Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Portrait ofPrisoner Reentry in New Jersey
Jeremy Travis
Sinead Keegan
Eric Cadora
with Amy Solomon and Charles Swartz
RE
SE
AR
CH
R
EP
OR
TN
ovember 2003
RE
SE
AR
CH
R
EP
OR
TN
ovember 2003
research for safer communities
http://JPC.urban.org
2100 M STREET, NWWASHINGTON, DC 20037
www.urban.org(202) 833-7200
The nonpartisan Urban Institutepublishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy ofpublic consideration. The viewsexpressed are those of the authors,and should not be attributed to theUrban Institute, its trustees, or itsfunders.
To receive free monthly email updateson the research of the Justice PolicyCenter, join the Center’s emaildistribution list by sending an email to [email protected].
A Portrait ofPrisoner Reentry in New Jersey
Jeremy Travis
Sinead Keegan
Eric Cadora
with Amy Solomon and Charles Swartz
copyright @ 2003The Urban InstituteJustice Policy Center2100 M street, NWWashington, DC 20037www.urban.org(202) 833-7200
The views expressed arethose of the authors andshould not be attributed toThe Urban Institute, itstrustees, or its funders.
The Justice Policy center (JPC) carries out nonparti-san research to inform thenational dialogue on crime,justice and communitysafety. For more informationon JPC’s reentry research,visit http://jpc.urban.org/reentry. To receive monthlyemail updates on JPCresearch, send an email [email protected].
JPC Publication # CPR03 0105
ii A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
About the Authors
Jeremy Travis is a Senior Fellow at the Urban Institute and is co-chair of the ReentryRoundtable—a group of prominent academics, practitioners, service providers, and commu-nity leaders working to advance policies and innovations on prisoner reentry that reflectsolid research. Before he joined the Urban Institute, Mr. Travis was the director of theNational Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. Mr. Travishas been an active figure in the development of a policy and research agenda on the issueof prisoner reentry. He is the author of the article “But They All Come Back: RethinkingPrisoner Reentry,” and shaped the federal initiative on reentry courts and reentry partner-ships.
Mr. Travis earned his JD, cum laude, from the New York University School of Law;an MPA from the New York University Wagner Graduate School of Public Service; and aBA in American Studies, cum laude, from Yale College.
Sinead Keegan is a Research Associate at the Urban Institute. Her primary research inter-ests are the effects of crime and crime policy on communities. She is currently the Projectand Data Manager for a project developing performance indicators for the U.S.Department of Justice’s Weed and Seed Program. In addition, Ms. Keegan is involved in aproject examining whether Weed and Seed initiatives lead to the displacement of crime insouthern Florida. She has also conducted research on prisoner reentry in the District ofColumbia, with a particular focus on the availability of housing for ex-offenders.
Ms. Keegan has a Master’s in Public Policy from Georgetown University, and a BA inGovernment with a concentration in Public Service from the University of Notre Dame.Her Master’s thesis examined a number of previously unmeasured social costs of incar-ceration using advanced statistical techniques. Ms. Keegan originally hails from BergenCounty, New Jersey.
Eric Cadora is a community justice consultant and a Program Officer for The After PrisonInitiative of the Open Society Institute. The After Prison Initiative is a grantmaking programcreated to promote social and criminal justice policies that place reintegration and publicsafety equity at the center of the criminal justice mission. Mr. Cadora has helped to fash-ion The After Prison Initiative’s grantmaking agenda in four priority areas: JusticeReinvestment, New Leadership Development, National Re-Entry Policy Reform, andReduction of Civil Barriers to Reintegration.
In 1998 with OSI funding, he launched The Community Justice Project at the Centerfor Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES), which advocates for a rein-vestment of justice resources in communities suffering high rates of incarceration and pro-vides technical assistance to corrections and communities to implement communityjustice programs. CASES is New York’s largest and longest running alternative to incarcer-ation program. Employing an innovative geographical analysis of criminal justice activity atthe neighborhood level, Eric speaks at national forums around the country about theimpact of high rates of incarceration on low-income communities and promotes the use offinancial reinvestment strategies to interrupt the decades-long cycle of incarceration,release, and re-incarceration that these core communities continue to suffer.
Amy Solomon is a Policy Associate at the Urban Institute, where she works to link theresearch activities of the Justice Policy Center to policy and practice arenas in the field.Her primary areas of concentration are prisoner reentry and problem-solving approaches topublic safety.
Charles Swartz is the President of Geographic Research Solutions (GRS), a consulting com-pany that provides research, mapping and spatial analysis services to both public and privatesector clients. Before starting GRS, Charles was a Geographic Information SystemsResearcher at the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES) inNew York.
Contents
Executive Summary......................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3About the Data ........................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 1
Policy Context ............................................................................................................ 7PRISON POPULATION ON THE RISE ............................................................................ 7EXPLAINING NEW JERSEY INCARCERATION TRENDS ............................................... 8TRENDS IN CRIME......................................................................................................... 9THE EFFECTS OF SENTENCING REFORMS .................................................................12PAROLE REVOCATIONS................................................................................................17SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................18
Sentencing Reform in New Jersey............................................................................19
CHAPTER 2
What Are the Characteristics of New Jersey’s Returning Inmates? ............21DEMOGRAPHICS ...........................................................................................................21CONVICTION OFFENSE .................................................................................................21TIME SERVED ................................................................................................................21CRIMINAL HISTORY AND THE REVOLVING DOOR .....................................................22MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH PROBLEMS ...........................................................24
Juvenile Reentry ........................................................................................................26
CHAPTER 3
How Are Prisoners Prepared for Release? ..........................................................27DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS PROGRAMMING ...................................................27EDUCATIONAL SERVICES .............................................................................................28EMPLOYMENT READINESS ..........................................................................................28SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT................................................................................30RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT PROGRAMS .....................................................................31
CHAPTER 4
How Are Prisoners Released in New Jersey? ....................................................33PRISONER RELEASES ...................................................................................................33POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION......................................................................................35PAROLE SUPERVISION .................................................................................................35PROBATION SUPERVISION...........................................................................................38
Sentence Reduction Credits ......................................................................................39
CHAPTER 5
Where Are Prisoners Returning? ...........................................................................41NEW JERSEY’S COUNTIES ...........................................................................................42ESSEX COUNTY AND NEWARK ....................................................................................42CAMDEN COUNTY AND THE CITY OF CAMDEN .........................................................44
CHAPTER 6
Summary .....................................................................................................................63HIGHLIGHTS...................................................................................................................63
iii
List of Figures
CHAPTER 1
Policy Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 1. New Jersey Prison Population, Admissions, and Releases, 1980–2001 . . . 8Figure 2. U.S. and New Jersey Incarceration Rates, 1980–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Figure 3. Number of Property Crimes in New Jersey per
100,000 Residents, 1980–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Figure 4. Number of Violent Crimes in New Jersey per 100,000 Residents,
1980–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Figure 5. Number of Property Arrests in New Jersey, 1980–2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Figure 6. Number of Violent Arrests in New Jersey, 1980–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Figure 7. Number of Drug Arrests in New Jersey, 1980–2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Figure 8. Population with Mandatory Minimum Sentence, 1982–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . 13Figure 9. Percentage of New Jersey Prison Population,
by Sentence Length, 1991 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Figure 10. Percent Change in Time Served for Releases, by Offense,
1995 to 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Figure 11. Population by Offense Type, 1982–2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Figure 12. Percent of Total Prison Admissions by Type, 1977–1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
CHAPTER 2
What Are the Characteristics of New Jersey’s Returning Inmates? . . . . . . 21
Figure 13. Race/Ethnicity of Released Inmates, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Figure 14. Age Distribution of Released Inmates, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Figure 15. Marital Status of Released Inmates, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Figure 16. Primary Offense of Released Inmates, 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Figure 17. Median Time Served by Released New Jersey Prisoners,
by Offense, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Figure 18. Mental and Physical Health Diagnoses, Released New Jersey
Prisoners, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
CHAPTER 4
How Are Prisoners Prepared for Release? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 19. Number of Prison Releases, by Supervision, 1990–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Figure 20. Percent of Prison Releases, by Supervision, 1977–1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Figure 21. Parole Population in New Jersey, 1997–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Figure 22. Parole Population by Supervision Status, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
iv A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
CHAPTER 5
Where Are Prisoners Returning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Map 1. Parolees per 1,000 ResidentsNew Jersey Counties, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Map 2. Prison Admissions per 1,000 ResidentsNew Jersey Counties, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Map 3. Prison Releases per 1,000 ResidentsNew Jersey Counties, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Map 4. TANF Cases per 1,000 ResidentsNew Jersey Counties, Jan. 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Map 5. Percent Black per Block-GroupEssex County, New Jersey, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Map 6. Median Household Income per Block-GroupEssex County, New Jersey, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Map 7. Percent Single Parent Households per Block-GroupEssex County, New Jersey, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Map 8. Percent in Poverty per Block-GroupEssex County, New Jersey, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Map 9. Parolees per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupEssex County, New Jersey, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Map 10. Parolees per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupNewark, New Jersey, 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Map 11. Probationers per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupEssex County, New Jersey, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Map 12. Probationers per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupNewark, New Jersey, 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Map 13. Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupEssex County, New Jersey, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Map 14. Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupNewark, New Jersey, 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Map 15. Prison Expenditure by Block-GroupEssex County, New Jersey, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Map 16. Prison Expenditure by Block-GroupNewark, New Jersey, 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Map 17. Juvenile Justice Commission Admissions to CustodyEssex County, New Jersey by Census Block-Group, 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Map 18. Juvenile Justice Commission Expenditures for CustodyEssex County, New Jersey by Census Block-Group, 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Map 19. TANF Cases per 1,000 Residents by Zip CodeEssex County, New Jersey, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Map 20. Percent Black by Block-GroupCamden County, New Jersey, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Map 21. Median Household Income by Block-GroupCamden County, New Jersey, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Map 22. Percent Single Parent Households by Block-GroupCamden County, New Jersey, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Map 23. Percent in Poverty by Block-GroupCamden County, New Jersey, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
v
Map 24. Parolees per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupCamden County, New Jersey, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Map 25. Parolees per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupCamden City, New Jersey, 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Map 26. Probationers per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupCamden County, New Jersey, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Map 27. Probationers per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupCamden City, New Jersey, 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Map 28. Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupCamden County, New Jersey, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Map 29. Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupCamden City, New Jersey, 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Map 30. Prison Expenditure by Block-GroupCamden County, New Jersey, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Map 31. Prison Expenditure by Block-GroupCamden City, New Jersey, 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Map 32. Juvenile Justice Commission Admissions to CustodyCamden County, New Jersey by Census Block-Group, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Map 33. Juvenile Justice Commission Expenditures for CustodyCamden County, New Jersey by Census Block-Group, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Map 34. TANF Cases per 1,000 Residents by Zip CodesCamden County, New Jersey, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
vi A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
vii
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the many individuals and organizations who madevaluable contributions to this report. The New Jersey Department of Corrections, andspecifically Commissioner Devon Brown; Stanley Repko, Former Director, Office ofPolicy and Planning; Debra Nale, Kimberly Flood, and Donna Kraun from the Office ofInformation Technology, provided the data that serve as the backbone of the analysisof this report. We also thank Douglas Gerardi, Current Director of the Office of Policyand Planning, and Don Van Nostrand and Juan (Carlos) Ayala of the same office forproviding supplemental statistics and for answering a myriad of questions about thecorrections system in New Jersey. John D’Amico, Chairman of the State ParoleBoard; Michael Dowling, Executive Director of the Parole Board; Melinda Schlager,formerly of the Parole Board; and Kevin McHugh, Chris Cermele, Jeff Gambino, andDan Lebak of the Parole Board provided data regarding a snapshot of individuals onparole, and also assisted by explaining the functions and programs of the ParoleBoard. Division of Probation data was provided by the Administrative Office of theCourts, specifically Director Richard Williams, Deputy Director Theodore Fetter, AnnaMarie Chiofolo, Matthew Kowalski, James Mannion, Marie Repko, and JohnCzarnuscewicz. The Department of Human Services provided data on the TemporaryAssistance for Needy Families program. Thanks go to Gwendolyn Harris,Commissioner, Reginald Lewis, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, and SudhaKantor and Rudy Myers. Executive Director Howard Beyer, Director of Aftercare andParole William Curry, and William Davis of the Juvenile Justice Commission provideddata on the juvenile population. We also thank Stacy Kutner of the Department ofLaw and Public Safety, Criminal Justice Agency, and Sergeant Daniel Marley of theNew Jersey State Police Uniform Crime Report Unit, for providing data on drug arresttrends. James Austin and Wendy Naro of the Institute on Crime, Justice, andCorrections at the George Washington University assisted with chapter 5. MeaganFunches of the Urban Institute provided valuable research support for chapter 3. Thework of Michelle Waul, formerly of the Urban Institute, served as foundation for thisreport. Avi Bhati and Gretchen Moore of the Urban Institute assisted with statisticalanalysis, and Jaime Watson of the Urban Institute provided valuable insight and com-ments on earlier drafts of this report. The support of Ken Zimmerman, NancyFishman, and Craig Levine at the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice was invalu-able. We also thank the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice and the Fund for New Jersey for funding this project. Without them, this report would not have beenpossible.
Executive Summary 1
This report describes the process of prisoner reentry in New Jersey by
examining the policy context surrounding prisoner reentry in the
state, the characteristics of the state’s returning inmates, the geo-
graphic distribution of returning prisoners, and the social and economic cli-
mates of the communities that are home to the highest concentrations of
returning prisoners. This report does not attempt to evaluate a specific reentry
program or empirically assess New Jersey’s reentry policies and practices.
Rather, the report consolidates existing data on incarceration and release
trends and presents a new analysis of data on New Jersey prisoners released in
2002. The data used from this report were derived from several sources, includ-
ing the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the New Jersey Department of Corrections,
the New Jersey State Parole Board, and the New Jersey State Police, the Divi-
sion of Probation in the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Juvenile Jus-
tice Commission, the Department of Human Services, and the U.S. Census
Bureau. Highlights from the report are presented below.
Historical Incarceration and Release Trends. New Jersey’s incarceration
and reentry trends are similar to those observed at the national level. Between
1977 and 2002, the New Jersey prison population more than quadrupled,
increasing from 6,017 to 27,891 people. The per capita rate of imprisonment in
New Jersey rose from 76 to 331 per 100,000 residents in the state between 1980
and 2002, an increase of over 336 percent. The growth in New Jersey’s prison
population is largely attributable to rising prison admissions, and may have
resulted in part due to longer lengths of stay in prison. Prison admissions
increased because of the rise in arrests for drug offenses, the increased use of
mandatory minimum sentences in New Jersey, and a rising number of indi-
viduals returned to prison as a result of parole revocations. New Jersey’s release
patterns reflect these admission and population trends: 14,849 prisoners were
released from New Jersey prisons in 2002, nearly four times the number
released in 1980 (3,910).
Executive Summary
Profile of Prisoners Released in 2002. The majority of released prisoners
were male (91 percent) and black (62 percent). The median age at release was
34 years. Over one-third had been serving time for drug offenses. The average
time served for those released for the first time was just under two years.
Thirty-nine percent were incarcerated for a violation of parole. One-third had
been diagnosed with a physical or mental health condition. Educational skills
are severely limited. A vast majority had a history of drug or alcohol abuse.
How Prisoners are Prepared for Release. In-prison program availability is
limited in New Jersey. In 2001, 17 percent of all prison and jail inmates partic-
ipated in academic programming and six percent participated in vocational
programming provided by the Department of Corrections’ Office of Educa-
tional Services. Other work programs can accommodate about 12 percent of
the population. Therapeutic substance abuse beds are available for about 6 per-
cent of the population.
How New Jersey Prisoners are Released. In 2002, a majority, two-thirds, of
all prisoners released were released to a period of supervision. However, the
number and share of prisoners released without supervision in New Jersey
increased over the 1990s.
Geographic Distribution of Released Prisoners. Almost one-third of pris-
oners released in 2002 came from two counties—Essex and Camden—that
already face great economic and social disadvantage. The median household
income in the central cities of these two counties is less than 50 percent of the
statewide median household income. Unemployment in the central cities of
these two counties is significantly higher than in the rest of the state, and large
shares of the population live in poverty and in single parent households.
2 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
Introduction 3
1 Office of Justice Programs,Office of Congressional andPublic Affairs. 2002. “AttorneyGeneral Ashcroft AnnouncesNationwide Effort to Reinte-grate Offenders Back into Com-munities.” Press release, July15, 2002. Available at http://www.usnewswire.com/OJP/docs/OJP02214.html. (AccessedOctober 2002.)
2 Lynch, James P., and William J.Sabol. 2001. “Prisoner Reentryin Perspective.” Crime PolicyReport, vol. 3. Washington,D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
3 Austin, James. 2001. “PrisonerReentry: Current Trends, Prac-tices, and Issues.” Crime andDelinquency 47(3): 314–334;Hammett, Theodore M., CherylRoberts, and Sofia Kennedy.2001. “Health-Related Issues inPrisoner Reentry.” Crime andDelinquency 47(3): 390–409;Lynch and Sabol. 2001. “Pris-oner Reentry in Perspective.”
4 For an in-depth discussion ofprisoner reentry nationwide, seeTravis, Jeremy, Amy L.Solomon, and Michelle Waul.2001. From Prison to Home: TheDimensions and Consequencesof Prisoner Reentry. Washing-ton, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
5 Lynch and Sabol. 2001. “Pris-oner Reentry in Perspective.”
6 Ibid.
This report examines the prisoner reentry phenomenon in the state of
New Jersey. Prisoner reentry—the process of leaving prison and return-
ing to society—has become a pressing issue both in New Jersey and
nationwide, and with good reason. Rising incarceration rates over the past quar-
ter century have resulted in more and more inmates being released from prison
each year. Nationwide, an estimated 630,000 inmates were released from state
and federal prisons in 2001, a fourfold increase over the past two decades.1 Thus,
released prisoners, their families, and the communities to which they return must
cope with the challenges of reentry on a much greater scale than ever before.
And the challenges of reentry are many. More prisoners nationwide are
returning home having spent longer terms behind bars,2 exacerbating the
already significant challenges of finding employment and reconnecting with
family. Prisoners today are typically less prepared for reintegration, less con-
nected to community-based social structures, and more likely to have health or
substance abuse problems than in the past.3 In addition to these personal cir-
cumstances, limited availability of jobs, housing, and social services in a com-
munity may affect the returning prisoner’s ability to successfully reintegrate.4
These challenges affect more than returning prisoners and their families;
they can also have serious implications for the communities to which prison-
ers return. Two-thirds of the prisoners released in 1996 returned to major met-
ropolitan areas across the country—up from 50 percent in 1984.5 Within
central cities, released prisoners are often concentrated in a few neighbor-
hoods.6 These high concentrations of returning prisoners generate great costs
to those communities, including potential increases in costs associated with
crime and public safety, greater public health risks, and high rates of unem-
ployment and homelessness. Thus, developing a thorough understanding of
the characteristics of returning prisoners and the challenges they face is an
important first step in shaping public policy toward improving the safety and
welfare of all citizens.
