Examining the policies of paroling authorities in the United States to support evidence-based practices

Abstract

While much research in community corrections examines ways in which direct supervision can reduce recidivism, less is known about the role of paroling authorities in using or supporting evidence-based practices. This study presents a selection of results from a survey of paroling authorities across the United States conducted in 2015. We analyze and discuss survey results on the following three topics: (1) What is the structure and power/authority of the paroling authorities? (2) What are the appointments and requirements of paroling authorities? and (3) What evidence-based practices are paroling authorities utilizing? These results demonstrate the state of evidence-based practices in parole decision-making and illustrate ways in which paroling authorities can implement policies and practices that promote sustainability of evidence-based practices in community supervision. The findings indicate that many paroling authorities have adopted policies supportive of evidence-based practices; however, there are some areas in which parole can create continuity and promote better application of them.

Keywords

Community supervision evidence-based practices parole policy survey

Substantial advances have been made in the adoption and application of evidence-based practices (EBPs) to reduce recidivism among people under parole supervision in the United States (Manchak et al., 2019). Staff supervising individuals on parole, most often parole supervision officers in the United States, are among many of the corrections professionals who have received training in tools such as risk and needs assessments and cognitive-behavioral interventions. Research has documented much of the improvements in adopting rehabilitative efforts in community supervision (Andrews et al., 1990; MacKenzie and Lattimore, 2018), but less is known about the transformation of paroling authorities (PAs) to embrace these practices. This is critical to ascertain, since the decisions PAs make at release can set-up someone to receive effective supervision or conversely, create barriers from receiving effective supervision (Matthews et al., 2020; Paparozzi and Guy, 2009). PAs in some states not only determine when someone is released from prison, but PAs may also set their supervision conditions and decide when to revoke someone from supervision when their conditions are not followed (Ruhland et al., 2016). Because of this, it is essential that these decision-makers embrace and employ EBP to establish the best outcomes to reduce recidivism and maintain public safety.

In this article, we use data from a survey of PAs in the United States conducted by the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice in 2015.¹ The survey covered several topics related to their staffing, operations, and practices for releasing decisions and parole supervision. A selection of survey questions are presented and analyzed to document the structure of PAs in the United States. These results are discussed to illustrate the ways in which PAs are using EBP today and can make decisions that support EBP in community supervision.

Literature review

Parole in the United States

Approximately four decades ago, there were calls to abolish PAs in the United States. There were several reasons attributed to this but one main overarching reason was the concern regarding the broad discretion PAs exercised. Those of a more liberal persuasion did not trust PAs to be fair and consistent or to consider the best interests of individuals who were being considered for release, while those with more conservative views believed decision-makers on PAs were too lenient (Cullen and Gilbert, 2013). As a result, some believed that discretion for PAs should be limited (Morris, 1974) or abolished all together (von Hirsch and Hanrahan, 1979). What followed in some states was a move to determinate sentencing, which included policies such as “truth-in-sentencing” and “three strikes” laws (Frase 2005). With determinate sentencing, some states completely removed their PAs and implemented automatic release after a defined period of time served. Other states kept their PAs but severely limited their powers (i.e. reserving decisions to certain offenses) (Rhine et al., 1991). However, many states either remained completely indeterminate or have elements of both indeterminate and determinate (Lawrence, 2015). Despite the widespread existence of indeterminate systems and their subsequent discretion with release and revocations functions, little is known about how PAs use EBP to inform parole decisions (Rhine et al., 2018).

Recently, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that the correctional populations in the United States have dropped overall (prison, jail, and probation) and been at their lowest in 2018 since 1992; however, there was a slight increase in the parole population (0.3%) (Maruschak and Minton, 2020). Similar to other areas of correctional control, the United States supervises people on parole at a much higher rate than other European countries (Corda et al., 2016). And while the proportion of people on parole out of the total US correctional population seems relatively small, it is important to understand the nuances of the paroling process and parole supervision in contrast to the probation or incarcerated populations. PAs are an entirely different decision-making body who have authority to determine when to release someone from prison and when to revoke their supervision (which often results in a return to prison). Approximately, two-thirds of states have some form of a PA that exercises significant discretion in back-end sentencing decisions (Matthews et al., 2020; Reitz, 2020). Even though PAs have a prominent role in determining the amount of time served by sentenced individuals in the United States, they are less understood relative to their other correctional counterparts (Rhine et al., 2017). There is a wealth of research examining sentencing decisions by judges at the front end and a large body of evidence identifying “what works” to reduce recidivism when people re-enter the community, yet less research has examined the “black box” of PA decisions to release, revoke, set conditions, or other areas within their authority (Petersilia and Reitz, 2012; Rhine et al., 2017).

