CFSD304 Parole Reading (2) PDF

TRANSITION FROM CONFINEMENT TO COMMUNIT Y 313 without mishap. Yet that is exactly what is expected in the absence of parole: “One day these predatory inmates are locked in their cells for 23 hours at a time and fed all their meals through a...

TRANSITION FROM CONFINEMENT TO COMMUNIT Y 313 without mishap. Yet that is exactly what is expected in the absence of parole: “One day these predatory inmates are locked in their cells for 23 hours at a time and fed all their meals through a slot in the door, and the next day they’re out of prison, riding a bus home.”2 Making the transition between these two extremes is obviously not an overnight process that can occur effectively without assistance. Much like the decompression process for deep-sea divers, who cannot rise too quickly to the surface, the parole process is designed to deescalate external controls gradually in order to ease reintegration into the community. And, given the magnitude of the upcoming prison exodus, focusing on reintegration may be “our best hope for keeping crime rates down, as nearly 600,000 inmates a year—1,600 a day—leave prison and return home.”3 C H A N G I N G N AT U R E O F PA RO L E LEARNING GOALS Parole involves both regulatory and rehabilitative functions. Do you know: Much like probation officers with their dual responsibilities 1. the origin and definition of “parole”? (discussed in Chapter 4), parole officers face the need to balance 2. what legislative authorization is necessary their supportive and surveillance duties. Beyond the dual to implement parole? nature of its mission, however, parole has also encountered 3. why some states have returned to vocal opposition as public sentiments have shifted. determinate sentencing? Under the medical model, it was assumed that there was an optimum time for releasing an offender from incarceration. parole: supervised With indeterminate sentencing, establishing when an inmate should be released release from prison was largely the subjective decision of the paroling authority. before sentence expiration, under In the absence of clear, objective guidelines, eligibility for parole became the conditions that source of complaints about apparent inequities. In some cases, parole policies have permit even been cited as causing prison riots. Attica was a prime example—where the reincarceration if violated. official investigation concluded that “the operation of the parole system was a primary source of tension and bitterness within the walls.”4 In Attica and elsewhere, those who were satisfied with decisions of the parole board were out in the community, while those turned down for parole remained in prison venting their frustrations. Nor was the credibility of the decision-making process enhanced by high rates of recidivism or the public outrage that followed when a parolee engaged in a particularly notorious crime. Movement to the justice model’s determinate sentencing was designed to eliminate the uncertainty of prison terms based on the release-through-parole feature of indeterminate sentencing. As a result, 16 states have abolished parole, 5 and mandatory release is now increasing, while discretionary parole releases are decreasing. This does not mean that parole no longer exists. However, paroling authorities are now more likely to be responsible for supervising offenders in the community &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   314 CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS following mandated discharge than for making decisions about when to release them. Despite more restrictive functions and a less supportive public, parole remains a key component of the correctional conglomerate. For as long as the environment of correctional institutions differs so extremely from free society, assistance is needed to prevent released offenders from becoming repeat offenders. Historical Background The word parole originated with the French term parole d’honneur, which means “word of honor.”6 But, because inmates are not generally considered to be highly honorable, parole has always been controversial. mark system: As noted earlier, Captain Alexander Maconochie experimented with a mark Alexander system that enabled inmates to earn freedom through credits awarded for hard Maconochie’s idea of enabling inmates to work and proper behavior. For this and similar progressive but provocative efforts, earn early release for Maconochie was removed as superintendent of the Norfolk Island (Australia) penal hard work and good behavior. colony. Returned to Britain, he was subsequently dismissed from prison service for employing methods that were too lenient. Maconochie’s visions lived on, however, in the Irish ticket-of-leave concept pioneered in 1854 by Sir Walter Crofton. Under this system, inmates earned release by gradually progressing through a series of ticket of leave: stages involving reduced discipline, which could eventually earn them a ticket of forerunner of parole, leave—or what we now know as parole. the Irish system of gradually reduced custody stages, whereby prisoners Parole Developments in the U.S. could earn a ticket to leave prison before Massachusetts was the first state to officially establish parole service when an sentence expiration. agent was appointed in 1846 to assist released prisoners. By legislative action some 20 years later, Michigan became the first state to introduce indeterminate sentencing. This was necessary in order to enable correctional officials to provide early release on parole, under the philosophy that “the prisoner’s destiny should be placed... in his own hands.”7 During the 1870 meeting of the National Prison Association, Zebulon Brockway argued that preemptory (fixed) sentences should be replaced with indeterminate sentences. With such a change, prisoners could be released early, after demonstrating evidence that they had been reformed, rather than merely awaiting the lapse of time. He further suggested providing some type of supervision for three years after release from prison. Brockway later became superintendent of the Elmira Reformatory, where parole was an integral feature from its opening in 1876. By the 1950s, all states had implemented indeterminate sentencing, and all jurisdictions throughout the country had adopted some form of parole. But a quarter-century later, the tide began to turn. Public disillusionment with the medical model’s indeterminate sentencing was fueled by reports citing the futility of rehabilitation, along with alarming recidivism rates. As a result, in 1976 Maine became the first state to fully embrace determinate sentencing and abolish parole. &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   TRANSITION FROM CONFINEMENT TO COMMUNIT Y 315 Since then, a number of states and the federal government have adopted some form of structured sentencing, and those with determinate sentencing practices have largely eliminated release on parole.8 Recently, however, discretionary parole release began to make a comeback in some states, as shown in Exhibit 11.1. Parole Defined While some form of parole remains the primary method through which inmates are released from prison, the nature of parole has changed considerably from its early origins. Generally, parole is considered to be supervised conditional release from a correctional institution prior to sentence expiration, under requirements that E X H I B I T 11.1 Overview of sentencing trends and parole discretion. Source: Peggy B. Burke, ed., A Handbook for New Parole Board Members (Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, April, 2003), p. 9. &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   316 CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS permit reincarceration if violated. In other words, parole is simply a continuation of one’s sentence in the community. The inmate is released under supervision and expected to abide by certain provisions, violation of which could result in revocation of parole. The conditions imposed are quite similar to those required of probationers—such as remaining drug and alcohol free, reporting periodically to a parole officer, avoiding criminal associations, obeying the law, and the like. PA RO LE AU THO R IT Y LEARNING GOALS Do you know: Unlike probation, which is primarily a judicial function of the 4. how the functions of parole have courts, parole is an executive function of correctional authorities. changed in recent years? In fact, under indeterminate sentencing practices—when 5. what conflicting objectives are expected parole boards had virtually unlimited discretion to determine of parole? release dates—correctional officials in many respects had a greater impact than judges in terms of establishing the length of sentences. In states that still maintain discretionary release, parole functions include: selection: reviewing cases to identify which inmates should be released from prison before the expiration of their sentence; preparation: classroom sessions, counseling, and other assistance designed to prepare new parolees for the decisions and self-discipline needed to resume life in free society; supervision: assistance and oversight provided in the ex-offender’s home environment to ease transition from the institution, as well as monitor behavior in the community; termination: either through routine dismissal of the case upon successful completion of parole or revocation for violation of parole conditions. Today, correctional authority is more limited to parole supervision and termination, with release determination often a function of legislative guidelines. But there is some debate over whether this actually represents a departure from past practices, rather than new terms for old practices. Objectives of Parole Ultimately, the major focus of parole has been on reducing recidivism. In the past, parole attempted to achieve this objective by a combination of selecting the most appropriate candidates for release and providing them with support and supervision as they made their transition into the community. With responsibility for selection diminishing, the focus of parole today is directed more toward &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   TRANSITION FROM CONFINEMENT TO COMMUNIT Y 317 postrelease procedures. But parole is still expected to help the offender successfully reintegrate into the community, while at the same time safeguarding the public by continuing to control the parolee under community supervision. As with probation, parole officers struggle to find a balance between providing supportive assistance and monitoring activities so that public safety is not compromised. In fact, it is ironic that the effectiveness of parole is largely judged on the basis of whether its clients return to prison—since it is incumbent upon parole authorities to do exactly that when a client is not functioning effectively in society. Moreover, as we will see, parole can neither be fully credited with its successes nor blamed for its failures. Eligibility for Parole LEARNING GOALS Under indeterminate sentencing, once an inmate has served whatever minimum sentence was established, he or she is Do you know: generally eligible to be considered for release. Unless the sentence 6. why parole is preferable to unsupervised specifically includes a stipulation that it is issued with no release? possibility of parole, even those with “life” sentences are eligible 7. who makes appointments to parole boards and on what basis they have been for early release in a number of states. That does not, however, subject to criticism? mean that inmates can initiate an application for parole. While they may voluntarily turn down an opportunity to be paroled, they have no direct control over when it will be offered. Nor does eligibility mean that parole will be granted automatically. Discretionary parole is legally considered a privilege rather than a right. No constitutional right to be released on parole has been recognized by the courts. Those turned down for consideration may be routinely scheduled for a rehearing after a designated period of time. While some offenders are paroled at the first opportunity, particularly notorious criminals may proceed through numerous rehearings unsuccessfully. For example, parole hearings are still conducted periodically for Charles Manson, under California’s provision for rehearing the cases of those serving life terms every three years. One might think that inmates repeatedly denied parole are likely to be the most serious, potentially dangerous offenders. While that may be true, it does not mean that everyone who is denied fits that description, especially as states have become increasingly conservative when making release decisions. In one state, for example, the percentage of inmates who were released after a parole hearing declined from 70 percent in 1990 to 38 percent a decade later.9 As a result, some discouraged inmates may actually opt to waive their parole hearings, finish their sentences, and be released unconditionally. However, in states that do not provide for life without parole, only death in prison can completely assure that an inmate will not be released. While parole eligibility may well have been restricted with public safety in mind, as one report on the impact of this policy concluded: &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   318 CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS The result is that the inmates who pose the greatest threat to public safety are denied parole, while minor offenders, least in need of supervision, are under the watchful eye of a parole officer.... The very thing the public wants—community safety—is jeopardized when inmates are released without the supervision and support of parole.10 It is indeed ironic that long-termers who ultimately exit prison upon the expiration of their sentence—often from maximum security and without community supervision—are often those who need the scrutiny of parole the most. See the next “Close-up on Corrections” for the tragic account of one such case. While some may denounce the availability of parole as “too lenient,” it is the desire to prevent such unfortunate events that motivates many to support postrelease supervision. CLOSE-UP ON CORRECTIONS The Truth about Polly Klaas Richard Allen Davis was a dangerous, violent felon. He was sentenced to life in prison in 1976 for kidnaping and other violent crimes. His criminal record was littered with instance after instance of predatory behavior. The paroling authority in the State of California knew this. His disregard for human life and safety, even while in prison, was a profound reminder of the need to keep this individual isolated from the community as long as possible. While in prison, the parole board reviewed his case six times, and six times the parole board rejected any possibility of release. But the forces of change were at work in California. Politicians pledged to be “tough on crime.” The obvious answer—“Abolish parole.” And they got their wish. The requirement of earning the approval of the parole board before even a dangerous offender could be released was abolished. New standard sentences mandated automatic release after service of a set portion of the sentence. Offenders already incarcerated came under the provisions of the new law. Release dates were churned out by the prison system’s computers for thousands of prisoners then in custody. When the computers had done their job, there was no turning back. Richard Allen Davis had already served the amount of prison time that the new law and its mandatory release provisions demanded.... On the night of June 27, 1993, Richard Allen Davis walked out of prison, a free man. Less than four months later, in the safe darkness of a girlhood slumber party, Richard Allen Davis... kidnaped and brutally murdered a little girl. Her name was Polly Klaas. No one can say with certainty all that would have happened to Richard Allen Davis if parole had not been abolished in California. But there is overwhelming evidence that if the parole board had still been in control of release, Richard Allen Davis would have been in prison the night that Polly Klaas was murdered. Source: American Probation and Parole Association, Abolishing Parole: Why the Emperor Has No Clothes (Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association, 1995), p. 2. &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   TRANSITION FROM CONFINEMENT TO COMMUNIT Y 319 Parole Boards Parole selection in most states is administered by a parole board (or commission) parole board (or commission): a appointed by the governor (which may be subject to confirmation by the state administrative legislature). Given the relatively small size of most paroling authorities, tremendous body appointed by discretionary power is concentrated in very few hands. (In fact, throughout the the governor which has authority to grant entire country, there are only slightly more than 200 full-time parole board and/or revoke parole. members.)11 Much of the concern surrounding parole has centered on how