Title: When Prisoners Return to the Community: Political, Economic, and
Social Consequences.
Series: Research in Brief--Sentencing and Corrections: Issues for the 21st
Century
Author: Joan Petersilia
Published: National Institute of Justice, November 2000
Subject: Probation and parole, ex-offender programs
22 pages
46,000 bytes

---------------------------

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file.
To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file
available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-
3420 (877-712-9279 for TTY users).

---------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice

Sentencing and Corrections
Issues for the 21st Century

Research in Brief
November 2000
Papers from the Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections
No. 9
 
--------------------------

Directors Message

It is by now a commonplace that the number of people under criminal justice
supervision in this country has reached a record high. As a result, the sentencing
policies driving that number, and the field of corrections, where the
consequences are felt, have acquired an unprecedented salience. It is a salience
defined more by issues of magnitude, complexity, and expense than by any
consensus about future directions. 

Are sentencing policies, as implemented through correctional programs and
practices, achieving their intended purposes? As expressed in the movement to
eliminate indeterminate sentencing and limit judicial discretion, on the one hand,
and to radically restructure our retributive system of justice, on the other, the
purposes seem contradictory, rooted in conflicting values. The lack of
consensus on where sentencing and corrections should be headed is thus no
surprise. 

Because sentencing and corrections policies have such major consequencesfor
the allocation of government resources and, more fundamentally and
profoundly, for the quality of justice in this country and the safety of its citizens
the National Institute of Justice and the Corrections Program Office (CPO) of
the Office of Justice Programs felt it opportune to explore them in depth.
Through a series of Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections, begun
in 1998 and continuing through the year 2000, practitioners and scholars
foremost in their field, representing a broad cross-section of points of view,
were brought together to find out if there is a better way to think about the
purposes, functions, and interdependence of sentencing and corrections
policies. 

We are fortunate in having secured the assistance of Michael Tonry, Sonosky
Professor of Law and Public Policy at the University of Minnesota Law School,
and Director, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, as project
director. 

One product of the sessions is this series of papers, commissioned by NIJ and
the CPO as the basis for the discussions. Drawing on the research and
experience of the session participants, the papers are intended to distill their
judgments about the strengths and weaknesses of current practices and about
the most promising ideas for future developments. 

The sessions were modeled on the executive sessions on policing held in the
1980s and 1990s under the sponsorship of NIJ and Harvard's Kennedy
School of Government. Those sessions played a role in conceptualizing
community policing and spreading it. Whether the current sessions and the
papers based on them will be instrumental in developing a new paradigm for
sentencing and corrections, or even whether they will generate broad-based
support for a particular model or strategy for change, remains to be seen. It is
our hope that in the current environment of openness to new ideas, the session
papers will provoke comment, promote further discussion and, taken together,
will constitute a basic resource document on sentencing and corrections policy
issues that will prove useful to State and local policymakers.

Julie E. Samuels
Acting Director
National Institute of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice 

Larry Meachum
Director
Corrections Program Office
U.S. Department of Justice

---------------------------

When Prisoners Return to the Community: Political, Economic, and Social
Consequences

by Joan Petersilia

State prisons admitted about 591,000 people in 1999 and released almost the
same number. If Federal prisoners and young people released from secure
juvenile facilities are added to that number, nearly 600,000 inmates arrive
yearly on the doorsteps of communities nationwide.[1]

Virtually no systematic, comprehensive attention has been paid by policymakers
to dealing with people after release, an issue termed "prisoner reentry."[2] Failure
to address the issue may well backfire, and gains in crime reduction may erode
if the cumulative impact of tens of thousands of returning felons on families,
crime victims, and communities is not considered.

Inmates have always been released from prison, and officials have long
struggled with helping them succeed. But the current situation is different. The
numbers of returning offenders dwarf anything known before, the needs of
released inmates are greater, and corrections has retained few rehabilitation
programs.

A number of unfortunate collateral consequences are likely, including increases
in child abuse, family violence, the spread of infectious diseases, homelessness,
and community disorganization. As victim advocates are well aware, the
implications for public safety and risk management are major factors in reentry.
For large numbers of people in some communities, incarceration is becoming
almost a normal experience. The phenomenon may affect the socialization of
young people, the power of prison sentences to deter, and the future trajectory
of crime rates and crime victimization. 

