From the California Policy Research Center Brief Series, June 2000
More prisoners are leaving California prisons after completing their sentences than ever before: 124,697 in
1998, up from 50,832 in 1988, and 14,620 in 1978. If one includes the nearly 6,000 California Youth Authority parolees,
close to 131,000 felons will leave prison this year (in addition to the more than 200,000 inmates leaving California
county jails). In the last five years alone, the California parole population quadrupled and is now growing at
a faster annual rate than the state's prison population (7.8% vs. 4.8%). Of the 500,000 parolees who leave U.S.
prisons annually, 17.2%—or nearly 1 in 5—live in California.
The tremendous growth of California's prison population has given some residents a sense of safety and security,
but they seem surprisingly unconcerned—or are possibly unaware—that more than 90% of those who enter prisons eventually
return to the community, and most do so in less than two years. In any given year, about 40% of California's prisoners
are released. Thus, more prisoners in results in more prisoners out.
Of course, inmates have always been released from prison, and corrections officials have struggled with how to
facilitate successful transitions. California's current situation, however, is decidedly different. The sheer number
of those released dwarfs anything in state history, the needs of parolees appear more serious, and the corrections
system has few rehabilitation programs.
THE CHANGING NATURE OF CALIFORNIA PAROLE RELEASE AND SUPERVISION
Determinate Sentencing Means Automatic Release
The nature of parole has changed dramatically in California since 1977, when most inmates served open-ended, indeterminate,
prison terms—10 years to life, for example—and an appointed board had wide discretion to release them from prison
or keep them behind bars. Offenders were paroled only if they could show that they were rehabilitated and had ties
to the community, such as family or a job. This discretionary system made release from prison a privilege to be
earned.
Under California's Determinate Sentencing Law, offenders today receive fixed terms when initially sentenced and
are automatically released at the end of their prison term, minus credits for good behavior. Most offenders are
then subject to one-to-three years of parole supervision.
Parolees generally are required to be released to their last county of legal residence before commitment to prison.
Sixty percent of all parolees return to Southern California. In 1998, Los Angeles County alone received 38,189
parolees (or 30% of all state felons paroled), even though its residents comprise only 12% of the state population.
Offenders convicted of certain very serious crimes, such as murder or kidnap for ransom, continue to receive indeterminate
sentences and are subject to parole board review, but these offenders comprise less than 10% of the total California
prison population.
More Parolees Have Unmet Needs
The change from an indeterminate to a determinate sentencing system, coupled with a tougher public stance toward
criminals, resulted in tremendous growth of California's prison population. As of June 1999, the California Department
of Corrections (CDC) housed 162,064 inmates, the largest prison population in the nation, representing a quadrupling
of the prison population since 1980. To accommodate inmate growth, California has engaged in the largest prison
building program in the country and CDC's operating budget has grown significantly, from 2% of the state general
fund in 1981–1982 to 7.2% in 1999–2000.
The increased funding has supported operating costs—bricks, mortar, staff, and food—rather than programs. Fewer
prison programs, combined with a lack of incentives for inmates to participate in them to gain release, means that
fewer California inmates now leaving prison have participated in programs to address work, education, and substance
abuse. Although lawmakers have begun to expand in-prison substance-abuse programs, these remain minimal and most
inmates do little more than serve time before they are released. According to the CDC, barely half of the state's
prisoners have a work assignment or are in a program at any given time, and fewer than a quarter receive education
or vocational training while incarcerated. Of the approximately 142,000 inmates released from prison in 1998, a
mere 7,200 (about 5%) completed a reentry program prior to release.
Parole experts believe the reduction in prison programs comes at a time when inmates need more rather than less
help. Nearly one in five California inmates has been diagnosed with a psychiatric problem or mental illness (Little
Hoover Commission, 1998). Many have long histories of criminal or gang involvement, and few marketable skills.
Parolee Supervision Replaces Services
The number of parole agents has not kept pace with caseload growth, and few resources are available to assist successful
reentry. Eighty percent of all parolees are supervised on regular (rather than intensive) caseloads, and usually
have fewer than two 15-minute face-to-face contacts with the parole officer each month. Parole supervision costs
about $2,200 per parolee per year, compared to $22,000 per prisoner per year. Budget constraints simply do not
permit much monitoring, and the CDC recently acknowledged that they lost track of about one-fifth of the 127,000
parolees they were supervising in 1999. Nationally, about 9% of all parolees have absconded supervision.
