By Kevin R. Reitz and Edward F. Rhine

Decisions tied to parole release, supervision, and revocation are major determinants of the ebb and flow of prison populations across two-thirds of US states. We argue that parole release, as an institution, has been an underacknowledged force in American incarceration and reincarceration policy and an important contributor to the nation's buildup to mass incarceration. In paroling states, no court or state agency holds greater power than parole boards over time actually served by the majority of offenders sent to prison. We examine the leverage exercised by parole boards through their discretionary release decisions and their powers to sanction violators of parole conditions. We note the state-by-state diversity and complexity associated with parole-release decisions and the absence of successful state systems that might serve as a model for other jurisdictions. We highlight the procedural shortfalls universally associated with parole decision-making. We discuss the long reach of parole supervision and the pains it imposes on those subject to its jurisdiction, including the substantial financial burdens levied on parolees. We then turn to the prospects for parole reform and outline a comprehensive blueprint for improving parole release in America.

Annual Review of CriminologyVol. 3:281-29, 2020.

By Edward E. Rhine, Kelly Lyn Mitchell, and Kevin R. Reitz

Paroling authorities play an important, if often unrecognized role, in American prison policies. Discretionary parole processes decide the actual release dates for most individuals subject to confinement in 34 states. Additional leverage over time served is exercised through parole boards’ revocation and re-release authority. The degree of discretion these back-end officials exert over the dosage of incarceration is vast, sometimes more than that held by sentencing courts.

Any comprehensive program to change American prison policy must focus to a significant degree on prison-release discretion, where it exists, and its relationship to time served. During the buildup to mass incarceration, many parole boards became increasingly reluctant to grant release to eligible prisoners. Today, if it were possible to reverse this upward driver of prison populations, parole boards could be important contributors to a new evidence-based status quo of lower prison rates in many states. Reasonable objectives of reform include policy-driven increases in the likelihood of parole release, and more rational decision making overall about time served.

This report describes twelve “levers of change,” each associated with potential reforms in the realm of discretionary parole release. The reforms are called “change levers” because, once a lever is pulled, it is designed to impact prison populations by altering parole grant rates and durations of time served. The report identifies 12 areas of innovation that, to some degree, have already been tried by a number of states. In most cases, from a distance, it is impossible to evaluate the quality of each state’s implementation of one or more change levers, or the results that have been achieved. But the fact that states have begun to experiment in specific areas shows that there is an appetite for reform. In addition, actual experimentation indicates that some of the groundwork has been laid for evaluation, improvement, and dissemination of promising ideas to many additional states.

Some levers have become embedded in the decision protocols of parole boards over the past 20 years and more, while others have emerged only recently. One of the goals of this report is to demonstrate how combining the levers is key to reform. This report maps the terrain of the 12 identified change levers, to the degree permitted by available information. The map shows a huge amount of state-by-state variation, even without hands-on study of each system. The report further classifies individual levers based on the number of jurisdictions in which they have been identified, and their potential impact on states’ prison populations.

St. Paul, MN: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2022. 36p.

By Kevin R. Reitz and Edward F. Rhine

Decisions tied to parole release, supervision, and revocation are major determinants of the ebb and flow of prison populations across two-thirds of US states. We argue that parole release, as an institution, has been an underacknowledged force in American incarceration and reincarceration policy and an important contributor to the nation's buildup to mass incarceration. In paroling states, no court or state agency holds greater power than parole boards over time actually served by the majority of offenders sent to prison. We examine the leverage exercised by parole boards through their discretionary release decisions and their powers to sanction violators of parole conditions. We note the state-by-state diversity and complexity associated with parole-release decisions and the absence of successful state systems that might serve as a model for other jurisdictions. We highlight the procedural shortfalls universally associated with parole decision-making. We discuss the long reach of parole supervision and the pains it imposes on those subject to its jurisdiction, including the substantial financial burdens levied on parolees. We then turn to the prospects for parole reform and outline a comprehensive blueprint for improving parole release in America.

