Understanding and responding: to the needs of parole violators. (CT Feature) Kristofer Bret Bucklen; Gary Zajac; Kathleen Gnall.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2004 American Correctional Association, Inc.
According to national statistics, the number of offenders reincarcerated for violating parole increased more than sevenfold during the past two decades. (1)
In 1980, state prisons admitted approximately 27,000 parole violators, representing 17 percent of total prison admissions. By 2000, state prisons admitted approximately 200,000 parole violators annually, representing 35 percent of total prison admissions. During this same period, new court commitments as a percentage of admissions declined from 81 percent to 60 percent. In addition, the growth in parole violator admissions during the past two decades was so sharp that such admissions to state prisons in 2000 approximates the total number of offenders admitted to state prisons in 1980.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that parolees are currently responsible for between 10 percent and 12 percent of all arrests for serious crimes in the United States. (2) Further, in 1999, 22 percent of those in state prisons reported being on parole at the time they committed the crime that landed them in prison. It is now well-documented that the high parole revocation rate is one of the major contributing factors to the growing U.S. prison population. (3)
In her recent book, When Prisoners Come Home, Joan Petersilia notes that the United States spends a great deal of money to incarcerate nearly 300,000 parole violators nationwide and that leaving parolees unattended and without services is not only bad policy, but also dangerous, leaving many victims in its wake. (4) The problem, according to researchers at the Urban Institute, however, is that "we do not know much about the underlying behavior of parole violators." (5)
In Pennsylvania, parole violator admissions have increased by 55 percent during the past six years. To put it in perspective, the growth rate of Pennsylvania's initial court commitments during the past six years was only 37 percent. This 55 percent increase in parole violator admissions is primarily due to a 68 percent increase in technical parole violator admissions. Altogether, one-third of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections' total admissions are now a result of parole violations.
The Parole Violator Survey
In response to concerns that parole violators are becoming a driving force behind increasing prison admissions, the Pennsylvania DOC recently conducted a needs assessment of its parole violator population. The primary objective of the assessment was to explore what was happening in inmates' lives while they were out on parole that may have contributed to their return to prison. In exploring the needs of parole violators, the DOC placed primary emphasis on examining the dynamic psychological antecedents of recidivism, as interpreted through the selfreported experiences of parole violators. This study builds on a similar Canadian study developed in the late 1990s. The Canadian authors best summarize the utility of such a needs assessment in stating that "previous work has shown that a variety of measures can predict recidivism but does little to elucidate what actually happens when an experienced offender reoffends after release from prison .... In contrast, this study proceeds from the perspective that criminal actions are the result of ongoing psychological processes, and that they can be understood better in this context." (6) Thus, this study is an attempt to redirect attention from the general determinants of recidivism to an investigation into the individual processes of recidivism. Findings from this study are intended to inform more effective treatment approaches for offenders and better prepare them for the challenges they will face upon release.
To assess the needs of parole violators, the Pennsylvania DOC conducted a survey of technical and convicted parole violators who returned to incarceration in 12 state correctional institutions. Nearly 600 parole violators were surveyed during a two-month period early last year, representing approximately 75 percent of the DOC's total parole violator admissions during that time period. The surveys were administered to parole violators as soon as possible after their return to prison to elicit fresh recollections of the events surrounding the violation. The in-depth survey, developed by DOC staff, included questions concerning living arrangements, finances, employment, leisure activities, marital/family relationships, alcohol/drug use, community supervision experience, and thoughts and emotions while last on parole. At the end of the data collection period, a total of 542 surveys was completed.
After initial results from the survey were compiled and analyzed, reoccurring themes were further explored by conducting focus groups of parole violators at four of the participating institutions. Results from the survey were also matched with other data sources for three purposes: to look for reoccurring themes across multiple data sources, expand the data pool of information gathered on parole violators and examine the consistency of respondents' answers as a measure of reliability.
