Michael Ostermann

An Analysis of New Jersey's Day Reporting Center and Halfway Back Programs: Embracing the Rehabilitative Ideal through Evidence Based Practices.

Over the past several years practitioners in the field of Criminal Justice have begun to reaffirm, recognize, and implement the tenets of the rehabilitative ideal within their daily operations. However, despite scholarly research showing that offender rehabilitation can have marked positive affects upon recidivism, many practitioners remain deleteriously entrenched within the “get tough” paradigm. One area of the criminal justice system where the rehabilitative ideal is particularly salient is the field of community corrections, notably parole. The New Jersey State Parole Board (NJSPB) has recently revamped and largely modernized the methods by which it conducts its day-to-day operations in order to reflect tenets which have been empirically shown to “work,” largely identified as best, or evidence based practices. As a result the NJSPB is currently conducting system-wide evaluations of its operations, including those of its service providers. Two of the major services provided to the NJSPB include Day Reporting Center and Halfway Back programs. These programs largely embrace best practices through assisting recalcitrant parolees in job placement, family, vocational and educational training, anger management, and substance abuse mediation. The current study employs a quasi-experimental design and serves as an inquiry into the relationship between recidivism and membership in these programs, parole with no programs, and maxing-out of prison with no supervision. Recidivism is analyzed according to three criteria: rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration. Multivariate results were garnered through logistic regression modeling and largely show that membership in NJSPB community programs have significant positive affects upon recidivism when compared to not being supervised, most notably when considering the failure criteria of rearrest.

How do Former Inmates Perform in the Community? A Survival Analysis of Rearrests, Reconvictions, and Technical Parole Violations

This study provides insight into the postrelease performance of all former inmates with available data who were released from a prison in New Jersey in 2006 (N = 12,187). Three indicators of recidivism are considered: (a) an arrest for a new crime, (b) a conviction for a new crime, and (c) a technical parole violation. Individuals are categorized into groups according to the release mechanism that they experienced: discretionary parole, mandatory parole, or unconditional release. Multivariate analyses utilize Cox proportional hazards survival tests. Results indicate that after approximately 3 years of follow-up time, those released to supervision were generally less involved in new crimes when compared with those who were released unconditionally. However, a high proportion of those who were paroled recidivated shortly after release, and the predicted probability that a former inmate would recidivate did not substantially differ between release groups in the presence of statistical controls.

Active Supervision and Its Impact Upon Parolee Recidivism Rates

Studies that compare recidivism rates between parolees and unconditionally released inmates typically attach these statuses upon release, and then follow these groups until they either fail or meet the censor date. However, this method of identifying former inmates as parolees does not comport with how parolees are conceptualized by the agencies that supervise them. Parole boards identify parolees as released inmates whom they actively supervise. This study explores the relative impact of this strategy of attaching the parole status compared with the traditional strategy used throughout the recidivism literature. I use 3 years of postrelease data from all prisoners released from 2005 to 2007 in a highly populated state on the East Coast (N = 29,299). My findings indicate that after 3 years, parolees are predicted to recidivate at a 1% lower rate compared with unconditionally released inmates when the time of active supervision is not considered. However, parolees who are assigned supervision terms of at least 3 years evidence a predicted 8% lower recidivism rate when compared with unconditionally released inmates. These findings demonstrate that parole boards can be successful at isolating those under their active supervision from reengaging in criminal activities when compared with those who are not supervised post-release, but that parole does not have long-lasting rehabilitative effects. This lack of long-term impact is likely associated with a parole board’s focus on offenses that occur solely during the course of active supervision that may create incentive to manage cases in such a way that undermines the pursuit of long-term rehabilitative goals in favor of working toward short-term successful discharges.

Validating the Level of Service Inventory-Revised A Gendered Perspective

This study addresses the validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) as a predictor of recidivism for women. We analyzed all female parolees that were released in New Jersey in 2006 (n = 450) as well as a randomly selected group of male parolees. Results indicate that the LSI-R was a valid predictor of rearrests, reconvictions, and technical parole violations, but that the instrument was problematic in accurately predicting true positives both across genders as well as outcome types. It is likely that this lack of specificity is due to local-level policies regarding the use of the instrument.

Parole? Nope, Not for Me: Voluntarily Maxing Out of Prison

This study addresses the phenomenon of inmates voluntarily forgoing parole supervision and opting to remain in prison until the maximum expiration of their sentence. The research was conducted to inform public policy makers about the potential repercussions of this decision-making process and to help guide future policy and legislative proposals that would target this group of inmates. Bivariate and multivariate analyses are used to explore characteristics of this population with regard to postrelease recidivism and prerelease indicators of recidivism. A 2005 group of voluntary max outs are contrasted with those who are forced to max out due to continual parole denial as well as those who are released to parole supervision. All offenders were released in the state of New Jersey. Although several between-group differences were apparent between both max out groups and the parole group at a bivariate level, differences between the two max out groups were far less pronounced. Multivariate Cox regression models indicated that, after controlling for pertinent predictor variables, the likelihood of experiencing a new arrest and/or incarceration after release did not significantly differ according to group membership. Findings suggest that parole boards that make decisions in discretionary release systems should more closely analyze the release opportunities that already present themselves to their agencies but are not capitalized on. Because those who are forced to max through continual denial of parole demonstrated such similar prerelease characteristics to the voluntary max out group, it is unlikely that many who would have otherwise voluntarily maxed their sentence would be paroled if the ability to make this decision were taken away.

Does the LSI-R have utility for sex offenders?

Despite societal perception that sex offenders will repeat their crimes, research indicates these offenders are more likely to be generalists than sex offense–specific offenders. Sex offender–specific legislation has reinforced this erroneous perception while contributing to the excessive labeling of sex offenders as sexual recidivists. Additionally troubling is the lack of research on the efficacy of generalized risk/needs assessments for sex offenders. The present study fills this void by evaluating the adequacy of the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) for use with a sexual offending population. The predictive accuracy of the LSI-R for sexual and nonsexual recidivism outcomes was explored using a sample of 21,298 individuals released from New Jersey correctional facilities from 2004 to 2006. Results indicate that while the LSI-R does not have predictive utility for sexual offenses, it has utility for sex offenders overall. Policy implications of the usefulness of the LSI-R for this offending population are discussed.

How Different Operationalizations of Recidivism Impact Conclusions of Effectiveness of Parole Supervision

Objectives: Recidivism reduction is the primary goal of many correctional programs, and “recidivism” is the most prevalent outcome measure in related program evaluation research. Many different operationalizations of recidivism are used without a clear delineation of how these variations may impact conclusions. This study explores how the definitions of recidivism may impact research findings and resultant policy recommendations regarding the efficacy of parole. Methods: Data from prisoners released in 2008 (n = 12,132) to parole or unconditional release are analyzed according to 10 different operationalizations of recidivism. We compare recidivism rates, time to failure, and hazard rates between groups through the presentation of descriptive statistics and the use of multivariate Cox proportional hazards survival models. Results: Our findings indicate that parole supervision could be deemed either effective or ineffective depending on which definition of recidivism is employed. These findings are largely driven by whether technical parole violations are included into more traditional criminal outcome measures, such as rearrests, reconvictions, or reincarcerations for new crimes, and if court processing times are factored into measures of time to failure. Conclusions: Our results raise questions about the consistency of findings within the corrections literature. These conclusions, given the role that technical violations and court processing times can play, suggest a need for increased specificity when using recidivism as an outcome measure.

Home Nodes, Criminogenic Places, and Parolee Failure: Testing an Environmental Model of Offender Risk

This article examines whether potentially criminogenic places (including bars, liquor stores, restaurants, public transport hubs, drug markets, and more), located within a 1,240-feet radius of parolees’ residences (the home “node”), predict their rearrest or revocation. Taking these features into account, in addition to individual traits and behaviors, might pave the way for more accurate risk assessment that could help make supervision sensitive to place-based risks. However, multivariate survival analysis of 1,632 parolees released to Newark during July 2007 to June 2009 found little evidence that these factors increased the risk of failure. Successful operationalization of environmental risk will probably need to incorporate more detailed measures of parolees’ routine activities, including the settings and paths they frequent beyond their home environment.

Measuring Gang Involvement in a Justice-Referred Sample of Youth in Treatment:

Gangs are present in about 34% of all jurisdictions in the United States. Given elevations in violence and victimization associated with gang involvement, effective means are needed for measuring involvement among individual youth. This is especially the case among youth receiving services for problem behavior who might benefit from targeted treatments helping them reduce involvement in gangs. We assessed gang involvement among 421 youth referred by the justice system for intensive home- and community-based mental health treatment. Using self-report survey and therapist-recorded data, we identified 94 (22%) youth as gang involved. Risk factor measures provided support for our classification, driven primarily by self-reported indicators of gang involvement as opposed to therapist-recorded indicators.

Is Something Better Than Nothing? The Effect of Short Terms of Mandatory Parole Supervision

This article reports the findings of a quasi-experimental evaluation of a mandatory early parole program. New Jersey’s Statutory Early Release (SER) law required that all inmates, with few exceptions, be released onto parole six months before the expiration of their sentence. SER participants (n = 405) were matched using propensity scores to two groups of similar offenders who left prison in the year prior to the implementation of the SER statute. Comparison groups include former inmates that were released either unconditionally (n = 4,507) or onto standard parole (n = 5,657). At the conclusion of the matching routines, 395 SER-parolee pairs and 394 SER-unconditional release pairs were identified. Outcomes measures, including comparisons of rearrest and reconviction rates, are reported pre and post matching, and at 6-, 12-, and 18-month intervals. Individuals enrolled in the SER program demonstrated significantly reduced arrest rates during the SER supervision period when compared to unconditionally released offenders, though differences do not persist past six months. Offending rates for both SER participants and matched parolees were generally similar, with some significant variation in arrest rates emerging after 12 months.