The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

The first to escape was Salvador Agron, the “Cape Man.” As a 16-year-old gang leader, wearing a black cape, Agron stabbed three teenagers, two of whom died. After his death sentence was commuted to life, Agron became eligible for parole, was admitted to an education release program and attended classes at New Paltz State College. On April 16, 1977, eight months before his parole date, nearly 18 years after his arrest, he absconded. Two weeks later, he was apprehended in Phoenix.

Three weeks after Agron disappeared, Richard Gantz, on a two-day pass from a Manhattan work-release center, abducted and raped a 19-year-old college student. A few days later, Harry Elmore received a one-day pass from the same center and murdered 45-year-old Ethel Loney. About a week later, Jerry Williams, on furlough from another work-release center, was arrested for the rape of a 20-year-old nurse.

Headlines in New York reflected the public’s outrage. “State Prisoners in Escapist Mood.” “Rape Rap Hits Third Con on Release.” Within a month, Benjamin Ward, the state commissioner for correctional services, was on the hot seat before the State Senate’s Crime and Corrections Committee. He marshaled persuasive evidence to support the early-release programs: Only 114 of the 3,053 participants had absconded, for a remarkably low failure rate of 3.7 percent. Prisoners released directly committed crimes at higher rates than those released through transitional programs. Because participants earned nearly $1 million in wages, paid taxes and saved money to smooth their transition home, the programs were cost-effective.

These arguments did not stand a chance in the summer of 1977. On July 15, the Legislature approved sweeping changes in the state’s temporary release policies. Eligibility was limited to those prisoners with serious medical problems or relatives near death. Prisoners convicted of violent crimes or sexual assault could participate only if the corrections commissioner approved. By December, the number of participants was cut in half.

In the summer of 1977, New Yorkers lost sight of two realities of prisoner re-entry. First, except those who die in prison, all prisoners, including those who are highly dangerous, ultimately come home.

Second, the immediate post-release period poses the highest risk of failure. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, two-thirds of returning prisoners are rearrested within three years, but almost half those arrests occur within the first six months. When New York clamped down on temporary releases, it curtailed those programs that provide support when failure rates are highest.

Today, New York’s re-entry policies still reflect the political calculations of 1977. Only nine of the state’s 70 correctional facilities offer temporary release programs. Fewer than four percent of state inmates participate. No one is enrolled in an educational release program.

New York could simply restore eligibility for temporary release programs, but this reform would miss the mark. Instead, we should seek significant reductions in the rearrest rates of everyone leaving prison, not just those assigned to special programs.

Moreover, we should shift support and supervision resources to the front end of the re-entry period. In addition to transitional work and education programs, we should invest in halfway houses, residential and outpatient drug treatment and family mediation services.

In doing so, the state should also make safety planning a priority. We should secure protection orders for victims fearful of a repeat attack. Police and parole officers should work together to prevent retaliatory violence when a gang member leaves prison.

The state should also finance organizations of formerly incarcerated community residents to guide newly released prisoners along the path to reintegration. In short, we should align resources with risk, and invest in proven interventions that reduce new arrests during this critical transition period.

Meeting this goal is even harder today than 30 years ago. New York’s prison population has more than tripled. This year, more than 25,000 men and women will be released from our prisons. No network of re-entry programs provides a guarantee against horrific crimes. But, with a focus on results, we can reduce crime by helping these men and women return home safely.

Jeremy Travis, the president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York, is the author of “But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Re-entry.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/nyregionopinions/18CItravis.html