Does Parole Work?: Analyzing the Impact of Postprison Supervision on Rearrest Outcomes

MARCH 2005AMY L. SOLOMONVERA KACHNOWSKIAVINASH BHATIhe vast majority of prisoners in this country (about 80 percent) arereleased “conditionally,” subject to a period of supervision in thecommunity, often called “parole.”1Parole supervision is used as botha surveillance tool and a social service mechanism and ideally serves adeterrent role in preventing new crimes from occurring. Parolesupervision can function as a surveillance tool by monitoring andsanctioning those who violate conditions of release, potentially avertingmore serious reoffending. Parole supervision can also act as a social servicemechanism by using rules and incentives to engage ex-prisoners in positiveactivities, such as work and drug treatment, and to place ex-prisoners in pro-grams that may help reentry transitions. While the focus of parole supervisionhas shifted more toward the surveillance function over the years,2the number of people subject to it continues to grow. In 2003, over 774,000 adult men andwomen were under parole supervision in the United States,3up from 197,000 in 1980.4Despite its widespread use, remarkably little is known about whether parolesupervision increases public safety or improves reentry transitions. Priorresearch indicates that fewer than half of parolees successfully complete theirperiod of parole supervision without violating a condition of release or commit-ting a new offense,5and that two-thirds of all prisoners are rearrested withinthree years of release.6To date, however, no national studies have compared thecriminal activity of prisoners who are supervised after release to that of theirunsupervised counterparts. In this research brief, we use data from a Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) recidi-vism study7(see “Data Sources and Limitations” sidebar) to compare prisonersreleased to parole supervision in 1994 with prisoners who completed theirentire prison sentence and were released without any supervision or reportingrequirements.8Our goal is to assess, at an aggregate level, whether parole“works” at reducing recidivism among those who are supervised after releasefrom state prison. 1tRESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS
Overall, parole supervision haslittle effect on rearrest rates ofreleased prisoners. Mandatoryparolees, who account for thelargest share of released prison-ers, fare no better on supervi-sion than similar prisonersreleased without supervision. Infact, in some cases they fareworse. While discretionaryparolees are less likely to berearrested, this difference nar-rows (to 4 percentage points)after taking into account per-sonal characteristics and crimi-nal histories.(Continued on page 2)DOES PAROLE WORK?2100 M STREET, N.W.WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037URBANINSTITUTEAnalyzing the Impact of Postprison Supervision on Rearrest Outcomes The report is organized around three key questions.First, do prisoners released with and without supervisiondiffer with respect to demographics, incarceration char-acteristics, and criminal histories? Second, do prisonersreleased with and without supervision recidivate at dif-ferent rates? And finally, if there are differences in recid-ivism outcomes between those released with and withoutsupervision, when and for whom does supervision mat-ter most? BEYOND CONDITIONAL ANDUNCONDITIONAL: THE ROLE OF THE RELEASE MECHANISMTo assess the relationship between parole supervisionand recidivism, we must look not only at whethera person is supervised after release, but also howthey were released. Persons released unconditionally—with-out any postrelease supervision—are released when their sentences end. Alternatively, persons released con-ditionally are released to supervision by two differentmethods, discretionary release and mandatory release. In this section we describe the differences between theserelease mechanisms and examine shifting trends in their use. Prisoners released to supervision via discretionary releasehave been screened by a parole board or other authority2RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS(Continued from page 1)to determine “readiness” to return to the community.Parole boards, which often face substantial pressures toreduce prison overcrowding, determine who presents the lowest risk of reoffending and is most prepared forrelease. Among other factors, parole boards considercriminal histories, institutional conduct, and positiveconnections to the community such as employment,housing arrangements, and ties to family. Appearingbefore a parole board may provide an incentive for pris-oners to participate in programming and arrange tran-sition plans to improve their chances of early release. Until the 1980s, discretionary parole was the predomi-nant method of release, accounting for 55 percent of allprison releases. Over the past two decades, however, discretionary release has largely fallen out of favor withpolicymakers.9By 2000, just 24 percent of released pris-oners were discretionary releasees (figure 1),10and 16states had abolished discretionary release altogether.11Other states have retained disc