This study provides insight into the postrelease performance of all former inmates with available data who were released from a prison in New Jersey in 2006 (N = 12,187). Three indicators of recidivism are considered: (a) an arrest for a new crime, (b) a conviction for a new crime, and (c) a technical parole violation. Individuals are categorized into groups according to the release mechanism that they experienced: discretionary parole, mandatory parole, or unconditional release. Multivariate analyses utilize Cox proportional hazards survival tests. Results indicate that after approximately 3 years of follow-up time, those released to supervision were generally less involved in new crimes when compared with those who were released unconditionally. However, a high proportion of those who were paroled recidivated shortly after release, and the predicted probability that a former inmate would recidivate did not substantially differ between release groups in the presence of statistical controls.
AndrewsD. (1982). The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI): The first follow-up. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Carleton University.
2.
AndrewsD.BontaJ.HogeR. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
3.
AustinJ.HardymanP. L. (2004). The risks and needs of the returning prisoner population. Review of Policy Research, 21, 13-29.
4.
BalesW. D.BedardL. E.QuinnS. T.EnsleyD. T.HolleyG. P. (2005). Recidivism of public and private state prison inmates in Florida. Criminology and Public Policy, 4, 57-82.
5.
BeckA.ShipleyB. (1989). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1983. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
6.
BinswangerI. A.SternM. F.DeyoR. A.HeageryP. J.CheadleA.ElmoreJ. G.KoepsellT. D. (2007). Release from prison: A high risk of death for former inmates. New England Journal of Medicine, 356, 157-165.
7.
GendreauP.LittleT.GogginC. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works!Criminology, 34, 575-607.
8.
JacksonP. C. (1983). Some effects of parole supervision on recidivism. British Journal of Criminology, 23, 17-34.
9.
KohlR.HooverH. M.McDonaldS. M.SolomonA. L. (2008). Massachusetts recidivism study: A closer look at releases and returns to prison. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center Research Report.
10.
LanganP. A.LevinD. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
11.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J.HolsingerA. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs?Crime & Delinquency, 51, 1-17.
12.
LowenkampC. T.PealerJ.SmithP.LatessaE. J. (2006). Adhering to the risk and need principles: Does it matter for supervision-based programs?Federal Probation, 70, 3-8.
New Jersey Statutes Annotated. (2009). Title 2C: Code of criminal justice. St. Paul, MN: Thomas/Reuters, West Publishing Corporation.
15.
OstermannM. (2009). An analysis of New Jersey’s day reporting center and halfway back programs: Embracing the rehabilitative ideal through evidence based practices. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 139-153.
16.
OstermannM. (2010). Parole? Nope, not for me: Voluntarily maxing out of prison. Crime & Delinquency. Published online before print September 8, 2010. doi:10.1177/0011128710372194
17.
PetersiliaJ. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
PetersiliaJ.TurnerS. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. Crime and Justice, 17, 281-335.
19.
RosenfeldR.WallmanJ.FornangoR. J. (2005). The contribution of ex-prisoners to crime rates. In TravisJ.VisherC. (Eds.), Prisoner reentry and public safety in America (pp. 80-104). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
20.
SchlagerM.RobbinsK. (2008). Does parole work?—Revisited: Reframing the discussion of the impact of postprison supervision on offender outcome. The Prison Journal, 88, 234-251.
21.
SolomonA. L.KachnowskiV.BhatiA. (2005). Does parole work? Analyzing the impact of postprison supervision on rearrest outcomes. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.
22.
SpivakA. L.DamphousseK. R. (2006). Who returns to prison? A survival analysis of recidivism among adult offenders released in Oklahoma, 1985-2004. Justice Research and Policy, 8, 57-88.
23.
SpivakA. L.SharpS. F. (2008). Inmate recidivism as a measure of private prison performance. Crime & Delinquency, 54, 482-508.
24.
TravisJ. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
25.
TravisJ.VisherC. (2005). Introduction: Viewing public safety through the reentry lens. In TravisJ.VisherC. (Eds.), Prisoner reentry and crime in America (pp. 1-14). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
26.
UggenC. (2000). Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration model of age, employment, and recidivism. American Sociological Review, 67, 529-546.
27.
VeyseyB.LantermanJ. (2008). Serious and violent offender reentry initiative (SVORI) final report. Unpublished manuscript.
28.
WilsonW. A. (2005). Bad behavior or bad policy? An examination of Tennessee release cohorts, 1993-2001. Criminology and Public Policy, 4, 485-518.
29.
WilsonJ. A.DavisR. C. (2006). Good intentions meet hard realities: An evaluation of the Project Greenlight reentry program. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 303-338.
