The Urban Institute (UI) recently published a report which concludes that parole systems do not reduce offender recidivism. The report rehashes decade-old and generalized data to make its case.
The UI's report has already created a major stir among media and political pundits, as well as within the parole profession itself. Moreover, as was the case with similar criticisms of parole in the 1970s and 1980s, this most recent criticism finds tremendous support in the polarized views of those who contend that parole does not work because it is either not "tough enough" or incapable of offender rehabilitation.
A more accurate title for the UI report would have been, "Parole Can Work." However, such a title likely would not have produced the kind of self-serving media and political attention that is, in my view, the manner in which many "think tank" institutes attempt to maintain high visibility.
The question asked by the UI ("Does Parole Work?") has been answered numerous times over the past 30 years. The answer is clearly that it can. In fact, the research on parole's recidivism-reduction potential provides significant detail about the best policies and practices for parole release, supervision, and revocation. To raise the parole efficacy question again, as if it has yet to be answered, and to draw from generalized and outdated data, is irresponsible. It unnecessarily places the parole profession in the position of having to defend itself in a political environment where it is already misunderstood.
The UI analysis does not account for the wide variations in actual practice. For example, some parole systems embrace evidence-based policies and practices, while others are the products of decades-old, politicized policymaking that has virtually nothing in common with sound professional practices founded on good research and theory. This politically-based policymaking has been well-known by professional insiders for over 30 years, but it has yet to be given public mention by either researchers or practitioners.
The UI report should be read as reaffirming that parole systems need to become less political and more professional. Professional parole systems work. For starters, parole-board members should be appointed based on their possession of relevant values, skills, and academic credentials, not their political credentials. The public-safety responsibilities of parole are far too important to leave to individuals who may mean well, but who have an expertise better suited to another occupation.
Another obvious problem for parole systems emanates from confusion among practitioners about whether or not parole officers are social workers, police, or some blend of the two. In recent years, largely spawned by America's misguided quest for punishment-based public-safety policies, many parole systems have reinvented themselves into surrogate police forces. When this happens in the extreme, parole is effectively abolished. A flexible mix of treatment, surveillance, and enforcement -- the essence of parole's identity -- cost-effectively delivers public safety and justice for all.
Editor's Note: Mario Paparozzi, Ph.D., is an associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke, former chair of the New Jersey State Parole Board, chairman of the American Probation and Parole Association's (APPA) Offender Program Committee, and a former president of APPA.