Most Parolees Return to Prison
Not surprisingly, most parolees fail to find gainful employment and integrate successfully into a community, and
70% of the state's paroled felons reoffend within 18 months—the highest recidivism rate in the nation (Petersilia,
1999). Parole violators now exceed new commitments from the courts, a major change in California corrections. In
1978, parole violators represented approximately 8% of the total felons admitted to prison. By 1988, this number
had increased to 47%, and by 1998 parole violators constituted nearly three-fourths (71%) of all admissions to
state prisons (Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, 1999). In Texas, the state whose prison population is most
comparable to California's, the figure is 23%.
RESPONDING TO PAROLE RECIDIVISM
The topic of parole and prisoner reentry is emerging as one of the key issues that California has to grapple with
as we enter the 21st century. Governor Gray Davis has called for hiring 100 more parole officers to increase surveillance
of high-risk offenders and to locate those who have absconded. He is also trying to increase services to parolees
with mental illnesses. California's Parole Division is revising its classification system to better identify high-risk
parolees. Legislators recently introduced the California Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, which
would divert more drug offenders to local treatment and custody, and parolees who violate only drug-related conditions
of parole would generally be placed in a county-established drug-treatment program rather than prison (Legislative
Analyst's Office, 2000).
These initiatives are useful, but more serious nonpartisan analysis and debate are needed to address the problem.
There is a dearth of data on parole. In California, we know the number of parole entrants and exits, but little
about the specific needs of parolees or the kinds of services and supervision they receive before or after imprisonment.
More importantly, such initiatives fail to consider parole and prisoner reentry within a broader social context.
Incarceration affects not only those incarcerated, but also families and significant others—and ultimately the
vitality of the community. There is reason to be concerned about the impact that large numbers of parolees will
have on health care, welfare and employment, governance, and homelessness.
THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF PAROLEE FAILURES
Debates about increased imprisonment have focused principally on reduction of crime rates. Very little is known
about the causal role of imprisonment and release on other social conditions. However, there is relevant research
that pertains to the conditions that foster crime.
Community Cohesion and Social Disorganization
Research has long documented how the social organization of neighborhoods—particularly poverty, ethnic composition,
and residential stability—influences crime (for a review, see Sampson and Lauritsen, 1994). Researchers also have
written about "tipping points," when communities are no longer able to exert stable influences over the
behavior of residents. The structure of a community starts to change, disorder and incivilities increase, out-migration
follows, and crime and violence increase (Wilson, 1987).
The growing influence of prison gangs on inner-city California communities is also of concern (see Moore and Pinderhuges,
1993). Moore notes that most California prisons are violent and dangerous, and new inmates search for protection
and connections. Many find both in gangs. Inevitably, these gang loyalties are exported to the neighborhoods, and
the revolving door of prison strengthens street-gang ties. One researcher commented, "In California . . .
I don't think the gangs would continue existing as they are without the prison scene" (cited in Moore, 1996:
73). Moore also found that state-raised youth, whose adolescence involved frequent trips to California juvenile
detention facilities, were most strongly committed to the crime-oriented gangs. She warns that as more youth are
incarcerated earlier in their criminal careers, a larger number will come out of prison with intensely hostile
attitudes, and will exert increasingly strong negative influences on neighborhoods.
Work and Economic Well-Being
The majority of inmates leave prison without savings, without immediate entitlement to unemployment benefits, and
with poor prospects for employment. Survey data indicate that one year after being released, as many as 60% of
former inmates are not employed in the regular labor market (Watts and Nightingale, 1996). Moreover, in recent
years California has barred parolees from employment in law, real estate, medicine, nursing, physical therapy,
and education, which has reduced the number of occupations in which parolees can work (Petersilia, 1999).
Unemployment directly influences crime, as well as two other social pathologies closely related to both violence
and property crime: drug and alcohol abuse. Those who study life-course trajectories of criminal careers show that
losing a job can lead to substance abuse, which in turn is related to child and family violence (National Research
Council, 1993).
The unemployment of a large number of ex-felons also has broader economic implications. Western and Beckett (1999)
argue that one of the reasons America's unemployment statistics look so good in comparison to those of other industrial
democracies is that 1.6 million mainly low-skilled workers—precisely the group unlikely to find work in a high-tech
economy—are incarcerated, and are thus not considered part of the labor force. If they were included, unemployment
statistics would be 2% higher than the current unemployment level we report (Western and Beckett, 1999).
