Journal: What is a label...….Assignment: Community-Based Corrections Plan
p.370
15 15 PAROLE AND REINTEGRATION
© Patti Sapone/Star Ledger/Corbis
Media Library
CHAPTER 15 Media Library
AU D I OAU D I O
The Role of Institutional Parole Officers
P R I S O N V I D E O TO U RP R I S O N V I D E O TO U R
Parole Decisions
LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
1 .1 . Define parole and basic parolee characteristics.
2 .2 . Discuss the historical development of parole.
3 .3 . Know and understand the basics regarding state parole, its organization, and its administration.
Counseling as a Profession
Drug Testing and Parole Issues
Reentry Programs
V I D E OV I D E O
New York’s Broken Parole System
Parole Hearing Stirs up Controver- sy for City Council Members
California Budget Woes Squeeze Overcrowded Prisons
Parole and Reentry
S AG E J O U R N A L A RT I C L E L I N KS AG E J O U R N A L A RT I C L E L I N K
Putting Parolees Back in Prison: Discretion and the Parole Revoca- tion Process
p.371
4 .4 . Evaluate the use of parole as a correctional release valve for prisons.
5 .5 . Describe the role of parole officers.
6 .6 . Explain the common conditions of parole and how parole effectiveness can be refined and adjusted to better meet supervision requirements that are based on the offender’s behavior.
7 .7 . Be able to discuss the parole selection process, factors influencing parole decisions, and factors considered when granting and denying parole.
8 .8 . Describe the process for violations of parole, parole warrants, and parole revocation proceedings.
G e t t h e e d g e o n yo u r s t u d i e s :G e t t h e e d g e o n yo u r s t u d i e s : e d g e . s a g e p u b . c o m / h a n s e r 2 ee d g e . s a g e p u b . c o m / h a n s e r 2 e
• Take a quiz to find out what you’ve learned.
• Review key terms with eFlashcards.
• Watch videos that enhance chapter content.
MAKING PAROLEMAKING PAROLE
Rob Hanser drove down the winding, seemingly endless country road, making his way to David Wade Correctional Center for a parole hearing. He arrived at the prison and parked in the visitor’s section. As he pulled the keys from his ignition, he glanced over and saw a car parked two spaces away from him. Some people were in the car but did not get out. He thought they looked similar to some photos he had seen before.
Hanser got out of his car, walked over to the other car, and waved through the windshield. Sure enough, it was Ronald’s mother and sister.
Hanser leaned down and spoke through the open driver’s window. “Ms. Drummer?”
The lady in the car said, “Yes, are you Dr. Hanser?”
“Yes ma’am, I am; it is nice to finally meet!”
The two women, Linda Drummer (Ronald’s mother) and Laquitter—pronounced Laquitta—Drummer (Ronald’s sister), got out of the car and exchanged introductions and small talk. After these formalities, all three walked toward the entrance to the prison. At the gate, they provided their IDs to the guard and waited.
They were escorted into the building, went
through security, and were patted down to ensure that they were not bringing contraband into the prison. Once inside the waiting room, Linda beamed as she saw her son, Ronald “Raúl” Drummer, enter the room. The four sat together at a table.
“How you doing?” Hanser asked Ronald.
“I’m good, just a little nervous, but that’s normal, right?”
After about 30 minutes of waiting, Ronald, his family members, and Hanser were in the parole interview room. It was not a large room and, as it turned out, the parole board was in Baton Rouge doing the interview remotely. The board members asked questions of Ronald regarding his job prospects and his place of residence, and they commented on how many courses and programs that he had finished. Then they asked about a letter that had been written.
One of the members said, “I see this letter from the director of your program. . . . Looks like it is from Dr. Hanser; is he here?”
Hanser spoke up. “Yes, sir, I am here.”
The board asked Hanser if he wanted to add any comments, noting that the letter very clearly supported granting Ronald parole and that it had provided some very
convincing narrative to that end.
Hanser stated, “Well, first I would like to say that I don’t do this very often. I get a lot of guys ask me to write them letters and such, but I usually don’t do it. I only write a letter if I am completely convinced of my appraisal. I certainly don’t travel and speak on their behalf unless I’m certain of them. I can say with 100% certainty that Mr. Drummer exceeds all expectations as a mentor in our program. He is intelligent, motivated, and sincere in his efforts. Further, I and several of my colleagues with Freedmen Inc. will keep our eye on him. He will be staying at one of our reentry homes and will be employed with us there. He will also continue his peer support meetings, Bible studies, and other forms of programming in the community. I can ensure that.”
After this, the board deliberated a bit and had Ronald, his family, and Hanser step out for a few moments.
When they were summoned back in, the board made its announcement. The head of the panel said, “Mr. Drummer, we are impressed with your record and the fact that you have gone well beyond what you needed to do, minimally, to qualify. You also really seem to have everything in place in the community to help you succeed.” The board member paused for a moment, and all that could be heard was
the shuffling of some papers. Then he spoke again. “So Mr. Drummer, what I am saying is that we have unanimously decided to award parole. Congratulations.”
p.372
Linda Drummer let out a shout of excitement, Laquitter clapped her hands in amazement, and Ronald gave the board a wide grin in response.
“Now, Mr. Drummer, you will have some fees, some community service to perform, and, in addition, we’re going to require that you commit to volunteering some of your time to speaking to kids at schools or social events on the hazards of drug use and a criminal lifestyle.”
“Yes, sir, I understand,” said Ronald.
The board allowed for the family to celebrate for a moment, congratulated Ronald again, and then noted that they had a long docket for the day.
Since that time, Ronald Drummer has been the house manager of his reentry home for Freedmen Inc. for over a year. He has also held a full-time job at Planet Fitness for over a year and has received two pay raises. He is studying to become a certified fitness trainer. He has served a leadership role in several community-based intervention programs and has spoken to
numerous middle and high school students on the vagaries of the criminal lifestyle. By all accounts, he has been successful and productive while on parole.
INTRODUCTION
This chapter addresses a type of offender outcome that represents a successful end to his or her incarceration experience: the release from prison on parole. This response to offender behavior falls within the field of corrections but comes at the end of the institutional process. This early release from prison reflects the fact that the offender has been well behaved in prison and represents a new beginning for that offender; basically, it is a reward for his or her prosocial behavior in prison. It should be pointed out that the parolee population tends to be quite small within the community-based correctional population when compared with the probation population. Further, the parolee population exists within only a select number of states. This chapter is provided primarily to ensure that this text is complete in its presentation of the correctional system, but it should not be viewed as a fully comprehensive authority on the use of parole.
PAROLE AND PAROLEE CHARACTERISTICS
Robert Hanser
PHOTO 15.1 Parole means that
offenders will have many more options
than might be encountered in a dayroom
such as the one shown in this photo.
Parole is a mechanism that has been nearly as controversial as the death penalty (for more on this topic, students should refer to Chapter 16). Parole has had a tortured history, resulting in a slow and ongoing effort to eliminate and/or restrict its use in the federal system, and it has also been eliminated in many states throughout the nation. Nevertheless, a substantial number of inmates are on parole throughout the nation, with some of them still serving the remainder of their sentences under the outdated federal system. Parole can be defined as the early release of an offender from a secure facility upon completion of a certain portion of their sentence; the remainder of their sentence is served in
the community. As of 2013, the nation’s parole population had grown slightly to 853,200 offenders. Mandatory releases from prison due to good time provisions accounted for nearly 50% of those offenders who were released on parole (Herberman & Bonczar, 2013). Figure 15.1 shows that the number of individuals on parole has remained fairly stable from 2010 through 2013.
Among those on parole, roughly 1 out of every 8 is a female offender. During the past decade, the proportion of female parolees has increased from 10% to 12%, a number that remained stable through 2013. The percentage of parolees who are African American tends to be around 38%. The proportion of Caucasian parolees has increased during the past several years, comprising 43% of the overall parole population in 2013. Roughly 17% of all parolees nationwide are Latino American, and another 2% come from other racial categories. Lastly, the majority of parolees were convicted of drug offenses, with 32% of the total parolee population having some drug-related conviction. Another 29% had convictions for violent offenses, and another 22% for property offenses. Figure 15.2 provides an examination of the U.S. parole population by offense.
p.373
Figure 15.1: Adults on Parole at Year- End, 2000–2013
SOURCE: Herberman, E. J., & Bonczar, T. P. (2015).
Probation and parole in the United States, 2013.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Lastly, when considering outcomes for parolees around the nation, it has been found that about 9.3% of all parolees were reincarcerated in 2013, which is approximately the same as in 2012 (see Figure 15.3). The 2013 data shows that the rate of parolees going back to prison for violating the terms of their parole was 5.4%, whereas those who went to prison due to committing a new, separate, criminal violation resulting in a new sentence was about 3% (Herberman & Bonczcar, 2015). As can be seen in Figure 15.3, revocations of parole have gone down substantially from about 2011 to 2013, and the percentage of parolees who commit new criminal violations (thereby
P r i s o n To u r V i d e o :P r i s o n To u r V i d e o : Parole
Decisions. There are many factors
to consider when evaluating an
inmate for parole. Watch a warden
discuss the role correctional
officers play in parole decisions.
getting a new sentence) is already low and appears on track to further decline. Thus, one might conclude that, overall, parole is proving to be a viable option for offender supervision.