Parole: Managing more people less well

Changes in sentencing practices, coupled with a decrease in prison
rehabilitation programs, have placed new demands on parole. Support and
funding have declined, resulting in dangerously high caseloads. Parolees
sometimes abscond from supervision; more than half of all parolees are
rearrested.[3]

Determinate sentencing means automatic release

Parole has changed dramatically since the mid-1970s. At that time, most
inmates served open-ended, indeterminate terms, and a parole board had wide
discretion to either release them or keep them behind bars. In principle,
offenders were paroled only if they were rehabilitated and had ties to the
community--such as a family or a job. This made release a privilege to be
earned. If inmates violated parole, they could be returned to prison to serve the
balance of their term--a strong disincentive to commit crime. 

Today, indeterminate sentencing and discretionary release have been replaced
in 14 States with determinate sentencing and automatic release.[4] Offenders
receive fixed terms when initially sentenced and are released at the end of their
prison term, usually with credits for good time. For example, in California,
where more than 125,000 prisoners are released yearly, there is no parole
board to ask whether the inmate is ready for release, since he or she must be
released once his or her term has been served. After release, most California
offenders are subject to 1 year of parole supervision. Generally, a parolee must
be released to the county where he or she lived before entering prison. Since
the vast majority of offenders come from economically disadvantaged, culturally
isolated, inner-city neighborhoods, they return there upon release.

Indeterminate sentencing lost credibility in part because it is discretionary.
Research revealed that there were wide disparities in sentencing when the
characteristics of the crime and the offender were taken into account and that
sentencing was influenced by the offender's race, socioeconomic status, and
place of conviction. But most corrections officials believe some power to
individualize sentences is necessary, since it is a way to take into account
changes in behavior or conditions that occur during incarceration. Imprisonment
can cause psychological breakdown, depression, or other mental illness or can
reveal previously unrecognized personal problems. When this is discovered, the
parole board can adjust release dates. 

More parolees have unmet needs

The States and the Federal Government have allocated increasing shares of
their budgets to building and operating prisons. California, for example, has built
21 prisons since the mid-1980s, and its corrections budget grew from 2
percent of the State's general fund in 1981 to nearly 8 percent in 2000. There
are similar patterns nationwide, with spending on prisons the fastest growing
budget item in nearly every State in the 1990s.

Increased dollars have funded operating costs for more prisons, but not more
rehabilitation. Fewer programs, and lack of incentives to participate, mean
fewer inmates leave prison having addressed their work, education, and
substance abuse problems. Yet sentences for drug offending are the major
reason for increases in prison admissions since 1980.[5] In-prison substance
abuse programs are expanding but are often minimal. The Office of National
Drug Control Policy reported that 70 to 85 percent of State prisoners need
treatment; however, just 13 percent receive it while incarcerated.[6]

Mental illness is another growing issue. As a result of deinstitutionalization, more
mentally ill people are sent to prison and jail than in the past. Nearly 1 in 5
inmates in U.S. prisons reports having a mental illness.[7] Confinement in
overcrowded prisons and in larger, "super max" prisons can cause serious
psychological problems, since prisoners in such institutions spend many hours in
solitary or in segregated housing. The longer the time in isolation, the greater the
likelihood of depression and heightened anxiety.[8]

Gang activity, a major factor in many prisons, has implications for in-prison and
postprison behavior. The existence of gangs and the related racial tension mean
that inmates tend to be more preoccupied with finding a safe niche than with
long-term self-improvement. Gang conflicts that start (or continue) in prison
also continue in the community after gang members are released. One observer
of this phenomenon has noted, "There is an awful lot of potential rage coming
out of prison to haunt our future." [9] If these needs remain unmet, there will be
effects not just for returning inmates, but for community members who are at
risk for further crime victimization.

Parole supervision replaces services

Eighty percent of returning prisoners are released on parole and assigned to a
parole officer. The remaining 20 percent (about 100,000 in 1998), including
some who have committed the most serious offenses, will "max out" (serve their
full sentence) and leave prison with no postcustody supervision. This means
offenders who are presumably the least willing to enter rehabilitative programs
are often not subject to parole supervision and receive no services.

For parolees, the parole officer plays a vital role. He or she enforces the
conditions of release, including the prohibition on drug use and on associating
with known criminals, and the requirement that the offender find and keep a
job. Parole officers also provide crime victims with information about the
offender's whereabouts, conditions of parole, and other issues affecting victim
safety.