that power has been used. In the past, it was not uncommon for appointments to become a reward for political service to the successful gubernatorial candidate. As a result, the integrity of the parole process has, at times, been compromised when parole commissioners have been suspected or accused of corruption—awarding parole on the basis of political, personal, and/or financial motivations. To reduce the potential for political involvement, recommendations of the President’s Crime Commission in 1967 called for appointments based solely on merit, with qualifications including “broad academic backgrounds, especially in the behavioral sciences.”12 Yet, decades later, parole boards in most states are still being cited for making appointments according to political patronage, without relevant background or educational requirements.13 One study found that, in 29 states, “there were no professional qualifications, defined by statute, for parole board membership.”14 Even among the remaining 21 jurisdictions, statutes establishing qualifications may be written in “very general terms,” thus giving the governor rather “wide latitude and generous discretion.”15 The result has been a system of “patronage appointments” that have seldom produced parole boards with “deep expertise in the behavioral sciences” or with the credentials that would give us confidence in their professionalism.16 As one analysis concluded, this lack of professional competency has been a “skeleton in the closet” of paroling authorities.17 Moreover, unlike sentencing judges, parole board members are not required to make their decisions on the basis of specific rules, explain their decisions on the record, or subject their findings to appellate review. SE LEC TION PROC E DU R ES LEARNING GOALS When an inmate is eligible for discretionary release, the prison Do you know: or institutional treatment staff generally prepare a pre-parole 8. what due process protections are involved progress report for the board’s review.18 This report usually in parole decision-making? includes such information as: 9. on what basis parole boards make selection decisions? a summary of the inmate’s case history (including prior record, presentence investigation report, classification results, and the like); the institutional programs in which the offender has participated; &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   320 CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS evidence of adjustment during confinement (particularly any disciplinary action taken); a proposed plan for postrelease transition (such as employment and residence); other documents relevant to behavioral predictions (such as a psychological profile); a recommendation by the institutional staff for or against parole, along with supporting reasons. Due Process Considerations Due process procedures surrounding parole hearings have undergone changes over the years. Surprisingly, however, these modifications have not been a result of court intervention. Quite the contrary, courts have been reluctant to interfere in what they have traditionally viewed as the administrative decision-making function of parole boards. The courts have not recognized that inmates have a constitutional right to parole. Nor have they established due process requirements in the parole selection process. For example, in one particular case (Menechino v. Oswald),19 an inmate challenged his parole denial on the basis that he should have been entitled to counsel, the right to cross-examine and produce witnesses, notice concerning the information being reviewed, and specific grounds for the denial. The court ruled that these due process rights did not apply to parole hearings, under the rationale that: 1. denying parole did not alter the status of the inmate (i.e., the inmate did not possess something that was being lost); and 2. the parole board’s interests in rehabilitation and readjustment were not contrary to those of the inmate (i.e., the board was not in an adversarial position with regard to the inmate). Nevertheless, although not legally required, most parole hearings today do allow the inmate to be represented by an attorney and to introduce witnesses. The proceedings are generally recorded in written transcripts, with the inmate advised in writing of the final decision (although, again, this is not constitutionally required).20 Recommendations of the American Correctional Association further call for consistently applied written criteria on which to base decisions, along with informing those denied of both their future hearing date and recommendations for improving their prospects at that time.21 Selection Criteria The popular perception of parole boards may be that they make every effort to select inmates who have good potential for early release. But that is not exactly how &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   TRANSITION FROM CONFINEMENT TO COMMUNIT Y 321 the system operates. This does not mean that parole boards do not take their mission seriously or that they are overly lenient. But, given the candidates they are faced with assessing, their function is often limited to screening out the worst risks, rather than selecting the best. Despite boards having access to literally volumes of records, reports, data, interview transcripts, and other information concerning the offender, determining parole eligibility has ultimately been a product of the individual judgments of parole board members. Factors deemed important by any single member might include anything from cleanliness to church attendance. Some members refuse to parole anyone who steadfastly maintains innocence despite having been convicted. Others base decisions on rehabilitative considerations—reviewing the inmate’s outlook, self-improvement, change in work habits, and similar indicators of capacity to adapt to society. Some place heavy emphasis on victim impact statements and anticipated public reaction if the offender is paroled. Still others will reluctantly support releasing a high-risk offender nearing sentence expiration, using the rationale that it is preferable to be released under supervision than unconditionally. In the absence of solid, tangible evidence, parole boards have acted largely on faith in the inmate’s intentions and capacity to “make good.” In short, all of these varied decision-making criteria reflect the individual preferences, values, beliefs, and biases of parole board members. Given this extensive discretion, combined with concerns about the political independence and professional qualifications of those entrusted with it, it is not surprising that the parole selection process has been subject to complaints and controversy. Decision-making Criticisms Needless to say, inmates denied parole have often been dissatisfied with what they consider arbitrary and inequitable features of the process. Particularly when inmates are not personally involved in parole decision-making, it is difficult to appreciate how an anonymous group of people can fairly determine an unknown inmate’s destiny. Even those who have an opportunity to present their case through a personal interview are sent out of the room while discussions of the case take place (being recalled only to hear the ultimate decision and a summary of the reasons for it). This protects the confidentiality of individual members’ actions. But it does not enable the candidate to hear objective discussions of the case, evaluations of strengths and weaknesses, or guidance in terms of how to modify behavior in order to improve subsequent chances for successful consideration. Without such insights, it is unlikely that those denied parole understand the basis for the decision or attach any sense of justice to it. Parole boards are also subject to manipulation by clever inmates. For example, some prisoners initially fake illiteracy, reasoning that, when they later appear to be doing extremely well educationally, they will have tricked the parole board into &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   322 CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS “believing they had worked hard to make a positive change in their lives.”22 Nor are criticisms of parole limited to the inmate population. Friction between prison wardens and parole boards can be generated because of differences in viewpoints. Like the candidates themselves, prison officials may wonder why some were paroled whereas others were not. On the other hand, parole boards may view some of those supported by institutional staff as being the “warden’s pets” or advocated for release in order to manage the facility better. In essence, no matter what the board’s decision, it is unsatisfactory to someone. Impact of the Justice Model LEARNING GOALS Beyond inmate discontent and staff disagreement, however, it Do you know: has been ordinary citizens who often express the most vocal 10. the differences between conditional dissatisfaction with parole. For it is not the long-term successes and unconditional release? but the legendary failures that capture public attention. As 11. how a commutation differs from a a result of a few notorious cases, public opinion has had pardon? a substantial impact on stimulating change toward the 12. what good time and gain time are? determinate sentencing of the justice model. In retrospect, it is perhaps surprising (but not illogical) to discover that it was actually inmates who originally advocated determinate sentences—to avoid being coerced into rehabilitation and to better assure that those convicted of similar offenses received similar prison terms. As one inmate phrased the frustration of his fellow prisoners, “Don’t give us steak and eggs.... [F]ree us from the tyranny of the indeterminate sentence!”23 But the complaints of inmates about involuntary treatment or sentencing inequities might well have fallen on deaf ears had the public been satisfied with the existing system. To many observers, however, by the late 1970s and early 1980s the system simply did not appear to be working: The unspecified length of indeterminate sentences created strong suspicion that potential law violators were not being deterred by the certainty of punishment. High rates of recidivism provided evidence that criminals were apparently not being rehabilitated. The likelihood of early release on parole generated concern that offenders were not paying their “just deserts” to society. Parole itself was termed a tragic failure and a cruel hypocrisy. It was viewed as deceiving both the inmate looking for help and the public looking for protection,24 providing neither security to the law-abiding nor fair treatment to law violators.25 The premise that parole safeguards society by keeping criminals in prison until they are ready for release was dismissed as nonsense.26 Although the criminal justice system can never be free of failures, parole was charged with providing more than its share of them. As a result, an increasingly conservative society—lacking &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   TRANSITION FROM CONFINEMENT TO COMMUNIT Y 323 trust in rehabilitation and fearful of rising crime rates—called for fixed, determinate sentences with a more objective method of establishing release dates (preferably upon completion of full sentences). Yet, as the next “Close-up on Corrections” reveals, abolishing parole does not necessarily improve public safety. CLOSE-UP ON CORRECTIONS Which of These Alternatives Makes You Feel Safer? Scenario 1: Parole as Part of Responsible Sentencing A prisoner, convicted of assault upon his wife, received a sentence of 7 years that included eligibility for parole after service of 3 years in prison.... The board deemed a minimum of 5 years in prison as appropriate. Concerned that the wife might still be endangered if the prisoner were to be released, the board ordered polygraph testing of the offender and interviewed fellow inmates about threats made in their presence.... In addition, the board invited the wife to a confidential interview so that they could hear directly from her about her concerns. Convinced that the wife was still at considerable risk, the board continued the prisoner in custody, and indicated that they would not consider release until he had completed an anger management program, identified a residence in a completely different part of the state from his wife, and agreed that he would accept a “no contact” condition if parole were to be granted at a later date. Because the wife indicated that his episodes of violence usually occurred while the offender was drinking alcohol, the board also required alcohol screening and treatment as a condition of parole. In all, the offender served 6 years in prison, was released under strict conditions designed to protect the wife, and completed his sentence in the community without incident. Scenario 2: The Impact of Abolishing Parole This same prisoner has been convicted of assault in the same state. However, the state has now abolished parole in order to be “tougher” on crime. As the result of a plea, the offender has... pled guilty to simple assault, an offense that allows the judge to impose a sentence of 4 years. With good time credits, he will serve 24 months in prison before he is released. He has boasted many times to his cellmates that he will make his wife “pay” when he gets home, but no one ever learns of these threats. Indeed, he has even made threatening phone calls and sent letters to his wife, but she does not know where to turn. She never appeared in court for fear of angering her husband, and does not know the name of the judge in the case, who, in any event, has rotated off the criminal bench.... Unaware that her husband was to be released, she was home the day he arrived from prison. Her husband is drinking heavily again, and has instigated several arguments that have resulted in further injury to her and her children. [Based on an actual case.] Source: American Probation and Parole Association, Abolishing Parole: Why the Emperor Has No Clothes (Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association, 1995), p. 15. Conditional versus Unconditional Release With the transition from the medical model to the justice model, the method by which inmates are released from confinement has changed, although not necessarily &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   324 CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS in the manner anticipated. Ever since the first indeterminate sentencing legislation was enacted more than 125 years ago, inmates have been released from correctional institutions either: conditionally: with continued freedom dependent upon adhering to the requirements established by the paroling authority; or unconditionally: with no conditions attached, because the offender had served the full sentence, been pardoned, had the sentence commuted, or received some other form of legal modification. Beyond the simple expiration of the sentence, unconditional release can occur as a result of clemency extended by the executive branch of government (i.e., the governor of a state or the president of the United States, although parole boards in some states executive have this power as well). Executive clemency ordinarily takes the form of a: clemency: granting an offender mercy by Commutation. The sentence is reduced, such as when “time served” is substituted for the governor of a state or the president a longer original sentence. However, a commutation does not necessarily lead to of the U.S. through a release—as, for example, when life imprisonment is substituted for a death sentence. pardon or sentence commutation. Pardon. The offender’s conviction is forgiven. While pardons do not erase the criminal record, they do restore the rights of citizenship. Originally designed to undo miscarriages of justice (e.g., when a person was wrongfully convicted), pardons are often unconditional. But conditional pardons can be issued which are dependent upon subsequent performance of the person being pardoned. Most significantly, pardons reinstate the civil rights of convicted offenders—such as the ability to hold an elected or appointed political office, as illustrated in the next “Close-up on Corrections,” which describes the case of an ex-offender being considered by the governor of Massachusetts for a judicial appointment. CLOSE-UP ON CORRECTIONS Judging the Value of Redemption Swirling through the halls of Boston’s juvenile court, lawyer Rick Dyer glad-hands everyone.... He stops to huddle with a group that includes a probation officer and a social worker. They are discussing Dyer’s client, a troubled 16-year-old.... Dyer has won a promise that the boy will receive trauma therapy.... “He’s always fighting for the kids,” says the probation officer. It’s no wonder. Nearly 50 years ago, Dyer was such a kid. At ten, he began sniffing glue, then moved up to alcohol and heroin. His rap sheet details more than ten years of felony convictions.... Yet today Dyer is a respected member of the bar.... He has been sober for three decades. Now a growing number of influential