THE BEGINNING HISTORY OF PAROLE
The development of parole is attributed to two primary figures: Alexander Maconochie and Sir Walter Crofton. Alexander Maconochie was in charge of the penal colony at Norfolk Island during the 1840s, and Sir Walter Crofton directed the prison system of Ireland in the 1850s. While Maconochie first developed a general scheme for parole, it was Crofton who later refined the idea and created what was referred to as the ticket of
leave. The ticket of leave was basically a permit that was given to an offender in exchange for a certain period of good conduct. Through this process, the prisoner could instead earn his own wage through his own labor prior to the expiration of his sentence. In addition, other liberties were provided so long as the prisoner’s behavior remained within the lawful limits set by the ticket of leave system. This system is therefore often considered the antecedent to the development of parole.
P r i s o n V i d e o To u rP r i s o n V i d e o To u r Parole Decisions
p.374
Figure 15.2: Parolee Characteristics by Type of Offense in 2013
SOURCE: Herberman, E. J., & Bonczar, T. P. (2015).
Probation and parole in the United States, 2013.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
*Includes public order offenses
During the 1600s and 1500s, England implemented a form of punishment known as banishment on a widespread scale. During this time, criminals were sent to the American colonies under reprieve and through stays of execution. Thus, the offenders had their lives spared, but this form of mercy was generally only implemented to solve a labor shortage that existed within the American colonies.
Essentially, offenders were shipped to the Americas to work as indentured servants under hard labor. However, the American Revolution put an end to this practice until 1788 when the first shipload of prisoners was transported to Australia. Australia became the new dumping ground for offenders, and they were used for labor here just as they had been in the Americas. The labor was hard, and the living conditions were challenging. However, a ticket of leave system was developed on this continent in which different governors had the authority to release offenders who displayed good and stable conduct.
In 1840, Alexander Maconochie, a captain in the Royal Navy, was placed in command over the English penal colony in New South Wales at Norfolk Island, which was nearly 1,000 miles off the eastern coast of Australia. The prisoners at Norfolk Island were the worst of the worst; they had already been shipped to Australia for criminal acts committed in England only to be later shipped to Norfolk Island due to additional criminal acts or forms of misconduct committed while serving time in Australia. The conditions on Norfolk Island were deplorable—so much so that many convicts preferred to be given the death penalty rather than serve time upon the island (Latessa & Allen, 1999).
Figure 15.3: Estimated Percentage of the Parole Population Returned to
Incarceration, 2000–2013
SOURCE: Herberman, E. J., & Bonczar, T. P. (2015).
Probation and parole in the United States, 2013.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
p.375
While serving in this command, Maconochie proposed a system where the duration of the sentence was determined by the inmate’s work habits and righteous conduct. Though this was already in use in a crude manner through the ticket of leave process in Australia, Maconochie created a mark system in which “marks” were provided to the offender for each day of successful toil. This system was quite well organized and thought out. It was based on five main tenets, as described by Barnes and Teeters (1959, p. 419):
1 .1 . Release should be based not on the completing of a sentence for a set period of time but on completion of a determined and specified quantity of labor. in brief, time sentences should be abolished and task sentences substantiated.
2 .2 . The quantity of labor a prisoner must perform should be expressed in a number of “Marks” that he must earn, by improvement of conduct, frugality of living, and habits of industry, before he can be released.
3 .3 . While in prison he should earn everything he receives. all sustenance and indulgences should be added to his debt of marks.
4 .4 . When qualified by discipline to do so, he should work in association with a small number of other prisoners, forming a group of six or seven, and the whole group should be answerable for the conduct of labor of each member.
5 .5 . In the final stage, a prisoner, while still obliged to earn his daily tally of marks, should be given a proprietary interest in his own labor and be subject to a less rigorous discipline, to prepare him for release into society.
Under this plan, as first described in Chap- ter 1, offenders were given marks and moved through phases of supervision until
they finally earned full release. Because of this, Maconochie’s system is considered indeterminate in nature, with offenders progressing through his five specific phases of classification: (1) strict incarceration, (2) intense labor in forced work group or chain gang, (3) limited freedom within a prescribed area, (4) a ticket of leave, and (5) full freedom. This system was based on the premise that inmates should be gradually prepared for full release. Due to the use of primitive versions of indeterminate and intermediate sanctioning utilized, Maconochie’s mark system is perhaps best thought of as a precursor to both parole and the use of classification systems for offenders. Maconochie’s system provided a guide to predicting the likelihood of success with an offender, making his process well ahead of its time.
However, Maconochie’s system appears to have been too far ahead of its time; many government officials, influential persons, and even ordinary citizens in both Australia and England believed this approach was too soft on criminals. (This is not much different from today, when prisons and punitive sanctions are the preferred forms of punishment in the opinion of most Americans.) For his part, Maconochie was fond of criticizing prison operations in England; he believed that confinement ought to be rehabilitative in nature rather than punitive (note that this
is consistent with the insights of John Augustus and his views on the use of probation). Due to the unpopularity of his ideas, Maconochie was ultimately dismissed from his post on Norfolk Island for being too lenient with offenders. Nevertheless, Maconochie was persistent, and in 1853 he successfully lobbied for the English Penal Servitude Act, which established several rehabilitation programs for offenders.
The English Penal Servitude Act of 1853 applied to prisons in both England and Ireland. Though Maconochie had spearheaded this act to solidify, legalize, and make permanent the use of ticket of leave systems, the primary reason for this act’s success had more to do with the fact that free Australians were becoming ever more resistant to the use of Australia as the location for banished English prisoners. Though this act did not necessarily eliminate the use of banishment in England, it did provide incentive and suggestions for more extensive use of prisons. This law provided guidelines for the length of time that inmates should serve behind bars before being granted a ticket of leave and served as the basis for a general form of parole. The conditions mentioned in the English Penal Servitude Act of 1853 are also common to today’s use of parole in the United States, though, of course, there are now many more technical aspects
involved. However, the guidelines clearly stated that the offender’s early release was contingent on his or her continued good behavior and avoidance of crime and criminogenic influences. Because of his work spearheading this act, his advocacy for other significant improvements in penal policies in England, and his contributions to early release provisions in England, Maconochie has been dubbed the Father of Parole.
p.376
APPLIED THEORY 15.1 Braithwaite’sBraithwaite’s Crime, Shame, andCrime, Shame, and Reintegration as Related toReintegration as Related to ParoleParole
According to Cullen and Agnew (2006), John Braithwaite is different from most labeling theorists because he does not suggest noninterventionist approaches. Rather, Braithwaite holds that shaming is necessary for social control and the offender. However, the important issue is what follows shaming: reintegration or
stigmatization. Reintegration is essential because shamed individuals are considered to be at a turning point in their lives. It is at this point where offenders can become reacquainted with society or find themselves further entrenched in the criminal subculture. When quality social relations exist, they provide the means through which offenders are given the forgiveness and support needed to become members of the community (Cullen & Agnew, 2006).
According to Cullen and Agnew (2006), “Restorative justice programs most closely mirror Braithwaite’s admonition to meld shaming with reintegration” (p. 277). Restorative justice programs seek to restore and heal the victim, repair the damage to the community, and reintegrate offenders after they have made their commitment to the victim. From this point, “repentant offenders potentially are granted a measure of forgiveness by victims and are reaccepted by their family and community” (p. 277). These attempts at shaming and further reintegration provide much more effective alternatives to stigmatizing sanctions used in the criminal justice system.
In this chapter, the mention of reintegration is particularly important since these offenders will be reentering the community after serving years in prison. In addition, the “measure of forgiveness” that Cullen and Agnew (2006) refer to is important since this will be a necessary ingredient if offenders are to have a chance at reintegrating into the community. Thus, Braithwaite’s work specifically applies to the reintegration of paroled offenders and explains that, although reconnection with the community is the primary end goal, there is a shaming element that is both proper and necessary. In other words, there must be a genuine consequence to aberrant and/or illegal behavior if the learning mechanisms are to take place. However, once those consequences have been meted out and once the offender has experienced the full impact of those consequences, society has an ethical obligation to cease and desist from applying additional consequences to the offender; to do so is unethical, disproportional, and unproductive. In fact, excessive consequences that go beyond the norm are likely to produce more crime.
Given that there are serious labeling implications for ex-cons well after
they have served their term in prison, it is clear that the consequences continue to follow them long after they have completed the duration of their sentence. This is true even after they finish their parole or early release obligations. Further, these additional consequences affect the prior offender’s ability to obtain jobs and necessary resources to function in society. Because of these consequences, the punishments are perhaps excessive, and high recidivism rates are therefore to be expected.
