Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Vol. 3 , S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 1
Prisoner Reentry
in Perspective
James P. Lynch
William J. Sabol
James P. Lynch
William J. Sabol
Endnotes ............................. 22
References .......................... 23
Ratio of releases to
500,000 prison population 0.55
400,000 0.50
300,000 0.45
Number of
releases
200,000 0.40
100,000 0.35
0 0.30
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
Year
Source: Lynch/Sabol analysis of Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Correctional Populations in the
United States, 1985–99.
Figure 2.
Crime rate and releases from state and federal prisons, 1980–1999
5,000
400,000
4,000
300,000
3,000
200,000
2,000
Number of releases
100,000
1,000
0 0
1980
1980 1985
1985 1990
1990 1995
1995
1995
1995 1999
1999
Year
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Correctional Populations in the United States, 1980–99 and
Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports, 1980–99.
Figure 4.
Estimated number of violent offenders admitted into and release from
state and federal prison, 1984–1998
Number of offenders
180,000
160,000
Admissions — violent
140,000
Releases — violent
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
Year (of admit/release)
1990–1994 2,507.9 2,217.2 290.7 1,661.4 1,318.8 342.6 846.6 898.5 –51.9
1995–1998 2,303.4 2,086.0 217.4 1,462.1 1,362.9 99.2 841.3 723.1 118.2
Source: Lynch/Sabol analysis of Bureau of Justice Statistics data: Correctional Populations in the United States, 1990–98 and
National Corrections Reporting Program, 1990–98.
700,000
Parole population
600,000
500,000
Parole entries
400,000
300,000
Parole exits
200,000
100,000
0
1985 1990 1995 1998
Year
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Correctional Populations in the United States, 1985–98.
released with no post-prison supervision, such as parole. tion supervision.12 In Ohio, offenders are assessed upon
The number of offenders released unconditionally has entering prison for “post-release control.” Further com-
increased recently, from about 55,000 releases in 1990 plicating the issue, in other states such as Massachusetts,
(about 13 percent of releases in that year) to 126,000 some offenders are given the choice of trading a few ad-
releases in 1998 (about 23 percent of releases). This is ditional months in prison for a longer term on parole. A
reflected in figure 6 in the declining rate of growth of recent recidivism study by the Pennsylvania Department
parole entries. of Corrections provided data on returns to prison for a
It is not known whether unconditional releases are new conviction. These data show that offenders released
more likely to successfully reintegrate into society or unconditionally upon completion of their sentence re-
whether they pose greater risks for public safety than of- turned to prison for new convictions at lower rates than
fenders released onto some form of post-incarceration did offenders released onto parole. Of the offenders re-
supervision. While they cannot be returned to prison for leased unconditionally between 1994 and 1997, within 1
technical violations, it also is not known whether they year of release 3.4 percent returned to prison for a new
return to prison for new crimes at higher rates than of- conviction and within 3 years 12.2 percent did. By com-
fenders who are on parole. At least some offenders are parison, within 1 year of release, 5.6 percent of offenders
released unconditionally based on either a sentencing released onto parole returned to prison for a new convic-
decision or an assessment after entering prison that su- tion, and within 3 years 16.1 percent did (Pennsylvania
pervision is not warranted. For example, in the federal Department of Corrections 2001).13
system, offenders released unconditionally typically have Each of these examples supports the view that un-
been sentenced for less serious crimes, and a judge has conditional releases may pose less risk than conditional
made a decision not to impose a term of post-incarcera- releases. In the first two cases, a sentencing or correc-
Percentage of
releases
100%
All releases
First releases
Subsequent releases
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1984 1987 1990 1993 1996
Year
based on the “Weed and Seed” model are correct—that accounted for just under half of the 531,000 offenders
the “weeding” out of offenders must occur prior to “seed- released. California alone accounted for 24 percent of
ing” prevention efforts—then the return of violent offend- the state prison releases (but only 12 percent of the U.S.
ers may be like “sowing weeds” back into communities. resident population). The top 16 states (in terms of the
While communities may not necessarily want ex- volume of releases) collectively accounted for 75 percent
prisoners to return to them, the presumption that com- of the releases, but the bottom 24 states collectively ac-
munities want to accept all returning prisoners is one that counted for only 10 percent of state prison releases.
needs to be verified. Because little, if anything, is known Among these relatively low-frequency release states, the
about the attitudes of community residents toward re- number released ranged from about 4,500 in Mississippi
turning offenders, in general, and toward the return of to about 600 in Maine.
specific offenders, it makes sense to presume that com- Within states, returning prisoners are increasingly
munities may not want all offenders back. At least this is concentrated in “core counties.” A core county is one
a testable assumption, the results of which can help de- that contains the central city of a metropolitan area. The
velop new approaches to reintegrating difficult or un- estimated percentage of state prison releases in core coun-
wanted offenders, while at the same time help to pre- ties of metropolitan areas rose from 50 percent in 1984
serve public safety. to 66 percent in 1996 (figure 7). In other words, about
half of the 220,000 releases in 1984 were to core coun-
ties, while about two-thirds of the 500,000 releases in
The geographic concentrations of returning prisoners
1996 were to core counties. Thus, both the volume and
Cohorts of returning prisoners are concentrated in concentration of returns to core counties have increased
a few large states. Of prisoners released in 1998, five states over time.
