A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey

RESEARCH REPORT November 2003 A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey

Jeremy Travis Sinead Keegan Eric Cadora with Amy Solomon and Charles Swartz

research for safer communities The nonpartisan Urban Institute To receive free monthly email updates publishes studies, reports, and on the research of the Justice Policy books on timely topics worthy of Center, join the Center’s email 2100 M STREET, NW public consideration. The views distribution list by sending an email WASHINGTON, DC 20037 expressed are those of the authors, to [email protected]. www.urban.org and should not be attributed to the (202) 833-7200 Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

http://JPC.urban.org A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey

Jeremy Travis Sinead Keegan Eric Cadora with Amy Solomon and Charles Swartz copyright @ 2003 The Urban Institute About the Authors Justice Policy Center 2100 M street, NW Washington, DC 20037 www.urban.org (202) 833-7200 Jeremy Travis is a Senior Fellow at the Urban Institute and is co-chair of the Reentry Roundtable—a group of prominent academics, practitioners, service providers, and commu- The views expressed are nity leaders working to advance policies and innovations on prisoner reentry that reflect those of the authors and solid research. Before he joined the Urban Institute, Mr. Travis was the director of the should not be attributed to National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. Mr. Travis The Urban Institute, its has been an active figure in the development of a policy and research agenda on the issue trustees, or its funders. of prisoner reentry. He is the author of the article “But They All Come Back: Rethinking Prisoner Reentry,” and shaped the federal initiative on reentry courts and reentry partner- The Justice Policy center ships. (JPC) carries out nonparti- Mr. Travis earned his JD, cum laude, from the New York University School of Law; san research to inform the an MPA from the New York University Wagner Graduate School of Public Service; and a national dialogue on crime, BA in American Studies, cum laude, from Yale College. justice and community Sinead Keegan is a Research Associate at the Urban Institute. Her primary research inter- safety. For more information ests are the effects of crime and crime policy on communities. She is currently the Project on JPC’s reentry research, and Data Manager for a project developing performance indicators for the U.S. visit http://jpc.urban.org/ Department of Justice’s Weed and Seed Program. In addition, Ms. Keegan is involved in a reentry. To receive monthly project examining whether Weed and Seed initiatives lead to the displacement of crime in email updates on JPC southern Florida. She has also conducted research on prisoner reentry in the District of research, send an email to Columbia, with a particular focus on the availability of housing for ex-offenders. [email protected]. Ms. Keegan has a Master’s in Public Policy from Georgetown University, and a BA in Government with a concentration in Public Service from the University of Notre Dame. JPC Publication Her Master’s thesis examined a number of previously unmeasured social costs of incar- # CPR03 0105 ceration using advanced statistical techniques. Ms. Keegan originally hails from Bergen County, New Jersey. Eric Cadora is a community justice consultant and a Program Officer for The After Prison Initiative of the Open Society Institute. The After Prison Initiative is a grantmaking program created to promote social and criminal justice policies that place reintegration and public safety 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: Justice Reinvestment, New Leadership Development, National Re-Entry Policy Reform, and Reduction of Civil Barriers to Reintegration. In 1998 with OSI funding, he launched The Community Justice Project at the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES), which advocates for a reinvestment of justice resources in communities suffering high rates of incarceration and provides technical assistance to corrections and communities to implement community justice programs. CASES is New York’s largest and longest running alternative to incarceration program. Employing an innovative geographical analysis of criminal justice activity at the neighborhood level, Eric speaks at national forums around the country about the impact of high rates of incarceration on low-income communities and promotes the use of financial 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 the research 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 to public 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 private sector clients. Before starting GRS, Charles was a Geographic Information Systems Researcher at the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES) in New York.

ii A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY Contents

Executive Summary...... 1 Introduction ...... 3 About the Data ...... 6

CHAPTER 1 Policy Context ...... 7 PRISON POPULATION ON THE RISE ...... 7 EXPLAINING NEW JERSEY INCARCERATION TRENDS ...... 8 TRENDS IN CRIME...... 9 THE EFFECTS OF SENTENCING REFORMS ...... 12 PAROLE REVOCATIONS...... 17 SUMMARY ...... 18 Sentencing Reform in New Jersey...... 19

CHAPTER 2 What Are the Characteristics of New Jersey’s Returning Inmates? ...... 21 DEMOGRAPHICS ...... 21 CONVICTION OFFENSE ...... 21 TIME SERVED ...... 21 CRIMINAL HISTORY AND THE REVOLVING DOOR ...... 22 MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH PROBLEMS ...... 24 Juvenile Reentry ...... 26

CHAPTER 3 How Are Prisoners Prepared for Release? ...... 27 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS PROGRAMMING ...... 27 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES ...... 28 EMPLOYMENT READINESS ...... 28 SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT...... 30 RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT PROGRAMS ...... 31

CHAPTER 4 How Are Prisoners Released in New Jersey? ...... 33 PRISONER RELEASES ...... 33 POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION...... 35 PAROLE SUPERVISION ...... 35 PROBATION SUPERVISION...... 38 Sentence Reduction Credits ...... 39

CHAPTER 5 Where Are Prisoners Returning? ...... 41 NEW JERSEY’S COUNTIES ...... 42 ESSEX COUNTY AND NEWARK ...... 42 CAMDEN COUNTY AND THE CITY OF CAMDEN ...... 44

CHAPTER 6 Summary ...... 63 HIGHLIGHTS...... 63

iii List of Figures

CHAPTER 1 Policy Context ...... 7 Figure 1. New Jersey Prison Population, Admissions, and Releases, 1980–2001 . . . 8 Figure 2. U.S. and New Jersey Incarceration Rates, 1980–2001 ...... 8 Figure 3. Number of Property Crimes in New Jersey per 100,000 Residents, 1980–2000 ...... 10 Figure 4. Number of Violent Crimes in New Jersey per 100,000 Residents, 1980–2001 ...... 10 Figure 5. Number of Property Arrests in New Jersey, 1980–2001...... 11 Figure 6. Number of Violent Arrests in New Jersey, 1980–2001 ...... 11 Figure 7. Number of Drug Arrests in New Jersey, 1980–2001...... 12 Figure 8. Population with Mandatory Minimum Sentence, 1982–2002 ...... 13 Figure 9. Percentage of New Jersey Prison Population, by Sentence Length, 1991 and 2001 ...... 14 Figure 10. Percent Change in Time Served for Releases, by Offense, 1995 to 2002 ...... 15 Figure 11. Population by Offense Type, 1982–2002...... 16 Figure 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 ...... 22 Figure 14. Age Distribution of Released Inmates, 2002 ...... 22 Figure 15. Marital Status of Released Inmates, 2002...... 23 Figure 16. Primary Offense of Released Inmates, 2002...... 23 Figure 17. Median Time Served by Released New Jersey Prisoners, by Offense, 2002 ...... 24 Figure 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 ...... 34 Figure 20. Percent of Prison Releases, by Supervision, 1977–1998...... 34 Figure 21. Parole Population in New Jersey, 1997–2001 ...... 35 Figure 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 Residents New Jersey Counties, 2002 ...... 46 Map 2. Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents New Jersey Counties, 2002 ...... 46 Map 3. Prison Releases per 1,000 Residents New Jersey Counties, 2002 ...... 47 Map 4. TANF Cases per 1,000 Residents New Jersey Counties, Jan. 2003 ...... 47 Map 5. Percent Black per Block-Group Essex County, New Jersey, 2000 ...... 48 Map 6. Median Household Income per Block-Group Essex County, New Jersey, 2000 ...... 48 Map 7. Percent Single Parent Households per Block-Group Essex County, New Jersey, 2000 ...... 49 Map 8. Percent in Poverty per Block-Group Essex County, New Jersey, 2000 ...... 49 Map 9. Parolees per 1,000 Residents by Block-Group Essex County, New Jersey, 2002 ...... 50 Map 10. Parolees per 1,000 Residents by Block-Group Newark, New Jersey, 2002...... 50 Map 11. Probationers per 1,000 Residents by Block-Group Essex County, New Jersey, 2003 ...... 51 Map 12. Probationers per 1,000 Residents by Block-Group Newark, New Jersey, 2003...... 51 Map 13. Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents by Block-Group Essex County, New Jersey, 2001 ...... 52 Map 14. Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents by Block-Group Newark, New Jersey, 2001...... 52 Map 15. Prison Expenditure by Block-Group Essex County, New Jersey, 2001 ...... 53 Map 16. Prison Expenditure by Block-Group Newark, New Jersey, 2001...... 53 Map 17. Juvenile Justice Commission Admissions to Custody Essex County, New Jersey by Census Block-Group, 2001...... 54 Map 18. Juvenile Justice Commission Expenditures for Custody Essex County, New Jersey by Census Block-Group, 2001...... 54 Map 19. TANF Cases per 1,000 Residents by Zip Code Essex County, New Jersey, 2003 ...... 55 Map 20. Percent Black by Block-Group Camden County, New Jersey, 2000 ...... 56 Map 21. Median Household Income by Block-Group Camden County, New Jersey, 2000 ...... 56 Map 22. Percent Single Parent Households by Block-Group Camden County, New Jersey, 2000 ...... 57 Map 23. Percent in Poverty by Block-Group Camden County, New Jersey, 2000 ...... 57

v Map 24. Parolees per 1,000 Residents by Block-Group Camden County, New Jersey, 2002 ...... 58 Map 25. Parolees per 1,000 Residents by Block-Group Camden City, New Jersey, 2002...... 58 Map 26. Probationers per 1,000 Residents by Block-Group Camden County, New Jersey, 2003 ...... 59 Map 27. Probationers per 1,000 Residents by Block-Group Camden City, New Jersey, 2003...... 59 Map 28. Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents by Block-Group Camden County, New Jersey, 2001 ...... 60 Map 29. Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents by Block-Group Camden City, New Jersey, 2001...... 60 Map 30. Prison Expenditure by Block-Group Camden County, New Jersey, 2001 ...... 61 Map 31. Prison Expenditure by Block-Group Camden City, New Jersey, 2001...... 61 Map 32. Juvenile Justice Commission Admissions to Custody Camden County, New Jersey by Census Block-Group, 2001 ...... 62 Map 33. Juvenile Justice Commission Expenditures for Custody Camden County, New Jersey by Census Block-Group, 2001 ...... 62 Map 34. TANF Cases per 1,000 Residents by Zip Codes Camden County, New Jersey, 2003 ...... 63

vi A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the many individuals and organizations who made valuable contributions to this report. The New Jersey Department of Corrections, and speciﬁcally Commissioner Devon Brown; Stanley Repko, Former Director, Office of Policy and Planning; Debra Nale, Kimberly Flood, and Donna Kraun from the Office of Information Technology, provided the data that serve as the backbone of the analysis of this report. We also thank Douglas Gerardi, Current Director of the Office of Policy and Planning, and Don Van Nostrand and Juan (Carlos) Ayala of the same office for providing supplemental statistics and for answering a myriad of questions about the corrections system in New Jersey. John D’Amico, Chairman of the State Parole Board; Michael Dowling, Executive Director of the Parole Board; Melinda Schlager, formerly of the Parole Board; and Kevin McHugh, Chris Cermele, Jeff Gambino, and Dan Lebak of the Parole Board provided data regarding a snapshot of individuals on parole, and also assisted by explaining the functions and programs of the Parole Board. Division of Probation data was provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts, speciﬁcally Director Richard Williams, Deputy Director Theodore Fetter, Anna Marie Chiofolo, Matthew Kowalski, James Mannion, Marie Repko, and John Czarnuscewicz. The Department of Human Services provided data on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Thanks go to Gwendolyn Harris, Commissioner, Reginald Lewis, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, and Sudha Kantor and Rudy Myers. Executive Director Howard Beyer, Director of Aftercare and Parole William Curry, and William Davis of the Juvenile Justice Commission provided data on the juvenile population. We also thank Stacy Kutner of the Department of Law and Public Safety, Criminal Justice Agency, and Sergeant Daniel Marley of the New Jersey State Police Uniform Crime Report Unit, for providing data on drug arrest trends. James Austin and Wendy Naro of the Institute on Crime, Justice, and Corrections at the George Washington University assisted with chapter 5. Meagan Funches of the Urban Institute provided valuable research support for chapter 3. The work of Michelle Waul, formerly of the Urban Institute, served as foundation for this report. Avi Bhati and Gretchen Moore of the Urban Institute assisted with statistical analysis, and Jaime Watson of the Urban Institute provided valuable insight and com- ments on earlier drafts of this report. The support of Ken Zimmerman, Nancy Fishman, 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 been possible.