Bostonians are urging the governor of Massachusetts to make Dyer a judge. They argue that appointing him to the bench would send a powerful message of hope, forgiveness, and redemption. If appointed, Dyer would likely be the first judge in U.S. history to bring with him not only a record of drug abuse, but also a personal understanding of what it’s like to be homeless, on welfare, and behind bars. “There is a lot to &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   TRANSITION FROM CONFINEMENT TO COMMUNIT Y 325 be said for having people in the system who have lived the life and come out on the other side of it,” says former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, who in 1983 granted Dyer a full pardon, clearing the way for him to become a member of the bar. Source: Linda Himelstein, “Judging the Value of Redemption,” Parade (June 27, 2010), p. 14. Corrections can maintain supervisory authority only over those offenders who are conditionally released. Conditional release is similar to the situation of probationers conditional release: releasing an inmate who face the imposition of a suspended sentence for failure to abide by the under certain conditions of probation. Likewise, parolees face the possibility of returning to conditions, violation of which can prison to complete their original term if parole is revoked for failure to comply with reactivate the the conditions attached. Those receiving unconditional release, however, are no unserved portion of longer under any legal authority of the correctional system. the sentence. Parole Trends Today The movement toward determinate sentencing presumably was designed to achieve certainty in punishment—with fixed, flat terms replacing flexible ranges. One might therefore assume that more full sentences would be served, more unconditional releases would occur, and parole populations would decline. Nothing could be further from reality. Despite the intent of the justice model, inmates continue to be released from prison before serving their full potential terms. The average time served by those released from state prisons is still only about half of their original sentence.27 Nor are unconditional releases replacing conditional supervision. Most of those coming out of prison are still being released under some form of conditional supervision in the community. (See Exhibit 11.2.) Nor is the number of people on E X H I B I T 11. 2 Methods of release from adult correctional agencies. Source: Timothy A. Hughes, Doris J. Wilson, and Allen J. Beck, “Trends in State Parole, 1990–2000,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, October, 2001), p. 4. &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   326 CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS parole diminishing. Quite the contrary. The parole population has reached a record high of over 800,000.28 What can account for these discrepancies? As was described in earlier chapters, the major element that public policy changes failed to take into account when shifting to determinate sentencing was prison space. Under the justice model, more offenders have been more likely to be sentenced to at least some time in a correctional institution. Yet sufficient funding has not been available to accommodate them through new construction or gain time: time deducted from an expansion of existing facilities. original sentence, The primary method for dealing with this escalating inmate population has become according to a formula established the awarding of “gain time” or “good time.” These terms are widely used by legislative action. interchangeably. But, technically, gain time refers to time that is automatically deducted by law, based on the length of the sentence, the length of time served, and/ good time (also called “incentive” or the seriousness of the offense. For example, some states credit an increasing or “meritorious” number of days per month the longer a person remains incarcerated. Under such a time): sentence system, an inmate could earn five days each month during the first year of reductions authorized by state statute that imprisonment, six days per month during the next year, and so on. On the other can be earned for hand, good time (also called “incentive” or “meritorious” time) is earned for proper conduct and/ or program proper institutional conduct. In some jurisdictions, it can also be awarded for participation. participation in certain treatment, training, educational, or work programs. Mandatory versus Discretionary Release LEARNING GOALS If the primary intent of the justice model was to increase Do you know: the severity of sentencing, its goal will not be realized until 13. how mandatory and discretionary institutional crowding is eliminated. For example, one study parole differ? found that inmates released in nonparole states actually 14. how objective prediction instruments served seven months less, on average, than those with similar have changed parole decision-making? characteristics who were released in states using discretionary parole.29 If, however, the major intent was to achieve certainty in sentencing, the justice model’s mission is closer to accomplishment. That is not meant to imply that the full sentence imposed by the court is the one that will be served. But, after crediting inmates with time deductions, it is a straightforward mathematical calculation to determine one’s earliest possible release date. Assuming that the prisoner does nothing while confined to jeopardize time credits, release is virtually automatic at that point. Thus, in states with determinate sentencing, inmates now become eligible for mandatory what is known as mandatory supervised release (or mandatory parole) when supervised release: they have served their original sentence minus any gain-time or good-time credits the conditional release of offenders to accrued. In most states, this means that, although the inmate must be legally community supervision released at that point, the state can require continued supervision in the community when they have served at least their minimum until such time as the full length of the sentence would have been served. In that sentence, minus time respect, there is more than some truth to the observation that new language has credits. simply been introduced for ongoing practices—with “supervised release” replacing &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   TRANSITION FROM CONFINEMENT TO COMMUNIT Y 327 “parole,” but very little actually changing with regard to the parole officer’s supervisory role.30 Another indicator that meaningful change may not have actually occurred is the earning of good time for program participation—a practice that bears close resemblance to basing parole decisions on treatment progress. Mandatory supervised release is essentially a form of what has been described earlier as conditional release. The ex-offender is subject to conditions which, if violated, could result in reincarceration to serve out the remainder of the sentence (i.e., that portion which was relieved by time credits). It is therefore not the postrelease supervisory function of parole that has changed with the justice model. Nor is that unfortunate, since replacing conditional with unconditional releases could create far greater public safety hazards. What has been fundamentally altered is how release decisions are made. As the term mandatory supervised release or mandatory parole implies, more inmates are now coming out of prison because the statutory authority to confine them has expired. In other words, they have served at least their minimum sentence, minus time credits. It is this mandated element that distinguishes it from the traditional form of discretionary parole. Once gain-time or good-time credits have been deducted from the original sentence, release becomes a compulsory result of mathematical calculations, as opposed to a discretionary decision of parole boards. In the mid-1970s, nearly three out of four persons discharged from prison (about 72 percent) were released on the basis of parole board decisions.31 But, more recently, discretionary parole has been accounting for only about one-third of prison releases (a percentage which has been dropping through much of the past decade). 32 As illustrated in Exhibit 11.3, at the same time that discretionary releases have been decreasing, mandatory releases have been increasing. E X H I B I T 11. 3 Trends in state prison release methods. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, “Reentry Trends in the U.S.: Releases from State Prison,” available at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/ content/reentry/releases.cfm &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   328 CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS Parole Implications Despite the significance of this change, few of those in free society fully understand it. The scenario in the next “Close-up on Corrections” provides a vivid example of how such misconceptions can fuel public anger. It is easy to see how the public has become confused. Obviously, the trend over recent years has been toward less discretionary and more mandatory supervised releases. But that does not mean that parole board decision-making has been completely abolished. The majority of states still have various forms of indeterminate sentencing. And, even in states with determinate sentencing, parole boards must continue to address those inmates sentenced earlier under indeterminate statutes. CLOSE-UP ON CORRECTIONS Let’s Get It Straight—Who’s Doing the Releasing? All too frequently, the media fail to understand and clearly distinguish between basic concepts.... As a result, the public does not get an accurate story. Few reporters understand the difference between... discretionary release and mandatory release, or the function of earned time or gained time and its effect in radically altering a sentence structure. This example provides a valid illustration. A California man who had raped and severed the arms of his victim was widely reported to have been on parole release after serving only a portion of his sentence. The public voiced understandable outrage at the thought that parole board members would consider early release for such an individual. In fact, the inmate was not released as a matter of discretion, but because the law mandated it. Virtually no media reports pointed out that important aspect of the story. Source: John J. Curran, Jr., “A Priority for Parole: Agencies Must Reach Out,” in American Correctional Association, Correctional Issues: Probation and Parole (Alexandria, VA: American Correctional Association, 1990), pp. 34–35. While the releasing authority of parole boards has been declining steadily, it has not been completely destroyed. It has, however, been subject to much greater accountability—“parole has been called on to be more responsive to the competing concerns of offenders, victims, and the public.”33 Consequently, parole discretion also has been subject to much greater control. Not only are paroling authorities more restricted in terms of which inmates can be selected for release, but today objective parole they also function under more structured release decision-making guidelines. decision-making: the use of instruments that structure parole Structured Decision-making board discretion by replacing the The trend toward structuring the discretion of parole boards toward more objective subjective decisions with objective risk parole decision-making reflects much of the same reasoning as the sentencing prediction formulas. guidelines and objective classification procedures discussed in Chapter 2. In other &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   TRANSITION FROM CONFINEMENT TO COMMUNIT Y 329 words, it is designed to replace the subjectivity of personal decisions with the objectivity of formulas that predict risk on the basis of empirical research. The search for valid instruments to identify what types of offenders represent the best risks for parole began well before our current infatuation with the capabilities of computers. As early as the 1920s, rudimentary forms of parole prediction tables began to appear. During the 1960s and 1970s, as corrections assumed a more legalistic direction guided by constitutional issues, increasing emphasis was placed on due process considerations, definable standards, and defensible procedures. Parole was no exception. By the late 1970s, for example, a number of states had moved to parole contracting, whereby a target date is determined which becomes the parole release date if all provisions are met by the inmate. These contracts set specific goals in such areas as education, training, counseling, and institutional behavior. By the 1980s, most states had adopted various forms of written guidelines governing the granting of parole. 34 Some of these documents are essentially lists of criteria that parole board members are implicitly supposed to take into account in making release decisions. Others are much more explicit statistical tables that assign specific weights to various factors, with the total score determining the candidate’s prognosis for success or failure on parole. All are designed to base the granting of parole on more objective criteria. However, with the movement toward less discretionary parole and more mandatory supervised release, such instruments today are more likely used to determine postrelease risk factors so that the releasee is assigned to the proper level of supervision. One of the most popular statistical risk prediction tables has been the salient factor score, originally pioneered by the U.S. Parole Commission in the 1970s. Under this system, scores of varying weights are assigned to six factors pertaining to the offender’s background (shown in Exhibit 11.4). As that chart indicates, better risks are reflected by high scores (e.g., those who are older or who have no prior convictions). Low scores, on the other hand, reflect greater risk of subsequent violations. While many states have relied upon salient factor score sheets in the past, the use of such generic decision-making guidelines has declined today. Even in the few states that do still use them, the risk assessment score tends to function only in an advisory capacity. At least in part, this is because they primarily measure “static criminal history items” (such as age, gender, and prior record)—none of which can be changed. At the same time, they overlook more dynamic factors related to the offender’s criminogenic needs (such as interpersonal relationships, personality characteristics, and social achievement)—all of which are subject to change. 35 One of the newer instruments that does include both static and dynamic factors, the level of service inventory—revised (LSI-R),36 is becoming an increasingly popular tool for making release decisions as well as determining postrelease treatment priorities, service provision, and level of supervision imposed. Of course, mitigating or aggravating factors that have a bearing on the case are not reflected in the mechanical calculations of statistical scores. As with sentencing &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   330 CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS E X H I B I T 11. 4 Salient factor score sheet. Note: For purposes of the salient factor score, an instance of criminal behavior resulting in a judicial determination of guilt or an admission of guilt before a judicial body shall be treated as a conviction, even if a conviction is not formally entered. guidelines, structured parole guidelines do not eliminate discretion in the decision- making process. Much as with sentencing guidelines, the intent is to enable some flexibility within a standardized framework. That is because even the most sophisticated statistical techniques cannot fully substitute for human judgment. While objective instruments can provide valuable tools to guide human decision- making, they cannot replace it. Nor can any process, no matter how sophisticated, perfectly predict the future. &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   TRANSITION FROM CONFINEMENT TO COMMUNIT Y 331 P OST R E LE A S E SU PE RVI SIO N LEARNING GOALS In addition to more closely structuring decision-making, Do you know: objective guidelines have also been used to determine the level 15. how the supervisory functions of parole of supervision needed by those reentering the community. and probation officers differ? Again, this is not unlike another practice discussed earlier— 16. what transitional services assist the classification of probation caseloads. We have already seen offenders preparing to return to how classifying probationers according to the level of risk they society? pose enables staff to allocate scarce resources more appropriately 17. how today’s reentry population differs and manage heavy workloads more efficiently. In much the from previous releasees? same manner, objective prediction instruments can serve similar functions for parole officers. In fact, the supervisory responsibilities of parole staff are