Established in the United States in the early 19th century, the parole system allows for the conditional release of inmates before they complete their full prison sentences. The primary goal is to provide structured supervision and support to parolees, helping them transition from incarceration to a productive, law-abiding life within the community while ensuring public safety. Originating from the French word “parol,” meaning “word of honor,” the term highlights the principle of trust and responsibility that underpin the parole system.

Granting parole involves a thorough review by a parole board, which evaluates the inmate’s behavior, rehabilitation progress, and readiness for release. Factors considered include the nature of the criminal offense, the inmate’s conduct while incarcerated, participation in educational and rehabilitative programs during incarceration, and the potential risk to the public. If granted parole, the individual must adhere to specific conditions set by the parole board, such as maintaining employment, attending counseling sessions, and avoiding contact with certain individuals or locations.

The parole system also acts as a mechanism to alleviate prison overcrowding and reduce correctional costs. By permitting certain inmates to serve a portion of their sentence under community supervision, resources can be allocated more efficiently within the prison system. Despite its many benefits, however, the parole system is not without its challenges. High rates of recidivism remain a major concern, as many individuals on parole re-offend and return to incarceration. Studies have shown that a significant percentage of parolees are rearrested within a few years of their release (Durose & Antenangeli, 2021). This underscores the need for effective rehabilitation programs both during incarceration and after release, as well as the importance of robust support systems for parolees.

Parole in the US offers a pathway for reintegration into society and alleviates the burden on the prison system. However, this complex element of the criminal justice system requires ongoing efforts to deal with the challenges of recidivism and to provide assurances that parolees receive the necessary support to lead productive, law-abiding lives.

Origins of Parole: Alexander Maconochie

In March 1840, Captain Alexander Maconochie assumed the role of superintendent at the British penal colony on Norfolk Island, situated 877 miles east of the Australian coast in the Pacific Ocean (Barry, 1956). Maconochie approached his new position with a philosophy diametrically opposed to vindictive and cruel punishment. He believed that punitive measures harmed society, advocating instead for rehabilitation that instilled in wrongdoers a sense of responsibility and accountability for their actions. His goal was to equip them with the necessary skills to function as law-abiding citizens.

In Maconochie’s system, inmates earned marks that allowed them to progress through stages, each granting increased responsibility and freedoms. While the concepts of the mark system and ticket-of-leave were not new ideas, Maconochie’s innovative implementation and subsequent promotion of his mark system were pioneering. These efforts laid the foundation for the modern parole system, establishing Maconochie as its architect (Witmer, 1927).

While Maconochie implemented these ideas on Norfolk Island, his approach differs from modern parole systems, which focus on rehabilitating offenders and reintegrating them back into their original society. During Maconochie’s tenure on Norfolk Island, very few, if any, offenders were ever returned to their original society in England (Barry, 1956).

In 1854, Sir Walter Crofton further advanced the concept of parole by successfully combining the mark system with a ticket-to-leave system in Ireland. Under Crofton’s system, inmates earned marks as they progressed through three levels during their incarceration, ultimately earning their release under parole with requirements to check in with local authorities at regular intervals, often weekly or monthly, depending on their individual circumstances (Barry, 1956).

American prison reformers in the late 19th century, inspired by Crofton’s model, advocated for the adoption of similar parole systems. Zebulon Brockway, the first superintendent of the Elmira Reformatory, introduced a new mark system that utilized an indeterminate sentencing model that included parole. In Brockway’s system, inmates earned marks through participation in productive activities, such as work and attending school, and maintaining good behavior. These marks allowed them to move through stages that granted increasing freedoms, such as the privilege to send and receive mail or permission to talk during lunch. Once inmates had proceeded through all the stages, they would eventually be deemed rehabilitated enough to be released back into the public, with the requirement to check in monthly with the corrections parole officer to update them on their conduct, living arrangements, and employment status. The adoption of parole quickly gained traction across the nation. By 1900, 20 states had implemented parole systems, and by 1925, the federal government and all but two states had established their own parole system (Friedman, 1994).

In the 1980s, a major departure occurred when the federal government and several states, including Washington, Arizona, and Minnesota, shifted away from indeterminate sentencing and discretionary parole (Hughes et al., 2001). In these jurisdictions, parole boards were eliminated, along with the traditional practices of indeterminate sentencing and discretionary parole. Instead, systems were restructured to focus on monitoring ex-offenders after release, overseen by community corrections officers, rather than traditional parole officers. Despite the change in titles, the roles and responsibilities of these officers remained largely similar, emphasizing supervision and support to facilitate the successful reintegration of individuals into society.

