Parole Release Decisions in New Jersey: The Impact of Public Input and the Needs of People Who Provide It Occasional Series on Reentry Research Prisoner

Parole Release Decisions in New Jersey: The Impact of Public Input

and the Needs of People Who Provide It

Occasional Series on Reentry ResearchPrisoner Reentry Institute | John Jay College of Criminal Justice

November 12, 2010

Joel M. Caplan, Ph.D.Assistant ProfessorAssociate Director

Center for Law & Justice123 Washington Street

Newark, NJ 07102973-353-1304

[email protected]

Research funded in part by the JEHT Foundation

Slide 2 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved

2020thth Century Parole System: Century Parole System: Two major changes to decision-Two major changes to decision-

makingmaking1.1. Limits on parole board discretionary Limits on parole board discretionary

powers to release inmates on parolepowers to release inmates on parole

► Ramifications Ramifications today today high prison high prison

populationspopulations longer portions of longer portions of

sentences served sentences served in prison, no in prison, no parole.parole.


2020thth Century Parole System: Century Parole System: Two major changes to decision-Two major changes to decision-

makingmaking1.1. Limits to parole board discretionary powers Limits to parole board discretionary powers

to release inmates on paroleto release inmates on parole

2.2. Victim participation at parole hearingsVictim participation at parole hearings


How Could This Be…How Could This Be…

► 1960s-1970s – 1960s-1970s – limits tolimits to discretion and the discretion and the individualityindividuality of inmate releases to parole of inmate releases to parole

► 1970s-1990s – 1970s-1990s – increasedincreased opportunities for opportunities for participation and participation and influence byinfluence by ( (individualindividual) ) victims at parole hearingsvictims at parole hearings


Procedural Justice and LegitimacyProcedural Justice and Legitimacy

► Procedural justice: fair procedures generate Procedural justice: fair procedures generate fair outcomesfair outcomes Procedural justice enhances the Procedural justice enhances the

legitimacy of parole boards and their legitimacy of parole boards and their release decisionsrelease decisions

► Legitimacy: a quality possessed by a Legitimacy: a quality possessed by a government or institutional entitygovernment or institutional entity


The Interconnectedness of The Interconnectedness of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy…Procedural Justice and Legitimacy…

……better explains the two major (and arguably better explains the two major (and arguably contradictory) changes to parole policies contradictory) changes to parole policies and practices over the past 40 years.and practices over the past 40 years.


2121stst Century Parole System Century Parole System

► There remains a general lack of There remains a general lack of understanding about the interaction understanding about the interaction between victims’ rights legislation and between victims’ rights legislation and parole board policies and practices.parole board policies and practices.


HypothesesHypotheses

1. Victim and non-victim input against parole release is more likely to result in the denial of parole for parole-eligible prisoners, when controlling for input in favor of parole release, institutional behavior, incarceration length, crime severity, criminal history, mental illness, race, age, and gender.

2. Victim input in favor of parole release is more likely to result in the approval of parole for parole-eligible prisoners…

3. Victim input, both for and against release, will have a greater affect on parole decisions than non-victim input…

4. Verbal input provided by victims or non-victims to parole board representatives will have a greater affect on release decisions for parole-eligible prisoners than written input…


Setting: NJ State Parole Board Setting: NJ State Parole Board (SPB)(SPB)

► SPB: autonomous agencySPB: autonomous agency 1 Chairperson, 13 Associate Board Members 1 Chairperson, 13 Associate Board Members

and 3 Alternate Board Members and 3 Alternate Board Members Appointed by the Governor for 6 yr terms Appointed by the Governor for 6 yr terms

► Victim Input ProcessVictim Input Process1.1. Victims notified of right to testify to SPB Victims notified of right to testify to SPB

2.2. Input is submitted via written or videotaped Input is submitted via written or videotaped correspondence, in-person or correspondence, in-person or telecommunicated interviewstelecommunicated interviews Becomes a permanent part of inmate’s fileBecomes a permanent part of inmate’s file


Registered Victims are Invited to Registered Victims are Invited to Discuss:Discuss:

1.1. Nature and extent of any harm or trauma Nature and extent of any harm or trauma suffered; suffered;

2.2. Extent of any loss of earnings or ability to Extent of any loss of earnings or ability to work suffered; work suffered;

3.3. Continuing effect of the crime upon the Continuing effect of the crime upon the victim's family; victim's family;

4.4. Requests for special parole conditions;Requests for special parole conditions;

5.5. Any other information.Any other information.


Sampling Sampling DesignDesign


Independent Variables Related to Independent Variables Related to InputInput


Dependent & Control VariablesDependent & Control Variables

► Dependent VariableDependent Variable Parole release decisionParole release decision

► Control VariablesControl Variables Inmate raceInmate race Inmate genderInmate gender Inmate ageInmate age Institutional behaviorInstitutional behavior Incarceration lengthIncarceration length Crime severityCrime severity Criminal historyCriminal history Mental illnessMental illness


Descriptive StatisticsDescriptive Statistics


Descriptive Statistics (cont’d)Descriptive Statistics (cont’d)


Non-Victim Input:Non-Victim Input:Types, Sources & OrientationTypes, Sources & Orientation


Victim Input:Victim Input:Types, Sources & OrientationTypes, Sources & Orientation


Receipt of Input: SummaryReceipt of Input: Summary

► Inmates who were juveniles at the time of their Inmates who were juveniles at the time of their offense or who had served longer lengths of offense or who had served longer lengths of incarceration were more likely to receive positive incarceration were more likely to receive positive written input from non-victims.written input from non-victims.

► Inmates with registered victims were more likely to Inmates with registered victims were more likely to receive negative written input from victims. receive negative written input from victims.

► The quantity or severity of offenses was not The quantity or severity of offenses was not significantly associated with receiving any input, significantly associated with receiving any input, nor did violent offenses increase the likelihood of nor did violent offenses increase the likelihood of receiving input. receiving input.


Hyp

oth

esis

1H

yp

oth

esis

1


► Chi-squared test Chi-squared test no significant no significant association between positive victim association between positive victim input and parole release input and parole release (X2=2.31, n=801, (X2=2.31, n=801,

df=1, p=.13)df=1, p=.13)..

► Binary logistic regression Binary logistic regression positive positive victim input was not a significant victim input was not a significant predictor of parole release, when predictor of parole release, when controlling for all other variables controlling for all other variables (Exp(B)=.33, p=.38).(Exp(B)=.33, p=.38).

The null hypothesis cannot be rejected for The null hypothesis cannot be rejected for Hypothesis 2. However, only 14 cases with Hypothesis 2. However, only 14 cases with complete data in the sample had positive complete data in the sample had positive victim input, leaving this result subject to victim input, leaving this result subject to Type II error.Type II error.

Hyp

oth

esis

2H

yp

oth

esis

2


Hyp

oth

esis

3H

yp

oth

esis

3


Hyp

oth

esis

4H

yp

oth

esis

4


Summary of ResultsSummary of Results

► Input was not a significant predictor of parole release in Input was not a significant predictor of parole release in New JerseyNew Jersey Negative input decreased the odds of an inmates release to a Negative input decreased the odds of an inmates release to a

greater extent than positive inputgreater extent than positive input

► With regard to negative input, results also suggest that With regard to negative input, results also suggest that (a) victims had a slightly greater detrimental effect on parole (a) victims had a slightly greater detrimental effect on parole

release than non-victims andrelease than non-victims and (b) verbal input was more influential than written input. (b) verbal input was more influential than written input.

► Measures of Measures of institutional behaviorinstitutional behavior, , crime severitycrime severity, and , and criminal historycriminal history were significantly associated with parole were significantly associated with parole release. release.


Summary of ResultsSummary of Results

► The odds of an inmate’s parole release decreased The odds of an inmate’s parole release decreased for every additional person or business entity that for every additional person or business entity that was victimized. was victimized.

► Inmates incarcerated for “victimless” crimes had Inmates incarcerated for “victimless” crimes had better odds of parole release than their better odds of parole release than their counterparts with known victims. counterparts with known victims.

► Juvenile victims were detrimental to an inmate’s Juvenile victims were detrimental to an inmate’s likelihood of parole release. likelihood of parole release.

► Prior convictions as a juvenile decreased an Prior convictions as a juvenile decreased an inmate’s chances of parole release. inmate’s chances of parole release.