in many respects quite similar to those of probation officers. Their clients, however, are not necessarily similar. Parolees are generally more difficult to supervise than probationers. Whereas probationers have been considered sufficiently hopeful to avoid being sent to prison, parolees have been incarcerated as poor risks for probation. In addition, they have adapted to institutional life. Many have learned to acquiesce to authority on a superficial basis while maintaining a behavior pattern that is basically unchanged. Others have learned to manipulate their way through prison life. All were ineligible for probation (or failures from it) and often negatively conditioned by their prison experience. While that does not make them unsalvageable, having been removed for some time from the community not only increases the difficulty of their supervision but also subjects them to additional personal stresses not encountered by probationers. Despite their indifferent external demeanor, freedom can have an overwhelmingly emotional impact on those institutionalized. Successful planning for parole must therefore begin well before an inmate exits the prison gate, although that is not often the case. In fact, underfunding has made parole in many jurisdictions “more of a legal status than a systematic process of reintegrating returning prisoners.”37 Moreover, the greater numbers of inmates being released in recent years has placed an increasing strain on the system, “challenging parole authorities to provide more services with fewer resources.”38 Prerelease Planning From their perspective, ex-offenders have already been rejected for years by the mainstream of society. When they encounter continued rejection upon reentering a hostile environment, feelings of inadequacy and failure are reinforced. It may not take long for even the most hopeful parolee to find the optimism of “starting over” overcome by the realism of being stigmatized. The ultimate effect is often a self- fulfilling prophecy, as those society expects to fail do exactly that. In the words of one ex-offender: &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   332 CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS They walk through the gate in the big brick wall, which confined them for months or years or lifetimes, only to hit the wall of solid self-righteousness that so many people erect... perhaps in an attempt to feel that they are somehow morally superior to all of us ordinary folk out here breathing common air. 39 At the same time, just as the community must be prepared to accept ex-offenders, they, in turn, must be prepared to be realistic about what they will confront and what adjustments they must make upon release. Those who have adapted well to years of institutional life face the formidable challenge of reorienting to an entirely different lifestyle in free society. Few can successfully make that adjustment alone. As one inmate put it, “after decades of living in the abnormal subculture behind fences, it’s no wonder that so few succeed upon release. Prisons condition prisoners to fail.”40 For an inside view of the fear and apprehensions of someone being released, read the next “Close-up on Corrections,” which puts you in the place of a long-term inmate leaving prison (and also illustrates the unrevealing “social veneer” described previously). As that scenario points out, in the final analysis, it is in everyone’s best interests to extend the help needed to prevent releasees from becoming readmissions. Because the reception extended to ex-offenders is often more antagonistic than accepting, however, it is important for the parolee to locate supportive peer associations. Relying on such groups can do much to make the transition from confinement less frightening. While it may be difficult to imagine a “hardened ex-con” fearing anything—much less the expectation of imminent freedom, as CLOSE-UP ON CORRECTIONS Hesitant to Go Home Next Wednesday you will be walking out those front gates as a free man. This last time around cost you ten years. It was your third hitch. You have spent thirty of the last forty years of your life behind bars. Sixty-two years of life’s ups and downs have softened your disposition. You have no excuses left; you feel that the time you got was coming to you. In fact, the last hitch was one you purposely set up. You had been released on a cold gray morning in February. There was no one on the outside waiting for you; your friends were all in prison. You had been divorced for over fifteen years and your former wife had remarried. Your parents were dead, and your two sisters had given up on you long ago. Besides, there were too many decisions to make in the free world. You were not used to all of that freedom; it was frightening. No one cared about you like they did inside the joint. You got a job as a busboy in a restaurant, but the hustle and bustle was too much, and besides, no one wanted to make friends with an old ex-con. Finally you had all you could take, so you stole all the money from the cash register one night during a lull in the business. You did not spend any of it, but instead went home, had a beer, and waited. In less than two hours, the police arrived at your apartment. Once the restaurant manager realized you and the money were missing, it was not long before you were arrested. You refused an attorney and &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   TRANSITION FROM CONFINEMENT TO COMMUNIT Y 333 told the judge that you would keep committing crimes until he sent you back. He reluctantly sentenced you to ten years. You passed up parole each time it came around. So here you are again. You have been measured for your new suit of street clothes and your one hundred fifty dollar check for transitional expenses has been processed. The labor department representative has arranged for you to have a stock-clerk job in a small grocery store in a nearby town. Your social worker has also arranged for you to stay in a small apartment near where you will work. You remember your last prerelease counseling session with her and how she offered all the words of encouragement a young, energetic, and well-meaning counselor could muster. You just smiled and nodded your approval. What good would it have done to burst her idealistic bubble? She could never understand how frightening the outside world had come to be for you. All of her friends lived in the free world; none of yours did. You would like to make it on the outside if you could, but the odds are against you. And besides, it’s just too lonely out there. You know you ought to feel happy about leaving prison, but the truth is, you are miserable about it. You would like to be able to make it on the outside, but deep down inside, you feel you are doomed before you start. Source: Michael Braswell, Tyler Fletcher, and Larry Miller, Human Relations and Corrections, Third Edition (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1990), pp. 83–84. © 1990, 1985 by Waveland Press. Reprinted by permission of Waveland Press, Inc. we saw in the last scenario, even with official assistance, parole can be a very lonely experience. In large part, that is because those behind bars have largely lost contact with the outside world. As one inmate described the postrelease survival potential of a 45-year-old inmate who had done 25 years: You still have the mindset of a 20-year-old. You see that time is running again, and it’s running fast, not standing still like it did in prison, where time never moved. The shock, the stress, the strain of the fast pace can get you down and you can end up returning to what you know best... what you’re most comfortable with.41 In the upcoming “Close-up on Corrections,” an inmate’s plea to advice columnist Ann Landers is further evidence that the prospect of getting out can create more panic than the possibility of staying in. Particularly in terms of the critical role of self-help groups, note her response. CLOSE-UP ON CORRECTIONS Prerelease Panic Dear Ann: I am coming to the end of a five-year prison sentence in a state correctional facility. I need to know how to deal with society after my release. I’m not sure about how I should conduct myself around people I haven’t seen in five years. What will be expected of me?... When I apply for a job and am asked if I have a criminal record, what should I say? I’m afraid if I mention this I won’t be hired. On the other hand, if I lie and they find out the truth, I will probably be fired. &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   