Despite the essential work of parole officers, their numbers have not kept pace
with demand. In the 1970s, one agent ordinarily was assigned 45 parolees.
Today caseloads of 70 are common. Most parolees are supervised on "regular"
rather than intensive caseloads, which means less than two 15-minute,
face-to-face contacts per month.[10] Parole supervision costs about $2,200
per parolee per year, compared to 10 times that much per prisoner. The
current arrangements do not permit much monitoring. Parole agents in
California reportedly lost track of about one-fifth of the parolees they were
assigned to in 1999.[11] Nationally, about 9 percent of all parolees have
absconded.[12]

Most parolees return to prison

People released from prison remain largely uneducated and unskilled and
usually have little in the way of a solid family support system. To these deficits
are added the unalterable fact of their prison record. Not surprisingly, most
parolees fail and do so quickly: Most rearrests occur in the first 6 months after
release. 

Fully two-thirds of all parolees are rearrested within 3 years. The numbers are
so high that parole failures account for a growing proportion of all new prison
admissions. In 1980, they constituted 17 percent of all admissions, but they
now make up 35 percent.[13] 

Collateral consequences

Recycling parolees in and out of families and communities has a number of
adverse effects. It is detrimental to community cohesion, employment prospects
and economic well being, participation in the democratic process, family
stability and childhood development, and mental and physical health and can
exacerbate such problems as homelessness.[14]

Community cohesion and social disorganization

The social characteristics of neighborhoods--particularly poverty and residential
instability--influence the level of crime. There are "tipping points" beyond which
communities can no longer favorably influence residents' behavior. Norms start
to change, disorder and incivility increase, out-migration follows, and crime and
violence increase.[15]

Sociologist Elijah Anderson explains the breakdown of cohesion in socially
disorganized communities and how returning prisoners play a role in that
process and are affected by it. Moral authority increasingly is vested in "street
smart" young men for whom drugs and crime are a way of life. Attitudes,
behaviors, and lessons learned in prison are transmitted to free society. He
concludes that as "family caretakers and role models disappear or decline in
influence, and as unemployment and poverty become more persistent, the
community, particularly its children, becomes vulnerable to a variety of social
ills, including crime, drugs, family disorganization, generalized demoralization
and unemployment."[16]

Prison gangs have growing influence in inner-city communities. Sociologist Joan
Moore notes that because prisons are violent and dangerous places, new
inmates seek protection and connections. Many find both in gangs. Inevitably,
gang loyalties are exported to the neighborhoods when inmates are released.
"In California . . ." she commented, "I don't think the gangs would continue
existing as they are without the prison scene."[17] She warned that as more
young people are incarcerated earlier in their criminal career, more will come
out of prison with hostile attitudes and will exert strong negative influences on
the neighborhoods to which they return.

Researchers explored similar effects by looking at crime rates in Tallahassee 1
year after offenders who had been sent to prison from there had returned to
that community. Rather than reducing crime, releasing offenders in 1996 led to
an increase the following year, even after other factors were taken into
account.[18] One explanation focuses on individuals--offenders "make up for
lost time" by resuming their criminal careers with renewed energy. But the
researchers who studied Tallahassee focus on the destabilizing effect of
releasing large numbers of parolees. They argue that "coerced mobility," like
voluntary mobility, is a type of "people-churning" that inhibits integration and
promotes isolation and anonymity--factors associated with increased crime.

Work and economic well-being

The majority of inmates leave prison with no savings, no immediate entitlement
to unemployment benefits, and few job prospects. One year after release, as
many as 60 percent of former inmates are not employed in the legitimate labor
market. The loss of much of the country's industrial base, once the major
source of jobs in inner-city communities, has left few opportunities for parolees
who live there. Employers are increasingly reluctant to hire ex-offenders. A
recent survey in five major U.S. cities revealed that 65 percent of all employers
said they would not knowingly hire an ex-offender (regardless of the offense),
and 30 to 40 percent said they had checked the criminal records of their most
recent hires.[19] It is possible, however, that current low unemployment may
cause employers to reevaluate ex-offenders.

Unemployment is closely correlated with drug and alcohol abuse. Losing a job
has similar effects. It can lead to substance abuse, which in turn is related to
child abuse and family violence. Moreover, prisoners who have no income
because they have no job are unlikely to be able to meet court-ordered
restitution owed to their victims. 

The "get tough" movement of the 1980s increased employment restrictions on
parolees. In California, for example, they are barred from the law, real estate,
medicine, nursing, physical therapy, and education. Colorado prohibits them
from becoming dentists, engineers, nurses, pharmacists, physicians, or real
estate agents. Parolees are not barred from all jobs, but the list of proscribed
professions suggests a contradictory approach.[20] The States spend millions of
dollars to rehabilitate offenders, convincing them they need to find legitimate
employment, but then frustrate what was accomplished by barring them from
many kinds of jobs. 