In the past 10 years, the parole population has grown from 11% to 14% (Maruschak and Minton, 2020) and around the same time, there has been a resurgence in reforming parole policy. Many states participating in the Justice Reinvestment Initiative have incorporated changes to their parole policies as one mechanism to reduce prison populations (Harvell et al., 2016). Some states have implemented release policies that are designed to shorten the length of stay for individuals (Harvell et al., 2016). These policies might focus on the release practices of PAs, including the development of structured release guidelines. Release guidelines are a formal policy that outline specific criteria to guide decision-makers in identifying people appropriate to release from prison with the ultimate goal to incorporate criteria related to public safety and preparedness for release (Rhine et al., 2017). Other back-end policies might include earned time credits, improving administrative practices in release decisions, and expanding options like medical parole (Harvell et al., 2016). Regardless of the specific policy implemented, the goal is to address prison populations from the back end rather than the front end, giving PAs significant discretion and leverage to reduce the length of prison sentences. In short, there is great potential to impact prison populations by focusing on parole policies; however, it is critical that these policies are implemented effectively so that individuals are successful on supervision and refrain from engaging in criminal activity again.

Snapshot of PAs in the United States

As discussed earlier, sentencing reforms a few decades prior resulted in the abolishment of PAs in some states or a mixed approach to release and post-release decisions across the United States. The variation of PAs among states can make it difficult to generalize, but there are some broad trends about their structure and operations. A majority of respondents to the survey used in this study had the authority to revoke and release people on parole, and set supervision conditions (Ruhland et al., 2016). A majority of PAs (40; 89%) were housed under the executive branch in their respective states (i.e. the state governor’s branch) while a few remaining ones were autonomous independent agencies, and a handful of PAs were administratively attached to the department of corrections. Most likely due to the relationship with the executive branch, many people selected to serve on PAs were appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature in their state. In regard to their operations, most PAs who participated in the survey (31; 80%) used panels of members to vote on release decisions. Another important feature is the structure of direct supervision of people on parole in the community. While most PAs have the authority to set the conditions of supervision or hold revocation hearings, in some states, PAs are not part of the same agency nor do they have oversight over the staff who provide field supervision for people on parole once they are released. This is important to note, as it creates the potential for a gap or disconnect in EBP to occur if the PA is a different agency than the supervision agency.

What does EBP mean for PAs?

Despite the changes in parole and post-release in the United States, the field of EBP in corrections has expanded to include a large body of evidence for “what works” in prisons, community supervision, and reentry (see, for example, Andrews et al., 1990; Latessa et al., 2015; Listwan et al., 2006; MacKenzie, 2000; Ndrecka et al., 2017; Petersilia and Reitz, 2012; Taxman and Belenko, 2012). However, achieving EBP depends on the goal and purpose of the correctional practice (McNeill et al., 2012). In the context of the “what works” for EBP in corrections, the primary goal is reducing recidivism. As McNeill and colleagues outline for probation, purposes could include recidivism reduction in addition to other goals such as victims’ interest/satisfaction with the process, reparations of harm caused, or punishment/enforcement [of conditions]. These additional goals are often articulated as considerations among PAs. For example, PAs often give victims the opportunity to make a statement during the release hearing process (Caplan, 2007). Despite these other goals, PAs are primarily concerned with ensuring the rehabilitation of the individual to ensure public safety upon release (Ruhland, 2020). The survey results discussed in this article are used to demonstrate how PAs can support EBPs that reduce recidivism for people under parole supervision. The cost of ignoring EBPs are ineffective practices (Cullen et al., 2009) that could increase recidivism for people post-release and decrease public safety.

Structured and objective decision-making tools

A common criticism among PAs is the lack of transparency to understand how parole boards arrive at their decisions (Rhine et al., 2017). It is difficult to challenge the outcome of decisions when little is known about how the decisions were made, including the specific factors weighed to release or deny parole for someone. In addition, there is research that PAs base some decisions on personal bias and this may contribute to inconsistency among members (Ruhland, 2020). Ultimately, the legitimacy of PAs may be questioned when the discretion of its members are not transparent or grounded in sound evidence (Palacios, 1994). EBP research in parole release and parole is still rather limited (Paparozzi and Guy, 2009). Even so, the evidence from actuarial assessments demonstrates that they are more effective at identifying risks and needs than unstructured judgment and these assessments are effective at targeting interventions (Bonta, 2002; Bonta et al., 2008; Lowenkamp et al., 2006a). This research indicates that PAs should use these tools when trying to measure recidivism risk, but it can be extended to the application of standardized and structured tools for other parole-related decisions. Parole release guidelines are another tool that PAs can utilize for data-driven decision-making. One form of this approach is a sequential model that weighs an “individual’s offense, risks and needs assessments, participation in institutional programming, and behavior during confinement” (Rhine et al., 2017: 307). There are other models but in general, these instruments include structured information that will inform or guide the member’s discretionary decision (Rhine et al., 2018). While risk and needs assessments score out items that predict risk to reoffend and needs related to recidivism, release guidelines include factors related to public safety and other goals PAs consider important in their decision to release individuals from prison, such as factors like institutional program participation or misconduct/infractions while incarcerated.

