy.
Driving: I will refrain from driving any motor vehicle without a valid NM driver’s license, registration, and insurance.
Compliance: I will comply with all conditions and fines imposed by the judgment and sentence, as ordered by the court.
Source: “Standard Probation Supervision,” by New Mexico Corrections Department, Probation & Parole, 2013 (https://cd.nm.gov/ppd/ppd.html
https://cd.nm.gov/ppd/ppd.html (https://cd.nm.gov/ppd/ppd.html)
(https://cd.nm.gov/ppd/ppd.html) ).
Special conditions could include being placed on GPS tracking; needing to complete certain programming, such as substance abuse or domestic violence programming; and
other possibilities. Again, special conditions are intended to fit individuals’ particular needs or requirements. The extent to which conditions are enforced may also vary by
jurisdiction, even across individual agents. This makes the experience of conditional release vary for individual offenders.
Supervision
Conditional release supervision is a function of the state governments and the federal government. In other words, supervision is carried out by organizations at these levels of
government. Although a few states have parole supervision specialists, most states, and the federal government, employ those who supervise offenders on conditional release as
well as probationers. In the federal structure, probation and parole officers are part of the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services, under the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts. At the operational level they work with the U.S. District Courts, with the supervising agent reporting to the presiding judge of the district court. In a few states, parole
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch…=content&clientToken=542b8662-c512-aae3-1062-33a7d7c95762&np=ch09
Page 11 of 18
Print
5/12/19, 8)32 PM
agencies are organized outside the Division or Department of Corrections and are directly subordinate to the governor. In most states the supervision element is organized as a
major subunit of the Division or Department of Corrections.
The discussion in Chapter 8 regarding potential variation in probation supervision may be applied to parole supervision, with some caveats. It is important to keep in mind that
by virtue of having served time in prison and having at least one felony conviction, parolees are generally thought to require more intense supervision than most probationers
(remember, though, that felony probation is increasing). Supervising agents usually have smaller caseloads than probation officers, but in many jurisdictions officers have large
caseloads composed of both probationers and parolees—the nature and intensity of supervision may depend on caseload size, the orientation of the agency, whether leaders
emphasize surveillance and community protection more than assistance and successful reintegration, or other concerns.
Reporting on a large-scale study, Solomon (2006) notes that in most cases parole supervision is minimal. She observes that caseloads are packed, leaving limited time for direct
supervision (or assistance). Given burdensome caseloads and agency leaders’ desire to emphasize public safety, such an observation is not surprising.
Yet much is made of the relatively high degree of discretion afforded parole officers in carrying out their responsibilities. For many, discretion offers the capacity to individualize
justice. Given this context of large caseloads, scant time for interaction, and significant time and task requirements, consider the question posed in Applying Criminal Justice:
Taking an Agent’s Perspective regarding how much individualization can actually be accomplished.
Applying Criminal Justice: Taking an Agent’s Perspective
In 2016, 94% of the parole population had been sentenced to incarceration for more than a year
(Kaeble, 2018). Going back to the community setting after serving time can be difficult. Consider
the job of a supervising agent with a caseload of 60 offenders and 40 hours a week to tend to them.
Perhaps three fourths of those in the caseload will have multiple issues and needs upon reentering
the community. They may need education; they may have histories of drug or alcohol abuse; and
nearly all need a job, though they are not equally prepared to search for one. Some may lack
interviewing and other job application skills. Some may never have held a job. All are felons.
How would you approach those in such a caseload? How would you balance their need to obtain a
job with the need to protect society? How would you help them find work where jobs are scarce
and nonfelons are competing for them as well? What would be your biggest concerns if you were
the supervising officer? How would you address those concerns?
Parole Agent
Parole agents assist parolees in adjusting to life after
prison. They also assess whether a parolees is a threat to
the community. What are the greatest challenges of this
profession? The greatest rewards?
Parole Agent
From Title: Careers in Criminal Justice
(https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=100753&xtid=29135)
Discretion
Parole officers tend to act as “street-level bureaucrats” (Lipsky, 1980). At times they use their discretion to deal with individuals in their caseloads, but most often they defer to
their agency’s “ways of doing business.” While both laws and agencies’ formal policies set broad parameters for parole officers’ actions and judgments, officers tend to act in a
similar fashion, occasionally manifesting differences but overall basing their similarities in discretionary authority.
Each group of officers abides by informal policies, expectations, and norms. These provide the substance of practice. Like other work groups, parole officers assimilate these
informal expectations and reinforce the norms and policies through their own discretionary behavior. The result is that practices tend to be more similar than different.
Assessment and Classification
Formal attempts to make the supervision function more coherent include assessing and classifying those who will be supervised. The general aims of assessment and
classification provide rational means for estimating an offender’s risk of violating probation/parole and level of danger and for determining his or her needs while under
supervision. Although assessment and classification strategies have the potential to significantly contribute to the probation and parole decision-making process, the realities of
caseload size, the limits of time, and options for assistance or referral often make such assessments more a matter of paperwork than a substantial tool with which to improve the
offender.
