Welcome to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitaion and Correction

Skip Navigation

Please Note: You are viewing the non-styled version of Ohio Department of Rehabilitaion and Correction. Either your browser does not support Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) or it is disabled. We suggest upgrading your browser to the latest version of your favorite Internet browser.

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction IEJ - Bibliography

Related Links

Select Bibliography:
Does Post Prison Supervision Affect Recidivism?

Institute for Excellence logo
  1. Glaze, L. and S. Palla. 2005. "Probation and Parole in the United States, 2004." Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin No. 210676. Internet version viewed May 1, 2006 at www.nicic.org/library/serial917

    Description: Reports the number of persons on probation and parole, by State, at year end 2004 and compares the totals with previous years. The Bulletin provides descriptive statistics as well as reports the percentages of parolees and probationers completing community supervision successfully or failing because of rule violation or new offense.
  2. Gottfredson, M., S. Mitchell-Herzfeld, and T. Flanagan. 1982. "Another Look at the Effectiveness of Parole Supervision." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 19(2): 277-298. Check your local university library for availability.

    Description: Examines the effectiveness of post prison supervision in reducing recidivism among criminal offenders. Overall, the authors concluded that while the effect of post prison supervision on recidivism was small, the observed relationship is dependent upon the characteristics of the offenders.
  3. Kowalski, B. and P. Bellair. 2004. "The Community Context of Recidivism Among Ohio Parolees" in Ohio Corrections Research Compendium, Volume II, M. Black (ed). Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. pages 219-224. Internet version viewed May 1, 2006 in compendium2004.pdf

    Description: Using a sample of Ohio offenders released from prison to supervision, the authors examine the effect of neighborhood context, such as opportunities for gainful employment, on recidivism. Overall, the findings indicate that community context did influence recidivism.

    [Back to top]
  4. Maltz, M. April 1972. Evaluation of Crime Control Programs. National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Internet version viewed May 1, 2006 at http://www.uic.edu/depts/lib/forr/pdf/crimjust/crimcontrol.pdf

    Description: Provides information on the early issues facing researchers and practitioners, including, but not limited to, crime displacement, crime data, measures of effectiveness, and conducting evaluations. The information contained can serve as a benchmark of the progress we have made in evaluating crime control programs since the early 1970s.
  5. Maltz, M. ([1984] 2001). Recidivism. Originally published by Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida. Internet edition viewed May 1, 2006 at http://www.uic.edu/depts/lib/forr/pdf/crimjust/recidivism.pdf

    Description: Presents a thorough analysis of recidivism by describing the role that different definitions have played in evaluating correctional goals and programs and shows how improper policy conclusions have been based on studies that used inappropriate definitions of recidivism. The author also reviews the purpose of recidivism in measuring goals of correctional systems and suggests how "survival models" can be used to analyze data on recidivism.
  6. Paparozzi, M. and P. Gendreau. 2005. "An Intensive Supervision Program That Worked: Service Delivery, Professional Orientation, and Organizational Supportiveness." The Prison Journal. 85(4):445-466. Check your local university library for full text.

    Description: The authors examined the effect of treatment services, organizational supportiveness and parole officer orientation on parole recidivism for two groups of supervised offenders, those enrolled in an intensive surveillance supervision program and those under traditional parole supervision. The authors conclude that intensive supervision programs are more effective if they provide more treatment to higher risk offenders, employ parole officers with balanced law enforcement/social casework orientations and are implemented within supportive organization environments.

  7. Petersilia, J. 2002. Reforming Probation and Parole in the 21st Century. Published by the American Probation and Parole Association. Lexington, KY. 233 pages. Check your local university library for availability.

    Description: Two-part guide on the evolution and future of probation and parole in the United States. Includes information on parole and probation data sources, population characteristics and parole outcome and reform.
  8. Piehl, A. 2006. "Debating the Effectiveness of Parole." Perspectives: The Journal of the American Probation and Parole Association. 30(2):54-61. Check your local university library for full text.

    Description: Discusses the terms "parole" and parole "successes/failures" as well as describes how an evaluation of parole must begin with an empirical understanding of the effects of multiple system parts that shape not only who receives parole, but also the duration, intensity and enforcement patterns.
  9. Piehl, A., S. LoBuglio. 2005. "Does Supervision Matter?" in Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America, J. Travis and C. Visher (eds). Cambridge University Press, pages 105-138. Check your local university library for availability.