Setting conditions and responding to violations

While not all PAs have oversight over people on parole in the community, many of the decisions they make at the release stage have a profound impact on the ability of supervision officers to use EBP in the field. Most PAs have authority to set the conditions that people on parole will adhere to while serving their term in the community (Ruhland et al., 2016). PAs can support EBP by limiting conditions so that the least amount necessary are applied and tailored to individual risk and needs (McVey et al., 2018; Rhine et al., 2016). Although studies have examined how risk and needs assessment links to supervision levels, interventions, and case plans (Bonta et al., 2011; Chadwick et al., 2015), it is important to take a step back and examine how PAs can lay a foundation supportive of these direct supervision activities. Related, research also suggests that supervision officers should prioritize needs rather than enforcing compliance with conditions (Bonta et al., 2011) and most likely many of the conditions people are currently assigned are unmanageable and create more barriers than help for people (Klingele, 2013). There is also evidence demonstrating that over-supervising low-risk individuals can increase recidivism (Lowenkamp et al., 2006a). Taken together, the research on EBP for supervision officers in the field indicates that PAs should minimize the number of conditions assigned to individuals who are low risk to prevent supervision officers from monitoring and enforcing too many conditions, and assign conditions related to individual criminogenic needs so that officers are focusing their time and holding people accountable for issues related to their risk to reoffend. When PAs release people, they make incredibly important decisions about someone’s supervision in the community that can either connect or disconnect from EBPs.

Qualifications and training for voting members and staff

EBP changes as the research evolves and as such, it is important that personnel are educated and trained in these practices. It may also be important that members of PAs have educational backgrounds and experience in criminal justice to ultimately understand “what works” to achieve rehabilitation and reduce recidivism. There are several policy frameworks which outline ways in which PAs can increase their legitimacy and effectiveness. Rhine et al. (2017) offer a 10-point plan and McVey et al. (2018) offer legal guidance to support similar efforts. The National Parole Resource Center (n.d.) also has “ten practice targets for paroling authorities.” Across all of these reports are recommendations for PAs to ground decisions based on evidence which includes the use and validation of risk assessments, use of structured decision-making instruments, and attention to supervision conditions. Rhine et al. (2016) also include the importance of members having educational background and experiences related to parole release. Research from the corrections field provides support for this concept as well. Makarios et al. (2016) found that staff characteristics of correctional agencies are important for reducing recidivism, which includes hiring staff with higher levels of educational attainment and prior experience in the human services field. Even though several reports offer recommendations on strategies to implement EBPs in parole decision-making, it is unclear how many PAs in the United States are implementing these practices.

Current study

As described, PAs wield significant power in terms of impacting prison populations but also in terms of making critical decisions at release for people as they exit prisons and enter the community on parole supervision. To examine the current state of parole today and illustrate how PAs can support EBP sustainability in the supervision of individuals on parole in the community, we discuss a selection of results from the Robina Institute survey. Our three primary research questions are as follows: (1) What is the structure and power/authority of the PAs? (2) What are the appointments and requirements of PAs? and (3) What EBPs are PAs utilizing? By reviewing these survey results, we provide a snapshot of where PAs are today in terms of implementing policies that support EBP parole supervision and identify areas where we think there is improvement for parole to support the sustainability of EBP in community supervision. Although the original survey had substantially more questions than presented here, we focus on some of the key areas specific to PAs that demonstrate their ability to use EBP in decision-making and promote sustainability of EBP in community supervision.

Methods

To answer the research questions, we used data from the 2015 survey on PAs conducted by the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice at the University of Minnesota Law School. This survey was modeled from previous surveys that were conducted by the American Correctional Association Task Force on Parole in 1988 and surveys facilitated by Association of Paroling Authorities International in 1991 and 2007. Questions for the 2015 survey were created into an electronic survey using Qualtrics.