In many ways, the dimensions and challenges of prisoner reentry observed
on the national level are mirrored in the state of New Jersey. Incarceration
Introduction
increased dramatically in New Jersey in recent decades. Between 1977 and
2002, the New Jersey prison population more than quadrupled, increasing
from 6,017 to 27,891 people. At the same time, the per capita rate of imprison-
ment in New Jersey rose from 76 to 322 per 100,000 residents in the state, an
increase of over 336 percent.7 Admissions to New Jersey prisons climbed over
this period as well. In 1980, fewer than 4,000 individuals were admitted to New
Jersey’s prisons. By 2000, annual admissions had grown to over 15,000.8 State
spending on corrections increased accordingly. Over the past 25 years, spend-
ing on corrections and parole has grown at twice the rate of the rest of the state
budget. In fiscal year 1983, the state spent just under $200 million on correc-
tions, parole, and the juvenile justice system. By fiscal year 2003, annual
budgets for these departments had risen almost six-fold to $1.1 billion. The
state budget as a whole increased threefold over this period. In fiscal year 2003,
the budget for the Department of Corrections was $858 million, or about
$28,000 per inmate.9
As a consequence of the growth in imprisonment, the state of New Jersey
has also experienced a dramatic growth in the number of people being released
from prison. In 1980, only 3,910 individuals were released from the state’s pris-
ons.10 Last year, 14,849 individuals were released to the community from New
Jersey’s prisons. The vast majority—95 percent—of those released from
New Jersey prisons in 2002 returned to communities in New Jersey.11 Almost
one-third—31 percent—returned to two counties in the state, Essex and Cam-
den. This included 2,430, or 16 percent of all releases, returning to Essex
County, and 2,270 individuals, or 15 percent of the released population,
returning to Camden County. The flow of prisoners was further concentrated
in a small number of communities within these counties. Thirteen percent of
all releases, or 1,705 individuals, returned to New Jersey’s largest city, Newark,
in Essex County. Another 1,280 individuals, or ten percent of the total release
population, returned to the city of Camden.
Government leaders, corrections officials, local organizations, and service
providers are keenly aware of the reentry challenges numbers like these pose in
New Jersey, and they have begun to use both research and programmatic
knowledge to address them. In July 2002, the New Jersey State Parole Board
was awarded $2 million over three years from the U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, as part of the federal government’s Serious and Vio-
lent Offender Reentry Initiative, which supports reentry initiatives nationwide.
This grant provides the opportunity for New Jersey to focus the efforts of a
number of state agencies on 200 juvenile and 100 adult offenders who are being
released by the Juvenile Justice Commission or the Department of Corrections.
These offenders have been classified as high-risk and are returning to Essex and
Camden counties. Services begin before release and continue as the individual
begins his or her life post-release. Programming includes job training and
placement, educational services, substance abuse treatment, mental health
treatment, restitution, housing assistance, mentoring, counseling, aftercare,
crisis intervention, life skills training, supervision, and intensive case manage-
ment.12 Implementation of this program began in January of 2003. All partici-
7 Bureau of Justice Statistics(BJS)/Paige Harrison. 2000.Incarceration Rates for Prison-ers Under State or FederalJurisdiction, per 100,000 Resi-dents (corpop25. wk1). NationalPrisoner Statistics Data Series(NPS-1). Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice; Harri-son, Paige M., and Allen J.Beck. 2002. Prisoners in 2001.Bureau of Justice Statistics Bul-letin. NCJ 195189. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Jus-tice; Beck, Allen J. 2000. Pris-oners in 1999. Bureau ofJustice Statistics Bulletin. NCJ183476. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice.
8 Bureau of Justice Statistics.2000. Sentenced prisonersadmitted to State or Federaljurisdiction (corpop13. wk1).National Prisoner StatisticsData Series (NPS-1). Washing-ton, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice.
9 Shure, J., M. Forsberg et al.Forthcoming. “Reentry: The Fis-cal Consequences.” Commis-sioned by the New JerseyReentry Roundtable.
10 New Jersey Department ofCorrections data, 2002; Bureauof Justice Statistics (BJS)/Paige Harrison. 2000. Sen-tenced Prisoners Releasedfrom State or Federal Jurisdic-tion (corpop22.wk1). NationalPrisoner Statistics (NPS-1).
11 Urban Institute analysis of NewJersey Department of Correc-tions data, 2002
12 For more information, seehttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reentry/sar/nj.html
4 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
pating offenders will be released between October 2003 and April 2004. The
grant expires in 2005.
New Jersey has also been selected as one of seven states to participate in the
Reentry Policy Academy of the National Governors Association (NGA). Over
the next 18 months, New Jersey policymakers from the Governor’s office will
participate in an in-state policy workshop, two policy academy meetings, and
customized technical assistance. The goal of this academy is for state teams to
craft reentry strategies for their respective states. The aim is to reduce recidi-
vism rates by improving services provided to inmates and ex-offenders.13
In 2001, New Jersey was selected by the National Institute of Corrections
to participate in a technical assistance project to develop policy-driven
responses to parole violations in the state of New Jersey. To fulfill the require-
ments of this grant, the Chairman of the State Parole Board convened a policy
group consisting of leaders from a number of state agencies, including the
Parole Board, the Department of Corrections, the Division of Probation,
the Department of Human Services, the Department of Health, the Attorney
General’s office, and a number of community partners. This policy group
participated in a number of local group meetings and a national forum at
which they examined current parole policy and practice, and gathered empiri-
cal data on parole violations in 2 of the state’s 13 parole districts. This process
concluded with the development of recommendations that the State Parole
Board is interested in implementing.
The New Jersey Institute for Social Justice and the New Jersey Public Pol-
icy Research Institute have created the New Jersey Reentry Roundtable, a year-
long initiative gathering policymakers, researchers, service providers, and other
key stakeholders to assess and develop a strategic response to the challenge of
prisoner reentry in New Jersey. Based on the Urban Institute’s Reentry Round-
table model, the New Jersey Reentry Roundtable has to date held meetings on
health, juvenile reentry, and employment issues over the course of the year. In
addition, they have commissioned research on a variety of topics affecting pris-
oner reentry in New Jersey, and will work to implement a series of
recommendations resulting from this research and ongoing discussions. In the
future, it is expected that the work of the Roundtable will provide a framework
for New Jersey’s participation in the NGA Reentry Policy Academy.
This report is designed to contribute to the efforts currently underway in
New Jersey to enhance public safety and improve the prospects for successful
prisoner reintegration in the state. It is important to note that this report does
not attempt to evaluate a specific reentry program, nor does it empirically
assess New Jersey’s reentry policies and practices. Rather, the processes and
characteristics of prisoner reentry in New Jersey are described by answering
several questions that frame the organization of the report:
� What is the policy context surrounding prisoner reentry in New Jersey? How
do state sentencing and post-release supervision practices affect reentry in
New Jersey? � What are the characteristics of New Jersey’s returning inmates?
13 For more information see the NGA’s PressRelease: http:// www.nga.org/nga/ news-Room/1,1169,C_PRESS_RELEASE%5ED_5751,00.html
Chapter 1. What Is the Policy Context Surrounding Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey? 5
� How are New Jersey prisoners prepared for reentry? � What are the New Jersey communities with the greatest concentrations of
returning inmates? What are the economic and social climates of those
communities?
The report begins by describing the context of prisoner reentry at the state
level, followed by a description of the characteristics of inmates released from
New Jersey prisons in 2002. We then discuss the programming New Jersey
inmates may receive while incarcerated to prepare them for release. This is fol-
lowed by a discussion of prisoner release policy and practice in New Jersey, and
an examination of parole supervision in the state. Chapter 5 provides a spatial
analysis of the two counties with the highest numbers and concentrations of
ex-offenders—Camden and Essex counties. It is our hope that this report will
provide a useful, factual foundation for the individuals and organizations
working to improve reentry outcomes for prisoners, their families and com-
munities, and the general public in New Jersey.
About the Data
The data used for this report were derived from several sources. Longitudinal data describing thepolicy context of incarceration and reentry trends in New Jersey, for example, were derived froma mix of federal statistics, released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and statistics compiled byvarious agencies within the State of New Jersey, such as the Department of Corrections. Longitu-dinal crime report and police arrest data were gathered from New Jersey’s annual Uniform CrimeReports, produced by the New Jersey State Police.
The available data from each of these sources spanned different time periods—some haddata for only a few years, while others had data for two decades or longer. Rather than truncat-ing longitudinal data so that graphs and statistics from all sources cover a common time span, wechose to include all years for which we were able to obtain data points. As a result, readers willnot always be able to make year-to-year comparisons across graphs.
Data on the population of inmates released from New Jersey prisons in calendar year 2002were obtained from the New Jersey Department of Corrections and represent all inmatesreleased from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. The New Jersey State Parole Boardprovided data on a “snapshot” of individuals on parole in late June 2003. For the geographicanalysis of chapter 5, the Division of Probation provided data on a “snapshot” of all individualsfrom Camden and Essex Counties on probation on a day in late September 2003. The JuvenileJustice Commission provided data on admissions from Camden and Essex Counties to the cus-tody of the Commission in 2001. The Department of Human Services provided data on the countsof TANF Recipients by zip codes in Camden and Essex Counties in March of 2003.
6 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
Chapter 1. What Is the Policy Context Surrounding Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey? 7
14 Between 1925 and 1973, theper capita rate of imprisonmentin the United States remainedrelatively constant, at about110 per 100,000 residents.Since 1973, however, the rateof imprisonment has beensteadily increasing each year.(See Blumstein, Alfred, andAllen J. Beck. 1999. “Popula-tion Growth in U.S. Prisons,1980–1996.” In Prisons, editedby Michael Tonry and JoanPetersilia. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.) By year-end2001, the number of sentencedprisoners per 100,000 U.S. res-idents was 470—more thanfour times the rate of imprison-ment that had been maintainedduring the early part of the 20thcentury (see Harrison, PaigeM., and Allen J. Beck. 2002.Prisoners in 2001.). Harrison,Paige, and Allen Beck. 2002.Prisoners in 2001. Bureau ofJustice Statistics Bulletin. NCJ195189. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice.
15 Bureau of Justice Statistics(BJS)/Paige Harrison. 2000. In-carceration Rates for PrisonersUnder State or Federal Juris-diction, per 100,000 Residents;Harrison, Paige and Allen Beck.2002. Prisoners in 2001; Beck,Allen. 2000. Prisoners in 1999.
In order to understand the reentry phenomenon in New Jersey, it is first
necessary to examine recent trends in sentencing and corrections practices
in the state. This section provides an overview of recent sentencing and
incarceration history in the state and describes the factors contributing to the
growth in New Jersey’s inmate population. This context will help frame the
reentry issue and will provide background for the discussion of the needs and
challenges of returning inmates that follows later in this report.
PRISON POPULATION ON THE RISE
The New Jersey prison population has grown tremendously over the past two
decades, reflecting the rise in prison populations nationwide.14 Between 1977
and 2002, the New Jersey prison population more than quadrupled, increasing
from 6,017 to 27,891 people. (See figure 1.)
Between 1980 and 2002, the per capita rate of imprisonment in New Jer-
sey rose from 76 to 331 per 100,000 residents in the state, an increase of over
336 percent, outpacing national trends. Nationally, the rate of incarceration
increased 228 percent over this period.15 (See figure 2.) Unlike the national
trends, the growth in incarceration in New Jersey has not been constant since
1980. After reaching a peak of 31,493 people in 1999, the prison population
declined over the next three years to the 2002 level of 27,891. Likewise, the rate
of incarceration peaked at 384 in 1999, and then dropped to the 2002 level of
322 per 100,000 residents.
As the incarceration rate has increased in New Jersey, so too has state
spending on corrections. Over the past 25 years, spending on corrections,
parole, and the juvenile justice system has grown at twice the rate of the rest of
the state budget. In fiscal year 1983, the state spent just under $200 million on
corrections, parole, and the juvenile justice systems. By fiscal year 2003, annual
budgets for these programs had risen almost six-fold to $1.1 billion. The state
budget as a whole increased threefold over this same period of time. In fiscal
year 2003, the Department of Corrections spent $858 million, or about $28,000
C H A P T E R 1
What Is the Policy Context SurroundingPrisoner Reentry in New Jersey?
8 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
per inmate. For a further discussion of New Jersey’s spending on corrections,
please see “Reentry: The Fiscal Consequences,” forthcoming, by Jon Shure,
Mary Forsberg, and others.16
EXPLAINING NEW JERSEY INCARCERATION TRENDS
Over the past generation, American sentencing policy has become more puni-
tive and policing practices more stringent. These shifts reflect, in part, height-
ened concerns about public safety and increases in the levels of violent crimes.
These trends also influenced crime control and sentencing practices in New
Jersey. This section describes how changes in New Jersey’s drug arrest rates,
16 Commissioned by the New Jer-sey Reentry Roundtable.Figure 1. New Jersey Prison Population, Admissions, and Releases,
1980–2001
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics data series (NPS-1); Prisoners in 2001; Beck, A. and P. Harrison. 2001.Prisoners in 2000.
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
01980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1994 1996 1998 20001992 2002
Prison Population
Admission Cohorts
Release Cohorts
Figure 2. U.S. and New Jersey Incarceration Rates, 1980–2001
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics data series (NPS-1); Prisoners in 2001.
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
01980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001
New Jersey
United States
sentencing policy, and parole revocation practices have contributed to
increases in the number of individuals admitted to New Jersey’s prisons over
time, driving the growth in New Jersey’s prison population.
The dramatic increases in the prison population in New Jersey over the last
two decades are largely a result of a rising number of admissions to prison.
Annual admissions to New Jersey’s prisons increased from under 4,000 in 1980
to over 15,000 in 2000,17 as is seen in figure 1. Analysis of available data show that
three factors are primarily responsible for these increases. First, arrest rates for
drug crimes escalated between 1980 and 2001. Second, sentencing reforms—
principally the institution of mandatory minimum sentences, some as high as five
years—were brought about by the New Jersey legislature for select crimes, includ-
ing violent and drug crimes, sending more individuals to prison. Third, parole
practice returned large numbers of parolees to prison for parole revocations. It is
just as important to note, however, that the numbers of violent and property
crimes reported to the police decreased overall during this period, and therefore
did not contribute to the growth in imprisonment. Finally, according to available
data, length of time served by inmates increased in the latter part of the 1990s,
possibly contributing to increases in the prison population during that period.
The increases caused by inmates spending more time in prison appear moderate
compared to those caused by the increased admissions previously mentioned.
Trends in Crime
Increases in prison admissions may be the result of an increase in crime, mea-
sured by the number of crimes reported to the police. However, while the prison
population steadily increased between 1980 and 2002, violent and property
crimes reported to the police over this period followed a generally downward
trend.18 The number of property crimes reported decreased by 43 percent, from
over 425,000 in 1980 to just over 240,000 in 2001. Likewise, property crime
rates—the number of property crimes per 100,000 residents—fell 51 percent
over this period, from 5,797 crimes per 100,000 residents in 1980 to 2,835 per
100,000 in 2001. (See figure 3.) Trends in violent crime over this period were less
consistent. Violent crimes reported to the police decreased in the early 1980s,
and then increased from 1984 until 1990. Violent crime reports then stabilized
until the late 1990s, during which they decreased to the lowest point in over two
decades. By 2001, the number of crimes reported to police was just over 33,000,
a 25 percent decrease from the 44,000 violent crimes reported in 1980. Accord-
ingly, the trend in violent crime rates per 100,000 followed that for all violent
crime in New Jersey, decreasing in the early 1980s, then increasing until 1990
and stabilizing, then decreasing in the late 1990s. In 2001, 390 violent crimes
were reported per 100,000 residents of the state. In 1980, over 600 had been
reported per 100,000 residents. (See figure 4.) These data suggest that the con-
sistent increases in the prison population between 1980 and 1998 cannot be
attributed to trends in violent and property crimes. Data on drugs crimes
reported to the police are unavailable.
Chapter 1. What Is the Policy Context Surrounding Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey? 9
17 Bureau of Justice Statistics.2000. Sentenced prisonersadmitted to State or Federaljurisdiction.
18 As measured by the FBI’s Uni-form Crime Reporting systemPart I Index violent and propertyoffenses.
10 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
Admissions to prison may increase while fewer crimes are reported if police
departments make more arrests. In New Jersey, arrests for property, violent, and
drug crimes fluctuated between 1980 and 2001 while the state’s incarceration
rate rose steadily. Property crime arrests decreased in the early 1980s, and then
increased 13 percent between 1986 and 1991 from 55,878 to 63,187. Through-
out the 1990s, property crime arrests decreased 40 percent to 37,851 in 2001.
(See figure 5.) Arrests made by police for violent crimes increased slightly
between 1980 and 1990, from 17,288 to 22,683, and then decreased 30 percent
to 15,819 in 2001. (See figure 6.)
Arrests for drug crimes followed a very different trend. Between 1980 and
2001, drug arrests rose overall by a remarkable 150 percent. The trends in drug
Figure 3. Number of Property Crimes in New Jersey
per 100,000 Residents, 1980–2000
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports.
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1980 1982 1986 1988 1990 1992 1996 1998 20001984 1994
Property
Figure 4. Number of Violent Crimes in New Jersey
per 100,000 Residents, 1980–2001
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports.
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
01980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Violent
Chapter 1. What Is the Policy Context Surrounding Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey? 11
arrests, however, were not consistent over this period. Between 1986 and 1989,
drug arrests increased 70 percent, which was followed by a 33 percent decrease
by 1991. This steep rise and fall in drug arrests was followed by a more gradual
increase until 1997, when arrests for drug crimes started to decline again. (See
figure 7.)
Implementation of the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 1987 (CDRA,
see the sidebar “Sentencing Reforms in New Jersey” for a more detailed discus-
sion), likely contributed to the increase in drug arrests in the mid 1980s. This act
increased the types of drug offenses that were subject to criminal sanctions and
has had dramatic implications for New Jersey’s criminal justice system, setting
the fight against illegal drugs as the centerpiece of the state’s crime control strat-
egy.19 It led to the implementation of a statewide master plan for comprehensive
19 This was stated in a memo from then-Attorney General when the StatewideNarcotics Action Plan was distributed tothe New Jersey Law Enforcement Commu-nity on March 12, 1993.
Figure 5. Number of Property Arrests in New Jersey, 1980–2001
Source: New Jersey State Police Annual Uniform Crime Reports, 1980–2001.
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
01980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Property
Figure 6. Number of Violent Arrests in New Jersey, 1980–2001
Source: New Jersey State Police Annual Uniform Crime Reports, 1980–2001.
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
01980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Violent Arrests
12 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
drug enforcement—the Statewide Narcotics Action Plan—and to the develop-
ment of “The State Police Plan of Action” in 1987. According to the New Jersey
State Police, this plan involved an “updat[ing] of arrest, search and seizure laws
and techniques” training of officers, and “increased enforcement action result-
ing in drug arrests increasing dramatically.”20 Explaining the subsequent decline
and rise in drug arrests is beyond the scope of this report. Some possible expla-
nations are a stabilizing of the illegal drug markets in the state, the movement of
drug markets across state lines, or the reclassification of drug arrests for the pur-
poses of statistical records.
The Effects of Sentencing Reforms
New Jersey follows a policy of indeterminate sentencing, whereby the sentenc-
ing judge has the discretion to sentence an offender to prison and to set the min-
imum and maximum terms of confinement. After serving a period of
incarceration, prisoners are then eligible for release at the discretion of the State
Parole Board. This is the traditional model used by criminal justice systems in
the United States for most of the twentieth century. In recent decades, however,
many states have moved towards systems of determinate sentencing, in which
the discretion of judges is greatly limited, and sentences are largely established
by statute.21 Unlike these states, New Jersey has generally maintained a system of
indeterminate sentencing, but the legislature has nevertheless instituted a num-
ber of reforms limiting judges’ discretion in sentencing with respect to certain
types of crimes, and requiring certain offenders to spend more of their sentence
in prison.