Annual Review of CriminologyVol. 3:281-29, 2020.

By Helen Taylor and Lorana Bartels

This project scoped whether application software for a mobile or similar device (an app) that supports Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on bail or parole is regarded as appropriate, useful and beneficial within the ACT Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander communities involved with the justice system. To do this, the scoping project sought the views and advice of participants in the Galambany Circle Sentencing Court (Galambany) (i.e. the potential end-users of such an app), as well as the views of key stakeholders across several organisations that engage with Galambany and the justice system more generally, to determine whether to recommend to the ACT Government that such an app be developed. The aims of this research project were to: • ascertain whether an app that supports people on bail or parole is a priority for, and is of value to, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander communities in the ACT that engage with Galambany; and • if so, gain input from Galambany participants (the potential end-users) and Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander and other professional stakeholders, who work in the ACT criminal justice system, on what app features would be useful in supporting compliance with bail and parole conditions, to inform the potential development of an app. The first section examines criminal justice data on the issues of bail, remand, parole and Indigenous incarceration. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), indicate that, in the March 2022 quarter, 40% of Indigenous adults in custody at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC) were unsentenced. In addition, 27% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in prison in the ACT on 30 June 2021 had a justice procedure offence, which includes breach of bail or parole, as their most serious offence; this was much higher than for non-Indigenous prisoners in the ACT (23%) or both cohorts nationally (10% and 7% respectively) (ABS, 2021a). This highlights the need for measures that help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people comply with their bail, parole and other justice orders, in order to reduce Indigenous incarceration. The second section examines the increasing availability and use of mobile technology for behaviour change. Such technological advances have created opportunities within the justice context and the past decade has seen the development and use of mobile technology in the criminal justice system. This section outlines the theoretical framework in which the research is situated, which draws on behavioural economics, especially nudge theory. The behavioural economics literature in general, and that on nudges in particular, is relevant for the design of criminal justice apps, as it provides a number of (non-coercive) influences on behaviour and thinking that can be used to improve justice outcomes. The third section outlines the methodology and ethics approval process undertaken for this research. The project adopted a mixed-methods approach, involving the use of semi- structured interviews, focus groups and analyses of secondary source material. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with two different stakeholder groups: professional stakeholders (Group 1) and Galambany clients, as people with lived experience of bail and/or parole (Group 2). In the fourth section, we thematically analyse responses from the semi-structured interviews and focus groups with Group 1 and Group 2 participants. Participants highlighted a range of challenges that make complying with bail and parole conditions harder, including the lack of stable housing, access to transport and other practical issues related to reporting requirements, trouble keeping track of appointments and a lack of structure in their daily lives. Participants also identified what they would consider to be the most useful features of a mobile app designed to help them comply with bail and/or parole conditions. These included an appointment reminder function, a list of useful information and contacts, and reminders of trigger times (those times during the day or week in which a person is particularly vulnerable). Nearly all of the people we spoke to (34 out of 35; 97%), supported the idea of an app to help people comply with their bail and/or parole conditions. However, a number of concerns were raised by participants, in particular how the data from an app would or could be used and whether the app would be able to track a person’s whereabouts. These concerns were raised by both Group 1 and Group 2 participants. The report concludes with the recommendation that a mobile app to help support people on bail and/or parole be developed and piloted, but that serious consideration regarding security and privacy concerns needs to be taken into account, in the development of any such app. The proposed app should be developed solely for the purpose of helping to support users’ success and should not be used as a compliance tool. It is further recommended that the app be trialled among a small cohort in the first instance, followed by an rigorous independent evaluation, to inform whether it is working as intended and is of utility to people on bail or parole.

Canberra: ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods, 2022. 53p.