The survey consisted of three main areas and were divided into sections accordingly: (1) The structure and administration of parole boards, (2) Information systems and technologies, and (3) Issues and future challenges facing parole authorities. Before distributing the survey, Ruhland contacted the PAs in every state to ascertain who would be able to answer the questions in the three survey sections. Section 1 was distributed to either parole chairs or the executive director of the PA in most jurisdictions. Section 2 was distributed to the individual in charge of research at the agency. However, section 3 was specifically designed to be completed by the board chair or director of the board. Section 3 asked questions specific to the role of a chair, who served as leadership over voting members on the board or commission.

The survey was distributed to PAs and agencies with oversight of prison release/reentry in all 50 states and the US Parole Commission (the PA with authority over people sentenced in the federal court system) in March 2015. To increase response rates, follow-up and reminder emails were sent approximately a month after the first distribution and ongoing after that until the December 2015 close date. There was a 90% response rate with 45 out of the 50 states responding to the survey. Maine, North Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin did not complete the survey. Section 3 was only distributed to parole chairs. Thirty-three chairs (in 33 states) completed this portion of the survey.

We conducted exploratory descriptive analysis. Respondents were able to skip questions and as a result, the sample size might vary depending on the question analyzed. The results presented in this article focus on the general structure of PAs, including the areas of responsibilities. We then provide results regarding how members are appointed to the board and their requirements to be a member. Finally, we present results that focus on the use of EBPs by PAs to inform their decisions.

Results

Sentencing structures and PA powers

As noted in the background, sentencing structures in states may be determinate, indeterminate, or have elements of both structures. The survey findings revealed that states were split in the types of sentencing structures present: 19 (45%) reported elements of both, 12 (29%) identified as indeterminate sentencing structures, and 11 (26%) were determinate sentencing states. In addition to decision-making pertaining to release, PAs in the United States may have additional functions. Respondents in the survey reported that most of them had the power to set conditions of release (40) and revoke supervision terms (40). Table 1 identifies other responsibilities PAs may also be tasked with across the jurisdictions. Most PAs in the United States have considerable power to make decisions that impact community supervision for people released onto parole, even if they do not provide direct supervision themselves.

Table 1.

Power and authority of PAs.

	Number of states
Set conditions of supervision	41
Revocation	40
Release	40
Recission (postponement of established release date)	37
Discharge from parole	33
Recommend executive clemency	30
Issue arrest warrants	29
Recommend pardon	27
Issue subpoenas	26
Order payment of supervision fees	26
Order restitution	26
Authorize transfer under interstate compact	12
Administer interstate compact	11
Grant a pardon	6
Execute arrests	6
Grant executive clemency for less than a death sentence	4
Remit or rescind fine or penalty	4
Grant furlough to confined inmates	4
Restore right to vote	4
Restore right to carry a firearm	4
Grant executive clemency for a death sentence	3
Issue certificates for rehabilitation	2
Order criminal record expunged	2
Restore right to hold public office	2
Restore right to certain professional licenses/jobs	2

PA: paroling authority.

Appointment and requirement to the PA

Members were commonly appointed to the PA by the governor in their state. This was the case for 37 states who participated in the survey. Because of this, PAs are frequently critiqued as political positions (Paparozzi & Caplan, 2009). PAs are also critiqued because most often state statutes do not define educational requirements to serve as a member (Schwartzapfel, 2015). For the states participating in this survey, 25 had educational or experiential requirements identified in statute that were needed in order to serve as a member of the PA. However, 19 states along with the US Parole Commission had no such requirements. For states that had qualifications, many required both educational and criminal justice experience. Ten states required a college degree to serve as a board member and 14 states required a minimum number of years of experience working in the field of criminal justice.

Despite the lack of educational requirements, many members reported higher levels of educational attainment. The survey asked respondents to identify the educational background for all members of the boards. Of the 152 members identified, 38% had a bachelor’s degree, 22% had a master’s degree, 21% had a JD, and 6% had a PhD. Only 10% of members were reported as having a high school degree only. The majority of the chair respondents were also highly educated. Out of the chairs, 35% had a college degree and another 60% reported having an advanced professional or academic degree. Most chairs had also completed coursework in criminology, corrections/penology, and/or police sciences. However, when chairs were asked whether “the appointment of the parole board members should be based solely on professional qualifications, including a college education” responses were split among the chairs. Forty-five percent of the chairs agreed with this statement, yet 42% of chairs disagreed with this statement; 13% of the chairs neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. Although many members had high levels of educational attainment, they did not all believe it was necessary to serve in their positions.