vii

Executive Summary

his report describes the process of prisoner reentry in New Jersey by examining the policy context surrounding prisoner reentry in the Tstate, the characteristics of the state’s returning inmates, the geographic distribution of returning prisoners, and the social and economic climates 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, including 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 individuals 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 1 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 participated 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 percent 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 prisoners 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

his report examines the prisoner reentry phenomenon in the state of 1 Office of Justice Programs, New Jersey. Prisoner reentry—the process of leaving prison and return- Office of Congressional and Public Affairs. 2002. “Attorney ing to society—has become a pressing issue both in New Jersey and T General Ashcroft Announces nationwide, and with good reason. Rising incarceration rates over the past quar- Nationwide Effort to Reinte- ter century have resulted in more and more inmates being released from prison grate Offenders Back into Com- munities.” Press release, July each year. Nationwide, an estimated 630,000 inmates were released from state 15, 2002. Available at http:// and federal prisons in 2001, a fourfold increase over the past two decades.1 Thus, www.usnewswire.com/OJP/do released prisoners, their families, and the communities to which they return must cs/OJP02214.html. (Accessed cope with the challenges of reentry on a much greater scale than ever before. October 2002.) And the challenges of reentry are many. More prisoners nationwide are 2 Lynch, James P., and William J. Sabol. 2001. “Prisoner Reentry 2 returning home having spent longer terms behind bars, exacerbating the in Perspective.” Crime Policy already significant challenges of finding employment and reconnecting with Report, vol. 3. Washington, family. Prisoners today are typically less prepared for reintegration, less con- D.C.: Urban Institute Press. nected to community-based social structures, and more likely to have health or 3 Austin, James. 2001. “Prisoner substance abuse problems than in the past.3 In addition to these personal cir- Reentry: Current Trends, Prac- tices, and Issues.” Crime and cumstances, limited availability of jobs, housing, and social services in a com- Delinquency 47(3): 314–334; munity may affect the returning prisoner’s ability to successfully reintegrate.4 Hammett, Theodore M., Cheryl These challenges affect more than returning prisoners and their families; Roberts, and Sofia Kennedy. 2001. “Health-Related Issues in they can also have serious implications for the communities to which prison- Prisoner Reentry.” Crime and ers return. Two-thirds of the prisoners released in 1996 returned to major met- Delinquency 47(3): 390–409; ropolitan areas across the country—up from 50 percent in 1984.5 Within Lynch and Sabol. 2001. “Pris- oner Reentry in Perspective.” central cities, released prisoners are often concentrated in a few neighbor- 4 hoods.6 These high concentrations of returning prisoners generate great costs For an in-depth discussion of prisoner reentry nationwide, see to those communities, including potential increases in costs associated with Travis, Jeremy, Amy L. crime and public safety, greater public health risks, and high rates of unem- Solomon, and Michelle Waul. ployment and homelessness. Thus, developing a thorough understanding of 2001. From Prison to Home: The Dimensions and Consequences the characteristics of returning prisoners and the challenges they face is an of Prisoner Reentry. Washing- important ﬁrst step in shaping public policy toward improving the safety and ton, D.C.: The Urban Institute. welfare of all citizens. 5 Lynch and Sabol. 2001. “Pris- In many ways, the dimensions and challenges of prisoner reentry observed oner Reentry in Perspective.” on the national level are mirrored in the state of New Jersey. Incarceration 6 Ibid.

Introduction 3 increased dramatically in New Jersey in recent decades. Between 1977 and 7 Bureau of Justice Statistics 2002, the New Jersey prison population more than quadrupled, increasing (BJS)/Paige Harrison. 2000. Incarceration Rates for Prison- from 6,017 to 27,891 people. At the same time, the per capita rate of imprison- ers Under State or Federal ment in New Jersey rose from 76 to 322 per 100,000 residents in the state, an Jurisdiction, per 100,000 Resi- increase of over 336 percent.7 Admissions to New Jersey prisons climbed over dents (corpop25. wk1). National Prisoner Statistics Data Series this period as well. In 1980, fewer than 4,000 individuals were admitted to New (NPS-1). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Jersey’s prisons. By 2000, annual admissions had grown to over 15,000.8 State Department of Justice; Harri- spending on corrections increased accordingly. Over the past 25 years, spend- son, Paige M., and Allen J. Beck. 2002. Prisoners in 2001. ing on corrections and parole has grown at twice the rate of the rest of the state Bureau of Justice Statistics Bul- budget. In fiscal year 1983, the state spent just under $200 million on correc- letin. NCJ 195189. Washington, tions, parole, and the juvenile justice system. By fiscal year 2003, annual D.C.: U.S. Department of Jus- budgets for these departments had risen almost six-fold to $1.1 billion. The tice; Beck, Allen J. 2000. Pris- oners in 1999. Bureau of state budget as a whole increased threefold over this period. In fiscal year 2003, Justice Statistics Bulletin. NCJ the budget for the Department of Corrections was $858 million, or about 183476. Washington, D.C.: U.S. $28,000 per inmate.9 Department of Justice. As a consequence of the growth in imprisonment, the state of New Jersey 8 Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2000. Sentenced prisoners has also experienced a dramatic growth in the number of people being released admitted to State or Federal from prison. In 1980, only 3,910 individuals were released from the state’s pris- jurisdiction (corpop13. wk1). ons.10 Last year, 14,849 individuals were released to the community from New National Prisoner Statistics Jersey’s prisons. The vast majority—95 percent—of those released from Data Series (NPS-1). Washing- ton, D.C.: U.S. Department of 11 New Jersey prisons in 2002 returned to communities in New Jersey. Almost Justice. one-third—31 percent—returned to two counties in the state, Essex and Cam- 9 Shure, J., M. Forsberg et al. den. This included 2,430, or 16 percent of all releases, returning to Essex Forthcoming. “Reentry: The Fis- County, and 2,270 individuals, or 15 percent of the released population, cal Consequences.” Commis- sioned by the New Jersey returning to Camden County. The flow of prisoners was further concentrated Reentry Roundtable. in a small number of communities within these counties. Thirteen percent of 10 New Jersey Department of all releases, or 1,705 individuals, returned to New Jersey’s largest city, Newark, Corrections data, 2002; Bureau in Essex County. Another 1,280 individuals, or ten percent of the total release of Justice Statistics (BJS)/ population, returned to the city of Camden. Paige Harrison. 2000. Sen- tenced Prisoners Released Government leaders, corrections officials, local organizations, and service from State or Federal Jurisdic- providers are keenly aware of the reentry challenges numbers like these pose in tion (corpop22.wk1). National New Jersey, and they have begun to use both research and programmatic Prisoner Statistics (NPS-1). knowledge to address them. In July 2002, the New Jersey State Parole Board 11 Urban Institute analysis of New was awarded $2 million over three years from the U.S. Department of Justice, Jersey Department of Correc- tions data, 2002 Office of Justice Programs, as part of the federal government’s Serious and Vio- 12 For more information, see lent Offender Reentry Initiative, which supports reentry initiatives nationwide. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ This grant provides the opportunity for New Jersey to focus the efforts of a reentry/sar/nj.html 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 management.12 Implementation of this program began in January of 2003. All partici-

4 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY pating offenders will be released between October 2003 and April 2004. The 13 For more information see the NGA’s Press grant expires in 2005. Release: http:// www.nga.org/nga/ news- Room/1,1169,C_PRESS_RELEASE%5ED_ New Jersey has also been selected as one of seven states to participate in the 5751,00.html 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 recidivism 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 requirements 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 prisoner 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?

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 followed 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 communities, and the general public in New Jersey.

About the Data

The data used for this report were derived from several sources. Longitudinal data describing the policy context of incarceration and reentry trends in New Jersey, for example, were derived from a mix of federal statistics, released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and statistics compiled by various 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 Crime Reports, produced by the New Jersey State Police. The available data from each of these sources spanned different time periods—some had data 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, we chose to include all years for which we were able to obtain data points. As a result, readers will not 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 2002 were obtained from the New Jersey Department of Corrections and represent all inmates released from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. The New Jersey State Parole Board provided data on a “snapshot” of individuals on parole in late June 2003. For the geographic analysis of chapter 5, the Division of Probation provided data on a “snapshot” of all individuals from Camden and Essex Counties on probation on a day in late September 2003. The Juvenile Justice Commission provided data on admissions from Camden and Essex Counties to the custody of the Commission in 2001. The Department of Human Services provided data on the counts of TANF Recipients by zip codes in Camden and Essex Counties in March of 2003.

6 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY CHAPTER 1 What Is the Policy Context Surrounding Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey?

n order to understand the reentry phenomenon in New Jersey, it is first 14 Between 1925 and 1973, the necessary to examine recent trends in sentencing and corrections practices per capita rate of imprisonment in the United States remained in the state. This section provides an overview of recent sentencing and I relatively constant, at about incarceration history in the state and describes the factors contributing to the 110 per 100,000 residents. growth in New Jersey’s inmate population. This context will help frame the Since 1973, however, the rate reentry issue and will provide background for the discussion of the needs and of imprisonment has been steadily increasing each year. challenges of returning inmates that follows later in this report. (See Blumstein, Alfred, and Allen J. Beck. 1999. “Popula- tion Growth in U.S. Prisons, PRISON POPULATION ON THE RISE 1980–1996.” In Prisons, edited by Michael Tonry and Joan The New Jersey prison population has grown tremendously over the past two Petersilia. Chicago: University decades, reflecting the rise in prison populations nationwide.14 Between 1977 of Chicago Press.) By year-end and 2002, the New Jersey prison population more than quadrupled, increasing 2001, the number of sentenced prisoners per 100,000 U.S. res- from 6,017 to 27,891 people. (See figure 1.) idents was 470—more than Between 1980 and 2002, the per capita rate of imprisonment in New Jer- four times the rate of imprison- sey rose from 76 to 331 per 100,000 residents in the state, an increase of over ment that had been maintained during the early part of the 20th 336 percent, outpacing national trends. Nationally, the rate of incarceration century (see Harrison, Paige increased 228 percent over this period.15 (See figure 2.) Unlike the national M., and Allen J. Beck. 2002. trends, the growth in incarceration in New Jersey has not been constant since Prisoners in 2001.). Harrison, Paige, and Allen Beck. 2002. 1980. After reaching a peak of 31,493 people in 1999, the prison population Prisoners in 2001. Bureau of declined over the next three years to the 2002 level of 27,891. Likewise, the rate Justice Statistics Bulletin. NCJ of incarceration peaked at 384 in 1999, and then dropped to the 2002 level of 195189. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 322 per 100,000 residents. Department of Justice. As the incarceration rate has increased in New Jersey, so too has state 15 Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)/Paige Harrison. 2000. In- spending on corrections. Over the past 25 years, spending on corrections, carceration Rates for Prisoners parole, and the juvenile justice system has grown at twice the rate of the rest of Under State or Federal Juris- the state budget. In fiscal year 1983, the state spent just under $200 million on diction, per 100,000 Residents; corrections, parole, and the juvenile justice systems. By fiscal year 2003, annual Harrison, Paige and Allen Beck. 2002. Prisoners in 2001; Beck, budgets for these programs had risen almost six-fold to $1.1 billion. The state Allen. 2000. Prisoners in 1999. 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