Assessment and classification have not been definitively shown to make parole supervision more rational, objective, or ultimately effective. Solomon (2006) observes that parole
officers are “driven by making their contacts and monitoring compliance” and that “the ultimate goal . . . changing parolees’ lives . . . [is] more elusive” (p. 26). However, it may
be argued that classification represents one avenue for imparting coherence to the supervision process in that it systematizes offender behaviors, making it easier to discern
offending patterns and enhance supervision as needed. Classification efforts and linking classification decisions to implementation may at least force consideration of expected
outcomes and make it more likely that community supervision can achieve positive outcomes. Whether classification contributes much to a coherent supervision process remains
unclear, given the potential problems discussed above, the variation in agencies’ operating contexts, and what agency leaders choose to emphasize.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch…content&clientToken=542b8662-c512-aae3-1062-33a7d7c95762&np=ch09
Page 12 of 18
Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch…content&clientToken=542b8662-c512-aae3-1062-33a7d7c95762&np=ch09
5/12/19, 8)32 PM
Page 13 of 18
Print
5/12/19, 8)32 PM
9.5 Reentry Into the Community
In 2016 state and federal prisons released 641,027 offenders to return to various communities; 426,755 were on conditional release (Carson, 2018). Consider these numbers for a
moment. On the simplest level, that means 641,027 people needed a new place to live and some way to support themselves. Finding a job can be challenging for those without a
criminal record; for convicted felons, it is even harder. Moreover, think about how this cycle happens every year. The numbers fluctuate somewhat but are always substantial.
Those released were in prison for on average just over 2 years.
Challenges Posed by Reentry
Reentry, the process of an offender leaving prison and returning to the community, is quite
complex. One reason is that the hundreds of thousands of offenders who are reentering society
are disproportionately distributed across the United States. They are concentrated in a
relatively small number of disadvantaged neighborhoods in America’s inner cities (Travis,
Solomon, & Waul, 2001). The areas to which the majority of offenders are released are the
areas from which they departed. This cycle of offenders departing and returning to specific
communities in itself contributes to numerous social challenges (Petersilia, 2003). Exploring
these is beyond the scope of this book, but it is important to understand that among the
challenges involved with reentry is that correctional personnel cannot control the contexts in
which they must monitor and assist those on conditional release. See the feature box Applying
Criminal Justice: Reentry and Success for more on this topic.
The release of prisoners back into their communities poses two fundamentally
interrelated challenges: First, how to protect the safety of the public, and second, how to
foster an individual’s transition from life [as it is] in prison to life as a productive citizen.
(Travis et al., 2001, p. 6)
The largest study ever conducted of parolees took place in California and followed 254,468
individuals over a 2-year period. Researchers found that the first 90 days after release were the
most critical for any violation of parole, including technical violations (Grattet, Petersilia, &
Lin, 2008). This study also showed that a parolee’s risk of committing a violent offense during
those first 90 days was relatively small compared to his or her risk of committing any
violation.
Rich Pedroncelli/Associated Press
Parolees reentering society face numerous
obstacles, including joblessness and
homelessness. Here a parole agent checks up on
a homeless parolee wearing a GPS locator. How
can some of the obstacles of reentry be
alleviated?
Concerning public safety, it is important to understand that some parolees pose a greater risk
than others. Also, those who pose the greater risk are disproportionately concentrated in
certain areas. Travis et al. (2001) suggested adapting place-based policing strategies to address safety and offender reentry, associating patterns of place-based crime with
reentering offenders. McGarrell, Zimmerman, Hipple, Corsaro, and Perez (2004) noted, in relation to ensuring safety: “Successful reentry is most likely to be the product of
multi-agency, multi-sector collaborative problem-solving coalitions” (p. 41). They further suggest, “No single entity ultimately ‘owns’ the reentry problem” (McGarrell et al.,
2004, p. 41). This perspective is important.
The challenges of fostering transition and ensuring public safety are interrelated. Offenders reentering
communities face multiple issues. Nearly three fourths have histories of alcohol and substance abuse
(Petersilia, 2003). There is a high prevalence of health-related issues, including mental health needs and,
for some, hepatitis C and HIV infections (Stojkovic, 2005). As noted, employment is also an issue, and
those on conditional release likely will be required to at least look for a job. Because all offenders present
different safety risks, not all of those reentering society are equally employable. Some have little
experience working and are underprepared to seek employment. Most lack an education beyond the high
school level, if that, and only about one third will have had occupational training while in prison
(Petersilia, 2003). Furthermore, each bears the label of “felon.”