Mandatory Minimum Sentences
In 1979, the New Jersey Legislature reformed the state’s criminal code, in part
by instituting mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes. Under this
20 From the website of the NewJersey State Police, http://www.njsp.org/about/80s. html,accessed July 31, 2003
21 Tonry, Michael. 1996. Sentenc-ing Matters. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Figure 7. Number of Drug Arrests in New Jersey, 1980–2001
Source: New Jersey State Police Annual Uniform Crime Reports, 1980–2001.
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
01980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Drug Arrests
Chapter 1. What Is the Policy Context Surrounding Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey? 13
sentencing scheme, judges are required to sentence individuals convicted of
these crimes to a prison term with a minimum term. During the 1980s and
1990s, the legislature expanded the types of crimes subject to mandatory mini-
mum sentences, adding a number of violent crimes and many drug offenses.
These reforms have had dramatic effects on the size and nature of the state’s
prison population. They have contributed to the increases in prison admissions
by requiring prison sentences for lesser offenses that may have previously been
subject to other non-custodial sanctions, such as community service or proba-
tion. Since the implementation of mandatory minimums, the share of convicted
offenders sentenced to prison or jail has increased. In 1977, only 40 percent of
sentences imposed by judges were custodial, meaning the offender had to go to
prison or jail. By 1990, custodial sentences were issued in 57 percent of cases, an
increase of 43 percent.22 (For more on these reforms, see the sidebar, “Sentenc-
ing Reform in New Jersey.”)
As shown in figure 8, both the number and share of inmates subject to a
mandatory minimum sentence increased significantly over the last two
decades. In 1982, only 11 percent, or 870 inmates, had been committed with
a mandatory minimum sentence. By 1987, the number of inmates serv-
ing mandatory minimums had increased almost seven-fold to about
5,900 inmates. They then comprised 41 percent of the inmate population. In
2002, the number subject to mandatory minimum sentences had increased to
over 16,700, nearly triple the number just six years earlier and almost twenty
times the number from two decades before. Prisoners with mandatory mini-
mum sentences now account for a majority—61 percent—of all prisoners in
New Jersey.23
It is important to note that the entire increase in the prevalence of manda-
tory minimum sentences may not be attributable to statutory requirements.
Judges in New Jersey have the discretion to impose mandatory minimum peri-
22 New Jersey Sentencing PolicyStudy Commission. 1994. FinalReport. January.
23 New Jersey Department ofCorrections, Office of Policyand Planning, Policy Analysisand Planning, 2002. Prelimi-nary Population Data. July.
Figure 8. Population with Mandatory Minimum Sentence, 1982–2002
Source: New Jersey Department of Corrections, Office of Policy and Planning, Policy Analysis and Planning, Preliminary PopulationData, July 2002.
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1982 1987 2002
Mandatory Minimum
No Mandatory Minimum
14 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
ods of incarceration at the time of sentencing in cases involving particularly sig-
nificant aggravating factors. Data from the Department of Corrections on the
proportion of the population subject to mandatory minimums do not make a
distinction between “true” mandatory minimums and cases such as those in
which the judge has effectively increased the minimum that must be served
before parole can be granted. But research using court data shows that about a
quarter of the mandatory minimum terms that were instituted in 1990 (the only
year for which data have been analyzed) were issued at a sentencing judge’s dis-
cretion; the remainder were mandate by statute.24
Overall Sentence Length
Changes in sentencing practices can affect prison populations by increasing the
length of prison sentences imposed by judges, but this has not been the case in
New Jersey. In fact, average sentence length in New Jersey has decreased in
recent years.25 In 2001, a larger percentage of New Jersey offenders were serving
shorter sentences (under five years) than was the case in 1991. The percent sen-
tenced to one to four years increased from 23 to 26, while the number sentenced
to over ten years decreased from 42 to 38 percent.26 (See figure 9.) In 2001, the
median sentence for adult offenders was six years, down from seven years in
1993.27 This is likely the result of more offenders being sentenced to prison for
lesser crimes that carry shorter sentences, the majority of which are drug-related
offenses.
Length of Stay
Even as sentence lengths decrease, it is possible that the implementation of var-
ious sentencing reforms could increase prison populations by increasing the
amount of time offenders actually spend in prison. Data on the time served by
offenders released in the 1980s are unavailable, but inmates’ length of stay
increased in the late 1990s. Inmates released in 1990 and 1995 had spent, on
24 New Jersey Sentencing PolicyStudy Commission. 1994.
25 The length of a prisoner’s sen-tence, which is the term ofimprisonment meted out by thecourt, does not necessarilycorrespond to the actual timeserved in prison (i.e. prisonersusually serve less time thantheir court-ordered sentencelengths.)
26 New Jersey Department ofCorrections.1991-2001. AnnualOffender Characteristics Reports.
27 New Jersey Department ofCorrections. 1993 and 2001.Annual Offender Characteris-tics Reports.
Figure 9. Percentage of New Jersey Prison Population, by Sentence
Length, 1991 and 2001
Source: Urban Institute analysis of NJ Department of Corrections Annual Reports, FY 1991 and 2001.
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
01–4 Years 5–9 10–15 16–20 Life
19912001
Chapter 1. What Is the Policy Context Surrounding Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey? 15
average, 18.8 months and 18.1 months, respectively, in prison.28 The average
amount of time spent in prison by inmates released in 2000 was 24.2 months—
33 percent higher than in 1995. The average time served for inmates released in
2002 then dropped slightly to 23.8 months. National data show similar overall
trends. In 1990, the average time served for prisoners released from state pris-
ons across the country was 22 months; by 1999, it had increased to 29 months.29
Average lengths of stay in New Jersey increased between 1990 and 2002 for
most types of offenders. Many violent offenders—including those whose most
serious offense was homicide, manslaughter, assault, sexual assault, and
robbery—and offenders convicted of distributing drugs experienced the great-
est increases in the average time spent in prison.30 (See figure 10.)
It is unclear why average length of stay increased over this period. Because
of the lack of available data for earlier years, it is not possible to determine
whether this increase was part of a longer trend. Important changes were made
in sentencing policy for violent offenders in 1997 with the passage and imple-
mentation of the No Early Release Act. It is unlikely, however, that this reform
would have had such a significant effect on the length of time inmates spend in
prison in such a short period of time. This is particularly true because violent
offenders who would be most significantly affected by this reform in the early
years of its implementation would not have begun to be released from prison by
2000.
Prison Population and Admissions
As a result of sentencing reforms and trends in drug arrest rates, the composi-
tion of both New Jersey’s prison population and of those admitted to prison in
New Jersey, have changed over time. Data on the stock prison population are
available for the 1980s and 1990s. Data on prison admissions, however, are only
available for the 1990s.
28 This is the median time servedfor first releases—excludingthose who were released afterbeing reincarcerated for aparole violation.
29 Hughes, Timothy A., Doris J.Wilson, and Allen J. Beck.2001. Trends in State Parole,1990–2000. Bureau of JusticeStatistics Special Report.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice.
30 Statistics provided by theOffice of Policy and Planning,New Jersey Department ofCorrections.
Figure 10. Percent Change in Time Served for Releases, by Offense,
1995 to 2002
Source: Statistics for the NJ DOC Office of Policy and Planning.
All
Man
slaughte
r
Robbery
Homici
de
Sexual
Assau
lt
Assau
lt
Drugs -
Dist
ributio
n
Other
Vio
lent O
ffense
s
Other
Public
Polic
y
Uncoded
Burglar
y
Other
Pro
perty
Offe
nses
Drugs -
Poss
essio
n
Theft/L
arce
ny
Other
Sex
Offe
nses
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
–0.2
–0.4
16 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
The share of the stock prison population that consists of drug offenders
(meaning prisoners whose most serious conviction was a drug offense) has
increased dramatically over the last two decades. In 1980, only 6 percent of the
population had been incarcerated for drug offenses. By 2002, this had increased
sixfold to 36 percent. Perhaps more telling, in just three years following the
implementation of the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 1987, the share
more than tripled. In January 1987, 11 percent of the population was incarcer-
ated for drug offenses. By 1990, this proportion had increased to 25 percent, and
by 2002, it was 36 percent. Over this same period, the share of the population
that was made up of violent offenders (persons whose most serious conviction
was for a violent crime) decreased accordingly from 66 percent in 1980 to
42 percent in 2002. The share of non-violent offenders (primarily convicted of
property crimes) also shrunk, from 28 percent in 1980 to 22 percent in 2002.31
(See figure 11.) It is important to note that the numbers of all three categories of
offenders increased over this time period, but the number of drug offenders
increased more dramatically than the numbers of the other two categories. New
Jersey prisons housed 9,150 violent offenders, 3,575 non-violent offenders, and
about 650 drug offenders in 1980. In 2002, there were an estimated 11,500 vio-
lent offenders, 6,000 non-violent, and over 9,800 drug offenders.
Changes in the composition of the prison population can result because of
changes in admissions or because of changes in length of stay. Data on both are
not readily available for the 1980s, when the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act
was implemented. Available admissions data do reveal, however, that between
1990 and 2000, the share of the admission cohort that was incarcerated for a
drug offense increased slightly from 46.5 percent to 49.1 percent. Property and
violent offenders therefore decreased as a share of the population being admit-
ted to New Jersey prisons over this period. In 2002, the share of admissions that
were drug offenders dropped somewhat to 48.8 percent.32
31 New Jersey Department ofCorrections, Office of Policyand Planning, Policy Analysisand Planning. 2002. Prelimi-nary Population Data. July.
32 Data provided by NJ DOC.
Figure 11. Population by Offense Type, 1982–2002
Source: New Jersey Department of Corrections, Office of Policy and Planning, Policy Analysis and Planning, Preliminary PopulationData, July 2002.
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
01982 1987 2002
ViolentNon-ViolentDrugs
Chapter 1. What Is the Policy Context Surrounding Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey? 17
Parole Revocations
The use of mandatory minimums is not the only factor that led to the increased
prison population in New Jersey. More parolees have also been returning to
prison for revocations of their conditions of parole. The number of parole vio-
lators returned to prison in New Jersey has increased over sixfold in the last two
decades, from 1,192 in 1980 to 6,822 in 1998. In 1980, 30 percent of admissions
to New Jersey’s prisons were for parole violations. In 1998, parole revocations
comprised 41 percent of all admissions. The rise was not constant over this
period, as can be seen in figure 12. After decreasing, increasing, and then
decreasing again, the share of admissions that were parole violators doubled in
the 1990s, from 21 percent in 1990 to 41 percent in 1998.33 This increase out-
paces national trends in parole revocations over that period. In 1999, 35 percent
of prison admissions nationally were parole violators, compared to 29 percent
in 1990.34
Much of the increase in the New Jersey prison population is likely due to
changes in violation practice by parole officers. In particular, following two
high-profile cases in 1995 and 1996 in which parolees under supervision com-
mitted violent crimes, it is believed that parole officers became more likely to
revoke parole and to return a parolee to prison for lesser infractions than had
previously been the case. Firearms have been issued to all parole officers since
1994. Many have attributed increases in the use of parole revocations in the
1990s to this practice, as it converted the parole staff to sworn law enforcement
officers and is believed to have changed the culture of the agency.35
A parole revocation may be the result of a technical violation of parole or
the commission of a new crime by a parolee.36 There is limited readily available
data on the nature of the violations for which parolees are returned to prison.
Members of the Parole Board have recently begun to explore this issue on a lim-
ited scale for a National Institute of Corrections-sponsored project on parole
33 More recent statistics providedby the Department of Correc-tions shows that the share ofadmissions that are parole vio-lators in New Jersey hasdecreased since 1998 to 29percent. These statistics, how-ever, vary slightly from thenumbers reported to theBureau of Justice Statistics forsome years.
34 Travis, Jeremy, and SarahLawrence. 2002. Beyond thePrison Gates: The State ofParole in America. Washington,D.C.: The Urban Institute.November.
35 Per conversations with MelindaSchlager, 21 August 2003, andKevin McHugh, 16 September2003.
36 Ibid.
Figure 12. Percent of Total Prison Admissions by Type, 1977–1998.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoners Statistics Data Series (NPS-1).
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
01977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998
New Court Commitments
Parole Violators
revocation policy and practice, but the results of this analysis are not available
for dissemination. According to the Parole Board, however, there were 4,582
revocations of parole issued in fiscal year 2003 (beginning July 1, 2002 and
ending on June 30, 2003). The vast majority of these—96.5 percent, or 4,422—
were issued for technical violations of parole. Only 160, or 3.5 percent of the
revocations, were attributable to new crimes.37 It is important to note that
nationally, research has shown that the administrative recording of parole vio-
lations often does not tell us much about the underlying behavior of the parolee.
Although many violations are formally recorded as “technical,” they may not be
crime-free in nature. Often technical violators are actually arrested (but not
tried for) a new crime while under parole supervision, which leads to their
revocation.
In calendar year 1999, 55 percent of New Jersey’s discharges from parole
were considered “successful”—representing individuals who were released from
parole because their parole term expired, not because of a revocation of parole
for a violation. This is higher than the national average of 42 percent.38
SUMMARY
In sum, changes in arrest trends and in criminal justice policy over the last two
decades have contributed to significant increases in the prison population in
New Jersey. In particular, dramatic increases in arrests for drug offenses and the
implementation of mandatory minimum sentences have considerably increased
the number of individuals admitted to New Jersey’s prisons, and have changed
the composition of the prison population. Rising numbers of individuals
returning to prison as a result of parole revocations have also contributed to the
escalating prison population. Increases in the length of time spent in prison by
offenders may be another contributing factor.
18 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
37 Per e-mail conversation withKevin McHugh, 17 September2003.
38 Travis, Jeremy. and Sarah.Lawrence, 2002. Beyond thePrison Gates: The State ofParole in America.
Chapter 1. What Is the Policy Context Surrounding Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey? 19
%%Sentencing Reform in New Jersey
In 1979, New Jersey’s criminal code was dramatically reformed, in response to what was seen as “wide disparity” in sentencing practice.39 Thesereforms resulted in the development of Title 2C as New Jersey’s Criminal Code. This code mandates that all first and second degree offenders besentenced to a period of imprisonment. These reforms developed mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes, including murder and kidnap-ping, among others. The prison population increased in the early 1980s after these reforms were implemented, but the composition of the popula-tion remained the same, with the greatest share of offenders convicted of violent offenses.40 Perhaps most importantly, the reforms of NewJersey’s Criminal Code in 1979 paved the way for the expansion of the use of mandatory minimum sentences in the 1980s and 1990s.41
In 1987, in response to what was seen as an escalating drug problem,42 Governor Kean signed the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act (CDRA),setting stringent mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders in New Jersey. This law has had a substantial impact on the size and nature ofthe New Jersey prison population by increasing the number of admissions for drug convictions, and thereby increasing the share of the prison pop-ulation that consists of drug offenders. Under the CDRA, prison sentences of three and five years are mandated for the distribution of smallamounts of controlled substances. Shorter sentences are mandated for simple possession of controlled substances.43
The expectation of the CDRA was that more drug offenders would spend more time behind bars. Many offenders who would have previouslyreceived a sanction of community service or probation are subject to a mandatory a prison term under CDRA. The legislation’s authors and support-ers recognized that prison space would need to expand if they were to implement the act. In fact, the legislation stipulated that it would not gointo effect until a prison building bond issue was authorized by New Jersey’s voters.44 This referendum was passed, and more prison beds werebuilt to accommodate the increased number of offenders being sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Between fiscal years 1981 and 2002, almost12,000 beds were added by the Department of Corrections. Almost 7,000 of these beds were added between 1998 and 2002.45
One specific component of CDRA—the establishment of Drug Free School Zones—contributed significantly to the changing size and compo-sition of the prison population. The CDRA made the crime of possessing or distributing drugs within 1,000 feet of a school subject to a mandatoryprison sentence. The definition of “drug free zones” has since been expanded to include areas within 500 feet of a public building, including publichousing complexes and areas around playgrounds and moving school buses. There has been little analysis of the effect of these drug free zones onthe size and nature of the prison population.
A later reform—the No Early Release Act of 1997 (NERA)—increases the amount of time that must be served in prison by inmates convictedof certain violent crimes. Because of its recent implementation, there is no evidence to suggest that NERA has had a significant impact on the sizeof the prison population. The effects of NERA may be seen in the future, when more violent offenders remain in prison past what would have beentheir parole eligibility date. The Department of Corrections has, in fact, predicted that the prison population will begin to increase in the nearfuture, in part because of the effects of NERA.46
Other reforms implemented in the 1980s and 1990s led to continued increases in the prison population by expanding the list of crimes sub-ject to mandatory minimum sentences. The list now includes all serious violent crimes, sexual offenses, and carjacking, among other crimes. Otherreforms, such as the Graves Act (1982) and Megan’s Law (1993) may have had moderate impacts on the sentencing of persons convicted of violentweapons offenses and many sex offenses, respectively. The legislature also passed a Three Strikes Law in 1995, which applies only to homicide,kidnapping, robbery, and carjacking. Data are unavailable about the number of inmates that are subject to the Three Strikes Law, but most officialssay it has rarely been used.47
39 New Jersey Sentencing Policy Study Commission. 1994.
40 New Jersey Department of Corrections, 2002. Preliminary Population Data.
41 The court, however, can determine that a sentence of imprisonment would be a serious injustice that overrides the need to deter the criminal con-duct of others, and can impose an alternate sanction.
42 New Jersey Sentencing Policy Study Commission. 1994.
43 N.J.S.A. 2C: 35:1.
44 The Associated Press Wire Services. 1987. “Drug Law Awaits Prison Funding.”. The Bergen Record. August 24 pg. C13.
45 According to the Division of Operations in the Department of Corrections.
46 NJ Department of Corrections. 2002. Preliminary Population Data.
47 Mansnerus, Laura. 1999. “As Crime Rate Drops, The Prison Rate Rises and the Debate Rages.” The New York Times. December 26. Section 14NJ;page 1; column 5; New Jersey Weekly Desk.
Chapter 2. What Are the Characteristics of New Jersey’s Returning Inmates? 21
48 There were over 15,000 sepa-rate releases from the NewJersey Department of Correc-tions in 2002, but about 900 ofthese were individuals beingreleased multiple times. For theanalysis in this report, weexamine the characteristics of the unique individuals re-leased. Releases were fromstate prisons, county facilities,halfway houses, and otherforms of custody.
In order to better understand prisoner reentry in New Jersey, it is importantto examine the characteristics of the population being released from NewJersey prisons each year. This section describes the cohort released from the
New Jersey Department of Corrections in 2002, examining basic demographics,reasons for incarceration, time served, recidivism, and physical and mentalhealth conditions. Where information is unavailable for the 2002 release cohort,it is supplemented here with information available from other cohorts.
DEMOGRAPHICS
In 2002, 14,849 men and women were released to the community by the NewJersey Department of Corrections.48 This release cohort is very similar in com-position to New Jersey’s prison population. The cohort is overwhelmingly male(91 percent) and mostly black (62 percent). The average age is 34. Nearly 78 per-cent of the population was between 20 and 40 years old at the time of theirrelease. (See figures 13 and 14 for more detail.) While the marital status of aboutone-third of the release cohort is unknown, the vast majority (83 percent) ofthose for whom a status is reported were single. (See figure 15.)
CONVICTION OFFENSE
As discussed in chapter 1, an increase in arrests for drug offenses contributed tothe dramatic increases in incarceration in New Jersey in the 1980s and 1990s. Asa consequence, 38 percent of the population released in 2002 consisted of drugoffenders. Figure 16 demonstrates that no other offense category accounted foreven half that amount. For 16 percent of the population, a parole violation wascategorized as the most serious offense committed. Smaller shares of the popu-lation had been convicted of robbery, burglary, assault, and other offenses.
TIME SERVED
According to statistics provided by the Department of Corrections, the average
time served by prisoners released in 2002 was 23.8 months. This does not
C H A P T E R 2
What Are the Characteristics of New Jersey’s Returning Inmates?