Chapter 1. What Is the Policy Context Surrounding Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey? 7 16 Commissioned by the New Jer- Figure 1. New Jersey Prison Population, Admissions, and Releases, sey Reentry Roundtable. 1980–2001

35,000

30,000 Prison Population

25,000

20,000 Admission Cohorts 15,000

10,000 Release Cohorts 5,000

0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 19901992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

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

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

500

450 United States 400

350

300 New Jersey 250

200

150

100

0 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001

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

8 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY sentencing policy, and parole revocation practices have contributed to 17 Bureau of Justice Statistics. increases in the number of individuals admitted to New Jersey’s prisons over 2000. Sentenced prisoners admitted to State or Federal time, driving the growth in New Jersey’s prison population. jurisdiction. The dramatic increases in the prison population in New Jersey over the last 18 As measured by the FBI’s Uni- two decades are largely a result of a rising number of admissions to prison. form Crime Reporting system Annual admissions to New Jersey’s prisons increased from under 4,000 in 1980 Part I Index violent and property offenses. 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, including 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, measured 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 consistent 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.

Chapter 1. What Is the Policy Context Surrounding Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey? 9 Figure 3. Number of Property Crimes in New Jersey per 100,000 Residents, 1980–2000

7000

6000

5000 Property 4000

3000

2000

1000

1980 19821984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

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 4. Number of Violent Crimes in New Jersey per 100,000 Residents, 1980–2001

700

600 Violent 500

400

300

200

100

0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

10 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY 19 This was stated in a memo from then- Figure 5. Number of Property Arrests in New Jersey, 1980–2001 Attorney General when the Statewide Narcotics Action Plan was distributed to 80,000 the New Jersey Law Enforcement Commu- 70,000 nity on March 12, 1993. Property 60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

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

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

25,000

Violent Arrests 20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

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

Chapter 1. What Is the Policy Context Surrounding Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey? 11 20 From the website of the New Figure 7. Number of Drug Arrests in New Jersey, 1980–2001 Jersey State Police, http:// www.njsp.org/about/80s. html, 80,000 accessed July 31, 2003 70,000 21 Tonry, Michael. 1996. Sentenc- Drug Arrests ing Matters. New York: Oxford 60,000 University Press. 50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Source: New Jersey State Police Annual Uniform Crime Reports, 1980–2001. drug enforcement—the Statewide Narcotics Action Plan—and to the development 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 resulting 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 sentencing judge has the discretion to sentence an offender to prison and to set the minimum 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 number 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

12 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY sentencing scheme, judges are required to sentence individuals convicted of 22 New Jersey Sentencing Policy these crimes to a prison term with a minimum term. During the 1980s and Study Commission. 1994. Final Report. January. 1990s, the legislature expanded the types of crimes subject to mandatory mini- 23 New Jersey Department of mum sentences, adding a number of violent crimes and many drug offenses. Corrections, Office of Policy These reforms have had dramatic effects on the size and nature of the state’s and Planning, Policy Analysis prison population. They have contributed to the increases in prison admissions and Planning, 2002. Prelimi- by requiring prison sentences for lesser offenses that may have previously been nary Population Data. July. subject to other non-custodial sanctions, such as community service or probation. 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 serving 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 minimum 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 mandatory minimum sentences may not be attributable to statutory requirements. Judges in New Jersey have the discretion to impose mandatory minimum peri-

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

18,000

16,000 Mandatory Minimum

14,000 No Mandatory Minimum

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0 1982 1987 2002

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

Chapter 1. What Is the Policy Context Surrounding Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey? 13 ods of incarceration at the time of sentencing in cases involving particularly sig- 24 New Jersey Sentencing Policy nificant aggravating factors. Data from the Department of Corrections on the Study Commission. 1994. proportion of the population subject to mandatory minimums do not make a 25 The length of a prisoner’s sentence, which is the term of distinction between “true” mandatory minimums and cases such as those in imprisonment meted out by the which the judge has effectively increased the minimum that must be served court, does not necessarily before parole can be granted. But research using court data shows that about a correspond to the actual time quarter of the mandatory minimum terms that were instituted in 1990 (the only served in prison (i.e. prisoners usually serve less time than year for which data have been analyzed) were issued at a sentencing judge’s dis- their court-ordered sentence cretion; the remainder were mandate by statute.24 lengths.) 26 New Jersey Department of Overall Sentence Length Corrections.1991-2001. Annual Changes in sentencing practices can affect prison populations by increasing the Offender Characteristics Reports. length of prison sentences imposed by judges, but this has not been the case in 27 New Jersey Department of New Jersey. In fact, average sentence length in New Jersey has decreased in Corrections. 1993 and 2001. Annual Offender Characteris- 25 recent years. In 2001, a larger percentage of New Jersey offenders were serving tics Reports. shorter sentences (under five years) than was the case in 1991. The percent sentenced 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 various 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

Figure 9. Percentage of New Jersey Prison Population, by Sentence Length, 1991 and 2001

40 1991 35 2001

0 1–4 Years 5–9 10–15 16–20 Life

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

14 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY average, 18.8 months and 18.1 months, respectively, in prison.28 The average 28 This is the median time served amount of time spent in prison by inmates released in 2000 was 24.2 months— for first releases—excluding those who were released after 33 percent higher than in 1995. The average time served for inmates released in being reincarcerated for a 2002 then dropped slightly to 23.8 months. National data show similar overall parole violation. trends. In 1990, the average time served for prisoners released from state pris- 29 Hughes, Timothy A., Doris J. ons across the country was 22 months; by 1999, it had increased to 29 months.29 Wilson, and Allen J. Beck. Average lengths of stay in New Jersey increased between 1990 and 2002 for 2001. Trends in State Parole, 1990–2000. Bureau of Justice most types of offenders. Many violent offenders—including those whose most Statistics Special Report. serious offense was homicide, manslaughter, assault, sexual assault, and Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart- robbery—and offenders convicted of distributing drugs experienced the great- ment of Justice. est increases in the average time spent in prison.30 (See figure 10.) 30 Statistics provided by the It is unclear why average length of stay increased over this period. Because Office of Policy and Planning, New Jersey Department of of the lack of available data for earlier years, it is not possible to determine Corrections. 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 implementation 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 composition 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.

Figure 10. Percent Change in Time Served for Releases, by Offense, 1995 to 2002

1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 –0.2 –0.4 s s All ed lary ense cod Assault Robbery n Homicide U Burg

Manslaughter lent Off erty Offense Theft/Larceny Sexual Assault io p V Drugs - DistributionOther Public Policy Drugs - PossessionOther Sex Offenses Other Other Pro

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

Chapter 1. What Is the Policy Context Surrounding Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey? 15 The share of the stock prison population that consists of drug offenders 31 New Jersey Department of (meaning prisoners whose most serious conviction was a drug offense) has Corrections, Office of Policy and Planning, Policy Analysis increased dramatically over the last two decades. In 1980, only 6 percent of the and Planning. 2002. Prelimi- population had been incarcerated for drug offenses. By 2002, this had increased nary Population Data. July. sixfold to 36 percent. Perhaps more telling, in just three years following the 32 Data provided by NJ DOC. implementation of the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 1987, the share more than tripled. In January 1987, 11 percent of the population was incarcerated 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 violent 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 admitted to New Jersey prisons over this period. In 2002, the share of admissions that were drug offenders dropped somewhat to 48.8 percent.32

Figure 11. Population by Offense Type, 1982–2002

14,000 Violent 12,000 Non-Violent Drugs

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0 1982 1987 2002

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

16 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY Parole Revocations 33 More recent statistics provided by the Department of Correc- The use of mandatory minimums is not the only factor that led to the increased tions shows that the share of prison population in New Jersey. More parolees have also been returning to admissions that are parole violators in New Jersey has prison for revocations of their conditions of parole. The number of parole vio- decreased since 1998 to 29 lators returned to prison in New Jersey has increased over sixfold in the last two percent. These statistics, how- decades, from 1,192 in 1980 to 6,822 in 1998. In 1980, 30 percent of admissions ever, vary slightly from the to New Jersey’s prisons were for parole violations. In 1998, parole revocations numbers reported to the Bureau of Justice Statistics for comprised 41 percent of all admissions. The rise was not constant over this some years. period, as can be seen in figure 12. After decreasing, increasing, and then 34 Travis, Jeremy, and Sarah decreasing again, the share of admissions that were parole violators doubled in Lawrence. 2002. Beyond the the 1990s, from 21 percent in 1990 to 41 percent in 1998.33 This increase out- Prison Gates: The State of Parole in America. Washington, paces national trends in parole revocations over that period. In 1999, 35 percent D.C.: The Urban Institute. of prison admissions nationally were parole violators, compared to 29 percent November. 34 in 1990. 35 Per conversations with Melinda Much of the increase in the New Jersey prison population is likely due to Schlager, 21 August 2003, and changes in violation practice by parole officers. In particular, following two Kevin McHugh, 16 September 2003. high-proﬁle cases in 1995 and 1996 in which parolees under supervision com- 36 mitted violent crimes, it is believed that parole officers became more likely to Ibid. 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 limited scale for a National Institute of Corrections-sponsored project on parole

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

90 New Court Commitments 80

30 Parole Violators

0 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

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

Chapter 1. What Is the Policy Context Surrounding Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey? 17 revocation policy and practice, but the results of this analysis are not available 37 Per e-mail conversation with for dissemination. According to the Parole Board, however, there were 4,582 Kevin McHugh, 17 September 2003. revocations of parole issued in fiscal year 2003 (beginning July 1, 2002 and 38 Travis, Jeremy. and Sarah. ending on June 30, 2003). The vast majority of these—96.5 percent, or 4,422— Lawrence, 2002. Beyond the were issued for technical violations of parole. Only 160, or 3.5 percent of the Prison Gates: The State of revocations, were attributable to new crimes.37 It is important to note that Parole in America. nationally, research has shown that the administrative recording of parole violations 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.