By Rosemary Ricciardelli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0905-8968 rricciardell@mun.ca, Micheal Taylor https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4959-2572, […], and Dale C. Spencer

Internationally, parole work is loaded with tensions, particularly when supervising a people convicted of sex crimes (PCSCs) who, due to their criminal history, are stigmatized and occupy the lowest rungs of the status hierarchy in prison and society more broadly. Drawing on analyses of interview data from federal parole officers (n = 150) employed by Correctional Service Canada, we interpret their perceptions and feelings about overseeing re-entry preparations and processes for the PCSCs on their caseloads. We unpack the “tensions” imbued in parole officers’ internal reflections and negotiation of complexities in their efforts toward supporting client’s rehabilitation efforts, desistance from crime while negotiating external factors (e.g., the lack of available programming), and being responsible for supervising PCSCs. We highlight facets of occupational stress parole officers experience, finding PCSCs may be more compliant when under supervision but may also require more of a parole officer’s resources, including time and energy. We put forth recommendations for greater empirical nuance concerning parole officer work and their occupational experiences and beliefs about PCSC, particularly as related to parole officer health.

  International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 2023. Published online before publication

Kyle J. Bares1, Thomas J. Mowen

Emerging research has shown that the parole officer, much like friends and family, can be an important source of social support for returning persons. While this body of literature is growing, existing research provides little insight into understanding how specific types (e.g., interpersonal and/or professional) of parole officer support matter. Using panel data from the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, results of mixed-effects models demonstrate that greater levels of parole officer support are associated with decreased odds of reincarceration. Furthermore, parole officer professional support (e.g., providing correct information) exerts a more robust effect than interpersonal support (e.g., listening and caring). Findings suggest policy makers should consider programming to strengthen the professional relationship between the parole officer and returning person. 

Crime Delinq. 2020 June ; 66(6-7): 1023–1051 

By The Independent Commission on New York City Criminal Justice and Incarceration Reform and Columbia University Justice Lab

New York State sends more people to prison for parole rules violations than any other state in the country. In 2019, 40 percent of the people sent to New York prisons were incarcerated not for a new felony conviction, but for parole violations such as not reporting to a parole officer, living at an unapproved residence, missing curfew, or failing drug or alcohol tests. Black and Latinx people are significantly more likely than white people to be incarcerated for parole violations. The fiscal impact on New York state and local taxpayers is enormous. In 2019, New York’s state and local governments collectively spent $683 million to incarcerate people on parole for rules violations, without evidence that this massive expenditure of resources meaningfully contributed to public safety. New York State spent $319 million in 2019 to incarcerate people for parole rule violations in state prisons. New York counties—excluding the five counties in New York City—collectively spent more than $91 million to jail people who were accused of technical violations ƒ New York City spent $273 million to jail people accused of technical violations

New York: Columbia University, Justice Lab, 2021. 23p.

By Caitlin Curry

Scholars have sought to understand the problem of racial disproportionality in U.S. imprisonment rates for over four decades, but current research has yet to identify the specific correctional mechanisms that exacerbate racial differences in incarceration (Garland, 2013). The rate of parole revocations increased markedly in the 1990s and 2000s, contributing to the growth in imprisonment in the US. Likewise, some research also finds that the likelihood of parole revocation varies by race, but we know little about the effect of parole revocations on imprisonment disparity (Huebner and Bynum, 2008). This study uses a sample of 24 states over a twenty year period (1990-2009) to test the hypothesis that parole revocation admissions contribute to disparity in imprisonment by race. Specifically, this study employs multilevel modeling to assess the extent to which parole revocations account for race differences in prisons admissions, when controlling for individual characteristics as well as state structural factors and policies

Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, 2016. 76p.