334 CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS It seems that there should be some kind of counseling in prison to prepare people like me for the outside. Some inmates I know who have been in prison for a long time are actually afraid to leave because they don’t think they’ll fit in out there. Almost 90 percent of these prisoners end up coming back, mainly because they were not prepared to face the outside world. If you can be of any help to people like me, it will be greatly appreciated by the thousands of inmates who are struggling with the same problem. F.C., Cranston, R.I. You are not alone. I’ve dealt with this problem in my column before. There is a self-help group for ex-offenders that can answer your questions and give you more guidance on living on the outside. It can also refer you to local groups around the country that offer job training and placement, as well as counseling. For more information, send a self-addressed, stamped envelope to The Fortune Society, 39 W. 19th St., New York, N.Y. 10011. Its members do an excellent job. Source: Ann Landers, “Support Group Can Help Ex-prisoners,” published in newspapers throughout the country on February 7, 1992. Permission granted by Ann Landers and Creators Syndicate. Preparing the Offender As that inmate’s letter indicates, not all institutions offer prerelease guidance before discharge.42 But some correctional facilities do make an effort to prepare offenders for what to expect and how to cope upon release. In fact, much of the success of reintegration depends on how well the inmate is prepared prior to release. This can be accomplished through a variety of prerelease counseling and planning programs, as well as through work release or by phasing out through prerelease centers.43 In some cases, prisoners are phased out through gradual reduction of their security classification. In this manner, the last months of the sentence are served in a minimum-security facility or prerelease center—where there are fewer rules governing behavior, less staff monitoring, and greater trust placed in the inmate. The goal is to enable those about to be released to take more personal responsibility for decision-making, as well as encourage them to replace external staff control with internal self-control. Inmates in such community reentry centers may spend daytime hours at work assignments or educational programs in the community. Thus they are able to become better accustomed to the freedoms of outside life. They can “practice” living in society while remaining under supervision during their unoccupied time. Beyond these general functions, additional assistance is provided in terms of plans to obtain housing, employment, transportation, and other essentials for surviving on the outside. Not all correctional agencies have a prerelease center or sufficient bedspace in it to meet demands. But arrangements can be made for work release without transferring inmates from their assigned institution. Particularly where preparation &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   TRANSITION FROM CONFINEMENT TO COMMUNIT Y 335 for parole is viewed as a long-term process, opportunities for work release may be provided well in advance of anticipated departure. They enable inmates to be employed on salary in the community during the day, while returning to the facility at night. Work release is an alternative to total confinement that has a number of advantages—among them, enabling offenders to help support their families and reducing the financial burden on taxpayers. Perhaps most important, it enhances the inmate’s job skills, confidence, sense of responsibility, and ties with the community. Not everyone, however, is equally enthusiastic about it, nor is work release without risks. Despite its advantages, not all correctional systems have adopted work-release programs. Even where it is available, the number participating is extremely small, representing only 2 percent of the total prison population.44 Undoubtedly, there have been isolated problems with inmates absconding or returning under the influence of alcohol or drugs. But, for the most part, it would appear that the benefits of reintegrating the offender into society through work release outweigh the drawbacks. Except for the extremely few prisoners sentenced to death or confined to life without parole, virtually everyone is subject to potential release at some time. With those who are eligible, it would seem logical that the time to take the risks associated with work release is while they are still subject to continued custody. Today’s Reentry Population Offenders being released today are often returning to the community “with contagious diseases, chronic medical and mental health problems, and histories of substance abuse.”45 Beyond their own personal problems, they are also ill prepared to assume such family roles as financial provider, caregiver, or partner in a relationship.46 Not only are today’s releasees ill prepared for their return to free society, but they also differ from their predecessors in a number of ways. On average, current parolees have served a longer prison sentence under harsher conditions with less availability of treatment, training, and educational programs. They are more likely to be gang members, mentally ill, and alcohol or drug abusers. They are more disconnected from family and friends, as well as less educated and employable.47 In the year before their scheduled release, only about 1 in 10 had participated in formal prerelease initiatives designed to help them transition to the community.48 Obviously, none of this points toward a good prognosis for reintegration. To the extent that shorter sentences—combined with education, training, treatment, and prerelease initiatives—increase the potential for success on parole, these are foreboding facts. At all levels of the correctional conglomerate, budget cuts have curtailed programs that provide offenders with the skills necessary to prepare for reintegration into society.49 As shown in Exhibit 11.5, the percentage of &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   336 CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS E X H I B I T 11. 5 Percentage of inmates participating in educational or vocational programs. Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Behind Bars II: Substance Abuse and America’s Prison Population (New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University, February, 2010), p. 52, available at http:// www.casacolumbia.org/articlefiles/575-report2010behindbars2.pdf. the inmate population participating in vocational or educational programs is dropping in virtually all correctional facilities—local, state, and federal. Yet some 650,000 people are released every year from our prisons,50 and even this number pales in comparison to the 7 million being released annually from American jails.51 Thus, at the same time that corrections is required to manage the reentry process for increasing numbers of offenders, the very programs upon which successful reentry is built have been scaled back or eliminated as a result of shifting priorities driven by budget cuts.52 As described in the next “Close-up,” needs are far outpacing the ability to respond. In essence, although more people are being released after experiencing severe conditions that potentially “threaten greater psychological distress and long-term dysfunction,” they are returning to communities that are “already disadvantaged by a badly frayed ‘safety net,”’ unable to provide needed supportive resources.53 CLOSE-UP ON CORRECTIONS Reentry Realities versus Resources People are released from prison and jail with complex needs... Three out of four have a substance abuse problem, but formal treatment prior to release is received by only 10 percent coming from state prisons and 3 percent from local jails. Two out of three lack a high school diploma, and 40 percent have neither a diploma nor a GED. Only about 1 out of 3 gets vocational training at any point during incarceration. Over half (55 percent) have children under the age of 18. About 20 percent are released from prison without community supervision.... and they return to communities that are particularly ill-equipped to help them succeed... In Connecticut, almost half of the prison and jail population is from just a handful of neigh- borhoods in five cities, which have the most concentrated levels of poverty and nonwhite populations in the state. &RUUHFWLRQVLQGE   TRANSITION FROM CONFINEMENT TO COMMUNIT Y 337 In Chicago, only 24