22 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
include inmates who had been incarcerated for a violation of parole, e.g. only
first releases. Offenders convicted of homicide spent the most time in prison, at
almost 20 years. They were followed by those convicted of manslaughter, sexual
assault, and robbery. See figure 17 for more information.
CRIMINAL HISTORY AND THE REVOLVING DOOR
Cycling in and out of prison is common among released prisoners, whether they
are returned to prison while under parole supervision or not. A recent study by
the Bureau of Justice Statistics tracked just over 38,000 prisoners who were
released from prisons in 15 states, including New Jersey, in 1994. According to
this study, within three years of their release, nearly 52 percent of those released
nationally were back in prison for new prison sentences or for technical viola-
Figure 13. Race/Ethnicity of Released Inmates, 2002
Source: Urban Institute Analysis of NJ DOC data.
Black
62%
Hispanic
13%
White
21%
Other/Unkown
4%
Figure 14. Age Distribution of Released Inmates, 2002
Source: Urban Institute Analysis of NJ DOC data.
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00%
Under 20
20 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 49
50 to 59
60 and over
Chapter 2. What Are the Characteristics of New Jersey’s Returning Inmates? 23
tions of their release. Further, these same data from New Jersey show that within
three years of release, 62 percent of the prisoners released in New Jersey in 1994
had been rearrested. Almost 43 percent had been reconvicted of another crime,
and about 38 percent had been reincarcerated.49 According to these results,
inmates released in New Jersey fare slightly better than the average of the other
fourteen states. Analysis by the New Jersey Department of Corrections found
that inmates released eleven years earlier had been just as likely to be re-arrested
within three years of release, but had been less likely to have been reconvicted
(38 percent of 1983 releases), and less likely to have been returned to prison or
jail (24 percent for 1983 releases).50
Of those inmates released in New Jersey in 2002, 39 percent were incarcer-
ated for a violation of parole. Nearly 12 percent of the 2002 release cohort were
49 Langan, Patrick A. and David J.Levin. 2002. Recidivism of Pris-oners Released in 1994. Bureauof Justice Statistics SpecialReport. NCJ 193427. Washing-ton, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice.
50 New Jersey Sentencing PolicyStudy Commission. 1994.
Figure 15. Marital Status of Released Inmates, 2002
Source: Urban Institute Analysis of NJ DOC data.
Unknown33%
Divorced3%
Married5% Separated
3%
Single56%
Widowed0%
Figure 16. Primary Offense of Released Inmates, 2002
Source: Urban Institute Analysis of NJ DOC data.
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Other
Drugs
Parole Violation
Robbery
Burglary
Assault*
Theft
Weapons
Rape
Homicide
24 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
again in the custody of the Department of Corrections in June of 2003 when we
received their data.51
MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH PROBLEMS
Prisoners nationwide suffer from a range of mental and physical health prob-
lems. In 1997, nearly one-third (31 percent) of state prisoners reported having
a learning or speech disability, a hearing or vision problem, or a mental or phys-
ical condition.52 Many inmates suffer from co-occurring and chronic mental
and physical health disorders that make it difficult for them to transition from
prison to free society. We were able to obtain data on the prevalence of certain
health conditions among the 2002 release cohort. About a third of the cohort
has been diagnosed with at least one chronic and/or communicable physical or
mental health condition. (See figure 18.)
A specific area of heightened concern is the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in
prison populations. Nationally, in 1999, 2.3 percent of state prisoners were HIV
positive, and the overall rate of confirmed AIDS cases among the nation’s prison
population was five times the rate in the U.S. general population (0.60 percent
versus 0.12 percent).53 Less than one-third of one percent of the general popu-
lation of New Jersey was known to be diagnosed with AIDS in 2000.54 In con-
trast, 3.4 percent of 2002 release population was HIV positive or diagnosed with
AIDS. This included 0.7 percent of the population that was diagnosed with
AIDS.55 Testing for HIV and AIDS is not mandatory for New Jersey inmates.
Therefore, the percentages cited here are possibly an underestimate of the
prevalence of HIV and AIDS in New Jersey’s release population. It is important
to note that the female release population is more likely to be affected by HIV
and/or AIDS. A 2000 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 6.8 per-
cent of females in New Jersey’s prisons were known to be HIV positive, more
51 Note that this is likely anunderestimate of the extent towhich offenders released in2002 returned to prison atsome point. We have no recordof those individuals who werereleased only once in 2002 andwere then admitted andreleased again before lateJune of 2003.
52 Maruschak, Laura and AllenBeck. 2001. Medical Problemsof Inmates, 1997. Bureau of Jus-tice Statistics Special Report.NCJ 181644. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice.
53 Maruschak, Laura. 2002. HIV inPrisons, 2000. Bureau of Jus-tice Statistics Bulletin. NCJ196023. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice.
54 Centers for Disease Controland Prevention (CDC). 2001.HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report.vol. 13(2). Atlanta: NationalCenter for HIV, STD, and TBPrevention.
55 Ibid.
Figure 17. Median Time Served by Released New Jersey Prisoners, by
Offense, 2002
Source: NJ Department of Corrections, Office of Policy and Planning
0 50 100 150 200 250
HomicideManslaughter
Sexual AssaultRobberyAssault
Other Violent OffensesBurglary
Drugs - DistributionOther Public Policy
Other Property OffensesTheft/Larceny
Drugs - PossessionOther Sex Offenses
All
Chapter 2. What Are the Characteristics of New Jersey’s Returning Inmates? 25
than double the 3.2 percent share of the general population that had been diag-
nosed with HIV.56
A 2002 report to Congress on the physical and mental health conditions of
soon-to-be-released inmates by the National Commission on Correctional
Health Care found that tens of thousands of prisoners are released to commu-
nities every year with communicable and chronic diseases that are left largely
untreated.57 In New Jersey, 18 percent of prisoners released in 2002 suffered
from at least one chronic condition, such as asthma, diabetes, or hypertension.
Ten percent have been diagnosed with at least one communicable disease or
condition, such as HIV, AIDS, tuberculosis, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea,
Hepatitis-B, or Hepatitis-C, but this is likely an underestimate. Only 6 percent
of the release population—or 880 individuals—have been diagnosed with
Hepatitis-C. This is likely an underestimate, as testing for this disease is not
required, and nationally, about 18 percent of soon-to-be released state prison-
ers are infected with Hepatitis-C.58 Mental illness has been identified in 11 per-
cent of the releases. Over 50 percent of released inmates have been diagnosed
with or assessed to have a drug or alcohol problem.59
56 Maruschak. Laura. 2002. HIV inPrisons, 2000.
57 National Commission on Cor-rectional Health Care. 2002.The Health Status of Soon-To-Be-Released Inmates: A Reportto Congress. Volume 1. March.
58 Ibid.
59 Other estimates set the percentof the stock prison populationwith a substance abuse prob-lem at 81 percent. The discrep-ancy may be due to incompletedata, or it could be true thatsubstance abuse is less preva-lent in the release populationthan in the stock population.This is unlikely, however.
Figure 18. Mental and Physical Health Diagnoses, Released
New Jersey Prisoners, 2002
Source: Urban Institute Analysis of NJ DOC data.
No Diagnoses68%
1 Diagnosis20%
2 or moreDiagnoses
12%
%%
26 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
Juvenile Reentry
Each year in New Jersey, about 1,600 youth return home from placement in a juvenile justice facility. Like their adult counterparts, these youthface a number of barriers to successful reentry.
Analysis has recently been conducted of data on the 1,262 youth committed to the Juvenile Justice Commission in 2002. This section willsummarize this analysis. For a more detailed discussion of juvenile reentry in New Jersey, please see the original report by Bruce Stout, “Commu-nity Re-Entry of Adolescents from New Jersey’s Juvenile Justice System.”60
Juveniles in New Jersey can be committed to a secure or non-secure out-of-home facility run by the Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC).Alternatively, judges can place juveniles under probation, some of whom may be placed in JJC residential programs.
Stout’s analysis shows that the average individual committed to the JJC is male (93 percent), between 16 and 17 years old (56 percent), andAfrican-American (67 percent). The vast majority (94 percent) has had at least one prior adjudication of delinquency. These juveniles also haveparticularly high rates of individual and family risk factors for future criminal involvement, including substance abuse (60 percent), involvementwith the Division of Youth and Family Services (39 percent), a parent who has been incarcerated (26 percent), and many others.
For one-third of those committed in 2002, a technical violation of probation was their most serious offense. Another 21 percent had beenadjudicated for a drug offense, 19 percent for a persons (generally violent) offense, and 14 percent for a property offense. Disorder and weaponsoffenders comprise the remaining 13 percent.
Four counties (Camden, Essex, Hudson, and Passaic) were responsible for 58 percent of juvenile commitments in 2002. Over 25 percent ofthe commitments came from Camden, 12 percent from Essex, and 10 percent each from Hudson and Passaic. Almost half of the youth committed tothe JJC in 2002 will eventually return to five cities—Camden, Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, and Trenton.
Juvenile probationers placed in JJC residential facilities are demographically similar to committed juveniles—95 percent male, 69 percentAfrican-American, and with an average age of 16.5. Two-thirds come from four counties, but not the same four counties as committed youth. Inthis case they are from Essex, Camden, Union, and Monmouth Counties.
All juveniles committed to the JJC are supervised post-incarceration by the JJC’s Division of Parole and Transitional Services. In May of2003, there were 638 active parole cases and 24 parole officers. Juveniles spend, on average, 14 months on parole. Probationers are supervisedpost-release by the probation department in their local family court.
60 The full report is available at the website of the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice: http://www.njisj.org/reports/ stout_report.html; Last down-loaded September 9, 2003.
61 Gaes, Gerald G., Timothy J.Flanagan, Laurence L. Motuik,and Lynn Stewart. 1999. “AdultCorrectional Treatment.” InPrisons, edited by Michael H.Tonry and Joan Petersilia.Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.
62 Refers to inmates scheduled to be released in the next 12months. Lynch, James and Wil-liam Sabol. 2001. Prisoner Re-entry in Perspective.
Chapter 3. How Are Prisoners Prepared for Release? 27
Historically, prison programming has played an important role in
American corrections. Many prison administrators and others have
believed that providing educational and vocational programming to
prisoners increases the likelihood of prisoners’ successful return to the commu-
nity. Recent research supports this rationale, showing that a range of prison-
based programming can contribute to positive post-release outcomes for
prisoners, including reduced recidivism. In addition to prison-based program-
ming, community-based services for released inmates have also shown to
increase the likelihood of successful reintegration and decrease the recidivism
rate of returning prisoners. In fact, research has shown that some of the most
effective programs are those that combine in-prison programming with after-
care in the community.61
The New Jersey Department of Corrections provides prison- and commu-
nity-based programming, primarily in the areas of education and vocational
services and substance abuse treatment. Unfortunately, low funding levels
prevent these programs from being available to large shares of New Jersey’s
prison population. This is not a comprehensive list of prison- and community-
based programming for offenders, but a scan of the major programs run by the
Department of Corrections to prepare inmates for reentry into society. One
program discussed, the Mutual Agreement Program, is conducted by a co-
operative of the Department of Corrections, the Department of Health, and the
State Parole Board.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS PROGRAMMING
Despite the potential benefits of facility-based programs, participation in
prison-based programs is on the decline nationwide. The number of soon-to-
be-released prisoners who reported participating in vocational programs
dropped nationally from 31 percent in 1991 to 27 percent in 1997.62 Similarly,
the number who reported participating in education programs dropped from
43 percent to 35 percent, and the number of state prisoners who reported receiv-
C H A P T E R 3
How Are Prisoners Prepared for Release?
ing formal substance abuse treatment dropped from 25 percent to 10 percent in
that same period.63 These numbers are alarming, given the proven benefit of
prison-based programs and the increasing number of prisoners who present
needs. Only 23 percent of New Jersey prisoners participated in academic or
vocational training in 2001—the same percentage that had participated in
1995.64
Educational Services
Inmates often enter prison with poor educational backgrounds and limited
employment skills.65 Recent research has documented a link between education
levels and recidivism—prisoners who have achieved higher levels of education
have a lower rate of recidivism.66 A number of factors contribute to the recidi-
vism rate of ex-offenders, but at least part of this discrepancy is due to the fact
that upon release, educational achievement and literacy skills provide some of
the tools an inmate needs to succeed in a competitive labor market once released
from prison. Many New Jersey inmates lack these tools. Upon admission, the
average New Jersey inmate is at a 6.0 grade level in reading and a 5.4 grade level
in math.67
The Office of Educational Services (OES), a subsidiary of the Department
of Corrections (DOC), provides educational and vocational programming in
each of New Jersey’s state prisons and youth facilities. While programming
varies across facilities, at minimum, each facility offers pre-secondary and sec-
ondary academic training. Many offer English as a Second Language (ESL)
classes as well. Lack of funding has made post-secondary education, at present,
almost non-existent. A federal grant has underwritten Project IN-SIDE (Inmate
Network: Skills in Developing Employment), which provides certificate-
granting training courses for inmates under 25 within five years of parole, by
contract with Union and Mercer County Community Colleges.
Despite the clear need for educational programs for offenders returning to
the community, funding for and participation in such programs are limited. In
1995, only 1 to 2.5 percent of the DOC budget, on average, went to educational
programming and services, and most of that money was earmarked for programs
for juveniles.68 State law requires the Department of Corrections to provide aca-
demic services for all inmates under the age of 20 years who do not have a high
school diploma or G.E.D. certificate. Of the inmates released in 2002, less than 1
percent were under 20 years old. And although approximately 75 percent of adult
inmates incarcerated in the New Jersey Department of Corrections tested at the
two lowest literacy levels in 1997, OES served 17 percent of the total prison and
jail population with academic programming in 2001.69 Many, if not all, OES edu-
cational programs have waiting lists, as demand exceeds capacity.70
Employment Readiness
The difficulties inmates face within the labor market, before incarceration and
after release, have been well documented by researchers. Unstable employment
63 Lynch, James and WilliamSabol. 2001. Prisoner Reentryin Perspective; Bureau of Jus-tice Statistics (BJS). 2000. Cor-rectional Populations in theUnited States, 1997. NCJ177613. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice.
64 Office of Educational Services.2002. Response to a FOIA re-quest. January 11.
65 Travis, Jeremy, Amy Solomon,and Michelle Waul. 2001. FromPrison to Home: The Dimen-sions and Consequences ofPrisoner Reentry.
66 Haigler, Karl, Caroline Harlow,Patricia O’Connor, and AnneCampbell. 1994. Literacy Be-hind Prison Walls: Profiles ofthe Prison Population from theNational Literacy Survey (U.S.Department of Education).Washington, D.C.: EducationalTesting Service.
67 Office of Educational Services,2002.
68 State Employment and TrainingCommission. 1997. StandingCorrected: Education and theRehabilitation of Criminal Of-fenders Report of the Correc-tions Education Task Force.August.
69 Bureau of Justice Statistics(BJS). 2000. Correctional Popu-lations in the United States,1997; Office of EducationalServices. 2002.
70 State Employment and TrainingCommission. 1997.
28 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
histories undoubtedly contribute to this challenge. Additionally, the time spent
in prison may diminish work skills, result in the forfeiture of opportunities to
gain work experience, and sever interpersonal connections that could provide
information about jobs.71 After release, the stigma of ex-prisoner status makes
the job search even more difficult.72 These obstacles to finding legitimate
employment add to the reintegration challenges facing returning prisoners.
The New Jersey Department of Corrections maintains a number of occu-
pational training and career development programs, in an attempt to prepare
inmates to overcome the barriers to employment that they will face upon
release. These include pre-vocational and vocational programs, an apprentice
program, work release, and a correctional industries program.
Vocational assessment is available at all Department of Corrections facili-
ties but is not conducted on all inmates. Pre-vocational and vocational
programs are offered by OES in all facilities except the Adult Diagnostic and
Treatment Center for sex offenders. Programs are offered in 33 different trades,
but all trades are not offered in all facilities. Three programs offer industry-based
skills certificates. These include the automotive trade shops at East Jersey State
Prison and Bayside State Prison, the culinary arts programs at East Jersey
State Prison, and the cosmetology program at the Edna Mahan Correctional
Facility for Women. A very small number of inmates participate in eight
apprenticeship programs, also run by OES. In 1997, there were 54 registered
apprentices in all eight programs. Overall, very small numbers of New Jersey
inmates participate in vocational programs. In 2001, only 1,611 individuals, or
just 6 percent of the population, participated in any of the vocational programs
offered by OES.
Approximately 5 percent of the prison population—about 1,250 inmates—
participate in the Community Labor Assistance Program. Work details of
approximately 10 inmates each perform service for non-profit and public enti-
ties around the state. All participants are under minimum custody levels.73
The Department of Corrections runs DEPTCOR, the correctional indus-
tries program for the state. This program employs about 1,800 inmates, or about
7 percent of the population, in manufacturing and service industries that
include furniture and license plate manufacturing, data entry, and tele-response,
in 41 facility-based programs. Manufactured products from DEPTCOR indus-
tries are used by state prisons and operations and are sold to state and local
government agencies. The main goals of the program are to reduce recidivism,
instill positive work habits, and provide job training to incarcerated inmates, but
DEPTCOR also provides an alternative source of income for the Department of
Corrections. In many states, the share of the reentering population that has
participated in correctional industries is small, because inmates in these pro-
grams tend to be those that have longer prison sentences. It is not clear whether
this is the case in New Jersey.
The effects of New Jersey’s vocational programs and of DEPTCOR on
recidivism, employment, and other outcomes of former participants are
unknown. However, studies indicate that recidivism rates are lower for inmates
with industries work experience than for inmates without this experience. A
71 Western, Bruce. 2003. Employ-ment and Public Policy. Pre-sented at the Third ReentryRoundtable, New York, NY.April.
72 Holzer, Harry, Stephen Raphaeland Michael Stoll. Forthcoming.“Will Employers Hire Ex-Offenders? Employer Prefer-ences, Background Checks andTheir Determinants.” In TheImpact of Incarceration on Fam-ilies and Communities, editedby Mary Patillo, David Weimanand Bruce Western. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.
73 New Jersey Department ofCorrections. 2000. State ofNew Jersey Department ofCorrections Annual Report,2002.
Chapter 3. How Are Prisoners Prepared for Release? 29
1991 analysis conducted by the Federal Bureau of Prisons compared more than
7,000 correctional industries and vocational program participants to similar
inmates who did not participate in either of these programs. An examination of
outcomes over a two-year period found that those offenders who received train-
ing and work experience while in prison had fewer conduct problems and were
less likely to be arrested the first year after release than those who did not. The
study also found that prison workers were 24 percent more likely to obtain a
full-time or day labor job by the end of the first year after release. Over 10 per-
cent of the comparison group had been re-arrested or had their conditional
release revoked, compared with 6.6 percent of the program participants.74
Substance Abuse Treatment
The relationship between substance abuse and crime is well documented. Stud-
ies have found that more than half of state prisoners across the nation reported
that they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time they commit-
ted the offense that led to their imprisonment. Furthermore, 74 percent of state
prisoners nationwide who expect to be released within the next
12 months reported a history of drug and/or alcohol abuse.75 The issues sur-
rounding substance abuse in New Jersey are similar to the rest of the nation.
According to the New Jersey Department of Corrections 2002 annual report,
50 percent of inmates in the state correctional population have been incarcer-
ated due to a drug-related offense.76 In addition, 81 percent of inmates suffer
from some type of drug or alcohol abuse problem, and at least 50 percent of the
2002 release cohort had been assessed to have a substance abuse problem.77
To address substance abuse issues among New Jersey inmates, the New Jer-
sey Department of Corrections worked to develop and began to implement a
Substance Use Disorder Continuum of Treatment plan in 2002. This program
uses both prison-based and post-release residential programming and counsel-
ing to address substance abuse problems for inmates.