All reentering offenders have an immediate and continued need for housing. While some will have
families or others to return to, most will not. The large majority will lack money, transportation, clothing,
and other material goods and resources. Given these needs, and the contexts to which they reenter, the
statements by McGarell et al. are precisely on point. Female offenders may have additional needs. Travis
et al. (2001) note that “female prisoners are more likely to come from lesser economic circumstances than
male prisoners,” “female prisoners are less likely to be married than the general population,” “ female
prisoners are likely to be parents . . . [65% of female prisoners have a child below age 18],” “many
women are released with serious health problems,” “many women [released] have serious, long-term
substance abuse problems,” and “reestablishing relationships with children after incarceration is difficult”
(p. 13). These problems remain prevalent among women released from prison.
Women Paroled From Prison
At Valley State Prison, women on parole leave with their
personal belongings and $200. Unless they step into a
supportive network of families or friends, more than half
will return to prison. Many are afraid of what they will do
on the outside. What do you think can be done to help
ensure that these women’s reentry into society is
successful?
Women Paroled From Prison
From Title: Return to Valley State (https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?
wID=100753&xtid=39088)
Efforts to Address Reentry Concerns
Given the enormity of reentry issues, many types of solutions are being formulated at federal, state, and
local levels. At the federal level, the White House, through the attorney general and the U.S. Department
of Justice, has established the National Reentry Resource Center, which provides information and
assistance to those designing and undertaking reentry programs. The website for the center can be found at http://www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org
(https://csgjusticecenter.org/nrrc/) . The site profiles many current efforts and presents research on what programs are most promising.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch…content&clientToken=542b8662-c512-aae3-1062-33a7d7c95762&np=ch09
Page 14 of 18
Print
5/12/19, 8)32 PM
States have also begun to address reentry. For example, in 2010 the governor of Alaska
established the Alaska Prisoner Reentry Task Force to develop a 5-year strategic reentry plan
for the state. In another example, the Kentucky Department of Corrections has added a reentry
division to its structure. At local levels, coalitions, especially in inner cities, have developed to
marshal community organizations and resources to target reentry issues. As one example,
consider the Boston Reentry Initiative:
Haraz Ghanbari/Associated Press
Transition centers, like this one in Alabama,
help parolees reenter society by providing
counseling and job training. Should resources
like this be given priority in federal and state
budgets? Why or why not?
The Boston Reentry Initiative (BRI) is a multiagency initiative implemented in 2001 that was
designed to ease the transition process for especially high-risk and violent male inmates
released to Boston neighborhoods from the Suffolk County House of Correction. The first
stage of the program involves a panel session in which representatives from social service
agencies and faith-based organizations sit down with participants and describe resources
available within the institution and in the community after release. These sessions also include
representatives from law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies, who remind
participants of the consequences of recidivism. After taking part in a panel session, program
participants work with jail-based caseworkers, as well as mentors from faith-based
organizations, to develop individual transition plans that detail the services to be provided both
during incarceration and after release. Participants are provided with an array of services,
including mental health and substance abuse treatment, career counseling, job placement,
education, identification/driver’s license assistance, housing, and transportation. Faith-based
mentors work with participants both within the institution and for a period of 12 to 18 months
after release. A mentor or family member meets participants outside of the jail upon release.
(National Reentry Resource Center, 2013)
These efforts face enormous challenges. Resources continue to be limited in relation to the scope of the problem. As with many aspects of crime and criminal justice, identifying
and addressing the factors of importance are difficult yet critical.
Applying Criminal Justice: Reentry and Success
In 2016, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 428,022 persons exited or left parole status. This includes persons who were in a supervised status as the result of
discretionary release parole, mandatory release, or TSR (Kaeble, 2018). Of those exiting parole status, roughly 57% left because they completed their terms; 27% were
returned to incarceration (with 7% returned for a new offense and 16% returned with revocation); and 3% represented other types of unsatisfactory exits (with 2%
absconding, or fleeing from supervision) (Kaeble, 2018).
From the standpoint of information and research, we know more about those who recidivate, or “fail” on supervision, than those who “succeed.” These figures show that
57% of offenders in 2016 completed their supervision. Yet there is little information about just why they were successful in doing that. There are few large-scale studies
that follow up on successful supervision experiences, especially those trying to determine what factors are most important to remaining law abiding. Imagine that you
were on conditional release. Consider the difficulties associated with reentry. Which factors would be most important for you to successfully complete supervision and
remain law abiding? How would you go about successfully transitioning and reintegrating into a community?
Think about supervision following incarceration. How would you describe the national picture in terms of parole “success” for 2016? What advantages are there to
placing offenders on parole or postprison supervision? What disadvantages are there? Should the United States continue this practice?
Revocation
When an offender on discretionary release parole does not complete the parole terms, his or her parole officer may initiate revocation proceedings. As with probation, parolees
who commit a new crime, or parolees who violate the general or specific conditions of their parole, may face revocation, even if their acts or omissions would not constitute a
new crime (that is, they are technical violations of parole). Similar to probation revocation, with discretionary release parole, revocation proceedings are subject to the minimum
due process guarantees outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court (Morrissey v. Brewer, 1972).
Unlike probation, the decision to revoke discretionary release parole is made by the paroling authority (board or commission), not a judge. Usually, parole revocation follows
this general process:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The parole officer initiates the process by making a formal allegation of violation of parole.