1991 1997
Children Calls
Yes 63.7 % 66.7 % Less than
1 year
No 36.3 33.3
1 to 5 years
Working
More than
Yes 65.5 % 66.5 % 5 years
Source: Lynch/Sabol analysis of Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Source: Lynch/Sabol analysis of Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Survey of
Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities, 1991 and 1997. Inmates of State Correctional Facilities, 1991 and 1997.
n About two-thirds of the offenders had children. to be released after serving one to five years, and to 39
n About one-third of the offenders were unem- percent among those to be released after serving five or
ployed prior to prison entry. more years.19 The same pattern is observed for receiving
letters and visits from children.
n About two-thirds of the offenders had not com-
Changes in family contacts with inmates reflect
pleted high school.
both self-selection and access to prisoners. It is not known
As shown previously, however, time served by of- whether contacts decrease because offenders or families
fenders released from prison has increased over time. choose not to continue to contact each other, or because
Here, increasing time served in prison is negatively re- prison policies limit access. For example, if offenders are
lated to maintaining attachments to family members. incarcerated in facilities that are far away from their resi-
Specifically, the frequency of contact with children de- dences, or if telephone or other privileges are restricted,
creases as the length of time served in prison increases then prison policies can affect access. To the extent that
(figure 8). For soon-to-be-released offenders in 1997, for contacts with families facilitate reintegration—a relation-
example, among inmates who ever had contact with their ship about which we know little—then policies should
children, 54 percent of those expecting release after serv- attempt to minimize the disruption of these contacts.
ing one year or less reported at least weekly calls from Additionally, the likelihood of being divorced in-
their children. This decreases to 45 percent among those creases with time served. For soon-to-be-released offend-
1. Throughout this report, references to the 7. The BJS Inmate Survey provides 15. Derived from Bonczar and Glaze (1999),
number of offenders admitted into or information about the prior experiences of table 6.
released from prison generally refer to incarceration. First-time prisoners are
offenders who were sentenced to one year defined as those prisoners who have had 16. Census block groups are aggregated to
or more of incarceration. Where this no prior reported prison commitments. create census tracts; the block groups in
definition does not apply the difference is The difference in these proportions is this analysis had 1990 populations of
noted. statistically significant at p< 0.05. roughly between 1,000 and 3,000 persons.
2. Estimates of releases are derived from the 8. Lynch/Sabol analysis of the BJS Inmate 17. The calculations were based on the
National Prisoner Statistics (NPS) and the Survey data for 1997. number of offenders whose block group
National Correction Reporting Program information was available. For about 40
(NCRP) data collected by the Bureau of 9. The Bureau of Justice Statistics percent of the sample of prisoners who
Justice Statistics unless otherwise noted. recidivism study, mentioned at the outset were convicted in Cuyahoga County courts,
These data are not based upon a of this paper, will track offenders released the block group of residence was missing.
probability sample, so no significance from prison and could provide information Hence, the calculations of one-day
tests are performed on the estimates from on the rate at which first-time offenders incarceration rates will generally
these data. return to prison. underestimate the actual one-day rates.
3. Nonprison corrections expenditures 10. These differences in proportions are 18. Projections based on data from Ohio
include expenditures for parole supervi- statistically significant at p< 0.05. Department of Rehabilitation and
sion as well as expenditures for probation Corrections on prison admissions and
and other activities that are administered 11. Here, the term parole is used to include time served.
by state agencies. Because of all forms of post-incarceration supervi-
noncomparability among the states that sion, including those that do not follow 19. The differences in these proportions are
reported expenditure data, the Bureau of from a parole release decision. For significant at p< 0.05.
Justice Statistics' expenditure data in example, federal offenders may be
Stephan (1999) cannot be broken down sentenced to a term of supervised release 20. The difference between persons serving
into these refined categories. after they serve a prison sentence of a less than one year and more than five
determinate length. years are statistically significant at
4. The relative size of the number of p< 0.05, but the difference between those
releases from prison is measured as the 12. Federal offenders released unconditionally serving one year and those serving one to
ratio of the number of releases to the account for about one-fifth of all offenders five years is not statistically significant.
number in prison. released unconditionally.
Anderson, Andrea and Sharon E. Milligan. Brennan, John, and Edward W. Hill. 1999. Lynch, James P., and William J. Sabol. 1997.