18 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY %% 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 These reforms resulted in the development of Title 2C as New Jersey’s Criminal Code. This code mandates that all first and second degree offenders be sentenced to a period of imprisonment. These reforms developed mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes, including murder and kidnapping, among others. The prison population increased in the early 1980s after these reforms were implemented, but the composition of the population remained the same, with the greatest share of offenders convicted of violent offenses.40 Perhaps most importantly, the reforms of New Jersey’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 of the New Jersey prison population by increasing the number of admissions for drug convictions, and thereby increasing the share of the prison population that consists of drug offenders. Under the CDRA, prison sentences of three and five years are mandated for the distribution of small amounts 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 previously received 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 go into effect until a prison building bond issue was authorized by New Jersey’s voters.44 This referendum was passed, and more prison beds were built to accommodate the increased number of offenders being sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Between fiscal years 1981 and 2002, almost 12,000 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 composition of the prison population. The CDRA made the crime of possessing or distributing drugs within 1,000 feet of a school subject to a mandatory prison sentence. The definition of “drug free zones” has since been expanded to include areas within 500 feet of a public building, including public housing complexes and areas around playgrounds and moving school buses. There has been little analysis of the effect of these drug free zones on the 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 convicted of certain violent crimes. Because of its recent implementation, there is no evidence to suggest that NERA has had a significant impact on the size of the prison population. The effects of NERA may be seen in the future, when more violent offenders remain in prison past what would have been their parole eligibility date. The Department of Corrections has, in fact, predicted that the prison population will begin to increase in the near future, 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 subject to mandatory minimum sentences. The list now includes all serious violent crimes, sexual offenses, and carjacking, among other crimes. Other reforms, such as the Graves Act (1982) and Megan’s Law (1993) may have had moderate impacts on the sentencing of persons convicted of violent weapons 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 officials say 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 conduct 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 1. What Is the Policy Context Surrounding Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey? 19

CHAPTER 2 What Are the Characteristics of New Jersey’s Returning Inmates?

n order to better understand prisoner reentry in New Jersey, it is important 48 There were over 15,000 sepa- to examine the characteristics of the population being released from New rate releases from the New Jersey Department of Correc- Jersey prisons each year. This section describes the cohort released from the I tions in 2002, but about 900 of New Jersey Department of Corrections in 2002, examining basic demographics, these were individuals being reasons for incarceration, time served, recidivism, and physical and mental released multiple times. For the health conditions. Where information is unavailable for the 2002 release cohort, analysis in this report, we examine the characteristics it is supplemented here with information available from other cohorts. of the unique individuals released. Releases were from DEMOGRAPHICS state prisons, county facilities, halfway houses, and other In 2002, 14,849 men and women were released to the community by the New forms of custody. Jersey Department of Corrections.48 This release cohort is very similar in composition 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 percent of the population was between 20 and 40 years old at the time of their release. (See ﬁgures 13 and 14 for more detail.) While the marital status of about one-third of the release cohort is unknown, the vast majority (83 percent) of those 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 to the dramatic increases in incarceration in New Jersey in the 1980s and 1990s. As a consequence, 38 percent of the population released in 2002 consisted of drug offenders. Figure 16 demonstrates that no other offense category accounted for even half that amount. For 16 percent of the population, a parole violation was categorized as the most serious offense committed. Smaller shares of the population 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

Chapter 2. What Are the Characteristics of New Jersey’s Returning Inmates? 21 Figure 13. Race/Ethnicity of Released Inmates, 2002

Other/Unkown 4%

White 21%

Hispanic Black 13% 62%

Source: Urban Institute Analysis of NJ DOC data. 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 14. Age Distribution of Released Inmates, 2002

Under 20

20 to 29

30 to 39

40 to 49

50 to 59

60 and over

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

Source: Urban Institute Analysis of NJ DOC data.

22 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY 49 Langan, Patrick A. and David J. Figure 15. Marital Status of Released Inmates, 2002 Levin. 2002. Recidivism of Pris- oners Released in 1994. Bureau Married 5% Separated of Justice Statistics Special 3% Report. NCJ 193427. Washing- Divorced 3% ton, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. 50 New Jersey Sentencing Policy Study Commission. 1994.

Unknown 33%

Single 56%

Widowed 0%

Source: Urban Institute Analysis of NJ DOC data. 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 incarcerated for a violation of parole. Nearly 12 percent of the 2002 release cohort were

Figure 16. Primary Offense of Released Inmates, 2002

Homicide

Rape

Weapons

Theft

Assault*

Burglary

Robbery

Parole Violation

Drugs

Other

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Source: Urban Institute Analysis of NJ DOC data.

Chapter 2. What Are the Characteristics of New Jersey’s Returning Inmates? 23 51 Note that this is likely an Figure 17. Median Time Served by Released New Jersey Prisoners, by underestimate of the extent to Offense, 2002 which offenders released in 2002 returned to prison at All some point. We have no record Other Sex Offenses of those individuals who were Drugs - Possession released only once in 2002 and Theft/Larceny were then admitted and Other Property Offenses released again before late Other Public Policy June of 2003. Drugs - Distribution 52 Maruschak, Laura and Allen Burglary Beck. 2001. Medical Problems Other Violent Offenses of Inmates, 1997. Bureau of Jus- Assault tice Statistics Special Report. Robbery NCJ 181644. Washington, D.C.: Sexual Assault U.S. Department of Justice. Manslaughter 53 Homicide Maruschak, Laura. 2002. HIV in Prisons, 2000. Bureau of Jus- 050100150 200 250 tice Statistics Bulletin. NCJ

Source: NJ Department of Corrections, Office of Policy and Planning 196023. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. 54 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2001. again in the custody of the Department of Corrections in June of 2003 when we HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report. received their data.51 vol. 13(2). Atlanta: National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention. MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH PROBLEMS 55 Ibid. Prisoners nationwide suffer from a range of mental and physical health problems. 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 physical 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 population of New Jersey was known to be diagnosed with AIDS in 2000.54 In contrast, 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 percent of females in New Jersey’s prisons were known to be HIV positive, more

24 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY 56 Maruschak. Laura. 2002. HIV in Figure 18. Mental and Physical Health Diagnoses, Released Prisons, 2000. New Jersey Prisoners, 2002 57 National Commission on Cor- rectional Health Care. 2002. The Health Status of Soon-To- Be-Released Inmates: A Report to Congress. Volume 1. March. 1 Diagnosis 20% 58 Ibid. 59 Other estimates set the percent of the stock prison population No Diagnoses 68% with a substance abuse problem at 81 percent. The discrepancy may be due to incomplete data, or it could be true that 2 or more substance abuse is less preva- Diagnoses lent in the release population 12% than in the stock population. This is unlikely, however.

Source: Urban Institute Analysis of NJ DOC data.

than double the 3.2 percent share of the general population that had been diagnosed 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 communities 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 prisoners are infected with Hepatitis-C.58 Mental illness has been identiﬁed in 11 percent of the releases. Over 50 percent of released inmates have been diagnosed with or assessed to have a drug or alcohol problem.59

Chapter 2. What Are the Characteristics of New Jersey’s Returning Inmates? 25 %% 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 youth face 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 will summarize 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), and African-American (67 percent). The vast majority (94 percent) has had at least one prior adjudication of delinquency. These juveniles also have particularly high rates of individual and family risk factors for future criminal involvement, including substance abuse (60 percent), involvement with 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 been adjudicated for a drug offense, 19 percent for a persons (generally violent) offense, and 14 percent for a property offense. Disorder and weapons offenders 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 of the commitments came from Camden, 12 percent from Essex, and 10 percent each from Hudson and Passaic. Almost half of the youth committed to the 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 percent African-American, and with an average age of 16.5. Two-thirds come from four counties, but not the same four counties as committed youth. In this 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 of 2003, there were 638 active parole cases and 24 parole officers. Juveniles spend, on average, 14 months on parole. Probationers are supervised post-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.

26 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY CHAPTER 3 How Are Prisoners Prepared for Release?

istorically, prison programming has played an important role in 61 Gaes, Gerald G., Timothy J. American corrections. Many prison administrators and others have Flanagan, Laurence L. Motuik, and Lynn Stewart. 1999. “Adult believed that providing educational and vocational programming to H Correctional Treatment.” In prisoners increases the likelihood of prisoners’ successful return to the commu- Prisons, edited by Michael H. nity. Recent research supports this rationale, showing that a range of prison- Tonry and Joan Petersilia. based programming can contribute to positive post-release outcomes for Chicago: University of Chicago Press. prisoners, including reduced recidivism. In addition to prison-based program- 62 Refers to inmates scheduled ming, community-based services for released inmates have also shown to to be released in the next 12 increase the likelihood of successful reintegration and decrease the recidivism months. Lynch, James and Wil- rate of returning prisoners. In fact, research has shown that some of the most liam Sabol. 2001. Prisoner Re- effective programs are those that combine in-prison programming with after- entry in Perspective. care in the community.61 The New Jersey Department of Corrections provides prison- and community-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-

Chapter 3. How Are Prisoners Prepared for Release? 27 ing formal substance abuse treatment dropped from 25 percent to 10 percent in 63 Lynch, James and William that same period.63 These numbers are alarming, given the proven benefit of Sabol. 2001. Prisoner Reentry in Perspective; Bureau of Jus- prison-based programs and the increasing number of prisoners who present tice Statistics (BJS). 2000. Cor- needs. Only 23 percent of New Jersey prisoners participated in academic or rectional Populations in the vocational training in 2001—the same percentage that had participated in United States, 1997. NCJ 64 177613. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 1995. Department of Justice. 64 Office of Educational Services. Educational Services 2002. Response to a FOIA re- quest. January 11. Inmates often enter prison with poor educational backgrounds and limited 65 Travis, Jeremy, Amy Solomon, employment skills.65 Recent research has documented a link between education and Michelle Waul. 2001. From Prison to Home: The Dimen- levels and recidivism—prisoners who have achieved higher levels of education sions and Consequences of have a lower rate of recidivism.66 A number of factors contribute to the recidi- Prisoner Reentry. vism rate of ex-offenders, but at least part of this discrepancy is due to the fact 66 Haigler, Karl, Caroline Harlow, that upon release, educational achievement and literacy skills provide some of Patricia O’Connor, and Anne the tools an inmate needs to succeed in a competitive labor market once released Campbell. 1994. Literacy Be- hind Prison Walls: Profiles of from prison. Many New Jersey inmates lack these tools. Upon admission, the the Prison Population from the average New Jersey inmate is at a 6.0 grade level in reading and a 5.4 grade level National Literacy Survey (U.S. in math.67 Department of Education). Washington, D.C.: Educational The Office of Educational Services (OES), a subsidiary of the Department Testing Service. of Corrections (DOC), provides educational and vocational programming in 67 Office of Educational Services, each of New Jersey’s state prisons and youth facilities. While programming 2002. varies across facilities, at minimum, each facility offers pre-secondary and sec- 68 State Employment and Training ondary academic training. Many offer English as a Second Language (ESL) Commission. 1997. Standing classes as well. Lack of funding has made post-secondary education, at present, Corrected: Education and the Rehabilitation of Criminal Of- almost non-existent. A federal grant has underwritten Project IN-SIDE (Inmate fenders Report of the Correc- Network: Skills in Developing Employment), which provides certificate- tions Education Task Force. granting training courses for inmates under 25 within ﬁve years of parole, by August. contract with Union and Mercer County Community Colleges. 69 Bureau of Justice Statistics Despite the clear need for educational programs for offenders returning to (BJS). 2000. Correctional Popu- lations in the United States, the community, funding for and participation in such programs are limited. In 1997; Office of Educational 1995, only 1 to 2.5 percent of the DOC budget, on average, went to educational Services. 2002. programming and services, and most of that money was earmarked for programs 70 State Employment and Training for juveniles.68 State law requires the Department of Corrections to provide aca- Commission. 1997. 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 educational 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

