1. Parole Release Decisions in New Jersey: The Impact of Public Input and the Needs of People Who Provide It Occasional Series on Reentry Research Prisoner Reentry Institute | John Jay College of Criminal Justice November 12, 2010 Joel M. Caplan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Associate Director Center for Law & Justice 123 Washington Street Newark, NJ 07102 973-353-1304 jcaplan@newark.rutgers.edu Research funded in part by the JEHT Foundation

2. Slide 2 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved 20 th Century Parole System: Two major changes to decision-making 1. Limits on parole board discretionary powers to release inmates on parole ► Ramifications today  high prison populations  longer portions of sentences served in prison, no parole.

3. Slide 3 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved 20 th Century Parole System: Two major changes to decision-making 1. Limits to parole board discretionary powers to release inmates on parole 2. Victim participation at parole hearings

4. Slide 4 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved How Could This Be… ► 1960s-1970s – limits to discretion and the individuality of inmate releases to parole ► 1970s-1990s – increased opportunities for participation and influence by (individual) victims at parole hearings

5. Slide 5 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Procedural Justice and Legitimacy ► Procedural justice: fair procedures generate fair outcomes  Procedural justice enhances the legitimacy of parole boards and their release decisions ► Legitimacy: a quality possessed by a government or institutional entity

6. Slide 6 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved The Interconnectedness of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy… …better explains the two major (and arguably contradictory) changes to parole policies and practices over the past 40 years.

7. Slide 7 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved 21 st Century Parole System ► There remains a general lack of understanding about the interaction between victims’ rights legislation and parole board policies and practices.

8. Slide 8 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Hypotheses 1. 1. Victim and non-victim input against parole release is more likely to result in the denial of parole for parole-eligible prisoners, when controlling for input in favor of parole release, institutional behavior, incarceration length, crime severity, criminal history, mental illness, race, age, and gender. 2. 2. Victim input in favor of parole release is more likely to result in the approval of parole for parole-eligible prisoners… 3. 3. Victim input, both for and against release, will have a greater affect on parole decisions than non-victim input… 4. 4. Verbal input provided by victims or non-victims to parole board representatives will have a greater affect on release decisions for parole-eligible prisoners than written input…

9. Slide 9 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Setting: NJ State Parole Board (SPB) ► SPB: autonomous agency  1 Chairperson, 13 Associate Board Members and 3 Alternate Board Members  Appointed by the Governor for 6 yr terms ► Victim Input Process 1.Victims notified of right to testify to SPB 2.Input is submitted via written or videotaped correspondence, in-person or telecommunicated interviews Becomes a permanent part of inmate’s file Becomes a permanent part of inmate’s file

10. Slide 10 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Registered Victims are Invited to Discuss: 1. Nature and extent of any harm or trauma suffered; 2. Extent of any loss of earnings or ability to work suffered; 3. Continuing effect of the crime upon the victim's family; 4. Requests for special parole conditions; 5. Any other information.

11. Slide 11 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Sampling Design

12. Slide 12 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Independent Variables Related to Input

13. Slide 13 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Dependent & Control Variables ► Dependent Variable  Parole release decision ► Control Variables  Inmate race  Inmate gender  Inmate age  Institutional behavior  Incarceration length  Crime severity  Criminal history  Mental illness

14. Slide 14 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Descriptive Statistics

15. Slide 15 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Descriptive Statistics (cont’d)

16. Slide 16 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Non-Victim Input: Types, Sources & Orientation

17. Slide 17 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Victim Input: Types, Sources & Orientation

18. Slide 18 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Receipt of Input: Summary ► Inmates who were juveniles at the time of their offense or who had served longer lengths of incarceration were more likely to receive positive written input from non-victims. ► Inmates with registered victims were more likely to receive negative written input from victims. ► The quantity or severity of offenses was not significantly associated with receiving any input, nor did violent offenses increase the likelihood of receiving input.

19. Slide 19 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Hypothesis 1

20. Slide 20 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved ► Chi-squared test  no significant association between positive victim input and parole release (X2=2.31, n=801, df=1, p=.13). ► Binary logistic regression  positive victim input was not a significant predictor of parole release, when controlling for all other variables (Exp(B)=.33, p=.38).  The null hypothesis cannot be rejected for Hypothesis 2. However, only 14 cases with complete data in the sample had positive victim input, leaving this result subject to Type II error. Hypothesis 2

21. Slide 21 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Hypothesis 3

22. Slide 22 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Hypothesis 4

23. Slide 23 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Summary of Results ► Input was not a significant predictor of parole release in New Jersey  Negative input decreased the odds of an inmates release to a greater extent than positive input ► With regard to negative input, results also suggest that  (a) victims had a slightly greater detrimental effect on parole release than non-victims and  (b) verbal input was more influential than written input. ► Measures of institutional behavior, crime severity, and criminal history were significantly associated with parole release.

24. Slide 24 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Summary of Results ► The odds of an inmate’s parole release decreased for every additional person or business entity that was victimized. ► Inmates incarcerated for “victimless” crimes had better odds of parole release than their counterparts with known victims. ► Juvenile victims were detrimental to an inmate’s likelihood of parole release. ► Prior convictions as a juvenile decreased an inmate’s chances of parole release.

25. Slide 25 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Results in Context ► 6,500 parole release decisions in 2004. ► Assuming no other work-related obligations, board members would have less than 20 minutes to review each case. ► Carefully considering every piece of input may not be feasible.

26. Slide 26 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Results in Context ► APAI National Survey of Paroling Authorities  All respondents consider victim input when making release decisions ► 16 states reporting that victim input was “very influential”, ► 14 states reporting “somewhat influential”, ► no response from the remaining 14 states.

27. Slide 27 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved The Pending (or Current) Crisis ► States’ fiscal pressures have led some states to propose drastic actions regarding parole that will make victims’ demands for greater impact over parole release decisions increasingly more difficult to accommodate. ► Victims may become increasingly frustrated with parole boards in the near future.

28. Slide 28 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Input as an Indicator of Need ► Input may be the best means of identifying concerned stakeholders who are most in need of support services.  Addressing their concerns, either through direct service delivery or referrals, could improve a parole board’s legitimacy.

29. Slide 29 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved Input as an Indicator of Need ► The 805 cases used in this study represent a sum of 1,161 known victims  less than 12 percent provided input. ► It is probable that this small unique cohort continue to be physically or emotionally harmed by the crime and are unable to find closure.

30. Slide 30 | Joel M. Caplan, PhD | © 2009 | All Rights Reserved ► Related Publications:  Caplan, J. M. (2010). Parole release decisions: Impact of positive and negative victim and non-victim input on a representative sample of parole-eligible inmates. Violence and Victims, 25(2).  Caplan, J. M. (2010). Parole release decisions: Impact of victim input on a representative sample of inmates. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 291-300.  Caplan, J. M. (2007). What factors affect parole? A review of empirical research. Federal Probation, 71(1), 16-19.  Caplan, J. M. & Kinnevy, S. (2010). National surveys of state paroling authorities: Models of service delivery. Federal Probation, 74(1).  Kinnevy, S. C. & Caplan, J. M. “Findings from the APAI International Survey of Releasing Authorities.” Report delivered to the Association of Paroling Authorities International; Wallingford, PA: April 2008.

31. Parole Release Decisions in New Jersey: The Impact of Public Input and the Needs of People Who Provide It Occasional Series on Reentry Research Prisoner Reentry Institute | John Jay College of Criminal Justice November 12, 2010 Joel M. Caplan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Associate Director Center for Law & Justice 123 Washington Street Newark, NJ 07102 973-353-1304 jcaplan@newark.rutgers.edu Research funded in part by the JEHT Foundation