This allegation is typically accompanied by a request that the parolee be arrested and detained in jail until a determination is made.
The allegation is reviewed by senior agency officials, who conduct a preliminary examination. The purpose of this review is “to determine whether there is probable
cause or reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested parolee had committed acts which would constitute a violation of parole condition” (Morrissey v. Brewer, 1972).
If sufficient reason is found to continue the revocation process, the discretionary paroling authority holds a revocation hearing. At this stage, the due process guarantees
established in Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) apply. These include (a) written notice of the claimed violation, (b) disclosure to the parolee of evidence against him or her,
(c) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence, (d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the
hearing body specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation), (e) provision of a neutral and detached hearing body, and (f) a written statement of the fact
finders as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking parole. Parole boards/commissions have been considered sufficiently neutral and detached to conduct
revocation hearings, and these bodies have discretionary authority concerning the disposition of the proceedings.
If a parolee is found to have violated parole, the parole board/commission may decide to return the offender to prison (often the outcome) or may settle on other options
(such as imposing special conditions).
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch…content&clientToken=542b8662-c512-aae3-1062-33a7d7c95762&np=ch09
Page 15 of 18
Print
5/12/19, 8)32 PM
For those on community supervision as a result of mandatory release, revocation-related decision making will follow similar steps. However, rather than an external
discretionary authority, the decision to revoke from mandatory release is administrative and involves the supervising agency. With revocation of those reaching supervision
through TSR, the initiating process will be similar to probation revocation, and the decision returns to the sentencing judge, as with probation.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch…content&clientToken=542b8662-c512-aae3-1062-33a7d7c95762&np=ch09
Page 16 of 18
Print
5/12/19, 8)32 PM
Conclusion
Parole may best be understood as a collection of strategies. While certain characteristics—such as release to the community, conditions, and supervision—broadly outline the
notion of parole, each parolee’s experience varies widely.
Parole as discretionary release, which involves decisions made by a parole board or commission, changed dramatically in the 1980s. Mandatory release, in which release is a
matter of law, and those released early because of good behavior are placed under supervision, increased substantially. Whereas discretionary parole accounted for 70% of
releases from prison in 1977, by 2008 it accounted for just over 26% of releases. However, it seems that this number is rising again. By the end of 2016, approximately 44% of
releases from prison were discretionary parole releases. Mandatory release, as previously discussed, is at approximately 27%, and TSR now accounts for only about 2% of those
leaving prison and going into community supervision (Kaeble, 2018).
Parole as most people recognize it has been around for a relatively short time. A number of historical antecedents gave rise to current practices, and these are important for
understanding parole in the 21st century. Discretionary release parole and other parole practices have been criticized over time— particularly discretionary release decisions,
attempts to use guidelines to predict an offender’s likelihood of violence and recidivism, and certain conditions and supervision practices.
Key Ideas
Approximately two thirds of offenders released from prison in the United States are placed on conditional release and under supervision.
The three primary forms of conditional release are discretionary release parole, mandatory release, and term of supervised release (TSR).
Antecedents to discretionary release parole and other forms of conditional release include the “mark system” developed by Alexander Maconochie and the “ticket of
leave” developed by Walter Crofton in the mid-19th century.
The reformatory at Elmira, New York, under the leadership of Zebulon Brockway, factored heavily in the development of indeterminate sentences and notions
about parole.
The Progressives advocated the expansion of parole at the turn of the 20th century.
Discretionary decision making by parole boards and commissions was criticized through much of the 20th century.
Today’s boards and commissions publish rules, procedures, values, and principles of operation regarding discretionary release decision making.
Decision-making guidelines are a tool for discretionary release authorities to make decisions more objectively. These guidelines have limitations and are commonly
used as an advisory mechanism.
Common aspects of conditional release supervision include conditions, supervision, and assessment and classification.
Reentry is a key concern of conditional release. Related supervision aims include ensuring public safety and meeting offenders’ needs (such as housing, employment,
and health care) to help them successfully integrate into a community.
Revocation is when conditional release is rescinded. There are minimum due process guarantees that must be observed in revocation hearings.
Critical-Thinking Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
Consider discretionary release parole, mandatory release, and TSR. What are advantages and disadvantages of each? Should one of these be adopted as the only means
for determining conditional release of inmates? Why or why not?
What are the strengths and limitations of using decision-making guidelines to determine conditional release? Should such guidelines be mandatory for discretionary
release parole? Why or why not?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of conditional release for prisoners? Are you an advocate for conditional release? Why or why not?
Discuss the extent and nature of prisoner reentry issues. Regarding reentry, what is more important: public safety or assistance to offenders? What priorities would you
establish in addressing prisoner reentry?