Use of structured decision-making instruments

The majority of PAs reported using risk and needs assessments. Only four (10%) states reported not using risk and needs assessment to inform their release decision-making. Forty states reported using some type of risk and needs assessment to inform their release decision-making. States used a variety of instruments but Static-99 (specifically for people convicted of sex offenses), Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R), and in-house developed instruments were the most common ones reported. Of the 15 states which used instruments developed within their agencies, 8 had their tool validated whereas 4 did not. The results indicate that most PAs use a common risk and needs assessment validated in prior research or have validated their own tool within their jurisdiction.

Risk and needs assessments are designed to predict risk to reoffend; however, recidivism risk is only one factor PAs usually consider when making a release decision. These factors or structures can take the form of parole release guidelines. The number of states that used parole release guidelines was split; 22 states reported they did not, but 17 states reported the use of parole release guidelines. Parole chairs were asked to rank the factors they used to consider release by the importance of the factor. Consistent with prior research (Caplan, 2007; Rhine et al., 1991), the nature and severity of the current offense, along with an individual prior criminal record were ranked as top 3 factors considered. Although not ranked as highly, risk assessment was considered in the top 5 of importance (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Chairs ranking of release factors by importance.

(Smaller number equals more important)
Nature of present offense	3.43
Severity of current offense	3.68
Prior criminal record	5.41
Inmate’s disciplinary record	5.72
Empirically based risk assessment to reoffend	6.00
Prison program participation	6.97
Empirically based risk assessment of criminogenic needs	7.52
Previous parole adjustment	7.79
Victim input	8.52
Psychological reports	8.85
Treatment reports or discharge	9.32
Previous probation adjustment	9.33
Inmates’ demeanor at hearing	11.00
Inmate testimony	11.48
Sentencing judge input	13.75
Inmate family input	14.26
Prosecutor input	14.27

The majority of the PAs set parole conditions; only three states did not. The majority of states (34) impose standard conditions but also have the ability to give special conditions specific to the individuals. The majority of PAs (26 states) reported to give more conditions to high- and medium-risk individuals than they do to low-risk individuals. One question from the survey tapped into a specific aspect of the risk principle, specifically regarding the supervision of low-risk people (Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2004). Some PAs were supportive of this concept in that almost half of the survey respondents (17 states) marked on the survey that they refrain from requiring enrollment or completion of specific programming as a condition for low-risk individuals. Yet, 18 states said they would not refrain from this for low-risk individuals. As it related specifically to the chair respondents, many (68%) of them either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement that “setting supervision conditions should always seek to minimize the requirements imposed on low risk individuals.” A meaningful proportion of respondents did not support the risk principle in their assignment of supervision conditions.

Views on the use of EBPs

The use of structured decision-making instruments (i.e. risk assessments and parole guidelines) and the acceptance of their importance among parole chairs has increased across corrections departments over the last 30 years (Burkes et al., 2017). The majority of respondents in this survey strongly agreed or agreed that guidelines directly contributed to greater fairness in release decisions, increased consistency in release decisions, and contributed to public safety. However, responses were mixed on whether or not guidelines limited discretion. In addition to asking about the use of criminogenic risk and needs assessments, the survey also asked about attitudes toward them. Again, with these questions, there was agreement that risk and needs assessments were essential to making informed decisions and that these instruments led to greater public safety. See Table 3 for further details.

Table 3.

View of chairs on actuarial tools and parole guidelines.

	Strongly disagree (%)	Disagree (%)	Neither agree nor disagree (%)	Agree (%)	Strongly agree (%)
The use of actuarial tools to assess risk and criminogenic needs of offenders is essential to making informed decisions about parole release	0	0	13	45	42
The use of actuarial tools to assess risk and criminogenic needs of offenders contributes to greater public safety in release decisions	0	3	16	42	39
The design of the parole guidelines directly contributes to greater fairness in release decisions	0	7	16	48	29
The design of parole release guidelines can increase consistency in decisions	3	7	3	58	29
The adoption of parole guidelines for release decisions contributes to greater public safety	3	7	17	37	37
A reliance on parole guidelines places excessive limitations on board members’ discretion when making parole release decisions	7	45	26	19	3

Many board chair respondents were concerned that structured decision-making tools would limit their discretion. However, as it related to responding to violations, many chairs saw the importance of utilizing structured decision-making tools. From Table 4, we can see that chairs felt that these decision-making instruments were important for ensuring that responses to violations were fair and consistent as well as important to supporting successful completion of parole.

Table 4.

Risk assessment and decision-making tools in supervision and revocation.

	Strongly disagree (%)	Disagree (%)	Neither agree nor disagree (%)	Agree (%)	Strongly agree (%)
The setting of supervision conditions should always seek to minimize the requirements imposed on low-risk offenders	13		19	45	23
Institutional and community resources should be targeted at the criminogenic needs of medium- to high-risk offenders	7	0	3	55	36
An agency’s response to parole violations does not need to rely on structured decision-making tools to ensure that violations are treated fairly and consistently	16	52	19	13	0
An agency’s response to parole violations does not need to rely on structured decision-making tools to support the successful completion of parole or post-release supervision	0	0	0	68	36

Parole members are often concerned with the risk of reoffending of the individual (Rhine et al., 2017). Part of this concern is related to public safety, but on the contrary, members of the PA are concerned that they will be blamed for their decisions if individuals commit a new offense once they are in the community (Rhine et al., 2017). The respondents confirmed this assertion, with a majority of survey participants in agreement that a “critical concern PAs face today is that they will be held accountable for acts of serious reoffending committed by offenders they have released.” Despite fears that structured instruments limit their discretion, one potentially important step to addressing the public safety concern is placing greater reliance on structured decision-making instruments such as risk assessments and parole release guidelines. Evidence from risk assessments demonstrates that structured, actuarial tools are better at predicting risk to reoffend better than unstructured judgment (Ægisdóttir et al., 2006).

Discussion

Results were presented in the previous section from the Robina Institute survey of PAs across the United States to document the perspectives and policies they maintain toward EBP principles. The results are discussed here to demonstrate how different facets of parole decision-making can incorporate EBP into their own practices, such as release decision-making. The results also help illustrate how PAs can either support or hinder the application of EBP in parole supervision even if they are not providing direct supervision of individuals in the community. Many of the decisions they make provide a foundation that can support the sustainability of EBP in parole supervision. Since many jurisdictions across the country have separate agencies that make release decisions than those that conduct parole supervision, it is critical for the PA making release decisions to embrace EBP as well. If supervision agencies are going to invest in training and tools to implement supervision models that follow the risk and needs principles as part of EBP, then it is essential that PAs make release decisions that facilitate their use.

EBP practices for PAs

The survey results indicate that PAs have supportive attitudes of EBP-related practices in contemporary times. The majority of respondents in the survey agreed that release guidelines can create more fairness and consistency in release decisions, in addition to improved public safety outcomes. Research in other areas has emphasized the importance of procedural justice for better outcomes among people directly impacted by the criminal justice system (Tyler, 2003). Having a clear policy about what factors are considered for release can create more transparency in decision-making which helps twofold. One, it creates more trust among people who receive a parole hearing. Second, it also makes clear what someone should work toward while they are incarcerated. If someone is denied parole, they should have a clear idea on what they need to work toward before they attend their next hearing. A complaint from people who have been denied parole is that they do not know why and/or what they should do differently until their next hearing in order to earn release. In a recent study of individuals who were incarcerated and denied release by their PA, Ruhland and Laskorunksy (in press) found individuals were often frustrated because they felt they completed what was needed to secure a positive release decision. However, when they were denied, it was not transparent to them as to why they were denied nor what they could do to improve their chances at future release. Establishing structured release guidelines may bolster legitimacy for the PA and their decisions among people incarcerated.

Well-defined release guidelines are important for sustaining EBP in parole supervision because they can be structured in a way to further rehabilitation goals and be part of a data-driven process. To illustrate, the state of Idaho uses release guidelines that factor in a risk and needs assessment, the LSI (IDAPA, n.d., 50:250.01). As individuals are scored out on their release guidelines tool, they receive points based on their LSI score so that risk to reoffend counts toward the overall score, as well as other validated tools (Static-99 and Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) when applicable). The guidelines also promote rehabilitative goals by accounting for program participation. If the individual has completed programming, then this is scored out in a manner that benefits their likelihood of release. Although guidelines may appear to limit discretion, instead, they should be valued for their ability to create a consistent policy about what is expected for parole. The tools can help incarcerated individuals and the public understand the “black box” of release decisions to examine what factors led to the denial or grant of parole. Finally, another benefit of these tools is their capacity to incorporate data-driven elements. States can examine how each factor scored out on the tool predicts outcomes important to the PA, such as recidivism. As with risk and needs assessment tools, there is always room for professional discretion to diverge from the tool’s recommendations.

