Parole

Parole is defined as a period of conditional supervision within the community following release from a prison term. This is in contrast to probation, which also includes conditional supervision within the community but typically serves as an alternative to incarceration. In other words, parole involves community supervision after serving a prison sentence, whereas probation involves community supervision as the sentence instead of prison. In the majority of jurisdictions within the United States, parole supervision agencies are housed within state correctional departments while in others they are separate, independent entities. There are two general forms of inmate release to parole: discretionary parole release by a parole board or mandatory parole release.

All offenders are provided with certain provisions that they must follow while on parole supervision. If an offender violates these conditions, then parole may be revoked and the offender may be sent back to a correctional institution to serve the remainder of the sentence. Parole revocations are not uncommon, and most revocations occur shortly after an offender’s release from prison. There are many issues faced by parolees when reintegrating into society, which contribute to the high rate of returns to prison, including disconnection from family and friends, substance abuse, homelessness, and unemployment. Research exploring the effectiveness of parole supervision in reducing recidivism is mixed.

Current Parole Estimates

The majority of parole supervision agencies in the United States are located within state correctional departments. Thirty-eight states have a joined probation/parole/corrections agency. Many jurisdictions supervise both probation and parole populations within one agency, while 17 states do not. Five states—California, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New York—supervise nearly half of the nation’s parole population.

In 2014, there were more than 4.7 million adults under community supervision in the United States, and 18% of this population (or nearly 857,000 persons) were on parole supervision. Although community supervision rates overall have declined in recent years, the adult parole population increased by 3.7% from 2007 to 2014. In addition, the average amount of time offenders remain on parole supervision increased from nearly 18 months in 2010 to approximately 23 months in 2014.

The majority of parolees under community supervision are male (88%). Recent estimates from the Bureau of Justice Statistics show that 43% of parolees are White, 39% are Black, and 16% are Hispanic. Approximately 56% are on parole supervision for a felony offense; the most common types of offenses committed by offenders placed on parole include property and drug offenses.

Parole Release

Discretionary Parole Release

In some states, parole is granted on a discretionary basis by a parole board. A parole board is a group of individuals (usually appointed) who review inmate cases to determine whether an offender has been sufficiently rehabilitated while incarcerated and will successfully reintegrate into the community upon release. In states where discretionary parole is practiced, parole boards have four primary functions: to place inmates on parole, to supervise parolees in the community, to discharge parolees from parole, and to determine whether parole should be revoked if the parolee has violated the conditions of parole.

Depending on the jurisdiction, parole is granted at a parole hearing or a series of parole considerations. During this process, the board reviews the inmate’s information and may meet face-to-face with the offender. This provides inmates who are being considered for parole with an opportunity to present their side of the offense and explain why they believe that discharge on parole supervision is deserved. The offender’s accomplishments while incarcerated are discussed, and the inmate’s plans for housing and employment after release are reviewed. Victims’ statements may also be reviewed by the parole board. The main goal of the parole hearing is to determine any problems that an offender has had in the past and those issues that he or she may face in the future once released. Thus, the board takes into consideration both the needs of the offender and any potential public safety concerns when making a parole decision. Parole is granted to the offender if the board believes that the parolee will successfully reintegrate within the community after release and does not pose a threat to the community at large. This parole board also mandates the parole requirements an offender must obey while on community supervision; these provisions are provided to the offender upon release from the correctional institution. If an inmate is denied parole supervision, he or she may be eligible for another trial hearing at a later date.

In the 1970s, discretionary parole release was the most common form of parole release. At that time, inmates typically served open-ended, indeterminate sentences, and state parole boards were able to exercise complete discretion in the release of inmates. Inmates were released to parole supervision if they could adequately demonstrate that they were rehabilitated and had employment or family available to them within the community upon release. However, the release of inmates to parole supervision utilizing parole board discretionary release eventually changed when research indicated that indeterminate sentencing was quite discretionary. These studies indicated that disparities in sentencing were present when the characteristics of the offense and the offender (e.g., offender race, socioeconomic status, and place of conviction) were taken into account. Many states moved to determinate sentencing practices as a result.

Mandatory Parole Release

Another form of parole discharge is mandatory parole release. For many categories of offenses, the amount of time that must be served is legislatively mandated or predetermined at sentencing and often reflects a percentage of the full sentence (e.g., 85% or 2/3 of the full term). Inmates eligible for mandatory parole release are released at the expiration of the specified time frame, regardless of reintegration readiness or the presence of a suitable release plan, provided that the inmate had no infractions while incarcerated. Inmates may also be released to parole supervision when their amount of time served, minus any good time credit, equals the length of their sentence. Offenders released on mandatory parole release must follow parole supervision guidelines as set by a parole board. For some offenses, parole supervision does not have a specified expiration date. For example, many jurisdictions in the United States mandate that persons convicted of certain sex crimes are placed on lifetime parole supervision.

Parole Requirements

Regular Parole Supervision

Inmates discharged from a correctional facility to parole supervision are mandated to meet with their parole officer shortly after release, typically within a 24-hour period. Parolees must adhere to the provisions outlined by the parole board or risk having their parole revocated and be returned to prison. Conditions of parole may include the payment of restitution, face-to-face office visits with a parole officer, visits to the parolee’s approved residence by the parole officer, telephone contacts, employment verification and monitoring, and drug or alcohol testing. It is not uncommon for a parole officer to have a caseload of more than 70 parolees at any given time, but the average caseload within jurisdictions nationally is 38. Nearly two thirds of parolees have faceto-face contact with their parole officers at least once per month.

Intensive Supervision Parole

In some jurisdictions, parolees who are in need of increased surveillance while in the community are placed on intensive supervision parole (ISP). ISP caseloads are smaller than regular caseloads for a parole officer. Parolees on ISP are required to meet with a parole officer more frequently than parolees on regular supervision while also adhering to increased provisions for home visits and drug or alcohol testing. Parolees on ISP may also be placed on electronic monitoring using electronic ankle transmitters and home-based receivers. Few jurisdictions utilize GPS devices. Like other ankle transmitters, the GPS devices are bracelet transmitters that are affixed to a parolee’s ankle. The transmitter communicates with satellites and downloads the parolee’s location coordinates into a communication center. Electronic monitoring is used to enforce parolee curfews, to determine whether parolees are entering prohibited or restricted areas, and to assess parolee day-to-day movements generally. Parole officers may receive an alert when a parolee is within a prohibited location at a specified time and can initiate contact with the parolee. Electronic monitoring may be statutorily mandated upon release from a correctional facility and has been utilized for sex offenders, parolees with mental illness, and parolees prone to curfew or absconding violations, among others.

Parole Programming

Parolees face a number of issues upon their release from prison. Research indicates that parolees experience a higher prevalence of substance abuse than the general population and have higher rates of mental illness. Parolees are often less educated and less employable. The majority of inmates leave prison with no savings, no entitlement to unemployment benefits, and no job prospects. One year after release, nearly 60% are not employed in the labor market. Furthermore, many parolees end up homeless and have limited options for housing because they are not welcome in public housing complexes once convicted of a crime.

To combat these issues and to aid parolees in their reintegration into society, many offenders are instructed to attend one or more forms of parole programming. Nearly all jurisdictions provide parolees with some form of drug programming, such as Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous groups. Many agencies also place parolees into mental health treatment programs if necessary. To prevent homelessness and unemployment, parole authorities often work with other state agencies to assist parolees with finding suitable housing arrangements and legitimate employment. Community resource centers have recently become popular in the United States. These one-stop shops provide parolees with daily rehabilitative programming and supervision while they remain living within the community. Offenders assigned to such programs report to the centers during the day and return home at night when programming is complete. Treatment and programming provided by such centers may include educational or vocational training, job placement services, drug abuse education and/or treatment, and life skills training. Parolees may be mandated to attend such centers as a condition of parole upon release or as a halfway back sanction for parole violators.

Parole Revocation and Returns to Prison

If a parole staff believes that a parolee has violated one or more of the conditions of his or her parole, community supervision may be revoked, and the offender may be returned to prison to serve the remainder of his or her sentence. Parolees suspected of a technical violation are arrested and held until a parole revocation hearing is scheduled. At the hearing, the evidence of a parole infraction is reviewed by parole administrators or parole board members. If determined that there is probable cause to suspect a violation has occurred, the parolee is returned to prison. In some instances, parolees found guilty of a technical violation are returned to parole supervision and provided with a modification of conditions. If probable cause is not found at the hearing, the parolee is returned to parole supervision. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rate at which parolees were reincarcerated as a result of revocation was 5.2% in 2014. Parolees may also be returned to prison if they have committed a new offense. If convicted of a new crime, parole is automatically revoked without the need for a parole revocation hearing.

Parole Discharge

If an offender does not violate the terms of his or her parole, the parolee is discharged at the expiration of the sentence. In some states, it is acceptable for an offender to continue paying restitution and any monies owed after parole discharge. The U.S. exit rate due to successful completion of supervision was 33 exits per 100 parolees in 2014.

Parole Effectiveness in Reducing Recidivism

More than 60% of parolees return to prison within 3 years of release, either for a parole technical violation, a new offense, or both. The majority of these returns to prison occur within the first 6 months after release. Research indicates that those persons who are most likely to return to prison are those who maintain criminal peer associations, carry weapons, abuse alcohol, and harbor aggressive feelings. Parolees who are employed, have stable living arrangements, and are receiving a drug/alcohol intervention are most likely to succeed on parole. Research exploring the effect of ISP specifically in reducing returns to prison is mixed. Some studies indicate that ISP can reduce recidivism upon prison release and are cost-effective alternatives to incarceration. Other studies have found that parolees sentenced to ISP do not fare any better in the community than parolees on regular supervision and that ISP parolees have higher revocations rates, likely due to the increased level of supervision.

References:

  1. Bonczar, T. P. (2008). Characteristics of state parole supervising agencies, 2006. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.
  2. Kaeble, D., Maruschak, L. M., & Bonczar, T. P. (2015). Probation and parole in the United States, 2014. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.
  3. Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
  4. Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. Crime and Justice, 17, 281–335. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1086/4492153
Scroll to Top