Key Terms
Click on each key term to see the definition.
decision-making
guidelines
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/
Suggested decisions based on the development of weighted factors that concern (a) the offense committed and its specific circumstances and (b) the offender and factors specific
to his or her personal history.
discretionary
release
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/
The form of conditional release for which offenders have gone before a parole board or commission.
mandatory
release
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/
A type of release from prison whereby an offender is placed on community supervision as a matter of legislation, rather than because of the actions of a parole board or
commission.
overprediction
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch…=content&clientToken=542b8662-c512-aae3-1062-33a7d7c95762&np=ch09
Page 17 of 18
Print
5/12/19, 8)32 PM
A term used to describe when a paroling authority tries to reduce the potential for false negatives obtaining parole and in doing so denies parole to an unknown number of false
positives, who would not have committed a violent act but cannot demonstrate that fact.
reentry
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/
The process of an offender leaving prison and returning to a community.
term
of
supervised
release
(TSR)
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/
A form of release from prison; the law authorizes a sentencing judge to impose both a term of incarceration and a term of supervision in the community.
underprediction
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/books/Stojkovic.5118.18.1/sections/cover/
A situation in which a decision is made that allows parole for those who might engage in a violent act according to the prediction scheme.
Web Resources
This is the website of the National Reentry Resource Center of the U.S. Department of Justice. It contains information, examples of reentry efforts, research on what is most
promising, and links to additional sites as a national resource on reentry.
http://www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org (https://csgjusticecenter.org/nrrc/)
This is the website for the Alaska Prisoner Reentry Task Force, which is preparing a 5-year strategic plan for reentry of prisoners for the state.
http://www.correct.state.ak.us/rehabilitation-reentry (http://www.correct.state.ak.us/rehabilitation-reentry)
This is the website for the Kentucky Reentry Task Force. It provides information and links to the reentry efforts underway in the state.
http://www.kentuckyreentry.org/ (http://www.kentuckyreentry.org/)
This website presents the Bureau of Prisons Employment Information Handbook, a resource guide for inmates reentering the workforce.
https://www.courts.phila.gov/pdf/mentor/emp/Federal_Bureau_of_Prisons_2011_Employment_Handbook.pdf
(https://www.courts.phila.gov/pdf/mentor/emp/Federal_Bureau_of_Prisons_2011_Employment_Handbook.pdf)
This website is presented by librarians at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York. It is a pathfinder for recent resources on prisoner reentry.
http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/research/pathfinder.html (https://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/research/pathfinder.html)
This website presents a summary of results from the largest study of parolees and revocations ever conducted.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/224521.pdf (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/224521.pdf)
Listen to this story from NPR to learn more about the challenges facing job seekers with a criminal past.
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/31/170766202/-check-yes-or-no-the-hurdles-of-employment-with-criminal-past
(https://www.npr.org/2013/01/31/170766202/-check-yes-or-no-the-
hurdles-of-employment-with-criminal-past)
Additional Resources
The effects of parental incarceration are explained in the voices of the children themselves in this book.
Bernstein, N. (2005). All alone in the world: Children of the incarcerated. New York: New Press.
This is a collection of research papers centered on “what works,” exploring the many issues related to the family in successful reentry.
Gadsden, V. (Ed.). (2003). Heading home: Offender reintegration into the family. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.
This book presents a personal look at problems of reentry for women.
Gonnerman. J. (2004). Life on the outside: The prison odyssey of Elaine Bartlett. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
This book presents the realities of reentry and is an excellent resource concerning what to do to address these realities.
Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch…content&clientToken=542b8662-c512-aae3-1062-33a7d7c95762&np=ch09
Page 18 of 18
Print
5/12/19, 8)34 PM
Emerging Themes in Corrections
10
Greg Kreller/Idaho Press-Tribune/Associated Press
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to
Understand the change process in corrections.
Describe general concerns regarding the future of corrections.
Explain the complexities of privatization in corrections.
Discuss the unique needs of female offenders.
Describe the many issues associated with the death penalty.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch1…t=content&clientToken=91b3f382-2c66-d6de-07e8-9e1ede291ca4&np=ch10
Page 1 of 17
Print
5/12/19, 8)34 PM
Introduction
For citizens of the United States, the 21st century began with a terrorist attack, the election of the first African American president, and a general trend of falling violent crime
rates. Through all these events, for good and for bad, the United States remains plagued by problems of poverty, racism, violence, drug abuse, and other ominous challenges.
The existence of crime and what to do with offenders are complex issues. Social problems significantly shape the nature and definitions of corrections challenges and attempts to
address them. Problems usually regarded as correctional have roots in factors and conditions that correctional administrators cannot harness or control. As noted throughout this
book, problems of racism, violence, overcrowding, lack of resources, and direction (or lack of it) are among a host of pressing issues that demand attention.