28 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY histories undoubtedly contribute to this challenge. Additionally, the time spent 71 Western, Bruce. 2003. Employ- in prison may diminish work skills, result in the forfeiture of opportunities to ment and Public Policy. Pre- sented at the Third Reentry gain work experience, and sever interpersonal connections that could provide Roundtable, New York, NY. information about jobs.71 After release, the stigma of ex-prisoner status makes April. the job search even more difficult.72 These obstacles to finding legitimate 72 Holzer, Harry, Stephen Raphael employment add to the reintegration challenges facing returning prisoners. and Michael Stoll. Forthcoming. The New Jersey Department of Corrections maintains a number of occu- “Will Employers Hire Ex- Offenders? Employer Prefer- pational training and career development programs, in an attempt to prepare ences, Background Checks and inmates to overcome the barriers to employment that they will face upon Their Determinants.” In The release. These include pre-vocational and vocational programs, an apprentice Impact of Incarceration on Fam- ilies and Communities, edited program, work release, and a correctional industries program. by Mary Patillo, David Weiman Vocational assessment is available at all Department of Corrections facili- and Bruce Western. New York: ties but is not conducted on all inmates. Pre-vocational and vocational Russell Sage Foundation. programs are offered by OES in all facilities except the Adult Diagnostic and 73 New Jersey Department of Treatment Center for sex offenders. Programs are offered in 33 different trades, Corrections. 2000. State of New Jersey Department of but all trades are not offered in all facilities. Three programs offer industry-based Corrections Annual Report, skills certiﬁcates. These include the automotive trade shops at East Jersey State 2002. 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 industries 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 industries 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 programs 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

Chapter 3. How Are Prisoners Prepared for Release? 29 1991 analysis conducted by the Federal Bureau of Prisons compared more than 74 Saylor, William G., and Gerald 7,000 correctional industries and vocational program participants to similar G. Gaes. 1992. “The Post- Release Employment Project” inmates who did not participate in either of these programs. An examination of Federal Prisons Journal 2(4): outcomes over a two-year period found that those offenders who received train- 33–36. ing and work experience while in prison had fewer conduct problems and were 75 Mumola, Christopher J. 1999. less likely to be arrested the first year after release than those who did not. The “Substance Abuse and Treat- study also found that prison workers were 24 percent more likely to obtain a ment, State and Federal Prison- ers, 1997.” Bureau of Justice full-time or day labor job by the end of the first year after release. Over 10 per- Statistics Special Report. NCJ cent of the comparison group had been re-arrested or had their conditional 172871. Washington, D.C.: U.S. release revoked, compared with 6.6 percent of the program participants.74 Department of Justice. 76 New Jersey Department of Cor- rections. 2002. Annual Report. Substance Abuse Treatment 77 New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC), Division of The relationship between substance abuse and crime is well documented. Stud- Programs and Community Ser- ies have found that more than half of state prisoners across the nation reported vices, Office of Drug Programs. that they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time they commit- 2003. “Prevalence of Addiction of the New Jersey State In- ted the offense that led to their imprisonment. Furthermore, 74 percent of state mate.” Preliminary Report. Up- prisoners nationwide who expect to be released within the next dated April 29; UI analysis of 12 months reported a history of drug and/or alcohol abuse.75 The issues sur- NJ Department of Corrections data. The discrepancy between rounding substance abuse in New Jersey are similar to the rest of the nation. these two numbers may be a According to the New Jersey Department of Corrections 2002 annual report, result of incomplete data on 50 percent of inmates in the state correctional population have been incarcer- the release cohort. 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 counseling to address substance abuse problems for inmates. The first phase of this program is implemented while an offender is incarcerated. 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, residents 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 programs 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

30 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY 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 substance 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.

Chapter 3. How Are Prisoners Prepared for Release? 31

CHAPTER 4 How Are Prisoners Released in New Jersey?

he number and share of New Jersey prisoners being released without 78 Bureau of Justice Statistics parole supervision has increased in recent years. As seen in ﬁgure 19, in Sentenced Prisoners Released from State or Federal Jurisdic- T1990, the number of individuals released from New Jersey prisons tion (corpop22.wk1). Bureau of without supervision increased 450 percent from 1,173 in 1990 to 5,340 in 2001. Justice Statistics. National Accordingly, the share of prisoners that were released with supervision decreased Prisoner Statistics Data Series (NPS-1). Washington, D.C.: U.S. over this period. As can be seen in figure 20, 81.4 percent of releases were to Department of Justice. parole supervision in 1990. By 2001, this had dropped to 60.6 percent of releases. 79 These include individuals who In 2002, 9,544 prisoners, 64 percent of all releases, were released to some form of were “continued on parole.” supervision. The remaining 36 percent were released without supervision, meaning 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 supervision—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 considered 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

Chapter 4. How Are Prisoners Released in New Jersey? 33 80 Conversation with Melinda Figure 19. Number of Prison Releases, by Supervision, 1990-2001 Schlager, 21 August 2003. Data limitations do not allow us to 18,000 Other estimate how many of the 2002 16,000 With Supervision releasees were subject to this W/out Supervision law. 14,000 81 It is not clear why a large num- 12,000 ber of inmates who are not 10,000 parole violators would “max out” their prison sentence. Very 8,000 few offenders in New Jersey are ineligible for parole, and 6,000 those who are generally re- 4,000 ceive life sentences, and would therefore not be released. Rep- 2,000 resentatives of the Department 0 of Corrections contend that 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001 some inmates choose to remain in prison and serve out Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics Data Series (NPS-1). their term instead of being released to parole. There is no data to assess how significant Parole Board with respect to these offenders.80 The state does not keep data on this trend actually is. Many of the share of the parolee population that is subject to NERA, and we are there- the individuals had short terms, and may have earned enough fore unable to estimate the share of the release cohort that was released through diminution credits to “max out” discretionary means. before they became eligible for All of the inmates who were released without supervision were released parole. through mandatory means, primarily because they have completed their maximum 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 20. Percent of Prison Releases, by Supervision, 1977–1998

80 % with Supervision 70

40 % without Supervision 30

0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001

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

34 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY parole violation. Many of these individuals may have been ineligible for another 82 Individuals sentenced under parole term.82 NERA must complete their full maximum sentence when re- At the time of release from custody of the Department of Corrections, turned to prison for a parole about 3,100, or 21 percent of the inmates released, had been residing “in the violation and are wholly ineligi- community.” Most of these—about 2,650 individuals or 18 percent of the entire ble for another parole term. release population—were released from 1 of 23 halfway houses operated and 83 Before September of 2001, the contracted by the state. Just over 450 of those residing in the community had supervision of parolees was conducted by the Bureau of been on electronic monitoring or in home confinement prior to release. Almost Parole in the Department of three-quarters of the inmates who had been residing in the community were Corrections. The responsibili- supervised post-release, primarily by the Parole Board. ties were transferred to the State Parole Board by the legislature and the Governor at that time because it was believed POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION that the processes of paroling inmates and supervising pa- Parole Supervision rolees would be more efficient if both functions were con- The Division of Parole of the New Jersey State Parole Board supervises parolees ducted by one entity. P.L. 2001, in the state.83 As New Jersey’s prison population has grown over the past two c.79, and Sullivan, John. 2001. decades, so has the population under parole supervision in the state. As seen in “Merging of Prison System is Sought,” New York Times. Jan- figure 21, the parolee population increased from slightly more than 7,000 in uary 21. Section 14NJ; page 8; 1977 to nearly 12,000 in 2001. In June of 2003, there were 13,195 individuals on column 1. 84 the Division of Parole’s caseload. 84 This excludes 241 individuals The parolee population mirrors that of the incarcerated and released pop- who were classified as “de- ulation. The majority of parolees—57 percent—are African-American, and ported” and 8 individuals who had died, but still owed fines. 65 percent are between the ages of 21 and 40. Drug offenders made up about 85 44 percent of the population, and violent offenders made up 27 percent. This includes 300 individuals whose supervision level was Almost half (47 percent, or 6,320 individuals) were under regular super- “unspecified.” 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

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000 Parole ADP for 2001 = 12,400 25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000 Parolees who only owe fines 5,000 taken off active case status 0 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001

Source: BJS, Annual Parole Data Survey data series (CJ-7).

Chapter 4. How Are Prisoners Released in New Jersey? 35 the Parole Board considers Alternative Sanctions Programs. These programs are 86 The majority of these are for described below. The Parole Board had issued warrants for approximately technical violations. 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 addition, “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

Supervised Out-of-state Incarcerated Pending 6% Hearing 7%

Fines Only 9%

Regular Parole Supervision* Missing/Contact Lost 47% 12%

Alternative Sanctions/Residential 19%

Source: UI analysis of NJ State Parole Board Data; * Includes individuals for whom supervision status was unknown.

36 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY High Impact Diversion Program (HIDP): This program is designed for individuals 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 participated 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 violators, 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 education 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 treatment 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 program 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 opportunity 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

Chapter 4. How Are Prisoners Released in New Jersey? 37 and are returning to Essex and Camden counties. Programming includes job 87 Not to be confused with the training and placement, educational services, substance abuse treatment, men- Intensive Supervision/Surveil- lance Program (ISSP) run by the tal health treatment, restitution, housing assistance, mentoring, counseling, Parole Board. aftercare, crisis intervention, life skills training, supervision, and intensive case 88 All of the information pre- management. The planning and development of the program began in July of sented here regarding ISP is 2002, and implementation of this program began in January of 2003. All partic- available from the website of ipating offenders will be released between October 2003 and April 2004. The the Administrative Office of the Courts. Intensive Supervision grant expires in 2005. The Parole Board views this program as a pilot program. Program. PowerPoint Presenta- Currently, it is designed to supervise about 2 percent of the parole population. tion. 2002. Accessed from http://www.judiciary.state.nj. us/probsup/isp_overview/isp/f Probation Supervision rame.htm, August 28, 2003. 89 When recidivism is measured As previously stated, 9 percent of inmates who are supervised post-release are by conviction of a new indict- released to the supervision of the Division of Probation in the Administrative able offense. 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 incarceration. Since the program began in 1983 and September of 2002, approximately 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.

38 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY %% 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 commutation credits, otherwise known as “good time” credits. All inmates who are not subject to a mandatory minimum are awarded with a number of these credits 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 percent of 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 percent 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 sentence. In addition, they can earn “reduced custody credits,” which are earned by inmates in one of three reduced-security statuses (gang minimum custody, full-minimum custody, and community custody). For each month or part of a month spent in one of these statuses, inmates earn three days off 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 a period of parole ineligibility cannot reduce their period of ineligibility by earning sentence reduction credits. They can, however, earn time off their overall 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 4. How Are Prisoners Released in New Jersey? 39

CHAPTER 5 Where Are Prisoners Returning?

he community context of prisoner reentry can have an important influence on post-release success or failure. It stands to reason that ex- Tprisoners 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 geographic 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 compared 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 unemployment 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-

Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 41 third of Camden’s families lived in poverty in 1999. Over one-third of Newark’s 91 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. households and almost half of Camden’s were female-headed. Statewide, only Summary File 1 (SF-1). Profile of General Demographic Char- 91 20 percent were female-headed. acteristics: 2000; U.S. Census Bureau. State and County QuickFacts. 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 experience 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 challenges of concentrated prisoner reentry, they are increasingly looking for opportunities 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.

