Path to Reducing Recidivism: Facilitating Parole Among Eligible Inmates with Mental Illness

Jason Matejkowski (University of Kansas)

What We Know

Why Parole Matters

The process of granting release before an inmate has served their maximum prison sentence plays a key role in the nation’s incarceration system. Early release via parole can provide an incentive for rehabilitation efforts while incarceratedⁱ as well as facilitate successful adjustment once released. Parole authorities forge relationships with community services, facilitate engagement, and provide crucial supervision post-release. These efforts are part of why parole “works” and help to explain how parole can reduce recidivism.ⁱⁱ

Why would anyone waive parole?

When people eligible for parole voluntarily opt to serve out the remainder of their sentence behind bars, the decision is can appear perplexing; why would anyone choose not to leave prison as soon as possible? However, for some inmates, parole’s requirements may feel excessively burdensome. These rules may interfere with community integration, as it can be hard to resume “normal life” while complying with authorities’ expectations. These conflicts may even contribute to technical violations that lead to reincarceration. Considering an uncertain future, those who doubt they will succeed under parole supervision are less likely to pursue it.ⁱⁱⁱ

A Special Case? Inmates with Mental Illness

Persons with mental illness (MI) who have been incarcerated often face greater challenges to successful community reintegration than those without MI as well as more parole requirements aimed at addressing their complex situations. While evidence suggests that parole may help to mitigate some of these challenges and reduce re-offense,^iv  rates of revocation and return to prison for failure to adhere to parole requirements are relatively high.^v Faced with such prospects, persons incarcerated and who have a MI may be more likely to waive parole. The consequences are substantial: individuals remain in prison longer and face greater recidivism odds once released, and society contends with rising incarceration. 

What We Examined ^vi

The purposes of this study were:

1. To describe the relationship between mental illness and an inmate’s decision to forgo early release to parole supervision

2.To test whether this decision negatively afects community tenure 

Using data provided by a State Parole Board, we examined decision-making and risk predictors for all prisoners released from state-run prisons in 2009 (n=10,957) and 2010 (n=10,839). We compared those with and without MI and those who waive parole, are denied parole, or are released to parole supervision.1 

What We Found

Parole works. As shown below, parolees had lower rearrest rates than those who were denied parole (involuntary max out) or who waived parole. Crucially, hazard rates of rearrest were similar for parole waivers with and without mental illness; the difference in recidivism is more about parole than mental illness.

• Those with mental illness were at approximately 21% greater odds of voluntarily maxing out their sentence by waving parole when compared with those without MI. 
• Waiving parole increases the ‘hazard’ of recidivism by approximately 22%. 
• Hazard rates of rearrest were similar for parole waivers with and without mental illness: approximately 31%.

Why are inmates with mental illness waiving parole?

While an individual’s decision to opt for parole is at least partially unique, our findings illuminate some of the dynamics at work. Specifically, there is a positive relationship between number of prior offenses and the decision to waive parole. Those with lengthier criminal histories may doubt their chances of being granted parole, and those with MI, who had a significantly higher number of prior arrests, may be especially susceptible to this assumption. Further, more than two-thirds of those who voluntarily waived parole scored either medium or high risk. Because those with MI had higher risk assessments when compared with those without MI, these scores may add to their expectation of especially onerous supervision requirements—a prospect that may make them opt to waive parole. Finally, insufficient and/ or inaccessible community mental health treatment may also affect decisions to forgo early release, as they may find it difficult to stay out without services.  

What It Means For Policy & Practice

If inmates with mental illness are both especially likely to benefit from parole supervision and especially likely to waive parole, how should policy respond?

Critically, there are important changes that can be made to parole processes and community contexts to increase the likelihood of voluntary parole supervision.

Changes to parole processes

• Calibrate post-release supervision rules to level of assessed risk

• Limit and target parole release conditions to those known to prevent recidivism

• Establish procedures that require frequent review of parolee behavior and modify parole conditions or require early discharge from parole based upon safe behavior

- Extending “good time” sentence reductions to community supervision motivates prosocial behavior and may infuence inmates’ parole consideration.^vii

- Parole boards with good-time policies should make inmates aware of these policies early in their sentences, to promote informed decision-making about parole options

Mental health supports for successful reintegration

• Ensure initial mental health screening, subsequent treatment, and alliances with community-based organizations to facilitate continuity of care.

• Communicate with inmates about treatment resources in the communities to which they will return, and demonstrate commitment to connecting parolees to these community support

References

i West-Smith, M., Pogrebin, M. R., & Poole, E. D. (2000). Denial of parole: An inmate perspective. Federal Probation, 64, 3–10.

ii Schlager, M. D., & Robbins, K. (2008). Does parole work?—revisited: Reframing the discussion of the impact of postprison supervision on ofender outcome. The Prison Journal, 88, 234–251.

iii Best, B. L., Wodahl, E. J., & Holmes, M. D. (2014). Waiving away the chance of freedom: Exploring why prisoners decide against applying for parole. International Journal of Ofender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58, 320–347.

iv Matejkowski, J., & Ostermann, M. (2015). Serious mental illness, criminal risk, parole supervision, and recidivism: Testing of conditional efects. Law and Human Behavior, 39, 75–86.

v Ostermann, M., & Matejkowski, J. (2014). Exploring the intersection of mental health and release status with recidivism.  Justice Quarterly, 31, 746–766.

vi Matejkowski, J., & Ostermann, M. (2021). The Waiving of Parole Consideration by Inmates With Mental Illness and Recidivism Outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(8), 1052–1071. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820972162.

vii Petersilia, J. (2007). Employ behavioral contracting for “earned discharge” parole. Criminology and Public Policy, 64, 807–814. 

Citations

Matejkowski, J. & Ostermann, M. (2023). Path to Reducing Recidivism: Facilitating Parole among Eligible Inmates with Mental Illness. Lawrence, KS: Center for Community Engagement & Collaboration, School of Social Welfare, University of Kansas.