Another Look At the Effectiveness of Parole Supervision
| DOI | 10.1177/002242788201900209 |
| Date | 01 July 1982 |
| Author | Timothy J. Flanagan,Michael R. Gottfredson,Susan D. Mitchel-Herzfeld |
| Published date | 01 July 1982 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
277
ANOTHER
LOOK
AT
THE
EFFECTIVENESS
OF
PAROLE
SUPERVISION
MICHAEL
R.
GOTTFREDSON
SUSAN
D.
MITCHELL-HERZFELD
TIMOTHY
J.
FLANAGAN
This
is
a
quasi-experimental
study
of
the
effectiveness
of
postrelease
super-
vision
in
reducing
recidivism
among
criminal
offenders.
Five-year
follow-up
information
on
three
groups
of
inmates
released
from
prisons
in
a
northeastern
state
was
examined.
The
three
offender
groups
were
inmates
released
on
parole,
on
conditional
release,
and
by
mandatory
expiration
of
sentence.
The
major
findings
of
the
study
were
the
following:
(1)
The
nature
of
the
criterion
variable
used
to
assess
success/failure
in
the
community
will
affect
the
substantive
con-
clusions
of
community
follow-up
research;
the
manner
in
which
technical
vio-
lations
of
parole
and
conditional
release
are
handled
is
especially
important;
(2)
the
effect
of
supervision
is
dependent
to
a
certain
extent
on
the
character-
istics
of
offenders;
and
(3)
overall,
the
effects
of
postrelease
supervision
on
re-
cidivism
reduction
are
small.
Implications
for
future
follow-up
research
efforts
are
discussed.
Like
most
components
of
the
criminal
justice
system,
parole
re-
lease
serves
many
theoretical
masters.
It
is
seen
as
symptomatic
of
le-
niency
(to
those
who
view
parole
release
as
a
shortening
of
the
term
of
imprisonment)
and
of
harshness
(to
those
who
see
parole
as
an
ex-
tension
of
state
control
over
the
lives
of
those
released
from
imprison-
ment).
It
is
heralded
as
a
control
on
the
abuses
of
sentencing
and
in-
dicted
as
the
cause
of
further
abuses;
it
protects
society
and
generates
crime;
it
provides
needed
services
to
its
clients
and
it
intrudes
unneces-
sarily
into
their
lives;
procedures
used
to
revoke
the
liberty
parole
grants
are
inefficient
and
hamper
effective
law
enforcement,
yet
due
process
safeguards
provided
are
not
commensurate
with
the
gravity
of
any
liberty
deprivation.
Parole
is
the
cause
of
much
unrest
within
our
prisons,
yet
its
existence
serves
to
deter
prison
misconduct.
It
is
one
reason
that
our
prisons
are
full,
yet
without
this
important
release
valve
MICHAEL
R.
GOTTFREDSON:
Associate
Professor,
Department
of
Sociolo-
gy,
University
of
Illinois
at
Urbana.
SUSAN
D.
MITCHELL-HERZFELD:
Research
Specialist,
New
York
State
Department
of
Social
Services,
Albany.
TIMOTHY
J.
FLANAGAN:
Director,
Criminal
Justice
Research
Center,
Albany,
New
York.
This
is
a
revised
version
of
a
paper
presented
at
the
annual
meeting
of
the
Ameri-
can
Society
of
Criminology,
Washington,
D.C.,
November
1981.
278
they
would
be
overflowing.
Both
its
abolition
and
its
expansion
are
continuously,
ardently,
urged.
1
Because
parole
seemingly
serves
so
many
diverse,
and
often
con-
tradictory,
functions,
the
broad
question
of
whether
parole
&dquo;works&dquo;
is
neither
meaningful
nor
heuristically
useful.
In
addition
to
the
complex-
ity
of
the
putative
functions
of
parole,
tremendous
variation
exists
in
the
paroling
processes
of
the
many
jurisdictions
that
employ
it,
and
these
processes
are
constantly
changing.
Furthermore,
the
search
for
facts
about
parole
must
contend
with
the
world
of
values
within
which
parole
is
embedded
and
with
a
limited
opportunity
to
engage
in
the
kinds
of
experimentation
that
engender
scientific
confidence.
Many
statements
about
the
functions
of
parole
are
essentially
em-
pirical
assertions
and
are,
at
least
in
principle,
objects
of
testing.
The
tests
must
of
course
acknowledge
the
limited
set
of
possible
functions
that
can
be
examined
at
any one
time
and
must
recognize
as
well
the
peculiar
features
of
the
system
under
examination.
This
paper
presents
a
study
of
the
effectiveness
of
supervised
release-an
admittedly
lim-
ited
aspect
of
the
paroling
process,
although
one
that
has
generated
a
good
deal
of
commentary
and
a
few
research
studies.
PRIOR
RESEARCH
Little
of
the
existing
research
on
the
effectiveness
of
parole
super-
vision
meets
all
the
minimum
standards
for
scientific
confidence.
How-
ever,
there
does
exist
a
small
body
of
recent,
good
research
on
the
ques-
tion
of
parole
supervision
effectiveness.2
2
One
of
the
most
important
studies
of
parole
effectiveness
was
re-
cently
reported
by
Sacks
and
Logan
(1979,
1980).
When
a
number
of
minor
(Class
D)
felons
who
otherwise
would
have
been
released
to
pa-
role
supervision
were
released
by
court
order
without
supervision,
Sacks
and
Logan
were
able
to
make
comparisons
with
a
group
of
similar
class
felons
released
one
year
earlier
but
to
parole
supervision.
One-
and
three-year
follow-up
periods
were
studied
with
a
variety
of
outcome
criteria
ranging
from
subsequent
convictions
and
seriousness
of
offenses
to
the
time
of
parole
failure.
Statistical
controls
for
differences
in
risk
of
failure
between
the
groups
were
applied,
and
a
number
of
hypotheses
to
1.
These
assertions
are
readily
found
in
the
literature
about
parole
written
during
the
last
fifty
years
or
so.
Representative
examples
include
Stanley,
1976;
Citizens’
In-
quiry,
1975;
von
Hirsch
and
Hanrahan,
1979;
and
Bruce
et
al.,
1928.
2.
Throughout
this
paper
we
refer
to
the
effectiveness of
"parole
supervision."
By
this
we
mean
any
consequence,
in
terms
of
recidivism,
of
being
on
parole
release
in
contrast
to
being
released
from
prison
not
on
parole
As
is
widely
known,
the
parole
function
has
been
broadly
characterized
as
including
both
supervision
and
treatment
purposes.
In
the
most
common
form
of
research
design,
including
our
own,
which
is
an
examination
of
recidivism
rates,
it
is
difficult
to
distinguish
empirically
the
effect,
if
any,
on
recidivism
reduction
of
these
functions
(but
see
text).
To continue reading
Request your trial