Parole Today

Modern parole in the US is a complicated system designed to balance the goals of rehabilitation, public safety, and accountability. It operates within a framework that has evolved substantially since its inception in the late 19th century, adapting to changing societal needs and criminal justice policies. Today, parole involves the conditional release of inmates from prison before the completion of their maximum sentence contingent on compliance with specific terms and conditions set by a parole board or supervising authority.

Parole supervision focuses on facilitating the reintegration of parolees into society, aiming to reduce recidivism and support successful reentry. Parole officers play a critical role in this process, providing case management services that include regular check-ins, home visits, and coordination with community resources. These officers monitor compliance with parole conditions, which may include maintaining employment, attending treatment programs, abstaining from drug and alcohol use, and adhering to curfews.

To determine the efficacy of modern parole, various metrics, including the rates of recidivism and the fulfillment of parole terms, are utilized. A 2021 study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), illustrated in the figure above, found that 52.2% of parolees successfully completed their parole terms without reincarceration; 20.3% of parolees were incarcerated; 2.2% had another form of unsatisfactory exit other than incarceration; 3.9% either died or exited due to other reasons; and 23.3% had unknown or unreported exits from parole (Kaeble, 2023).

Clearly, there are both successes and failures in the American parole system. The large numbers of reincarcerations and unacceptable and unknown exits demonstrate the need for continued improvements to the parole system. Better support mechanisms, robust rehabilitation programs, and comprehensive post-release supervision will go a long way toward reducing recidivism and facilitating the successful reintegration of ex-offenders into society. Ascertaining the reasons behind the high rate of unknown or unreported exits will result in higher quality data and lead to finding more useful solutions for struggling parolees.

As with the probation process, the current trend toward the use of evidence-based practices in parole supervision (Duwe, 2017) is a positive one. Utilizing risk and needs assessments and specific criminogenic needs, parole officers can create individualized plans for parolees that will meet their needs and help minimize the chances of re-offending. Similarly, some states have also enacted reforms to enhance parole outcomes with an emphasis on rehabilitation versus punitive measures. These include graduated penalties for technical violations, thus giving parole officers the option to impose intermediate sanctions as opposed to immediate re-incarceration. Both goals of helping the parolee succeed in the rehabilitation process while appropriately addressing their noncompliance are  thus met. Review this fact sheet for a roundup of recent legislative reforms.

Overall, modern parole in the US is a dynamic system that seeks to promote successful reintegration, reduce recidivism, and ensure public safety. It requires continuous adaptation and improvement to address the evolving challenges within the criminal justice landscape, striving to balance the needs of individuals with the broader goals of societal protection.

Parole Officers

Parole officers play a critical role in the criminal justice system by supervising individuals released from prison under parole or supervised release conditions. Their responsibilities include protecting the public, aiding in the rehabilitation of parolees, and facilitating their successful reintegration into society. Parole or community corrections officers provide case management services, collaborating with public and private businesses, treatment providers, and educational institutions to assist parolees’ transition back into society. This support is especially important considering the social, financial, and structural disadvantages faced by many recently released individuals.

Similarities exist between parole and probation officers, such as their shared objective of maintaining public safety and supporting offender rehabilitation. However, significant differences distinguish their roles. Probation officers oversee individuals sentenced to probation instead of incarceration, operating under court jurisdiction. In contrast, parole officers monitor individuals released early from prison under parole in jurisdictions with indeterminate sentencing or under supervised release in jurisdictions with determinate sentencing, working under correctional agencies or parole boards. Unlike probationers who fall under court jurisdiction, parolees are directly supervised by the correctional system or parole boards. This distinction means that while probationers have their restrictions and requirements set by a judge, parolees’ conditions are determined by the parole board or department of corrections.

Parole officers work closely with individuals under their supervision to fulfill parole board-mandated conditions aimed at promoting lawful behavior and reducing the risk of recidivism. These conditions often include regular check-ins or home visits to monitor the parolee’s activities and living conditions, participation in rehabilitative programs, and compliance with specific restrictions on activities and associations. Initially, parole officers conduct a thorough assessment of a parolee’s risk and needs factors to create a personalized supervision plan that outlines rehabilitation goals and community safety concerns. They often share pertinent information with law enforcement agencies to ensure public safety. Parole officers also prepare detailed reports and offer testimony at parole hearings regarding the parolee’s compliance and progress, which influences decisions on parole continuation, modification, and revocation based on behavior and progress. By balancing accountability with rehabilitation efforts, parole officers seek to reduce recidivism rates and promote successful community reintegration among individuals they supervise.

