Post-release supervision is a relatively recent component of the criminal justice system in Massachusetts. The notion that prisoners need gradual reintegration into their communities if they are to avoid re-offending is gaining support among criminal justice and law enforcement professionals.

Members of the general public tend to forget that people who are arrested and incarcerated eventually return to their neighborhoods - our neighborhoods. According to a report published by MassINC, 97 percent of all Massachusetts inmates are eventually released (Piehl, 2002). Monthly releases from Massachusetts penal institutions averaged 1,800 over the last five years.

Post-release supervision differs from traditional parole in that it represents a step-down approach to release from incarceration as opposed to an early conditional release. Over the last decade, Massachusetts has seen increasing numbers of prisoners who opt to serve their full sentences rather than submit to the restrictions and threat of re-incarceration that comes with parole. Upon completion of their sentences, prisoners are currently free to go with no restrictions. According to a policy brief published by Community Resources for Justice, males paroled from state facilities has gone from 65 percent in 1990 to 36 percent in 1999. On the other hand, males released directly from state facilities to the street with no restrictions and no supervision tripled during the same period.

Recidivism rates measure higher for parolees than for those prisoners released without supervision. The Massachusetts Department of Correction reports that 45 percent of state prisoners released in 1996 were re-incarcerated within three years of release. The percentage of parolees who offend again (55 percent) is higher than the percentage for prisoners released to the street (38 percent).

This is not necessarily the result of better behavior on the part of those not paroled, but more likely due to the lack of supervision. In other words, it's only a crime if you get caught and parolees are more likely to be caught. This is also among the reasons cited for prisoners opting not to seek parole in the first place, preferring to serve out their sentences and be free of the system altogether.

Post-release supervision can help address several issues unique to newly released prisoners. They have no network of people to help them reintegrate into society, they have no legal means of financial support, and a simple CORI check reveals their past misdeeds. Affordable housing, employment, basic health and substance abuse services, and often family and friends are scarcely within reach. Post-release supervision professionals can help that person find temporary shelter and maintain a relationship with him or her as they work to find suitable housing, a job, and other support services, including local AA meetings, basic health care services, and educational or job training opportunities. Good programming as a prisoner nears the end of a sentence can prove invaluable to success upon release. Because prisoners are not required to acquire a diploma or participate in any programming while inside, they often find themselves unable to meet even the most basic requirements of society. Requiring them to participate in programming at the end of their sentences under the threat of returning to incarceration is a powerful incentive to make an effort to succeed.

Punishment and rehabilitation cost money. The Department of Correction estimates that it costs approximately $36,131 per year to house an inmate. However, that figure does not account for the family of an inmate who may have to turn to public assistance to get by during the incarceration. It does not account for the absence of tax revenue a gainfully employed citizen would contribute. It does not account for legal services provided by the state for a defendant who is indigent.

Implementing mandatory post-release supervision would be less expensive overall, but would introduce new costs to the criminal justice system. Bureaucracies that currently exist for the purpose of supervising criminals would need major expansion. The Parole Board and the Department of Probation, along with the Office of Community Corrections and the Department of Correction would have to find ways to avoid duplication of effort and would need to redefine their jurisdictions and responsibilities.

Most reasonable people agree that post-release supervision is a necessary component in corrections and that without it the rate at which criminals re-offend will remain high. Recidivism is expensive, causing the expenditure of police resources, court resources, and corrections resources each time the person re-offends.

That lack of a formula makes it very tough to help such a common sense idea pass political muster. Everyone is in favor of the idea, but the devil is in the details. How do you budget for this since most every prisoner in the state will be involved in the program? We know it requires the considerable expansion of the bureaucracies that handle parole and community corrections, but the expansion of support programs like GED classes, parenting classes, and providing access to other basic services like health care are essential as well.

There is at least one major legal hurdle. A prisoner who has served the statutory maximum sentence has paid his debt to society and is free to go. That means judges would have to adjust their sentences to allow time for supervision to be built in at the end of the time served.

Last, but hardly least, the law would have to be changed. There are several sentencing guidelines bills pending in the Massachusetts Legislature, each of them including provisions for mandatory post-release supervision. However, politics and the economy present obstacles to passage of meaningful reform in the near future. Common sense would dictate that there are public safety benefits to be realized should the Commonwealth implement mandatory post-release supervision for prisoners given any substantial sentence, such as a year or more. Still, it is extremely difficult to calculate what doesn't happen (crime), and if you manage to do that, to what do you attribute the absence of activity?

Without hard data to support or refute the effectiveness of a proposal, it is extremely difficult to accomplish such major reform. Because the concept of supervision following release from prison is relatively new outside the realm of parole, the information is hard to come by. Data is developing, though, through Community Corrections Centers and other programs that offer intermediate sanctions to nonviolent offenders as well as supervision of probationers and servicing of parolees.

Success of such a reform, assuming legislation is passed to introduce it, depends heavily upon the human services industry and adequate resources in the areas of education and health care, as well as job placement and housing. Since almost every single person who is incarcerated in Massachusetts eventually returns to the community, 1,800 per month on average, public safety depends upon an effective reintegration process for inmates.

Dianne Morad Mulvey's column appears monthly in the Reporter