Good in theory

• Date: 01 November 2011
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00776.x
• Published date: 01 November 2011
• Author: Beth M. Huebner

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

MONTANA EARLY RELEASE PROGRAM

Good in theory

The challenges of early release decisions

Beth M. Huebner

University of Missouri, St. Louis

The rise in incarceration during the past two decades has been well documented

(Pew Center on the States, 2008). However, serious fiscal constraints in public

spending have necessitated change in the status quo of corrections. Many scholars

have argued that this is an opportune time to consider how limited funding could be used

in creative ways to manage strategically the carceral population while reducing correctional

budgets (Mauer, 2011). This topic is particularly poignant as the overcrowded California

penal system was recently declared unconstitutional Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and

unusual punishmentunder the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment

(Brown v. Plata, 2011).

Unfortunately, few empirical studies have been conducted that evaluate the efficacy

of “back end” programs designed to reduce prison populations. The work of Wright and

Rosky (2011, this issue), in their analysis of the Montana early release program, is a welcome

addition to the policy literature. In 2002, Montana implemented an early release program

in response to prison crowding and fiscal strain. Like most programs of this type, Montana

selected low-risk offenders, defined as offenders sentenced to a 5-year maximum sentence,

for early release.

Using propensity score matching, Wright and Rosky (2011) compared recidivism

outcomes for individuals in a traditional and early release cohort. When reconvic-

tion was used as the dependent measure, the failure rate was similar across groups.

However, individuals in the early release group were significantly more likely to re-

turn to prison for a technical violation, and their time to failure was substantially

shorter. Wright and Rosky contend that the early release policy may contradict the

original fiscal goals by increasing returns to prison, thereby escalating the costs of

institutionalization.

Direct correspondence to Beth M. Huebner, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, University of

Missouri—St. Louis, 533 Lucas Hall, St. Louis, MO 63121–4499 (e-mail: huebnerb@umsl.edu).

DOI:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00776.x C2011 American Society of Criminology 873

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 10 rIssue 4