Although a majority of PAs responded that they support the use of risk and needs assessments, another question from the survey raises some concerns that PAs might not be applying them effectively at the release stage. In the survey, respondents ranked the nature of the present offense as the most important factor to consider at release, followed by criminal record. The empirically based risk assessment to reoffend was ranked number 5 in the survey. These findings are problematic for a few reasons. First, PAs consider public safety as one of their main goals (Rhine et al., 2017; Ruhland, 2020). Therefore, if the PA is trying to make decisions in support of public safety, weighing these factors as most important does not achieve this goal. If the wealth of research on risk assessment instructs us to use validated, actuarial measures of risk to reoffend, then relying on the offense severity as a primary consideration to release is in direct conflict with an EBP decision-making policy. Another concern in this area is in regards to PAs who approach release decisions by “re-trying” a case at the parole hearing (e.g. when a PA does not release someone because their offense was serious and they “deserve” to stay in prison) (Cotton, 2008). If PAs prioritize the retributive function of a sentence (i.e. offense severity), then they are deprioritizing public safety and rehabilitative goals by not focusing on risk assessment. The survey results demonstrate that while PAs report the use of risk and needs assessments, in practice, they may not be informing parole decisions as much as would be expected in an EBP-informed paroling system.

Policies PAs can implement to support EBP sustainability in parole supervision

One of the most critical components of EBPs that PAs can support is the use of risk and needs assessment for decisions that determine the terms of community supervision. By using risk and needs assessment at the releasing stage, they can create more continuity for the parole system by linking their release decisions to parole supervision requirements with a consistent underlying foundation. As already discussed, some PAs reported using risk and needs assessment to inform release decisions. PAs make other important decisions in addition to denying or granting parole that have long-term impacts on parole supervision in the community, such as setting someone’s supervision conditions.* If the PA does not consider risk and needs during this process, they can create barriers that prevent parole supervision officers from implementing EBP. For example, if the PA requires too many supervision conditions for someone assessed as low risk to reoffend, then the parole supervision officer may end up over-supervising someone to enforce them. Conversely, if PAs do not tie supervision conditions to needs related to the person’s likelihood of reoffending, then supervision officers may be monitoring and intervening on needs unrelated to that person’s risk. This also has long-term implications for revocations, where supervision officers are filing violations and putting someone’s liberty at jeopardy for violating conditions that are not tied to someone’s risk or needs. PAs have the ability to promote sustainability of EBP in parole supervision by setting the term of someone’s community supervision in accordance with their risk and needs.

Finally, the results of the survey indicate that members of PAs often have high levels of educational attainment even though their states may not mandate them. Many supervision agencies across the United States require bachelor’s degrees for their officers and seek out individuals with human services experience. Research on programs effective at reducing recidivism demonstrates that staff qualifications and training are important components of a community corrections program (Makarios et al., 2016). Individuals who serve on a parole commission or board have significant decision-making power that asks them to consider information related to legal and clinical issues, and it is important that they are equipped to review this information. Education and training, especially related to human services, can prepare them to make legal and policy decisions informed by evidence and professional judgment. Jurisdictions should seek out qualified candidates to serve on the PA. In addition, states should dedicate resources to train these important decision-makers on topics related to risk assessments, understanding criminogenic needs, and learning about what programs in institutions and in the community can address needs to reduce recidivism. If a PA is going to use EBP information, then it is important for them to be qualified to work in the field and trained to understand what the EBP components are.

Limitations and areas not addressed by the survey

The survey results presented in this article were used to illustrate some of the most critical ways PAs can use EBP in their own decisions and illustrate how their decisions are part of a system linkage that can sustain EBP in parole supervision, yet this is not a comprehensive review. For example, questions about revocations and sanctions policies are not covered, in part because many PAs in the United States do not directly supervise people in the community. One limitation to the survey is the lack of context on fidelity of different policies. Research by Viglione et al. (2015) and Viglione (2019) found that although probation officers received training on risk and needs assessment, they were not used in practice to inform supervision decisions. Additional research in corrections stresses the importance of fidelity in using and applying the risk, need, and responsivity principles to reduce recidivism (Lowenkamp et al., 2006b). Hence, even though many respondents reported using a risk and needs assessment tool and expressed attitudes supportive of their use, some of their practices (i.e. weighing present offense characteristics more heavily at release than risk assessment) and other research on parole (see, for example, Mathews et al., 2020; Rhine et al., 2017) indicate that PAs have much more work to do to improve implementation of the risk, need, and responsivity principles in the real-world setting. PAs not only impact prison growth (Reitz, 2020), but they have the capacity to set a foundation of EBP for parole supervision. Research on corrections must focus on translating EBP into parole release decisions so that PAs, which are often a different organization from the supervision agency, create continuity for EBP when they release someone. The use of EBP by PAs is crucial to creating a linked system, instead of a disconnected one, for EBP in parole supervision.