By The Independent Commission on New York City Criminal Justice and Incarceration Reform

Over the past few years, New York City has significantly lowered the number of people held in its jails. Recent legislative reforms to pretrial laws promise further reductions. But one population in City jails has resisted these trends and poses a major barrier to closing the jails on Rikers Island: people accused of violations of community supervision, commonly referred to as parole. On any given day, 20 percent of the New York City jail population is made up of people accused of parole violations. 89 percent are people of color. Approximately 600 people are accused of non-criminal “technical” parole violations, such as being late for curfew, testing positive for drugs, or missing an appointment with a parole officer. Another 900 people are charged with new criminal offenses but are ineligible for bail or pretrial release, no matter how low-level the offense, because parole authorities have also issued a warrant. Jailing so many people on parole warrants does little for public safety and is counterproductive to the success of people who are reentering society from prison. It is also incredibly expensive: applying figures from the New York City Comptroller, the City spends more than $400 million per year to incarcerate people accused of parole violations. These problems are not limited to Rikers. On any given day, more than 1,000 people are held in other jails across the state solely because they are accused of technical parole violations. And almost 40 percent of the people sent to state prison each year in New York are not incarcerated for new criminal convictions, but rather for these technical parole violations.

Independent Commission on New York City Criminal Justice and Incarceration Reform, 2019. 22p.

By Vincent Schiraldi and Jennifer Arzu

As state and city leaders agree that the jail complex on Rikers Island should be closed, efforts have increased at the state and city level to reduce the New York City jail population (New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice 2017a; Cuomo 2018). The population of New York City’s jails dipped below 9,000 recently for the first time in 35 years, even as crime in the city has continued to decline, allowing the City to announce the closure of one of Rikers Island’s nine jails (New York City Office of the Mayor 2017; Schiraldi 2018). But as the number of persons incarcerated pretrial for misdemeanors, non-violent and violent felonies, as well as the city sentenced population, have declined by double-digits over the past four years, only one population in the jail has increased, also by double digits: persons held in city jails for state parole violations (New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice 2017b; New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services 2018). This brief will examine this issue in greater detail, focusing primarily on the impact it is having on the New York City jail population at this critical time. We will conclude with recommendations to reduce unnecessary incarceration of persons on parole and to shrink the overall parole population by incentivizing good behavior on parole, referring whenever possible to other jurisdictions that have successfully enacted parole reforms.

New York: Columbia University, Justice Lab, 2018. 14p.

By Kendra Bradner and Vincent Schiraldi

The scope and conditions of parole supervision in New York have profound impacts for people serving supervision sentences. Numerous conditions are a constraint on their liberty, serve as trip wires to incarceration, and can disrupt the process of community reintegration needed for successful reentry after leaving prison. Parole supervision also fuels mass incarceration everywhere, but particularly in New York, as New York sends more people back to prison for non-criminal, technical parole violations than any state except Illinois (Kaeble 2018, Appendix Table 7). Six times as many people are reincarcerated in state prisons for technical violations – such as missing an appointment, being out past curfew, or testing positive for alcohol – as are reincarcerated for a new criminal conviction (Commission 2019). Moreover, people held on parole violations are now the only population increasing in New York City jails, threatening plans to close the notorious Rikers Island jails complex (Schiraldi and Arzu 2018; Commission 2019). Together, incarceration for technical violations cost New York State and localities over $600 million annually (The Council of State Governments 2019; NYC Independent Budget Office 2019; NYS Bar Association 2019).

New York: Columbia University, Justice Lab, 2020. 24p.

By Erin Jacobs Valentine, Louisa Treskon and Cindy Redcross

Despite an increasing emphasis on reentry services for individuals leaving prison, recidivism rates remain high, and policymakers are searching for ways to help parolees make more successful transitions from prison. One strategy is to incorporate interventions into the parole supervision process. This paper presents findings from the Changing Attitudes and Motivation in Parolees (CHAMPS) study, which examined the implementation of a pilot of one parole-based intervention, known as the Next Generation of Parole Supervision (NG).

NG is intended to improve parolee outcomes by enhancing parole officers’ knowledge and the strategies they use during their regular supervision meetings with parolees. Building on existing literature about best practices in parole supervision, the NG curriculum focuses on desistance — a process through which individuals who have been involved in crime change their self-perceived identity and cease participating in crime — and helps parole officers to use parolee-centered conversations to identify and reinforce a parolee’s strengths and to identify potential stabilizing and destabilizing influences in the individual’s life..

New York: MDRC, 2018. 45p.