2001. “Social Capital and Community Where are the Jobs? Cities, Suburbs, and the Did Getting Tough on Crime Pay? Washington,
Building.” Unpublished manuscript for the Competition for Employment. Washington, D.C.: D.C.: The Urban Institute. Crime Policy Report,
Aspen Institute Roundtable on Comprehensive The Brookings Institution, November. August.
Community Building Initiatives for Children
and Families. Case Western Reserve University, Coulton, et al. 2000. “How Are They Managing? Lynch, James P., and William J. Sabol. 2000.
Cleveland. A Six Month Retrospective of Cuyahoga County “Prison Use and Social Control.” In Policies,
Families Leaving Welfare.” Cleveland, Ohio: Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal
Austin, James. 2000. “Prisoner Reentry: Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change, Justice System. Washington, D.C.: National
Current Trends, Practices, and Issues.” Case Western Reserve University, July. Institute of Justice, Criminal Justice 2000
Washington, D.C.: The Institute on Crime, 3: 7-44.
Justice and Corrections, The George Washing- Gaes, Gerald, Timothy J. Flanagan, Laurence L.
ton University, September. Motiuk, and Lynn Stewart. 1999. “Adult Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. 2001.
Correctional Treatment.” In Prisons: Crime and “Recidivism in Pennsylvania State Correctional
Bania, Neil, Claudia J. Coulton, and Laura Justice, A Review of Research, edited by Institutions, 1994-1999.” Division of Planning,
Leete. 2000. “Welfare Reform and Access to Michael Tonry and Joan Petersilia (361-426), Research, Statistics, and Grant Management.
Job Opportunities in Cleveland Metropolitan vol. 26. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Camp Hill, PA.
Area.” In Multi-City Access to Opportunity
Study, edited by Michael Rich. Atlanta: Emory Grogger, Jeffrey. 1995. “The Effect of Arrest on Petersilia, Joan. 2000. “Prisoners Returning to
University. the Employment and Earnings of Young Men.” Communities: Political, Economic, and Social
Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(1): 51-71. Consequences.” In Sentencing and Correc-
Beck, Allen J. 1999. “Understanding Growth in tions: Issues for the 21st Century. National
U.S. Prison and Parole Populations.” Paper Horn, Martin F. 2000. Rethinking Sentencing. Institute of Justice: Papers from the Executive
presented at the annual conference on Papers from the Executive Sessions on Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections.
Criminal Justice Research: Enhancing Policy Sentencing and Corrections. Washington, D.C.: Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
and Practice. Washington, D.C.: National National Institute of Justice, February. May.
Institute of Justice.
Kirschenman, J., and K.M. Neckerman. 1991. Reinventing Probation Council. 2000.
Blumstein, Alfred. 1995. “Youth Violence, “We’d Love to Hire Them But…: The Meaning Transforming Probation through Leadership:
Guns, and the Illicit Drug Industry.” Pittsburgh: of Race for Employers.” In The Urban The “Broken Windows” Model. New York:
H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Underclass, edited by C. Jencks and P.E. Center for Civic Innovation.
Management Working Paper Series. Peterson (203-233). Washington, D.C.: The
Brookings Institution. Rose, Dina R., and Todd R. Clear. 1998. “Who
Blumstein, Alfred, and Allen J. Beck. 1999. Doesn’t Know Someone in Jail? The Impact of
“Population Growth in U.S. Prisons, 1980- Kling, Jeffrey. 1999. “The Effect of Prison Exposure to Prison on Attitudes of Public and
1996.” In Prisons: Crime and Justice, A Sentence Length on the Subsequent Employ- Informal Control.” Paper presented at the
Review of Research, edited by Michael Tonry ment and Earnings of a Criminal Defendant.” Southern Sociological Society Annual Meeting,
and Joan Petersilia (17-61), vol. 26. Chicago: Woodrow Wilson School Economics Discussion Atlanta, Apr. 2-4.
University of Chicago Press. Paper 208, February.
Rose, Dina R., Todd R. Clear, and Judith A.
Bonczar, Thomas P., and Allen J. Beck. 1997. Lerman, Robert I., and Caroline Ratcliffe. 2000. Ryder. 2000. Drugs, Incarceration, and
Lifetime Likelihood of Going to State or Federal Did Metropolitan Areas Absorb Welfare Neighborhood Life: The Impact of Reintegrat-
Prison. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Recipients without Displacing Other Workers? ing Offenders into the Community. Final
Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. New Report. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of
Justice. NCJ 160092. Federalism: Issues and Options for States No. Justice, September.
A-45.
Bonczar, Thomas P., and Lauren E. Glaze. Sabol, William J., and John McGready. 1999.
1999. Probation and Parole in the United Levitt, Stephen D. 1996. “The Effect of Prison Time Served in Prison by Federal Offenders,
States, 1998. Bureau of Justice Statistics Population Size on Crime Rates: Evidence from 1986–97. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special
Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Prison Overcrowding Litigation.” The Quarterly Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice. NCJ 178234. Journal of Economics (May): 319-351. Justice. NCJ 171682.