Underemployment of ex-felons has even broader economic implications. One
reason the U.S. unemployment rate is so low is that 2 million mainly low- and
unskilled workers--precisely those unlikely to find work in a high-tech economy--
are in prison or jail and thus not part of the labor force. If they were included,
the unemployment rate would be 2 percent higher than it is now.[21] Recycling
ex-offenders into the job market with reduced job prospects will increase
unemployment in the long run.

There are, however, a number of organizations that help ex-offenders find
employment. Prominent among them is the Chicago-based Safer Foundation,
which offers a full range of services, including job counseling and placement,
education and life skills training, and emergency housing. Since its establishment
in 1972, the foundation has helped more than 40,000 participants find jobs;
nearly two-thirds have stayed on the job for at least 30 days.[22] 

Family matters

More than 1.5 million children in the United States have parents in prison.[23]
Among incarcerated men, more than half are fathers of minor children. For
women inmates the percentage is larger--about two-thirds have minor children.
On average, women inmates have two dependent children.[24] Although
women constitute only about 7 percent of the U.S. prison population, their
incarceration rates are increasing faster than those of men, so the number of
children whose mothers are incarcerated will rise proportionately.

Little is known about the effects of a parent's incarceration on childhood
development, but it is likely to be significant. When mothers are incarcerated,
their children are usually cared for by grandparents or other relatives or placed
in foster care. Roughly half these children do not see their mothers the entire
time they are in prison. The vast majority of imprisoned mothers, however,
expect to resume their parenting role and live with their children after release,
although it is uncertain how many actually do.[25]

Mothers released from prison encounter difficulties finding housing,
employment, and such services as childcare. Children of incarcerated and
released parents often become confused, unhappy, and socially stigmatized.
The frequent outcome is school-related difficulties, low self-esteem, aggressive
behavior, and general emotional dysfunction. If their parents are negative role
models, children fail to develop positive attitudes toward work and
responsibility. They are five times more likely to serve time in prison when they
become adults than children whose parents are not incarcerated.[26]

There are no data on parolees' involvement in family violence, but it may be
significant. Risk factors for child abuse and neglect include parental poverty,
unemployment, substance abuse, low self-esteem, and ill health--attributes
common among parolees. Concentrated poverty and social disorganization
increase the likelihood of child abuse and neglect and other problems related to
life after prison, and these in turn are risk factors for other kinds of crime and
violence. 

Mental and physical health

Prisoners have significantly more medical and mental health problems than the
general population, because they often live as transients or in crowded
conditions, tend to be economically disadvantaged, and have high rates of
substance abuse, including intravenous drug use. In prison, people aged 50 are
commonly considered old, in part because the health of the average
50-year-old prisoner approximates that of the average 60-year-old person in
the free community. While in prison, inmates have State-provided health care,
but upon release most cannot easily obtain health care. In recent years,
escalating health care costs, high incarceration rates and, in particular, the
appearance of HIV and AIDS have made the health care of prisoners and
soon-to-be-released prisoners a major policy and public health issue, one
whose complexity can only be intimated here. 

Inmates are particularly prone to spread disease (especially such conditions as
tuberculosis, hepatitis, and HIV), and thus pose public health risks.[27] In New
York City, a major multidrug-resistant form of TB emerged in 1989, with 80
percent of the cases traced to jails and prisons. By 1991, New York's Rikers
Island Jail had one of the highest TB rates in the Nation. In Los Angeles, a
meningitis outbreak in the county jail spread to surrounding neighborhoods. 

At year-end 1997, 2.1 percent of all State and Federal prison inmates were
infected with HIV, a rate five times higher than in the general population.[28]
Public health experts predict the rate will continue to climb, and eventually HIV
will manifest itself on the street, particularly as more drug offenders, many of
whom use drugs intravenously and share needles or trade sex for drugs, are
incarcerated.[29]

As noted before, larger numbers of mentally ill inmates are imprisoned--and
released--than in the past. Even when mental health services are available, many
people who are mentally ill fail to use them because they fear being
institutionalized, deny their condition, or distrust the mental health system.