The first phase of this program is implemented while an offender is incar-
cerated. Services are provided within the prison facilities. Upon admission to
any DOC facility, each inmate undergoes a medical, dental, psychological, and
educational screening process at a Central Reception and Assignment Facility.
Prisoners identified as having the most severe drug and alcohol addiction issues
are referred to a prison-based therapeutic community program. Typically, resi-
dents spend nine to twelve months in a therapeutic community program. Eight
facilities in the NJ DOC have therapeutic community programs and have the
capacity to serve 1,588 inmates (including 60 female). This represents capacity
for only 6 percent of the 2002 state prison population.
Treatment continues in the community with a series of residential pro-
grams and outpatient therapy. Inmates who have participated in therapeutic
communities are assessed prior to release from the Department of Corrections,
and may be placed in a treatment facility. These facilities are in the community,
and provide substance abuse disorder treatment and other services. Typically,
offenders remain in these facilities for two to five months. After completing a
74 Saylor, William G., and GeraldG. Gaes. 1992. “The Post-Release Employment Project”Federal Prisons Journal 2(4):33–36.
75 Mumola, Christopher J. 1999.“Substance Abuse and Treat-ment, State and Federal Prison-ers, 1997.” Bureau of JusticeStatistics Special Report. NCJ172871. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice.
76 New Jersey Department of Cor-rections. 2002. Annual Report.
77 New Jersey Department ofCorrections (DOC), Division ofPrograms and Community Ser-vices, Office of Drug Programs.2003. “Prevalence of Addictionof the New Jersey State In-mate.” Preliminary Report. Up-dated April 29; UI analysis ofNJ Department of Correctionsdata. The discrepancy betweenthese two numbers may be aresult of incomplete data onthe release cohort.
30 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
program in these facilities, inmates typically enter a work release or education
program.
Residential Placement Programs
In 2002, NJ DOC contracted 2,803 beds in 23 community-based facilities—both
treatment facilities and halfway houses. About 18 percent of the prisoners
released from the DOC in 2002 were released from one of these facilities. An
unknown number of these individuals received substance abuse treatment while
residing in these facilities. The private contractors who provide the facilities also
provide other services, such as education; employment readiness; and training,
counseling, and housing resources.
The Mutual Agreement Program (MAP) is the only program offered to
offenders that is a licensed residential treatment program. Private citizens also
participate in this program. MAP was initially developed in 1984 as a “coopera-
tive effort” between Department of Corrections, the Parole Board, and the
Department of Health, which offers a highly structured environment with
intensive addiction therapy. Participants generally begin treatment as inmates
and transition to parolees while in the program. Outpatient services are also
provided at five facilities for parolees who have completed a residential sub-
stance abuse treatment program. Most inmates sentenced to MAP facilities will
be released to parole. There are 160 MAP beds available in New Jersey. Of these,
120 are reserved for parolees.
Chapter 3. How Are Prisoners Prepared for Release? 31
78 Bureau of Justice StatisticsSentenced Prisoners Releasedfrom State or Federal Jurisdic-tion (corpop22.wk1). Bureau ofJustice Statistics. NationalPrisoner Statistics Data Series(NPS-1). Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice.
79 These include individuals whowere “continued on parole.”
Chapter 4. How Are Prisoners Released in New Jersey? 33
The number and share of New Jersey prisoners being released without
parole supervision has increased in recent years. As seen in figure 19, in
1990, the number of individuals released from New Jersey prisons
without supervision increased 450 percent from 1,173 in 1990 to 5,340 in 2001.
Accordingly, the share of prisoners that were released with supervision decreased
over this period. As can be seen in figure 20, 81.4 percent of releases were to
parole supervision in 1990. By 2001, this had dropped to 60.6 percent of releases.
In 2002, 9,544 prisoners, 64 percent of all releases, were released to some form of
supervision. The remaining 36 percent were released without supervision, mean-
ing they had no conditions attached to their freedom, and are not required to
report to a parole officer. The vast majority of prisoners released to supervi-
sion—almost 91 percent—were released to the supervision of the State Parole
Board.78 The remaining 9 percent were released to the supervision of the Divi-
sion of Probation, primarily to enter the Intensive Supervision Program.
PRISONER RELEASES
As New Jersey’s prison population has grown over the past two decades, so has
the growth in prison releases. (See figure 1 in chapter 1.) In 2002, 14,849 people
were released from the custody of the New Jersey Department of Corrections to
the community, almost four times the number who were released two decades
earlier (3,910 in 1980).79
In general, those individuals who were released to supervision were
released through discretionary means—they appeared before a panel that
reviewed their application and decided to approve their release. An unknown
number of offenders released to supervision, however, experienced what is con-
sidered a mandatory release. These are certain violent offenders who were
sentenced under the No Early Release Act (NERA) of 1997 (see discussion in
chapter 1), who are required to serve a set period of community supervision
after serving 85 percent of their sentence. NERA removed the discretion of the
C H A P T E R 4
How Are Prisoners Released in New Jersey?
80 Conversation with MelindaSchlager, 21 August 2003. Datalimitations do not allow us toestimate how many of the 2002releasees were subject to thislaw.
81 It is not clear why a large num-ber of inmates who are notparole violators would “maxout” their prison sentence. Veryfew offenders in New Jerseyare ineligible for parole, andthose who are generally re-ceive life sentences, and wouldtherefore not be released. Rep-resentatives of the Departmentof Corrections contend thatsome inmates choose to re-main in prison and serve outtheir term instead of beingreleased to parole. There is nodata to assess how significantthis trend actually is. Many ofthe individuals had short terms,and may have earned enoughdiminution credits to “max out”before they became eligible forparole.
34 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
Parole Board with respect to these offenders.80 The state does not keep data on
the share of the parolee population that is subject to NERA, and we are there-
fore unable to estimate the share of the release cohort that was released through
discretionary means.
All of the inmates who were released without supervision were released
through mandatory means, primarily because they have completed their maxi-
mum sentence in prison. In 2002, 5,305 individuals, or about 36 percent of the
released population, were released without supervision by mandatory release.
These individuals had completed their maximum sentence (what is often
referred to as “maxing out”).81 Over half (52 percent) of those who were released
because they “maxed out” their sentence had previously been paroled, and had
been returned to prison to complete their maximum sentence as a result of a
Figure 19. Number of Prison Releases, by Supervision, 1990-2001
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics Data Series (NPS-1).
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001
OtherWith SupervisionW/out Supervision
Figure 20. Percent of Prison Releases, by Supervision, 1977–1998
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics Data Series (NPS-1).
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
01990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
% with Supervision
% without Supervision
2001
82 Individuals sentenced underNERA must complete their fullmaximum sentence when re-turned to prison for a paroleviolation and are wholly ineligi-ble for another parole term.
83 Before September of 2001, thesupervision of parolees wasconducted by the Bureau ofParole in the Department ofCorrections. The responsibili-ties were transferred to theState Parole Board by the legis-lature and the Governor at thattime because it was believedthat the processes of parolinginmates and supervising pa-rolees would be more efficientif both functions were con-ducted by one entity. P.L. 2001,c.79, and Sullivan, John. 2001.“Merging of Prison System isSought,” New York Times. Jan-uary 21. Section 14NJ; page 8;column 1.
84 This excludes 241 individualswho were classified as “de-ported” and 8 individuals whohad died, but still owed fines.
85 This includes 300 individualswhose supervision level was“unspecified.”
Chapter 4. How Are Prisoners Released in New Jersey? 35
parole violation. Many of these individuals may have been ineligible for another
parole term.82
At the time of release from custody of the Department of Corrections,
about 3,100, or 21 percent of the inmates released, had been residing “in the
community.” Most of these—about 2,650 individuals or 18 percent of the entire
release population—were released from 1 of 23 halfway houses operated and
contracted by the state. Just over 450 of those residing in the community had
been on electronic monitoring or in home confinement prior to release. Almost
three-quarters of the inmates who had been residing in the community were
supervised post-release, primarily by the Parole Board.
POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION
Parole Supervision
The Division of Parole of the New Jersey State Parole Board supervises parolees
in the state.83 As New Jersey’s prison population has grown over the past two
decades, so has the population under parole supervision in the state. As seen in
figure 21, the parolee population increased from slightly more than 7,000 in
1977 to nearly 12,000 in 2001. In June of 2003, there were 13,195 individuals on
the Division of Parole’s caseload.84
The parolee population mirrors that of the incarcerated and released pop-
ulation. The majority of parolees—57 percent—are African-American, and
65 percent are between the ages of 21 and 40. Drug offenders made up about
44 percent of the population, and violent offenders made up 27 percent.
Almost half (47 percent, or 6,320 individuals) were under regular super-
vision.85 Less than one-third of these (1,789 individuals) were required to report
to their parole officer monthly. The rest (3,571 individuals) were required to
report more often than once a month—biweekly, weekly, or daily. Almost
20 percent of the parole caseload (2,486 individuals) were participating in what
Figure 21. Parole Population in New Jersey, 1997–2001
Source: BJS, Annual Parole Data Survey data series (CJ-7).
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
01977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001
Parolees who only owe fines taken off active case status
Parole ADP for 2001 = 12,400
86 The majority of these are fortechnical violations.
36 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
the Parole Board considers Alternative Sanctions Programs. These programs are
described below. The Parole Board had issued warrants for approximately
12 percent of the population that was missing. Another 9 percent owed only
fines, and 7 percent were in a county jail or other facility pending a hearing or
court case for a technical parole violation or a new crime.86 Another 6 percent
were being supervised out of state. (See figure 22.)
In 2001, the State of New Jersey employed about 400 parole officers who
have an average caseload of about 35 (including specialized caseloads). Exclud-
ing specialized caseloads brings the average caseload to 45.
Alternative Sanctions Programs
The State Parole Board runs a number of specialized caseloads, initially designed
to tailor services and supervision levels to individuals with particular needs and
risk levels. These programs have evolved over time, and are currently being
reviewed, and those programs that are less effective may be eliminated. The
Parole Board is currently securing funding for a new 110-bed residential
program designed specifically for inmates with co-occurring mental health and
substance abuse disorders. Programs described below are those that are
currently being operated by the Parole Board.
Intensive Supervision/Surveillance Program (ISSP): This is a program for
parolees considered to be “high need,” including individuals with borderline
intelligence, psychological problems, and severe mental health issues. In addi-
tion, “high risk” parolees may be placed in ISSP, including individuals who have
committed serious offenses, have been committed to prison multiple times, or
who have failed multiple times under community supervision. New Jersey also
supervises out-of-state parolees who are transferred to New Jersey in this
program. Minimum participation is six months, the caseload ratio is 1:25, and
the program has the capacity for 975 parolees.
Figure 22. Parole Population by Supervision Status, 2003
Source: UI analysis of NJ State Parole Board Data; * Includes individuals for whom supervision status was unknown.
Regular Parole Supervision*
47%
Alternative Sanctions/Residential
19%
Missing/Contact Lost12%
Fines Only9%
Incarcerated Pending Hearing
7%
SupervisedOut-of-state
6%
High Impact Diversion Program (HIDP): This program is designed for indi-
viduals with an intermediate level of risk. Each officer has no more than
15 cases. Participants are technical parole violators who can be safely diverted
from re-incarceration with little risk to public safety. Program participation is
for 90 days, and can be extended for an additional 30 days. In June of 2003, no
parolees on the active caseload were classified as being in HIDP.
Intensive Parole Drug Program (IPDP): Any parolee with a substance abuse
problem can be referred to IDPD. This program provides an intensive level of
supervision, focusing primarily on relapse prevention, and with attention to
interventions and counseling referrals. Participants in IDPD may have also par-
ticipated in an institutional therapeutic community and/or the Mutual Agree-
ment Program (see below). Caseload ratios are 1:25, and participation is for a
minimum of six months, with an option to extend an additional three months.
Electronic Monitoring Program: This program is exclusively for parole viola-
tors, and is the most restrictive type of community supervision in New Jersey.
Participants are subject to strictly enforced curfews, and are expected to find
employment. There is “zero tolerance” for substance abuse. Participation is for
a minimum of 90 days, and the caseload ratio is 1:20. This program has the
capacity to supervise 400 parolees.
Day Reporting Centers (DRC): This alternative sanctions program requires
technical parole violators to report daily to a non-residential center. They must
spend all day, every day at this center until a Parole Officer releases them from
this level of supervision. Programming is provided at this center, including edu-
cation services (G.E.D and ESL classes), vocational employment services,
substance abuse treatment, independent living skills, and a number of other
services. There are seven DRCs across the state, each with 50 slots for parolees.
Halfway Back Programs (HWB): These assessment-driven residential treat-
ment programs are designed for technical parole violators as an alternative to
revoking parole and returning the violators to prison. Services are provided
based on the needs of each individual offender. There are currently three
Halfway Back Facilities, with a total program capacity of 450 parolees.
Mutual Agreement Program (MAP): See chapter 3 for more about this pro-
gram for substance abusing inmates and parolees, run jointly by the Parole
Board, the Department of Corrections, and the Department of Health.
Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI): In January of
2003, the Parole Board began to implement the state’s Serious and Violent
Offender Reentry Initiative. This program is funded by a $2 million grant over
three years from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
which supports reentry initiatives nationwide. This grant provides the opportu-
nity for New Jersey to focus the efforts of at least seven state agencies and a
number of faith-based and community organizations on 200 juvenile and 100
adult offenders who are being released by the Juvenile Justice Commission or
the Department of Corrections. These offenders have been classified as high-risk
Chapter 4. How Are Prisoners Released in New Jersey? 37
87 Not to be confused with theIntensive Supervision/Surveil-lance Program (ISSP) run by theParole Board.
88 All of the information pre-sented here regarding ISP isavailable from the website ofthe Administrative Office of theCourts. Intensive SupervisionProgram. PowerPoint Presenta-tion. 2002. Accessed fromhttp://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/probsup/isp_overview/isp/frame.htm, August 28, 2003.
89 When recidivism is measuredby conviction of a new indict-able offense.
38 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
and are returning to Essex and Camden counties. Programming includes job
training and placement, educational services, substance abuse treatment, men-
tal health treatment, restitution, housing assistance, mentoring, counseling,
aftercare, crisis intervention, life skills training, supervision, and intensive case
management. The planning and development of the program began in July of
2002, and implementation of this program began in January of 2003. All partic-
ipating offenders will be released between October 2003 and April 2004. The
grant expires in 2005. The Parole Board views this program as a pilot program.
Currently, it is designed to supervise about 2 percent of the parole population.
Probation Supervision
As previously stated, 9 percent of inmates who are supervised post-release are
released to the supervision of the Division of Probation in the Administrative
Office of the Courts. Almost all of these individuals are released to participate in
the Intensive Supervision Program (ISP), a program run by the Division of Pro-
bation.87 Developed in 1983, this program is seen as an intermediate punish-
ment, and serves as both an early release program and a form of supervision for
its participants. It was initially developed to alleviate some of the overcrowding
experienced by the state’s prisons. 88
Unlike traditional parole-based intensive supervision programs, ISP is
designed and limited to offenders who are assessed as low-risk. The program
was designed, in part, to test the cost-effectiveness of alternatives to incar-
ceration. Since the program began in 1983 and September of 2002, ap-
proximately 10,000 ex-offenders had participated in the program. Over
4,600 participants have graduated from the program, and at any given time,
there are about 1,200 individuals under supervision by ISP. The remainder—
about 4,200 participants—failed to complete the program. Supervision by ISP
involves extensive contact with an ISP officer, surveillance, a curfew, and
frequent drug testing. Participants must maintain full-time employment,
participate in 16 hours of community service monthly, keep a diary, attend
treatment, and pay any child support, court fees, and costs of the program. Par-
ticipants can be returned to prison for failing to adhere to program rules. Inter-
mediate sanctions are used for all participant infractions. ISP’s own analysis has
determined that the program works. The recidivism rate for program gradu-
ates is 7.9 percent.89 The program has been estimated to save the state almost
$300 million dollars in avoided prison costs.
%%
Chapter 4. How Are Prisoners Released in New Jersey? 39
Sentence Reduction Credits90
There are a number of ways that New Jersey inmates can reduce their sentence through credits. The most common of these are commutationcredits, otherwise known as “good time” credits. All inmates who are not subject to a mandatory minimum are awarded with a number of thesecredits at admission. The number of credits each inmate is awarded is calculated based on state statute. Inmates can lose these credits by com-mitting infractions. The number of credits lost depends on the offense committed, and can be up to 365 days. They can earn back up to 75 percentof any credits that are lost by remaining charge free for three years. This can also be prorated. For example, an individual could earn back 25 per-cent of credits lost by remaining charge-free for any one-year period.
Individuals can also earn work credits. For every five days spent in “productive custody,” they are issued one day of credit off of their sen-tence. In addition, they can earn “reduced custody credits,” which are earned by inmates in one of three reduced-security statuses (gang minimumcustody, full-minimum custody, and community custody). For each month or part of a month spent in one of these statuses, inmates earn three daysoff their sentence. After they have remained in this status for a year, they earn five days a month.
These credits are subtracted from an inmate’s total sentence to calculate his or her parole eligibility date. Inmates who are subject to aperiod of parole ineligibility cannot reduce their period of ineligibility by earning sentence reduction credits. They can, however, earn time off theiroverall sentence.
90 Conversation with Dave Levay, NJ Department of Corrections, 15 August 2003; E-mail conversation with the NJ Department of Corrections,Office of Policy and Planning, 14 October 2003.
Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 41
The community context of prisoner reentry can have an important
influence on post-release success or failure. It stands to reason that ex-
prisoners returning to communities with high unemployment rates,
limited affordable housing options, and few services are more likely to relapse
and recidivate. This chapter presents findings from a geographic analysis of
returning inmates by county and examines this reentry distribution in relation
to the socioeconomic characteristics of the counties with the highest percentages
of released prisoners in 2002, Essex and Camden. In addition to an exploration
of the geographic distribution of the incarcerated adult population, analyses of
parolees, juvenile offenders, and probationers are also presented, as is their geo-
graphic overlap with recipients of needs-based government programs.
During 2002, 95 percent of prisoners released from New Jersey prisons
returned to communities in New Jersey. Of the men and women released in
New Jersey, almost one-third—31 percent—returned to two counties in the
state, Essex and Camden. This included 2,430 or 16 percent of all releases,
returning to Essex County, and 2,270 individuals, or 15 percent of the released
population, returning to Camden County. The flow of prisoners was further
concentrated in a small number of communities within these counties. Thirteen
percent of all releases, or 1,705 individuals, returned to New Jersey’s largest city,
Newark, in Essex County. Another 1,280 individuals, or 10 percent of the total
release population, returned to the city of Camden.
Essex and Camden counties present challenges to adults and juveniles
attempting to successfully reenter society from prison, especially with regard to
finding or preparing oneself for employment and supporting oneself financially.
The residents of Essex and Camden counties, and particularly those of the cities
of Newark and Camden, face many economic and social disadvantages com-
pared to many other parts of the state. The statewide median household income
is $55,146. For the cities of Newark and Camden, however, it is $26,913 and
$23,421, respectively. According to the 2000 Census, New Jersey’s unemploy-
ment rate was 3.7 percent. At the same time, unemployment in Newark was at
8.5 percent and Camden 7.8 percent. One-quarter of Newark’s families and one-
C H A P T E R 5
Where Are Prisoners Returning?
third of Camden’s families lived in poverty in 1999. Over one-third of Newark’s
households and almost half of Camden’s were female-headed. Statewide, only
20 percent were female-headed.91
NEW JERSEY’S COUNTIES
New Jersey’s counties are home to a diverse population and divergent living
conditions. These conditions provide the backdrop for the state’s criminal
justice populations, which reside disproportionately in particular counties.