Democratic Participation and Political Alienation
California, like all but three states, disqualifies inmates from voting when they are in prison or on parole. They
can reapply only when they're off parole, but it is a cumbersome process and most never do. Not surprisingly, given
their disproportionate representation in the criminal justice system, large shares of disenfranchised felons are
African American or Latino.
After a study conducted in 1998, Mauer (1999) concluded that an estimated 3.9 million Americans, or one in 50 adults,
were either currently or permanently disenfranchised from voting as a result of a felony conviction. Of these,
1.4 million were African American males, representing 13% of all U.S. black men. Maurer estimated that in 1998,
8.7% of California's African American males were unable to vote. The political implications of these statistics
are troubling, as the voting blocs of large segments of the American populace shrivel.
Denying large segments of the minority population the right to vote will likely result in greater alienation and
disillusionment with the political process (Rose and Clear, 1998), further eroding feelings of engagement and making
those who feel disenfranchised less willing to participate in local activities. This will have a significant impact
on law enforcement, since our most effective crime-fighting tools (e.g., community policing and restorative justice)
require community collaboration and active engagement.
Family Stabilization and Childhood Development
California has the largest number of female prisoners in the U.S., with nearly 12,000 incarcerated during 1999.
Approximately 80% of U.S. female inmates are mothers with, on average, two dependent children, two-thirds of whom
are under 10 years of age (Snell, 1994). More than half of incarcerated men are parents of children under 18 years
of age (Hagan and Dinovitzer, 1999). Despite separation from their children, the vast majority of imprisoned parents
expect to resume their parenting role and reside with their children after their release, although it is uncertain
how many actually do.
Studies have shown that children of incarcerated and released parents often suffer confusion, sadness, and social
stigma, and that these feelings often result in school-related difficulties, low self-esteem, aggressive behavior,
and general emotional dysfunction. If the parents are negative role models, children fail to develop positive attitudes
about work and responsibility. Children of incarcerated parents are five times more likely to serve time in prison
than children whose parents have not been incarcerated (Beck, Gilliard, and Greenfeld, 1993).
Physical and Mental Health
At the end of 1996, 2.3% of all state and federal prison inmates were known to be infected with the human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV), a rate six times higher than that of the general U.S. population (Hammet, Harmon, and Marsha, 1999).
Public health experts believe that the rate is higher now, and HIV will continue to escalate within prisons and
eventually make its way to the community as we incarcerate more drug offenders, many of whom engage in intravenous
drug use, share needles, or trade sex for drugs.
Inmates with mental illnesses are also being imprisoned at higher rates and ultimately are released. In 1998, the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) estimated that 16% of jail or prison inmates reported a mental condition or
an overnight stay in a mental hospital (BJS, 1999). Few public mental health services are available in the community,
and studies in Los Angeles show that even when they are available, people who need treatment often fail to get
it because they fear institutionalization, deny that they are mentally ill, or distrust the mental health system
(Schoeni and Koegel, 1998). People with untreated mental illnesses may engage in criminal behaviors that eventually
result in arrest and conviction.
A more subtle point about mental illness and prisons that often goes unnoticed is that mental illnesses, particularly
chronic anxiety and depression, may be caused by incarceration. Psychologists believe that incarceration often
breeds "global rage," an impulsive and explosive anger so great that a minor incident can trigger an
uncontrolled response.
Housing and Homelessness
The latest census counts approximately 230,000 homeless people in America, 49,000 (21%) of whom live in California.
After exhausting family resources, many ex-offenders wind up homeless. Researchers estimate that nearly 20% of
all homeless adults have criminal records (Rossi, 1989).
While homelessness certainly affects homeless individuals and the rest of their families, transients, panhandlers,
and vagrants also increase citizen fear, and that fear ultimately contributes to increased crime and violence.
Wilson and Kelling (1982) originally labeled this phenomenon "broken windows." They theorize that increased
crime often results from a cycle of fear-induced behavior. For example, when law-abiding citizens begin to avoid
using streets filled with transients, loitering youth, graffiti, and other signs of property damage, they are effectively
yielding control of the streets to those who are not frightened by such signs of urban decay. As "broken windows"
spread—e.g., vandalism, graffiti, homelessness, and panhandling—businesses and law-abiding citizens move from the
area, disorder escalates, and serious crime often results.