The primary point to Braithwaite’s work is that a shaming process is indeed necessary and should be public and hold the offender accountable. However, once that process of accountability has been fulfilled, society must then assume the burden of reintegrating the offender back within the community. Otherwise, we should not be at all surprised when individuals turn back to criminal behavior. In fact, when we fail to offer the chance for reintegration, we essentially have contributed to the recidivism. As a society, it could be argued that if we continue to add consequences beyond the original sentence, and if we do this with the knowledge that it
is likely to increase recidivism, then we essentially encourage further criminality among those in need of our support and guidance.
SOURCE: Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R. (2006).
Criminological theory: Past to present (3rd
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing
Company.
During the 1850s, as first described in Chapter 8, Sir Walter Crofton was the director of the Irish penal system. Crofton was familiar with Maconochie’s ideas, which he drew upon to create a classification system for the Irish prison system. In this system, an inmate’s classification level was measured by the number of marks that he had earned for good conduct, work output, and educational achievement. This idea was, quite obviously, borrowed from Maconochie’s system on Norfolk Island. It is important to point out that the Irish system developed by Crofton was much more detailed. It provided specific written instructions and guidelines that provided for close supervision and control of the offender and the use of police personnel to supervise released offenders in rural areas. It also called for an inspector of released prisoners in the city of Dublin (Cromwell et al., 2002).
p.377
Release was contingent upon certain conditions—for example, offenders had to submit monthly reports to either a police officer or another designated person and curtail their social involvements. Violations of these conditions could lead to reincarceration. This obviously is similar to modern-day parole programs. In fact, it could be said that contemporary uses of parole in the United States mimic the conditions set forth by Sir Walter Crofton in Ireland.
Parole From 1960 OnwardParole From 1960 Onward
From 1930 through the 1950s, correctional thought reflected the medical model, which centered on the use of rehabilitation and treatment of offenders (see Chapter 2). The medical model presumed that criminal behavior was caused by social, psychological, or biological deficiencies that were correctable through treatment interventions. The 1950s were particularly given to the ideology of the medical model, with influential states such as Illinois, New York, and California turning to this type of treatment. In general, support for the medical model of corrections began to dissipate during the late 1960s and had all but disappeared by the 1970s.
The reintegration era, which lasted until
the late 1970s, advocated for very limited use of incarceration; only a small proportion of offenders were imprisoned, and short periods of incarceration were most commonly recommended. Probation was the preferred sentence, particularly for nonviolent offenders. Indeterminate sentences were utilized, and deinstitutionalization was the theme for this period of corrections. However, this era in corrections was short-lived and received a great deal of criticism. Indeed, the prior medical model of corrections had hardly come to its full conclusion before the reintegration model was also being seriously questioned by skeptics.
P r i s o n V i d e o To u rP r i s o n V i d e o To u r Counseling as a Profession
The mid- to late 1970s saw a slowly emerging shift in corrections thought due to high crime rates that were primarily perceived as the result of high recidivism among offenders. Skepticism of
rehabilitation was brought to its pinnacle by practitioners who cited (often in an inaccurate manner) the work of Robert Martinson. As students may remember from Chapter 2, Martinson conducted a thorough analysis of research programs on behalf of the New York State Governor’s Special Committee on Criminal Offenders. Martinson (1974) examined a number of various programs that included educational and vocational assistance, mental health treatment, medical treatment, early release, and so forth. In his report, often referred to as the Martinson Report, he noted that “with few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism” (Martinson, 1974, p. 22).
From this point forward, there was a clear shift from a community model of corrections to what has been referred to as a crime control model of corrections (see Chapter 1). During the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, crime was a hotly debated topic that often became intertwined with political agendas and legislative action. The sour view of rehabilitation led many states to abolish the use of parole. Indeed, from 1976 onward, more than 14 states and the federal government abolished the use of parole. The state of Maine abolished parole in 1976, followed by California’s elimination of discretionary parole in
1978, and then the full elimination of parole in Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington (Sieh, 2006). In addition, the federal system of parole was also phased out over time. Under the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, the U.S. Parole Commission only retained jurisdiction over offenders who had committed their offense prior to November 1, 1987. The act also provided for the abolition of the Parole Commission over the years that followed, with this phasing-out period extended by the Pa- role Commission Phaseout Act of 1996. This act extended the life of the Parole Commission until November 1, 2002, but only in regard to supervising offenders who were still on parole from previous years. Thus, though the Parole Commission continued to exist, continued use of parole was eliminated, and federal parole offices across the nation were slowly shut down over time (see Figure 15.4 for further information on various developments in parole).
In addition to eliminating parole, many states implemented determinate sentencing laws, truth-in-sentencing laws, and other such innovations that were designed to keep offenders behind bars for longer periods of time. The obvious flavor of corrections in the 1980s was toward crime control through a correctional
ideology of incapacitation. This same crime control orientation continued through the 1990s and even through the beginning of the new millennium, with an emphasis on drug offenders and habitual offenders during the 1990s. Also of note were developments in intensive supervision probation (ISP), more stringent bail requirements, and the use of three-strikes penalties. The period during the last half of the 1990s and beyond the year 2000 had a decidedly punitive approach. The costs (both economic and social) have received a great deal of scrutiny even though crime rates lowered during the new millennium. Though there was a dip in crime during this time, it was not necessarily made clear if this was, in actuality, due to the higher rate of imprisonment or due to other demographic factors that impacted the nation. Further, as we have seen during recent years, this led to correctional systems having to implement mass forms of early release of inmate populations that had swollen during the 1990s and early 2000s. This has very serious potential implications for meeting public safety objectives in corrections.
p.378
Figure 15.4: Historical Developments in Parole
SOURCE: Adapted from the Association of Paroling
Authorities International (2001). Parole Board
Survey.
History of Federal Parole andHistory of Federal Parole and Supervised ReleaseSupervised Release
Parole of federal inmates began after enactment of legislation on June 25, 1910. At that time, there were three federal penitentiaries, and parole was granted by a parole board at each institution, with the membership of each parole board consisting of the warden of the institution, the physician of the institution, and the superintendent of prisons. By 1930, a single Board of Parole in Washington, D.C., was established. This board consisted of three full-time members appointed by the attorney general. The Federal Bureau of Prisons performed the administrative functions of the board. In August 1945, the attorney general ordered that the board report directly to him for administrative purposes. In August 1948, due to a postwar increase in prison population, the
attorney general appointed two additional members to the board, increasing it to five members (Hoffman, 2003).
Legislation in 1950 saw the board increase to eight members who served 6-year terms. The board was placed in the Department of Justice for administrative purposes. Three of the eight members were designated by the attorney general to serve as the Youth Corrections Division pursuant to the Youth Corrections Act. In October 1972, the board began a pilot reorganization project that eventually included the establishment of five regions, the creation of explicit guidelines for parole release decision making, the provision of written reasons for parole decisions, and an administrative appeal process (Hoffman, 2003).
In May 1976, the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act took effect. This act retitled the Board of Parole as the U.S. Parole Commission and established it as an independent agency within the Department of Justice (Hoffman, 2003). The act provided for nine commissioners appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for 6- year terms. These members included a chair, five regional commissioners, and a three-member National Appeals Board. In addition, the act incorporated the major features of the Board of Parole’s pilot reorganization project that were listed
above.
Eight years later, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 created the U.S. Sentencing Commission to establish sentencing guidelines for the federal courts and established a regimen of determinate sentences (Hoffman, 2003). The chair of the Parole Commission is an ex-officio, nonvoting member of the Sentencing Commission. The decision to establish sentencing guidelines was based in large part on the success of the Parole Commission in developing and implementing its parole guidelines. In 1987, the Sentencing Commission submitted to Congress its initial set of sentencing guidelines, which took effect that year. As set forth by the Crime Control Act, offenders whose acts were committed on or after November 1, 1987, serve determinate terms under the sentencing guidelines and are not eligible for parole consideration (Hoffman, 2003).
p.379
© Mikael Karlsson / Alamy Stock Photo
PHOTO 15.2 This inmate stands before
the parole board, answering questions
regarding his eligibility for early release.
As per the Sentencing Commission’s guidelines, parole for federal inmates was essentially abolished, but the use of supervised release from federal prisons was not entirely eliminated. While official parole and the use of parole boards no longer exist within the federal justice system, the modified version of early release is afforded some federal inmates based on requisites related to sentence completion. This post-release supervision is termed supervised release and is provided as a separate part of the sentence under the jurisdiction of the court. This type of early release is administered by the sentencing court for a given inmate, similar to community supervision under probation. In the federal system, the court, not the parole board, has the authority to impose sanctions on released inmates if they violate the terms or conditions of their supervision.
The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 provided for the official abolition of the Parole Commission on November 1, 1992, 5 years after the sentencing guidelines took effect. This phase-out provision did not adequately provide for persons sentenced under the law in effect
prior to November 1, 1987, who had not yet completed their sentences. Elimination of, or reduction in, parole eligibility for such cases raised a serious ex post facto issue. To address this problem, the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 extended the life of the Parole Commission until November 1, 1997 (Hoffman, 2003). However, this extension still did not sufficiently address the complexities related to the residual paroled population, and this resulted in yet another act, the Parole Commission Phaseout Act of 1996, which again extended the life of the Parole Commission, this time until 2002. In addition, it required the attorney general to report to Congress annually beginning in 1998 on whether it was more cost- effective for the Parole Commission to continue as a separate agency or for its remaining functions to be transferred elsewhere. It is important to note the U.S. attorney general has reported each year that it is more cost-effective for the Parole Commission to continue as a separate agency. After the Phaseout Act’s date expired, the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act of 2002 extended the life of the Parole Commission until November 1, 2005.
Currently, the U.S. Sentencing Commission oversees the supervision of offenders who leave federal confinement early due to credit for good behavior. According to the 2007 Federal Guidelines Manual, the
court:
is required to impose a term of supervised release to follow imprisonment if a sentence of imprisonment of more than one year is imposed or if a term of supervised release is required by a specific statute. The court may depart from this guideline and not impose a term of supervised release if it determines that supervised release is neither required by statute nor required for any of the following reasons: (1) to protect the public welfare; (2) to enforce a financial condition; (3) to provide drug or alcohol treatment or testing; (4) to assist the reintegration of the defendant into the community; or (5) to accomplish any other sentencing purpose authorized by statute.
Though the Sentencing Commission oversees the majority of federal offenders released from prison, there is apparent support for the continued use of the Parole Commission. On July 21, 2008, during the meeting of the 110th session of Congress, the United States Parole Commission Extension Act of 2008 was passed to provide for the continued performance of the Parole Commission (U.S. Congress, 2008). It became Public Law No. 110-312. So strong was support for this act that the initial bill passed in the Senate by
unanimous consent and was ultimately signed by then-president George Bush (GovTrack.us, 2010).
p.380
From this brief discussion of federal parole, it should be clear that this mechanism is a vestige from the past, but it continues to reemerge as an operational organization. Although it is unknown if federal parole will ever return to its previous prominence, it is clear that the federal system, like the state systems, will continue to need to supervise offenders released from prison, regardless of the agency mechanism that is ultimately used.
PAROLE AT THE STATE LEVEL
With respect to the administration and organization of parole boards, it is clear that there is a great deal of variation in their structure and implementation. Table 15.1 shows that state parole board systems select members through a variety of means (most typically including selection by the state’s governor). Factors such as the term of service for parole board members, the number of persons serving on parole boards, and the use of either part-time or full-time members vary greatly from state to state. The types of activities that each board may perform and/or the sources of information that
each board may use also vary greatly. This demonstrates that there is a great deal of disparity throughout the United States among the top organizationally ranked decision-making bodies that decide on issues related to parole.
V i d e o L i n kV i d e o L i n k New York’s Broken Parole Sys- tem CLICK TO SHOW
The variation in state implementation of the day-to-day supervision of parolees (for example, either as a separate function or combined with probation caseloads) and the variation that exists among parole boards themselves make it clear that the entire organizational structure can be quite complicated. However, there is a great deal of similarity in the types of laws, forms of supervision, and regulations that are required throughout the nation. While each state has the right and ability to administer community supervision functions in a manner that is most suitable for that state, there are as many similarities between probation and parole programs around the nation as there are differences.
Table 15.1: State Parole Board Appointments, Structure, Terms, and Functions From Selected States
SOURCE: Adapted from the Association of Paroling
Authorities, International. (2001). Parole board sur-
vey.
(1) Case reports writing and interviews.
(2) Hold probable cause hearings
(3) Hold revocation hearings
(4) Hold parole consideration hearings
(5) The chair 2 years, others on merit
p.381
The Granting of Parole in StateThe Granting of Parole in State SystemsSystems
In most states, offender cases are assigned to various individual parole board members who are tasked with reviewing the case so that they can formulate their initial recommendations. The recommendations that they provide are typically honored and accepted as written. Most states that follow this process hold a formal hearing where parole board members may share their views. When the parole hearing is conducted with the offender seeking parole, all members involved with the decision may be present
(as is often the case in television or movie
portrayals), but it is also possible that just one member is present. Lastly, when parole hearings are conducted, the board may convene at the facility where the inmate is located (requiring the board to travel), or the inmate may be brought to the board, wherever the board is located (in many cases, the state capital).
The process and guidelines for parole selection vary considerably from state to state. Some states have a minimum amount of time that must be served. Others have stipulations on the types of crimes that the offenders have committed. Some states use both of these criteria as well as others. However, the actual decision by any parole review body is often made by members who have a great deal of discretion. Indeed, it appears that parole boards are influenced by a wide variety of criteria, many of which are not necessarily noted by statute or official agency guidelines. Institutional infractions, the age of the offender, marital status, level of education, and other factors may all weigh into the parole board’s decision. Students should refer to Table 15.2 for specific details of parole populations within each state correctional system.
Naturally, one of the key concerns with granting parole is the probability of recidivism. To a large extent, the prediction process has been little better than
guesswork. For decades, the development of prediction tools has continued in an attempt to standardize risk factors. Psychometric tools and statistical analyses have ultimately rested upon actuarial forms of risk prediction. In most cases, it is the objective use of statistical risk prediction that turns out to be more accurate than that which allows for individual subjectivity. There are, of course, some exceptions since the context surrounding the statistical data may be important and may provide alternative explanations as to why a certain set of numbers and/or statistical outcomes may have been obtained. However, this often simply results in the overprediction of likely reoffending. Overprediction of offending is costly to prison systems because they will continue to incarcerate persons who are, in reality, at no risk of reoffending. In some states, there may be a need to reduce prison system overcrowding and such overprediction can further exacerbate problems with this overcrowding.
P r i s o n V i d e o To u rP r i s o n V i d e o To u r Drug Testing and Parole Issues
Indeed, parole mechanisms can serve as release valves for prison systems that become overstuffed with offenders. When this occurs, there may be a need for a certain amount of offender releases, and parole boards may have to make tough decisions that do not necessarily comport with the formal risk assessment based on a standardized instrument. This is where the difficulty tends to occur, and this demonstrates why, on the one hand, it is counterproductive for standardized risk assessment instruments to overpredict (as with the Wisconsin Risk Assessment scale), yet, on the other hand, subjective decision making is a necessary evil that is fraught with peril, resulting in incorrect predictions that ultimately lead to serious mistakes in determining an offender’s likelihood to recidivate.
Other factors also affect the decision to grant parole. For instance, an inmate may (according to a standardized instrument) have a high likelihood of reoffending. But the type of reoffending may be of a petty nature. In such instances, parole boards may decide to grant parole despite the fact that the offender is not considered a good risk based on a pure analysis of whether he or she will or will not reoffend. Thus, it is
clear that the specific type of reoffending is also an important consideration among parole board personnel. As just noted, this may be an especially important consideration when parole boards are aware that the state’s prison system is overcrowded and that a certain number of releases will assist prison administrators in maintaining their prison population levels. Therefore, it is better to release a person likely of relapsing on drugs and/or alcohol or who may commit some form of shoplifting than it is to release someone likely of committing some form of violent crime. It is using this next-best-solution approach that parole boards may be compelled (though not legally required) to make their releasing decisions.
It is important for students to appreciate the problems associated with prison overcrowding. As discussed in past chapters, federal court rulings during the 1970s and 1980s penalized many state prison systems and essentially forced them to honor a variety of civil rights standards when incarcerating inmates. Thus, the issue of overcrowding cannot be taken lightly by prison administrators, and state systems resort to a number of alternatives to alleviate this issue. In states that still utilize parole, this is one method state prison systems use to resolve their overcrowding problems, which means community correctional systems are used to augment and support the states’
institutional correctional systems. Thus, parole boards may play a key role in bridging these two components in an effort to ameliorate challenges facing a state correctional system.
p.382
V i d e o L i n kV i d e o L i n k Parole Hearing Stirs up Controversy for City Council Members CLICK TO SHOW
The fact that parole boards can play such a role should not be underestimated. They may, in fact, be under some pressure to assist the overall state system. Further, consider that these boards are often constructed by the governor of a given state. In some cases, state politics and state priorities may come into play, affecting the decisions in some parole board cases. This is particularly true when the parole board’s administration is consolidated rather than independent in nature (as discussed earlier in this chapter). The point in this discussion is to demonstrate that parole boards do not operate in a complete vacuum. The influences of the surrounding contextual reality are inevitable, and these influences come from a number of directions. Indeed, prison wardens, state offices, victims, the parolee’s family, and the public media may all have an impact upon the discretion employed by parole board members,
individually and collectively. Students should refer to Table 15.2 for details of parole populations throughout the nation, including the federal system; all states combined; the Top Three in corrections (California, Florida, and Texas); and a few other select states. It should be noted that three states (California, New York, and Texas) had reductions in their overall parole populations (Table 15.2). California, in particular, had a very significant reduction that reflects the major changes that state has made in its correctional system, as has been discussed in prior chapters of this text.
PAROLE AS THE CORRECTIONAL RELEASE VALVE FOR PRISONS
The intent behind parole, at least initially, was to provide an incentive to inmates for exhibiting prosocial behavior while also providing for a gradual process of reintegration into society. This process was intended to be based upon the behavior of the inmates and their progress in work assignments and programming while serving their sentence. The use of parole was not intended to be a mechanism to assist prisons in maintaining their population overflow. In fact, the soundest decisions for parole do not consider prison populations at all but instead are based entirely upon the factors relevant to the inmates and their behavior.
Nevertheless, states around the nation find themselves considering the increased use of parole or early release due to problems with prison overcrowding (see Figure 15.5). State correctional systems may find it difficult to house the influx of offenders when their budgets are not increased to accommodate this continual flow of new inmates. Whenever correctional systems use parole with the intent to reduce correctional populations rather than facilitate reintegration of offenders, they are using parole as a re- lease valve mechanism for their prison population.
The state of Arkansas is a very good example of how prison overcrowding has become a basis for the increased use of parole options. In 2001, the Arkansas Board of Correction and Community Punishment implemented an accelerated parole scheme to release over 500 inmates, citing the need to free prison and jail space due to the state’s record- breaking incarcerated population. The state’s system was so backlogged that over 1,000 state inmates were being held in county jails due to a lack of prison space (“Arkansas Speeds Parole to Ease Jam,” 2001). In addition, the state had a shortage of correctional officers. To deal with the overcrowding issue, Arkansas lowered the security level of many cell blocks and facilities from maximum to medium security and from medium to minimum
security; these changes meant fewer correctional officers were required to guard the inmates. Further, inmates who were classified at lower security levels were eligible for parole at a much quicker rate and therefore were released from confinement more quickly. The paroling of more inmates also reduced the number of correctional officers needed. It is clear that policies such as these—in particular, artificially lowering inmate security levels —were dangerous and based not on the security of the institution or society but on economic concerns.
The use of parole as a release valve is becoming increasingly more common due to the recent economic challenges that have faced state governments. While reentry efforts such as parole can be useful in reforming offenders and thereby reducing their likelihood of recidivism, such practices should operate regardless of prison population levels. If prison population levels determine the likelihood of release, then release decisions are made due to monetary, not public safety, considerations. This is a dangerous game to play in corrections and puts the public at risk for future criminal victimization.
p.383
Figure 15.5: Adults on Parole in the Federal System and Select State Systems, 2013
SOURCE: Herberman, E. J., & Bonczar, T. P. (2015).
Probation and parole in the United States, 2013.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
V i d e o L i n kV i d e o L i n k California Budget Woes Squeeze Overcrowded Prisons CLICK TO SHOW
THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONAL PAROLE OFFICERS
Institutional parole officers, often referred to as case managers or caseworkers, will work with the offender
and a number of institutional personnel to aid the offender in making the transition from prison life to community supervision while on parole. This professional serves both a security function (assessing suitability for parole) and a reintegration function (providing casework services inside the prison and networks that extend beyond the prison). Much of the information presented in this section regarding prerelease planning and the role of the institutional parole officer draws on information from the state of Oklahoma’s Pre-Release Planning and Reentry Process guidelines (Jones, 2007).
During prerelease planning, prison staff work together to provide a bridge of services that connect the offender to the outside world. A great deal of work can go into the planning and preparation process of an inmate’s exit from prison. This section will shed some light on the institutional parole officer’s function, since these professionals provide a link between the prison world and the outside community.
Upon determining that an inmate is suitable for parole, the institutional parole officer will begin the prerelease planning process that attends to the offender’s transition from prison to the community. This process typically begins about 6 months prior to release and involves a shift from institutional case planning to individual community preparedness. The
goal of a good reintegration program should be to ensure that the offender has the support, information, and contacts necessary to begin anew prior to exiting the prison. Even small details must be attended to, such as providing offenders with essentials like clothing and shoes that are appropriate for the season, proper identification, and appropriate referrals to community agencies that can assist with other services.
p.384
Figure 15.6: Parole Population Increases and Decreases by State
SOURCE: Glaze, L. E., & Bonczar, T. P. (2009). Proba-
tion and parole in the United States, 2008. Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Throughout the process, agency administration will tend to track the offender’s progress, keeping a careful eye on the 6 months prior to release. At this point, the offender may experience problems with anxiety due to nervousness over his or her expected freedom, the responsibilities of the outside world, and the effects of prisonization inside the facility. A good prerelease program will address these issues, preparing the inmate psychologically for release. As with their initial entry into prison, this period is often one of the most stressful for offenders since so much of their future is uncertain and they will be held to expectations that they have not had to meet in years.
p.385
CORRECTIONS AND THE LAW 15.1 Liability of Parole Board MembersLiability of Parole Board Members for Violation of Substantive orfor Violation of Substantive or Procedural RightsProcedural Rights
For the most part, it is clear that parole boards are not typically liable for violations of substantive or procedural rights when determining initial parole decisions. This should not be confused with decisions during parole revocation hearings. In terms of revocation hearings, the Supreme Court case of Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) clearly established a number of rights related to due process through a prompt informal inquiry before some form of impartial hearing officer. However, initial decisions to grant parole are simply a privilege to which an inmate has not constitutionally secured the right. Though inmates do not have a right to parole, they do have a right not to be discriminated against on the bases of race, religion, sex, creed, and so forth when such determinations are being made. One case, United States v. Irving (1982), was filed under Section 1983 of 42 U.S. Code in the Seventh Circuit. In this case, the offender alleged systematic racial discrimination against African American inmates with respect to parole board decisions for release. Interestingly, the circuit court did hold that the parole board members themselves had absolute immunity when faced with such suit. However, the circuit court noted that the offender could still sue for declaratory relief (essentially
requesting an injunction that the parole board change its practices) due to the fact that the court found evidence that tended to demonstrate discrimination on the part of the parole board.
Thus, it may be that individual parole board members are immune from liability when performing their functions. But offenders still retain certain civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment that must be honored by parole boards just as they must be honored by custodial corrections officials. This is a reasonable point since, after all, the desire to eliminate bias and discrimination among government officials was the reason that Section 1983 forms of redress were created. Just as prison officials must provide constitutional treatment of prisoners, so should parole-granting bodies.
One additional point of interest regarding parole board liability revolves around the rights of offenders who are released on parole only later to find out that the release was a mistake on the part of the parole board. While such instances are not common, they have occurred frequently enough to be ruled on by more than one federal court. Indeed, two lower courts have held that the
protections in Morrissey also confer some substantive protections for inmates who are mistakenly released. In both Ellard v. Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles (1987) and Kelch v. Director, Nevada Department of Prisons (1993), it was determined that once a state confers a right to be released, the inmate’s due process rights go beyond the contours set by Morrissey.
Indeed, it was determined that the grant of freedom places substantive limits on a state’s power to reincarcerate an inmate who has been mistakenly released. In the Ellard case it was held that a mistakenly released inmate could not be reincarcerated unless the release violated some sort of state law and that this departure from state law substantially undermined a state’s penological interests (see the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case, Turner v. Safley, for a discussion on legitimate penological interests). A similar ruling was found in the Kelch case as well, demonstrating a consistency among circuit court rulings and thereby lending support for the point that parolees do not have a right to parole prior to the parole-granting decision. However, this changes when they are actually released on parole, with Morrissey protections affecting
revocation proceedings for those legitimately on parole and a subsequent expectation of parole surfacing when offenders are mistakenly and prematurely released from the prison environment by parole board officials.
SOURCE: Barton, B., & Hanser, R. D. (2011).
Community-based corrections: A text/reader.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Interviews, forms, and checklists will be completed during this time as part of the review case plan that documents the offender’s approach toward release. These interviews will seek to identify various needs that the offender might have upon release. Needs-based assessment instruments perform this function. Identified needs can be many and varied but often include some program that the offender did not complete while in prison, such as an educational plan or substance abuse program. Other needs may be related to the payment of restitution, transportation, or making provisions for child support.
In addition to these concerns, correctional staff should note any unique circumstances in the prerelease plan that might provide a challenge to the successful reintegration of the offender. This will
typically be included in the adjustment review and also in what is often referred to as the Offender Accountability Plan. The Offender Accountability Plan addresses needs for restitution, the need to respect the rights and privacy of prior victims, and any particular arrangements that have been made with the victim as well as any necessary provisions to ensure the offender’s responsibility to the community at large.
p.386
CROSS-NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE 15.1 Parole Officers inParole Officers in CanadaCanada
Driving up to the warehouse at 8 p.m. on a Thursday, the parole officer hopes his client will be hard at work inside. So far, every meeting with the client has gone well, as have the meetings with the parolee’s employer. But this is an unscheduled meeting, and the probation officer knows a good start by someone on parole doesn’t always mean the virtuous behavior will continue.
“I don’t like it when the guys return to jail,” explains Rob Christensen. “It can be a very (defeating) feeling. When you do see someone come out and succeed, it’s very good.” In his 9 years on the job, the Calgary parole officer has seen his share of successes and failures. Regardless of what happens from case to case, though, his main goal remains to help offenders released from prison do well in the community while protecting the public at the same time.
