This paper examines the complex challenge of measuring parole effectiveness within the United States criminal justice system. It discusses how recidivism rates, caseload burdens, monitoring methods, and community support programs all influence outcomes for parolees. The paper draws on national research to highlight key findings — including that peak recidivism occurs immediately after release and that repeat offenders recidivate at rates exceeding 80 percent within three years. It also explores parole readiness assessments, the diversity of supervision models, the problem of technical violations inflating return-to-prison statistics, and the notably lower recidivism rates in the military parole system. The paper concludes that more rigorous research and increased funding are needed to improve parole outcomes nationwide.
How does one measure parole effectiveness? For most people, parole effectiveness is measured by how many parolees and probationers remain free from crime and do not return to prison. However, with such a large and diverse parole population, it is extremely difficult to measure the exact degree of parole effectiveness in the United States, and it is equally difficult to gauge the effectiveness of parole going forward. There are predictors and measurements that apply to both adult and juvenile offenders, and those predictions and measurements form the scope of this paper.
Parole can be defined as the release of a prisoner into society earlier than the end of their sentence, on the condition that they remain lawful and crime-free. They are monitored periodically by a parole officer to ensure compliance. If they do not remain crime-free, they return to prison for the remainder of their sentence and may be resentenced, depending on the infraction. Clearly, parole is an important aspect of the criminal justice system, and it can lead to success and a crime-free life for many individuals. However, many parolees do return to prison, and measuring the success of parole programs across the country indicates there is still much work to be done to improve parole systems nationwide.
Parole and probation are growing in this country, and numerous federal, state, and local agencies are involved in parole efforts, making it a convoluted system at best. One author notes the sheer scale of the supervised population: "At the end of 2003, some 4.8 million adults were on probation and parole, compared with approximately 2.1 million adults in jail or prison. Seventy percent of the adult correctional population is under the jurisdiction of probation and parole officers" (Burrell, 2004, p. 1). While the number of people on parole is growing, parole funding is not — in fact, parole functions usually receive only about 10 percent of criminal justice funding in most state and local budgets (Burrell, 2004, p. 2). This means that caseworkers carry excessively large workloads, making it difficult to monitor their assigned offenders and increasing the likelihood that those offenders will recidivate in the future.
Measuring the effectiveness of parole is quite complicated, and results vary widely across the criminal population. For example, "released prisoners with lengthy criminal records and who have been to prison several times before have very high recidivism rates — over 80 percent are rearrested within three years of release from prison. In contrast, less than half of first-time releasees and older releasees are rearrested within three years of their release" (National Research Council, 2008, p. 72). These are staggering numbers. If 80 percent of those with lengthy criminal records recidivate within three years, something within the prison system is contributing to the failure of parole.
Measurements show that first-time offenders are less likely to return to prison, but researchers question those statistics as well. The National Research Council notes, "It also is possible that parole authorities and the police supervise and watch 'two-time losers' more closely or are less willing to overlook any violations of their parole contracts" (National Research Council, 2008, p. 74). It is clear, then, that many divergent measurements exist and that they do not apply uniformly to all parolees and situations. If there is one constant in the parole system, it is that there are no constants — and this makes it extremely difficult to measure effectiveness reliably.
One of the most significant findings in this area concerns the timing of reoffending. The Council states, "One of the most significant findings that emerges from our work is that the peak rates for recidivism occur in the days and weeks immediately following release" (National Research Council, 2008, p. 74). The longer a parolee remains out and law-abiding, the more likely they are to stay out of prison in the long run. This points to the critical importance of early attention and support to help new parolees avoid returning to their criminal pasts. Most parolees are released with no home and no job, and without support, they have few options other than criminal activity. For high-risk parolees in particular, resources such as halfway houses and job-skills training could help redirect their paths and reduce recidivism.
Perhaps one of the most important issues in measuring parole effectiveness is the lack of rigorous research on the problem. The Council observes, "As this review unmistakably demonstrates, the application of scientifically rigorous methods in research and evaluation on community supervision has not been the norm and is only now beginning to emerge" (National Research Council, 2008, p. 81). This means that much current measurement is speculative at best, especially given the many problems associated with data collection discussed in this paper. There are also very few studies of community support initiatives and other assistance programs for parolees, meaning the true effectiveness of these programs is largely unknown — even though there is a strong belief that they contribute to parolee success. What is clear is that far more study is needed to gain a true perspective on the measurement of parole effectiveness.
Many parole systems are also hampered by high caseloads and a lack of community and local support. Studies suggest that parole systems receiving community input and support — from religious involvement to drug and alcohol treatment and support groups — show improved success rates. Combined with standard parole monitoring procedures, community support appears to help ensure lower recidivism rates.
"Monitoring diversity and technical violation problems"
"Psychological tools for predicting parole success"
"Military system's lower recidivism and rehabilitation programs"
Measuring the effectiveness of parole systems depends on many factors. Age, length of incarceration, education, and family circumstances can all influence whether a parolee will return to prison or build a successful life in society. Measuring the effectiveness of these programs is further complicated by the sheer diversity of parole programs across the country, which cannot all be evaluated using the same standards.
You’re 52% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.