In this chapter, we consider things to come in corrections. Of course, it is impossible to predict the future; corrections is a complex undertaking filled with many uncertainties,
which makes it very difficult to put forth precise projections. When policy makers and planners engage in forecasting, which involves the use of certain methods—some crude,
some more sophisticated—to make projections, they typically consider time horizons that range from 1 to 5 years. Looking forward 10 years, 20 years, or more becomes very
difficult, even if the objective is only to achieve a moderate degree of certainty. Nonetheless, it is important to consider possible future outcomes for corrections and to be
sensitive to the issues that may arise as the 21st century progresses.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch1…t=content&clientToken=91b3f382-2c66-d6de-07e8-9e1ede291ca4&np=ch10
Page 2 of 17
Print
5/12/19, 8)34 PM
10.1 Change and Corrections
The organizations and agencies discussed in this text are all part of, or are intimately related to, corrections. Correctional policies and actions must be understood within the
larger context of public policy. The networks of relationships between and interdependencies among these numerous correctional entities add an additional and sometimes
confusing layer to our discussion. On the one hand, we must consider the unique operating contexts of a particular agency. On the other hand, correctional agencies also have a
lot in common. In thinking about the years to come, we must necessarily think about change. Although the future is unpredictable, we can offer some general insights into what
seems to be likely on the correctional horizon.
Corrections changes slowly and incrementally, and this is likely to be the case in the future as well. Consider the following.
1.
2.
3.
The state of what we know about crime and how we respond to offenders is unlikely to experience any revolutionary breakthroughs. The technological core of American
corrections contains some “hard” knowledge, a lot of assumptions based on previous practices, and a number of (sometimes contradictory) perspectives. Present
practices have developed gradually, typically through a trial-and-error process that involves attempts to test or implement variations on previous themes. Seldom has the
“new” truly been unique or innovative. Moreover, there are conflicting expectations of the correctional process and its desired outcomes. As noted earlier, various
groups and individuals attempt to have their perspectives, interests, and visions expressed in correctional policy. This often leads to confusion, unclear goals, and
perhaps unrealistic expectations. In short, there is no singular, well-defined purpose for correctional policies and procedures. The near future promises no abatement to
controversy, and this truth tends to promote a conservative approach to change.
The American political process is geared toward and characterized by gradual, incremental change. The term policy succession
succession, which is when “new” policies grow
from previous ones and substantially reflect attempts to “solve” the same problems or those created by previous policies, more accurately describes the U.S. political
approach to change than does policy innovation
innovation, which is when previously unrecognized or unencountered problems are addressed in a unique way or when problems
are reconceptualized or redefined so as to require completely new approaches to address them.
A thorough look at American political structure and processes reveals a myriad of efforts at various levels of government, varying degrees of autonomy, and
complicated relationships regarding authority and responsibility that have developed over long periods of time. Politics is the means through which decisions
concerning government entities’ direction, mission, and guiding policies are made. If we look closely, we find that those in power share basic interests in preserving the
system. Despite variations in attitude and much debate, those in power tend to fundamentally agree on the principles that underscore the entire system—such as private
property, separation of powers, inheritance rights, means for attaining political office, and so on.
The American political system is predisposed to following habit, custom, and tradition. Three aspects of the system ensure this: (a) its complicated nature, (b) that
fact that decision making and policy making are undertaken by those with diverse interests and unequal influence, and (c) the fact that in this context, decisions and
policies are the result of many previous decisions and actions. Thus, the overriding tendency is for change to develop slowly and be primarily conservative in nature.
American organizations (correctional, governmental, and commercial) are bureaucratic. Bureaucracy is not a dirty word; the term refers to a ubiquitous organizational
form. Some characterize bureaucratic organizations as rigid, the antithesis of changeable, and bureaucrats as those who oppose change. Such characterizations can be
misleading, however. While a detailed discussion of the processes and concerns of complex, bureaucratic organizations is beyond the scope of this text, we can begin to
think more accurately about change and bureaucratic tendencies. To simplify, uncertainty (about the present as well as the future) is associated with change and with
certain tendencies in complex organizations. Those in control of corrections organizations regularly face uncertainty, since they work in complicated, potentially
turbulent, and even dangerous environments.
The administrative tendency for dealing with uncertainty is to minimize or avoid risk. This is done in part by relying on strategies, routines, and repertoires for both
decision making and action that have been shown (or are thought) to be relatively safe in terms of their overall consequences for the organization.
This is not to say that changes or adaptations do not occur. However, these tend to represent small deviations from past practices and policies—marginal
adjustments that are likely to be relatively safe. When faced with the need to adapt, the tendency is for administrators and others to consider and adopt, if possible,
already existing strategies or actions that satisfy a situation’s requirements and minimize risk. When no existing strategy or action is sufficient to meet these broad
criteria, the tendency is to modify one or several only to the extent required to change or adapt in a relatively safe way.
Although the tendency is toward slow, cautious change, corrections will occasionally undertake risky ventures. Take, for example, the need to develop and implement prisoner
reentry initiatives. Because more and more prisoners are being released (due to the expiration of sentences and other release mechanisms), there has been an unprecedented
growth in the number of prisoners going back to communities. Corrections has not adequately prepared itself for this migration. As a result, reentry practices have been
haphazard and inconsistent, and they often lead to failure for released prisoners (LeBel, 2012). While reentry practices have been changed, added to, and modified by
correctional departments across the country, such changes have been modest at best.