42 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY Criminal Justice 92 Rose, Dina, Todd Clear, and Judith Ryder. 2000. Drugs, Parolees account for 64 percent of the returning prisoner population in New Incarceration, and Neighbor- Jersey. As such, they represent a snapshot of the communities to which prison- hood Life: The Impact of ers return. In Essex County, parolees are concentrated in Newark, where they Reintegrating Offenders into the Community. Final Report. account for both the highest number (804) and highest per capita rate (294 per Washington, D.C.: National In- 100,000) among all other municipalities (map 9). But even within Newark, stitute of Justice, September. parolees reside in particular neighborhoods and not others. Some neighbor- 93 This estimate is most likely hoods within the Central and Southern Wards of Newark are home to more low. It does not include impris- than 10 parolees per 1,000 residents, while most neighborhoods in the North- onment costs for people sent to prison who did not have an ern and Eastern Wards have less than one parolee per 1,000 residents (map 10). identifiable address for the Likewise, a snapshot of probationers in Essex County illustrates that although county. Moreover, the cost there are many more probationers than parolees, they too concentrate at high estimates are based solely on average per diem costs of numbers and per capita rates in Newark (map 11), and within Newark in the incarceration and estimated same Southern and Central Wards (map 12). length of time prisoners will Ninety-ﬁve percent of people admitted to prison eventually return to their actually serve (calculated by communities. Essex County accounts for 16.3 percent of New Jersey’s prison George Washington Univer- sity’s Institute of Crime, Justice admissions with 54 percent of those coming from Newark alone (map 13). & Corrections), and do not Within Newark, the Central and Southern Wards account for 55.3 percent of include associated law en- prison admissions from the city (map 14). Some neighborhoods within those forcement, judicial, or other collateral costs. 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 neighborhoods 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 example, 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

Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 43 (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 increasingly 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, probationers reside in the same high-concentration neighborhoods as parolees (map 27).

44 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY 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 residents—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 dollars per year to imprison residents from the city of Camden (map 30). Within the city, prison expenditures for the Pyne Point and Whitman Park communities 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 custody 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.

Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 45 Map 1. Parolees per 1,000 Residents, New

Sussexssex Jersey Counties, 2002. Passaic

Bergen Warren Morris County Parolees per 1,000 Essex Essex 1550 2.0 Hudson Hudson Camden 1320 2.6 Union Hudson 1102 1.8 Union 977 1.9 Hunterdon Atlantic 740 2.9 Somerset Passaic 695 1.4 Monmouth 633 1.0 Middlesex Bergen 534 0.6 Middlesex 517 0.7

Mercer Mercer 468 1.3 Monmouth Ocean 368 0.7 Cape May 225 2.2 Somerset 189 0.6 Burlington 170 0.4 Cumberland 167 1.1 Morris 139 0.3 Gloucester 138 0.5 Ocean Burlington Ocean Warren 84 0.8 Salem 77 1.2 Camden Hunterdon 71 0.6

Gloucester Sussex 65 0.5

Salem

Atlantic

Cumberland Parolees per 1,000 Residents 2.3 - 2.9 1.6 - 2.2 Cape May 1.1 - 1.5 0.3 - 1.0

Map 2. Prison Admissions per

Sussexssex 1,000 Residents, Passaic New Jersey Counties,

Bergen 2001. Warren Morris County Admissions Admissions per 1,000 Essex Atlantic 1183 4.7 Hudson Bergen 573 0.6 Burlington 217 0.5 Union Camden 2053 4.0 Cape May 324 3.2 Hunterdon Hunterdon Cumberland 298 2.0 Somerset Essex 2396 3.0 Gloucester 151 0.6 Middlesex Hudson 1545 2.5 Hunterdon 44 0.4 Mercer 590 1.7 Mercer Middlesex 835 1.1 Monmouth Monmouth 929 1.5 Morris 195 0.4 Ocean 457 0.9 Passaic 1167 2.4 Salem 154 2.4 Somerset 190 0.6 Sussex 92 0.6 Burlington Ocean Union 1209 2.3 Warren 95 0.9

Camden

Gloucester

Salem

Atlantic

Cumberland Admissions per 1,000 Residents 3.3 - 4.7 2.1 - 3.2 Cape May 1.1 - 2.0 0.4 - 1.0

46 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY Map 3. Prison Releases per

Sussexssex 1,000 Residents, Passaic New Jersey Counties,

Bergen 2002. Warren Morris County Prison Releases per 1,000 Essex Essex 2,430 3.1 Hudson Camden 2,270 4.5 Union Hudson 1,522 2.5 Atlantic 1,235 4.9 Hunterdon Union 1,190 2.3

Somerset Passaic 1,114 2.3 Monmouth 903 1.5 Middlesex Middlesex7841.0 Bergen 625 0.7 Mercer 531 1.5 Mercer Monmouth Ocean 423 0.8 Cumberland 354 2.4 Cape May 346 3.4 Somerset 219 0.7 Burlington 200 0.5 Morris 175 0.4 Gloucester 167 0.7 Burlington Ocean Salem 140 2.2 Warren 124 1.2 Camden Sussex 92 0.6 Hunterdon 71 0.6 Gloucester

Salem

Atlantic

Cumberland Releases per 1,000 Residents 3.3 - 4.9 2.1 - 3.2 Cape May 1.1 - 2.0 0.4 - 1.0

Map 4. TANF Cases per 1,000 Residents,

Sussexssex New Jersey Counties, Passaic 2003.

Bergen Warren Morris County TANF Cases per 1,000 Essex Essex 11347 14.3 Hudson Hudson Hudson 5628 9.2 Union Camden 4183 8.2 Passaic 3074 6.3 Hunterdon Mercer 2212 6.3 Somerset Union 1987 3.8 Middlesex 1532 2.0 Middlesex Monmouth 1495 2.4 Cumberland 1335 9.1 Atlantic 1293 5.1 Mercer Monmouth Burlington 975 2.3 Bergen 814 0.9 Ocean 807 1.6 Gloucester 772 3.0 Somerset 677 2.3 Salem 340 5.3 Cape May 307 3.0 Burlington Ocean Warren 220 2.1 Morris 198 0.4 Camden Sussex 101 0.7 Hunterdon 39 0.3 Gloucester

Salem

Atlantic

Cumberland TANF Cases per 1,000 Residents 8.1 - 14.3 4.1 - 8.0 Cape May 2.1 - 4.0 0.3 - 2.0

Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 47 Map 5. Percent Black per Block-Group, Essex County, New FAIRFIELD Jersey, 2000.

CEDAR GROVE WEST CALDWELL

CALDWELL

VERONA

ROSELAND NUTLEY MONTCLAIR

BELLEVILLE

WEST ORANGE LIVINGSTON BLOOMFIELD

E AST ORANGE ORANGE ORANGE

SOUTH ORANGE

MILLBURN

MAPLEWOOD

IRVINGTONIRVINGTON

NEWARK Municipalities Percent Black 75.1 - 100.0 50.1 - 75.0 25.1 - 50.0 0.1 - 25.0

Map 6. Median Household Income per Block-Group, Essex FAIRFIELD County, New Jersey, 2000.

CEDAR GROVE WEST CALDWELL

CALDWELL

VERONA

ROSELAND NUTLEY MONTCLAIR

BELLEVILLE

WEST ORANGE LIVINGSTON BLOOMFIELD

E AST ORANGE ORANGE ORANGE

SOUTH ORANGE

MILLBURN

MAPLEWOOD

IRVINGTONIRVINGTON

NEWARK 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

48 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY Map 7. Percent Single Parent Households per Block-Group, Essex FAIRFIELD County, New Jersey, 2000.

CEDAR GROVE WEST CALDWELL

CALDWELL

VERONA

ROSELAND NUTLEY MONTCLAIR

BELLEVILLE

WEST ORANGE LIVINGSTON BLOOMFIELD

E AST ORANGE ORANGE ORANGE

SOUTH ORANGE

MILLBURN

MAPLEWOOD

IRVINGTONIRVINGTON

NEWARK Municipalities Percent Single Parent Households 30.1% - 50.0% 20.1% - 30.0% 10.1% - 20.0% 0.0% - 10.0%

Map 8. Percent in Poverty per Block- Group, Essex County, FAIRFIELD New Jersey, 2000.

CEDAR GROVE WEST CALDWELL

CALDWELL

VERONA

ROSELAND NUTLEY MONTCLAIR

BELLEVILLE

WEST ORANGE LIVINGSTON BLOOMFIELD

E AST ORANGE ORANGE ORANGE

SOUTH ORANGE

MILLBURN

MAPLEWOOD

IRVINGTONIRVINGTON

NEWARK Municipalities Percent In Poverty 30.01% - 79.57% 15.01% - 30.00% 5.01% - 15.00% 0.14% - 5.00%

Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 49 Map 9. Parolees per 1,000 Residents by Municipality Parolees per 1,000 FAIRFIELD NEWARK 804 2.9 Block-Group, Essex EAST ORANGE 201 2.9 IRVINGTON 100 1.7 County, New Jersey, CITY OF ORANGE 95 2.9 BLOOMFIELD 69 1.5 2002.

CEDAR GROVE MONTCLAIR 63 1.6 WEST CALDWELL WEST ORANGE 26 0.6 BELLEVILLE 25 0.7 CALDWELL NUTLEY 21 0.8 VERONA LIVINGSTON 19 0.7 CEDAR GROVE 18 1.5 ROSELAND NUTLEY MONTCLAIR SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE 16 0.9 VERONA 15 1.1 GLEN RIDGE 10 1.4 MAPLEWOOD 7 0.3 BELLEVILLE WEST CALDWELL 6 0.5 WEST ORANGE LIVINGSTON BLOOMFIELD ROSELAND 2 0.4 NORTH CALDWELL 1 0.1 CALDWELL 1 0.1 MILLBURN 1 0.1 EAST ORANGE ORANGE FAIRFIELD 0 0.0 ESSEX FELLS 0 0.0 SOUTH ORANGE

MILLBURN

MAPLEWOOD

IRVINGTONIRVINGTON Municipalities

NEWARK Parolees per 1,000 Residents 8.01 - 76.92 4.01 - 8.00 2.01 - 4.00 0.28 - 2.00

Map 10. Parolees per 1,000 Residents by Block-Group, Newark,

North Ward Parolees perer 1,000 Residents New Jersey, 2002. South 224 4.91 Central 219 5.76 West 188 2.73 North 108 1.59 East 65 0.97

West

Central

South Newark Wards East Parolees per 1,000 Residents 10.01 - 76.92 5.01 - 10.00 3.01 - 5.00 0.28 - 3.00 0

50 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY Map 11. Probationers

Municipalities Probationers per 1,000 Residents per 1,000 Residents by NEWARK 3,095 11.3 FAIRFIELD EAST ORANGE 1,034 14.8 Block-Group, Essex IRVINGTON 630 10.4 CITY OF ORANGE 478 14.5 MONTCLAIR 417 10.7 County, New Jersey, BLOOMFIELD 402 8.4 2003. CEDAR GROVE BELLEVILLE 246 6.8 WEST CALDWELL WEST ORANGE 221 4.9 NUTLEY 202 7.4 CALDWELL VERONA 151 11.2 CEDAR GROVE 111 9.0 VERONA VERONA LIVINGSTON 93 3.4 GLEN RIDGE 91 12.5 ROSELAND NUTLEY MONTCLAIR SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE 58 3.4 MAPLEWOOD 53 2.2 MILLBURN 30 1.5 WEST CALDWELL 30 2.7 BELLEVILLE CALDWELL 20 2.6 WEST ORANGE FAIRFIELD 19 2.7 LIVINGSTON BLOOMFIELD NORTH CALDWELL 9 1.2 ROSELAND 8 1.5 ESSEX FELLS 5 2.3 EAST ORANGE ORANGE

