The Problem

Nearly 650,000 people are released annually from prisons in this country.[1] Over 7 million different individuals are released each year from jails.[2] While both figures are all-time highs in this country's history, they will almost certainly be eclipsed by the number of people released from correctional facilities next year.[3]

Research shows that when people who are released from prison or jail return to the community, their job prospects are generally dim, their chances of finding their own place to live are bleak, and their health is typically poor. The vast majority has not completed high school.[4] A major study conducted in three states found that fewer than half of released prisoners had a job lined up upon their return to the community.[5]

Three of every four offenders released from prison have a substance abuse problem, and more than one out of three report some form of physical or mental disability.[6] Eighteen percent of people released from prison have Hepatitis C.[7] Fifty-five percent have children under the age of 18 who often depend on these reentering adults for some financial support, and almost always to be a responsible parent.[8]

Astonishingly, as the number of people released from prison and jail over the past 20 years has increased nearly fourfold, the extent to which these individuals are prepared to return the community has decreased significantly.[9] Although approximately three of every four people released from incarceration have a history of substance abuse, only 10 percent in state prison and three percent in local jails receive formal treatment prior to release.[10] Just one-third (35 percent) of those released from prison participated in educational programs while incarcerated; even fewer (27 percent) took part in vocational training.[11] These low figures are especially troubling when considering that a much greater percentage of the prison population used to receive such programming.

That anyone is able to overcome this situation and a history of criminal behavior would be surprising. In fact, few do: most people released from prison and jail fail. It is more likely than not that a person released from prison or jail will be re-arrested: two-thirds of state prisoners are rearrested within three years of release.[12] During the same timeframe, half (52 percent) will return to prison for either a new crime or parole violation.[13] By some measures, the process of prisoner reentry has become much worse than it once was: in 1984, 70 percent of parolees successfully completed their parole term. By 2002, that number had dropped to 45 percent.[14]

Unlike in years past, it has now become impossible to ignore these rates of failure. The numbers have simply become too big, the implications for public safety too significant. Indeed, state and local government officials from all perspectives agree that as the number of people released from prison and jail increases steadily, the status quo cannot be maintained. Too many are harmed: People are victimized; families are destroyed; communities are overwhelmed; and the lives of individuals cycling in and out of incarceration are wasted.

The human costs notwithstanding, taxpayers cannot sustain this trend, let alone permit it to accelerate. As jail and prison populations swell, so do corrections budgets. American taxpayers spent $9 billion for corrections in 1982; by 2002, the figure climbed to $60 billion.[15] With the possible exception of health care spending, spending on corrections over the past 15 years has increased more than it has on any other major spending category.[16] And now, for the first time in recent memory, state leaders - Republican and Democrat alike - are agreeing that there simply is not enough money in state budgets to continue to support these budget increases.

To reduce spending on corrections, policymakers must manage the growth of inmate and jail populations. Violators of probation and parole represent the fastest growing category of admissions to correctional facilities, and state leaders agree that this course must be reversed.[17] Other options available to state and local government officials will not generate meaningful savings or simply are not feasible. The number of staff cannot be reduced, assuming there is not a corresponding decline in the inmate population, without jeopardizing the safety of staff, inmates, and the community.

Cuts to the quality or availability of services also present few, if any, opportunities for savings: Despite their proven cost-effectiveness, prison and jail-based services are already threadbare. In nearly half the states, departments of corrections are or have been under some form of federal court supervision because of overcrowding or the insufficiency of services available to inmates. Practically every state faces at least the threat of litigation. Perhaps most important, corrections administrators seeking additional cuts to services find that almost any course of action could further jeopardize the safety of staff or inmates. As even less emphasis is placed on the services and supports people need upon their release from prison and jail, extraordinary investments are made in providing emergency services to people whose condition has deteriorated to the point that they cycle repeatedly through jails, emergency rooms, and detox facilities. A study in King County, Washington found that taxpayers spent in just one year over $1.1 million on 20 individuals who cycled repeatedly among these institutions.[18] Simply put, extraordinary budget crises in states and counties require that policymakers do a better job of ensuring that people do not return to prison or jail after their release.

The fiscal pressures that make the problem so pressing also preclude the possibility of addressing this issue by enhancing the "tough on crime" measures instituted in the 1980s and '90s to minimize the likelihood that people convicted of felonies, following their admission to prison or jail, will not compromise public safety again. Lengthening prison sentences or insisting that people serve even greater percentages of their sentence in prison or jail will achieve precisely the impact-continued growth of corrections populations-that, as explained above, state leaders do not have the resources to continue to fund.

Similarly, eliminating discretionary release (or, for that matter, supervised release) from prison altogether will likely have only an adverse impact on the problem.[19] As it is, too many people complete their sentences in prison or jail, and then enter the community under no formal supervision whatsoever. At the same time, community supervision cannot be extended further. Parole officers are responsible, on average, for 70 parolees-about twice as many as is considered an ideal caseload.[20] Probation caseloads can be more than double that number, making it nearly impossible to provide felons released from prison or jail who present a particular danger to the community with the appropriate level of supervision.[21]

This situation, typical of jurisdictions across the country, illustrates why state and local government officials are increasingly recognizing the immediacy of the problem while accepting the reality that this population cannot be incapacitated longer or placed under supervision of the criminal justice system indefinitely. This means finding a way for people released to the community to succeed, while allocating sufficient public safety resources to ensure the accurate identification and adequate supervision of those people released from prison or jail who are particularly dangerous.

Continue to Opportunities for Change »

Back to Table of Contents