It’s a busy and demanding job. And, like other careers within law enforcement, it comes with its good and its bad, especially because parole officers must maintain constant contact with all aspects of the parolees’ lives. “You see some really terrible stuff in the files, and you have to deal with these people professionally,” Christensen says. “You’re always looked at as the bad guy when all you’re trying to do is help the guy. And it can be confrontational at times. But, for me, there are many pluses as well. I like the interaction with all the different characteristics of people. I like helping when I can and the law enforcement side of things.”
Working for Correctional Service Canada as a parole officer in the community, Christensen’s duties see
him travel throughout the city meeting those on parole in their homes and at their jobs. Parole officers must also try and meet employers, family, friends, and others in regular contact with the parolee to ensure everything is on the straight and narrow, or to find a way to get more help to the parolee. This could include enrolling the parolee in a substance abuse program. As all these matters are legal issues, parole officers spend plenty of time taking notes and completing paperwork in the office as well.
The law always held an attraction for Christensen, who originally contemplated applying for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police while he was in college. “I was looking at law enforcement of some sort,” he says. But the thought of moving all over the country held little appeal. In discussing his future with others, someone suggested applying at the Bowden penitentiary. He did, was accepted, and began work as a federal corrections officer in 1989 and worked his way up the ladder. (Provincial corrections officers deal with those who receive sentences of less than 2 years.) He spent 6 years as a parole officer in the institution before moving to Calgary.
He now puts in a regular workweek of 40 hours, but the days and times of his shifts may vary. Parole officers are paid on a sliding scale up to about $63,000 a year. Knowing the ins and outs of parole, however, is but a small part of what’s required of a parole officer. Christensen says a parole officer needs solid communication skills, patience, and strong interpersonal skills. “You need to be able to interact on a professional level and a personal level. You have to be able to read people in a hurry.”
Parole officers have been around for decades, and that’s likely to continue, Christensen says. And he offers this advice to those considering this line of work: “Don’t feel like you can change the world, and don’t feel like you can change everybody. Take the satisfaction from the ones who do [change].”
Q u e s t i o n 1 :Q u e s t i o n 1 : In what ways do the functions of parole officers in Canada seem similar to those in the United States?
Q u e s t i o n 2 :Q u e s t i o n 2 : From the information in the article, does it appear that parole considerations in Canada follow a punitive model or a reintegrative model?
SOURCE: Sproxton, M. (2002). Parole officers
constantly deal with the good and bad.
Nextsteps.org.
The actual day of release is an important milestone for the offender and is actually critical to his or her successful reintegration. This should be treated as more than a nostalgic moment, and the seriousness of the new challenge ahead should be kept in focus. (This is illustrated in this chapter’s opening vignette when the Louisiana Parole Board made note of additional requirements for the parolee, Ronald Drummer. Note that this vignette is based on true events during a hearing that the author actually attended to provide recommendations for the offender’s release to the parole board.) Activities should focus on the last few tasks required for a seamless transition to the community. In addition, the offender should be provided a portfolio of the various services available, requirements of parole, and so forth, allowing him or her to keep the information and requirements organized. Organizational skills may be somewhat impaired given the newness of the release experience and the likely excitement that will be experienced.
p.387
Robert Hanser
PHOTO 15.3 The sheet of paper
underneath this urinalysis cup clearly
identifies the conditions of an offender’s
parole. In this case, the parole officer is
making it clear that the offender is
expected to remain drug free by placing
the urinalysis cup directly on top of the
list of parole conditions.
Lastly, Torres (2005) points out that although release from the prison facility can be a euphoric experience, it can also result in unexpected disappointment and frustration for the offender. Torres (2005) provides an insightful description of the psychological challenges associated with offenders’ reintegration as they navigate between their life prior to incarceration and the life that they now face:
The parolee’s memories of family, friends, and loved ones represent snapshots frozen in time, but in
reality, everyone has changed, moved away, taken a new job, grown up, or perhaps most disappointingly become almost strangers. The attempts to restore old relationships can be very threatening and eventually disappointing. In addition, the presence of almost complete freedom after years of living in a structured, confined prison setting can also add tremendous stress to adjusting to the open community where the offender must now assume major responsibilities of transportation, obtaining a driver’s license, finding a job, reporting for drug testing, and so on. If married, with children, the spouse may unrealistically expect the offender to immediately begin providing financial relief to the family that perhaps has endured financial hardships while the breadwinner was away. Other barriers to success include civil disabilities that prohibit the felon from voting . . . and most importantly, from being employed in certain occupations. (p. 1125)
A u d i o L i n kA u d i o L i n k The Role of Institutional Parole Officers CLICK TO SHOW
Institutional parole officers are cognizant of the situation that faces upcoming parolees. They must ensure that the
offender has the full range of support necessary to face the potentially traumatic adjustment to the outside world. The offender will need to come to grips with issues that most people do not consider, making the experience of release sometimes a bit bittersweet. Offenders may (or may not) themselves realize the full range of emotional experiences that they will have upon release, and it is one job of the institutional parole officer to ensure that appropriate support for coping is provided to the offender who may be disappointed and/or overwhelmed by the experience.
COMMON CONDITIONS OF PAROLE
The terms and conditions for parolees, in most cases, are identical to many of those for offenders on probation. For instance, the state of Oklahoma requires parole fees of $40 at a minimum and clearly outlines the potential outcomes if an offender violates the terms of his or her parole. These outcomes include additional levels of supervision, reintegration training, the addition of day reporting centers, weekend incarceration, nighttime incarceration, intensive parole, jail time, and incarceration. This is similar to what happens if offenders on probation violate the terms and conditions of their supervision. If possible, the parolee will be kept on supervision (depending on the
nature of the violation) but will experience a graduated set of increasingly restrictive sanctions and requirements that will become additional conditions to his or her parole requirements. Figure 15.6 provides an example of some of the terms and conditions of parole in the state of Connecticut. The terms and conditions, for the most part, tend to be very similar from state to state. Conditions (such as noted in #14 of Figure 15.6) unique to the offender are not as frequently used (aside from additional fines and/or community service) unless the offender happens to be in a specialized category of population typologies (such as with sex offenders), but even in these cases restrictions tend to be similar to those required of other sex offenders.
p.388
TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT 15.1 Global PositioningGlobal Positioning SystemSystem for High-Risk Gangfor High-Risk Gang Offenders inOffenders in
Califor niaCalifor nia
The goals of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR’s) Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring program are to monitor and track the movement of parolees. The CDCR’s High-Risk Gang Offender (HRGO) GPS monitoring program is specifically for parolees who have been categorized as high risk for gang involvement or activity.
Ta r g e t Po p u l a t i o nTa r g e t Po p u l a t i o n
Parolees are categorized as high risk for gang involvement or activity by the CDCR’s GPS Monitoring Gang Eligibility Assessment Criteria before receiving their parole supervision assignment. Parolees are categorized as high risk if they meet at least one of the mandatory criteria of the assessment. These criteria include being validated as a prison gang member or associate, being assigned a special condition of parole to not associate with any prison or street gang member, and previous involvement in gang activity. If a parolee meets any of the eligibility criteria, the parole agent of record and the parole unit supervisor hold a conference to determine whether the GPS monitoring program is appropriate based on additional criteria such as prior offenses and current compliance with parole conditions.
P r o g ra m C o m p o n e n t sP r o g ra m C o m p o n e n t s
GPS Monitoring. The GPS monitoring portion of the HRGO program uses cellular and GPS technology to track parolees in real time. The unit takes a data point every minute and transmits location data every 10 minutes to the monitoring center. The monitoring center then provides the parole agent with location information in two formats. The first format is a daily summary report, which details all activity recorded by the GPS unit, such as device charging activity, zone violations, strap tampers, and other violations. Parole agents are also able to review the movement patterns, or “tracks,” of the parolee on a Web mapping application. This information allows parole agents to investigate any unusual or suspicious movements. The second format is the immediate alert (IA) notifications, which are automatically generated text messages sent to the parole agent of record for specific types of high- priority violations. If a parole agent needs to get in contact with a parolee the agent can signal the GPS device worn on the offender to beep or vibrate, signaling to the parolee the need to contact his parole agent.
Intensive Supervision. The intensive supervision portion of the HRGO program includes frequent contact
between the parole agents and parolees. Soon after release from prison, parole agents must meet face- to-face with the parolee and conduct an initial interview. During this first meeting, parole agents are required to inform the parolee of the GPS monitoring as a special condition of parole, and to explain that participation is mandatory and refusal will result in return to prison. As part of the intensive supervision, parole agents must meet at the parolee’s residence soon after release, conduct a minimum number of face-to-face contacts monthly, conduct a minimum number of collateral contacts monthly (i.e., acquaintances and family members of the parolee), conduct a minimum number of random drug tests monthly, meet with law enforcement to update parole information a minimum number of times each year, and conduct a case review a minimum number of times each year.
SOURCE: Crime Solutions.gov. (2013). Global
positioning system for high-risk gang offenders
(California). Washington, DC: National Institute
of Justice.