Results
One of the first considerations when interpreting the survey results was whether technical parole violators and convicted parole violators represent two significantly different populations with unique needs. This study revealed compelling evidence to suggest that technical parole violators and convicted parole violators are statistically very similar populations. An analysis of Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) scores indicated a similar distribution of risk levels for technical parole violators and convicted parole violators (see Figure 1). Further, an analysis of survey answers revealed only two differences between technical parole violators and convicted parole violators. Convicted parole violators indicated that money management issues more strongly contributed to their failure while on parole, and technical parole violators were more likely to report trouble finding a place to live upon release from prison. Other than these two marginally significant differences, answers to all of the remaining questions on the survey did not differ by parole violation status.
Findings from this study can be divided among four primary domains: social network and living arrangements, employment and financial situation, alcohol or other drug use, and thoughts and emotions. For the most part, parole violators reported positive information regarding their social network and living arrangements. Only 20 percent of respondents indicated that they were not prepared by prison to meet their post-release living needs. Eighty-two percent indicated that they had few difficulties finding a place to live after release. In addition, nearly three-fourths of parole violators indicated that they lived in low crime neighborhoods while last on parole, although this may be more a function of individual perception of the level of neighborhood crime. Positive findings on living arrangements were further reaffirmed through discussions with parole violators in focus groups.
For the most part, parole violators also reported maintaining a solid support network of family and friends to turn to for help or support. Eighty-nine percent of those in a relationship (wife, girlfriend, etc.) reported that the relationship was working out mostly good to excellent. Further, 85 percent indicated that they had at least one friend who they could turn to for help, 89 percent indicated that they could turn to their partner/spouse for help, and 89 percent indicated that they could turn to their families for help. From both the survey results and the focus groups, parole violators also reported spending the majority of their leisure time with family members.
The study revealed no clear pattern concerning the extent of the parole violators' criminal associations, other than that older offenders appear to maintain less criminal associations than the younger ones. While 83 percent indicated that at least one of their family members or friends had been arrested in the past, the survey and focus group findings were unclear as to the extent of the association parole violators maintained with criminal family members and friends. Some evidence from both the survey and the focus groups indicates that maintaining criminal associations does not seem to be a significant problem for many parole violators and especially for older ones. Given that pro-criminal/antisocial association is a well-documented criminogenic risk factor, (7) this finding begs the question as to whether parole violators reported honestly or consistently across time about their level of criminal associations. By matching the survey results to criminal association subscales on two other needs-assessment instruments, it was determined that parole violators indeed seem to report consistently across several measures about their level of criminal association, with an estimated potential deception rate between 12 percent and 19 percent.
For the most part, parole violators reported encouraging information concerning employment. Eighty-two percent of parole violators indicated that they were legally employed while last on parole. Seventy-six percent indicated that legal employment was their primary source of income. Only 17 percent indicated that it was difficult to get a job when last released from prison. In focus groups, parole violators reiterated the theme that it was not difficult to find a job. A common complaint, however, was that the types of available jobs were unsuitable and provided insufficient income to make ends meet. To a certain degree, this represents a legitimate concern for the types of employment that parolees are eligible to obtain upon release from prison. On the other hand, the weight of the evidence gathered from this study suggests that many parole violators hold unrealistic job expectations and simply refuse to take low-end jobs or work their way up from the bottom.
Further, parole violators indicated significant financial management difficulties. Financial management problems only exacerbated the quandary of trying to make ends meet while holding low-paying jobs. Seventy-seven percent of parole violators indicated that they had some sort of debt while last on parole, with a median debt of more than $4,500. Parole violators reported that money management issues were among the strongest problems contributing to their failure on parole and that prison prepared them very little or not at all to deal with their financial situations upon release. Interestingly, while those who indicated illegal activities as a primary source of income reported a significantly larger monthly income, than those who indicated legal employment as a primary source of income, both groups reported being equally unable to make ends meet. This suggests that even when provided with an adequate income, many parole violators lack the financial discipline and money management skills to save and pay for necessities.
Survey results and focus group findings indicated that a significant proportion of parole violators regularly used alcohol or other drugs while last on parole. Fifty-seven percent indicated that they drank or used drugs while last on parole an average of three days a week. Also, 54 percent reported that they started drinking or using drugs longer than a month before receiving their most recent violation, indicating that substance abuse problems were not unique to the last days before receiving a parole violation. However, those who had previously participated in prison substance abuse treatment programming indicated that they were significantly better prepared to deal with substance abuse problems. This suggests that in-prison substance abuse treatment seems to have a significant impact on parole violators' perceptions of positive treatment effects.
From the focus groups, the most evident trend in the domain of alcohol or other drug use was that there appears to be a dichotomy between parole violators with high alcohol or other drug needs and those with low alcohol or other drug needs. For some violators, alcohol or other drug use represented a major obstacle that significantly contributed to their failure on parole. These individuals represent the true addicts. On the other hand, many parole violators reported drinking or using other drugs while last on parole, but their violation did not appear to be the immediate result of their substance use. Instead, for these individuals, substance use represented one of many symptoms of a more profound problem of antisocial values, attitudes and beliefs.
Parole violators indicated that emotional problems, such as stress, depression, frustration and worry, contributed more to their failure on parole than any other potential contributor, including alcohol and other drug use, employment, living arrangements and relationship problems. The majority of parole violators recalled that the moments leading up to their violation were characterized by a variety of confusing and dysphoric emotional experiences. This immediately raises the question of whether parole violations are directly caused by unpleasant emotional experiences or by other factors. Given that every person experiences negative emotions at some point in life and that most do not resort to criminal behavior when experiencing such an occurrence, it seemed unlikely that the presence of a dysphoric emotional experience would directly cause an individual to violate parole. Indeed, further examination of the data and follow-ups in focus groups revealed three other important factors.
First, many parole violators held unrealistic expectations about what life would be like outside of prison. Throughout the survey, respondents reported confidence in their ability to easily find and keep high-paying jobs, avoid risky situations and people, maintain friction-free relationships, and generally be successful on parole. While 89 percent of parole violators reported that they were mostly or completely confident that they would succeed while last out on parole, by the very nature of this study all of the respondents failed on parole. It becomes difficult for parole violators to manage negative emotional experiences when they are expecting that life outside of prison will be easy and that most things will go right for them.
Second, the majority of parole violators indicated strong antisocial attitudes. Most reported believing that more positives than negatives would result from their particular violation such as earning respect, getting money or experiencing excitement. When they did discuss negative consequences, parole violators primarily spoke in terms of negative consequences to themselves and tended to diminish the negative consequences to others. One-third of parole violators reported that they often did not care or did not care at all about what others thought of them while they were last on parole. These types of antisocial attitudes make it easier for parole violators to respond in a criminal manner when faced with negative emotional experiences. A core concern for parole violators is not that they experience dysphoric emotions but that they are unequipped to respond pro-socially.
Third, the most prevalent theme identified throughout this entire study is that parole violators indicated poor self management, self-control and problem-solving skills in the face of emotional instability or the daily obstacles of life. The Canadian parole violator study came to a similar conclusion, referring to this as a lack of "coping skills." (8) Poor self-management or coping skills are particularly evidenced by four specific traits: impulsivity, failure to generate alternative courses of action, failure to recognize consequences of actions and keeping problems to oneself or failing to take avoidance steps. Forty-five percent of parole violators said that they did not consider alternatives to the sequence of events that led to their parole violation. One-third said that there was never a point in the sequence of events leading to their violation in which they could have stopped or forgotten the whole thing. Forty percent said they reached a point before their violation where they felt they were not in control anymore. Forty-four percent did not worry at all about the possibility of getting caught before participating in the act that eventually led to their parole violation. Seventy-seven percent did not tell anyone that they were having thoughts about acting out the events that led to their parole violation. When asked in focus groups what they would do differently when next released from prison, many of the parole violators were able to describe their problems but could not articulate a strategy for addressing them. Also in focus groups, many violators relayed stories of being tripped up by a multitude of events or experiences, such as a family illness or death, and subsequently violating a condition of parole.