Camden and Essex counties are home to more parolees and prisoners than are
any other counties, and they also experience high per capita concentrations of
parolees, admissions to, and releases from prison. With a per capita rate of
400 prison admissions per 100,000 residents, Camden county residents experi-
ence a rate of imprisonment 100 times higher than Morris County, at 4 prison
admissions per 100,000 residents. As maps 1–3 illustrate, parolees, admissions
to, and returns from prison are all disproportionately concentrated in a few
counties.
As policymakers consider a number of approaches to addressing the chal-
lenges of concentrated prisoner reentry, they are increasingly looking for oppor-
tunities to make existing resources go further. One potential source of increased
resource efficiency is found in the considerable overlap between criminal justice
populations and populations being served by government needs-based program
services, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Map 4 is sug-
gestive of possibilities for cross-agency collaboration between departments of
criminal justice and social services, whose overlapping client populations are
highly concentrated within the same counties.
A closer examination of Essex and Camden counties further suggests the
heightened challenges of prisoner reentry faced by particular communities
within these counties. Concentrated populations affected by criminal justice
agencies also suggest opportunities for cross-sector collaborations and economy
of scale solutions.
Essex County and Newark
Social and Economic Characteristics
Essex County is home to a number of municipalities with diverse populations
and divergent standards of living. Although ethnically diverse, the county’s
residential population is geographically separated by race (map 5) with black
populations concentrated in Newark, East Orange, and Irvington in the east and
white populations distributed across the remaining cities in the west. Newark
and East Orange suffer starkly lower household incomes (map 6), high rates of
single parent households (map 7), and high rates of poverty (map 8). Together,
these characteristics make up the social and economic backdrop to the county’s
concentrated criminal justice activity, particularly in the communities of
Newark.
91 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.Summary File 1 (SF-1). Profileof General Demographic Char-acteristics: 2000; U.S. CensusBureau. State and CountyQuickFacts.
42 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
Criminal Justice
Parolees account for 64 percent of the returning prisoner population in New
Jersey. As such, they represent a snapshot of the communities to which prison-
ers return. In Essex County, parolees are concentrated in Newark, where they
account for both the highest number (804) and highest per capita rate (294 per
100,000) among all other municipalities (map 9). But even within Newark,
parolees reside in particular neighborhoods and not others. Some neighbor-
hoods within the Central and Southern Wards of Newark are home to more
than 10 parolees per 1,000 residents, while most neighborhoods in the North-
ern and Eastern Wards have less than one parolee per 1,000 residents (map 10).
Likewise, a snapshot of probationers in Essex County illustrates that although
there are many more probationers than parolees, they too concentrate at high
numbers and per capita rates in Newark (map 11), and within Newark in the
same Southern and Central Wards (map 12).
Ninety-five percent of people admitted to prison eventually return to their
communities. Essex County accounts for 16.3 percent of New Jersey’s prison
admissions with 54 percent of those coming from Newark alone (map 13).
Within Newark, the Central and Southern Wards account for 55.3 percent of
prison admissions from the city (map 14). Some neighborhoods within those
wards send people to prison at a rate of more than 12 per 1,000 residents—in
stark contrast to most neighborhoods in the Northern and Eastern Wards,
which send less than 1 per 1,000 residents. The implications for those neigh-
borhoods are substantial. Because most people sent to prison return to their
communities in fewer than three years, the flow of large concentrations of
residents out of and into a few isolated neighborhoods constitutes a virtual
ongoing migration system that can undermine neighborhood stability and
strain community resources.92
As previously stated, 41 percent of prison admissions in New Jersey in 1998
resulted from a revocation of parole. The vast majority of these resulted from
technical violations. Of the 1,286 people admitted to prison in 2001 from Newark,
390 (30.3 percent) were admitted on the basis of technical violations of parole.
Another way to understand imprisonment geographically is as a public
spending policy for the safety of places. Although decisions to incarcerate are
made on an individual basis, cumulatively they amount to vast sums of money
concentrated on dealing with the problems of a few neighborhoods. For exam-
ple, within Essex County the state spends over $53 million a year to imprison
residents from Newark (map 15).93 Within Newark, prison expenditures exceed
$15 million annually for the Central Ward alone (map 16), where the state
spends more than $1 million a year to incarcerate people from a single block.
Juvenile Justice
The same pattern of population concentrations and resource expenditures hold
for the juvenile justice system. Essex County residents admitted to the custody
of the state’s Juvenile Justice Commission are highly concentrated in Newark
(130 juvenile admissions or 54 percent all juvenile admissions from Essex
County) and within Newark come from a small number of neighborhoods
92 Rose, Dina, Todd Clear, andJudith Ryder. 2000. Drugs,Incarceration, and Neighbor-hood Life: The Impact ofReintegrating Offenders into the Community. Final Report.Washington, D.C.: National In-stitute of Justice, September.
93 This estimate is most likelylow. It does not include impris-onment costs for people sent toprison who did not have anidentifiable address for thecounty. Moreover, the costestimates are based solely onaverage per diem costs ofincarceration and estimatedlength of time prisoners willactually serve (calculated byGeorge Washington Univer-sity’s Institute of Crime, Justice& Corrections), and do notinclude associated law en-forcement, judicial, or othercollateral costs.
Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 43
(map 17). The costs associated with incarcerating juveniles from these few
neighborhoods are likewise substantial, amounting to more than $8 million
annually for juveniles from Newark alone (map 18).
Social Services
During these times of severe state budget constraints, policymakers are increas-
ingly looking for ways to make existing resources go further. One emerging
approach being considered is better coordination of government services across
sectors that are serving the same populations. Geographic research on needs-
based government programs, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
(TANF) is identifying the extent to which criminal justice populations reside in
the same neighborhoods as TANF recipients (map 19). These two government
sectors are not only serving the same neighborhoods, but are likely serving the
same families and individuals. Further analysis could uncover opportunities to
combine services and/or funding streams so that their efforts reinforce one
another rather than operate in isolation.
Camden County and the City of Camden
Social and Economic Characteristics
Like Essex County, Camden County is home to a number of municipalities with
diverse populations and divergent standards of living. Although ethnically
diverse, the county’s residential population is geographically separated by race
(map 20) with black populations almost entirely concentrated in the city of
Camden with a slightly greater racial diversity in the middle of the county. Nev-
ertheless, the city of Camden suffers starkly lower household incomes
(map 21), higher rates of single parent households (map 22), and higher rates
of poverty (map 23) than any other municipality in the county. Together,
these characteristics provide the social and economic context to the county’s
concentrated criminal justice activity, particularly in the city of Camden’s
communities.
Criminal Justice
In Camden County, parolees are concentrated in the city of Camden, where
they account for both the highest number (1,144) and highest per capita rate
(1,430 per 100,000 residents) among all other municipalities (map 24). Even
within the city of Camden, parolees reside in particular neighborhoods. Some
neighborhoods in Camden, such as Pyne Point, Lanning Square, Cooper Poynt,
and Gateway are home to more than 20 parolees per 1,000 residents, while other
neighborhoods such as Fairview, Biedeman, and the Central Business District
have fewer than 7 parolees per 1,000 residents (map 25). Likewise, a snapshot of
probationers in Camden County illustrates that, although there are many more
probationers than parolees, they too are concentrated at high numbers and per
capita rates in the city of Camden (map 26). Within the city of Camden, pro-
bationers reside in the same high-concentration neighborhoods as parolees
(map 27).
44 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
Camden County accounts for 14 percent of New Jersey’s prison admissions
with 60 percent of those coming from the city of Camden alone (map 28).
Within the city of Camden, 7 of the city’s 21 neighborhoods account for
52.4 percent of prison admissions from the city (map 29). Some neighborhoods
within those wards send people to prison at a rate of more than 22 per 1,000 res-
idents—in stark contrast to better-off neighborhoods on the outskirts of the
city, which send less than 7 per 1,000 residents. As with neighborhoods in
Newark, the implications of heavy flows of prison migration for these places can
undermine neighborhood stability and strain community resources.
Of the 1,244 people admitted to prison in 2001 from the city of Camden,
351 (28.2 percent) were admitted on the basis of technical violations of parole.
From a public spending perspective, the state spends over $53 million dol-
lars per year to imprison residents from the city of Camden (map 30). Within
the city, prison expenditures for the Pyne Point and Whitman Park communi-
ties alone exceed $11 million annually (map 31), where the state spends more
than $1 million a year to incarcerate people from a single block.
Juvenile Justice
The same pattern of population concentrations and resource expenditures holds
for the juvenile justice system. Camden County residents admitted to the cus-
tody of the state’s Juvenile Justice Commission are highly concentrated in the
city of Camden (287 or 67.7 percent) and within the city come from a small
number of neighborhoods (map 32). The costs associated with incarcerating
juveniles from these few neighborhoods are likewise substantial, amounting to
more than $23 million annually for juveniles from the city of Camden alone
(map 33).
Social Services
Geographic research on needs-based government programs is identifying the
extent to which criminal justice populations in the city of Camden reside in the
same neighborhoods as the bulk of TANF recipients (map 34), suggesting the
sort of resource efficiencies that could be achieved as those identified in Newark
and Essex County.
Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 45
Map 1. Parolees per1,000 Residents, NewJersey Counties, 2002.
Map 2. PrisonAdmissions per 1,000 Residents, New Jersey Counties,2001.
46 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
S u s s e xS u s s e x
B e r g e nB e r g e nW a r r e nW a r r e n
M o r r i sM o r r i s
H u n t e r d o nH u n t e r d o n
M o n m o u t hM o n m o u t h
O c e a nO c e a nB u r l i n g t o nB u r l i n g t o n
A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c
C a p e M a yC a p e M a y
C u m b e r l a n dC u m b e r l a n d
S a l e mS a l e m
G l o u c e s t e rG l o u c e s t e r
M i d d l e s e xM i d d l e s e x
M e r c e rM e r c e r
P a s s a i cP a s s a i c
H u d s o nH u d s o nE s s e xE s s e x
U n i o nU n i o n
C a m d e nC a m d e n
S o m e r s e tS o m e r s e t
Parolees per 1,000 Residents2.3 - 2.9
1.6 - 2.2
1.1 - 1.5
0.3 - 1.0
County Parolees per 1,000Essex 1550 2.0Camden 1320 2.6Hudson 1102 1.8Union 977 1.9Atlantic 740 2.9Passaic 695 1.4Monmouth 633 1.0Bergen 534 0.6Middlesex 517 0.7Mercer 468 1.3Ocean 368 0.7Cape May 225 2.2Somerset 189 0.6Burlington 170 0.4Cumberland 167 1.1Morris 139 0.3Gloucester 138 0.5Warren 84 0.8Salem 77 1.2Hunterdon 71 0.6Sussex 65 0.5
S u s s e xS u s s e x
B e r g e nB e r g e nW a r r e nW a r r e n
M o r r i sM o r r i s
H u n t e r d o nH u n t e r d o n
M o n m o u t hM o n m o u t h
O c e a nO c e a nB u r l i n g t o nB u r l i n g t o n
A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c
C a p e M a yC a p e M a y
C u m b e r l a n dC u m b e r l a n d
S a l e mS a l e m
G l o u c e s t e rG l o u c e s t e r
M i d d l e s e xM i d d l e s e x
M e r c e rM e r c e r
P a s s a i cP a s s a i c
H u d s o nH u d s o nE s s e xE s s e x
U n i o nU n i o n
C a m d e nC a m d e n
S o m e r s e tS o m e r s e t
Admissions per 1,000 Residents3.3 - 4.7
2.1 - 3.2
1.1 - 2.0
0.4 - 1.0
County Admissions Admissions per 1,000Atlantic 1183 4.7Bergen 573 0.6Burlington 217 0.5Camden 2053 4.0Cape May 324 3.2Cumberland 298 2.0Essex 2396 3.0Gloucester 151 0.6Hudson 1545 2.5Hunterdon 44 0.4Mercer 590 1.7Middlesex 835 1.1Monmouth 929 1.5Morris 195 0.4Ocean 457 0.9Passaic 1167 2.4Salem 154 2.4Somerset 190 0.6Sussex 92 0.6Union 1209 2.3Warren 95 0.9
Map 3. PrisonReleases per 1,000 Residents, New Jersey Counties,2002.
Map 4. TANF Casesper 1,000 Residents,New Jersey Counties,2003.
Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 47
S u s s e xS u s s e x
B e r g e nB e r g e nW a r r e nW a r r e n
M o r r i sM o r r i s
H u n t e r d o nH u n t e r d o n
M o n m o u t hM o n m o u t h
O c e a nO c e a nB u r l i n g t o nB u r l i n g t o n
A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c
C a p e M a yC a p e M a y
C u m b e r l a n dC u m b e r l a n d
S a l e mS a l e m
G l o u c e s t e rG l o u c e s t e r
M i d d l e s e xM i d d l e s e x
M e r c e rM e r c e r
P a s s a i cP a s s a i c
H u d s o nH u d s o nE s s e xE s s e x
U n i o nU n i o n
C a m d e nC a m d e n
S o m e r s e tS o m e r s e t
Releases per 1,000 Residents3.3 - 4.9
2.1 - 3.2
1.1 - 2.0
0.4 - 1.0
County Prison Releases per 1,000Essex 2,430 3.1Camden 2,270 4.5Hudson 1,522 2.5Atlantic 1,235 4.9Union 1,190 2.3Passaic 1,114 2.3Monmouth 903 1.5Middlesex 784 1.0Bergen 625 0.7Mercer 531 1.5Ocean 423 0.8Cumberland 354 2.4Cape May 346 3.4Somerset 219 0.7Burlington 200 0.5Morris 175 0.4Gloucester 167 0.7Salem 140 2.2Warren 124 1.2Sussex 92 0.6Hunterdon 71 0.6
S u s s e xS u s s e x
B e r g e nB e r g e nW a r r e nW a r r e n
M o r r i sM o r r i s
H u n t e r d o nH u n t e r d o n
M o n m o u t hM o n m o u t h
O c e a nO c e a nB u r l i n g t o nB u r l i n g t o n
A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c
C a p e M a yC a p e M a y
C u m b e r l a n dC u m b e r l a n d
S a l e mS a l e m
G l o u c e s t e rG l o u c e s t e r
M i d d l e s e xM i d d l e s e x
M e r c e rM e r c e r
P a s s a i cP a s s a i c
H u d s o nH u d s o nE s s e xE s s e x
U n i o nU n i o n
C a m d e nC a m d e n
S o m e r s e tS o m e r s e t
TANF Cases per 1,000 Residents8.1 - 14.3
4.1 - 8.0
2.1 - 4.0
0.3 - 2.0
County TANF Cases per 1,000Essex 11347 14.3Hudson 5628 9.2Camden 4183 8.2Passaic 3074 6.3Mercer 2212 6.3Union 1987 3.8Middlesex 1532 2.0Monmouth 1495 2.4Cumberland 1335 9.1Atlantic 1293 5.1Burlington 975 2.3Bergen 814 0.9Ocean 807 1.6Gloucester 772 3.0Somerset 677 2.3Salem 340 5.3Cape May 307 3.0Warren 220 2.1Morris 198 0.4Sussex 101 0.7Hunterdon 39 0.3
Map 5. Percent Blackper Block-Group,Essex County, NewJersey, 2000.
Map 6. MedianHousehold Income perBlock-Group, EssexCounty, New Jersey,2000.
48 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
F A I R F I E L DF A I R F I E L D
W E S T C A L D W E L LW E S T C A L D W E L L
N E W A R KN E W A R K
N U T L E YN U T L E Y
W E S T O R A N G EW E S T O R A N G E
M I L L B U R NM I L L B U R N
L I V I N G S T O NL I V I N G S T O N
M A P L E W O O DM A P L E W O O D
C E D A R G R O V EC E D A R G R O V E
E A S TE A S TO R A N G EO R A N G E
B E L L E V I L L EB E L L E V I L L E
S O U T H S O U T H O R A N G EO R A N G E
M O N T C L A I RM O N T C L A I R
C A L D W E L LC A L D W E L L
R O S E L A N DR O S E L A N D
B L O O M F I E L DB L O O M F I E L D
I R V I N G T O NI R V I N G T O N
O R A N G EO R A N G E
V E R O N AV E R O N A
Municipalities
Percent Black75.1 - 100.0
50.1 - 75.0
25.1 - 50.0
0.1 - 25.0
F A I R F I E L DF A I R F I E L D
W E S T C A L D W E L LW E S T C A L D W E L L
N E W A R KN E W A R K
N U T L E YN U T L E Y
W E S T O R A N G EW E S T O R A N G E
M I L L B U R NM I L L B U R N
L I V I N G S T O NL I V I N G S T O N
M A P L E W O O DM A P L E W O O D
C E D A R G R O V EC E D A R G R O V E
E A S TE A S TO R A N G EO R A N G E
B E L L E V I L L EB E L L E V I L L E
S O U T H S O U T H O R A N G EO R A N G E
M O N T C L A I RM O N T C L A I R
C A L D W E L LC A L D W E L L
R O S E L A N DR O S E L A N D
B L O O M F I E L DB L O O M F I E L D
I R V I N G T O NI R V I N G T O N
O R A N G EO R A N G E
V E R O N AV E R O N A
Municipalities
Median Household Income$100,000.01 - $200,001.00
$50,000.01 - $100,000.00
$30,000.01 - $50,000.00
$3,287.00 - $30,000.00
Map 7. Percent SingleParent Households perBlock-Group, EssexCounty, New Jersey,2000.
Map 8. Percent inPoverty per Block-Group, Essex County,New Jersey, 2000.
Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 49
F A I R F I E L DF A I R F I E L D
W E S T C A L D W E L LW E S T C A L D W E L L
N E W A R KN E W A R K
N U T L E YN U T L E Y
W E S T O R A N G EW E S T O R A N G E
M I L L B U R NM I L L B U R N
L I V I N G S T O NL I V I N G S T O N
M A P L E W O O DM A P L E W O O D
C E D A R G R O V EC E D A R G R O V E
E A S TE A S TO R A N G EO R A N G E
B E L L E V I L L EB E L L E V I L L E
S O U T H S O U T H O R A N G EO R A N G E
M O N T C L A I RM O N T C L A I R
C A L D W E L LC A L D W E L L
R O S E L A N DR O S E L A N D
B L O O M F I E L DB L O O M F I E L D
I R V I N G T O NI R V I N G T O N
O R A N G EO R A N G E
V E R O N AV E R O N A
Municipalities
Percent Single Parent Households30.1% - 50.0%
20.1% - 30.0%
10.1% - 20.0%
0.0% - 10.0%
F A I R F I E L DF A I R F I E L D
W E S T C A L D W E L LW E S T C A L D W E L L
N E W A R KN E W A R K
N U T L E YN U T L E Y
W E S T O R A N G EW E S T O R A N G E
M I L L B U R NM I L L B U R N
L I V I N G S T O NL I V I N G S T O N
M A P L E W O O DM A P L E W O O D
C E D A R G R O V EC E D A R G R O V E
E A S TE A S TO R A N G EO R A N G E
B E L L E V I L L EB E L L E V I L L E
S O U T H S O U T H O R A N G EO R A N G E
M O N T C L A I RM O N T C L A I R
C A L D W E L LC A L D W E L L
R O S E L A N DR O S E L A N D
B L O O M F I E L DB L O O M F I E L D
I R V I N G T O NI R V I N G T O N
O R A N G EO R A N G E
V E R O N AV E R O N A
Municipalities
Percent In Poverty30.01% - 79.57%
15.01% - 30.00%
5.01% - 15.00%
0.14% - 5.00%
Map 9. Parolees per1,000 Residents byBlock-Group, EssexCounty, New Jersey,2002.
