By Cory Fulmer, Kennedy Ann Yurt, Max Bauer, Rajya Matlapudi, and Sarah Haskell
The research we began on parole and probation primarily focused on three things: parole/probation population sizes, state budget expenditures on these programs, and the relationship between these things. While we managed to collect or calculate these data points for nearly every state, ultimately, the conclusions that can be drawn from them are limited by the sheer diversity of public reporting (or lack thereof) from state corrections departments. Because of this, we also looked into four states as “case studies” to explore the individual nature of the parole and probation systems.
The most problematic data to acquire was unquestionable accurate population numbers. Unlike incarcerated population statistics, which are concrete and published in basically every states’ annual reports, parolee and probationer populations were incredibly elusive. Since our Michigan data came straight for MDOC, we sought out state-level sources from other states for comparison’s sake. When nothing was available, we fell back on federal data. However, this creates a problem when it comes to analyzing the data as a whole because the numbers reported by federal sources like the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Institute of Corrections can be staggeringly larger than the ones reported by state sources (especially in the case of probation). For instance, our population numbers for Arkansas are from the NIC—possibly explaining why it ranked highest in the number of parolees per 100,000 residents (the chart above). Unfortunately, without better data, we cannot know for sure. But, based on the data we have, Michigan appears to have a rather low number of parolees in proportion to its total population (orange on the chart).
Note: Montana, Maryland, and Washington were left off the chart above because isolated parole population numbers were not available from those states—they reported “community supervision” populations that combine parole with probation.
Budget Analysis
Finding spending numbers proved similarly difficult, but we have more faith in their accuracy since they all came directly from state sources. However, this only goes for the annual expenditure data we collected. In almost every case, the data on expenditure per individual was calculated using the population data, introducing whatever error came with it into these numbers as well. For this reason, we advise caution when trying to analyze trends in this data as well. Regarding the annual expenditure data, the majority of issues arose as a result of states breaking down their budgets in vastly different manners. Some, like Michigan, had a defined subcategory of the corrections budget set aside for parole and probation. Some others had a defined amount set aside for parole, but not probation. A few states had no useful breakdowns at all. Ultimately, this resulted in a collection of accurate but not necessarily comparable budget expenditures. On the datasheet, many of these irregularities are marked in the notes or the sources. In regards to Michigan, it had a rather high expenditure, both overall (6th) and per individual (3rd, as shown to the left in orange). This fits with Michigan’s overall trend of spending exorbitant amounts on corrections, though Michigan’s expenditure per individual rank would drop significantly if divided among the much larger federal population numbers instead of MDOC’s reported ones.
Note: Montana is reported twice on the chart above because two vastly different budget expenditures were reported by their state government. Arkansas, Washington, Iowa, Alaska, and Connecticut were left off the chart above because no budget expenditures were found from them.
State Case Studies
As mentioned earlier, we performed more in-depth research into four specific states to serves as case studies on parole in different states. These can be compared against Michigan, which was already research thoroughly in our previous presentation. The states we chose were based largely on the Prison Policy Initiative’s grading system. We went with California, because it was large, ranked poorly, and had “abolished” parole; Texas, because it was large, ranked poorly, and retained parole; Wyoming, because it ranked highest of all the states; and Wisconsin, because it is similar in culture to Michigan, ranked poorly, and had “abolished” parole. Below are these reports.
Parole in California – Yurt
After the release of an offender from their sentence, in the state of California, the individual is either admitted to state-supervised parole or post-release community supervision (county-level). In addition, the offender is returned to their last legal residence before incarceration and this placement is left up to the discretion of the Division of Adult Parole Operations – alterations may occur on placement based on the circumstances of the offender. In regard to the California Penal Code, county-level supervision is preferred if the offender is non-serious and non-violent. This offender will no longer be under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) but instead will be remanded to the local law enforcement agency. On the other hand, if the offender is violent or of sex-offender status, they will be under state supervision. This more serious offender will be supervised by state parole and assigned a Parole Agent, under the jurisdiction of the CDCR. Once placed in supervision, the new parolee can be introduced to special conditions requested by the victim/victim’s family, served by the Office of Victim and Survivor Rights and Services. Being that the parolee committed a violent felony, they will be prohibited from being within a 35-mile radius of the victim’s residence and may not be able to contact the victim/victim’s family. One could argue California’s parole system is ineffective, according to statistics from 2019 addressed in a report by the state. It is understood that the rehabilitation of the CDCR was only successful in 39% of cases between 2017-2018. In addition, the CDCR acknowledged its extremely high recidivism rate, being that more than sixty-four percent of those released committed further crimes or violated parole, leading them back to the prison system within three years.
Parole in Texas – Yurt
Once an offender completes their sentence, the Board of Pardons and Paroles decides the eligibility of a release to parole after a hearing. However, in the state of Texas, most offenders are given a discretionary release for parole before the conclusion of their sentence with good conduct. This is possible for most convictions, excluding those without the possibility of parole, commissions of continuous sexual abuse of a minor, and death sentences. Parole in Texas can become possible after twenty-five percent of the sentence is served. Once the offender sustains parole, they are placed under community supervision with the law enforcement of Texas. To this, the parolee may not violate the conditions of their release. If violated, the parolee can be sent back to jail/prison. According to written testimony from 2016 by the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, less than twenty-two percent of those released from prison return within three years. This is a low recidivism rate compared to other states; thus, one may argue that the parole system in the state of Texas is successful. In this report, from 2010 through 2016, a twenty percent decline in yearly parole revocations was observed, as well.
Parole in Wyoming – Fulmer
Inmates in Wyoming are eligible for parole once they meet the requirements set by the Board and state laws. Most Wyoming inmates are given indeterminate sentences, which means they are given a minimum and a maximum sentence length. Both the minimum and maximum can be reduced via good time credits. Minimum sentences can be reduced by one-third and maximum sentences can be reduced by one-fourth with good time. The typical Wyoming inmate becomes eligible for parole “after serving two-thirds of the full minimum sentence.” (2013) The Board “has the authority [to] remove or withhold good time credits off the maximum sentence for inmates who violate institutional rules or refuse to participate in rehabilitative programs recommended by the Court, Department of Corrections, or the Board.” (2013) However, an inmate with a life sentence is not eligible for parole. The only way they can become eligible is if the Governor commutes their sentence(s) to “a term of years with a minimum and a maximum term, and they have served their minimum.” (2013) If an inmate tries the escape in any form, they are no longer eligible for parole. In addition, an inmate must provide a probation plan to ensure that they follow the rules of their parole if it is granted. As of December 31, 2018, Wyoming’s community corrections population under parole was 934, which was 0.8% lower than the national average at the time (211 per 100,000 vs. 247 per 100,000). In 2017, more than half of admissions to the Wyoming prison system were for technical probation or parole violations. In February of 2019, Governor Mark Gordon signed the Justice Reinvestment legislation, which includes House Enrolled Act (HEA) 15, Senate Enrolled Act (SEA) 19, and SEA 50 that are intended to reduce the number of repeat offenders and reduce costs associated with incarceration. The stated goal of the new legislation “is to decrease recidivism rates 25% by 2024 and avoid $18.1 million in costs associated with incarceration by reinvesting those funds into community-based health treatment for people who are on probation and parole.” (2019)
Parole in Wisconsin – Fulmer
Inmates in the Wisconsin prison system are eligible for parole consideration after meeting certain requirements. Those requirements include serving a sufficient time based on the crime committed, showed a positive adjustment to the prison, completed assessed programs, provided a workable parole plan (residence, employment, programming, etc.), and shows a decrease in risk to the public (based off of criminal records, prior probation and parole violations, security classification history, and if there are any unmet treatment or program’s needs). With these requirements met, the inmate can have their case reviewed, participate in an interview, and then be informed whether or not they will receive parole. A news report released by the Justice Lab at Columbia University has found that “Wisconsin has unusually high rates of community corrections supervision and reincarceration, adding considerably to the state’s prison populations and costing Wisconsin taxpayers millions annually.” (2019) Wisconsin’s parole supervision rate is “1.5 times higher than the national average (453 vs. 303 per 100,000 adults), which puts Wisconsin as the seventh-highest parole supervision rate nationally”. (2019) As for the length of stay of parole, in 2016 “the average length of stay for parole in Wisconsin was 1.7 times greater than the national average (38 months vs. 22 months). People who had previously been under community corrections supervision made up over half of the total number of adults incarcerated in Wisconsin state prisons at the end of 2017”. (2019) People incarcerated for a revocation without a new conviction made up over one-third (36%) of all prison admissions in Wisconsin in 2017. When people incarcerated on probation and parole “holds” are taken into account, this proportion increases to 54.5% of all prison admissions that year.
Conclusions
It is difficult to conclude this research as a whole due to the many issues detailed in our analysis above. However, the most useful ones we were able to find pertained to the differences between the states that retain discretionary parole (and by extension, indeterminate sentencing) and the sixteen that have abolished it (and switched to determinate sentencing). On average, states without discretionary parole spent $500 more per supervised individual than states with it. Additionally, states without discretionary parole have an average of about 140 parolees per 100,000 residents, whereas states with discretionary parole have an average of about 215. But most interestingly, states without discretionary parole have an average of 12 incarcerated prisoners to every 1 parolee while states with parole have an average of only 2 prisoners per parolee. This suggests that abolishing discretionary parole ends up keeping more people behind bars. However, all of these statistics should be tempered with the fact that they are merely trends and correlation is not causation. Still, based on this data, and research into the stances of various other organizations active in the field, we would posit that abolishing discretionary parole and switching to determinate sentencing does more harm than good.
Sources
California
- “California Departments of Corrections and Rehabilitation.” California State Auditor, Jan. 2019.
- Hayes, Joseph, and Justin Goss. “California’s Changing Parole Population.” Public Policy Institute of California, 14 Feb. 2018, www.ppic.org/publication/californias-changing parole-population/.
- Messinger, Sheldon L., et al. “The Foundations of Parole in California.” Law & Society Review, vol. 19, no. 1, 1985, pp. 69–106.
- “Sentencing, Incarceration & Parole of Offenders.” California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 18 Dec. 2019, www.cdcr.ca.gov/victim-services/sentencing/.
Texas
- “A Decision-Making Body.” Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles Home, 10 May 2021, www.tdcj.texas.gov/bpp/.
- “Board Rules.” Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles Rules, 2 Feb. 2017, www.tdcj.texas.gov/bpp/rules/rules.html.
- “Written Testimony, House Committee on Corrections.” Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2016.
Wisconsin
- “Wisconsin Parole Commission.” DOC Wisconsin Parole Commission, doc.wi.gov/Pages/AboutDOC/ParoleCommission.aspx.
- “High Rates of Parole Supervision and Reincarceration Continue in Wisconsin.” Columbia University, 22 Jan. 2019, wisdomwisconsin.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Press-Release.-Wisconsin-Community-Corrections-Story.pdf.
Wyoming
- “FAQ.” Wyoming Board of Parole, boardofparole.wyo.gov/faq.
- “Wyoming 2018.” National Institute of Corrections, 22 Sept. 2020, nicic.gov/state-statistics/2018/wyoming-2018.
- “Wyoming Passes Legislation to Reduce Recidivism and for Treatment Programs.” Just Criminal Law, Christina L. Williams, 26 Nov. 2019, www.justcriminallaw.com/criminal-charges-questions/2019/11/26/wyoming-passes-legislation-reduce-recidivism-pay-treatment-programs/.
