The Waiving of Parole Consideration by Inmates With Mental Illness and Recidivism Outcomes

DOI10.1177/0093854820972162
AuthorMichael Ostermann,Jason Matejkowski
Date01 August 2021
Published date01 August 2021
Subject MatterArticles
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2021, Vol. 48, No. 8, August 2021, 1052 –1071.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820972162
Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
© 2020 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
1052
THE WAIVING OF PAROLE CONSIDERATION BY
INMATES WITH MENTAL ILLNESS AND
RECIDIVISM OUTCOMES
JASON MATEJKOWSKI
University of Kansas
MICHAEL OSTERMANN
Rutgers University
For many adults leaving prison, parole supervision can provide the support necessary for successful adjustment to community
life. Those leaving prison who have a mental illness (MI) may benefit particularly from such services. However, many people
who are incarcerated waive their opportunity for parole and choose instead to “max out” their sentences. This study explores
whether decision-making and community risk predictors differ between people who are incarcerated with (n = 1,575) and
without (n = 20,220) MI and who choose to voluntarily max out their sentence (i.e., waive parole), who max out involuntarily
through denial of parole, and who are released to parole supervision. We found the presence of an MI was associated with
the decision to forgo parole, but not recidivism. Those who maxed out their sentence (regardless of voluntariness of decision)
had increased likelihood of recidivating. Implications for parole policy, practice, and research are discussed.
Keywords: parole; decision-making; mental illness; recidivism; reentry
People with mental illness (MI) leaving prison encounter many challenges to community
reentry. Parole supervision was established, in part, to support recently released indi-
viduals in their adjustment to life outside of prison by assisting them in overcoming these
challenges and remaining crime free in the community. However, many people who are
incarcerated, when faced with the decision of whether to be considered for early release
through community supervision or to forgo parole and “max out” their sentence, choose the
latter. This may be the result of various motivations including a desire by the individual to
eschew undesirable and burdensome community supervision requirements, a belief that a
decision by the parole board is unlikely to result in early release, or an expectation to fail
while on parole and to return to prison (Best et al., 2014). These beliefs may be more com-
mon among people with MI who are considering parole, leading them to waive their right
to parole at higher rates than those who do not have an MI, and to be rearrested more
quickly than those who are released to community supervision. However, the relationships
AUTHORS’ NOTE: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jason Matejkowski,
School of Social Welfare, University of Kansas, 201 Twente Hall, 1545 Lilac Lane, Lawrence, KS 66045;
e-mail: jmate@ku.edu.
972162CJBXXX10.1177/0093854820972162Criminal Justice and BehaviorMatejkowski, Ostermann / Mental Illness and Waiving Parole
research-article2020
Matejkowski, Ostermann / MENTAL ILLNESS AND WAIVING PAROLE 1053
among MI, the decision to forgo parole, and recidivism have yet to be tested empirically.
This study tests the association between the presence of an MI and the decision to waive
consideration of early release from prison via parole. We then test whether this decision is
associated with recidivism. Findings could inform steps that can be taken to increase uptake
of parole supervision among formerly incarcerated people with MI, a population that can
likely benefit from increased community support through parole (Ostermann & Matejkowski,
2014).
BACKGROUND
At yearend 2016, approximately 20% of the 4.5 million people under community super-
vision in the United States were serving a term of parole (Kaeble, 2018). People in prison
may be released to parole supervision through either mandatory or discretionary parole.
Mandatory parole refers to split sentences that include a required period of incarceration
followed by automatic release to parole supervision for the remainder of the sentence.
Discretionary release to parole involves authorities (often a state parole board [SPB]) deter-
mining whether an individual is suitable for release to community supervision prior to serv-
ing the maximum term to which they were sentenced (Caplan, 2007).
BENEFITS OF PAROLE SUPERVISION
At its best, early release from incarceration to community supervision via parole can
serve as an incentive for rehabilitation and provides those recently released to the commu-
nity assistance and support necessary for successful adjustment to community life. The
incentives associated with the potential for early release through discretionary parole is
reflected in early research on parole release decision-making that indicated parole board
officials often considered efforts at rehabilitation and participation in correctional program-
ming as important indicators of readiness for parole (Carroll & Burke, 1990; Seiter &
Kadela, 2003). This consideration by the parole board translated into those incarcerated
seeking out involvement in rehabilitative programs along with an expectation that such
involvement would further their case for early release (West-Smith et al., 2000). However,
more recent research has suggested that parole boards are less concerned with behaviors
reflective of rehabilitative work, including treatment and program participation, and weigh
more heavily in their calculus of those behaviors that indicate potential criminal behavior
upon release, specifically institutional misconduct and criminal history (Caplan, 2007;
Matejkowski et al., 2010).
This heightened focus on problematic behaviors by parole boards likely discourages
people who are incarcerated with more extensive histories of crime and misconduct from
seeking early release via parole. Indeed, qualitative research indicates many may simply
waive consideration for parole due to the belief that the parole board will not grant early
release to those with an institutional record checkered with disciplinary infractions (Best
et al., 2014). Research comparing groups of people who are incarcerated who had either
voluntarily maxed out their sentence, involuntarily maxed out their sentence (through
repeated parole denials), or been released to parole found significantly lower average num-
bers of prior arrests, prior convictions, and prior violent offense convictions among parolees
compared with both max out groups, suggesting that criminal history may play a role in

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT