a portrait of prisoner reentry in new jersey

A Portrait ofPrisoner Reentry in New Jersey

Jeremy Travis

Sinead Keegan

Eric Cadora

with Amy Solomon and Charles Swartz

RE

SE

AR

CH

R

EP

OR

TN

ovember 2003

RE

SE

AR

CH

R

EP

OR

TN

ovember 2003

research for safer communities

http://JPC.urban.org

2100 M STREET, NWWASHINGTON, DC 20037

www.urban.org(202) 833-7200

The nonpartisan Urban Institutepublishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy ofpublic consideration. The viewsexpressed are those of the authors,and should not be attributed to theUrban Institute, its trustees, or itsfunders.

To receive free monthly email updateson the research of the Justice PolicyCenter, join the Center’s emaildistribution list by sending an email to [email protected].

A Portrait ofPrisoner Reentry in New Jersey

Jeremy Travis

Sinead Keegan

Eric Cadora

with Amy Solomon and Charles Swartz

copyright @ 2003The Urban InstituteJustice Policy Center2100 M street, NWWashington, DC 20037www.urban.org(202) 833-7200

The views expressed arethose of the authors andshould not be attributed toThe Urban Institute, itstrustees, or its funders.

The Justice Policy center (JPC) carries out nonparti-san research to inform thenational dialogue on crime,justice and communitysafety. For more informationon JPC’s reentry research,visit http://jpc.urban.org/reentry. To receive monthlyemail updates on JPCresearch, send an email [email protected].

JPC Publication # CPR03 0105

ii A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY

About the Authors

Jeremy Travis is a Senior Fellow at the Urban Institute and is co-chair of the ReentryRoundtable—a group of prominent academics, practitioners, service providers, and commu-nity leaders working to advance policies and innovations on prisoner reentry that reflectsolid research. Before he joined the Urban Institute, Mr. Travis was the director of theNational Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. Mr. Travishas been an active figure in the development of a policy and research agenda on the issueof prisoner reentry. He is the author of the article “But They All Come Back: RethinkingPrisoner Reentry,” and shaped the federal initiative on reentry courts and reentry partner-ships.

Mr. Travis earned his JD, cum laude, from the New York University School of Law;an MPA from the New York University Wagner Graduate School of Public Service; and aBA in American Studies, cum laude, from Yale College.

Sinead Keegan is a Research Associate at the Urban Institute. Her primary research inter-ests are the effects of crime and crime policy on communities. She is currently the Projectand Data Manager for a project developing performance indicators for the U.S.Department of Justice’s Weed and Seed Program. In addition, Ms. Keegan is involved in aproject examining whether Weed and Seed initiatives lead to the displacement of crime insouthern Florida. She has also conducted research on prisoner reentry in the District ofColumbia, with a particular focus on the availability of housing for ex-offenders.

Ms. Keegan has a Master’s in Public Policy from Georgetown University, and a BA inGovernment with a concentration in Public Service from the University of Notre Dame.Her Master’s thesis examined a number of previously unmeasured social costs of incar-ceration using advanced statistical techniques. Ms. Keegan originally hails from BergenCounty, New Jersey.

Eric Cadora is a community justice consultant and a Program Officer for The After PrisonInitiative of the Open Society Institute. The After Prison Initiative is a grantmaking programcreated to promote social and criminal justice policies that place reintegration and publicsafety equity at the center of the criminal justice mission. Mr. Cadora has helped to fash-ion The After Prison Initiative’s grantmaking agenda in four priority areas: JusticeReinvestment, New Leadership Development, National Re-Entry Policy Reform, andReduction of Civil Barriers to Reintegration.

In 1998 with OSI funding, he launched The Community Justice Project at the Centerfor Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES), which advocates for a rein-vestment of justice resources in communities suffering high rates of incarceration and pro-vides technical assistance to corrections and communities to implement communityjustice programs. CASES is New York’s largest and longest running alternative to incarcer-ation program. Employing an innovative geographical analysis of criminal justice activity atthe neighborhood level, Eric speaks at national forums around the country about theimpact of high rates of incarceration on low-income communities and promotes the use offinancial reinvestment strategies to interrupt the decades-long cycle of incarceration,release, and re-incarceration that these core communities continue to suffer.

Amy Solomon is a Policy Associate at the Urban Institute, where she works to link theresearch activities of the Justice Policy Center to policy and practice arenas in the field.Her primary areas of concentration are prisoner reentry and problem-solving approaches topublic safety.

Charles Swartz is the President of Geographic Research Solutions (GRS), a consulting com-pany that provides research, mapping and spatial analysis services to both public and privatesector clients. Before starting GRS, Charles was a Geographic Information SystemsResearcher at the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES) inNew York.

Contents

Executive Summary......................................................................................... 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3About the Data ........................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER 1

Policy Context ............................................................................................................ 7PRISON POPULATION ON THE RISE ............................................................................ 7EXPLAINING NEW JERSEY INCARCERATION TRENDS ............................................... 8TRENDS IN CRIME......................................................................................................... 9THE EFFECTS OF SENTENCING REFORMS .................................................................12PAROLE REVOCATIONS................................................................................................17SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................18

Sentencing Reform in New Jersey............................................................................19

CHAPTER 2

What Are the Characteristics of New Jersey’s Returning Inmates? ............21DEMOGRAPHICS ...........................................................................................................21CONVICTION OFFENSE .................................................................................................21TIME SERVED ................................................................................................................21CRIMINAL HISTORY AND THE REVOLVING DOOR .....................................................22MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH PROBLEMS ...........................................................24

Juvenile Reentry ........................................................................................................26

CHAPTER 3

How Are Prisoners Prepared for Release? ..........................................................27DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS PROGRAMMING ...................................................27EDUCATIONAL SERVICES .............................................................................................28EMPLOYMENT READINESS ..........................................................................................28SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT................................................................................30RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT PROGRAMS .....................................................................31

CHAPTER 4

How Are Prisoners Released in New Jersey? ....................................................33PRISONER RELEASES ...................................................................................................33POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION......................................................................................35PAROLE SUPERVISION .................................................................................................35PROBATION SUPERVISION...........................................................................................38

Sentence Reduction Credits ......................................................................................39

CHAPTER 5

Where Are Prisoners Returning? ...........................................................................41NEW JERSEY’S COUNTIES ...........................................................................................42ESSEX COUNTY AND NEWARK ....................................................................................42CAMDEN COUNTY AND THE CITY OF CAMDEN .........................................................44

CHAPTER 6

Summary .....................................................................................................................63HIGHLIGHTS...................................................................................................................63

iii

List of Figures

CHAPTER 1

Policy Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 1. New Jersey Prison Population, Admissions, and Releases, 1980–2001 . . . 8Figure 2. U.S. and New Jersey Incarceration Rates, 1980–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Figure 3. Number of Property Crimes in New Jersey per

100,000 Residents, 1980–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Figure 4. Number of Violent Crimes in New Jersey per 100,000 Residents,

1980–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Figure 5. Number of Property Arrests in New Jersey, 1980–2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Figure 6. Number of Violent Arrests in New Jersey, 1980–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Figure 7. Number of Drug Arrests in New Jersey, 1980–2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Figure 8. Population with Mandatory Minimum Sentence, 1982–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . 13Figure 9. Percentage of New Jersey Prison Population,

by Sentence Length, 1991 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Figure 10. Percent Change in Time Served for Releases, by Offense,

1995 to 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Figure 11. Population by Offense Type, 1982–2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Figure 12. Percent of Total Prison Admissions by Type, 1977–1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

CHAPTER 2

What Are the Characteristics of New Jersey’s Returning Inmates? . . . . . . 21

Figure 13. Race/Ethnicity of Released Inmates, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Figure 14. Age Distribution of Released Inmates, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Figure 15. Marital Status of Released Inmates, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Figure 16. Primary Offense of Released Inmates, 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Figure 17. Median Time Served by Released New Jersey Prisoners,

by Offense, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Figure 18. Mental and Physical Health Diagnoses, Released New Jersey

Prisoners, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

CHAPTER 4

How Are Prisoners Prepared for Release? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 19. Number of Prison Releases, by Supervision, 1990–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Figure 20. Percent of Prison Releases, by Supervision, 1977–1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Figure 21. Parole Population in New Jersey, 1997–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Figure 22. Parole Population by Supervision Status, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

iv A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY

CHAPTER 5

Where Are Prisoners Returning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Map 1. Parolees per 1,000 ResidentsNew Jersey Counties, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Map 2. Prison Admissions per 1,000 ResidentsNew Jersey Counties, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Map 3. Prison Releases per 1,000 ResidentsNew Jersey Counties, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Map 4. TANF Cases per 1,000 ResidentsNew Jersey Counties, Jan. 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Map 5. Percent Black per Block-GroupEssex County, New Jersey, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Map 6. Median Household Income per Block-GroupEssex County, New Jersey, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Map 7. Percent Single Parent Households per Block-GroupEssex County, New Jersey, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Map 8. Percent in Poverty per Block-GroupEssex County, New Jersey, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Map 9. Parolees per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupEssex County, New Jersey, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Map 10. Parolees per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupNewark, New Jersey, 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Map 11. Probationers per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupEssex County, New Jersey, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Map 12. Probationers per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupNewark, New Jersey, 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Map 13. Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupEssex County, New Jersey, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Map 14. Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupNewark, New Jersey, 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Map 15. Prison Expenditure by Block-GroupEssex County, New Jersey, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Map 16. Prison Expenditure by Block-GroupNewark, New Jersey, 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Map 17. Juvenile Justice Commission Admissions to CustodyEssex County, New Jersey by Census Block-Group, 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Map 18. Juvenile Justice Commission Expenditures for CustodyEssex County, New Jersey by Census Block-Group, 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Map 19. TANF Cases per 1,000 Residents by Zip CodeEssex County, New Jersey, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Map 20. Percent Black by Block-GroupCamden County, New Jersey, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Map 21. Median Household Income by Block-GroupCamden County, New Jersey, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Map 22. Percent Single Parent Households by Block-GroupCamden County, New Jersey, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Map 23. Percent in Poverty by Block-GroupCamden County, New Jersey, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

v

Map 24. Parolees per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupCamden County, New Jersey, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Map 25. Parolees per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupCamden City, New Jersey, 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Map 26. Probationers per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupCamden County, New Jersey, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Map 27. Probationers per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupCamden City, New Jersey, 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Map 28. Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupCamden County, New Jersey, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Map 29. Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents by Block-GroupCamden City, New Jersey, 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Map 30. Prison Expenditure by Block-GroupCamden County, New Jersey, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Map 31. Prison Expenditure by Block-GroupCamden City, New Jersey, 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Map 32. Juvenile Justice Commission Admissions to CustodyCamden County, New Jersey by Census Block-Group, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Map 33. Juvenile Justice Commission Expenditures for CustodyCamden County, New Jersey by Census Block-Group, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Map 34. TANF Cases per 1,000 Residents by Zip CodesCamden County, New Jersey, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

vi A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY

vii

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the many individuals and organizations who madevaluable contributions to this report. The New Jersey Department of Corrections, andspecifically Commissioner Devon Brown; Stanley Repko, Former Director, Office ofPolicy and Planning; Debra Nale, Kimberly Flood, and Donna Kraun from the Office ofInformation Technology, provided the data that serve as the backbone of the analysisof this report. We also thank Douglas Gerardi, Current Director of the Office of Policyand Planning, and Don Van Nostrand and Juan (Carlos) Ayala of the same office forproviding supplemental statistics and for answering a myriad of questions about thecorrections system in New Jersey. John D’Amico, Chairman of the State ParoleBoard; Michael Dowling, Executive Director of the Parole Board; Melinda Schlager,formerly of the Parole Board; and Kevin McHugh, Chris Cermele, Jeff Gambino, andDan Lebak of the Parole Board provided data regarding a snapshot of individuals onparole, and also assisted by explaining the functions and programs of the ParoleBoard. Division of Probation data was provided by the Administrative Office of theCourts, specifically Director Richard Williams, Deputy Director Theodore Fetter, AnnaMarie Chiofolo, Matthew Kowalski, James Mannion, Marie Repko, and JohnCzarnuscewicz. The Department of Human Services provided data on the TemporaryAssistance for Needy Families program. Thanks go to Gwendolyn Harris,Commissioner, Reginald Lewis, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, and SudhaKantor and Rudy Myers. Executive Director Howard Beyer, Director of Aftercare andParole William Curry, and William Davis of the Juvenile Justice Commission provideddata on the juvenile population. We also thank Stacy Kutner of the Department ofLaw and Public Safety, Criminal Justice Agency, and Sergeant Daniel Marley of theNew Jersey State Police Uniform Crime Report Unit, for providing data on drug arresttrends. James Austin and Wendy Naro of the Institute on Crime, Justice, andCorrections at the George Washington University assisted with chapter 5. MeaganFunches of the Urban Institute provided valuable research support for chapter 3. Thework of Michelle Waul, formerly of the Urban Institute, served as foundation for thisreport. Avi Bhati and Gretchen Moore of the Urban Institute assisted with statisticalanalysis, and Jaime Watson of the Urban Institute provided valuable insight and com-ments on earlier drafts of this report. The support of Ken Zimmerman, NancyFishman, and Craig Levine at the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice was invalu-able. We also thank the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice and the Fund for New Jersey for funding this project. Without them, this report would not have beenpossible.

Executive Summary 1

This report describes the process of prisoner reentry in New Jersey by

examining the policy context surrounding prisoner reentry in the

state, the characteristics of the state’s returning inmates, the geo-

graphic distribution of returning prisoners, and the social and economic cli-

mates of the communities that are home to the highest concentrations of

returning prisoners. This report does not attempt to evaluate a specific reentry

program or empirically assess New Jersey’s reentry policies and practices.

Rather, the report consolidates existing data on incarceration and release

trends and presents a new analysis of data on New Jersey prisoners released in

2002. The data used from this report were derived from several sources, includ-

ing the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the New Jersey Department of Corrections,

the New Jersey State Parole Board, and the New Jersey State Police, the Divi-

sion of Probation in the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Juvenile Jus-

tice Commission, the Department of Human Services, and the U.S. Census

Bureau. Highlights from the report are presented below.

Historical Incarceration and Release Trends. New Jersey’s incarceration

and reentry trends are similar to those observed at the national level. Between

1977 and 2002, the New Jersey prison population more than quadrupled,

increasing from 6,017 to 27,891 people. The per capita rate of imprisonment in

New Jersey rose from 76 to 331 per 100,000 residents in the state between 1980

and 2002, an increase of over 336 percent. The growth in New Jersey’s prison

population is largely attributable to rising prison admissions, and may have

resulted in part due to longer lengths of stay in prison. Prison admissions

increased because of the rise in arrests for drug offenses, the increased use of

mandatory minimum sentences in New Jersey, and a rising number of indi-

viduals returned to prison as a result of parole revocations. New Jersey’s release

patterns reflect these admission and population trends: 14,849 prisoners were

released from New Jersey prisons in 2002, nearly four times the number

released in 1980 (3,910).

Executive Summary

Profile of Prisoners Released in 2002. The majority of released prisoners

were male (91 percent) and black (62 percent). The median age at release was

34 years. Over one-third had been serving time for drug offenses. The average

time served for those released for the first time was just under two years.

Thirty-nine percent were incarcerated for a violation of parole. One-third had

been diagnosed with a physical or mental health condition. Educational skills

are severely limited. A vast majority had a history of drug or alcohol abuse.

How Prisoners are Prepared for Release. In-prison program availability is

limited in New Jersey. In 2001, 17 percent of all prison and jail inmates partic-

ipated in academic programming and six percent participated in vocational

programming provided by the Department of Corrections’ Office of Educa-

tional Services. Other work programs can accommodate about 12 percent of

the population. Therapeutic substance abuse beds are available for about 6 per-

cent of the population.

How New Jersey Prisoners are Released. In 2002, a majority, two-thirds, of

all prisoners released were released to a period of supervision. However, the

number and share of prisoners released without supervision in New Jersey

increased over the 1990s.

Geographic Distribution of Released Prisoners. Almost one-third of pris-

oners released in 2002 came from two counties—Essex and Camden—that

already face great economic and social disadvantage. The median household

income in the central cities of these two counties is less than 50 percent of the

statewide median household income. Unemployment in the central cities of

these two counties is significantly higher than in the rest of the state, and large

shares of the population live in poverty and in single parent households.

2 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY

Introduction 3

1 Office of Justice Programs,Office of Congressional andPublic Affairs. 2002. “AttorneyGeneral Ashcroft AnnouncesNationwide Effort to Reinte-grate Offenders Back into Com-munities.” Press release, July15, 2002. Available at http://www.usnewswire.com/OJP/docs/OJP02214.html. (AccessedOctober 2002.)

2 Lynch, James P., and William J.Sabol. 2001. “Prisoner Reentryin Perspective.” Crime PolicyReport, vol. 3. Washington,D.C.: Urban Institute Press.

3 Austin, James. 2001. “PrisonerReentry: Current Trends, Prac-tices, and Issues.” Crime andDelinquency 47(3): 314–334;Hammett, Theodore M., CherylRoberts, and Sofia Kennedy.2001. “Health-Related Issues inPrisoner Reentry.” Crime andDelinquency 47(3): 390–409;Lynch and Sabol. 2001. “Pris-oner Reentry in Perspective.”

4 For an in-depth discussion ofprisoner reentry nationwide, seeTravis, Jeremy, Amy L.Solomon, and Michelle Waul.2001. From Prison to Home: TheDimensions and Consequencesof Prisoner Reentry. Washing-ton, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

5 Lynch and Sabol. 2001. “Pris-oner Reentry in Perspective.”

6 Ibid.

This report examines the prisoner reentry phenomenon in the state of

New Jersey. Prisoner reentry—the process of leaving prison and return-

ing to society—has become a pressing issue both in New Jersey and

nationwide, and with good reason. Rising incarceration rates over the past quar-

ter century have resulted in more and more inmates being released from prison

each year. Nationwide, an estimated 630,000 inmates were released from state

and federal prisons in 2001, a fourfold increase over the past two decades.1 Thus,

released prisoners, their families, and the communities to which they return must

cope with the challenges of reentry on a much greater scale than ever before.

And the challenges of reentry are many. More prisoners nationwide are

returning home having spent longer terms behind bars,2 exacerbating the

already significant challenges of finding employment and reconnecting with

family. Prisoners today are typically less prepared for reintegration, less con-

nected to community-based social structures, and more likely to have health or

substance abuse problems than in the past.3 In addition to these personal cir-

cumstances, limited availability of jobs, housing, and social services in a com-

munity may affect the returning prisoner’s ability to successfully reintegrate.4

These challenges affect more than returning prisoners and their families;

they can also have serious implications for the communities to which prison-

ers return. Two-thirds of the prisoners released in 1996 returned to major met-

ropolitan areas across the country—up from 50 percent in 1984.5 Within

central cities, released prisoners are often concentrated in a few neighbor-

hoods.6 These high concentrations of returning prisoners generate great costs

to those communities, including potential increases in costs associated with

crime and public safety, greater public health risks, and high rates of unem-

ployment and homelessness. Thus, developing a thorough understanding of

the characteristics of returning prisoners and the challenges they face is an

important first step in shaping public policy toward improving the safety and

welfare of all citizens.

In many ways, the dimensions and challenges of prisoner reentry observed

on the national level are mirrored in the state of New Jersey. Incarceration

Introduction

increased dramatically in New Jersey in recent decades. Between 1977 and

2002, the New Jersey prison population more than quadrupled, increasing

from 6,017 to 27,891 people. At the same time, the per capita rate of imprison-

ment in New Jersey rose from 76 to 322 per 100,000 residents in the state, an

increase of over 336 percent.7 Admissions to New Jersey prisons climbed over

this period as well. In 1980, fewer than 4,000 individuals were admitted to New

Jersey’s prisons. By 2000, annual admissions had grown to over 15,000.8 State

spending on corrections increased accordingly. Over the past 25 years, spend-

ing on corrections and parole has grown at twice the rate of the rest of the state

budget. In fiscal year 1983, the state spent just under $200 million on correc-

tions, parole, and the juvenile justice system. By fiscal year 2003, annual

budgets for these departments had risen almost six-fold to $1.1 billion. The

state budget as a whole increased threefold over this period. In fiscal year 2003,

the budget for the Department of Corrections was $858 million, or about

$28,000 per inmate.9

As a consequence of the growth in imprisonment, the state of New Jersey

has also experienced a dramatic growth in the number of people being released

from prison. In 1980, only 3,910 individuals were released from the state’s pris-

ons.10 Last year, 14,849 individuals were released to the community from New

Jersey’s prisons. The vast majority—95 percent—of those released from

New Jersey prisons in 2002 returned to communities in New Jersey.11 Almost

one-third—31 percent—returned to two counties in the state, Essex and Cam-

den. This included 2,430, or 16 percent of all releases, returning to Essex

County, and 2,270 individuals, or 15 percent of the released population,

returning to Camden County. The flow of prisoners was further concentrated

in a small number of communities within these counties. Thirteen percent of

all releases, or 1,705 individuals, returned to New Jersey’s largest city, Newark,

in Essex County. Another 1,280 individuals, or ten percent of the total release

population, returned to the city of Camden.

Government leaders, corrections officials, local organizations, and service

providers are keenly aware of the reentry challenges numbers like these pose in

New Jersey, and they have begun to use both research and programmatic

knowledge to address them. In July 2002, the New Jersey State Parole Board

was awarded $2 million over three years from the U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, as part of the federal government’s Serious and Vio-

lent Offender Reentry Initiative, which supports reentry initiatives nationwide.

This grant provides the opportunity for New Jersey to focus the efforts of a

number of state agencies on 200 juvenile and 100 adult offenders who are being

released by the Juvenile Justice Commission or the Department of Corrections.

These offenders have been classified as high-risk and are returning to Essex and

Camden counties. Services begin before release and continue as the individual

begins his or her life post-release. Programming includes job training and

placement, educational services, substance abuse treatment, mental health

treatment, restitution, housing assistance, mentoring, counseling, aftercare,

crisis intervention, life skills training, supervision, and intensive case manage-

ment.12 Implementation of this program began in January of 2003. All partici-

7 Bureau of Justice Statistics(BJS)/Paige Harrison. 2000.Incarceration Rates for Prison-ers Under State or FederalJurisdiction, per 100,000 Resi-dents (corpop25. wk1). NationalPrisoner Statistics Data Series(NPS-1). Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice; Harri-son, Paige M., and Allen J.Beck. 2002. Prisoners in 2001.Bureau of Justice Statistics Bul-letin. NCJ 195189. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Jus-tice; Beck, Allen J. 2000. Pris-oners in 1999. Bureau ofJustice Statistics Bulletin. NCJ183476. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice.

8 Bureau of Justice Statistics.2000. Sentenced prisonersadmitted to State or Federaljurisdiction (corpop13. wk1).National Prisoner StatisticsData Series (NPS-1). Washing-ton, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice.

9 Shure, J., M. Forsberg et al.Forthcoming. “Reentry: The Fis-cal Consequences.” Commis-sioned by the New JerseyReentry Roundtable.

10 New Jersey Department ofCorrections data, 2002; Bureauof Justice Statistics (BJS)/Paige Harrison. 2000. Sen-tenced Prisoners Releasedfrom State or Federal Jurisdic-tion (corpop22.wk1). NationalPrisoner Statistics (NPS-1).

11 Urban Institute analysis of NewJersey Department of Correc-tions data, 2002

12 For more information, seehttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reentry/sar/nj.html


pating offenders will be released between October 2003 and April 2004. The

grant expires in 2005.

New Jersey has also been selected as one of seven states to participate in the

Reentry Policy Academy of the National Governors Association (NGA). Over

the next 18 months, New Jersey policymakers from the Governor’s office will

participate in an in-state policy workshop, two policy academy meetings, and

customized technical assistance. The goal of this academy is for state teams to

craft reentry strategies for their respective states. The aim is to reduce recidi-

vism rates by improving services provided to inmates and ex-offenders.13

In 2001, New Jersey was selected by the National Institute of Corrections

to participate in a technical assistance project to develop policy-driven

responses to parole violations in the state of New Jersey. To fulfill the require-

ments of this grant, the Chairman of the State Parole Board convened a policy

group consisting of leaders from a number of state agencies, including the

Parole Board, the Department of Corrections, the Division of Probation,

the Department of Human Services, the Department of Health, the Attorney

General’s office, and a number of community partners. This policy group

participated in a number of local group meetings and a national forum at

which they examined current parole policy and practice, and gathered empiri-

cal data on parole violations in 2 of the state’s 13 parole districts. This process

concluded with the development of recommendations that the State Parole

Board is interested in implementing.

The New Jersey Institute for Social Justice and the New Jersey Public Pol-

icy Research Institute have created the New Jersey Reentry Roundtable, a year-

long initiative gathering policymakers, researchers, service providers, and other

key stakeholders to assess and develop a strategic response to the challenge of

prisoner reentry in New Jersey. Based on the Urban Institute’s Reentry Round-

table model, the New Jersey Reentry Roundtable has to date held meetings on

health, juvenile reentry, and employment issues over the course of the year. In

addition, they have commissioned research on a variety of topics affecting pris-

oner reentry in New Jersey, and will work to implement a series of

recommendations resulting from this research and ongoing discussions. In the

future, it is expected that the work of the Roundtable will provide a framework

for New Jersey’s participation in the NGA Reentry Policy Academy.

This report is designed to contribute to the efforts currently underway in

New Jersey to enhance public safety and improve the prospects for successful

prisoner reintegration in the state. It is important to note that this report does

not attempt to evaluate a specific reentry program, nor does it empirically

assess New Jersey’s reentry policies and practices. Rather, the processes and

characteristics of prisoner reentry in New Jersey are described by answering

several questions that frame the organization of the report:

� What is the policy context surrounding prisoner reentry in New Jersey? How

do state sentencing and post-release supervision practices affect reentry in

New Jersey? � What are the characteristics of New Jersey’s returning inmates?

13 For more information see the NGA’s PressRelease: http:// www.nga.org/nga/ news-Room/1,1169,C_PRESS_RELEASE%5ED_5751,00.html

Chapter 1. What Is the Policy Context Surrounding Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey? 5

� How are New Jersey prisoners prepared for reentry? � What are the New Jersey communities with the greatest concentrations of

returning inmates? What are the economic and social climates of those

communities?

The report begins by describing the context of prisoner reentry at the state

level, followed by a description of the characteristics of inmates released from

New Jersey prisons in 2002. We then discuss the programming New Jersey

inmates may receive while incarcerated to prepare them for release. This is fol-

lowed by a discussion of prisoner release policy and practice in New Jersey, and

an examination of parole supervision in the state. Chapter 5 provides a spatial

analysis of the two counties with the highest numbers and concentrations of

ex-offenders—Camden and Essex counties. It is our hope that this report will

provide a useful, factual foundation for the individuals and organizations

working to improve reentry outcomes for prisoners, their families and com-

munities, and the general public in New Jersey.

About the Data

The data used for this report were derived from several sources. Longitudinal data describing thepolicy context of incarceration and reentry trends in New Jersey, for example, were derived froma mix of federal statistics, released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and statistics compiled byvarious agencies within the State of New Jersey, such as the Department of Corrections. Longitu-dinal crime report and police arrest data were gathered from New Jersey’s annual Uniform CrimeReports, produced by the New Jersey State Police.

The available data from each of these sources spanned different time periods—some haddata for only a few years, while others had data for two decades or longer. Rather than truncat-ing longitudinal data so that graphs and statistics from all sources cover a common time span, wechose to include all years for which we were able to obtain data points. As a result, readers willnot always be able to make year-to-year comparisons across graphs.

Data on the population of inmates released from New Jersey prisons in calendar year 2002were obtained from the New Jersey Department of Corrections and represent all inmatesreleased from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. The New Jersey State Parole Boardprovided data on a “snapshot” of individuals on parole in late June 2003. For the geographicanalysis of chapter 5, the Division of Probation provided data on a “snapshot” of all individualsfrom Camden and Essex Counties on probation on a day in late September 2003. The JuvenileJustice Commission provided data on admissions from Camden and Essex Counties to the cus-tody of the Commission in 2001. The Department of Human Services provided data on the countsof TANF Recipients by zip codes in Camden and Essex Counties in March of 2003.



14 Between 1925 and 1973, theper capita rate of imprisonmentin the United States remainedrelatively constant, at about110 per 100,000 residents.Since 1973, however, the rateof imprisonment has beensteadily increasing each year.(See Blumstein, Alfred, andAllen J. Beck. 1999. “Popula-tion Growth in U.S. Prisons,1980–1996.” In Prisons, editedby Michael Tonry and JoanPetersilia. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.) By year-end2001, the number of sentencedprisoners per 100,000 U.S. res-idents was 470—more thanfour times the rate of imprison-ment that had been maintainedduring the early part of the 20thcentury (see Harrison, PaigeM., and Allen J. Beck. 2002.Prisoners in 2001.). Harrison,Paige, and Allen Beck. 2002.Prisoners in 2001. Bureau ofJustice Statistics Bulletin. NCJ195189. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice.

15 Bureau of Justice Statistics(BJS)/Paige Harrison. 2000. In-carceration Rates for PrisonersUnder State or Federal Juris-diction, per 100,000 Residents;Harrison, Paige and Allen Beck.2002. Prisoners in 2001; Beck,Allen. 2000. Prisoners in 1999.

In order to understand the reentry phenomenon in New Jersey, it is first

necessary to examine recent trends in sentencing and corrections practices

in the state. This section provides an overview of recent sentencing and

incarceration history in the state and describes the factors contributing to the

growth in New Jersey’s inmate population. This context will help frame the

reentry issue and will provide background for the discussion of the needs and

challenges of returning inmates that follows later in this report.

PRISON POPULATION ON THE RISE

The New Jersey prison population has grown tremendously over the past two

decades, reflecting the rise in prison populations nationwide.14 Between 1977

and 2002, the New Jersey prison population more than quadrupled, increasing

from 6,017 to 27,891 people. (See figure 1.)

Between 1980 and 2002, the per capita rate of imprisonment in New Jer-

sey rose from 76 to 331 per 100,000 residents in the state, an increase of over

336 percent, outpacing national trends. Nationally, the rate of incarceration

increased 228 percent over this period.15 (See figure 2.) Unlike the national

trends, the growth in incarceration in New Jersey has not been constant since

1980. After reaching a peak of 31,493 people in 1999, the prison population

declined over the next three years to the 2002 level of 27,891. Likewise, the rate

of incarceration peaked at 384 in 1999, and then dropped to the 2002 level of

322 per 100,000 residents.

As the incarceration rate has increased in New Jersey, so too has state

spending on corrections. Over the past 25 years, spending on corrections,

parole, and the juvenile justice system has grown at twice the rate of the rest of

the state budget. In fiscal year 1983, the state spent just under $200 million on

corrections, parole, and the juvenile justice systems. By fiscal year 2003, annual

budgets for these programs had risen almost six-fold to $1.1 billion. The state

budget as a whole increased threefold over this same period of time. In fiscal

year 2003, the Department of Corrections spent $858 million, or about $28,000

C H A P T E R 1

What Is the Policy Context SurroundingPrisoner Reentry in New Jersey?


per inmate. For a further discussion of New Jersey’s spending on corrections,

please see “Reentry: The Fiscal Consequences,” forthcoming, by Jon Shure,

Mary Forsberg, and others.16

EXPLAINING NEW JERSEY INCARCERATION TRENDS

Over the past generation, American sentencing policy has become more puni-

tive and policing practices more stringent. These shifts reflect, in part, height-

ened concerns about public safety and increases in the levels of violent crimes.

These trends also influenced crime control and sentencing practices in New

Jersey. This section describes how changes in New Jersey’s drug arrest rates,

16 Commissioned by the New Jer-sey Reentry Roundtable.Figure 1. New Jersey Prison Population, Admissions, and Releases,

1980–2001

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics data series (NPS-1); Prisoners in 2001; Beck, A. and P. Harrison. 2001.Prisoners in 2000.

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

01980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1994 1996 1998 20001992 2002

Prison Population

Admission Cohorts

Release Cohorts

Figure 2. U.S. and New Jersey Incarceration Rates, 1980–2001

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics data series (NPS-1); Prisoners in 2001.

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

01980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001

New Jersey

United States

sentencing policy, and parole revocation practices have contributed to

increases in the number of individuals admitted to New Jersey’s prisons over

time, driving the growth in New Jersey’s prison population.

The dramatic increases in the prison population in New Jersey over the last

two decades are largely a result of a rising number of admissions to prison.

Annual admissions to New Jersey’s prisons increased from under 4,000 in 1980

to over 15,000 in 2000,17 as is seen in figure 1. Analysis of available data show that

three factors are primarily responsible for these increases. First, arrest rates for

drug crimes escalated between 1980 and 2001. Second, sentencing reforms—

principally the institution of mandatory minimum sentences, some as high as five

years—were brought about by the New Jersey legislature for select crimes, includ-

ing violent and drug crimes, sending more individuals to prison. Third, parole

practice returned large numbers of parolees to prison for parole revocations. It is

just as important to note, however, that the numbers of violent and property

crimes reported to the police decreased overall during this period, and therefore

did not contribute to the growth in imprisonment. Finally, according to available

data, length of time served by inmates increased in the latter part of the 1990s,

possibly contributing to increases in the prison population during that period.

The increases caused by inmates spending more time in prison appear moderate

compared to those caused by the increased admissions previously mentioned.

Trends in Crime

Increases in prison admissions may be the result of an increase in crime, mea-

sured by the number of crimes reported to the police. However, while the prison

population steadily increased between 1980 and 2002, violent and property

crimes reported to the police over this period followed a generally downward

trend.18 The number of property crimes reported decreased by 43 percent, from

over 425,000 in 1980 to just over 240,000 in 2001. Likewise, property crime

rates—the number of property crimes per 100,000 residents—fell 51 percent

over this period, from 5,797 crimes per 100,000 residents in 1980 to 2,835 per

100,000 in 2001. (See figure 3.) Trends in violent crime over this period were less

consistent. Violent crimes reported to the police decreased in the early 1980s,

and then increased from 1984 until 1990. Violent crime reports then stabilized

until the late 1990s, during which they decreased to the lowest point in over two

decades. By 2001, the number of crimes reported to police was just over 33,000,

a 25 percent decrease from the 44,000 violent crimes reported in 1980. Accord-

ingly, the trend in violent crime rates per 100,000 followed that for all violent

crime in New Jersey, decreasing in the early 1980s, then increasing until 1990

and stabilizing, then decreasing in the late 1990s. In 2001, 390 violent crimes

were reported per 100,000 residents of the state. In 1980, over 600 had been

reported per 100,000 residents. (See figure 4.) These data suggest that the con-

sistent increases in the prison population between 1980 and 1998 cannot be

attributed to trends in violent and property crimes. Data on drugs crimes

reported to the police are unavailable.


17 Bureau of Justice Statistics.2000. Sentenced prisonersadmitted to State or Federaljurisdiction.

18 As measured by the FBI’s Uni-form Crime Reporting systemPart I Index violent and propertyoffenses.


Admissions to prison may increase while fewer crimes are reported if police

departments make more arrests. In New Jersey, arrests for property, violent, and

drug crimes fluctuated between 1980 and 2001 while the state’s incarceration

rate rose steadily. Property crime arrests decreased in the early 1980s, and then

increased 13 percent between 1986 and 1991 from 55,878 to 63,187. Through-

out the 1990s, property crime arrests decreased 40 percent to 37,851 in 2001.

(See figure 5.) Arrests made by police for violent crimes increased slightly

between 1980 and 1990, from 17,288 to 22,683, and then decreased 30 percent

to 15,819 in 2001. (See figure 6.)

Arrests for drug crimes followed a very different trend. Between 1980 and

2001, drug arrests rose overall by a remarkable 150 percent. The trends in drug

Figure 3. Number of Property Crimes in New Jersey

per 100,000 Residents, 1980–2000

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

1980 1982 1986 1988 1990 1992 1996 1998 20001984 1994

Property

Figure 4. Number of Violent Crimes in New Jersey

per 100,000 Residents, 1980–2001

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

01980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Violent


arrests, however, were not consistent over this period. Between 1986 and 1989,

drug arrests increased 70 percent, which was followed by a 33 percent decrease

by 1991. This steep rise and fall in drug arrests was followed by a more gradual

increase until 1997, when arrests for drug crimes started to decline again. (See

figure 7.)

Implementation of the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 1987 (CDRA,

see the sidebar “Sentencing Reforms in New Jersey” for a more detailed discus-

sion), likely contributed to the increase in drug arrests in the mid 1980s. This act

increased the types of drug offenses that were subject to criminal sanctions and

has had dramatic implications for New Jersey’s criminal justice system, setting

the fight against illegal drugs as the centerpiece of the state’s crime control strat-

egy.19 It led to the implementation of a statewide master plan for comprehensive

19 This was stated in a memo from then-Attorney General when the StatewideNarcotics Action Plan was distributed tothe New Jersey Law Enforcement Commu-nity on March 12, 1993.

Figure 5. Number of Property Arrests in New Jersey, 1980–2001

Source: New Jersey State Police Annual Uniform Crime Reports, 1980–2001.

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

01980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Property

Figure 6. Number of Violent Arrests in New Jersey, 1980–2001


25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

01980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Violent Arrests


drug enforcement—the Statewide Narcotics Action Plan—and to the develop-

ment of “The State Police Plan of Action” in 1987. According to the New Jersey

State Police, this plan involved an “updat[ing] of arrest, search and seizure laws

and techniques” training of officers, and “increased enforcement action result-

ing in drug arrests increasing dramatically.”20 Explaining the subsequent decline

and rise in drug arrests is beyond the scope of this report. Some possible expla-

nations are a stabilizing of the illegal drug markets in the state, the movement of

drug markets across state lines, or the reclassification of drug arrests for the pur-

poses of statistical records.

The Effects of Sentencing Reforms

New Jersey follows a policy of indeterminate sentencing, whereby the sentenc-

ing judge has the discretion to sentence an offender to prison and to set the min-

imum and maximum terms of confinement. After serving a period of

incarceration, prisoners are then eligible for release at the discretion of the State

Parole Board. This is the traditional model used by criminal justice systems in

the United States for most of the twentieth century. In recent decades, however,

many states have moved towards systems of determinate sentencing, in which

the discretion of judges is greatly limited, and sentences are largely established

by statute.21 Unlike these states, New Jersey has generally maintained a system of

indeterminate sentencing, but the legislature has nevertheless instituted a num-

ber of reforms limiting judges’ discretion in sentencing with respect to certain

types of crimes, and requiring certain offenders to spend more of their sentence

in prison.

Mandatory Minimum Sentences

In 1979, the New Jersey Legislature reformed the state’s criminal code, in part

by instituting mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes. Under this

20 From the website of the NewJersey State Police, http://www.njsp.org/about/80s. html,accessed July 31, 2003

21 Tonry, Michael. 1996. Sentenc-ing Matters. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Figure 7. Number of Drug Arrests in New Jersey, 1980–2001


80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

01980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Drug Arrests


sentencing scheme, judges are required to sentence individuals convicted of

these crimes to a prison term with a minimum term. During the 1980s and

1990s, the legislature expanded the types of crimes subject to mandatory mini-

mum sentences, adding a number of violent crimes and many drug offenses.

These reforms have had dramatic effects on the size and nature of the state’s

prison population. They have contributed to the increases in prison admissions

by requiring prison sentences for lesser offenses that may have previously been

subject to other non-custodial sanctions, such as community service or proba-

tion. Since the implementation of mandatory minimums, the share of convicted

offenders sentenced to prison or jail has increased. In 1977, only 40 percent of

sentences imposed by judges were custodial, meaning the offender had to go to

prison or jail. By 1990, custodial sentences were issued in 57 percent of cases, an

increase of 43 percent.22 (For more on these reforms, see the sidebar, “Sentenc-

ing Reform in New Jersey.”)

As shown in figure 8, both the number and share of inmates subject to a

mandatory minimum sentence increased significantly over the last two

decades. In 1982, only 11 percent, or 870 inmates, had been committed with

a mandatory minimum sentence. By 1987, the number of inmates serv-

ing mandatory minimums had increased almost seven-fold to about

5,900 inmates. They then comprised 41 percent of the inmate population. In

2002, the number subject to mandatory minimum sentences had increased to

over 16,700, nearly triple the number just six years earlier and almost twenty

times the number from two decades before. Prisoners with mandatory mini-

mum sentences now account for a majority—61 percent—of all prisoners in

New Jersey.23

It is important to note that the entire increase in the prevalence of manda-

tory minimum sentences may not be attributable to statutory requirements.

Judges in New Jersey have the discretion to impose mandatory minimum peri-

22 New Jersey Sentencing PolicyStudy Commission. 1994. FinalReport. January.

23 New Jersey Department ofCorrections, Office of Policyand Planning, Policy Analysisand Planning, 2002. Prelimi-nary Population Data. July.

Figure 8. Population with Mandatory Minimum Sentence, 1982–2002

Source: New Jersey Department of Corrections, Office of Policy and Planning, Policy Analysis and Planning, Preliminary PopulationData, July 2002.

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

1982 1987 2002

Mandatory Minimum

No Mandatory Minimum


ods of incarceration at the time of sentencing in cases involving particularly sig-

nificant aggravating factors. Data from the Department of Corrections on the

proportion of the population subject to mandatory minimums do not make a

distinction between “true” mandatory minimums and cases such as those in

which the judge has effectively increased the minimum that must be served

before parole can be granted. But research using court data shows that about a

quarter of the mandatory minimum terms that were instituted in 1990 (the only

year for which data have been analyzed) were issued at a sentencing judge’s dis-

cretion; the remainder were mandate by statute.24

Overall Sentence Length

Changes in sentencing practices can affect prison populations by increasing the

length of prison sentences imposed by judges, but this has not been the case in

New Jersey. In fact, average sentence length in New Jersey has decreased in

recent years.25 In 2001, a larger percentage of New Jersey offenders were serving

shorter sentences (under five years) than was the case in 1991. The percent sen-

tenced to one to four years increased from 23 to 26, while the number sentenced

to over ten years decreased from 42 to 38 percent.26 (See figure 9.) In 2001, the

median sentence for adult offenders was six years, down from seven years in

1993.27 This is likely the result of more offenders being sentenced to prison for

lesser crimes that carry shorter sentences, the majority of which are drug-related

offenses.

Length of Stay

Even as sentence lengths decrease, it is possible that the implementation of var-

ious sentencing reforms could increase prison populations by increasing the

amount of time offenders actually spend in prison. Data on the time served by

offenders released in the 1980s are unavailable, but inmates’ length of stay

increased in the late 1990s. Inmates released in 1990 and 1995 had spent, on

24 New Jersey Sentencing PolicyStudy Commission. 1994.

25 The length of a prisoner’s sen-tence, which is the term ofimprisonment meted out by thecourt, does not necessarilycorrespond to the actual timeserved in prison (i.e. prisonersusually serve less time thantheir court-ordered sentencelengths.)

26 New Jersey Department ofCorrections.1991-2001. AnnualOffender Characteristics Reports.

27 New Jersey Department ofCorrections. 1993 and 2001.Annual Offender Characteris-tics Reports.

Figure 9. Percentage of New Jersey Prison Population, by Sentence

Length, 1991 and 2001

Source: Urban Institute analysis of NJ Department of Corrections Annual Reports, FY 1991 and 2001.

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

01–4 Years 5–9 10–15 16–20 Life

19912001


average, 18.8 months and 18.1 months, respectively, in prison.28 The average

amount of time spent in prison by inmates released in 2000 was 24.2 months—

33 percent higher than in 1995. The average time served for inmates released in

2002 then dropped slightly to 23.8 months. National data show similar overall

trends. In 1990, the average time served for prisoners released from state pris-

ons across the country was 22 months; by 1999, it had increased to 29 months.29

Average lengths of stay in New Jersey increased between 1990 and 2002 for

most types of offenders. Many violent offenders—including those whose most

serious offense was homicide, manslaughter, assault, sexual assault, and

robbery—and offenders convicted of distributing drugs experienced the great-

est increases in the average time spent in prison.30 (See figure 10.)

It is unclear why average length of stay increased over this period. Because

of the lack of available data for earlier years, it is not possible to determine

whether this increase was part of a longer trend. Important changes were made

in sentencing policy for violent offenders in 1997 with the passage and imple-

mentation of the No Early Release Act. It is unlikely, however, that this reform

would have had such a significant effect on the length of time inmates spend in

prison in such a short period of time. This is particularly true because violent

offenders who would be most significantly affected by this reform in the early

years of its implementation would not have begun to be released from prison by

2000.

Prison Population and Admissions

As a result of sentencing reforms and trends in drug arrest rates, the composi-

tion of both New Jersey’s prison population and of those admitted to prison in

New Jersey, have changed over time. Data on the stock prison population are

available for the 1980s and 1990s. Data on prison admissions, however, are only

available for the 1990s.

28 This is the median time servedfor first releases—excludingthose who were released afterbeing reincarcerated for aparole violation.

29 Hughes, Timothy A., Doris J.Wilson, and Allen J. Beck.2001. Trends in State Parole,1990–2000. Bureau of JusticeStatistics Special Report.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice.

30 Statistics provided by theOffice of Policy and Planning,New Jersey Department ofCorrections.

Figure 10. Percent Change in Time Served for Releases, by Offense,

1995 to 2002

Source: Statistics for the NJ DOC Office of Policy and Planning.

All

Man

slaughte

r

Robbery

Homici

de

Sexual

Assau

lt

Assau

lt

Drugs -

Dist

ributio

n

Other

Vio

lent O

ffense

s

Other

Public

Polic

y

Uncoded

Burglar

y

Other

Pro

perty

Offe

nses

Drugs -

Poss

essio

n

Theft/L

arce

ny

Other

Sex

Offe

nses

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

–0.2

–0.4


The share of the stock prison population that consists of drug offenders

(meaning prisoners whose most serious conviction was a drug offense) has

increased dramatically over the last two decades. In 1980, only 6 percent of the

population had been incarcerated for drug offenses. By 2002, this had increased

sixfold to 36 percent. Perhaps more telling, in just three years following the

implementation of the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 1987, the share

more than tripled. In January 1987, 11 percent of the population was incarcer-

ated for drug offenses. By 1990, this proportion had increased to 25 percent, and

by 2002, it was 36 percent. Over this same period, the share of the population

that was made up of violent offenders (persons whose most serious conviction

was for a violent crime) decreased accordingly from 66 percent in 1980 to

42 percent in 2002. The share of non-violent offenders (primarily convicted of

property crimes) also shrunk, from 28 percent in 1980 to 22 percent in 2002.31

(See figure 11.) It is important to note that the numbers of all three categories of

offenders increased over this time period, but the number of drug offenders

increased more dramatically than the numbers of the other two categories. New

Jersey prisons housed 9,150 violent offenders, 3,575 non-violent offenders, and

about 650 drug offenders in 1980. In 2002, there were an estimated 11,500 vio-

lent offenders, 6,000 non-violent, and over 9,800 drug offenders.

Changes in the composition of the prison population can result because of

changes in admissions or because of changes in length of stay. Data on both are

not readily available for the 1980s, when the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act

was implemented. Available admissions data do reveal, however, that between

1990 and 2000, the share of the admission cohort that was incarcerated for a

drug offense increased slightly from 46.5 percent to 49.1 percent. Property and

violent offenders therefore decreased as a share of the population being admit-

ted to New Jersey prisons over this period. In 2002, the share of admissions that

were drug offenders dropped somewhat to 48.8 percent.32

31 New Jersey Department ofCorrections, Office of Policyand Planning, Policy Analysisand Planning. 2002. Prelimi-nary Population Data. July.

32 Data provided by NJ DOC.

Figure 11. Population by Offense Type, 1982–2002

Source: New Jersey Department of Corrections, Office of Policy and Planning, Policy Analysis and Planning, Preliminary PopulationData, July 2002.

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

01982 1987 2002

ViolentNon-ViolentDrugs


Parole Revocations

The use of mandatory minimums is not the only factor that led to the increased

prison population in New Jersey. More parolees have also been returning to

prison for revocations of their conditions of parole. The number of parole vio-

lators returned to prison in New Jersey has increased over sixfold in the last two

decades, from 1,192 in 1980 to 6,822 in 1998. In 1980, 30 percent of admissions

to New Jersey’s prisons were for parole violations. In 1998, parole revocations

comprised 41 percent of all admissions. The rise was not constant over this

period, as can be seen in figure 12. After decreasing, increasing, and then

decreasing again, the share of admissions that were parole violators doubled in

the 1990s, from 21 percent in 1990 to 41 percent in 1998.33 This increase out-

paces national trends in parole revocations over that period. In 1999, 35 percent

of prison admissions nationally were parole violators, compared to 29 percent

in 1990.34

Much of the increase in the New Jersey prison population is likely due to

changes in violation practice by parole officers. In particular, following two

high-profile cases in 1995 and 1996 in which parolees under supervision com-

mitted violent crimes, it is believed that parole officers became more likely to

revoke parole and to return a parolee to prison for lesser infractions than had

previously been the case. Firearms have been issued to all parole officers since

1994. Many have attributed increases in the use of parole revocations in the

1990s to this practice, as it converted the parole staff to sworn law enforcement

officers and is believed to have changed the culture of the agency.35

A parole revocation may be the result of a technical violation of parole or

the commission of a new crime by a parolee.36 There is limited readily available

data on the nature of the violations for which parolees are returned to prison.

Members of the Parole Board have recently begun to explore this issue on a lim-

ited scale for a National Institute of Corrections-sponsored project on parole

33 More recent statistics providedby the Department of Correc-tions shows that the share ofadmissions that are parole vio-lators in New Jersey hasdecreased since 1998 to 29percent. These statistics, how-ever, vary slightly from thenumbers reported to theBureau of Justice Statistics forsome years.

34 Travis, Jeremy, and SarahLawrence. 2002. Beyond thePrison Gates: The State ofParole in America. Washington,D.C.: The Urban Institute.November.

35 Per conversations with MelindaSchlager, 21 August 2003, andKevin McHugh, 16 September2003.

36 Ibid.

Figure 12. Percent of Total Prison Admissions by Type, 1977–1998.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoners Statistics Data Series (NPS-1).

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

01977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

New Court Commitments

Parole Violators

revocation policy and practice, but the results of this analysis are not available

for dissemination. According to the Parole Board, however, there were 4,582

revocations of parole issued in fiscal year 2003 (beginning July 1, 2002 and

ending on June 30, 2003). The vast majority of these—96.5 percent, or 4,422—

were issued for technical violations of parole. Only 160, or 3.5 percent of the

revocations, were attributable to new crimes.37 It is important to note that

nationally, research has shown that the administrative recording of parole vio-

lations often does not tell us much about the underlying behavior of the parolee.

Although many violations are formally recorded as “technical,” they may not be

crime-free in nature. Often technical violators are actually arrested (but not

tried for) a new crime while under parole supervision, which leads to their

revocation.

In calendar year 1999, 55 percent of New Jersey’s discharges from parole

were considered “successful”—representing individuals who were released from

parole because their parole term expired, not because of a revocation of parole

for a violation. This is higher than the national average of 42 percent.38

SUMMARY

In sum, changes in arrest trends and in criminal justice policy over the last two

decades have contributed to significant increases in the prison population in

New Jersey. In particular, dramatic increases in arrests for drug offenses and the

implementation of mandatory minimum sentences have considerably increased

the number of individuals admitted to New Jersey’s prisons, and have changed

the composition of the prison population. Rising numbers of individuals

returning to prison as a result of parole revocations have also contributed to the

escalating prison population. Increases in the length of time spent in prison by

offenders may be another contributing factor.


37 Per e-mail conversation withKevin McHugh, 17 September2003.

38 Travis, Jeremy. and Sarah.Lawrence, 2002. Beyond thePrison Gates: The State ofParole in America.


%%Sentencing Reform in New Jersey

In 1979, New Jersey’s criminal code was dramatically reformed, in response to what was seen as “wide disparity” in sentencing practice.39 Thesereforms resulted in the development of Title 2C as New Jersey’s Criminal Code. This code mandates that all first and second degree offenders besentenced to a period of imprisonment. These reforms developed mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes, including murder and kidnap-ping, among others. The prison population increased in the early 1980s after these reforms were implemented, but the composition of the popula-tion remained the same, with the greatest share of offenders convicted of violent offenses.40 Perhaps most importantly, the reforms of NewJersey’s Criminal Code in 1979 paved the way for the expansion of the use of mandatory minimum sentences in the 1980s and 1990s.41

In 1987, in response to what was seen as an escalating drug problem,42 Governor Kean signed the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act (CDRA),setting stringent mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders in New Jersey. This law has had a substantial impact on the size and nature ofthe New Jersey prison population by increasing the number of admissions for drug convictions, and thereby increasing the share of the prison pop-ulation that consists of drug offenders. Under the CDRA, prison sentences of three and five years are mandated for the distribution of smallamounts of controlled substances. Shorter sentences are mandated for simple possession of controlled substances.43

The expectation of the CDRA was that more drug offenders would spend more time behind bars. Many offenders who would have previouslyreceived a sanction of community service or probation are subject to a mandatory a prison term under CDRA. The legislation’s authors and support-ers recognized that prison space would need to expand if they were to implement the act. In fact, the legislation stipulated that it would not gointo effect until a prison building bond issue was authorized by New Jersey’s voters.44 This referendum was passed, and more prison beds werebuilt to accommodate the increased number of offenders being sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Between fiscal years 1981 and 2002, almost12,000 beds were added by the Department of Corrections. Almost 7,000 of these beds were added between 1998 and 2002.45

One specific component of CDRA—the establishment of Drug Free School Zones—contributed significantly to the changing size and compo-sition of the prison population. The CDRA made the crime of possessing or distributing drugs within 1,000 feet of a school subject to a mandatoryprison sentence. The definition of “drug free zones” has since been expanded to include areas within 500 feet of a public building, including publichousing complexes and areas around playgrounds and moving school buses. There has been little analysis of the effect of these drug free zones onthe size and nature of the prison population.

A later reform—the No Early Release Act of 1997 (NERA)—increases the amount of time that must be served in prison by inmates convictedof certain violent crimes. Because of its recent implementation, there is no evidence to suggest that NERA has had a significant impact on the sizeof the prison population. The effects of NERA may be seen in the future, when more violent offenders remain in prison past what would have beentheir parole eligibility date. The Department of Corrections has, in fact, predicted that the prison population will begin to increase in the nearfuture, in part because of the effects of NERA.46

Other reforms implemented in the 1980s and 1990s led to continued increases in the prison population by expanding the list of crimes sub-ject to mandatory minimum sentences. The list now includes all serious violent crimes, sexual offenses, and carjacking, among other crimes. Otherreforms, such as the Graves Act (1982) and Megan’s Law (1993) may have had moderate impacts on the sentencing of persons convicted of violentweapons offenses and many sex offenses, respectively. The legislature also passed a Three Strikes Law in 1995, which applies only to homicide,kidnapping, robbery, and carjacking. Data are unavailable about the number of inmates that are subject to the Three Strikes Law, but most officialssay it has rarely been used.47

39 New Jersey Sentencing Policy Study Commission. 1994.

40 New Jersey Department of Corrections, 2002. Preliminary Population Data.

41 The court, however, can determine that a sentence of imprisonment would be a serious injustice that overrides the need to deter the criminal con-duct of others, and can impose an alternate sanction.

42 New Jersey Sentencing Policy Study Commission. 1994.

43 N.J.S.A. 2C: 35:1.

44 The Associated Press Wire Services. 1987. “Drug Law Awaits Prison Funding.”. The Bergen Record. August 24 pg. C13.

45 According to the Division of Operations in the Department of Corrections.

46 NJ Department of Corrections. 2002. Preliminary Population Data.

47 Mansnerus, Laura. 1999. “As Crime Rate Drops, The Prison Rate Rises and the Debate Rages.” The New York Times. December 26. Section 14NJ;page 1; column 5; New Jersey Weekly Desk.

Chapter 2. What Are the Characteristics of New Jersey’s Returning Inmates? 21

48 There were over 15,000 sepa-rate releases from the NewJersey Department of Correc-tions in 2002, but about 900 ofthese were individuals beingreleased multiple times. For theanalysis in this report, weexamine the characteristics of the unique individuals re-leased. Releases were fromstate prisons, county facilities,halfway houses, and otherforms of custody.

In order to better understand prisoner reentry in New Jersey, it is importantto examine the characteristics of the population being released from NewJersey prisons each year. This section describes the cohort released from the

New Jersey Department of Corrections in 2002, examining basic demographics,reasons for incarceration, time served, recidivism, and physical and mentalhealth conditions. Where information is unavailable for the 2002 release cohort,it is supplemented here with information available from other cohorts.

DEMOGRAPHICS

In 2002, 14,849 men and women were released to the community by the NewJersey Department of Corrections.48 This release cohort is very similar in com-position to New Jersey’s prison population. The cohort is overwhelmingly male(91 percent) and mostly black (62 percent). The average age is 34. Nearly 78 per-cent of the population was between 20 and 40 years old at the time of theirrelease. (See figures 13 and 14 for more detail.) While the marital status of aboutone-third of the release cohort is unknown, the vast majority (83 percent) ofthose for whom a status is reported were single. (See figure 15.)

CONVICTION OFFENSE

As discussed in chapter 1, an increase in arrests for drug offenses contributed tothe dramatic increases in incarceration in New Jersey in the 1980s and 1990s. Asa consequence, 38 percent of the population released in 2002 consisted of drugoffenders. Figure 16 demonstrates that no other offense category accounted foreven half that amount. For 16 percent of the population, a parole violation wascategorized as the most serious offense committed. Smaller shares of the popu-lation had been convicted of robbery, burglary, assault, and other offenses.

TIME SERVED

According to statistics provided by the Department of Corrections, the average

time served by prisoners released in 2002 was 23.8 months. This does not

C H A P T E R 2

What Are the Characteristics of New Jersey’s Returning Inmates?


include inmates who had been incarcerated for a violation of parole, e.g. only

first releases. Offenders convicted of homicide spent the most time in prison, at

almost 20 years. They were followed by those convicted of manslaughter, sexual

assault, and robbery. See figure 17 for more information.

CRIMINAL HISTORY AND THE REVOLVING DOOR

Cycling in and out of prison is common among released prisoners, whether they

are returned to prison while under parole supervision or not. A recent study by

the Bureau of Justice Statistics tracked just over 38,000 prisoners who were

released from prisons in 15 states, including New Jersey, in 1994. According to

this study, within three years of their release, nearly 52 percent of those released

nationally were back in prison for new prison sentences or for technical viola-

Figure 13. Race/Ethnicity of Released Inmates, 2002

Source: Urban Institute Analysis of NJ DOC data.

Black

62%

Hispanic

13%

White

21%

Other/Unkown

4%

Figure 14. Age Distribution of Released Inmates, 2002


0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00%

Under 20

20 to 29

30 to 39

40 to 49

50 to 59

60 and over


tions of their release. Further, these same data from New Jersey show that within

three years of release, 62 percent of the prisoners released in New Jersey in 1994

had been rearrested. Almost 43 percent had been reconvicted of another crime,

and about 38 percent had been reincarcerated.49 According to these results,

inmates released in New Jersey fare slightly better than the average of the other

fourteen states. Analysis by the New Jersey Department of Corrections found

that inmates released eleven years earlier had been just as likely to be re-arrested

within three years of release, but had been less likely to have been reconvicted

(38 percent of 1983 releases), and less likely to have been returned to prison or

jail (24 percent for 1983 releases).50

Of those inmates released in New Jersey in 2002, 39 percent were incarcer-

ated for a violation of parole. Nearly 12 percent of the 2002 release cohort were

49 Langan, Patrick A. and David J.Levin. 2002. Recidivism of Pris-oners Released in 1994. Bureauof Justice Statistics SpecialReport. NCJ 193427. Washing-ton, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice.

50 New Jersey Sentencing PolicyStudy Commission. 1994.

Figure 15. Marital Status of Released Inmates, 2002


Unknown33%

Divorced3%

Married5% Separated

3%

Single56%

Widowed0%

Figure 16. Primary Offense of Released Inmates, 2002


0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Other

Drugs

Parole Violation

Robbery

Burglary

Assault*

Theft

Weapons

Rape

Homicide


again in the custody of the Department of Corrections in June of 2003 when we

received their data.51

MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH PROBLEMS

Prisoners nationwide suffer from a range of mental and physical health prob-

lems. In 1997, nearly one-third (31 percent) of state prisoners reported having

a learning or speech disability, a hearing or vision problem, or a mental or phys-

ical condition.52 Many inmates suffer from co-occurring and chronic mental

and physical health disorders that make it difficult for them to transition from

prison to free society. We were able to obtain data on the prevalence of certain

health conditions among the 2002 release cohort. About a third of the cohort

has been diagnosed with at least one chronic and/or communicable physical or

mental health condition. (See figure 18.)

A specific area of heightened concern is the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in

prison populations. Nationally, in 1999, 2.3 percent of state prisoners were HIV

positive, and the overall rate of confirmed AIDS cases among the nation’s prison

population was five times the rate in the U.S. general population (0.60 percent

versus 0.12 percent).53 Less than one-third of one percent of the general popu-

lation of New Jersey was known to be diagnosed with AIDS in 2000.54 In con-

trast, 3.4 percent of 2002 release population was HIV positive or diagnosed with

AIDS. This included 0.7 percent of the population that was diagnosed with

AIDS.55 Testing for HIV and AIDS is not mandatory for New Jersey inmates.

Therefore, the percentages cited here are possibly an underestimate of the

prevalence of HIV and AIDS in New Jersey’s release population. It is important

to note that the female release population is more likely to be affected by HIV

and/or AIDS. A 2000 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 6.8 per-

cent of females in New Jersey’s prisons were known to be HIV positive, more

51 Note that this is likely anunderestimate of the extent towhich offenders released in2002 returned to prison atsome point. We have no recordof those individuals who werereleased only once in 2002 andwere then admitted andreleased again before lateJune of 2003.

52 Maruschak, Laura and AllenBeck. 2001. Medical Problemsof Inmates, 1997. Bureau of Jus-tice Statistics Special Report.NCJ 181644. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice.

53 Maruschak, Laura. 2002. HIV inPrisons, 2000. Bureau of Jus-tice Statistics Bulletin. NCJ196023. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice.

54 Centers for Disease Controland Prevention (CDC). 2001.HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report.vol. 13(2). Atlanta: NationalCenter for HIV, STD, and TBPrevention.

55 Ibid.

Figure 17. Median Time Served by Released New Jersey Prisoners, by

Offense, 2002

Source: NJ Department of Corrections, Office of Policy and Planning

0 50 100 150 200 250

HomicideManslaughter

Sexual AssaultRobberyAssault

Other Violent OffensesBurglary

Drugs - DistributionOther Public Policy

Other Property OffensesTheft/Larceny

Drugs - PossessionOther Sex Offenses

All


than double the 3.2 percent share of the general population that had been diag-

nosed with HIV.56

A 2002 report to Congress on the physical and mental health conditions of

soon-to-be-released inmates by the National Commission on Correctional

Health Care found that tens of thousands of prisoners are released to commu-

nities every year with communicable and chronic diseases that are left largely

untreated.57 In New Jersey, 18 percent of prisoners released in 2002 suffered

from at least one chronic condition, such as asthma, diabetes, or hypertension.

Ten percent have been diagnosed with at least one communicable disease or

condition, such as HIV, AIDS, tuberculosis, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea,

Hepatitis-B, or Hepatitis-C, but this is likely an underestimate. Only 6 percent

of the release population—or 880 individuals—have been diagnosed with

Hepatitis-C. This is likely an underestimate, as testing for this disease is not

required, and nationally, about 18 percent of soon-to-be released state prison-

ers are infected with Hepatitis-C.58 Mental illness has been identified in 11 per-

cent of the releases. Over 50 percent of released inmates have been diagnosed

with or assessed to have a drug or alcohol problem.59

56 Maruschak. Laura. 2002. HIV inPrisons, 2000.

57 National Commission on Cor-rectional Health Care. 2002.The Health Status of Soon-To-Be-Released Inmates: A Reportto Congress. Volume 1. March.

58 Ibid.

59 Other estimates set the percentof the stock prison populationwith a substance abuse prob-lem at 81 percent. The discrep-ancy may be due to incompletedata, or it could be true thatsubstance abuse is less preva-lent in the release populationthan in the stock population.This is unlikely, however.

Figure 18. Mental and Physical Health Diagnoses, Released

New Jersey Prisoners, 2002


No Diagnoses68%

1 Diagnosis20%

2 or moreDiagnoses

12%

%%


Juvenile Reentry

Each year in New Jersey, about 1,600 youth return home from placement in a juvenile justice facility. Like their adult counterparts, these youthface a number of barriers to successful reentry.

Analysis has recently been conducted of data on the 1,262 youth committed to the Juvenile Justice Commission in 2002. This section willsummarize this analysis. For a more detailed discussion of juvenile reentry in New Jersey, please see the original report by Bruce Stout, “Commu-nity Re-Entry of Adolescents from New Jersey’s Juvenile Justice System.”60

Juveniles in New Jersey can be committed to a secure or non-secure out-of-home facility run by the Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC).Alternatively, judges can place juveniles under probation, some of whom may be placed in JJC residential programs.

Stout’s analysis shows that the average individual committed to the JJC is male (93 percent), between 16 and 17 years old (56 percent), andAfrican-American (67 percent). The vast majority (94 percent) has had at least one prior adjudication of delinquency. These juveniles also haveparticularly high rates of individual and family risk factors for future criminal involvement, including substance abuse (60 percent), involvementwith the Division of Youth and Family Services (39 percent), a parent who has been incarcerated (26 percent), and many others.

For one-third of those committed in 2002, a technical violation of probation was their most serious offense. Another 21 percent had beenadjudicated for a drug offense, 19 percent for a persons (generally violent) offense, and 14 percent for a property offense. Disorder and weaponsoffenders comprise the remaining 13 percent.

Four counties (Camden, Essex, Hudson, and Passaic) were responsible for 58 percent of juvenile commitments in 2002. Over 25 percent ofthe commitments came from Camden, 12 percent from Essex, and 10 percent each from Hudson and Passaic. Almost half of the youth committed tothe JJC in 2002 will eventually return to five cities—Camden, Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, and Trenton.

Juvenile probationers placed in JJC residential facilities are demographically similar to committed juveniles—95 percent male, 69 percentAfrican-American, and with an average age of 16.5. Two-thirds come from four counties, but not the same four counties as committed youth. Inthis case they are from Essex, Camden, Union, and Monmouth Counties.

All juveniles committed to the JJC are supervised post-incarceration by the JJC’s Division of Parole and Transitional Services. In May of2003, there were 638 active parole cases and 24 parole officers. Juveniles spend, on average, 14 months on parole. Probationers are supervisedpost-release by the probation department in their local family court.

60 The full report is available at the website of the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice: http://www.njisj.org/reports/ stout_report.html; Last down-loaded September 9, 2003.

61 Gaes, Gerald G., Timothy J.Flanagan, Laurence L. Motuik,and Lynn Stewart. 1999. “AdultCorrectional Treatment.” InPrisons, edited by Michael H.Tonry and Joan Petersilia.Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

62 Refers to inmates scheduled to be released in the next 12months. Lynch, James and Wil-liam Sabol. 2001. Prisoner Re-entry in Perspective.