    Description: Discusses how supervision matters from the cost of incarceration perspective.

    [Back to top]
  10. Rhine, E. 2002. "Why 'What Works' Matters Under the 'Broken Windows' Model of Supervision." Federal Probation. 66(2):38-42. Check your local university library for full text.

    Description: Discusses the effectiveness of the system of criminal justice and community supervision of offenders by reviewing research on the outcomes the community expects the system of justice to achieve; provides a model of community supervision based on the model elaborated in the 'Broken Windows Probation: The Next Step in Fighting Crime' manifesto; and reviews the literature on effective rehabilitative programming and the implications of relying on a balanced approach to supervision.
  11. Rosenfeld, R., J. Wallman, R. Fornango. 2005. "The Contribution of Ex-Prisoners to Crime Rates," in Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America, J. Travis and C. Visher (eds). Cambridge University Press, pages 80-104. Check your local university library for availability.

    Description: Assesses the proportion of violent, property and drug crimes committed by prisoners through examining the number of released prisoners, the difference among them in risk to reoffend and the effects on reoffending of post release supervision.
  12. Sacks, H. and C. Logan. 1979. Does Parole Make a Difference? West Hartford: University of Connecticut School of Law Press. 120 pages. Check your local university library availability.

    Description: Reports on the effect of post prison supervision on minor felony offenders by comparing the one year recidivism rate of those released onto supervision to those released without supervision.

  13. Sacks, H. and C. Logan. 1980. Parole: Crime Prevention or Crime Postponement? West Hartford: University of Connecticut School of Law Press. 132 pages. Check your local university library availability.

    Description: Reports on the effect of post prison supervision on minor felony offenders by comparing the two and three year recidivism rates of those released onto supervision to those released without supervision.
  14. Solomon, A. 2006. "Does Parole Supervision Work? Research Findings and Policy Opportunities." in Perspectives: The Journal of the American Probation and Parole Association. 30(2):26-37. Internet version viewed May 1, 2006 at http://www.urban.org/publications/1000908.html

    Description: Discusses why parole supervision should be studied and reviews research done on this topic as well as summarizes the findings presented in the citation noted below. Includes policy suggestions for reworking parole systems.
  15. 15 Solomon, A., V. Kachnowski, and A. Bhati. 2005. Does Parole Work? Analyzing the Impact of Postprison Supervision on Rearrest Outcomes. Published by the Urban Institute. Internet version viewed May 1, 2006 at http://www.urban.org/publications/311156.html

    Description: The study uses data from a Bureau of Justice Statistics recidivism study to compare prisoners released to parole supervision in 1994 with prisoners released without any supervision or reporting requirements. The study reports that overall, parole supervision has little effect on re-arrest rates of released prisoners.

** Responses received by and of the American Probation and Parole Association, were viewed
May 1, 2006 at http://www.appa-net.org/Urban_table_contents.pdf **

  1. Thompson, W. 1983. "The Debate Over Parole in the United States Criminal Justice System." in Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies. 8(2): 211-222. Check your local university library for full text.

    Description: Overview of obstacles associated with parole as a system.
  2. Travis, J. and S. Lawrence. 2002. "Beyond the Prison Gates: The State of Parole in America." Published by the Urban Institute. Internet version viewed May 1, 2006 at http://www.urban.org/publications/310583.html

    Description: Uses figures from the Bureau of Justice Statistics to document the declining role of parole boards in deciding whether prisoners are released, the increasing reliance on parole supervision, and the unprecedented growth in parole revocations leading to returns to prison.
  3. Visher, C., D. Baer, and R. Naser. 2006. Ohio Prisoners'Reflections On Returning Home. Published by the Urban Institute. Internet version viewed May 1, 2006 at http://www.urban.org/publications/311272.html

    Description: Involves interviews with male prisoners before and after their release from state correctional facilities, focus groups with residents in neighborhoods to which many prisoners return, and interviews with reentry policymakers and practitioners. The study reports that 75% of the sample would be under parole supervision once released from prison and for those that would be on supervision, 77% thought it would be pretty easy or very easy to avoid a parole violation. The study also contains suggestions for several policy directions.
  4. 19 Wilson, J. 2005. "Bad Behavior or Bad Policy? An Examination of Tennessee Release Cohorts, 1993-2001." in Criminology and Public Policy 4(3):485-518. Check your local university library for full text.