V i d e o L i n kV i d e o L i n k Parole and Reentry
CLICK TO SHOW
REENTRY INITIATIVES
Before we can discuss offender reentry programs, we must understand what constitutes offender reentry. Some observers note that offender reentry is the natural byproduct of incarceration because all prisoners who are not sentenced to life in prison and who do not die in prison will reenter the community at some point. According to this school of thought, reentry is not a program or some kind of legal status but rather a process that almost all offenders will undergo. A variant on this approach to reentry is the concept that offender reentry, simply defined, includes all activities and programming conducted to prepare ex- offenders to return safely to the community and to live as law-abiding citizens (Nunez-Neto, 2008).
p.389
FOCUS TOPIC 15.1 Freedmen Inc. Halfway HouseFreedmen Inc. Halfway House for Offenders Released Fromfor Offenders Released From PrisonPrison
Freedmen Inc. is a faith-based
organization that works with a variety of organizations in the community to provide offenders with housing, transportation, employment, job skills, spiritual guidance, mental health, and substance abuse assistance. This organization’s board of directors includes numerous people who are active in reentry efforts in their community. The House of Healing, as it is called, is the primary home in which offenders are housed, but there are other homes as well.
It is important to understand that most of the efforts of this organization are funded through donations and church-based collaborations. Naturally, this means that there is a strong biblical basis to much of the programming. While this may be problematic to some people, this program is designed for offenders who desire this type of reentry experience.
Though this program was originally designed for men, there is now a sister program that aids female offenders in reentry. This points toward the growing reentry needs of the community. These women engage in programming that is similar to the programs in which their male counterparts engage;
however, they do not stay in the same facility as the male participants.
This organization is one example of how grassroots efforts in communities can provide services that aid persons trying to rebuild their life after incarceration while, at the same time, making the community safer by offering participants alternatives to crime.
SOURCE: Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections. (2010). Reentry in
Louisiana. Baton Rouge, LA: Author.
To demonstrate how the reentry effort has become a nationwide priority, consider the Second Chance Act, which was signed into law on April 9, 2008, and designed to improve outcomes for people returning to communities from prisons and jails. This first-of-its-kind legislation authorizes federal grants to government agencies and nonprofit organizations to provide employment assistance, substance abuse treatment, housing, family programming, mentoring, victim support, and other services that can help reduce recidivism.
VIOLATIONS OF PAROLE, PAROLE
Robert Hanser
PHOTO 15.4 This parole officer is
checking on one of his parolees who is at
work.
WARRANTS, AND PAROLE REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS
No discussion pertaining to parole (and particularly an entire chapter on the subject) would be complete without at least noting some of the issues associated with the revocation of that sentencing option. The revocation process is often a two-stage one that was initially set forth in the Supreme Court ruling of Morrissey v. Brewer (1972). The first hearing is held at the time of arrest or detention and is one where the parole board or other decision- making authority will determine if probable cause does, in fact, exist in relation to the allegations against the parolee that are made by the parole officer. The second hearing then is tasked with establishing the guilt or innocence of the
parolee. During this hearing, the parolee possesses a modified version of due process; he or she is provided with written notice of the alleged violations, is entitled to the disclosure of evidence to be used against him or her (similar to discovery), has the right to be present during the hearing and to provide his or her own evidence, has the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, has the right to a neutral and detached decision-making body, and has the right to a written explanation of the rationale for revocation.
S AG E J o u r n a l A r t i c l e L i n kS AG E J o u r n a l A r t i c l e L i n k Putting Parolees Back in Prison: Dis- cretion and the Parole Revocation Process CLICK TO SHOW
p.390
Figure 15.7: Example of Terms and Conditions of Parole in the State of Connecticut
SOURCE: State of Connecticut Board of Pardons and
Parole. (2008).
In some states, such as South Carolina, a person known as the parole revocations officer is primarily tasked with the routine holding of preliminary parole revocation hearings. This officer reviews the allegations made by parole officers against parolees. These hearings are administrative and not nearly as formal as those held by a judge in a true court of law. Typically, these courts are routine in nature, but some rulings and findings of fact may vary. Though most hearings are not complicated, a degree of discretion is required on occasion when determining if
Robert Hanser
PHOTO 15.5 Parole officer and
supervisor Pearl Wise (middle) is pictured
here with officers David Jackson (left)
and Chris Miley (right) in tactical gear. As
parole officers, they are required to
complete in-service tactical training that
includes nonlethal and lethal weapons
proficiency. Ms. Wise is well known
throughout her community as an active
supporter of reentry efforts in Louisiana.
the evidence has been presented well and/or to determine if the violation requires a true revocation of parole or just more restrictive sanctions. The position of parole revocations officer does not require formal legal training but instead simply requires that the officer know the laws and regulations involved with that state’s parole system.
p.391
Regardless of whether the decision- making body consists of the parole board itself or a parole revocations officer, there are some situations where the offender may be entitled to some form of legal counsel. In G a g n o n v. S c a r p e l l iG a g n o n v. S c a r p e l l i ( 1 9 7 1 )( 1 9 7 1 ), it was held that parolees do have a limited right to counsel during revocation proceedings, as determined by the decision-making person or body and to be determined on a case-by-case basis. This is, of course, relevant only to those circumstances where the parolee contests the allegations of the parole officer, and the retaining of counsel is done at the parolee’s own expense; there is no obligation on the part of the state to provide such representation.
CONCLUSION
This chapter has provided students with a view of parole, the process by which offenders are allowed to leave prison before serving the entirety of their sentence. Parole has often been criticized due to the concern for public safety when inmates are released. Citizens around the nation read news reports of offenders who are released early from prison and commit heinous acts shortly after reentering society. This obviously makes it seem as if our justice system is being soft on criminals and prison authorities are indifferent to the safety of surrounding
P r i s o n To u r V i d e o :P r i s o n To u r V i d e o : Reentry
Programs. Reintegrating inmates
into society is an enormous
challenge for correctional
practitioners. Watch a clip about
parole and reentry programs.
communities. However, prison authorities largely have their hands tied and must rely on the direction of the central state administrations that generate parole decisions. Prison overcrowding can and has led to legal complications as it can pose a violation of Constitutional rights held by inmates in confinement. Thus, the only options are to build more prisons, house inmates in some other type of facility, or let them out on early release. Parole is one of the early release mechanisms used by some prison systems and thus has been likened to a release valve that opens when prisons are overstuffed with inmates. These types of “numbers game” release decisions are not safe for society and result in continued crime problems.
The correctional process must often
contend with public concern and controversy. It is almost as if the correctional system can never meet the competing demands placed upon it by society. On one extreme is the desire to punish; on the other is the desire to reform. Amidst this is the concern for the victim, which has become increasingly more important to the field of corrections. What may be in store for the correctional system and its practitioners is a matter of debate, but it is certain that the challenges will never disappear.
P r i s o n V i d e o To u rP r i s o n V i d e o To u r Reentry Programs
p.392
FOCUS TOPIC 15.2 Reentr y in LouisianaReentr y in Louisiana
Approximately 15,000 state offenders are released each year from Louisiana prisons to Louisiana communities—usually the communities where they were living when they committed their crimes. Many offenders are released with only a bus ticket and $10. Once in the community, they are expected to get a job, earn a living, contribute to the well-being of a family, follow the law, and generally get along with their law-abiding neighbors. Within 5 years, half will be back in prison, either for violating conditions of their release or for committing new crimes. That translates into more dollars, more victims, more frustration, and diminished success when the offender is released the next time.
People are spending years, sometimes decades, cycling in and out of probation and parole offices and prisons, seemingly unable to disengage from the criminal justice system. In Louisiana, the recidivism rate is approximately 50% after 5 years. Reducing this rate by even 10% would result in significant dollar savings for the state and its citizens and, hopefully, an enhanced quality of life in communities across the state. The question of what happens to men and women when they leave
prison has never been as urgent as it is today.
Lo u i s i a n a’ s R e s p o n s eLo u i s i a n a’ s R e s p o n s e
In 2002, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections organized and standardized programs and services to deal with these issues and to better prepare offenders for a successful reintegration into their communities. Offenders are provided the opportunity to participate in a variety of educational, vocational, faith-based, and therapeutic programs to aid their reentry efforts. Louisiana’s response will improve public safety, reduce recidivism, decrease victimization, and reduce the financial burden of its correctional system.
Two unique forms of programming offered for offenders reentering the community include substance abuse and religious programming. While these types of interventions are common to most correctional systems, Louisiana has implemented two unique programs that merit specific mention and consideration.
S u b s t a n c e A b u s eS u b s t a n c e A b u s e
Of the offenders in the state correctional system, 80% have
substance abuse problems that contribute to their criminality. It is imperative that the department continue to provide substance abuse treatment and education for incarcerated offenders and subsequently link them with services in the community upon release. The department continues to develop and expand community partnerships with local government and community organizations through parish sheriffs, community volunteers, and private companies to improve substance abuse education and treatment to offenders.