By and large, incremental change is the usual pattern in corrections. Administrators are
dealing with many complicated problems at once and doing so in contexts that are often
unsettled or constrained. One looming question is whether existing policies have been
designed for change. For example, some directions for action involve enormous sunk costs
(commitments that cannot easily be reversed or abandoned), such as the construction of
prisons. Not only does constructing a prison cost a lot of money, it also creates numerous types
of jobs and establishes contracts, all of which diminish the practical reality of changing the
course of action. Designing policies for change means anticipating decision stages, assessing
ongoing activities, and flexibly designing, structuring, and operating programs and actions so
as to facilitate change. It is difficult for any organization to anticipate future changes, but all
must recognize that change is likely to occur.
Those who work in corrections should not be accused of being unresponsive or neglecting to
make change. However, it is important to try to understand why we see few truly dramatic
changes. It is not our purpose to crush idealism or to explain away the possibility of or even
the need for dramatic change in corrections. However, those who anticipate “reforming”
corrections, who zealously approach the implementation of innovative ideas, can (a) avoid
some degree of frustration and (b) be more effective by developing a deeper understanding of
change in complicated contexts.
Scott J. Ferrell/© Congressional Quarterly Inc./CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images
Change in corrections moves slowly, but efforts
have been made to modify the way reentry
services are handled. Here government and
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch1…t=content&clientToken=91b3f382-2c66-d6de-07e8-9e1ede291ca4&np=ch10
Page 3 of 17
Print
5/12/19, 8)34 PM
corrections officials meet regarding
improvements to the Second Chance Act, which
supports reentry resources.
10.2 General Concerns Regarding the Future
Correctional organizations are unique and operate in unique contexts; there is also tremendous variation between states and the federal system, and among components at all
levels of the correctional system. Despite this, we can start thinking about the problems policy makers are likely to face in the future by identifying broad areas in which reform
and change may be necessary.
Changing Problems
The first broad area is that of changing problems. Our discussion here may seem a bit circular—that is, changing problems obviously appear to require change, and change
results in new problems. The intent of this discussion is to suggest that it is prudent to pay attention to the possible direction of change and to think ahead about the nature of
problems before they arise—rather than simply reacting to problems after they crop up.
For example, overcrowding has posed a serious problem for federal, state, and local corrections operations for decades. Today some think overcrowding should be characterized
as an input problem—meaning that there are simply too many offenders for corrections agencies to handle. If we look back to the 1980s and 1990s, far fewer people were
concerned with “input.” Now, however, there is a need to understand corrections as a “scarce resource”—to reorient thinking around the actual limitations of corrections in terms
of capacity, resources, and ability to meet demands.
This problem is complex and unlikely to be solved in the foreseeable future. Demands for
more widespread use of incarceration, and for corrections in general, are being reflected
through changes in sentencing practices, criminal law and sanctions, and efforts to arrest and
quickly process offenders. The central issues can no longer be argued in some abstract way or
framed as problems of “rehabilitation” versus “punishment.” Faced with limited resources,
practical problems become preeminent. We must make fundamental choices about what to do
and how to proceed. We cannot expect the emergence of a simple “large solution,” since
portions of the problem result from policy changes in other components of the criminal justice
system and from broader political, social, and economic difficulties. Addressing the central
issues may require rethinking “corrections”; it will at least require more in-depth thinking
about the relationship of corrections to the judiciary, law enforcement, and American society.
Changes in Correctional Perspectives
“As well as the nature of the problems changing, the conventional wisdom about how to
address the problems also changes” (Hogwood & Peters, 1983, p. 244). The history of
American corrections reflects a series of shifts in responses to those who violate the law. For
example, think about how emphases on punishment, rehabilitation, and reform cyclically
played out in the 20th century— and the difference in practice necessitated by adopting one or California is just one state struggling with
another view as more prominent.
limited financial resources. In 2010 state
Noah Berger/Associated Press
senators approved a cost-cutting measure that
Overall, in corrections, we tend not to completely shift from emphasizing, say, punishment to would release severely ill inmates on medical
emphasizing, say, reform. The dichotomies of “punishment” versus “rehabilitation” or “the parole. Would you support this decision? Why
offense” versus “the offender” can restrict our thinking. For nearly 200 years, competing or why not?
perspectives have coexisted in American corrections. Although one or another emphasis may
have held greater sway in certain eras, other perspectives have do not vanish entirely. Rather, there is an intermingling of perspectives, with one or another appearing more
prevalent at any given point in time. This is important for thinking about the future, since it is unlikely that truly radical departures will occur. Corrections will never be
singularly focused; seemingly contradictory perspectives will always coexist, a middle ground of compromise (perhaps appeasement) will persist, and previous and present
perspectives will continue to inform future ones.
