REINTEGRATION CHALLENGES AS PREDICTORS OF RECIDIVISM

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The rate of parole violations in the United States has increased dramatically over the years, and more parolees are returning to correctional centres – both for committing technical violations and new offences. In 1980, 17% of the offenders were re-incarcerated for violating the conditions of their parole supervision and in 2001, parole violators represented 37% of all national admissions to state correctional centres (Bucklen & Zajac, 2009:240, Travis, 2005:31).
Cohen (1995:1) highlights the following results from a national survey consisting of personal interviews that were conducted in 1991 with 13 986 offenders in 277 state correctional centres nationwide:
 Between 1975 and 1991, the number of parole and other conditional release violators admitted to state correctional centres increased from 18 000 to 142 000, which is twice the rate of growth of newly admitted offenders from courts.
 It was found that 35% of the offenders committed a new crime while on probation or parole.
 It was found that 10% of the offenders returned to custody for technical violations of their parole or probation conditions.
 Probation and parole violators comprised 30% of all the offenders in state correctional centres for violent crimes, 56% for property offences, and 41% for drug offences.
 It was found that 85% of the offenders in correctional centres were incarcerated for public-order offences.
Figure 3 below shows the percentage and number of probation and parole violators admitted to state correctional centres in the United States during 1991.

Research on Recidivism among Released Offenders

Carroll, Wiener, Coates, Galegher and Alibrio (1982) investigated parole release decision-making in Pennsylvania by interviewing actual parole cases between October, 1977 and May 1978. The study included 838 released parolees that were followed until early 1980 (Carroll et al., 1982). Results from their one-year follow-up study showed that, of the 838 parolees, 10.5% were convicted of a new crime while on parole, 13.1% were convicted of a technical violation, 4.7% of all parolees committed both a new crime and a technical violation, and 25.5% were re-incarcerated after their parole was revoked by the Parole Board (Carroll et al., 1982:217-218).
In the United States, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) published two of the largest research studies ever conducted on recidivism of released offenders (Palermo, 2009). In the first study entitled Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983, Beck and Shipley (1989, as cited in Travis, Solomon, & Waul, 2001:7) tracked 108 580 offenders released from 11 states in 1983 to measure their recidivism rates. Within a three-year period, 63% of these offenders were re-arrested for various offences, 47% were re-convicted, and 41% were re-incarcerated. They also found that offenders released from correctional centres were more likely to re-offend (40% were re-arrested) during their first year after release (Palermo, 2009:3; Travis, Solomon, & Waul, 2001:7).
In the second, more comprehensive study of recidivism entitled Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, Langan and Levin (2002, as cited in Petersilia, 2003:140) tracked 272 111 offenders in 15 states for three years from their release in 1994. The study found that 29.9% of the released offenders were re-arrested within the first six months, 44.1% within the first year, and 67.5% within three years of their release (Langan & Levin, 2002:3). The risk of recidivism was the highest during the first year after an offender’s release. Results based on re-arrest, re-conviction, and re-incarceration of offenders indicated the following (Langan & Levin, 2002:7; Lyman & LoBuglio, 2006:4; Oliver, 2011:1):
 67.5% of the offenders were re-arrested for a new offence;
 46.9% were re-convicted for a new crime;
 25.4% were re-incarcerated for a new crime;
 51.8% were returned to correctional centres within three years, either for a new crime or a technical violation of their parole conditions; and
 an estimated 26.4% were re-incarcerated for a technical violation.
Other findings from the Langan and Levin (2002) study showed that offenders who were male, members of minority groups, younger offenders, and offenders with longer prior criminal records were significantly more likely to re-offend. The type of crime committed by an offender was also a reliable predictor of recidivism, with property offenders being the most likely to re-offend, followed by drug, public order, violent, and sex offenders (Steen & Opsal, 2007:349).
The Pew Center on the States (2011), assisted by the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA), conducted a comprehensive survey aimed at generating the first state-by-state examination of recidivism rates. Published in 2011, the Pew/ASCA Survey required estimates of recidivism for two cohorts of offenders released from correctional centres in 1999 and 2004 (Pew Center on the States, 2011:2). The analysis of recidivism trends was based on data reported by 33 states for the 1999 release cohort, while 41 states provided data for offenders released in 2004. The survey results regarding the recidivism rates of the 1999 release cohort showed that 45.4% of the offenders were returned to correctional centres within three years, of which 19.9% were returned for a new crime, while 25.5% were returned for a technical violation. Recidivism findings among the 2004 releases revealed a similar picture where 43.3% of the offenders were re-incarcerated within three years – 22.3% of these offenders were re-incarcerated for a new crime, while 21.0% were re-incarcerated for a technical violation (Pew Center on the States, 2011:12-13).

READ Neutrophil death & inflammation resolution: a focus on lipid mediators

CHAPTER 1 THE RESEARCH
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY
1.3 MOTIVATION FOR THE CHOICE OF TOPIC
1.4 RESEARCH PROBLEM AND AIMS OF THE STUDY
1.5 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
1.6 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY
1.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
1.8 ETHICAL ISSUES
1.9 DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS
1.10 CONCLUSION
1.11 LIST OF REFERENCE
CHAPTER 2 PAROLE PLACEMENT AND SUPERVISION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 DEFINING PAROLE
2.3 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF PAROLE
2.4 PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF AROLE
2.5 PAROLE PLACEMENT
2.6 PAROLE SUPERVISION
2.7 CONCLUSION
2.8 LIST OF REFERENCES
CHAPTER 3 AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON PAROLE VIOLATIONS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
3.4 ENGLAND AND WALES
3.5 CONCLUSION
3.6 LIST OF REFERENCES
CHAPTER 4 RECIDIVISM EVENTS: PAROLE FAILURE AND REVOCATION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 DEFINITION OF RECIDIVISM
4.3 REINTEGRATION CHALLENGES AS PREDICTORS OF RECIDIVISM
4.4 PROFILE OF SOUTH AFRICAN PAROLE VIOLATORS
4.5 PAROLE REVOCATION
4.6 CONCLUSION 1
CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF QUANTITATIVE DATA
CHAPTER 6 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF QUALITATIVE DATA
CHAPTER 7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS