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 consequences—for 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

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Research in Brief

When Prisoners Return to the

Community: Political, Economic,

and Social Consequences

by Joan Petersilia 

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Research in Brief

S

tate 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 

Support for this project was provided

through a transfer of funds to NIJ

from the Corrections Program Office.

CONTINUED ...
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 mid1980s, 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

2 Sentencing & Corrections

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

2 Sentencing & Corrections

Directors’ Message

CONTINUED ...
Sentencing & Corrections 3

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, faceto-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, outmigration 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 innercity 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

Sentencing & Corrections 3
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

4 Sentencing & Corrections 4 Sentencing & Corrections
Sentencing & Corrections 5

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

Sentencing & Corrections 5
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 Piñol, 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.

6 Sentencing & Corrections 6 Sentencing & Corrections
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. 

Sentencing & Corrections 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
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

The Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections

Convened the following distinguished panel of leaders in the fields:

8 Sentencing & Corrections 8 Sentencing & Corrections

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ

Permit No. G–91

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300