Too early is too soon

• Author: Jeffrey W. Rosky,Kevin A. Wright
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00765.x
• Published date: 01 November 2011
• Date: 01 November 2011

RESEARCH ARTICLE

MONTANA EARLY RELEASE PROGRAM

Too early is too soon

Lessons from the Montana Department of Corrections Early

Release Program

Kevin A. Wright

Arizona State University

Jerey W.Rosky

University of Central Florida

In their seminal work, Reaffirming Rehabilitation, Cullenand Gilbert (1982: 176) issued

a warning that “in the face of teeming penitentiaries, alternative release procedures

could and undoubtedly will be evolved. Yet these adaptations are likely to be hastily

instituted and to create new inefficiencies and inequalities in the administration of justice.”

Nearly three decades later, their premonition has proved to be correct as state correctional

administrators have struggled in efforts to combat the “incompatible and powerful forces”

(Cullen, Wright, and Applegate, 1996: 70) of underfunding and overcrowding (see, e.g.,

Lane, 1986). Indeed, by year-end 2009, 19 states and the federal government had prison

systems operating at more than 100% of their highest inmate capacity with 27 operating at

more than 100% of their lowest capacity (West,Sabol, and Greenman, 2010).1Additionally,

the current economic crisis has led to significant, across-the-board cuts in the seemingly

untouchable sphere of state correctional budgets (Engel, Larivee, and Luedeman, 2009).

The task, then, is for researchers, policy makers, and practitioners to find ways to alleviate

these strains without compromising the goals of corrections or the safety of the general

public.

The authors thank Montana Department of Corrections Director Mike Ferriter and Chief Information Officer

John Daugherty for access to the data used in this study as well as Dewey Hall and Mark Johnson of the MT

DOC Statistics Unit for help with data management issues. The views and opinions expressed by the authors

do not necessarily represent those of the Montana Department of Corrections or its employees. Direct

correspondence to Kevin A. Wright, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, 411

N. Central Avenue, Suite 600, Phoenix, AZ 85004 (e-mail: kevin_wright@asu.edu).

1. The highest capacity is the sum of the maximum number of beds across three capacity measures (rated,

operational, and design), whereas the lowest capacity is the minimum of these three capacity measures

(see West et al., 2010).

DOI:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00765.x C2011 American Society of Criminology 881

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 10 rIssue 4

Research Article Montana Early Release Program

In general, three approaches have been taken to reduce the spatial and fiscal constraints

faced by the U.S. correctional system (Blumstein, 1988). The first, and perhaps most

straightforward, is to increase prison capacity (i.e., build our way out of the problem).

This approach was favored in the 1990s and is likely less of an option in a time of fiscal

uncertainty and increased prison populations. The second approach is to decrease prison

admissions through “front-end” solutions where offenders are diverted to sentences other

than prison (e.g., probation). The challenge in doing so is to develop a range of sentences

that leave judge, victim, and community satisfied while also avoiding “widening the net of

social control” (Tonry and Lynch, 1996). Finally, an increasingly used group of strategies

is that of “back-door” solutions—including modifications to parole release and good-time

policies, and the use of emergency-release mechanisms to reduce current populations. These

options can be implemented in a shorter time frame than front-door strategies and have the

added benefit to administrators of often occurring outside of public and judicial view.

Back-door strategies essentially reduce the amount of time served by offenders and thus

have historically been a controversial approach to reducing overcrowding. Austin (1986)

identified a “dark side” of early release in the form of potential financial and nonpecuniary

costs for victims of crimes committed by inmates released early. Furthermore,he noted that

these strategies provide an excessive amount of discretion to correctional administrators,

which subverts the principles of equity and certainty in sentencing by the court and

often leads to public outcry over leniency in punishment. Given that early release often

occurs behind closed doors, little is known about the extent to which these unintended

consequences outweigh the benefits of immediate population reduction. To be sure, despite

the increased popularity of these approaches, relatively few empirical assessments of early

release procedures have appeared in the criminological literature (cf. Austin, 1986; Joo,

Ekland-Olson, and Kelly, 1995).

Taken together, these concerns signal the need for a more rigorous examination of

the consequences of early release as a mechanism to reduce correctional populations. As

the state of California searches for ways to comply with a federal court order to release

more than 40,000 inmates by 2011 (Archibold, 2010), it is imperative that assessments of

existing release programs are made available to guide release policies properly. The purpose

of the current study is to take a step in this direction by evaluating an early release program

in Montana designed to mitigate the effects of a $9 million budget shortfall. Specifically,

we use frailty-adjusted Cox proportional hazard models to compare the reoffending rates

of an early release subgroup with that of more traditional releases. Although recidivism

is admittedly a limited and often debated measure of policy success, we believe that it is

critically important to the long-term goals of reducing prison populations and correctional

spending.2Tothat end, we conclude the article by providing a detailed discussion of possible

explanations for our findings and their policy implications with special attention given to

2. See, for example, the discussions by Maxwell (2005) and Lynch (2006).

882 Criminology & Public Policy