Active Supervision and Its Impact Upon Parolee Recidivism Rates

Abstract

Studies that compare recidivism rates between parolees and unconditionally released inmates typically attach these statuses upon release, and then follow these groups until they either fail or meet the censor date. However, this method of identifying former inmates as parolees does not comport with how parolees are conceptualized by the agencies that supervise them. Parole boards identify parolees as released inmates whom they actively supervise. This study explores the relative impact of this strategy of attaching the parole status compared with the traditional strategy used throughout the recidivism literature. I use 3 years of postrelease data from all prisoners released from 2005 to 2007 in a highly populated state on the East Coast ( N = 29,299). My findings indicate that after 3 years, parolees are predicted to recidivate at a 1% lower rate compared with unconditionally released inmates when the time of active supervision is not considered. However, parolees who are assigned supervision terms of at least 3 years evidence a predicted 8% lower recidivism rate when compared with unconditionally released inmates. These findings demonstrate that parole boards can be successful at isolating those under their active supervision from reengaging in criminal activities when compared with those who are not supervised post-release, but that parole does not have long-lasting rehabilitative effects. This lack of long-term impact is likely associated with a parole board’s focus on offenses that occur solely during the course of active supervision that may create incentive to manage cases in such a way that undermines the pursuit of long-term rehabilitative goals in favor of working toward short-term successful discharges.

A Year Without a Conviction: An Integrated Examination of Potential Mechanisms for Successful Reentry in High-Risk Violent Prisoners

“…Existing research varies in the extent to which it manages effectively these methodological issues. But the overall picture tends to suggest that release onto parole oversight predicts lower recidivism than no oversight, particularly while the supervision is ongoing (Ostermann, 2013;Vito, Higgins, & Tewksbury, 2017;Wan et al, 2014). This study builds on those findings by examining how in-prison treatment, prisoners' dynamic risk, and release readiness contribute to parole in predicting recidivism.…”

Gendered views on parole: exploring how emotion and emotion management help to explain gender differences in the Australian public’s views on parole

“…There is some evidence that parole is successful in reducing rates of reoffending, with Australian research showing that prisoners who are released to parole are less likely to commit further offences than prisoners who are released unconditionally from custody (Stavrou, Poynton, & Weatherburn, 2016;Wan, Poynton, van Doorn, & Weatherburn, 2014). Similar results have been reported internationally (Ostermann, 2013;Ostermann & Hyatt, 2016). Despite this, the public tend to overestimate the proportion of parolees who reoffend and often express a preference for prisoners to be released unconditionally at the end of their sentence, rather than being paroled (Gately et al, 2017;Roberts, 1988).…”

“…Parole plays an important role in helping prisoners to reintegrate back into the community following a prison sentence, with research from both Australia (Stavrou et al, 2016;Wan et al, 2014) and elsewhere (Ostermann, 2013;Ostermann & Hyatt, 2016) showing that offenders who are released to parole have lower rates of recidivism than offenders who are released unconditionally from custody at the end of their sentence. Despite this, parole has long been a divisive topic amongst politicians, policymakers and members of the public, due to concerns that the community is unreasonably being put at risk by offenders who 'should' still be incarcerated.…”

French early release: McProcedures and McRe-entry

“…Preoccupied by managerial and financial considerations, reformers have confused the bottle (bureaucratic efficiency) with the wine (successful rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders; lower prison population) to borrow Wexler’s (2014) analogy. McDonaldised parole does not deserve to be called parole (Osterman, 2013); it is simply an anticipated form of maxing out.…”