Chapter 3. How Are Prisoners Prepared for Release? 27

Historically, prison programming has played an important role in

American corrections. Many prison administrators and others have

believed that providing educational and vocational programming to

prisoners increases the likelihood of prisoners’ successful return to the commu-

nity. Recent research supports this rationale, showing that a range of prison-

based programming can contribute to positive post-release outcomes for

prisoners, including reduced recidivism. In addition to prison-based program-

ming, community-based services for released inmates have also shown to

increase the likelihood of successful reintegration and decrease the recidivism

rate of returning prisoners. In fact, research has shown that some of the most

effective programs are those that combine in-prison programming with after-

care in the community.61

The New Jersey Department of Corrections provides prison- and commu-

nity-based programming, primarily in the areas of education and vocational

services and substance abuse treatment. Unfortunately, low funding levels

prevent these programs from being available to large shares of New Jersey’s

prison population. This is not a comprehensive list of prison- and community-

based programming for offenders, but a scan of the major programs run by the

Department of Corrections to prepare inmates for reentry into society. One

program discussed, the Mutual Agreement Program, is conducted by a co-

operative of the Department of Corrections, the Department of Health, and the

State Parole Board.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS PROGRAMMING

Despite the potential benefits of facility-based programs, participation in

prison-based programs is on the decline nationwide. The number of soon-to-

be-released prisoners who reported participating in vocational programs

dropped nationally from 31 percent in 1991 to 27 percent in 1997.62 Similarly,

the number who reported participating in education programs dropped from

43 percent to 35 percent, and the number of state prisoners who reported receiv-

C H A P T E R 3

How Are Prisoners Prepared for Release?

ing formal substance abuse treatment dropped from 25 percent to 10 percent in

that same period.63 These numbers are alarming, given the proven benefit of

prison-based programs and the increasing number of prisoners who present

needs. Only 23 percent of New Jersey prisoners participated in academic or

vocational training in 2001—the same percentage that had participated in

1995.64

Educational Services

Inmates often enter prison with poor educational backgrounds and limited

employment skills.65 Recent research has documented a link between education

levels and recidivism—prisoners who have achieved higher levels of education

have a lower rate of recidivism.66 A number of factors contribute to the recidi-

vism rate of ex-offenders, but at least part of this discrepancy is due to the fact

that upon release, educational achievement and literacy skills provide some of

the tools an inmate needs to succeed in a competitive labor market once released

from prison. Many New Jersey inmates lack these tools. Upon admission, the

average New Jersey inmate is at a 6.0 grade level in reading and a 5.4 grade level

in math.67

The Office of Educational Services (OES), a subsidiary of the Department

of Corrections (DOC), provides educational and vocational programming in

each of New Jersey’s state prisons and youth facilities. While programming

varies across facilities, at minimum, each facility offers pre-secondary and sec-

ondary academic training. Many offer English as a Second Language (ESL)

classes as well. Lack of funding has made post-secondary education, at present,

almost non-existent. A federal grant has underwritten Project IN-SIDE (Inmate

Network: Skills in Developing Employment), which provides certificate-

granting training courses for inmates under 25 within five years of parole, by

contract with Union and Mercer County Community Colleges.

Despite the clear need for educational programs for offenders returning to

the community, funding for and participation in such programs are limited. In

1995, only 1 to 2.5 percent of the DOC budget, on average, went to educational

programming and services, and most of that money was earmarked for programs

for juveniles.68 State law requires the Department of Corrections to provide aca-

demic services for all inmates under the age of 20 years who do not have a high

school diploma or G.E.D. certificate. Of the inmates released in 2002, less than 1

percent were under 20 years old. And although approximately 75 percent of adult

inmates incarcerated in the New Jersey Department of Corrections tested at the

two lowest literacy levels in 1997, OES served 17 percent of the total prison and

jail population with academic programming in 2001.69 Many, if not all, OES edu-

cational programs have waiting lists, as demand exceeds capacity.70

Employment Readiness

The difficulties inmates face within the labor market, before incarceration and

after release, have been well documented by researchers. Unstable employment

63 Lynch, James and WilliamSabol. 2001. Prisoner Reentryin Perspective; Bureau of Jus-tice Statistics (BJS). 2000. Cor-rectional Populations in theUnited States, 1997. NCJ177613. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice.

64 Office of Educational Services.2002. Response to a FOIA re-quest. January 11.

65 Travis, Jeremy, Amy Solomon,and Michelle Waul. 2001. FromPrison to Home: The Dimen-sions and Consequences ofPrisoner Reentry.

66 Haigler, Karl, Caroline Harlow,Patricia O’Connor, and AnneCampbell. 1994. Literacy Be-hind Prison Walls: Profiles ofthe Prison Population from theNational Literacy Survey (U.S.Department of Education).Washington, D.C.: EducationalTesting Service.

67 Office of Educational Services,2002.

68 State Employment and TrainingCommission. 1997. StandingCorrected: Education and theRehabilitation of Criminal Of-fenders Report of the Correc-tions Education Task Force.August.

69 Bureau of Justice Statistics(BJS). 2000. Correctional Popu-lations in the United States,1997; Office of EducationalServices. 2002.

70 State Employment and TrainingCommission. 1997.


histories undoubtedly contribute to this challenge. Additionally, the time spent

in prison may diminish work skills, result in the forfeiture of opportunities to

gain work experience, and sever interpersonal connections that could provide

information about jobs.71 After release, the stigma of ex-prisoner status makes

the job search even more difficult.72 These obstacles to finding legitimate

employment add to the reintegration challenges facing returning prisoners.

The New Jersey Department of Corrections maintains a number of occu-

pational training and career development programs, in an attempt to prepare

inmates to overcome the barriers to employment that they will face upon

release. These include pre-vocational and vocational programs, an apprentice

program, work release, and a correctional industries program.

Vocational assessment is available at all Department of Corrections facili-

ties but is not conducted on all inmates. Pre-vocational and vocational

programs are offered by OES in all facilities except the Adult Diagnostic and

Treatment Center for sex offenders. Programs are offered in 33 different trades,

but all trades are not offered in all facilities. Three programs offer industry-based

skills certificates. These include the automotive trade shops at East Jersey State

Prison and Bayside State Prison, the culinary arts programs at East Jersey

State Prison, and the cosmetology program at the Edna Mahan Correctional

Facility for Women. A very small number of inmates participate in eight

apprenticeship programs, also run by OES. In 1997, there were 54 registered

apprentices in all eight programs. Overall, very small numbers of New Jersey

inmates participate in vocational programs. In 2001, only 1,611 individuals, or

just 6 percent of the population, participated in any of the vocational programs

offered by OES.

Approximately 5 percent of the prison population—about 1,250 inmates—

participate in the Community Labor Assistance Program. Work details of

approximately 10 inmates each perform service for non-profit and public enti-

ties around the state. All participants are under minimum custody levels.73

The Department of Corrections runs DEPTCOR, the correctional indus-

tries program for the state. This program employs about 1,800 inmates, or about

7 percent of the population, in manufacturing and service industries that

include furniture and license plate manufacturing, data entry, and tele-response,

in 41 facility-based programs. Manufactured products from DEPTCOR indus-

tries are used by state prisons and operations and are sold to state and local

government agencies. The main goals of the program are to reduce recidivism,

instill positive work habits, and provide job training to incarcerated inmates, but

DEPTCOR also provides an alternative source of income for the Department of

Corrections. In many states, the share of the reentering population that has

participated in correctional industries is small, because inmates in these pro-

grams tend to be those that have longer prison sentences. It is not clear whether

this is the case in New Jersey.

The effects of New Jersey’s vocational programs and of DEPTCOR on

recidivism, employment, and other outcomes of former participants are

unknown. However, studies indicate that recidivism rates are lower for inmates

with industries work experience than for inmates without this experience. A

71 Western, Bruce. 2003. Employ-ment and Public Policy. Pre-sented at the Third ReentryRoundtable, New York, NY.April.

72 Holzer, Harry, Stephen Raphaeland Michael Stoll. Forthcoming.“Will Employers Hire Ex-Offenders? Employer Prefer-ences, Background Checks andTheir Determinants.” In TheImpact of Incarceration on Fam-ilies and Communities, editedby Mary Patillo, David Weimanand Bruce Western. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.

73 New Jersey Department ofCorrections. 2000. State ofNew Jersey Department ofCorrections Annual Report,2002.


1991 analysis conducted by the Federal Bureau of Prisons compared more than

7,000 correctional industries and vocational program participants to similar

inmates who did not participate in either of these programs. An examination of

outcomes over a two-year period found that those offenders who received train-

ing and work experience while in prison had fewer conduct problems and were

less likely to be arrested the first year after release than those who did not. The

study also found that prison workers were 24 percent more likely to obtain a

full-time or day labor job by the end of the first year after release. Over 10 per-

cent of the comparison group had been re-arrested or had their conditional

release revoked, compared with 6.6 percent of the program participants.74

Substance Abuse Treatment

The relationship between substance abuse and crime is well documented. Stud-

ies have found that more than half of state prisoners across the nation reported

that they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time they commit-

ted the offense that led to their imprisonment. Furthermore, 74 percent of state

prisoners nationwide who expect to be released within the next

12 months reported a history of drug and/or alcohol abuse.75 The issues sur-

rounding substance abuse in New Jersey are similar to the rest of the nation.

According to the New Jersey Department of Corrections 2002 annual report,

50 percent of inmates in the state correctional population have been incarcer-

ated due to a drug-related offense.76 In addition, 81 percent of inmates suffer

from some type of drug or alcohol abuse problem, and at least 50 percent of the

2002 release cohort had been assessed to have a substance abuse problem.77

To address substance abuse issues among New Jersey inmates, the New Jer-

sey Department of Corrections worked to develop and began to implement a

Substance Use Disorder Continuum of Treatment plan in 2002. This program

uses both prison-based and post-release residential programming and counsel-

ing to address substance abuse problems for inmates.

The first phase of this program is implemented while an offender is incar-

cerated. Services are provided within the prison facilities. Upon admission to

any DOC facility, each inmate undergoes a medical, dental, psychological, and

educational screening process at a Central Reception and Assignment Facility.

Prisoners identified as having the most severe drug and alcohol addiction issues

are referred to a prison-based therapeutic community program. Typically, resi-

dents spend nine to twelve months in a therapeutic community program. Eight

facilities in the NJ DOC have therapeutic community programs and have the

capacity to serve 1,588 inmates (including 60 female). This represents capacity

for only 6 percent of the 2002 state prison population.

Treatment continues in the community with a series of residential pro-

grams and outpatient therapy. Inmates who have participated in therapeutic

communities are assessed prior to release from the Department of Corrections,

and may be placed in a treatment facility. These facilities are in the community,

and provide substance abuse disorder treatment and other services. Typically,

offenders remain in these facilities for two to five months. After completing a

74 Saylor, William G., and GeraldG. Gaes. 1992. “The Post-Release Employment Project”Federal Prisons Journal 2(4):33–36.

75 Mumola, Christopher J. 1999.“Substance Abuse and Treat-ment, State and Federal Prison-ers, 1997.” Bureau of JusticeStatistics Special Report. NCJ172871. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice.

76 New Jersey Department of Cor-rections. 2002. Annual Report.

77 New Jersey Department ofCorrections (DOC), Division ofPrograms and Community Ser-vices, Office of Drug Programs.2003. “Prevalence of Addictionof the New Jersey State In-mate.” Preliminary Report. Up-dated April 29; UI analysis ofNJ Department of Correctionsdata. The discrepancy betweenthese two numbers may be aresult of incomplete data onthe release cohort.


program in these facilities, inmates typically enter a work release or education

program.

Residential Placement Programs

In 2002, NJ DOC contracted 2,803 beds in 23 community-based facilities—both

treatment facilities and halfway houses. About 18 percent of the prisoners

released from the DOC in 2002 were released from one of these facilities. An

unknown number of these individuals received substance abuse treatment while

residing in these facilities. The private contractors who provide the facilities also

provide other services, such as education; employment readiness; and training,

counseling, and housing resources.

The Mutual Agreement Program (MAP) is the only program offered to

offenders that is a licensed residential treatment program. Private citizens also

participate in this program. MAP was initially developed in 1984 as a “coopera-

tive effort” between Department of Corrections, the Parole Board, and the

Department of Health, which offers a highly structured environment with

intensive addiction therapy. Participants generally begin treatment as inmates

and transition to parolees while in the program. Outpatient services are also

provided at five facilities for parolees who have completed a residential sub-

stance abuse treatment program. Most inmates sentenced to MAP facilities will

be released to parole. There are 160 MAP beds available in New Jersey. Of these,

120 are reserved for parolees.


78 Bureau of Justice StatisticsSentenced Prisoners Releasedfrom State or Federal Jurisdic-tion (corpop22.wk1). Bureau ofJustice Statistics. NationalPrisoner Statistics Data Series(NPS-1). Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice.

79 These include individuals whowere “continued on parole.”

Chapter 4. How Are Prisoners Released in New Jersey? 33

The number and share of New Jersey prisoners being released without

parole supervision has increased in recent years. As seen in figure 19, in

1990, the number of individuals released from New Jersey prisons

without supervision increased 450 percent from 1,173 in 1990 to 5,340 in 2001.

Accordingly, the share of prisoners that were released with supervision decreased

over this period. As can be seen in figure 20, 81.4 percent of releases were to

parole supervision in 1990. By 2001, this had dropped to 60.6 percent of releases.

In 2002, 9,544 prisoners, 64 percent of all releases, were released to some form of

supervision. The remaining 36 percent were released without supervision, mean-

ing they had no conditions attached to their freedom, and are not required to

report to a parole officer. The vast majority of prisoners released to supervi-

sion—almost 91 percent—were released to the supervision of the State Parole

Board.78 The remaining 9 percent were released to the supervision of the Divi-

sion of Probation, primarily to enter the Intensive Supervision Program.

PRISONER RELEASES

As New Jersey’s prison population has grown over the past two decades, so has

the growth in prison releases. (See figure 1 in chapter 1.) In 2002, 14,849 people

were released from the custody of the New Jersey Department of Corrections to

the community, almost four times the number who were released two decades

earlier (3,910 in 1980).79

In general, those individuals who were released to supervision were

released through discretionary means—they appeared before a panel that

reviewed their application and decided to approve their release. An unknown

number of offenders released to supervision, however, experienced what is con-

sidered a mandatory release. These are certain violent offenders who were

sentenced under the No Early Release Act (NERA) of 1997 (see discussion in

chapter 1), who are required to serve a set period of community supervision

after serving 85 percent of their sentence. NERA removed the discretion of the

C H A P T E R 4

How Are Prisoners Released in New Jersey?

80 Conversation with MelindaSchlager, 21 August 2003. Datalimitations do not allow us toestimate how many of the 2002releasees were subject to thislaw.

81 It is not clear why a large num-ber of inmates who are notparole violators would “maxout” their prison sentence. Veryfew offenders in New Jerseyare ineligible for parole, andthose who are generally re-ceive life sentences, and wouldtherefore not be released. Rep-resentatives of the Departmentof Corrections contend thatsome inmates choose to re-main in prison and serve outtheir term instead of beingreleased to parole. There is nodata to assess how significantthis trend actually is. Many ofthe individuals had short terms,and may have earned enoughdiminution credits to “max out”before they became eligible forparole.


Parole Board with respect to these offenders.80 The state does not keep data on

the share of the parolee population that is subject to NERA, and we are there-

fore unable to estimate the share of the release cohort that was released through

discretionary means.

All of the inmates who were released without supervision were released

through mandatory means, primarily because they have completed their maxi-

mum sentence in prison. In 2002, 5,305 individuals, or about 36 percent of the

released population, were released without supervision by mandatory release.

These individuals had completed their maximum sentence (what is often

referred to as “maxing out”).81 Over half (52 percent) of those who were released

because they “maxed out” their sentence had previously been paroled, and had

been returned to prison to complete their maximum sentence as a result of a

Figure 19. Number of Prison Releases, by Supervision, 1990-2001

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics Data Series (NPS-1).

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001

OtherWith SupervisionW/out Supervision

Figure 20. Percent of Prison Releases, by Supervision, 1977–1998

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics Data Series (NPS-1).

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

01990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

% with Supervision

% without Supervision

2001

82 Individuals sentenced underNERA must complete their fullmaximum sentence when re-turned to prison for a paroleviolation and are wholly ineligi-ble for another parole term.

83 Before September of 2001, thesupervision of parolees wasconducted by the Bureau ofParole in the Department ofCorrections. The responsibili-ties were transferred to theState Parole Board by the legis-lature and the Governor at thattime because it was believedthat the processes of parolinginmates and supervising pa-rolees would be more efficientif both functions were con-ducted by one entity. P.L. 2001,c.79, and Sullivan, John. 2001.“Merging of Prison System isSought,” New York Times. Jan-uary 21. Section 14NJ; page 8;column 1.

84 This excludes 241 individualswho were classified as “de-ported” and 8 individuals whohad died, but still owed fines.

85 This includes 300 individualswhose supervision level was“unspecified.”


parole violation. Many of these individuals may have been ineligible for another

parole term.82

At the time of release from custody of the Department of Corrections,

about 3,100, or 21 percent of the inmates released, had been residing “in the

community.” Most of these—about 2,650 individuals or 18 percent of the entire

release population—were released from 1 of 23 halfway houses operated and

contracted by the state. Just over 450 of those residing in the community had

been on electronic monitoring or in home confinement prior to release. Almost

three-quarters of the inmates who had been residing in the community were

supervised post-release, primarily by the Parole Board.

POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION

Parole Supervision

The Division of Parole of the New Jersey State Parole Board supervises parolees

in the state.83 As New Jersey’s prison population has grown over the past two

decades, so has the population under parole supervision in the state. As seen in

figure 21, the parolee population increased from slightly more than 7,000 in

1977 to nearly 12,000 in 2001. In June of 2003, there were 13,195 individuals on

the Division of Parole’s caseload.84

The parolee population mirrors that of the incarcerated and released pop-

ulation. The majority of parolees—57 percent—are African-American, and

65 percent are between the ages of 21 and 40. Drug offenders made up about

44 percent of the population, and violent offenders made up 27 percent.