SOUTH ORANGE

MILLBURN

MAPLEWOOD MAPLEWOOD Municipalities IRVINGTON IRVINGTON Probationers per 1,000 Residents 20.1 - 76.9 NEWARK 10.1 - 20.0 5.1 - 10.0 0.6 - 5.0 0

Map 12. Probationers per 1,000 Residents by Block-Group, Newark, Ward Probationers per 1,000 Residents North New Jersey, 2003. South 808 17.7 Central 705 18.5 West 701 10.2 North 504 7.4 East 377 5.6

West

Central

South

East Newark Wards Probationers per 1,000 Residents 25.1 - 76.9 15.6 - 25.0 8.1 - 15.5 0.7 - 8.0 0

Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 51 Map 13. Prison

Municipality Prison Adm. per 1,000 Admissions per FAIRFIELD NEWARK 1,286 4. 7 1,000 Residents by EAST ORANGE 319 4. 6 IRVINGTON 197 3. 3 Block-Group, Essex CITY OF ORANGE 156 4. 8 MONTCLAIR 122 3. 1 County, New Jersey, CEDAR GROVE BLOOMFIELD 107 2. 2 WEST CALDWELL WEST ORANGE 53 1. 2 2001. NUTLEY 44 1. 6 CALDWELL VERONA 34 2. 5 VERONA LIVINGSTON 32 1. 2 GLEN RIDGE 28 3. 9 ROSELAND NUTLEY MONTCLAIR BELLEVILLE 28 0. 8 SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE 25 1.5 CEDAR GROVE 23 1. 9 MAPLEWOOD 12 0.5 BELLEVILLE WEST CALDWELL 7 0.6 WEWESTST ORANGE LIVINGSTON BLOOMFIELD MILLBURN 4 0. 2 FAIRFIELD 3 0.4 CALDWELL 2 0. 3 NORTH CALDWELL 1 0. 1 EAST ORANGE ORANGE ROSELAND 1 0.2 ESSEX FELLS 1 0.5 SOUTH ORANGE

MILLBURN MAPLEWOOD Municipalities IRVINGTONIRVINGTON Prisoners per 1,000 Residents 10.01 - 47.62 NEWARK 5.01 - 10.00 2.01 - 5.00 0.35 - 2.00 0

Map 14. Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents by Ward Prisoners per 1,000 Residents North Block-Group, Newark, Central 373 9.81 South 338 7.4 New Jersey, 2001. West 275 3.99 North 161 2.36 East 139 2.08

West

Central

South Newark Wards East Prisoners per 1,000 Residents 12.01 - 47.62 7.01 - 12.00 4.01 - 7.00 0.37 - 4.00 0

52 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY Map 15. Prison Expenditure by Block- FAIRFIELD Group, Essex County, New Jersey, 2001. Municipality Expenditure NEWARK $53,807,164 CEDAR GROVE WEST CALDWELL EAST ORANGE $12,995,392 IRVINGTON $7,615,504 CALDWELL CITY OF ORANGE $6,774,336 VERONA MONTCLAIR $4,591,540 BLOOMFIELD $4,127,256 ROSELAND NUTLEY MONTCLAIR WEST ORANGE $1,968,476 VERONA $1,638,256 NUTLEY $1,491,348 BELLEVILLE GLEN RIDGE$1,278,776 WEWESTST ORANGE LIVINGSTON BLOOMFIELD LIVINGSTON $1,165,156 CEDAR GROVE $1,078,896 BELLEVILLE $1,062,784

EAST SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE $882,816 ORANGE ORANGE *Only Municipalities with > $500,000 are included in this table SOUTH ORANGE

MILLBURN MAPLEWOOD Municipalities IRVINGTONIRVINGTON Prison Expenditure $750,000.01 - $1,626,324.00 NEWARK $400,000.01 - $750,000.00 $200,000.01 - $400,000.00 $26,904.00 - $200,000.00 0

Map 16. Prison Expenditure by Block- Group, Newark, New

North Ward Expenditure Jersey, 2001. Central $15,374,876 South $14,008,624 West $12,176,112 North $6,637,308 West East $5,610,244

Central

South

East 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

Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 53 Municipality Admissions Map 17. Juvenile NEWARK 130 EAST ORANGE 41 Justice Commission IRVINGTON 14 CITY OF ORANGE 13 Admissions to FAIRFIELD MONTCLAIR 8 VERONA 6 Custody, Essex BLOOMFIELD 6 County, New Jersey WEST ORANGE 6 NUTLEY 5 by Census Block- CEDAR GROVE GLEN RIDGE 5 WEST CALDWELL MAPLEWOOD 2 Group, 2001. CEDAR GROVE 2 CALDWELL BELLEVILLE 2

VERONAVERONA SOUTH ORANGE 1 FAIRFIELD 0

ROSELAND NUTLEY NORTH CALDWELL 0 MONTCLAIR MONTCLAIR WEST CALDWELL 0 CALDWELL 0 ROSELAND 0 ESSEX FELLS 0 BELLEVILLE LIVINGSTON 0 WEST ORANGE LIVINGSTON BLOOMFIELD MILLBURN 0

E AST ORANGE ORANGE

SOUTH ORANGE

MILLBURN

MAPLEWOOD

IRVINGTONIRVINGTON

NEWARK

Municipalities Number of Admissions 5 - 6 3 - 4 2 1

Municipality Expenditure Map 18. Juvenile NEWARK $8,262,702 EAST ORANGE $3,437,910 Justice Commission IRVINGTON $1,043,910 Expenditures for FAIRFIELD CITY OF ORANGE $928,620 MONTCLAIR $573,300 Custody, Essex VERONA $382,410 BLOOMFIELD $378,000 County, New Jersey NUTLEY $355,320 WEST ORANGE $286,650 by Census Block- CEDAR GROVE WEST CALDWELL GLEN RIDGE $229,320 Group, 2001. MAPLEWOOD $183,960 CEDAR GROVE $137,340 CALDWELL BELLEVILLE $126,000 VERONA SOUTH ORANGE $57,330 FAIRFIELD $0 ROSELAND NUTLEY MONTCLAIR NORTH CALDWELL $0 WEST CALDWELL $0 CALDWELL $0 ROSELAND $0 BELLEVILLE ESSEX FELLS $0 WEST ORANGE LIVINGSTON $0 LIVINGSTON BLOOMFIELD MILLBURN $0

E AST ORANGE ORANGE

SOUTH ORANGE

MILLBURN

MAPLEWOOD

IRVINGTONIRVINGTON

NEWARK

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

54 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY Map 19. TANF Cases per 1,000 Residents by FAIRFAIRFIELDFIELD Zip Code, Essex

Municipality TANF Cases per 1,000 County, New Jersey, NEWARK 7,703 28.2 2003. EAST ORANGE 1,533 22.0 CEDAR GROVE WEST CALDWELL IRVINGTON 1,160 19.1 CITY OF ORANGE 462 14.1 CALDWELL BELLEVILLE 111 3.1 VERONA MONTCLAIR 109 2.8 BLOOMFIELD 96 2.0 ROSELAND NUTLEY MONTCLAIR WEST ORANGE 63 1.4 MAPLEWOOD 32 1.3 NUTLEY 30 1.1 SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE 20 1.2 BELLEVILLE *Only Municipalities with at least 20 TANF Cases are included in the table WESTWEST ORANGE LIVINGSTON BLOOMFIELD

EAST ORANGE ORANGE

SOUTH ORANGE

MILLBURN

MAPLEWOOD MAPLEWOOD Municipalities IRVINGTON IRVINGTON TANF Cases per 1,000 Residents 29.9 - 46.0 NEWARK 8.2 - 29.8 3.3 - 8.1 0.2 - 3.2 0

Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 55 Map 20. Percent Black by Block-Group, PENNSAUKEN PENNSAUKEN Camden County, New Jersey, 2000. CAMDEN Municipalities Percent Black 60.1 - 95.4 30.1 - 60.0 CHERRY HILL 15.1 - 30.0 0.1 - 15.0 BELLMAWR

VOORHEES

GLOUCESTER

WATERFORD

WINSLOW

Map 21. Median Household Income by PENNSAUKEN PENNSAUKEN Block-Group, Camden County, New Jersey, CAMDEN Municipalities Median Household Income 2000. $75,000.01 - $156,911.00 $50,000.01 - $75,000.00

CHERRY HILL $25,000.01 - $50,000.00 $0.00 - $25,000.00

BELLMAWR

VOORHEES

GLOUCESTER

WATERFORD

WINSLOW

56 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY Map 22. Percent Single Parent PENNSAUKEN PENNSAUKEN Households by Block-Group, Camden CAMDEN Municipalities County, New Jersey, Percent Single Parent Households 2000. 25.1 - 55.5 15.1 - 25.0 CHERRY HILL 8.1 - 15.0 0.5 - 8.0 BELLMAWR

VOORHEES

GLOUCESTER

WATERFORD

WINSLOW

Map 23. Percent in Poverty by Block- PENNSAUKEN PENNSAUKEN Group, Camden Municipalities County, New Jersey, CAMDEN Percent in Poverty 2000. 20.1 - 78.8 10.1 - 20.0 5.1 - 10.0 CHERRY HILL 0.0 - 5.0

BELLMAWR

VOORHEES

GLOUCESTER

WATERFORD

WINSLOW

Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 57 Map 24. Parolees per Municipality Parolees per 1,000 Residents CAMDEN 1,144 14.3 1,000 Residents by PENNSAUKEN GLOUCESTER 109 1.4 PENNSAUKEN 93 2.6 Block-Group, Camden WINSLOW 59 1.7 CHERRY HILL 54 0.8 County, New Jersey, CAMDEN COLLINGSWOOD 25 1.7 LINDENWOLD 24 1.4 2002. LAWNSIDE 20 7.4 BERLIN 18 1.6 HADDON 18 1.2 RUNNEMEDE 18 2.1 PINE HILL 15 1.4 CLEMENTON 14 2.8 CHERRY HILL VOORHEES 14 0.5 WOODLYNNE 14 5.0 MOUNT EPHRAIM 12 2.7 BELLMAWR 11 1.0 BELLMAWR *Only Municipalities with at least 10 Parolees are included in this table

VOORHEES

GLOUCESTER

WATERFORD

Municipalities WINSLOW Parolees per 1,000 Residents 15.1 - 45.7 5.1 - 15.0 2.1 - 5.0 0.3 - 2.0

Map 25. Parolees per 1,000 Residents by Block-Group, Camden BiedemanBiedeman City, New Jersey, Cooper Poynt 2002.