Policy Implications For Treating Parole Violators
The results of this study support four specific policy implications for treating parole violator populations. First and foremost, programming for parole violators should specifically focus on cognitive-behavioral treatment that involves coping strategies, behavior rehearsal and relapse prevention components. Previous research has established that cognitive-behavioral programming is an effective model of treatment for offenders. (9) Programming for parole violators should not focus on eliminating negative emotional experiences, but should instead focus on reinforcing pro-social behavioral reactions to negative emotional experiences. Treatment should emphasize that every person will undoubtedly and unavoidably experience unpleasant emotional experiences at some point in life. When these uncontrollable experiences occur, an individual is only able to control his or her behavioral response. Rehearsing problem-solving techniques and pro-social behaviors should be a primary treatment target.
Also, re-entry programming should focus more attention on teaching parole violators specific and transferable life skills such as financial responsibility and money management techniques. Money management is a particularly important subset of self-management that seems to present significant obstacles for parole violators and, therefore, should be a primary target for prison release preparation. Many parole violators need to learn and rehearse the skills necessary to manage monthly bills and debt repayments, given the salaries that they are realistically able to obtain.
In addition, due to severity of alcohol and other drug problems experienced by a certain proportion of parole violators, it is important that correctional systems continue to reinforce intensive alcohol and other drug treatment programs that are known to be effective such as therapeutic communities. Conversely, treatment staff should not make the assumption that all parole violators who drank or used drugs while last on parole have a significant substance abuse problem and must primarily receive intensive alcohol and other drug treatment. In fact, it is perhaps more appropriate that parole violators with low alcohol and other drug needs primarily receive a core cognitive-behavioral program that focuses on general attitudinal and behavioral skills that are transferable across various domains, including employment, alcohol and other drug use, and relationships.
Finally, programming should encourage parole violators to stay "rooted in reality" and maintain realistic post-release expectations. Parole violators must come to understand that life outside of prison will not often be easy and that a criminal record can make life all the more difficult. For instance, employability training should prepare parole violators for the real possibility that they may need to start off working a low-end job and gradually work up to a promotion or better job. In-prison treatment for parole violators will be effective to the degree that it is able to simulate a real world environment within the artificial environment of prison. Again, role-playing is a particularly useful tool for simulating such an environment and preparing parole violators for realistic life expectations.
Future Steps
The Pennsylvania DOC has learned a great deal from the results of its parole violator study. In fact, staff are designing a pilot program for parole violators that will address each of the major policy implications identified in the study. More specifically, the proposed program will include a core cognitive-behavioral component that will focus on teaching parole violators generally transferable self-management and problem-solving skills. A thorough assessment of individual needs will then be used to tailor individual treatment plans and place parole violators in issue-specific treatment groups according to their assessed needs. This model, based on Pennsylvania's detailed analysis of the process of recidivism and assessment of the needs of parole violators, is expected to better prepare parole violators for re-release and will hopefully serve to reduce future parole violator admissions to Pennsylvania's prisons.
ENDNOTES
(1) Travis, J. and S. Lawrence. 2002. Beyond the prison gates: The state of parole in America. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
(2) Petersilia, J. 2003. When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner re-entry. New York: Oxford University Press.
(3) Travis, J. and S. Lawrence. 2002.
(4) Petersilia, J. 2003.
(5) Travis, J. and S. Lawrence. 2002.
(6) Zamble, E. and V.L. Quinsey. 1997. The criminal recidivism process. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
(7) Andrews, D. and J. Bonta. 1994. The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.
(8) Zamble, E. and V.L. Quinsey. 1997.
(9) Andrews, D. and J. Bonta. 1994.
Kristofer Bret Bucklen is a research and evaluation analyst and Gary Zajac is the research and evaluation manager in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Office of Planning, Research, Statistics and Grants. Kathleen Gnall is director of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Office of Planning, Research, Statistics and Grants.
Article A116481687
View other articles linked to these subjects:
Probation
25 Newspaper references
109 Periodical references
Correctional Institutions - Management
205 Periodical references
111 other subdivisions
Correctional Institutions
150 Newspaper references
1269 Periodical references
Rehabilitation of Criminals
22 Newspaper references
282 Periodical references