Almost half (47 percent, or 6,320 individuals) were under regular super-

vision.85 Less than one-third of these (1,789 individuals) were required to report

to their parole officer monthly. The rest (3,571 individuals) were required to

report more often than once a month—biweekly, weekly, or daily. Almost

20 percent of the parole caseload (2,486 individuals) were participating in what

Figure 21. Parole Population in New Jersey, 1997–2001

Source: BJS, Annual Parole Data Survey data series (CJ-7).

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

01977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001

Parolees who only owe fines taken off active case status

Parole ADP for 2001 = 12,400

86 The majority of these are fortechnical violations.


the Parole Board considers Alternative Sanctions Programs. These programs are

described below. The Parole Board had issued warrants for approximately

12 percent of the population that was missing. Another 9 percent owed only

fines, and 7 percent were in a county jail or other facility pending a hearing or

court case for a technical parole violation or a new crime.86 Another 6 percent

were being supervised out of state. (See figure 22.)

In 2001, the State of New Jersey employed about 400 parole officers who

have an average caseload of about 35 (including specialized caseloads). Exclud-

ing specialized caseloads brings the average caseload to 45.

Alternative Sanctions Programs

The State Parole Board runs a number of specialized caseloads, initially designed

to tailor services and supervision levels to individuals with particular needs and

risk levels. These programs have evolved over time, and are currently being

reviewed, and those programs that are less effective may be eliminated. The

Parole Board is currently securing funding for a new 110-bed residential

program designed specifically for inmates with co-occurring mental health and

substance abuse disorders. Programs described below are those that are

currently being operated by the Parole Board.

Intensive Supervision/Surveillance Program (ISSP): This is a program for

parolees considered to be “high need,” including individuals with borderline

intelligence, psychological problems, and severe mental health issues. In addi-

tion, “high risk” parolees may be placed in ISSP, including individuals who have

committed serious offenses, have been committed to prison multiple times, or

who have failed multiple times under community supervision. New Jersey also

supervises out-of-state parolees who are transferred to New Jersey in this

program. Minimum participation is six months, the caseload ratio is 1:25, and

the program has the capacity for 975 parolees.

Figure 22. Parole Population by Supervision Status, 2003

Source: UI analysis of NJ State Parole Board Data; * Includes individuals for whom supervision status was unknown.

Regular Parole Supervision*

47%

Alternative Sanctions/Residential

19%

Missing/Contact Lost12%

Fines Only9%

Incarcerated Pending Hearing

7%

SupervisedOut-of-state

6%

High Impact Diversion Program (HIDP): This program is designed for indi-

viduals with an intermediate level of risk. Each officer has no more than

15 cases. Participants are technical parole violators who can be safely diverted

from re-incarceration with little risk to public safety. Program participation is

for 90 days, and can be extended for an additional 30 days. In June of 2003, no

parolees on the active caseload were classified as being in HIDP.

Intensive Parole Drug Program (IPDP): Any parolee with a substance abuse

problem can be referred to IDPD. This program provides an intensive level of

supervision, focusing primarily on relapse prevention, and with attention to

interventions and counseling referrals. Participants in IDPD may have also par-

ticipated in an institutional therapeutic community and/or the Mutual Agree-

ment Program (see below). Caseload ratios are 1:25, and participation is for a

minimum of six months, with an option to extend an additional three months.

Electronic Monitoring Program: This program is exclusively for parole viola-

tors, and is the most restrictive type of community supervision in New Jersey.

Participants are subject to strictly enforced curfews, and are expected to find

employment. There is “zero tolerance” for substance abuse. Participation is for

a minimum of 90 days, and the caseload ratio is 1:20. This program has the

capacity to supervise 400 parolees.

Day Reporting Centers (DRC): This alternative sanctions program requires

technical parole violators to report daily to a non-residential center. They must

spend all day, every day at this center until a Parole Officer releases them from

this level of supervision. Programming is provided at this center, including edu-

cation services (G.E.D and ESL classes), vocational employment services,

substance abuse treatment, independent living skills, and a number of other

services. There are seven DRCs across the state, each with 50 slots for parolees.

Halfway Back Programs (HWB): These assessment-driven residential treat-

ment programs are designed for technical parole violators as an alternative to

revoking parole and returning the violators to prison. Services are provided

based on the needs of each individual offender. There are currently three

Halfway Back Facilities, with a total program capacity of 450 parolees.

Mutual Agreement Program (MAP): See chapter 3 for more about this pro-

gram for substance abusing inmates and parolees, run jointly by the Parole

Board, the Department of Corrections, and the Department of Health.

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI): In January of

2003, the Parole Board began to implement the state’s Serious and Violent

Offender Reentry Initiative. This program is funded by a $2 million grant over

three years from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

which supports reentry initiatives nationwide. This grant provides the opportu-

nity for New Jersey to focus the efforts of at least seven state agencies and a

number of faith-based and community organizations on 200 juvenile and 100

adult offenders who are being released by the Juvenile Justice Commission or

the Department of Corrections. These offenders have been classified as high-risk


87 Not to be confused with theIntensive Supervision/Surveil-lance Program (ISSP) run by theParole Board.

88 All of the information pre-sented here regarding ISP isavailable from the website ofthe Administrative Office of theCourts. Intensive SupervisionProgram. PowerPoint Presenta-tion. 2002. Accessed fromhttp://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/probsup/isp_overview/isp/frame.htm, August 28, 2003.

89 When recidivism is measuredby conviction of a new indict-able offense.


and are returning to Essex and Camden counties. Programming includes job

training and placement, educational services, substance abuse treatment, men-

tal health treatment, restitution, housing assistance, mentoring, counseling,

aftercare, crisis intervention, life skills training, supervision, and intensive case

management. The planning and development of the program began in July of

2002, and implementation of this program began in January of 2003. All partic-

ipating offenders will be released between October 2003 and April 2004. The

grant expires in 2005. The Parole Board views this program as a pilot program.

Currently, it is designed to supervise about 2 percent of the parole population.

Probation Supervision

As previously stated, 9 percent of inmates who are supervised post-release are

released to the supervision of the Division of Probation in the Administrative

Office of the Courts. Almost all of these individuals are released to participate in

the Intensive Supervision Program (ISP), a program run by the Division of Pro-

bation.87 Developed in 1983, this program is seen as an intermediate punish-

ment, and serves as both an early release program and a form of supervision for

its participants. It was initially developed to alleviate some of the overcrowding

experienced by the state’s prisons. 88

Unlike traditional parole-based intensive supervision programs, ISP is

designed and limited to offenders who are assessed as low-risk. The program

was designed, in part, to test the cost-effectiveness of alternatives to incar-

ceration. Since the program began in 1983 and September of 2002, ap-

proximately 10,000 ex-offenders had participated in the program. Over

4,600 participants have graduated from the program, and at any given time,

there are about 1,200 individuals under supervision by ISP. The remainder—

about 4,200 participants—failed to complete the program. Supervision by ISP

involves extensive contact with an ISP officer, surveillance, a curfew, and

frequent drug testing. Participants must maintain full-time employment,

participate in 16 hours of community service monthly, keep a diary, attend

treatment, and pay any child support, court fees, and costs of the program. Par-

ticipants can be returned to prison for failing to adhere to program rules. Inter-

mediate sanctions are used for all participant infractions. ISP’s own analysis has

determined that the program works. The recidivism rate for program gradu-

ates is 7.9 percent.89 The program has been estimated to save the state almost

$300 million dollars in avoided prison costs.

%%


Sentence Reduction Credits90

There are a number of ways that New Jersey inmates can reduce their sentence through credits. The most common of these are commutationcredits, otherwise known as “good time” credits. All inmates who are not subject to a mandatory minimum are awarded with a number of thesecredits at admission. The number of credits each inmate is awarded is calculated based on state statute. Inmates can lose these credits by com-mitting infractions. The number of credits lost depends on the offense committed, and can be up to 365 days. They can earn back up to 75 percentof any credits that are lost by remaining charge free for three years. This can also be prorated. For example, an individual could earn back 25 per-cent of credits lost by remaining charge-free for any one-year period.

Individuals can also earn work credits. For every five days spent in “productive custody,” they are issued one day of credit off of their sen-tence. In addition, they can earn “reduced custody credits,” which are earned by inmates in one of three reduced-security statuses (gang minimumcustody, full-minimum custody, and community custody). For each month or part of a month spent in one of these statuses, inmates earn three daysoff their sentence. After they have remained in this status for a year, they earn five days a month.

These credits are subtracted from an inmate’s total sentence to calculate his or her parole eligibility date. Inmates who are subject to aperiod of parole ineligibility cannot reduce their period of ineligibility by earning sentence reduction credits. They can, however, earn time off theiroverall sentence.

90 Conversation with Dave Levay, NJ Department of Corrections, 15 August 2003; E-mail conversation with the NJ Department of Corrections,Office of Policy and Planning, 14 October 2003.

Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 41

The community context of prisoner reentry can have an important

influence on post-release success or failure. It stands to reason that ex-

prisoners returning to communities with high unemployment rates,

limited affordable housing options, and few services are more likely to relapse

and recidivate. This chapter presents findings from a geographic analysis of

returning inmates by county and examines this reentry distribution in relation

to the socioeconomic characteristics of the counties with the highest percentages

of released prisoners in 2002, Essex and Camden. In addition to an exploration

of the geographic distribution of the incarcerated adult population, analyses of

parolees, juvenile offenders, and probationers are also presented, as is their geo-

graphic overlap with recipients of needs-based government programs.

During 2002, 95 percent of prisoners released from New Jersey prisons

returned to communities in New Jersey. Of the men and women released in

New Jersey, almost one-third—31 percent—returned to two counties in the

state, Essex and Camden. This included 2,430 or 16 percent of all releases,

returning to Essex County, and 2,270 individuals, or 15 percent of the released

population, returning to Camden County. The flow of prisoners was further

concentrated in a small number of communities within these counties. Thirteen

percent of all releases, or 1,705 individuals, returned to New Jersey’s largest city,

Newark, in Essex County. Another 1,280 individuals, or 10 percent of the total

release population, returned to the city of Camden.

Essex and Camden counties present challenges to adults and juveniles

attempting to successfully reenter society from prison, especially with regard to

finding or preparing oneself for employment and supporting oneself financially.

The residents of Essex and Camden counties, and particularly those of the cities

of Newark and Camden, face many economic and social disadvantages com-

pared to many other parts of the state. The statewide median household income

is $55,146. For the cities of Newark and Camden, however, it is $26,913 and

$23,421, respectively. According to the 2000 Census, New Jersey’s unemploy-

ment rate was 3.7 percent. At the same time, unemployment in Newark was at

8.5 percent and Camden 7.8 percent. One-quarter of Newark’s families and one-

C H A P T E R 5

Where Are Prisoners Returning?

third of Camden’s families lived in poverty in 1999. Over one-third of Newark’s

households and almost half of Camden’s were female-headed. Statewide, only

20 percent were female-headed.91

NEW JERSEY’S COUNTIES

New Jersey’s counties are home to a diverse population and divergent living

conditions. These conditions provide the backdrop for the state’s criminal

justice populations, which reside disproportionately in particular counties.

Camden and Essex counties are home to more parolees and prisoners than are

any other counties, and they also experience high per capita concentrations of

parolees, admissions to, and releases from prison. With a per capita rate of

400 prison admissions per 100,000 residents, Camden county residents experi-

ence a rate of imprisonment 100 times higher than Morris County, at 4 prison

admissions per 100,000 residents. As maps 1–3 illustrate, parolees, admissions

to, and returns from prison are all disproportionately concentrated in a few

counties.

As policymakers consider a number of approaches to addressing the chal-

lenges of concentrated prisoner reentry, they are increasingly looking for oppor-

tunities to make existing resources go further. One potential source of increased

resource efficiency is found in the considerable overlap between criminal justice

populations and populations being served by government needs-based program

services, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Map 4 is sug-

gestive of possibilities for cross-agency collaboration between departments of

criminal justice and social services, whose overlapping client populations are

highly concentrated within the same counties.

A closer examination of Essex and Camden counties further suggests the

heightened challenges of prisoner reentry faced by particular communities

within these counties. Concentrated populations affected by criminal justice

agencies also suggest opportunities for cross-sector collaborations and economy

of scale solutions.

Essex County and Newark

Social and Economic Characteristics

Essex County is home to a number of municipalities with diverse populations

and divergent standards of living. Although ethnically diverse, the county’s

residential population is geographically separated by race (map 5) with black

populations concentrated in Newark, East Orange, and Irvington in the east and

white populations distributed across the remaining cities in the west. Newark

and East Orange suffer starkly lower household incomes (map 6), high rates of

single parent households (map 7), and high rates of poverty (map 8). Together,

these characteristics make up the social and economic backdrop to the county’s

concentrated criminal justice activity, particularly in the communities of

Newark.

91 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.Summary File 1 (SF-1). Profileof General Demographic Char-acteristics: 2000; U.S. CensusBureau. State and CountyQuickFacts.


Criminal Justice

Parolees account for 64 percent of the returning prisoner population in New

Jersey. As such, they represent a snapshot of the communities to which prison-

ers return. In Essex County, parolees are concentrated in Newark, where they

account for both the highest number (804) and highest per capita rate (294 per

100,000) among all other municipalities (map 9). But even within Newark,

parolees reside in particular neighborhoods and not others. Some neighbor-

hoods within the Central and Southern Wards of Newark are home to more

than 10 parolees per 1,000 residents, while most neighborhoods in the North-

ern and Eastern Wards have less than one parolee per 1,000 residents (map 10).

Likewise, a snapshot of probationers in Essex County illustrates that although

there are many more probationers than parolees, they too concentrate at high

numbers and per capita rates in Newark (map 11), and within Newark in the

same Southern and Central Wards (map 12).

Ninety-five percent of people admitted to prison eventually return to their

communities. Essex County accounts for 16.3 percent of New Jersey’s prison

admissions with 54 percent of those coming from Newark alone (map 13).

Within Newark, the Central and Southern Wards account for 55.3 percent of

prison admissions from the city (map 14). Some neighborhoods within those

wards send people to prison at a rate of more than 12 per 1,000 residents—in

stark contrast to most neighborhoods in the Northern and Eastern Wards,

which send less than 1 per 1,000 residents. The implications for those neigh-

borhoods are substantial. Because most people sent to prison return to their

communities in fewer than three years, the flow of large concentrations of

residents out of and into a few isolated neighborhoods constitutes a virtual

ongoing migration system that can undermine neighborhood stability and

strain community resources.92

As previously stated, 41 percent of prison admissions in New Jersey in 1998

resulted from a revocation of parole. The vast majority of these resulted from

technical violations. Of the 1,286 people admitted to prison in 2001 from Newark,

390 (30.3 percent) were admitted on the basis of technical violations of parole.

Another way to understand imprisonment geographically is as a public

spending policy for the safety of places. Although decisions to incarcerate are

made on an individual basis, cumulatively they amount to vast sums of money

concentrated on dealing with the problems of a few neighborhoods. For exam-

ple, within Essex County the state spends over $53 million a year to imprison

residents from Newark (map 15).93 Within Newark, prison expenditures exceed

$15 million annually for the Central Ward alone (map 16), where the state

spends more than $1 million a year to incarcerate people from a single block.

Juvenile Justice

The same pattern of population concentrations and resource expenditures hold

for the juvenile justice system. Essex County residents admitted to the custody

of the state’s Juvenile Justice Commission are highly concentrated in Newark

(130 juvenile admissions or 54 percent all juvenile admissions from Essex

County) and within Newark come from a small number of neighborhoods

92 Rose, Dina, Todd Clear, andJudith Ryder. 2000. Drugs,Incarceration, and Neighbor-hood Life: The Impact ofReintegrating Offenders into the Community. Final Report.Washington, D.C.: National In-stitute of Justice, September.

93 This estimate is most likelylow. It does not include impris-onment costs for people sent toprison who did not have anidentifiable address for thecounty. Moreover, the costestimates are based solely onaverage per diem costs ofincarceration and estimatedlength of time prisoners willactually serve (calculated byGeorge Washington Univer-sity’s Institute of Crime, Justice& Corrections), and do notinclude associated law en-forcement, judicial, or othercollateral costs.


(map 17). The costs associated with incarcerating juveniles from these few

neighborhoods are likewise substantial, amounting to more than $8 million

annually for juveniles from Newark alone (map 18).

Social Services

During these times of severe state budget constraints, policymakers are increas-

ingly looking for ways to make existing resources go further. One emerging

approach being considered is better coordination of government services across

sectors that are serving the same populations. Geographic research on needs-

based government programs, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families

(TANF) is identifying the extent to which criminal justice populations reside in

the same neighborhoods as TANF recipients (map 19). These two government

sectors are not only serving the same neighborhoods, but are likely serving the

same families and individuals. Further analysis could uncover opportunities to

combine services and/or funding streams so that their efforts reinforce one

another rather than operate in isolation.