Political alienation

As of 1998, an estimated 3.9 million Americans were permanently unable to
vote because they had been convicted of a felony. Of these, 1.4 million were
African-American men--13 percent of all black men. Assuming incarceration
rates increase, the numbers of incarcerated black men will also increase. A
young black man aged 16 in 1996 had a 29-percent chance of spending time in
prison at some time in his life. The comparable figure for white men was 4
percent.[30] 

Some observers may see the disenfranchisement of felons as an acceptable part
of the penalty for crime. Nevertheless, denying large segments of the minority
population the right to vote is likely to cause further alienation. Disillusionment
with the political process also erodes citizens' feeling of engagement and makes
them less willing to participate in local political activities and to exert informal
social control in their community.

Housing and homelessness

The most recently available figures indicate there are about 230,000 homeless
people in the United States. The number is surely higher now, as many cities
report a shortage of affordable housing. In the late 1980s, an estimated
one-fourth of homeless people had served prison sentences. In California, 10
percent of all parolees are homeless, but in urban areas such as San Francisco
and Los Angeles, the rate is as high as 30 to 50 percent.[31] 

The presence of transients and vagrants, and the panhandling they sometimes
engage in, increase citizens' fears, ultimately increasing crime and violence.
Crime often becomes worse when people are afraid to go out on streets
defaced by graffiti or frequented by transients and loitering youths. Fearful
citizens eventually yield control of the streets to people who are not intimidated
by the signs of decay and who often are those who created the problem. A
vicious cycle then begins. Criminologists James Q. Wilson and George L.
Kelling famously illustrated the phenomenon by describing how a single broken
window can influence crime rates. If the first broken window is not repaired,
people who like to break windows may assume no one cares and break more.
As "broken windows" spreads--as homelessness, prostitution, graffiti, and
panhandling--businesses and law-abiding citizens move out and disorder
escalates, leading to more serious crime.[32]

Rethinking parole

Government officials voice growing concern about the problems posed by
prisoner reentry. Attorney General Janet Reno called it "one of the most
pressing problems we face as a nation."[33] In response, several jurisdictions
throughout the country have launched a new approach to the public safety
challenge posed by released offenders. In a project sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Justice, eight jurisdictions are serving as pilot sites of the Reentry
Partnerships Initiative, whose goal is better risk management via enhanced
surveillance, risk and needs assessment, and prerelease planning. The
Department's new Reentry Courts Initiative, with nine sites participating, is
based on the drug court model and taps the court's authority to use sanctions
and incentives to help released offenders remain crime free.

The usefulness of initiatives like these depends to a great extent on their
grounding in scientifically sound analysis and debate. It is safe to say that parole
has received less research attention in recent years than any other part of
corrections.[34] I have spent many years working on probation effectiveness
but know of no similar body of knowledge on parole effectiveness. Without
better information, the public is unlikely to permit corrections officials to invest
in rehabilitation and job training for parolees. With better information, it might
be possible to persuade voters and elected officials to shift from solely punitive
sentencing and corrections policies toward those that balance incapacitation,
rehabilitation, and just punishment.

Revisiting the parole board

The eclipse of discretionary parole release also needs to be reconsidered. In
1977, more than 70 percent of all prisoners in the United States were released
after appearing before a parole board, but 20 years later that figure had
declined to less than 30 percent. Parole was abolished in many States because
it symbolized the alleged leniency of a system in which hardened criminals were
"let out" early. If parole were abolished, politicians argued, parole boards could
not release offenders early, and inmates would serve longer terms. However,
this has not happened. A recent study of inmates released in States that had
abolished parole showed they served 7 months less than inmates released in
States with discretionary parole.[35] Similar experiences in Florida,
Connecticut, and Colorado caused those States to reinstate discretionary
parole after discovering that abolition meant shorter terms served.

Parole experts have long held that the public is misinformed when it labels
parole as lenient. By exercising discretion, parole boards can single out the
more violent and dangerous offenders for longer incarceration. When States
abolish parole or reduce the discretion of parole authorities, they replace a
rational, controlled system of "earned" release for selected inmates with
"automatic" release for nearly all inmates.[36] No-parole systems sound tough
but remove a gatekeeping role that can protect victims and communities.

Parole boards can demand that released inmates receive drug treatment, and
research shows that coerced treatment is as successful as voluntary
participation.[37] If parole boards also require a plan for the released offender to
secure a job and a place to live in the community, the added benefit is to
refocus prison staff and corrections budgets on transition planning.

Involving victims in parole hearings has been one of the major changes in parole
in recent years. Ninety percent of parole boards now provide victims with
information about the parole process, and 70 percent allow victims to attend
the parole hearing.[38] Parole boards also can meet personally with the crime
victim. Meeting victims' needs is a further argument for reinstating parole.

Perhaps most important, when information about the offense and the offender
has been gathered and prison behavior observed, parole boards can reconsider
the tentative release date. More than 90 percent of offenders in the United
States are sentenced because they plead guilty, not as the result of a trial.
Without a trial, there is little opportunity to fully air the circumstances of the
crime or the risks posed by the offender. A parole board can revisit the case to
discover how extensive the victim's injuries were and whether a gun was
involved. The board is able to do so even though the offense to which the
offender pled, by definition, involved no weapon. As one observer commented
on this power of the parole board, "In a system which incorporates
discretionary parole, the system gets a second chance to make sure it is doing
the right thing."[39] Again, this can make a difference for crime victims. 

Toward a balanced system

Ironically, no-parole systems also significantly undercut postrelease supervision.
When parole boards have no authority to decide who will be released, they are
compelled to supervise a parolee population consisting of more serious
offenders and not one of their own choosing. Parole officers believe it is
impossible to elicit cooperation from offenders when the offenders know they
will be released, whether or not they comply with certain conditions. And
because of prison crowding, some States (for example, Oregon and
Washington) no longer allow parolees to be returned to prison for technical
violations. Field supervision of parolees tends to be undervalued and,
eventually, underfunded and understaffed.

No one would argue for a return to the unfettered discretion that parole boards
exercised in the 1960s. That led to unwarranted disparities. Parole release
decisions must incorporate explicit standards and due process protections.
Parole guidelines, used in many States, create uniformity in parole decisions and
can be used to objectively weigh factors known to be associated with
recidivism. Rather than entitle inmates to release at the end of a fixed time,
guidelines specify when the offender becomes eligible for release. 

The question of who should be responsible for parole release decisions is also
worth rethinking. In most States, the chair and all members of the parole board
are appointed by the Governor. In two-thirds of the States, there are no
professional qualifications for parole board membership. While this may
increase public accountability of parole boards, it also makes them vulnerable
to political pressure. Ohio is an example of an alternative approach. There,
parole board members are appointed by the director of the State's department
of corrections, serve in civil service positions, and have an extensive
background in criminal justice. 

The public policy challenge

Parole supervision and release raise complex issues and deserve more
attention. Nearly 700,000 parolees are "doing time" on the streets. Most have
been released to parole systems that provide few services and impose
conditions that almost guarantee failure. Monitoring systems are becoming more
sophisticated, and public tolerance for failure is decreasing. All this contributes
to the rising tide of parolees who are returning to prison. As the numbers
increase, they put pressure on the States to build more prisons and, in turn,
siphon funds from rehabilitation programs that might help offenders stay out of
prison. Parolees will then continue to receive fewer services to deal with
underlying problems, ensuring that recidivism rates and returns to prison (not to
speak of crime victimization) remain high and public support for parole remains
low.

This presents formidable challenges for policymakers. The public will not
support community-based sanctions until they have been shown to "work," and
they will not have an opportunity to work without sufficient funding and
research. But funding is being cut, as California's situation exemplifies. In 1997,
spending on parole services was cut 44 percent, causing caseloads to nearly
double. When caseloads increase, services decline, and even parolees who are
motivated to change have little opportunity to do so.

In 2001, there will likely be more than 2 million people in jail and prison in this
country and more people on parole than ever before. If parole revocation
trends continue, more than half the people entering prison that year will be
parole failures. Given the increasing human and financial costs of prison--and
all the collateral consequences parolees create for their families, victims, and
communities--investing in effective reentry programs may be one of the best
investments we make.

--------------------------

Notes

1. Calculations based on data provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.
Department of Justice. 

2. The issue was addressed in another paper in this series. See Travis, Jeremy,
But They All Come Back: Rethinking Prisoner Reentry, Research in Brief--
Sentencing & Corrections: Issues for the 21st Century, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, May 2000, NCJ 181413.

3. Petersilia, Joan, "Parole and Prisoner Reentry in the United States," in
Prisons, ed. Michael Tonry and Joan Petersilia (Crime and Justice: A Review of
Research, Volume 26), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999: 512.

4. Tonry, Michael, Reconsidering Indeterminate and Structured Sentencing,
Research in Brief--Sentencing & Corrections: Issues for the 21st Century,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
September 1999, NCJ 175722.

5. Blumstein, Alfred, and Allen J. Beck, "Population Growth in U.S. Prisons,
1980-1996," in Prisons, ed. Michael Tonry and Joan Petersilia (Crime and
Justice: A Review of Research, Volume 26), Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1999: 20-22. 

6. Byrne, Candice, Jonathan Faley, Lesley Flaim, Francisco Piuol, and Jill
Schmidtlein, Drug Treatment in the Criminal Justice System, Washington, DC:
Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy,
August 1998, NCJ 170012.

7. Ditton, Paula M., Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July
1999, NCJ 174463. 

8. Liebling, Allison, "Prison Suicide and Prisoner Coping," in Prisons, ed.
Michael Tonry and Joan Petersilia (Crime and Justice: A Review of Research,
Volume 26), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999: 283-359.

9. Abramsky, Sasha, "When They Get Out," Atlantic Monthly 283 (6) (June
1999): 30-36.

10. Petersilia, "Parole and Prisoner Reentry in the United States," 505. 

11. Petersilia, Joan, "Challenges of Prisoner Reentry and Parole in California,"
CPRC Brief 12 (3) (June 2000), Berkeley, CA: California Policy Research
Center. 

12. Los Angeles Times, quoted in "State Agencies Lost Track of Parolees,"
Santa Barbara News Press, August 27, 1999: B9; and Beck, Allen, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, personal communication, March 28, 2000. 

13. Snell, Tracy L., Correctional Populations in the United States, 1993,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
October 1995, NCJ 156241: 12; and Beck, Allen, and Christopher Mumola,
Prisoners in 1998, Bulletin, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 1999, NCJ 175687: 12.

14. Hagan, John, and Ronit Dinovitzer, "Collateral Consequences of
Imprisonment for Children, Communities, and Prisoners," in Prisons, ed.
Michael Tonry and Joan Petersilia (Crime and Justice: A Review of Research,
Volume 26), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999: 121-162. This
discussion focuses primarily on the consequences for prisoners. For crime
victims, of course, the consequences of imprisonment and reentry are equally
serious, because victim safety is put at risk when offenders are released.

15. Wilson, William Julius, The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the
Underclass, and Public Policy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.

16. Anderson, Elijah, Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban
Community, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990: 4. 

17. Moore, Joan, "Bearing the Burden: How Incarceration Weakens Inner-City
Communities" (paper presented at the Conference on the Unintended
Consequences of Incarceration, New York, January 1996), 73.

18. Rose, Dina, Todd Clear, and Kristen Scully, "Coercive Mobility and
Crime: Incarceration and Social Disorganization" (paper presented at the
American Society of Criminology meeting, Toronto, November 1999).

19. Holzer, H., What Employers Want: Job Prospects for Less-educated
Workers, New York: Russell Sage, 1996.

20. Simon, Jonathan, Poor Discipline: Parole and the Social Control of the
Underclass, 1890-1990, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.

21. Western, Bruce, and Katherine Beckett, "How Unregulated Is the U.S.
Labor Market? The Penal System as a Labor Market Institution," American
Journal of Sociology 104 (4) (January 1999): 1030-1060.

22. Finn, Peter, Chicago's Safer Foundation: A Road Back for Ex-Offenders,
Program Focus, Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, National
Institute of Corrections, and Office of Correctional Education (U.S.
Department of Education), June 1998, NCJ 167575.

23. Hagan and Dinovitzer, "Collateral Consequences of Imprisonment for
Children, Communities, and Prisoners,"137.

24. Snell, Tracy L., and Danielle C. Morton, Women in Prison (Survey of State
Prison Inmates, 1991), Special Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 1994, NCJ 145321: 6.

25. Bloom, Barbara, and David Steinhart, Why Punish the Children: A
Reappraisal of the Children of Incarcerated Mothers in America, San
Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1993.

26. Beck, Allen, Darrell Gilliard, Lawrence Greenfeld, Caroline Harlow,
Thomas Hester, Louis Jankowski, Danielle Morton, Tracy Snell, and James
Stephen, Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 1993, NCJ 136949:
9.

27. McDonald, Douglas C., "Medical Care in Prisons," in Prisons, ed. Michael
Tonry and Joan Petersilia (Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Volume
26), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999: 427-478.

28. Maruschak, Laura M., HIV in Prisons 1997, Bulletin, Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 1999, NCJ
178284: 1.

29. May, John P., "Feeding a Public Health Epidemic," in Building Violence:
How America's Rush to Incarcerate Creates More Violence, ed. J.P. May and
K.R. Pitts, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2000.

30. Bonczar, Thomas P., and Allen J. Beck, Lifetime Likelihood of Going to
State or Federal Prison, Special Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 1997, NCJ 160092: 2; and Mauer,
Marc, The Race to Incarcerate, New York: The New Press, 1999.

31. Beyond Bars: Correctional Reforms to Lower Prison Costs and Reduce
Crimes, Sacramento, CA: Little Hoover Commission, 1998.

32. Wilson, James Q., and George L. Kelling, "Broken Windows," Atlantic
Monthly (March 1982): 29-38.

33. Reno, Janet, "Remarks of the Honorable Janet Reno on Reentry Court
Initiative," John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, February 10,
2000. Retrieved May 19, 2000, from the U.S. Department of Justice database,
on the World Wide Web: http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2000/doc2.htm.

34. A congressionally mandated study of crime prevention programs included
just one evaluation of parole among hundreds of recent studies examined. See
Sherman, Lawrence, Denise Gottfredson, Doris MacKenzie, John Eck, Peter
Reuter, and Shawn Bushway, Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't,
What's Promising. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, 1997.

35. Stivers, Connie, "Impacts of Discretionary Parole Release on Length of
Sentence Served and Recidivism," unpublished paper, Irvine, CA: School of
Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine, 2000.

36. Burke, Peggy B., Abolishing Parole: Why The Emperor Has No Clothes,
Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association, 1995.

37. Anglin, Douglas M., and Yih-Ing Hser, "Treatment of Drug Abuse," in
Drugs and Crime, ed. Michael Tonry and James Q. Wilson, (Crime and Justice:
A Review of Research, Volume 13), Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1990.

38. Rhine, Edward E., "Parole Boards," in The Encyclopedia of American
Prisons, ed. Marilyn McShane and Frank Williams, New York: Garland, 1996. 

39. Burke, Abolishing Parole: 7. 

---------------------------

Joan Petersilia, Ph.D., is Professor of Criminology, Law and Society at the
University of California, Irvine.

This study was supported by cooperative agreement 97-MUMU-K006
between the National Institute of Justice and the University of Minnesota.

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice. 

---------------------------

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and
the Office for Victims of Crime.

---------------------------

This and other NIJ publications can be found at and downloaded from the NIJ
Web site (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).

NCJ 184253

---------------------------

The Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections 
Convened the following distinguished panel of leaders in the fields:

Neal Bryant
Senator
Oregon State Senate

Harold Clarke
Director
Department of Correctional Services
State of Nevada

Cheryl Crawford
Deputy Director, Office of Development and Communications
National Institute of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice

Barbara Damchik-Dykes
Project Coordinator
Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections

Walter Dickey
Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law
University of Wisconsin 

Ronald Earle
District Attorney
Austin, Texas

Tony Fabelo
Director
Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council

Richard S. Gebelein
Superior Court Judge
Wilmington, Delaware

John Gorczyk
Commissioner
Department of Corrections
State of Vermont

Kathleen Hawk Sawyer
Director
Federal Bureau of Prisons
U.S. Department of Justice

Sally T. Hillsman
Deputy Director
National Institute of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice

Martin Horn
Secretary
Department of Corrections
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Susan M. Hunter
Chief, Prisons Division
National Institute of Corrections
U.S. Department of Justice 

Leena Kurki
Research Associate 
Law School
University of Minnesota
Project Associate
Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections 

John J. Larivee
Chief Executive Officer
Community Resources for Justice

Joe Lehman
Secretary
Department of Corrections
State of Washington

Dennis Maloney
Director
Deschutes County (Oregon) Department of Community Justice

Larry Meachum
Director
Corrections Program Office
Office of Justice Programs
U.S. Department of Justice

Mark H. Moore
Guggenheim Professor of Criminal Justice Policy and Management
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University

Norval Morris
Emeritus Professor of Law and Criminology
University of Chicago

Joan Petersilia
Professor of Criminology, Law and Society
School of Social Ecology
University of California, Irvine

Kay Pranis
Restorative Justice Planner
Department of Corrections
State of Minnesota

Michael Quinlan
Former Director
Federal Bureau of Prisons 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Chase Riveland
Principal
Riveland Associates

Thomas W. Ross
Superior Court Judge, 18th Judicial District
Chair, North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission

Dora Schriro
Director
Department of Corrections
State of Missouri

Michael Smith
Professor of Law
University of Wisconsin 

Morris Thigpen
Director
National Institute of Corrections
U.S. Department of Justice

Michael Tonry
Director
Institute of Criminology
University of Cambridge
Sonosky Professor of Law and Public Policy
University of Minnesota 
Project Director
Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections

Jeremy Travis
Senior Fellow
The Urban Institute
Former Director
National Institute of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice

Reginald A. Wilkinson
Director
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
State of Ohio

--------------------------