A key aspect of a parole officer’s role is helping recently released individuals during their reintegration back into the community. This includes assisting them with finding employment, housing, and substance abuse treatment. This challenge is unique because of the strict and often harsh environment of prison life, which does not adequately prepare inmates for reentry into society. The failure to effectively rehabilitate and prepare inmates for release remains a persistent issue within the criminal justice system. Studies consistently indicate high recidivism rates among released inmates, with a substantial number returning to incarceration due to new offenses or technical violations. For instance, research analyzing recidivism rates across 34 states between 2012 and 2017 found that 63% of released inmates were rearrested within three years, and 71% were arrested within five years (Durose & Antenangeli, 2021). Additional findings from Durose & Antenangeli’s research indicate that 46% of released inmates returned to prison for either technical violations or new crimes. These statistics underscore the vital role of parole officers in devising and implementing effective supervision strategies.

To enhance the likelihood of successful reintegration, it is imperative that the department of corrections develops a prerelease plan. This plan, in conjunction with the individual’s most recent risk and needs assessment, helps determine the necessary supervision and support needed upon release. This important information is then disseminated to the parole or community corrections officers assigned  to supervising the newly released individual. By establishing comprehensive planning and personalized support, parole officers can better facilitate a smoother transition from incarceration to community life and reduce the likelihood of recidivism among parolees.

Ethical Dilemmas in Criminal Justice: Returning Offenders to Prison for Technical Parole Violations

Ethical considerations surrounding revocation decisions made by probation and parole officers are essential in upholding the integrity of the criminal justice system. These officers encounter a complex array of dilemmas stemming from their dual roles as law enforcers and social workers. The decision to recommend revocation, often initiated by technical violations rather than criminal behavior, necessitates careful deliberation concerning its impact on individuals under supervision and broader public safety. Technical violations, such as missed appointments, failed drug tests, noncompliance with program requirements, or failure to update contact information such as a change in address, may not constitute criminal acts, but they can lead to severe consequences for supervised individuals, including incarceration.

At the heart of these ethical challenges lies the issue of proportionality in punishment. For instance, determining whether a positive marijuana drug test justifies revocation raises questions about whether incarceration effectively reduces recidivism or if any potential benefits might be outweighed by negative outcomes, such as job loss and housing instability. Balancing punitive measures with rehabilitative goals is essential. Probation and parole officers must exercise discretion in navigating these complexities, scrupulously weighing the imperative for accountability against the prospects for rehabilitation and successful reintegration into society.

This dual responsibility demands decisions that are both legally sound and ethically defensible, and that take into account the long-term impact on the offender’s life and their prospects for avoiding future criminal behavior. Revocation decisions carry profound implications, not only for the offender’s prospects but for community safety and the efficacy of the criminal justice system as a whole. Addressing these ethical complexities requires ongoing training, reflective practice, and adherence to professional standards to ensure fair and just outcomes in the administration of probation, parole, and other community supervision programs.

Parole Rights

Before the 1970s, parole officers had broad discretion in deciding whether to send a parolee back to prison. However, the U.S. Supreme Court case Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) established that because revoking parole constitutes a loss of freedom, parolees are entitled to certain rights when facing the prospect of parole revocation and a return to prison. These rights apply even though parolees typically attend revocation hearings before a hearing officer rather than a judge.

During a revocation hearing, parolees are afforded rights comparable to those provided to probationers. These include:

• Written notice of alleged violations
• A preliminary hearing to assess probable cause
• Disclosure of evidence and the right to confront witnesses
• The opportunity to present witnesses and evidence in their defense
• A hearing before a neutral body
• Written documentation of the evidence used against them

Similar to probationers, parolees have diminished rights to privacy, particularly concerning searches and seizures of their person and residence. Unlike ordinary citizens, law enforcement needs only a reasonable suspicion to search parolees and their dwellings. Furthermore, in Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole v. Scott (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply to probationers or parolees. This means that improperly or illegally obtained evidence can be used in a parole board revocation hearings, underlining the distinct legal standards governing probationers and parolees compared to the general population.

Attributions

1. Figure 10.15: Portrait of Captain Alexander Maconochie R.N.K.H. by E. V. (Edward Villiers) Rippingille in the public domain; This work is now in the public domain, as copyright in the United Kingdom lasts until 70 years after the death of the creator.
2. Figure 10.16: CDCR Parole Agents by Scorpion381 is released under CC BY-SA 4.0
3. Figure 10.17: Exit from Parole by Type, 2011-2021 by Kadence C. Maier, for WA Open ProfTech, © SBCTC, CC BY 4.0
4. Figure 10.18: Screenshot from Probation Officers and Correctional Treatment Specialists Career Video; CareerOnestop, which is sponsored by the U.S. Dept. of Labor, includes its Career Videos collection on its Download Data page and Open Data Policy https://www.careeronestop.org/Developers/Data/data-downloads.aspx
5. Figure 10.19: A declaration of the principles of parole by Indiana Department of Public Welfare in the public domain; This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1929, and if not then due to lack of notice or renewal.