Map 10. Parolees per1,000 Residents byBlock-Group, Newark,New Jersey, 2002.
50 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
F A I R F I E L DF A I R F I E L D
W E S T C A L D W E L LW E S T C A L D W E L L
N E W A R KN E W A R K
N U T L E YN U T L E Y
W E S T O R A N G EW E S T O R A N G E
M I L L B U R NM I L L B U R N
L I V I N G S T O NL I V I N G S T O N
M A P L E W O O DM A P L E W O O D
C E D A R G R O V EC E D A R G R O V E
E A S TE A S TO R A N G EO R A N G E
B E L L E V I L L EB E L L E V I L L E
S O U T H S O U T H O R A N G EO R A N G E
M O N T C L A I RM O N T C L A I R
C A L D W E L LC A L D W E L L
R O S E L A N DR O S E L A N D
B L O O M F I E L DB L O O M F I E L D
I R V I N G T O NI R V I N G T O N
O R A N G EO R A N G E
V E R O N AV E R O N A
Municipalities
Parolees per 1,000 Residents8.01 - 76.92
4.01 - 8.00
2.01 - 4.00
0.28 - 2.00
Municipality Parolees per 1,000NEWARK 804 2.9EAST ORANGE 201 2.9IRVINGTON 100 1.7CITY OF ORANGE 95 2.9BLOOMFIELD 69 1.5MONTCLAIR 63 1.6WEST ORANGE 26 0.6BELLEVILLE 25 0.7NUTLEY 21 0.8LIVINGSTON 19 0.7CEDAR GROVE 18 1.5SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE 16 0.9VERONA 15 1.1GLEN RIDGE 10 1.4MAPLEWOOD 7 0.3WEST CALDWELL 6 0.5ROSELAND 2 0.4NORTH CALDWELL 1 0.1CALDWELL 1 0.1MILLBURN 1 0.1FAIRFIELD 0 0.0ESSEX FELLS 0 0.0
E a s tE a s t
N o r t hN o r t h
W e s tW e s t
C e n t r a lC e n t r a l
S o u t hS o u t h
Newark Wards
Parolees per 1,000 Residents10.01 - 76.92
5.01 - 10.00
3.01 - 5.00
0.28 - 3.00
0
er 1,000 ResidentsWard Parolees per 1,000 ResidentsSouth 224 4.91Central 219 5.76West 188 2.73North 108 1.59East 65 0.97
Map 11. Probationersper 1,000 Residents byBlock-Group, EssexCounty, New Jersey,2003.
Map 12. Probationersper 1,000 Residents byBlock-Group, Newark,New Jersey, 2003.
Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 51
F A I R F I E L DF A I R F I E L D
W E S T C A L D W E L LW E S T C A L D W E L L
N E W A R KN E W A R K
N U T L E YN U T L E Y
W E S T O R A N G EW E S T O R A N G E
M I L L B U R NM I L L B U R N
L I V I N G S T O NL I V I N G S T O N
M A P L E W O O DM A P L E W O O D
C E D A R G R O V EC E D A R G R O V E
E A S TE A S TO R A N G EO R A N G E
B E L L E V I L L EB E L L E V I L L E
S O U T H S O U T H O R A N G EO R A N G E
M O N T C L A I RM O N T C L A I R
C A L D W E L LC A L D W E L L
R O S E L A N DR O S E L A N D
B L O O M F I E L DB L O O M F I E L D
I R V I N G T O NI R V I N G T O N
O R A N G EO R A N G E
V E R O N AV E R O N A
Municipalities
Probationers per 1,000 Residents20.1 - 76.9
10.1 - 20.0
5.1 - 10.0
0.6 - 5.0
0
Municipalities Probationers per 1,000 ResidentsNEWARK 3,095 11.3EAST ORANGE 1,034 14.8IRVINGTON 630 10.4CITY OF ORANGE 478 14.5MONTCLAIR 417 10.7BLOOMFIELD 402 8.4BELLEVILLE 246 6.8WEST ORANGE 221 4.9NUTLEY 202 7.4VERONA 151 11.2CEDAR GROVE 111 9.0LIVINGSTON 93 3.4GLEN RIDGE 91 12.5SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE 58 3.4MAPLEWOOD 53 2.2MILLBURN 30 1.5WEST CALDWELL 30 2.7CALDWELL 20 2.6FAIRFIELD 19 2.7NORTH CALDWELL 9 1.2ROSELAND 8 1.5ESSEX FELLS 5 2.3
E a s tE a s t
N o r t hN o r t h
W e s tW e s t
C e n t r a lC e n t r a l
S o u t hS o u t h
Newark Wards
Probationers per 1,000 Residents25.1 - 76.9
15.6 - 25.0
8.1 - 15.5
0.7 - 8.0
0
Ward Probationers per 1,000 ResidentsSouth 808 17.7Central 705 18.5West 701 10.2North 504 7.4East 377 5.6
Map 13. PrisonAdmissions per 1,000 Residents byBlock-Group, EssexCounty, New Jersey,2001.
Map 14. Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents byBlock-Group, Newark,New Jersey, 2001.
52 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
F A I R F I E L DF A I R F I E L D
W E S T C A L D W E L LW E S T C A L D W E L L
N E W A R KN E W A R K
N U T L E YN U T L E Y
W E S T O R A N G EW E S T O R A N G E
M I L L B U R NM I L L B U R N
L I V I N G S T O NL I V I N G S T O N
M A P L E W O O DM A P L E W O O D
C E D A R G R O V EC E D A R G R O V E
E A S TE A S TO R A N G EO R A N G E
B E L L E V I L L EB E L L E V I L L E
S O U T H S O U T H O R A N G EO R A N G E
M O N T C L A I RM O N T C L A I R
C A L D W E L LC A L D W E L L
R O S E L A N DR O S E L A N D
B L O O M F I E L DB L O O M F I E L D
I R V I N G T O NI R V I N G T O N
O R A N G EO R A N G E
V E R O N AV E R O N A
Municipalities
Prisoners per 1,000 Residents10.01 - 47.62
5.01 - 10.00
2.01 - 5.00
0.35 - 2.00
0
Municipality Prison Adm. per 1,000 NEWARK 1,286 4.7EAST ORANGE 319 4.6IRVINGTON 197 3.3CITY OF ORANGE 156 4.8MONTCLAIR 122 3.1BLOOMFIELD 107 2.2WEST ORANGE 53 1.2NUTLEY 44 1.6VERONA 34 2.5LIVINGSTON 32 1.2GLEN RIDGE 28 3.9BELLEVILLE 28 0.8SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE 25 1.5CEDAR GROVE 23 1.9MAPLEWOOD 12 0.5WEST CALDWELL 7 0.6MILLBURN 4 0.2FAIRFIELD 3 0.4CALDWELL 2 0.3NORTH CALDWELL 1 0.1ROSELAND 1 0.2ESSEX FELLS 1 0.5
E a s tE a s t
N o r t hN o r t h
W e s tW e s t
C e n t r a lC e n t r a l
S o u t hS o u t h
Newark Wards
Prisoners per 1,000 Residents12.01 - 47.62
7.01 - 12.00
4.01 - 7.00
0.37 - 4.00
0
Ward Prisoners per 1,000 ResidentsCentral 373 9.81South 338 7.4West 275 3.99North 161 2.36East 139 2.08
Map 15. PrisonExpenditure by Block-Group, Essex County,New Jersey, 2001.
Map 16. PrisonExpenditure by Block-Group, Newark, NewJersey, 2001.
Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 53
F A I R F I E L DF A I R F I E L D
W E S T C A L D W E L LW E S T C A L D W E L L
N E W A R KN E W A R K
N U T L E YN U T L E Y
W E S T O R A N G EW E S T O R A N G E
M I L L B U R NM I L L B U R N
L I V I N G S T O NL I V I N G S T O N
M A P L E W O O DM A P L E W O O D
C E D A R G R O V EC E D A R G R O V E
E A S TE A S TO R A N G EO R A N G E
B E L L E V I L L EB E L L E V I L L E
S O U T H S O U T H O R A N G EO R A N G E
M O N T C L A I RM O N T C L A I R
C A L D W E L LC A L D W E L L
R O S E L A N DR O S E L A N D
B L O O M F I E L DB L O O M F I E L D
I R V I N G T O NI R V I N G T O N
O R A N G EO R A N G E
V E R O N AV E R O N A
Municipalities
Prison Expenditure$750,000.01 - $1,626,324.00
$400,000.01 - $750,000.00
$200,000.01 - $400,000.00
$26,904.00 - $200,000.00
0
*Only Municipalities with > $500,000 are included in this table
Municipality ExpenditureNEWARK $53,807,164EAST ORANGE $12,995,392IRVINGTON $7,615,504CITY OF ORANGE $6,774,336MONTCLAIR $4,591,540BLOOMFIELD $4,127,256WEST ORANGE $1,968,476VERONA $1,638,256NUTLEY $1,491,348GLEN RIDGE $1,278,776LIVINGSTON $1,165,156CEDAR GROVE $1,078,896BELLEVILLE $1,062,784SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE $882,816
E a s tE a s t
N o r t hN o r t h
W e s tW e s t
C e n t r a lC e n t r a l
S o u t hS o u t h
Newark Wards
Prison Expenditure$750,000.01 - $1,626,324.00
$400,000.01 - $750,000.00
$200,000.01 - $400,000.00
$26,904.00 - $200,000.00
0
Ward ExpenditureCentral $15,374,876South $14,008,624West $12,176,112North $6,637,308East $5,610,244
Map 17. JuvenileJustice CommissionAdmissions toCustody, EssexCounty, New Jerseyby Census Block-Group, 2001.
Map 18. JuvenileJustice CommissionExpenditures forCustody, EssexCounty, New Jerseyby Census Block-Group, 2001.
54 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
F A I R F I E L DF A I R F I E L D
W E S T C A L D W E L LW E S T C A L D W E L L
N E W A R KN E W A R K
N U T L E YN U T L E Y
W E S T O R A N G EW E S T O R A N G E
M I L L B U R NM I L L B U R N
L I V I N G S T O NL I V I N G S T O N
M A P L E W O O DM A P L E W O O D
C E D A R G R O V EC E D A R G R O V E
E A S TE A S TO R A N G EO R A N G E
B E L L E V I L L EB E L L E V I L L E
S O U T H S O U T H O R A N G EO R A N G E
M O N T C L A I RM O N T C L A I R
C A L D W E L LC A L D W E L L
R O S E L A N DR O S E L A N D
B L O O M F I E L DB L O O M F I E L D
I R V I N G T O NI R V I N G T O N
O R A N G EO R A N G E
V E R O N AV E R O N A
Municipalities
Number of Admissions5 - 6
3 - 4
2
1
Municipality AdmissionsNEWARK 130
EAST ORANGE 41
IRVINGTON 14
CITY OF ORANGE 13
MONTCLAIR 8
VERONA 6
BLOOMFIELD 6
WEST ORANGE 6
NUTLEY 5
GLEN RIDGE 5
MAPLEWOOD 2
CEDAR GROVE 2
BELLEVILLE 2
SOUTH ORANGE 1
FAIRFIELD 0
NORTH CALDWELL 0
WEST CALDWELL 0
CALDWELL 0
ROSELAND 0
ESSEX FELLS 0
LIVINGSTON 0
MILLBURN 0
F A I R F I E L DF A I R F I E L D
W E S T C A L D W E L LW E S T C A L D W E L L
N E W A R KN E W A R K
N U T L E YN U T L E Y
W E S T O R A N G EW E S T O R A N G E
M I L L B U R NM I L L B U R N
L I V I N G S T O NL I V I N G S T O N
M A P L E W O O DM A P L E W O O D
C E D A R G R O V EC E D A R G R O V E
E A S TE A S TO R A N G EO R A N G E
B E L L E V I L L EB E L L E V I L L E
S O U T H S O U T H O R A N G EO R A N G E
M O N T C L A I RM O N T C L A I R
C A L D W E L LC A L D W E L L
R O S E L A N DR O S E L A N D
B L O O M F I E L DB L O O M F I E L D
I R V I N G T O NI R V I N G T O N
O R A N G EO R A N G E
V E R O N AV E R O N A
Municipalities
Juvenile Expenditure$250,000.01 - $827,820.00
$100,000.01 - $250,000.00
$50,000.01 - $100,000.00
$22,680.00 - $50,000.00
Municipality ExpenditureNEWARK $8,262,702
EAST ORANGE $3,437,910
IRVINGTON $1,043,910
CITY OF ORANGE $928,620
MONTCLAIR $573,300
VERONA $382,410
BLOOMFIELD $378,000
NUTLEY $355,320
WEST ORANGE $286,650
GLEN RIDGE $229,320
MAPLEWOOD $183,960
CEDAR GROVE $137,340
BELLEVILLE $126,000
SOUTH ORANGE $57,330
FAIRFIELD $0
NORTH CALDWELL $0
WEST CALDWELL $0
CALDWELL $0
ROSELAND $0
ESSEX FELLS $0
LIVINGSTON $0
MILLBURN $0
Map 19. TANF Casesper 1,000 Residents byZip Code, EssexCounty, New Jersey,2003.
Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 55
F A I R F I E L DF A I R F I E L D
W E S T C A L D W E L LW E S T C A L D W E L L
N E W A R KN E W A R K
N U T L E YN U T L E Y
W E S T O R A N G EW E S T O R A N G E
M I L L B U R NM I L L B U R N
L I V I N G S T O NL I V I N G S T O N
M A P L E W O O DM A P L E W O O D
C E D A R G R O V EC E D A R G R O V E
E A S TE A S TO R A N G EO R A N G E
B E L L E V I L L EB E L L E V I L L E
S O U T H S O U T H O R A N G EO R A N G E
M O N T C L A I RM O N T C L A I R
C A L D W E L LC A L D W E L L
R O S E L A N DR O S E L A N D
B L O O M F I E L DB L O O M F I E L D
I R V I N G T O NI R V I N G T O N
O R A N G EO R A N G E
V E R O N AV E R O N A
Municipalities
TANF Cases per 1,000 Residents29.9 - 46.0
8.2 - 29.8
3.3 - 8.1
0.2 - 3.2
0
Municipality TANF Cases per 1,000NEWARK 7,703 28.2EAST ORANGE 1,533 22.0IRVINGTON 1,160 19.1CITY OF ORANGE 462 14.1BELLEVILLE 111 3.1MONTCLAIR 109 2.8BLOOMFIELD 96 2.0WEST ORANGE 63 1.4MAPLEWOOD 32 1.3NUTLEY 30 1.1SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE 20 1.2*Only Municipalities with at least 20 TANF Cases are included in the table
Map 21. MedianHousehold Income byBlock-Group, CamdenCounty, New Jersey,2000.
56 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
C A M D E NC A M D E N
P E N N S A U K E NP E N N S A U K E N
C H E R R Y H I L LC H E R R Y H I L L
W A T E R F O R DW A T E R F O R D
W I N S L O WW I N S L O W
G L O U C E S T E RG L O U C E S T E R
V O O R H E E SV O O R H E E S
B E L L M A W RB E L L M A W R
Municipalities
Median Household Income$75,000.01 - $156,911.00
$50,000.01 - $75,000.00
$25,000.01 - $50,000.00
$0.00 - $25,000.00
Map 20. Percent Blackby Block-Group,Camden County, NewJersey, 2000.
C A M D E NC A M D E N
P E N N S A U K E NP E N N S A U K E N
C H E R R Y H I L LC H E R R Y H I L L
W A T E R F O R DW A T E R F O R D
W I N S L O WW I N S L O W
G L O U C E S T E RG L O U C E S T E R
V O O R H E E SV O O R H E E S
B E L L M A W RB E L L M A W R
Municipalities
Percent Black60.1 - 95.4
30.1 - 60.0
15.1 - 30.0
0.1 - 15.0
Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 57
Map 23. Percent inPoverty by Block-Group, CamdenCounty, New Jersey,2000.
C A M D E NC A M D E N
P E N N S A U K E NP E N N S A U K E N
C H E R R Y H I L LC H E R R Y H I L L
W A T E R F O R DW A T E R F O R D
W I N S L O WW I N S L O W
G L O U C E S T E RG L O U C E S T E R
V O O R H E E SV O O R H E E S
B E L L M A W RB E L L M A W R
Municipalities
Percent in Poverty20.1 - 78.8
10.1 - 20.0
5.1 - 10.0
0.0 - 5.0
Map 22. PercentSingle ParentHouseholds by Block-Group, CamdenCounty, New Jersey,2000.
C A M D E NC A M D E N
P E N N S A U K E NP E N N S A U K E N
C H E R R Y H I L LC H E R R Y H I L L
W A T E R F O R DW A T E R F O R D
W I N S L O WW I N S L O W
G L O U C E S T E RG L O U C E S T E R
V O O R H E E SV O O R H E E S
B E L L M A W RB E L L M A W R
Municipalities
Percent Single Parent Households25.1 - 55.5
15.1 - 25.0
8.1 - 15.0
0.5 - 8.0
Map 25. Parolees per1,000 Residents by Block-Group, CamdenCity, New Jersey,2002.
58 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
C r a m e r H i l l / P a v o n i aC r a m e r H i l l / P a v o n i a
B i e d e m a nB i e d e m a n
R o s e d a l eR o s e d a l e
D u d l e yD u d l e y
S t o c k t o nS t o c k t o n
C o o p e r P o y n tC o o p e r P o y n t
C o o p e r G r a n tC o o p e r G r a n t
C e n t r a l C e n t r a l W a t e r f r o n tW a t e r f r o n t
W a t e r f r o n t S o u t hW a t e r f r o n t S o u t h
C e n t e r v i l l eC e n t e r v i l l e
L i b e r t y P a r kL i b e r t y P a r k
W h i t m a n P a r kW h i t m a n P a r k
F a i r v i e wF a i r v i e w
M o r g a n V i l l a g eM o r g a n V i l l a g e
P a r k s i d eP a r k s i d e
M a r l t o nM a r l t o n
P y n e P o i n tP y n e P o i n t
L a n n i n g L a n n i n g S q u a r eS q u a r e
C e n t r a l C e n t r a l B u s i n e s sB u s i n e s sD i s t r i c tD i s t r i c t
B e r g e n S q u a r eB e r g e n S q u a r e
G a t e w a yG a t e w a yParolees per 1,000 Residents
21.6 - 45.7
15.1 - 21.5
10.1 - 15.0
2.0 - 10.0
Neighborhood Parolees per 1,000Pyne Point 131 22.8Whitman Park 104 16.2Lanning Square 95 23.8Marlton 93 18.4Bergen Square 73 18.8Cooper Poynt 71 24.7Stockton 66 10.8Dudley 62 16.6Rosedale 58 11.7Gateway 56 23.0Parkside 55 11.5Morgan Village 48 13.9Cramer Hill/Pavonia 41 9.4Liberty Park 38 16.0Biedeman 37 6.5Centerville 36 12.5Fairview 36 6.1Waterfront South 27 15.9Central Waterfront 25 26.0Central Business District 11 6.3Cooper Grant 11 13.1
Map 24. Parolees per1,000 Residents by Block-Group, CamdenCounty, New Jersey,2002.