Camden County and the City of Camden

Social and Economic Characteristics

Like Essex County, Camden County is home to a number of municipalities with

diverse populations and divergent standards of living. Although ethnically

diverse, the county’s residential population is geographically separated by race

(map 20) with black populations almost entirely concentrated in the city of

Camden with a slightly greater racial diversity in the middle of the county. Nev-

ertheless, the city of Camden suffers starkly lower household incomes

(map 21), higher rates of single parent households (map 22), and higher rates

of poverty (map 23) than any other municipality in the county. Together,

these characteristics provide the social and economic context to the county’s

concentrated criminal justice activity, particularly in the city of Camden’s

communities.

Criminal Justice

In Camden County, parolees are concentrated in the city of Camden, where

they account for both the highest number (1,144) and highest per capita rate

(1,430 per 100,000 residents) among all other municipalities (map 24). Even

within the city of Camden, parolees reside in particular neighborhoods. Some

neighborhoods in Camden, such as Pyne Point, Lanning Square, Cooper Poynt,

and Gateway are home to more than 20 parolees per 1,000 residents, while other

neighborhoods such as Fairview, Biedeman, and the Central Business District

have fewer than 7 parolees per 1,000 residents (map 25). Likewise, a snapshot of

probationers in Camden County illustrates that, although there are many more

probationers than parolees, they too are concentrated at high numbers and per

capita rates in the city of Camden (map 26). Within the city of Camden, pro-

bationers reside in the same high-concentration neighborhoods as parolees

(map 27).


Camden County accounts for 14 percent of New Jersey’s prison admissions

with 60 percent of those coming from the city of Camden alone (map 28).

Within the city of Camden, 7 of the city’s 21 neighborhoods account for

52.4 percent of prison admissions from the city (map 29). Some neighborhoods

within those wards send people to prison at a rate of more than 22 per 1,000 res-

idents—in stark contrast to better-off neighborhoods on the outskirts of the

city, which send less than 7 per 1,000 residents. As with neighborhoods in

Newark, the implications of heavy flows of prison migration for these places can

undermine neighborhood stability and strain community resources.

Of the 1,244 people admitted to prison in 2001 from the city of Camden,

351 (28.2 percent) were admitted on the basis of technical violations of parole.

From a public spending perspective, the state spends over $53 million dol-

lars per year to imprison residents from the city of Camden (map 30). Within

the city, prison expenditures for the Pyne Point and Whitman Park communi-

ties alone exceed $11 million annually (map 31), where the state spends more

than $1 million a year to incarcerate people from a single block.

Juvenile Justice

The same pattern of population concentrations and resource expenditures holds

for the juvenile justice system. Camden County residents admitted to the cus-

tody of the state’s Juvenile Justice Commission are highly concentrated in the

city of Camden (287 or 67.7 percent) and within the city come from a small

number of neighborhoods (map 32). The costs associated with incarcerating

juveniles from these few neighborhoods are likewise substantial, amounting to

more than $23 million annually for juveniles from the city of Camden alone

(map 33).

Social Services

Geographic research on needs-based government programs is identifying the

extent to which criminal justice populations in the city of Camden reside in the

same neighborhoods as the bulk of TANF recipients (map 34), suggesting the

sort of resource efficiencies that could be achieved as those identified in Newark

and Essex County.


Map 1. Parolees per1,000 Residents, NewJersey Counties, 2002.

Map 2. PrisonAdmissions per 1,000 Residents, New Jersey Counties,2001.


S u s s e xS u s s e x

B e r g e nB e r g e nW a r r e nW a r r e n

M o r r i sM o r r i s

H u n t e r d o nH u n t e r d o n

M o n m o u t hM o n m o u t h

O c e a nO c e a nB u r l i n g t o nB u r l i n g t o n

A t l a n t i cA t l a n t i c

C a p e M a yC a p e M a y

C u m b e r l a n dC u m b e r l a n d

S a l e mS a l e m

G l o u c e s t e rG l o u c e s t e r

M i d d l e s e xM i d d l e s e x

M e r c e rM e r c e r

P a s s a i cP a s s a i c

H u d s o nH u d s o nE s s e xE s s e x

U n i o nU n i o n

C a m d e nC a m d e n

S o m e r s e tS o m e r s e t

Parolees per 1,000 Residents2.3 - 2.9

1.6 - 2.2

1.1 - 1.5

0.3 - 1.0

County Parolees per 1,000Essex 1550 2.0Camden 1320 2.6Hudson 1102 1.8Union 977 1.9Atlantic 740 2.9Passaic 695 1.4Monmouth 633 1.0Bergen 534 0.6Middlesex 517 0.7Mercer 468 1.3Ocean 368 0.7Cape May 225 2.2Somerset 189 0.6Burlington 170 0.4Cumberland 167 1.1Morris 139 0.3Gloucester 138 0.5Warren 84 0.8Salem 77 1.2Hunterdon 71 0.6Sussex 65 0.5










S a l e mS a l e m






U n i o nU n i o n



Admissions per 1,000 Residents3.3 - 4.7

2.1 - 3.2

1.1 - 2.0

0.4 - 1.0

County Admissions Admissions per 1,000Atlantic 1183 4.7Bergen 573 0.6Burlington 217 0.5Camden 2053 4.0Cape May 324 3.2Cumberland 298 2.0Essex 2396 3.0Gloucester 151 0.6Hudson 1545 2.5Hunterdon 44 0.4Mercer 590 1.7Middlesex 835 1.1Monmouth 929 1.5Morris 195 0.4Ocean 457 0.9Passaic 1167 2.4Salem 154 2.4Somerset 190 0.6Sussex 92 0.6Union 1209 2.3Warren 95 0.9

Map 3. PrisonReleases per 1,000 Residents, New Jersey Counties,2002.

Map 4. TANF Casesper 1,000 Residents,New Jersey Counties,2003.











S a l e mS a l e m






U n i o nU n i o n



Releases per 1,000 Residents3.3 - 4.9

2.1 - 3.2

1.1 - 2.0

0.4 - 1.0

County Prison Releases per 1,000Essex 2,430 3.1Camden 2,270 4.5Hudson 1,522 2.5Atlantic 1,235 4.9Union 1,190 2.3Passaic 1,114 2.3Monmouth 903 1.5Middlesex 784 1.0Bergen 625 0.7Mercer 531 1.5Ocean 423 0.8Cumberland 354 2.4Cape May 346 3.4Somerset 219 0.7Burlington 200 0.5Morris 175 0.4Gloucester 167 0.7Salem 140 2.2Warren 124 1.2Sussex 92 0.6Hunterdon 71 0.6










S a l e mS a l e m






U n i o nU n i o n



TANF Cases per 1,000 Residents8.1 - 14.3

4.1 - 8.0

2.1 - 4.0

0.3 - 2.0

County TANF Cases per 1,000Essex 11347 14.3Hudson 5628 9.2Camden 4183 8.2Passaic 3074 6.3Mercer 2212 6.3Union 1987 3.8Middlesex 1532 2.0Monmouth 1495 2.4Cumberland 1335 9.1Atlantic 1293 5.1Burlington 975 2.3Bergen 814 0.9Ocean 807 1.6Gloucester 772 3.0Somerset 677 2.3Salem 340 5.3Cape May 307 3.0Warren 220 2.1Morris 198 0.4Sussex 101 0.7Hunterdon 39 0.3

Map 5. Percent Blackper Block-Group,Essex County, NewJersey, 2000.

Map 6. MedianHousehold Income perBlock-Group, EssexCounty, New Jersey,2000.


F A I R F I E L DF A I R F I E L D

W E S T C A L D W E L LW E S T C A L D W E L L

N E W A R KN E W A R K

N U T L E YN U T L E Y

W E S T O R A N G EW E S T O R A N G E

M I L L B U R NM I L L B U R N

L I V I N G S T O NL I V I N G S T O N

M A P L E W O O DM A P L E W O O D

C E D A R G R O V EC E D A R G R O V E

E A S TE A S TO R A N G EO R A N G E

B E L L E V I L L EB E L L E V I L L E

S O U T H S O U T H O R A N G EO R A N G E

M O N T C L A I RM O N T C L A I R

C A L D W E L LC A L D W E L L

R O S E L A N DR O S E L A N D

B L O O M F I E L DB L O O M F I E L D

I R V I N G T O NI R V I N G T O N

O R A N G EO R A N G E

V E R O N AV E R O N A

Municipalities

Percent Black75.1 - 100.0

50.1 - 75.0

25.1 - 50.0

0.1 - 25.0




















Municipalities

Median Household Income$100,000.01 - $200,001.00

$50,000.01 - $100,000.00

$30,000.01 - $50,000.00

$3,287.00 - $30,000.00

Map 7. Percent SingleParent Households perBlock-Group, EssexCounty, New Jersey,2000.

Map 8. Percent inPoverty per Block-Group, Essex County,New Jersey, 2000.





















Municipalities

Percent Single Parent Households30.1% - 50.0%

20.1% - 30.0%

10.1% - 20.0%

0.0% - 10.0%




















Municipalities

Percent In Poverty30.01% - 79.57%

15.01% - 30.00%

5.01% - 15.00%

0.14% - 5.00%

Map 9. Parolees per1,000 Residents byBlock-Group, EssexCounty, New Jersey,2002.

Map 10. Parolees per1,000 Residents byBlock-Group, Newark,New Jersey, 2002.





















Municipalities


4.01 - 8.00

2.01 - 4.00

0.28 - 2.00

Municipality Parolees per 1,000NEWARK 804 2.9EAST ORANGE 201 2.9IRVINGTON 100 1.7CITY OF ORANGE 95 2.9BLOOMFIELD 69 1.5MONTCLAIR 63 1.6WEST ORANGE 26 0.6BELLEVILLE 25 0.7NUTLEY 21 0.8LIVINGSTON 19 0.7CEDAR GROVE 18 1.5SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE 16 0.9VERONA 15 1.1GLEN RIDGE 10 1.4MAPLEWOOD 7 0.3WEST CALDWELL 6 0.5ROSELAND 2 0.4NORTH CALDWELL 1 0.1CALDWELL 1 0.1MILLBURN 1 0.1FAIRFIELD 0 0.0ESSEX FELLS 0 0.0

E a s tE a s t

N o r t hN o r t h

W e s tW e s t

C e n t r a lC e n t r a l

S o u t hS o u t h

Newark Wards


5.01 - 10.00

3.01 - 5.00

0.28 - 3.00

0

er 1,000 ResidentsWard Parolees per 1,000 ResidentsSouth 224 4.91Central 219 5.76West 188 2.73North 108 1.59East 65 0.97

Map 11. Probationersper 1,000 Residents byBlock-Group, EssexCounty, New Jersey,2003.

Map 12. Probationersper 1,000 Residents byBlock-Group, Newark,New Jersey, 2003.





















Municipalities

Probationers per 1,000 Residents20.1 - 76.9

10.1 - 20.0

5.1 - 10.0

0.6 - 5.0

0

Municipalities Probationers per 1,000 ResidentsNEWARK 3,095 11.3EAST ORANGE 1,034 14.8IRVINGTON 630 10.4CITY OF ORANGE 478 14.5MONTCLAIR 417 10.7BLOOMFIELD 402 8.4BELLEVILLE 246 6.8WEST ORANGE 221 4.9NUTLEY 202 7.4VERONA 151 11.2CEDAR GROVE 111 9.0LIVINGSTON 93 3.4GLEN RIDGE 91 12.5SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE 58 3.4MAPLEWOOD 53 2.2MILLBURN 30 1.5WEST CALDWELL 30 2.7CALDWELL 20 2.6FAIRFIELD 19 2.7NORTH CALDWELL 9 1.2ROSELAND 8 1.5ESSEX FELLS 5 2.3

E a s tE a s t

N o r t hN o r t h

W e s tW e s t


S o u t hS o u t h

Newark Wards

Probationers per 1,000 Residents25.1 - 76.9

15.6 - 25.0

8.1 - 15.5

0.7 - 8.0

0

Ward Probationers per 1,000 ResidentsSouth 808 17.7Central 705 18.5West 701 10.2North 504 7.4East 377 5.6

Map 13. PrisonAdmissions per 1,000 Residents byBlock-Group, EssexCounty, New Jersey,2001.

Map 14. Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents byBlock-Group, Newark,New Jersey, 2001.





















Municipalities

Prisoners per 1,000 Residents10.01 - 47.62

5.01 - 10.00

2.01 - 5.00

0.35 - 2.00

0

Municipality Prison Adm. per 1,000 NEWARK 1,286 4.7EAST ORANGE 319 4.6IRVINGTON 197 3.3CITY OF ORANGE 156 4.8MONTCLAIR 122 3.1BLOOMFIELD 107 2.2WEST ORANGE 53 1.2NUTLEY 44 1.6VERONA 34 2.5LIVINGSTON 32 1.2GLEN RIDGE 28 3.9BELLEVILLE 28 0.8SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE 25 1.5CEDAR GROVE 23 1.9MAPLEWOOD 12 0.5WEST CALDWELL 7 0.6MILLBURN 4 0.2FAIRFIELD 3 0.4CALDWELL 2 0.3NORTH CALDWELL 1 0.1ROSELAND 1 0.2ESSEX FELLS 1 0.5

E a s tE a s t

N o r t hN o r t h

W e s tW e s t


S o u t hS o u t h

Newark Wards

Prisoners per 1,000 Residents12.01 - 47.62

7.01 - 12.00

4.01 - 7.00

0.37 - 4.00

0

Ward Prisoners per 1,000 ResidentsCentral 373 9.81South 338 7.4West 275 3.99North 161 2.36East 139 2.08

Map 15. PrisonExpenditure by Block-Group, Essex County,New Jersey, 2001.

Map 16. PrisonExpenditure by Block-Group, Newark, NewJersey, 2001.





















Municipalities

Prison Expenditure$750,000.01 - $1,626,324.00

$400,000.01 - $750,000.00

$200,000.01 - $400,000.00

$26,904.00 - $200,000.00

0

*Only Municipalities with > $500,000 are included in this table

Municipality ExpenditureNEWARK $53,807,164EAST ORANGE $12,995,392IRVINGTON $7,615,504CITY OF ORANGE $6,774,336MONTCLAIR $4,591,540BLOOMFIELD $4,127,256WEST ORANGE $1,968,476VERONA $1,638,256NUTLEY $1,491,348GLEN RIDGE $1,278,776LIVINGSTON $1,165,156CEDAR GROVE $1,078,896BELLEVILLE $1,062,784SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE $882,816

E a s tE a s t

N o r t hN o r t h

W e s tW e s t


S o u t hS o u t h

Newark Wards

Prison Expenditure$750,000.01 - $1,626,324.00

$400,000.01 - $750,000.00

$200,000.01 - $400,000.00

$26,904.00 - $200,000.00

0

Ward ExpenditureCentral $15,374,876South $14,008,624West $12,176,112North $6,637,308East $5,610,244

Map 17. JuvenileJustice CommissionAdmissions toCustody, EssexCounty, New Jerseyby Census Block-Group, 2001.

Map 18. JuvenileJustice CommissionExpenditures forCustody, EssexCounty, New Jerseyby Census Block-Group, 2001.





















Municipalities

Number of Admissions5 - 6

3 - 4

2

1

Municipality AdmissionsNEWARK 130

EAST ORANGE 41

IRVINGTON 14

CITY OF ORANGE 13

MONTCLAIR 8

VERONA 6

BLOOMFIELD 6

WEST ORANGE 6

NUTLEY 5

GLEN RIDGE 5

MAPLEWOOD 2

CEDAR GROVE 2

BELLEVILLE 2

SOUTH ORANGE 1

FAIRFIELD 0

NORTH CALDWELL 0

WEST CALDWELL 0

CALDWELL 0

ROSELAND 0

ESSEX FELLS 0

LIVINGSTON 0

MILLBURN 0




















Municipalities

Juvenile Expenditure$250,000.01 - $827,820.00

$100,000.01 - $250,000.00

$50,000.01 - $100,000.00

$22,680.00 - $50,000.00

Municipality ExpenditureNEWARK $8,262,702

EAST ORANGE $3,437,910

IRVINGTON $1,043,910

CITY OF ORANGE $928,620

MONTCLAIR $573,300

VERONA $382,410

BLOOMFIELD $378,000

NUTLEY $355,320

WEST ORANGE $286,650

GLEN RIDGE $229,320

MAPLEWOOD $183,960

CEDAR GROVE $137,340

BELLEVILLE $126,000

SOUTH ORANGE $57,330

FAIRFIELD $0

NORTH CALDWELL $0

WEST CALDWELL $0

CALDWELL $0

ROSELAND $0

ESSEX FELLS $0

LIVINGSTON $0

MILLBURN $0

Map 19. TANF Casesper 1,000 Residents byZip Code, EssexCounty, New Jersey,2003.





















Municipalities

TANF Cases per 1,000 Residents29.9 - 46.0

8.2 - 29.8

3.3 - 8.1

0.2 - 3.2

0

Municipality TANF Cases per 1,000NEWARK 7,703 28.2EAST ORANGE 1,533 22.0IRVINGTON 1,160 19.1CITY OF ORANGE 462 14.1BELLEVILLE 111 3.1MONTCLAIR 109 2.8BLOOMFIELD 96 2.0WEST ORANGE 63 1.4MAPLEWOOD 32 1.3NUTLEY 30 1.1SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE 20 1.2*Only Municipalities with at least 20 TANF Cases are included in the table

Map 21. MedianHousehold Income byBlock-Group, CamdenCounty, New Jersey,2000.


C A M D E NC A M D E N

P E N N S A U K E NP E N N S A U K E N

C H E R R Y H I L LC H E R R Y H I L L

W A T E R F O R DW A T E R F O R D

W I N S L O WW I N S L O W

G L O U C E S T E RG L O U C E S T E R

V O O R H E E SV O O R H E E S

B E L L M A W RB E L L M A W R

Municipalities

Median Household Income$75,000.01 - $156,911.00

$50,000.01 - $75,000.00

$25,000.01 - $50,000.00

$0.00 - $25,000.00

Map 20. Percent Blackby Block-Group,Camden County, NewJersey, 2000.









Municipalities

Percent Black60.1 - 95.4

30.1 - 60.0

15.1 - 30.0

0.1 - 15.0


Map 23. Percent inPoverty by Block-Group, CamdenCounty, New Jersey,2000.









Municipalities

Percent in Poverty20.1 - 78.8

10.1 - 20.0

5.1 - 10.0

0.0 - 5.0

Map 22. PercentSingle ParentHouseholds by Block-Group, CamdenCounty, New Jersey,2000.









Municipalities

Percent Single Parent Households25.1 - 55.5

15.1 - 25.0

8.1 - 15.0

0.5 - 8.0

Map 25. Parolees per1,000 Residents by Block-Group, CamdenCity, New Jersey,2002.


C r a m e r H i l l / P a v o n i aC r a m e r H i l l / P a v o n i a

B i e d e m a nB i e d e m a n

R o s e d a l eR o s e d a l e

D u d l e yD u d l e y

S t o c k t o nS t o c k t o n

C o o p e r P o y n tC o o p e r P o y n t

C o o p e r G r a n tC o o p e r G r a n t

C e n t r a l C e n t r a l W a t e r f r o n tW a t e r f r o n t

W a t e r f r o n t S o u t hW a t e r f r o n t S o u t h

C e n t e r v i l l eC e n t e r v i l l e

L i b e r t y P a r kL i b e r t y P a r k

W h i t m a n P a r kW h i t m a n P a r k

F a i r v i e wF a i r v i e w

M o r g a n V i l l a g eM o r g a n V i l l a g e

P a r k s i d eP a r k s i d e

M a r l t o nM a r l t o n

P y n e P o i n tP y n e P o i n t

L a n n i n g L a n n i n g S q u a r eS q u a r e

C e n t r a l C e n t r a l B u s i n e s sB u s i n e s sD i s t r i c tD i s t r i c t

B e r g e n S q u a r eB e r g e n S q u a r e

G a t e w a yG a t e w a yParolees per 1,000 Residents

21.6 - 45.7

15.1 - 21.5

10.1 - 15.0

2.0 - 10.0

Neighborhood Parolees per 1,000Pyne Point 131 22.8Whitman Park 104 16.2Lanning Square 95 23.8Marlton 93 18.4Bergen Square 73 18.8Cooper Poynt 71 24.7Stockton 66 10.8Dudley 62 16.6Rosedale 58 11.7Gateway 56 23.0Parkside 55 11.5Morgan Village 48 13.9Cramer Hill/Pavonia 41 9.4Liberty Park 38 16.0Biedeman 37 6.5Centerville 36 12.5Fairview 36 6.1Waterfront South 27 15.9Central Waterfront 25 26.0Central Business District 11 6.3Cooper Grant 11 13.1

Map 24. Parolees per1,000 Residents by Block-Group, CamdenCounty, New Jersey,2002.









Municipalities


5.1 - 15.0

2.1 - 5.0

0.3 - 2.0

*Only Municipalities with at least 10 Parolees are included in this table

Municipality Parolees per 1,000 ResidentsCAMDEN 1,144 14.3GLOUCESTER 109 1.4PENNSAUKEN 93 2.6WINSLOW 59 1.7CHERRY HILL 54 0.8COLLINGSWOOD 25 1.7LINDENWOLD 24 1.4LAWNSIDE 20 7.4BERLIN 18 1.6HADDON 18 1.2RUNNEMEDE 18 2.1PINE HILL 15 1.4CLEMENTON 14 2.8VOORHEES 14 0.5WOODLYNNE 14 5.0MOUNT EPHRAIM 12 2.7BELLMAWR 11 1.0

Map 27. Probationersper 1,000 Residents by Block-Group, CamdenCity, New Jersey,2001.






















G a t e w a yG a t e w a y Probationers per 1,000 Residents

30.1 - 42.1

25.1 - 30.0

20.1 - 25.0

8.4 - 20.0

Neighborhoods Probationers per 1,000Whitman Park 168 26.2Marlton 143 28.3Pyne Point 129 22.4Bergen Square 121 31.2Stockton 121 19.8Lanning Square 116 29.1Fairview 111 18.7Parkside 101 21.1Rosedale 94 19.0Biedeman 87 15.3Morgan Village 87 25.3Gateway 83 34.0Dudley 79 21.2Cramer Hill/Pavonia 75 17.2Centerville 67 23.3Liberty Park 59 24.8Cooper Poynt 57 19.8Waterfront South 46 27.1Central Waterfront 32 33.3Central Business District 24 13.8Cooper Grant 8 9.5

Map 26. Probationersper 1,000 Residents by Block-Group, CamdenCounty, New Jersey,2003.









Municipalities

Probationers per 1,000 Residents

20.1 - 42.1

10.1 - 20.0

5.1 - 10.0

0.5 - 5.0

0

*Only Municipalities with at least 50 Probationers are included in this table

Municipality Probationers per 1,000CAMDEN 1,780 22.3GLOUCESTER 600 7.9PENNSAUKEN 326 9.1CHERRY HILL 229 3.3WINSLOW 217 6.3LINDENWOLD 166 9.5PINE HILL 112 10.3COLLINGSWOOD 104 7.3BELLMAWR 95 8.4RUNNEMEDE 85 10.0WOODLYNNE 79 28.3VOORHEES 76 2.7HADDON 75 5.1CLEMENTON 73 14.6MOUNT EPHRAIM 69 15.4BERLIN 61 5.3AUDUBON 58 6.3WATERFORD 57 5.4HADDON HEIGHTS 52 6.9

Map 29. PrisonAdmissions per 1,000 Residents by Block-Group, CamdenCity, New Jersey,2001.






















G a t e w a yG a t e w a y Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents

23.1 - 36.9

15.1 - 23.0

10.1 - 15.0

5.3 - 10.0

Neighborhood Admissions per 1,000 Pyne Point 131 22.8Whitman Park 125 19.5Lanning Square 90 22.6Marlton 84 16.6Dudley 81 21.7Bergen Square 72 18.6Parkside 69 14.4Rosedale 62 12.5Stockton 61 10.0Fairview 61 10.3Biedeman 52 9.2Gateway 51 20.9Morgan Village 51 14.8Cooper Poynt 48 16.7Cramer Hill/Pavonia 47 10.8Centerville 46 16.0Waterfront South 41 24.1Liberty Park 35 14.7Central Waterfront 17 17.7Central Business District 12 6.9Cooper Grant 8 9.5

Map 28. PrisonAdmissions per 1,000 Residents by Block-Group, CamdenCounty, New Jersey,2001.









Municipalities

Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents

15.1 - 36.9

5.1 - 15.0

2.1 - 5.0

0.3 - 2.0

*Only Municipalities with at least 15 admissions are included in this table

Municipality Admissions per 1,000 ResidentsCAMDEN 1,225 15.3GLOUCESTER 131 1.7PENNSAUKEN 95 2.7WINSLOW 56 1.6CHERRY HILL 53 0.8WOODLYNNE 27 9.7BELLMAWR 26 2.3COLLINGSWOOD 25 1.7RUNNEMEDE 25 2.9HADDON 23 1.6LINDENWOLD 21 1.2MOUNT EPHRAIM 21 4.7VOORHEES 21 0.7PINE HILL 17 1.6

Map 31. PrisonExpenditure by Block-Group, CamdenCity, New Jersey,2001.






















G a t e w a yG a t e w a yPrison Expenditure

$1,000,000.01 - $1,974,252.00

$750,000.01 - $1,000,000.00

$500,000.01 - $750,000.00

$132,012.00 - $500,000.00

Neighborhood Prison ExpenditurePyne Point $5,495,256Whitman Park $5,044,728Lanning Square $3,918,636Marlton $3,731,676Dudley $3,600,348Parkside $3,246,036Bergen Square $3,243,528Rosedale $2,652,552Stockton $2,583,012Fairview $2,453,964Gateway $2,406,996Biedeman $2,405,172Morgan Village $2,230,068Cramer Hill/Pavonia $2,092,356Cooper Poynt $1,981,548Centerville $1,932,528Waterfront South $1,865,724Liberty Park $1,526,688Central Waterfront $761,520Central Business District $543,096Cooper Grant $279,528

Map 30. PrisonExpenditure by Block-Group, CamdenCounty, New Jersey,2001.









Municipalities

Prison Expenditure$1,000,000.01 - $1,974,252.00

$500,000.01 - $1,000,000.00

$200,000.01 - $500,000.00

$26,904.00 - $200,000.00

*Only Municipalities with > $500,000 are included in this table

Municipality ExpenditureCAMDEN $53,083,188GLOUCESTER $5,150,064PENNSAUKEN $4,113,804WINSLOW $2,689,944CHERRY HILL $1,780,680WOODLYNNE $1,191,984COLLINGSWOOD $1,044,924RUNNEMEDE $973,788HADDON $948,936LINDENWOLD $882,360BELLMAWR $833,796VOORHEES $797,772PINE HILL $789,108MOUNT EPHRAIM $776,340MERCHANTVILLE $696,540AUDUBON $526,680LAWNSIDE $508,668

Map 33. JuvenileJustice CommissionExpenditures forCustody, CamdenCounty, New Jerseyby Census Block-Group.










Municipalities

Expenditure$500,000.01 - $1,182,510.00

$250,000.01 - $500,000.00

$100,000.01 - $250,000.00

$11,340.00 - $100,000.00

Municipality ExpenditureCAMDEN $23,526,216GLOUCESTER $2,387,700CHERRY HILL $1,098,090PENNSAUKEN $803,880WINSLOW $941,850GLOUCESTER $455,490COLLINGSWOOD $516,600PINE HILL $459,900VOORHEES $367,920LINDENWOLD $367,290WOODLYNNE $344,610MOUNT EPHRAIM $298,620RUNNEMEDE $217,980AUDUBON $298,620LAWNSIDE $321,930BARRINGTON $183,960HADDON $114,660BELLMAWR $91,980STRATFORD $91,980BERLIN $68,670CLEMENTON $45,360HADDON HEIGHTS $183,960OAKLYN $91,980BERLIN $91,980SOMERDALE $45,990WATERFORD $34,020HI-NELLA $22,680GIBBSBORO $11,340

*Only Municipalities with an expendituregreater than zero are included in this table.

Map 32. JuvenileJustice CommissionAdmissions toCustody, CamdenCounty, New Jerseyby Census Block-Group, 2001.









Municipalities

Number of Admissions9 - 14

5 - 8

3 - 4

1 - 2

Municipality AdmissionsCAMDEN 287GLOUCESTER 31CHERRY HILL 14PENNSAUKEN 13WINSLOW 12GLOUCESTER 8COLLINGSWOOD 7PINE HILL 5VOORHEES 5LINDENWOLD 5WOODLYNNE 5MOUNT EPHRAIM 4RUNNEMEDE 4AUDUBON 3LAWNSIDE 2BARRINGTON 2HADDON 2BELLMAWR 2STRATFORD 2BERLIN 2CLEMENTON 2HADDON HEIGHTS 1OAKLYN 1BERLIN 1SOMERDALE 1WATERFORD 1HI-NELLA 1GIBBSBORO 1

*Only Municipalities with an admission count greater than zero are included in this table.


Map 34. TANF Casesper 1,000 Residents byZip Codes, CamdenCounty, New Jersey,2003.









Municipalities

TANF Cases per 1,000 Residents

20.1 - 36.9

10.1 - 20.0

2.3 - 10.0

0.0 - 2.2

Municipality TANF Cases per 1,000CAMDEN 2766 34.6LINDENWOLD 288 16.5WINSLOW 238 6.9PENNSAUKEN 199 5.6COLLINGSWOOD 104 7.3CHERRY HILL 99 1.4GLOUCESTER 98 8.5MERCHANTVILLE 90 23.7WATERFORD 55 5.2LAWNSIDE 37 13.7GLOUCESTER 33 0.5BELLMAWR 26 2.3MAGNOLIA 22 5.0VOORHEES 20 0.7*Only Municipalities with at least 20 TANF Cases are included in the table

This report highlights the many challenges and opportunities prisoner

reentry poses for the state of New Jersey and for the individuals released

from New Jersey’s prisons. As the size of the New Jersey prison popu-

lation has increased over the past two decades, so too has the number of inmates

being released from prison. Thus, more and more returning prisoners are faced

with the many challenges of reentry, including finding jobs, housing, and

substance abuse treatment; reuniting with family; and reintegrating into the

community. Given the increasing numbers of returning prisoners and the fact

that they are returning to a small number of communities in the state, the

impact of reentry on communities is a particularly pressing problem. Clearly,

prisoner reentry is an important policy issue and one that has significant impli-

cations for public safety and quality of life across the state. This summary section

highlights the key findings in this report and raises additional questions with

regard to reentry in New Jersey.

HIGHLIGHTS

Over the past quarter century, the growth in prison populations nationwide has

translated into more and more people being released from prison and reenter-

ing society. The state of New Jersey has experienced similar incarceration and

release trends and thus faces the reentry challenges that accompany such

growth. Between 1977 and 2002, the New Jersey prison population more than

quadrupled. This growth is largely attributable to more people, specifically drug

offenders and parole violators, being sent to prison. The share of the prison pop-

ulation that consists of drug offenders increased sixfold between 1980 and 2002,

from 6 to 36 percent of the population. Between 1980 and 1998, the number of

parole violators returning to prison in New Jersey has also increased over six-

fold, reflecting an increase from 30 to 41 percent of all admissions to New Jer-

sey prisons during that period. It is believed that the vast majority of these

revocations were for technical violations and that relatively few were for new

crimes.

C H A P T E R 6

Summary

Chapter 6. Summary 65

The number of people released from New Jersey’s prisons reflects these

rising admissions and population trends: 14,849 prisoners were released from

New Jersey prisons in 2002, nearly four times the number released in 1980.The

2002 release cohort is overwhelmingly male (91 percent) and mostly black

(63 percent). Over three-quarters of the population were between 20 and

40 years old at the time of release, with an average age of 34. Over one-third had

been serving time for drug offenses. About a third of the cohort has been diag-

nosed with at least one chronic and/or communicable physical or mental health

condition, not including substance abuse. Of those inmates released in New Jer-

sey in 2002, 39 percent were incarcerated for a violation of parole. Nearly

12 percent of the cohort was again in the custody of the Department of Correc-

tions in June of 2003 when we received their data.

Some programming is provided to prepare New Jersey’s inmates to success-

fully reenter society. Programs focus on academic and vocational services and

substance abuse treatment. Limited funding prevents these programs from being

available to large proportions of the prison population. Because of statutory

requirements, the academic services that are available are focused on the youngest

of inmates, who represent less than 1 percent of individuals released in 2002.

The share of New Jersey’s prisoners released to parole supervision has

decreased in recent years. In 2002, 64 percent of all releases were released to

some form of supervision. The majority of these were released at the discretion

of the Parole Board. Of the 36 percent of releases who were released to no super-

vision, at least half had been returned to prison as a result of a parole revocation.

Almost one-third of prisoners released in 2002 came from two counties—

Essex and Camden—that face great economic and social disadvantage. The

median household income in the central cities of these two counties is less than

50 percent of the statewide median household income. Unemployment in the

central cities is significantly higher than in the rest of the state, and large shares

of the population live in poverty and in single parent households.

The high concentration of criminal justice populations returning to and

residing in a few key inner city communities also suggests new opportunities for

better combining scarce resources in ways that are more efficient and effective.

With state budgets straining under the pressure of impending deficits, all gov-

ernment agencies are being asked to rethink the way they do business. The fact

that reentry challenges are concentrated in a limited number of communities

also means that targeted interventions and investments in those places could

have economy of scale impacts that reverberate beyond those communities

alone. Moreover, because all government agencies are facing the same budgetary

challenges, there is an increased incentive to look across agencies for opportu-

nities to work collaboratively so that policies do not work in isolation of one

another and instead reinforce community-targeted solutions to the related

issues of high levels of criminal justice, needs-based program services, poverty,

and family instability.

It is clear that the challenges of reentry in New Jersey are great, but so are

the opportunities. The fact that the federal government has awarded the State of

New Jersey $2 million over three years to support a pilot reentry program holds


great promise for the reentry prospects of future cohorts of released prisoners.

The work of the New Jersey Reentry Roundtable, along with the state’s partic-

ipation in the National Governor’s Association Reentry Policy Academy, will

help the state to develop a strategic response to the challenge of prisoner reentry

in New Jersey. We hope that this report can help shape decisions about the best

ways to serve the state’s citizens, communities and returning prisoners. Suc-

cessful reentry is critical for ensuring public safety, reducing the costs of rein-

carceration, and promoting the well-being of individuals, families, and

communities.

Chapter 6. Summary 67

a portrait of prisoner reentry in new jersey

Documents