Parole & Transitional Services: Proven Paths to Safer Communities
At the heart of parole and transitional services is the notion of efficiency. How do we keep our communities safe and our justice system fair? Early sentencing focused on determinate punishments but left decisions on sentencing lengths to the judiciary. This led those running prisons to question our system: how could two people who committed similar crimes receive meaningfully different sentences? Further, wardens argued that it was a waste of time, money, and human capital to keep people in prison longer than they needed to be. From these notions, indeterminate sentencing and parole were adopted in 1870.
The adoption of these policies necessarily led to an increase in discretion for judges and parole boards. Judges were allowed to create sentence ranges. The idea was that a minimum amount of time must be served, but a parole board was allowed to determine when someone could be released based on factors, including their behavior in prison. Those released early would be monitored in the community and could be returned to prison if necessary. The discretionary power of judges and parole boards came under scrutiny during the 1960s when there was social upheaval surrounding the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, and Watergate. In the 1970s, we saw a move away from indeterminate sentencing, the restriction of and, in some jurisdictions, the abolishment of parole. Here are three critical lessons we have learned since these changes in the 1970s.
Lesson 1: Parole works. Research comparing the outcomes of inmates who received parole versus inmates who “max-out” shows that those who complete the full prison sentence are significantly more likely to recidivate compared to those who were granted early release. Parole is a tool that can reduce the amount of crime in a community that stems from released inmates. This is a critical service. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 95% of state inmates will be released from prison.
Lesson 2: Transitional services reduce offending and keep communities safer. The 1970s also saw the birth of researchers trying to understand “What Works” to reduce recidivism. Since the 1970s, we have investigated how various correctional ideologies impact crime. Research on specific and general deterrence policies and practices (i.e., harsher punishments for longer times) shows no relationship with reducing crime. Increasing the use of incarceration can reduce crime by about 10% each time you double (!) a prison population, proving to be an extremely costly proposition for a state. Research on rehabilitation practices demonstrates that using effective interventions (i.e., cognitive-behavioral programs) can reduce recidivism by an average of 12% for a fraction of the cost (think thousands of dollars compared to hundreds of millions). The best programs that are run to fidelity reduce recidivism by 40%. Transitional services are effective and efficient at keeping our communities safe. They offer services to help inmates become accolated to changes in society; they help inmates regain autonomy lost in prisons because of security concerns; and they help connect people to the community to benefit from added human capital. Transitional services are a vital community resource.
Lesson 3: Reducing discretionary parole and increasing time served in prison leads to overcrowded prisons. The detrimental effects of overcrowded prisons are vast. Overcrowded prisons are more dangerous; violence in prisons increases for staff and inmates, which impacts their physical and mental health; rehabilitation, healthcare, and education services are diminished because of security concerns. Many states that experience overcrowding conditions are subject to lawsuits.
Transitional services work. They reduce crime, reintegrate people into communities, and save money in the long term. They are a vital part of our communities.
Dr. Andrew Myer
Centre Board Member