C A M D E NC A M D E N
P E N N S A U K E NP E N N S A U K E N
C H E R R Y H I L LC H E R R Y H I L L
W A T E R F O R DW A T E R F O R D
W I N S L O WW I N S L O W
G L O U C E S T E RG L O U C E S T E R
V O O R H E E SV O O R H E E S
B E L L M A W RB E L L M A W R
Municipalities
Parolees per 1,000 Residents15.1 - 45.7
5.1 - 15.0
2.1 - 5.0
0.3 - 2.0
*Only Municipalities with at least 10 Parolees are included in this table
Municipality Parolees per 1,000 ResidentsCAMDEN 1,144 14.3GLOUCESTER 109 1.4PENNSAUKEN 93 2.6WINSLOW 59 1.7CHERRY HILL 54 0.8COLLINGSWOOD 25 1.7LINDENWOLD 24 1.4LAWNSIDE 20 7.4BERLIN 18 1.6HADDON 18 1.2RUNNEMEDE 18 2.1PINE HILL 15 1.4CLEMENTON 14 2.8VOORHEES 14 0.5WOODLYNNE 14 5.0MOUNT EPHRAIM 12 2.7BELLMAWR 11 1.0
Map 27. Probationersper 1,000 Residents by Block-Group, CamdenCity, New Jersey,2001.
Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 59
C r a m e r H i l l / P a v o n i aC r a m e r H i l l / P a v o n i a
B i e d e m a nB i e d e m a n
R o s e d a l eR o s e d a l e
D u d l e yD u d l e y
S t o c k t o nS t o c k t o n
C o o p e r P o y n tC o o p e r P o y n t
C o o p e r G r a n tC o o p e r G r a n t
C e n t r a l C e n t r a l W a t e r f r o n tW a t e r f r o n t
W a t e r f r o n t S o u t hW a t e r f r o n t S o u t h
C e n t e r v i l l eC e n t e r v i l l e
L i b e r t y P a r kL i b e r t y P a r k
W h i t m a n P a r kW h i t m a n P a r k
F a i r v i e wF a i r v i e w
M o r g a n V i l l a g eM o r g a n V i l l a g e
P a r k s i d eP a r k s i d e
M a r l t o nM a r l t o n
P y n e P o i n tP y n e P o i n t
L a n n i n g L a n n i n g S q u a r eS q u a r e
C e n t r a l C e n t r a l B u s i n e s sB u s i n e s sD i s t r i c tD i s t r i c t
B e r g e n S q u a r eB e r g e n S q u a r e
G a t e w a yG a t e w a y Probationers per 1,000 Residents
30.1 - 42.1
25.1 - 30.0
20.1 - 25.0
8.4 - 20.0
Neighborhoods Probationers per 1,000Whitman Park 168 26.2Marlton 143 28.3Pyne Point 129 22.4Bergen Square 121 31.2Stockton 121 19.8Lanning Square 116 29.1Fairview 111 18.7Parkside 101 21.1Rosedale 94 19.0Biedeman 87 15.3Morgan Village 87 25.3Gateway 83 34.0Dudley 79 21.2Cramer Hill/Pavonia 75 17.2Centerville 67 23.3Liberty Park 59 24.8Cooper Poynt 57 19.8Waterfront South 46 27.1Central Waterfront 32 33.3Central Business District 24 13.8Cooper Grant 8 9.5
Map 26. Probationersper 1,000 Residents by Block-Group, CamdenCounty, New Jersey,2003.
C A M D E NC A M D E N
P E N N S A U K E NP E N N S A U K E N
C H E R R Y H I L LC H E R R Y H I L L
W A T E R F O R DW A T E R F O R D
W I N S L O WW I N S L O W
G L O U C E S T E RG L O U C E S T E R
V O O R H E E SV O O R H E E S
B E L L M A W RB E L L M A W R
Municipalities
Probationers per 1,000 Residents
20.1 - 42.1
10.1 - 20.0
5.1 - 10.0
0.5 - 5.0
0
*Only Municipalities with at least 50 Probationers are included in this table
Municipality Probationers per 1,000CAMDEN 1,780 22.3GLOUCESTER 600 7.9PENNSAUKEN 326 9.1CHERRY HILL 229 3.3WINSLOW 217 6.3LINDENWOLD 166 9.5PINE HILL 112 10.3COLLINGSWOOD 104 7.3BELLMAWR 95 8.4RUNNEMEDE 85 10.0WOODLYNNE 79 28.3VOORHEES 76 2.7HADDON 75 5.1CLEMENTON 73 14.6MOUNT EPHRAIM 69 15.4BERLIN 61 5.3AUDUBON 58 6.3WATERFORD 57 5.4HADDON HEIGHTS 52 6.9
Map 29. PrisonAdmissions per 1,000 Residents by Block-Group, CamdenCity, New Jersey,2001.
60 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
C r a m e r H i l l / P a v o n i aC r a m e r H i l l / P a v o n i a
B i e d e m a nB i e d e m a n
R o s e d a l eR o s e d a l e
D u d l e yD u d l e y
S t o c k t o nS t o c k t o n
C o o p e r P o y n tC o o p e r P o y n t
C o o p e r G r a n tC o o p e r G r a n t
C e n t r a l C e n t r a l W a t e r f r o n tW a t e r f r o n t
W a t e r f r o n t S o u t hW a t e r f r o n t S o u t h
C e n t e r v i l l eC e n t e r v i l l e
L i b e r t y P a r kL i b e r t y P a r k
W h i t m a n P a r kW h i t m a n P a r k
F a i r v i e wF a i r v i e w
M o r g a n V i l l a g eM o r g a n V i l l a g e
P a r k s i d eP a r k s i d e
M a r l t o nM a r l t o n
P y n e P o i n tP y n e P o i n t
L a n n i n g L a n n i n g S q u a r eS q u a r e
C e n t r a l C e n t r a l B u s i n e s sB u s i n e s sD i s t r i c tD i s t r i c t
B e r g e n S q u a r eB e r g e n S q u a r e
G a t e w a yG a t e w a y Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents
23.1 - 36.9
15.1 - 23.0
10.1 - 15.0
5.3 - 10.0
Neighborhood Admissions per 1,000 Pyne Point 131 22.8Whitman Park 125 19.5Lanning Square 90 22.6Marlton 84 16.6Dudley 81 21.7Bergen Square 72 18.6Parkside 69 14.4Rosedale 62 12.5Stockton 61 10.0Fairview 61 10.3Biedeman 52 9.2Gateway 51 20.9Morgan Village 51 14.8Cooper Poynt 48 16.7Cramer Hill/Pavonia 47 10.8Centerville 46 16.0Waterfront South 41 24.1Liberty Park 35 14.7Central Waterfront 17 17.7Central Business District 12 6.9Cooper Grant 8 9.5
Map 28. PrisonAdmissions per 1,000 Residents by Block-Group, CamdenCounty, New Jersey,2001.
C A M D E NC A M D E N
P E N N S A U K E NP E N N S A U K E N
C H E R R Y H I L LC H E R R Y H I L L
W A T E R F O R DW A T E R F O R D
W I N S L O WW I N S L O W
G L O U C E S T E RG L O U C E S T E R
V O O R H E E SV O O R H E E S
B E L L M A W RB E L L M A W R
Municipalities
Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents
15.1 - 36.9
5.1 - 15.0
2.1 - 5.0
0.3 - 2.0
*Only Municipalities with at least 15 admissions are included in this table
Municipality Admissions per 1,000 ResidentsCAMDEN 1,225 15.3GLOUCESTER 131 1.7PENNSAUKEN 95 2.7WINSLOW 56 1.6CHERRY HILL 53 0.8WOODLYNNE 27 9.7BELLMAWR 26 2.3COLLINGSWOOD 25 1.7RUNNEMEDE 25 2.9HADDON 23 1.6LINDENWOLD 21 1.2MOUNT EPHRAIM 21 4.7VOORHEES 21 0.7PINE HILL 17 1.6
Map 31. PrisonExpenditure by Block-Group, CamdenCity, New Jersey,2001.
Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 61
C r a m e r H i l l / P a v o n i aC r a m e r H i l l / P a v o n i a
B i e d e m a nB i e d e m a n
R o s e d a l eR o s e d a l e
D u d l e yD u d l e y
S t o c k t o nS t o c k t o n
C o o p e r P o y n tC o o p e r P o y n t
C o o p e r G r a n tC o o p e r G r a n t
C e n t r a l C e n t r a l W a t e r f r o n tW a t e r f r o n t
W a t e r f r o n t S o u t hW a t e r f r o n t S o u t h
C e n t e r v i l l eC e n t e r v i l l e
L i b e r t y P a r kL i b e r t y P a r k
W h i t m a n P a r kW h i t m a n P a r k
F a i r v i e wF a i r v i e w
M o r g a n V i l l a g eM o r g a n V i l l a g e
P a r k s i d eP a r k s i d e
M a r l t o nM a r l t o n
P y n e P o i n tP y n e P o i n t
L a n n i n g L a n n i n g S q u a r eS q u a r e
C e n t r a l C e n t r a l B u s i n e s sB u s i n e s sD i s t r i c tD i s t r i c t
B e r g e n S q u a r eB e r g e n S q u a r e
G a t e w a yG a t e w a yPrison Expenditure
$1,000,000.01 - $1,974,252.00
$750,000.01 - $1,000,000.00
$500,000.01 - $750,000.00
$132,012.00 - $500,000.00
Neighborhood Prison ExpenditurePyne Point $5,495,256Whitman Park $5,044,728Lanning Square $3,918,636Marlton $3,731,676Dudley $3,600,348Parkside $3,246,036Bergen Square $3,243,528Rosedale $2,652,552Stockton $2,583,012Fairview $2,453,964Gateway $2,406,996Biedeman $2,405,172Morgan Village $2,230,068Cramer Hill/Pavonia $2,092,356Cooper Poynt $1,981,548Centerville $1,932,528Waterfront South $1,865,724Liberty Park $1,526,688Central Waterfront $761,520Central Business District $543,096Cooper Grant $279,528
Map 30. PrisonExpenditure by Block-Group, CamdenCounty, New Jersey,2001.
C A M D E NC A M D E N
P E N N S A U K E NP E N N S A U K E N
C H E R R Y H I L LC H E R R Y H I L L
W A T E R F O R DW A T E R F O R D
W I N S L O WW I N S L O W
G L O U C E S T E RG L O U C E S T E R
V O O R H E E SV O O R H E E S
B E L L M A W RB E L L M A W R
Municipalities
Prison Expenditure$1,000,000.01 - $1,974,252.00
$500,000.01 - $1,000,000.00
$200,000.01 - $500,000.00
$26,904.00 - $200,000.00
*Only Municipalities with > $500,000 are included in this table
Municipality ExpenditureCAMDEN $53,083,188GLOUCESTER $5,150,064PENNSAUKEN $4,113,804WINSLOW $2,689,944CHERRY HILL $1,780,680WOODLYNNE $1,191,984COLLINGSWOOD $1,044,924RUNNEMEDE $973,788HADDON $948,936LINDENWOLD $882,360BELLMAWR $833,796VOORHEES $797,772PINE HILL $789,108MOUNT EPHRAIM $776,340MERCHANTVILLE $696,540AUDUBON $526,680LAWNSIDE $508,668
Map 33. JuvenileJustice CommissionExpenditures forCustody, CamdenCounty, New Jerseyby Census Block-Group.
62 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
C A M D E NC A M D E N
P E N N S A U K E NP E N N S A U K E N
C H E R R Y H I L LC H E R R Y H I L L
W A T E R F O R DW A T E R F O R D
W I N S L O WW I N S L O W
G L O U C E S T E RG L O U C E S T E R
V O O R H E E SV O O R H E E S
B E L L M A W RB E L L M A W R
Municipalities
Expenditure$500,000.01 - $1,182,510.00
$250,000.01 - $500,000.00
$100,000.01 - $250,000.00
$11,340.00 - $100,000.00
Municipality ExpenditureCAMDEN $23,526,216GLOUCESTER $2,387,700CHERRY HILL $1,098,090PENNSAUKEN $803,880WINSLOW $941,850GLOUCESTER $455,490COLLINGSWOOD $516,600PINE HILL $459,900VOORHEES $367,920LINDENWOLD $367,290WOODLYNNE $344,610MOUNT EPHRAIM $298,620RUNNEMEDE $217,980AUDUBON $298,620LAWNSIDE $321,930BARRINGTON $183,960HADDON $114,660BELLMAWR $91,980STRATFORD $91,980BERLIN $68,670CLEMENTON $45,360HADDON HEIGHTS $183,960OAKLYN $91,980BERLIN $91,980SOMERDALE $45,990WATERFORD $34,020HI-NELLA $22,680GIBBSBORO $11,340
*Only Municipalities with an expendituregreater than zero are included in this table.
Map 32. JuvenileJustice CommissionAdmissions toCustody, CamdenCounty, New Jerseyby Census Block-Group, 2001.
C A M D E NC A M D E N
P E N N S A U K E NP E N N S A U K E N
C H E R R Y H I L LC H E R R Y H I L L
W A T E R F O R DW A T E R F O R D
W I N S L O WW I N S L O W
G L O U C E S T E RG L O U C E S T E R
V O O R H E E SV O O R H E E S
B E L L M A W RB E L L M A W R
Municipalities
Number of Admissions9 - 14
5 - 8
3 - 4
1 - 2
Municipality AdmissionsCAMDEN 287GLOUCESTER 31CHERRY HILL 14PENNSAUKEN 13WINSLOW 12GLOUCESTER 8COLLINGSWOOD 7PINE HILL 5VOORHEES 5LINDENWOLD 5WOODLYNNE 5MOUNT EPHRAIM 4RUNNEMEDE 4AUDUBON 3LAWNSIDE 2BARRINGTON 2HADDON 2BELLMAWR 2STRATFORD 2BERLIN 2CLEMENTON 2HADDON HEIGHTS 1OAKLYN 1BERLIN 1SOMERDALE 1WATERFORD 1HI-NELLA 1GIBBSBORO 1
*Only Municipalities with an admission count greater than zero are included in this table.
Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 63
Map 34. TANF Casesper 1,000 Residents byZip Codes, CamdenCounty, New Jersey,2003.
C A M D E NC A M D E N
P E N N S A U K E NP E N N S A U K E N
C H E R R Y H I L LC H E R R Y H I L L
W A T E R F O R DW A T E R F O R D
W I N S L O WW I N S L O W
G L O U C E S T E RG L O U C E S T E R
V O O R H E E SV O O R H E E S
B E L L M A W RB E L L M A W R
Municipalities
TANF Cases per 1,000 Residents
20.1 - 36.9
10.1 - 20.0
2.3 - 10.0
0.0 - 2.2
Municipality TANF Cases per 1,000CAMDEN 2766 34.6LINDENWOLD 288 16.5WINSLOW 238 6.9PENNSAUKEN 199 5.6COLLINGSWOOD 104 7.3CHERRY HILL 99 1.4GLOUCESTER 98 8.5MERCHANTVILLE 90 23.7WATERFORD 55 5.2LAWNSIDE 37 13.7GLOUCESTER 33 0.5BELLMAWR 26 2.3MAGNOLIA 22 5.0VOORHEES 20 0.7*Only Municipalities with at least 20 TANF Cases are included in the table
64 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
This report highlights the many challenges and opportunities prisoner
reentry poses for the state of New Jersey and for the individuals released
from New Jersey’s prisons. As the size of the New Jersey prison popu-
lation has increased over the past two decades, so too has the number of inmates
being released from prison. Thus, more and more returning prisoners are faced
with the many challenges of reentry, including finding jobs, housing, and
substance abuse treatment; reuniting with family; and reintegrating into the
community. Given the increasing numbers of returning prisoners and the fact
that they are returning to a small number of communities in the state, the
impact of reentry on communities is a particularly pressing problem. Clearly,
prisoner reentry is an important policy issue and one that has significant impli-
cations for public safety and quality of life across the state. This summary section
highlights the key findings in this report and raises additional questions with
regard to reentry in New Jersey.
HIGHLIGHTS
Over the past quarter century, the growth in prison populations nationwide has
translated into more and more people being released from prison and reenter-
ing society. The state of New Jersey has experienced similar incarceration and
release trends and thus faces the reentry challenges that accompany such
growth. Between 1977 and 2002, the New Jersey prison population more than
quadrupled. This growth is largely attributable to more people, specifically drug
offenders and parole violators, being sent to prison. The share of the prison pop-
ulation that consists of drug offenders increased sixfold between 1980 and 2002,
from 6 to 36 percent of the population. Between 1980 and 1998, the number of
parole violators returning to prison in New Jersey has also increased over six-
fold, reflecting an increase from 30 to 41 percent of all admissions to New Jer-
sey prisons during that period. It is believed that the vast majority of these
revocations were for technical violations and that relatively few were for new
crimes.
C H A P T E R 6
Summary
Chapter 6. Summary 65
The number of people released from New Jersey’s prisons reflects these
rising admissions and population trends: 14,849 prisoners were released from
New Jersey prisons in 2002, nearly four times the number released in 1980.The
2002 release cohort is overwhelmingly male (91 percent) and mostly black
(63 percent). Over three-quarters of the population were between 20 and
40 years old at the time of release, with an average age of 34. Over one-third had
been serving time for drug offenses. About a third of the cohort has been diag-
nosed with at least one chronic and/or communicable physical or mental health
condition, not including substance abuse. Of those inmates released in New Jer-
sey in 2002, 39 percent were incarcerated for a violation of parole. Nearly
12 percent of the cohort was again in the custody of the Department of Correc-
tions in June of 2003 when we received their data.
Some programming is provided to prepare New Jersey’s inmates to success-
fully reenter society. Programs focus on academic and vocational services and
substance abuse treatment. Limited funding prevents these programs from being
available to large proportions of the prison population. Because of statutory
requirements, the academic services that are available are focused on the youngest
of inmates, who represent less than 1 percent of individuals released in 2002.
The share of New Jersey’s prisoners released to parole supervision has
decreased in recent years. In 2002, 64 percent of all releases were released to
some form of supervision. The majority of these were released at the discretion
of the Parole Board. Of the 36 percent of releases who were released to no super-
vision, at least half had been returned to prison as a result of a parole revocation.
Almost one-third of prisoners released in 2002 came from two counties—
Essex and Camden—that face great economic and social disadvantage. The
median household income in the central cities of these two counties is less than
50 percent of the statewide median household income. Unemployment in the
central cities is significantly higher than in the rest of the state, and large shares
of the population live in poverty and in single parent households.
The high concentration of criminal justice populations returning to and
residing in a few key inner city communities also suggests new opportunities for
better combining scarce resources in ways that are more efficient and effective.
With state budgets straining under the pressure of impending deficits, all gov-
ernment agencies are being asked to rethink the way they do business. The fact
that reentry challenges are concentrated in a limited number of communities
also means that targeted interventions and investments in those places could
have economy of scale impacts that reverberate beyond those communities
alone. Moreover, because all government agencies are facing the same budgetary
challenges, there is an increased incentive to look across agencies for opportu-
nities to work collaboratively so that policies do not work in isolation of one
another and instead reinforce community-targeted solutions to the related
issues of high levels of criminal justice, needs-based program services, poverty,
and family instability.
It is clear that the challenges of reentry in New Jersey are great, but so are
the opportunities. The fact that the federal government has awarded the State of
New Jersey $2 million over three years to support a pilot reentry program holds
66 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY
great promise for the reentry prospects of future cohorts of released prisoners.
The work of the New Jersey Reentry Roundtable, along with the state’s partic-
ipation in the National Governor’s Association Reentry Policy Academy, will
help the state to develop a strategic response to the challenge of prisoner reentry
in New Jersey. We hope that this report can help shape decisions about the best
ways to serve the state’s citizens, communities and returning prisoners. Suc-
cessful reentry is critical for ensuring public safety, reducing the costs of rein-
carceration, and promoting the well-being of individuals, families, and
communities.
Chapter 6. Summary 67