One example is the Blue Walters Substance Abuse Treatment Program, which is a comprehensive program designed to rehabilitate eligible offenders with a history of alcohol and drug abuse who are nearing release. The program goal is to provide substance abuse treatment and prevention education, to develop a collaborative relationship between outside treatment service providers and jail- based treatment programs, and to assist offenders in developing a recovery base and making a safe and successful transition into society. The transition occurs through a combination of halfway house placement, aftercare, and/or work
release. The author of this text is the program director of the Blue Walters Substance Abuse Treatment Program at Richwood Correctional Center in Louisiana.
Va l u e s D e v e l o p m e n tVa l u e s D e v e l o p m e n t
Most offenders have a values base that is inconsistent with what it takes to adjust in society. It is imperative that we continue to provide faith- based and character-based programs to offset these deficits. Faith-based programs can help an offender prepare for successful reentry into the community by establishing a spiritual foundation from which he can make sound, moral decisions. Developing partnerships with faith- based institutions that can help ex- offenders maintain their good intentions and positive efforts is crucial to the success of reentry.
Unique in the nation is the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary’s “Angola Campus” at the Louisiana State Penitentiary. The seminary, established in 1995, offers two college-level degree programs for the offender population, a 2-year associate degree in pastoral ministries, and a 4-year bachelor’s degree in theology. As many of Angola’s offenders are serving life sentences, the department sees their
role in the reentry process as mentors—helping other offenders transition back into the community. Some offenders who have earned their bachelor’s degree are being transferred to other institutions, where they work under the supervision of the chaplain to strengthen religious programming. Approximately 90 offenders are consistently enrolled in the seminary, which offers one of the most unique educational opportunities for state offenders and has proven to be a life- changing experience.
SOURCE: Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections. (2010). Reentry in
Louisiana. Baton Rouge, LA: Author.
Wa n t a b e t t e r g ra d e ?Wa n t a b e t t e r g ra d e ?
Get the tools you need to sharpen your
study skills. Access practice quizzes,
eFlashcards, video, and multimedia at
edge.sagepub.com/hanser2e
p.393
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1 .1 . Identify and discuss the contributions of alexander maconochie to the development of parole.
2 .2 . Identify and discuss the contributions of sir walter crofton to the development of parole.
3 .3 . What are some basic concepts regarding state parole, its organization, and its administration?
4 .4 . How does the parole selection process work, and what are the various factors that influence parole decisions?
5 .5 . What is meant by the “release valve” function of parole?
6 .6 . How is an effective reentry program a component of any effective crime prevention model through the reduction of recidivism?
7 .7 . Discuss braithwaite’s theory on crime, shame, and reintegration, and explain how it is related to the effectiveness of parole.
Te s t y o u rTe s t y o u r
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o fu n d e r s t a n d i n g o f
c h a p t e r c o n t e n t . Ta kec h a p t e r c o n t e n t . Ta ke
t h e p ra c t i c e q u i z .t h e p ra c t i c e q u i z .
KEY TERMS
C o m p r e h e n s i ve C r i m e C o n t r o lC o m p r e h e n s i ve C r i m e C o n t r o l A c t o f 1 9 8 4A c t o f 1 9 8 4, , 3 7 83 7 8
E n g l i s h Pe n a l S e r v i t u d e A c tE n g l i s h Pe n a l S e r v i t u d e A c t, , 3 7 53 7 5
F a t h e r o f Pa r o l eF a t h e r o f Pa r o l e, , 3 7 63 7 6
I n s t i t u t i o n a l p a r o l e o f f i c e rI n s t i t u t i o n a l p a r o l e o f f i c e r, , 3 8 33 8 3
J u d i c i a l I m p r ove m e n t s A c t o fJ u d i c i a l I m p r ove m e n t s A c t o f 1 9 9 01 9 9 0, , 3 7 93 7 9
M a r k s y s t e mM a r k s y s t e m, , 3 7 53 7 5
O f f e n d e r A c c o u n t a b i l i t y P l a nO f f e n d e r A c c o u n t a b i l i t y P l a n,, 3 8 63 8 6
O f f e n d e r r e e n t r yO f f e n d e r r e e n t r y, , 3 8 83 8 8
Pa r o l ePa r o l e, , 3 7 23 7 2
Pa r o l e C o m m i s s i o n a n d R e o r g a -Pa r o l e C o m m i s s i o n a n d R e o r g a - n i z a t i o n A c tn i z a t i o n A c t, , 3 7 83 7 8
Pa r o l e C o m m i s s i o n P h a s e o u tPa r o l e C o m m i s s i o n P h a s e o u t A c t o f 1 9 9 6A c t o f 1 9 9 6, , 3 7 73 7 7
Pa r o l e r evo c a t i o n s o f f i c e rPa r o l e r evo c a t i o n s o f f i c e r, , 3 9 03 9 0
R e l e a s e v a l ve m e c h a n i s mR e l e a s e v a l ve m e c h a n i s m, , 3 8 23 8 2
S u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s eS u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e, , 3 7 93 7 9
T i c ke t o f l e aveT i c ke t o f l e ave, , 3 7 33 7 3
U n i t e d S t a t e s Pa r o l e C o m m i s -U n i t e d S t a t e s Pa r o l e C o m m i s - s i o n E x t e n s i o n A c t o f 2 0 0 8s i o n E x t e n s i o n A c t o f 2 0 0 8, , 3 8 03 8 0
R e v i e w ke y t e r m sR e v i e w ke y t e r m s
w i t h e F l a s h c a r d s .w i t h e F l a s h c a r d s .
KEY CASES
Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1971), 391
APPLIED EXERCISE 15.1
Students must conduct either a face-to- face or a phone interview with a parole officer or other parole specialist who currently works in a community corrections setting. The student should use the interview to gain the practitioner’s insight and perspective on several key questions related to work in his or her field. Students must write the practitioner’s responses, provide their own analysis of those responses, and submit their draft by the deadline set by their instructor. Students should complete this application exercise as an essay that addresses each point below. The total word count should be 1,400 to 2,100 words.
When completing the interview, students should ask the following questions:
1 .1 . What are the most rewarding
aspects of your job in parole?
2 .2 . What are the most stressful aspects of your job in parole?
3 .3 . What is your view on treatment and/or reintegration efforts with offenders?
4 .4 . What are some challenges that you have in keeping track of your caseload?
5 .5 . Why did you choose to work in this field?
6 .6 . What type of training have you received for this line of work?
7 .7 . What would you recommend to someone who was interested in pursuing a similar career?
Students are required to provide contact information for the parole practitioner. While instructors will probably not need to contact this person, it may become necessary so that they can validate the actual completion of an interview.
p.394
Name and title of correctional supervisor: _____________________
Correctional agency: ___________________________________
Practitioner’s phone number:
_____________________________
Practitioner’s e-mail address: _____________________________
Name of student: ______________________________________
WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
You are a state parole officer who has been active in various aspects of offender reentry. You currently work and live in a medium-sized community. On occasion, your supervisor asks you to serve on community committees and advisory boards in order to increase partnerships in your area and extend the sources and abilities of your own agency. Recently, you have been asked to serve with a group of agencies, some state level, some county level, and many of them private or nonprofit in nature. This group is known as the Community Reentry Initiative (CRI). It has had very good success in creating employment opportunities for parolees in the community, and this has been a great help in reducing recidivism. This group has also had some success in obtaining affordable housing for offenders who do not have a place to stay.
The CRI has decided to add a restorative justice component to its
efforts. This will require contact with prior victims of crime and will require their consent in participating in the process. This is likely to provide a challenging aspect to the project. However, all victims must be allowed to provide their input in the process as offenders are paroled into the community and integrated into the restorative justice process.
While at the meeting, it becomes clear that many people look to you as an expert on reentry issues. In fact, several members suggest that a subcommittee be created to begin the development of the restorative justice program, and they would like you to lead this subcommittee. However, there has been a recent backlash in the community against offender reentry initiatives. Some citizens have even gone to city hall to protest the implementation of these initiatives. Due to this, you are a bit uneasy with this responsibility, but you know that your supervisor would be disappointed if you did not agree to help with this task. Your supervisor is very progressive and is fond of saying, “Change is good, so let’s have more good by making more change!” So, with no real time to consider the implications, you hesitantly agree to accept the position as head of the subcommittee.
At this point, you want to help but do not know exactly what you should do. Your subcommittee consists of two local religious leaders, a police officer assigned to the neighborhood stabilization team, a victim’s rights advocate from a local domestic violence facility, a low-ranking person from a local television station, a social services supervisor, a classification specialist who is employed by the regional prison, and a counselor from a local substance abuse treatment facility. Your parole agency supervisor encourages you to help this group and even offers to give you a half day off each week so that you can spend time supporting this initiative.
What would you do?
p.395
PRACTICE AND APPLY WHAT YOU’VE LEARNED
edge.sagepub.com/hanser2e
R E V I E W. P R AC T I C E .R E V I E W. P R AC T I C E . I M P ROV E .I M P ROV E .
Head to the study site, where you’ll find:
• An o n l i n e a c t i o n p l a no n l i n e a c t i o n p l a n that includes tips and feedback on progress through the course and materials
• Le a r n i n g o b j e c t i ve sLe a r n i n g o b j e c t i ve s that reinforce the key concepts in each chapter