Concluding Thoughts
Parole release and supervision are complicated matters that deserve greater attention from policymakers and the
public. More than 125,000 adult parolees are now returned to California communities each year. Most have been released
to parole systems that provide few services and impose conditions that almost guarantee failure. Monitoring systems
are getting better, and public tolerance for failure on parole is decreasing. The result is that many more parolees
are being returned to prison, putting pressure on states to build more facilities—which, in turn, limits money
available for rehabilitation programs that might have helped parolees while they were in the community. This cycle
means that parolees will continue to receive fewer services to help them address their underlying problems, ensuring
that recidivism rates remain high and public support for parole remains low.
This situation represents a formidable challenge to those concerned with crime and punishment. The public will
not support community-based punishments until they have been shown to work, yet they won't have an opportunity
to work without sufficient funding and research on ways to increase their effectiveness. California spending on
parole services was cut 44% in 1997, resulting in a near-doubling of parole caseloads (the ratio is now 82 parolees
to 1 parole officer). When caseloads increase services decline, and even parolees who are motivated to change have
little opportunity to do so. Job training programs are cut, and parolees often remain at the end of long waiting
lists for community-based drug and alcohol treatment. This is particularly unfortunate because most inmates have
a strong desire to succeed when they are first released. If we fail to take advantage of this motivation, we miss
one of the few potential points to successfully intervene in offenders' lives.
By 2005, the state is predicted to have a record 175,000 felons on parole—double the 1990 population. If current
parole revocation trends continue, three out of four people entering California prisons each year will have failed
the terms of their parole. Given the increasing human and financial costs associated with prison—and the potential
threats parolees pose to victims, families, children, and communities as a consequence of incarceration—investing
in effective reentry programs may well be one of the best investments we make.
*******
References
Beck, Allen, Darrell Gilliard, and Lawrence Greenfeld. 1993. Survey of State Prison Inmates 1991.Washington, D.C.:
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1999. Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers. Washington, D.C.:
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Hagan, John, and Ronit Dinovitzer. 1999. Collateral Consequences of Imprisonment for Children, Communities, and
Prisoners. In Prisons, edited by M. Tonry and J. Petersilia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hammett, Theodore M., Patricia Harmon, and Laura M. Maruschak. 1999. 1996–1997 Update: HIV/AIDS, STDs, and TB in
Correctional Facilities. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Koegel, Paul, and Audrey Burnam. 1992. Getting Nowhere: Homeless People, Aimless Policy. In Urban Policy: Policy
Choices for Los Angeles and the Nation, edited by J. B. Steinberg, D. W. Lyon and M. E. Vaiana. Santa Monica, Calif.:
RAND.
Legislative Analyst's Office. 2000. Analysis of the California 2000–1 Budget: Department of Corrections. Sacramento:
Legislative Analyst's Office.
Little Hoover Commission. 1998. Beyond Bars: Correctional Reforms to Lower Prison Costs and Reduce Crimes. Sacramento,
Calif.
Mauer, Marc. 1999. The Race to Incarcerate. New York: The New Press.
Moore, Joan. 1996. Bearing the Burden: How Incarceration Weakens Inner-City Communities. Paper read at The Unintended
Consequences of Incarceration, Conference at the Vera Institute of Justice, New York City.
Moore, Joan, and Raquel Pinderhughes. 1993. In the Barrios: Latinos and the Underclass Debate. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
National Research Council. 1993. Losing Generations: Adolescents in High-Risk Settings. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy of Sciences.
Petersilia, Joan. 1999. Parole and Prisoner Reentry in the United States. In Prisons, edited by M. Tonry and J.
Petersilia. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
Rose, Dina R., and Todd R. Clear. 1998. Incarceration, Social Capital, and Crime: Implications for Social Disorganization
Theory. Criminology 36 (3): 441–480.
Sampson, Robert J., and Janet Lauritsen. 1994. Violent Victimization and Offending: Individual, Situational, and
Community-Level Risk Factors. In Understanding and Preventing Violence: Social Influences, edited by A. J. Reiss
and J. A. Roth. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
Snell, Tracy L. 1994. Women in Prison. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Western, Bruce, and Katherine Beckett. 1999. How Unregulated is the U.S. Labor Market? The Penal System as a Labor
Market Institution. American Journal of Sociology 104:1030–160.
Wilson, James Q., and George L. Kelling. 1982. Broken Windows. Atlantic Monthly March: 29–38.
Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Youth and Adult Correctional Agency. 1999. California Prisoners and Parolees 1997 & 1998. Sacramento: Department
of Corrections.
Joan Petersilia is professor of criminology, law and society in the School of Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine.