But Some of Them Don’t Come Back (to Prison!)

Abstract

This article reports on a study of the causes and correlates of parole success and failure in Pennsylvania. Surveys, interviews, and focus groups were conducted with parole violators and parole successes. Data were collected on employment, housing, social relations, supervision, and parolees' responses to parole challenges. The primary correlates of parole failure were found to be antisocial attitudes, poor problem-solving and coping skills, and unrealistic expectations about life after release from prison. Contrary to expectations, this study found little evidence that job acquisition or housing were significant parole challenges. The greatest problem for parolees was managing themselves in a prosocial manner while facing demands from their environment.

Life on parole: The quality of experiences soon after release contributes to a conviction‐free re‐entry

“…Examples of external facilitators to re‐entry include finding safe and stable accommodation (Baldry, McDonnell, Maplestone, & Peeters, 2006; Bucklen & Zajac, 2009; Metraux & Culhane, 2004) and obtaining employment after release (Bahr et al, 2010; Solomon, Visher, La Vigne, & Osborne, 2006; Visher, Debus, & Yahner, 2008). In one study, the higher the wage earned by individuals, the lower the likelihood they would be reimprisoned 12 months after release (Visher et al, 2008).…”

“…The importance of social support—for many ex‐prisoners, family support—to re‐entry success has been relatively less investigated (Bucklen & Zajac, 2009; La Vigne, Visher, & Castro, 2004). But research shows the quality of family support, rather than just its presence, is important.…”

“…A stable and supportive intimate relationship is also important. Those who achieve success on parole are significantly more likely to live with a spouse or significant other than those who violate parole (e.g., 34% vs. 22%; Bucklen & Zajac, 2009).…”

“…Besides basic survival needs and social support, access to drugs and alcohol and connections to criminal peers are well established obstacles to re‐entry success (Bonta & Andrews, 2016; Bucklen & Zajac, 2009; Zamble & Quinsey, 1997). Contact with criminal peers increases access to opportunities for offending, influences criminal thinking and may undermine desistance commitment (Serin & Lloyd, 2009).…”

Conditional Release (Parole) in Slovenia

“…Because the new measure is so recent, there is also as yet no record of practice in this field, and thus no way of assessing the potential harshness of the courts' policy of revocation. As a comparison, it is worth mentioning one recent study of parole violations in Pennsylvania, which shows that the reason for almost two thirds of parole returns are technical violations rather than new crimes (Bucklen & Zajac, 2009). In our view, this appears a rather harsh revocation policy because a greater part of such failures to observe purely technical requirements could be dealt with by way of advice or warning rather than direct revocation.…”