    Description: Using a Tennessee Department of Corrections release cohort, results suggest that technical violations rather than increase criminal activity account for the observed increase in recidivism rate and that the use of parole as a means of controlling and stabilizing growing prison populations was also associated with increased rates of return to prison.
[Back to top]

International Studies: Effect of Parole on Recidivism

  1. Ellis, T. and P. Marshall. 2000. "Does Parole Work? A Post-Release Comparison of Reconviction Rates for Paroled and Non-Paroled Prisoners" in The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 33(3):300-317. Internet version viewed May 1, 2006 at http://www.port.ac.uk/departments/academic/icjs/staff/pdfs/filetodownload,29835,en.pdf

    Description: Reports on prisoners released in England and Wales to determine whether there is a reduction in recidivism which could be attributed to parole supervision.
  2. Shute, S. 2004. "Does Parole Work? Empirical Evidence from England and Wales." in Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law. Check your local university library full text.

    Description: Reviews release information from England and Wales to examine the effect of parole supervision on recidivism as well as discusses the release and non-release decisions of the parole board.
  3. Waller, I. 1974. Men Released From Prison. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 273 pages. Check your local university library for availability.

    Description: Reports the two year post release criminal record of offenders released onto supervision and those released without supervision from Canada's prisons.

Other Information of Interest Regarding Research on Ohio Offenders:

  1. Bennie, R.C., L. Norton and B. Martin. 2005. "Ohio Adult Parole Authority Census July 1, 2004." Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Internet version viewed May 1, 2006 in APAcensus2004.pdf

    Description: Provides a detailed description of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority active supervision population as of July 1, 2004.
  2. Martin, B. 2005. "Technical Violations, Sanctions, and Post-Prison Supervision Outcomes: Findings from Ohio." Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology 2005 Annual Meeting in Toronto, Canada.

    Description: Using data from a sample of post-prison supervision cases in Ohio, this study compares the determinants of multiple supervision outcomes to address the question of whether technical violations increases the likelihood of future offending.
  3. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. 1999. "APA Conditions of Supervision." Policy No. 100-APA-09. Available by request from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

    Description: Reviews the process and procedures for establishing the conditions of supervision for offenders under the jurisdiction of the Adult Parole Authority.
[Back to top]

Articles/Books on Strategies for Reforming Community Supervision:

Austin, J. 2006. "What Should We Expect from Parole?" Perspectives: The Journal of the American Probation and Parole Association. 30(2):46-53. Check you local university library for full text.

Burke, P. 2004. "Parole Violations Revisited: A Handbook on Strengthening Parole Practices for Public Safety and Successful Offender Transition." Washington DC: National Institute of Corrections. Internet version viewed May 1, 2006 at http://www.nicic.org/Library/019833.

Council of State Governments. 2005. "Report of the Reentry Policy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community." New York: NY. Internet version viewed May 1, 2006 at http://www.reentrypolicy.org/rp/Main.aspx.

Petersilia. J. 2002. Reforming Probation and Parole. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association. Check your local university library for availability.

Petersilia, J. 2003. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York: Oxford University Press. Check your local university library for availability.

Rhine, E. and M. Paparozzi. 1999. "Reinventing Probation and Parole: A Matter of Consequence." Corrections Management Quarterly. 3(2):47-52. Check your local university library for full text.

Taxman, F. 2006. "Supervision - Exploring the Dimensions of Effectiveness." Federal Probation. 66(2):14-27. Internet version viewed May 1, 2006 at http://www.nicic.org/Library/021117.

Travis, J. 2005. But They All Come Back. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Check you local university library for availability.


[Back to top]

Please email any comments or suggestions to Coretta.Pettway@odrc.state.oh.us.
If you would like to be a part of the IEJ distribution list to receive IEJ news, seminar announcements and updates, please email Coretta.Pettway@odrc.state.oh.us.

IEJ Contact

Coretta Pettway
Phone: 740-845-3237; Fax: 740-845-3387
E-Mail: Coretta.Pettway@odrc.state.oh.us