Cramer Hill/Pavonia Rosedale

Pyne Point Cooper Grant Pyne Point Dudley

Central Business Stockton District Marlton Lanning Square Parolees per 1,000 Residents Gateway Central Waterfront 21.6 - 45.7

Bergen Square 15.1 - 21.5 Parkside 10.1 - 15.0

2.0 - 10.0

Liberty Park Waterfront South Whitman Park

Centerville Neighborhood Parolees per 1,000 Pyne Point 131 22.8 Whitman Park 104 16.2 Lanning Square 95 23.8 Morgan Village Marlton 93 18.4 Bergen Square 73 18.8 Cooper Poynt 71 24.7 Stockton 66 10.8 Dudley 62 16.6 Fairview Rosedale 58 11.7 Gateway 56 23.0 Parkside 55 11.5 Morgan Village 48 13.9 Cramer Hill/Pavonia 41 9.4 Liberty Park 38 16.0 Biedeman 37 6.5 Centerville 36 12.5 Fairview 36 6.1 Waterfront South 27 15.9 Central Waterfront 25 26.0 Central Business District 11 6.3 Cooper Grant 11 13.1

58 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY Map 26. Probationers Municipality Probationers per 1,000 CAMDEN 1,780 22.3 per 1,000 Residents by PENNSAUKEN GLOUCESTER 600 7.9 PENNSAUKEN 326 9.1 Block-Group, Camden CHERRY HILL 229 3.3 WINSLOW 217 6.3 CAMDEN County, New Jersey, LINDENWOLD 166 9.5 PINE HILL 112 10.3 2003. COLLINGSWOOD 104 7.3 BELLMAWR 95 8.4 RUNNEMEDE 85 10.0 WOODLYNNE7928.3 VOORHEES 76 2.7 CHERRY HILL HADDON 75 5.1 CLEMENTON 73 14.6 MOUNT EPHRAIM 69 15.4 BELLMAWR BERLIN 61 5.3 AUDUBON 58 6.3 VOORHEES WATERFORD 57 5.4 HADDON HEIGHTS 52 6.9 *Only Municipalities with at least 50 Probationers are included in this table

GLOUCESTER

WATERFORD

Municipalities Probationers per 1,000 Residents WINSLOW

20.1 - 42.1

10.1 - 20.0

5.1 - 10.0

0.5 - 5.0

Map 27. Probationers per 1,000 Residents by Block-Group, Camden BiedemanBiedeman City, New Jersey, Cooper Poynt 2001.

Cramer Hill/Pavonia Rosedale

Pyne Point Cooper Grant Pyne Point Dudley

Central Business Stockton District Marlton Lanning Square Gateway Central Probationers per 1,000 Residents Waterfront 30.1 - 42.1 Bergen Square

Parkside 25.1 - 30.0

20.1 - 25.0

8.4 - 20.0 Liberty Park Waterfront South Whitman Park

Centerville Neighborhoods Probationers per 1,000 Whitman Park 168 26.2 Marlton 143 28.3 Pyne Point 129 22.4 Morgan Village Bergen Square 121 31.2 Stockton 121 19.8 Lanning Square 116 29.1 Fairview 111 18.7 Parkside 101 21.1 Fairview Rosedale 94 19.0 Biedeman 87 15.3 Morgan Village 87 25.3 Gateway 83 34.0 Dudley 79 21.2 Cramer Hill/Pavonia 75 17.2 Centerville 67 23.3 Liberty Park 59 24.8 Cooper Poynt 57 19.8 Waterfront South 46 27.1 Central Waterfront 32 33.3 Central Business District 24 13.8 Cooper Grant 8 9.5

Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 59 Map 28. Prison Municipality Admissions per 1,000 Residents CAMDEN 1,225 15.3 Admissions per PENNSAUKEN GLOUCESTER 131 1.7 PENNSAUKEN 95 2.7 1,000 Residents by WINSLOW 56 1.6 CHERRY HILL 53 0.8 Block-Group, Camden CAMDEN WOODLYNNE 27 9.7 BELLMAWR 26 2.3 County, New Jersey, COLLINGSWOOD 25 1.7 RUNNEMEDE 25 2.9 HADDON 23 1.6 2001. LINDENWOLD 21 1.2 MOUNT EPHRAIM 21 4.7 CHERRY HILL VOORHEES 21 0.7 PINE HILL 17 1.6 *Only Municipalities with at least 15 admissions are included in this table

BELLMAWR

VOORHEES

GLOUCESTER

WATERFORD

Municipalities WINSLOW Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents 15.1 - 36.9 5.1 - 15.0 2.1 - 5.0 0.3 - 2.0

Map 29. Prison Admissions per

Biedeman 1,000 Residents by Block-Group, Camden Cooper Poynt City, New Jersey, Cramer Hill/Pavonia Rosedale 2001. Pyne Point Cooper Grant Pyne Point Dudley

Central Business Stockton District Marlton Lanning Square Gateway Central Prison Admissions per 1,000 Residents Waterfront 23.1 - 36.9 Bergen Square

Parkside 15.1 - 23.0

10.1 - 15.0

5.3 - 10.0 Liberty Park Waterfront South Whitman Park

Centerville Neighborhood Admissions per 1,000 Pyne Point 131 22.8 Whitman Park 125 19.5 Lanning Square 90 22.6 Morgan Village Marlton 84 16.6 Dudley 81 21.7 Bergen Square 72 18.6 Parkside 69 14.4 Rosedale 62 12.5 Fairview Stockton 61 10.0 Fairview 61 10.3 Biedeman 52 9.2 Gateway 51 20.9 Morgan Village 51 14.8 Cooper Poynt 48 16.7 Cramer Hill/Pavonia 47 10.8 Centerville 46 16.0 Waterfront South 41 24.1 Liberty Park 35 14.7 Central Waterfront 17 17.7 Central Business District 12 6.9 Cooper Grant 8 9.5

60 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY Map 30. Prison Expenditure by PENNSAUKEN Municipality Expenditure CAMDEN $53,083,188 Block-Group, Camden GLOUCESTER $5,150,064 County, New Jersey, CAMDEN PENNSAUKEN $4,113,804 WINSLOW$2,689,944 2001. CHERRY HILL $1,780,680 WOODLYNNE $1,191,984 COLLINGSWOOD $1,044,924 RUNNEMEDE $973,788 CHERRY HILL HADDON $948,936 LINDENWOLD $882,360 BELLMAWR $833,796

BELLMAWR VOORHEES $797,772 PINE HILL $789,108 VOORHEES MOUNT EPHRAIM $776,340 MERCHANTVILLE $696,540 AUDUBON $526,680 LAWNSIDE $508,668 *Only Municipalities with > $500,000 are included in this table

GLOUCESTER

WATERFORD

Municipalities WINSLOW 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

Map 31. Prison Expenditure by Block-Group, Camden BiedemanBiedeman City, New Jersey, Cooper Poynt 2001.

Cramer Hill/Pavonia Rosedale

Pyne Point Cooper Grant Pyne Point Dudley

Central Business Stockton District Marlton Lanning Square Gateway Central Waterfront Prison Expenditure

Bergen Square $1,000,000.01 - $1,974,252.00 Parkside $750,000.01 - $1,000,000.00

$500,000.01 - $750,000.00

Liberty Park $132,012.00 - $500,000.00 Waterfront South Whitman Park

Centerville Neighborhood Prison Expenditure Pyne Point $5,495,256 Whitman Park $5,044,728 Lanning Square $3,918,636 Morgan Village Marlton $3,731,676 Dudley $3,600,348 Parkside $3,246,036 Bergen Square $3,243,528 Rosedale $2,652,552 Fairview Stockton $2,583,012 Fairview $2,453,964 Gateway $2,406,996 Biedeman $2,405,172 Morgan Village $2,230,068 Cramer Hill/Pavonia $2,092,356 Cooper Poynt $1,981,548 Centerville $1,932,528 Waterfront South $1,865,724 Liberty Park $1,526,688 Central Waterfront $761,520 Central Business District $543,096 Cooper Grant $279,528

Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 61 Map 32. Juvenile

PENNSAUKEN Justice Commission Admissions to

CAMDEN Custody, Camden County, New Jersey by Census Block- Municipalities

CHERRY HILL Number of Admissions Group, 2001. 9 - 14 5 - 8 BELLMAWR 3 - 4 VOORHEES 1 - 2

GLOUCESTER

Municipality Admissions CAMDEN 287 GLOUCESTER 31 WATERFORD CHERRY HILL 14 PENNSAUKEN 13 WINSLOW 12 GLOUCESTER 8 COLLINGSWOOD 7 PINE HILL 5 WINSLOW VOORHEES 5 LINDENWOLD 5 WOODLYNNE 5 MOUNT EPHRAIM 4 RUNNEMEDE 4 AUDUBON 3 LAWNSIDE 2 BARRINGTON 2 HADDON 2 BELLMAWR 2 STRATFORD 2 BERLIN 2 CLEMENTON 2 HADDON HEIGHTS 1 OAKLYN 1 BERLIN 1 SOMERDALE 1 WATERFORD 1 HI-NELLA 1 GIBBSBORO 1

*Only Municipalities with an admission count greater than zero are included in this table.

Map 33. Juvenile

PENNSAUKEN Justice Commission Expenditures for

CAMDEN Custody, Camden County, New Jersey by Census Block-

CHERRY HILL Municipalities Group. Expenditure $500,000.01 - $1,182,510.00 BELLMAWR $250,000.01 - $500,000.00 VOORHEES $100,000.01 - $250,000.00 $11,340.00 - $100,000.00

GLOUCESTER

Municipality Expenditure CAMDEN $23,526,216 WATERFORD GLOUCESTER $2,387,700 CHERRY HILL $1,098,090 PENNSAUKEN $803,880 WINSLOW $941,850 GLOUCESTER $455,490 COLLINGSWOOD $516,600 WINSLOW PINE HILL $459,900 VOORHEES $367,920 LINDENWOLD $367,290 WOODLYNNE $344,610 MOUNT EPHRAIM $298,620 RUNNEMEDE $217,980 AUDUBON $298,620 LAWNSIDE $321,930 BARRINGTON $183,960 HADDON $114,660 BELLMAWR $91,980 STRATFORD $91,980 BERLIN $68,670 CLEMENTON $45,360 HADDON HEIGHTS $183,960 OAKLYN $91,980 BERLIN $91,980 SOMERDALE $45,990 WATERFORD $34,020 HI-NELLA $22,680 GIBBSBORO $11,340 *Only Municipalities with an expenditure greater than zero are included in this table.

62 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY Map 34. TANF Cases Municipality TANF Cases per 1,000 per 1,000 Residents by PENNSAUKEN CAMDEN 2766 34.6 LINDENWOLD 288 16.5 Zip Codes, Camden WINSLOW 238 6.9 PENNSAUKEN 199 5.6 CAMDEN County, New Jersey, COLLINGSWOOD 104 7.3 CHERRY HILL 99 1.4 2003. GLOUCESTER 98 8.5 MERCHANTVILLE 90 23.7 WATERFORD 55 5.2 LAWNSIDE 37 13.7 CHERRY HILL GLOUCESTER 33 0.5 BELLMAWR 26 2.3 MAGNOLIA 22 5.0 BELLMAWR VOORHEES 20 0.7

*Only Municipalities with at least 20 TANF Cases are included in the table VOORHEES

GLOUCESTER

WATERFORD

Municipalities WINSLOW TANF Cases per 1,000 Residents

20.1 - 36.9

10.1 - 20.0

2.3 - 10.0

0.0 - 2.2

Chapter 5. Where Are Prisoners Returning? 63 64 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY CHAPTER 6 Summary

his report highlights the many challenges and opportunities prisoner reentry poses for the state of New Jersey and for the individuals released Tfrom New Jersey’s prisons. As the size of the New Jersey prison population 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 implications 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 reentering 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 population 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 sixfold, 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.

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 diagnosed 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 successfully 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 supervision, 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 government 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 opportunities 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

66 A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY 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 participation 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