Changes in the Resource Base
Insufficient resources severely constrain the correctional system’s capacity to adapt and innovate. From the perspective of Hogwood and Peters (1983), governments must
confront two main strains on their resources: competition for funding and decreasing budget sizes. Those in corrections compete with all other governmental agencies for a piece
of the budgetary pie. Allocation changes can either inhibit or facilitate meaningful changes to corrections operations. “The second and more severe problem arises when there is
a reduction, or at least a slowing of growth, of real resources” (Hogwood & Peters, 1983, p. 245). In this situation, the budgetary pie actually shrinks, or increases are smaller
than expected. Agency leaders must find ways to perform with less than expected or required. Planned changes may be significantly affected, or unplanned changes may be
required to provide services with fewer resources.
One particular set of changes that is already underway and is illustrative of much of the foregoing discussion is termed privatization, or the process of involving private vendors
and companies in the delivery of correctional services. The privatization of corrections is controversial, and the debate features many critical issues. The next section briefly
describes the current nature and scope of relationships between corrections and private enterprises and explores key issues.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Stojkovic.5118.18.1?sections=ch1…t=content&clientToken=91b3f382-2c66-d6de-07e8-9e1ede291ca4&np=ch10
Page 4 of 17
Print
5/12/19, 8)34 PM
10.3 Privatization
Private, corporate involvement in corrections is not new. Since the early 19th century, private enterprise has been allied in various ways with American corrections. However,
from the 1930s to the 1970s, stringent restrictions were placed on private companies’ involvement with corrections and on the marketing of prison-made products. This resulted
in the private sector’s declining interest in corrections. However, according to the National Institute of Justice (2008), “crowding and the escalating cost of American prisons and
jails are [along with other less visible factors] prompting public officials and the private sector to experiment with new alliances in the field of corrections.”
The prospect of the private sector becoming more involved in corrections has caused much controversy. Culp (2011) has argued that on the whole, privatization of prisons has
been an abject failure, most notably because it has not produced the savings and efficiencies its supporters had promised. In fact, it has been suggested that prison privatization
has actually cost jurisdictions more money, with very little improvement in quality of service (Government Accounting Office, 1996). The feature box Applying Criminal
Justice: Private Prison Company Goes Awry and the following section describe the private sector’s involvement in corrections and look at the issues that factor into the
surrounding controversy.
Applying Criminal Justice: Private Prison Company Goes Awry
For some, private prisons offer a solution to overcrowded and expensive public facilities. Others see prison privatization as a threat to the way corrections is traditionally
approached; but more importantly, they question the efficacy, legality, and humaneness of incarcerating people in institutions run by companies that are motivated by
profits. Our review suggests there are no simple ways to evaluate the effectiveness of private prisons, but examining why a specific private prison failed can help
illuminate the larger issues at play.
One such failure was the Bobby Ross Group, a conglomeration of business interests that pursued private prisons in the 1990s. Through its vast connections and
involvement with high-profile consultants, such as former FBI director William Sessions, the Bobby Ross Group secured multiple private contracts across the states of
Texas and Georgia and specialized in housing out-of-state prisoners. Due in large part to its failure to hire people with the right expertise to run its facilities, the Bobby
Ross Group experienced numerous problems and lawsuits that culminated in the escape of two sex offenders from one facility, a major disturbance and murder in
another, and the destruction of one prison during an escape. As a result, its facilities were bought out by other vendors and, ultimately, the organization left the private
corrections business.
These failures raise questions about whether private companies are qualified to operate and manage correctional facilities. What requisite knowledge should a private
company have before it can bid on a contract to run a correctional institution? Is running a prison like running any other business? If not, what makes it distinctive, and
how should that be accounted for in policy makers’ decisions regarding private correctional vendors? Should prisons be treated like any other product, service, or
commodity in the free marketplace? Should prisons be beyond market considerations and not viewed as for-profit entities?
Nature and Extent of Private Involvement
The renewed interest in partnering with the private sector has been fueled by the Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration’s Free Venture program, which was initiated in the
1970s. Although the agency is no longer in existence, the effects of Free Venture continue. In
fact, Free Venture programs are found in many state prison systems. According to the CDCR
(2013), these programs promote a model for prison industries that encourages
a full workday for inmates;
wages based on productivity;
productivity standards comparable to industry;
industrial management to have hiring/firing decision;
enterprises to become self-sufficient after a reasonable start-up period;
active coordination between prison industries and post-release placement; and
optional partial reimbursement for room/board/restitution.
Eventually, seven states were given funds to launch Free Venture programs. Although Free
Venture did not specify that private sector companies should be involved in the programs, two
states (Minnesota and Washington) included the private sector in their programs. Further
impetus to involve the private sector in corrections was provided in 1979 when the Justice
System Improvement Act was passed. Also known as the Percy Amendment, this act enabled
states to produce prison made goods and sell them across state lines. Prior to this federal
legislative change, states could only sell prison made goods within their states’ borders.
Peter Haley/The News Tribune/Associated …