Results in ContextResults in Context

► 6,500 parole release decisions in 2004. 6,500 parole release decisions in 2004.

► Assuming no other work-related obligations, board Assuming no other work-related obligations, board members would have less than 20 minutes to members would have less than 20 minutes to review each case.review each case.

► Carefully considering every piece of input may not Carefully considering every piece of input may not be feasible.be feasible.


Results in ContextResults in Context

► APAI National Survey of Paroling AuthoritiesAPAI National Survey of Paroling Authorities All respondents consider victim input when making release All respondents consider victim input when making release

decisionsdecisions► 16 states reporting that victim input was “16 states reporting that victim input was “very influential”very influential”, , ► 14 states reporting “14 states reporting “somewhat influentialsomewhat influential”, ”, ► no responseno response from the remaining 14 states. from the remaining 14 states.


The Pending (or Current) CrisisThe Pending (or Current) Crisis

► States’ fiscal pressures have led some states States’ fiscal pressures have led some states to propose drastic actions regarding parole to propose drastic actions regarding parole that will make victims’ demands for greater that will make victims’ demands for greater impact over parole release decisions impact over parole release decisions increasingly more difficult to accommodate.increasingly more difficult to accommodate.

► Victims may become increasingly frustrated Victims may become increasingly frustrated with parole boards in the near future.with parole boards in the near future.


Input as an Indicator of NeedInput as an Indicator of Need

► Input may be the best means of identifying Input may be the best means of identifying concerned stakeholders who are most in concerned stakeholders who are most in need of support services. need of support services. Addressing their concerns, either through direct Addressing their concerns, either through direct

service delivery or referrals, could improve a service delivery or referrals, could improve a parole board’s legitimacy.parole board’s legitimacy.


Input as an Indicator of NeedInput as an Indicator of Need

► The 805 cases used in this study represent a The 805 cases used in this study represent a sum of 1,161 known victimssum of 1,161 known victims less than 12 percent provided input. less than 12 percent provided input.

► It is probable that this small unique cohort It is probable that this small unique cohort continue to be physically or emotionally continue to be physically or emotionally harmed by the crime and are unable to find harmed by the crime and are unable to find closure. closure.


►Related Publications:Related Publications: Caplan, J. M. (2010). Parole release decisions: Impact of positive and Caplan, J. M. (2010). Parole release decisions: Impact of positive and

negative victim and non-victim input on a representative sample of negative victim and non-victim input on a representative sample of parole-eligible inmates. parole-eligible inmates. Violence and Victims, 25Violence and Victims, 25(2)(2)..

Caplan, J. M. (2010). Parole release decisions: Impact of victim input on a Caplan, J. M. (2010). Parole release decisions: Impact of victim input on a representative sample of inmates. representative sample of inmates. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 291-300291-300..

Caplan, J. M. (2007). What factors affect parole? A review of empirical Caplan, J. M. (2007). What factors affect parole? A review of empirical research. research. Federal Probation, 71Federal Probation, 71(1), 16-19.(1), 16-19.

Caplan, J. M. & Kinnevy, S. (2010). National surveys of state paroling Caplan, J. M. & Kinnevy, S. (2010). National surveys of state paroling authorities: Models of service delivery. authorities: Models of service delivery. Federal Probation, 74Federal Probation, 74(1)(1)..

Kinnevy, S. C. & Caplan, J. MKinnevy, S. C. & Caplan, J. M. . “Findings from the APAI International Survey “Findings from the APAI International Survey of Releasing Authorities.” Report delivered to the Association of Paroling of Releasing Authorities.” Report delivered to the Association of Paroling Authorities International; Wallingford, PA: April 2008.Authorities International; Wallingford, PA: April 2008.

Parole Release Decisions in New Jersey: The Impact of Public Input

and the Needs of People Who Provide It

Occasional Series on Reentry ResearchPrisoner Reentry Institute | John Jay College of Criminal Justice

November 12, 2010

Joel M. Caplan, Ph.D.Assistant ProfessorAssociate Director

Center for Law & Justice123 Washington Street

Newark, NJ 07102973-353-1304

[email protected]

Research funded in part by the JEHT Foundation

Documents

Parole Release Decisions in New Jersey: The Impact of Public Input and the Needs of People Who Provide It Occasional Series on Reentry Research Prisoner