Conclusion

PAs can support the sustainability of EBP in parole supervision by directly incorporating EBP into their own decision-making. This can include using structured release guidelines, incorporating risk and needs assessment into release decisions, and establishing conditions of release related to an individual’s risk and needs. The PAs’ decisions to deny or grant, and how those terms are set, create a foundation for EBP parole supervision later on. They can also support the sustainability of EBP in parole supervision by making sure their decisions around release and revocations do not create barriers from supervision officers to implement EBP. If the PA releases a low-risk person with too many conditions, a supervision officer cannot supervise them at a low supervision level. If a high-risk person with many criminogenic needs is not incentivized to complete recidivism reduction programming while incarcerated and does not have conditions related to their needs while they are on parole, then that supervision officer will be hindered from addressing their criminogenic needs. PAs must incorporate EBP into their own decisions and they must also do so to create continuity from before the person is released until they are discharged from supervision.

The results of the Robina Institute survey indicate that many PAs have members and staff qualified for the critical role they have determining when and how people are released from prison into the community. In addition, many of the PAs support the use of EBP practices such as structured release guidelines and risk and needs assessments, as well as have adopted them in policy. Yet, for some survey questions, the respondents were not overwhelmingly in the affirmative for EBP, which suggests many PAs may need policy changes and technical assistance to move in this direction. And while a large body of evidence is dedicated to understanding how EBP operates in corrections more broadly (see, for example, Andrews et al., 1990; Latessa et al., 2015; MacKenzie 2000), less evidence exists evaluating policies specific to parole. This includes evaluations of the effectiveness of parole release guidelines and the factors important to predict public safety outcomes, or the ways in which PAs can assign conditions to set someone up for success on parole supervision. Despite the misperception that PAs and parole are irrelevant in contemporary times (Rhine et al., 2017), they provide a critical link from prison to community supervision and have the ability to promote EBP sustainability in community supervision.

Footnotes

*

Currently, the Robina Institute has a project evaluating the evidence to support this concept but the research implies risk assessment should inform conditions in this way.

Authors’ note

This manuscript was prepared in response to the call for paper for a special issue edited by Dr Lily Gleicher titled Probation Models in North America.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Erin Harbinson

Notes

Author biographies

Erin Harbinson is a research scholar with the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice at the University of Minnesota Law School. Her research interests are corrections, white-collar crime, and using data and research to improve criminal justice policy and practice. [eharbins@umn.edu]

Ebony Ruhland is an assistant professor at the University of Cincinnati in the School of Criminal Justice. Her research focuses on how criminal justice and corrections policies/practices impact individuals, families, and communities. [ruhlaney@ucmail.uc.edu]

References

Ægisdóttir

White

Spengler

, et al. (2006) The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: Fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. The Counseling Psychologist 34(3): 341–382.

Andrews

Bonta

Hoge

(1990) Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior 17(1): 19–52.

Andrews

Zinger

Hoge

, et al. (1990) Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology 28(3): 369–404.

Bonta

(2002) Offender risk assessment: Guidelines for selection and use. Criminal Justice and Behavior 29(4): 355–379.

Bonta

Bourgon

Rugge

, et al. (2011) An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior 38(11): 1127–1148.

Bonta

Rugge

Scott

, et al. (2008) Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 47(3): 248–270.

Burkes

Rhine

Robey

, et al. (2017) Releasing Authority Chairs: A Comparative Snapshot across Three Decades. Robina Institute of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice. Available at: https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/releasing-authority-chairs-comparative-snapshot-across-three-decades

Caplan

(2007) What factors affect parole: A review of empirical research. Federal Probation: A Journal of Correctional Philosophy and Practice 71(1): 16–19.

Chadwick

Dewolf

Serin

(2015) Effectively training community supervision officers: A meta-analytic review of the impact on offender outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior 42(10): 977–989.

10.

Corda

Alper

Reitz

(2016) American Exceptionalism in Parole Supervision. Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice. Available at: https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/data-brief-american-exceptionalism-parole-supervis on

11.

Cotton

(2008) Time to move on: The California parole board’s fixation with the original sentence. Law & Policy Review 27(1): 239–247.

12.

Cullen

Gilbert

(2013) Reaffirming Rehabilitation. New York, NY: Routledge.

13.

Cullen

Myer

Latessa

(2009) Eight lessons from moneyball: The high cost of ignoring evidence-based corrections. Victims & Offenders 4(2): 197–213.

14.

Frase

(2005) Punishment purposes. Stanford Law Review 58(1): 67–84.

15.

Harvell

Welsh-Loveman

Love

(2016) Reforming sentencing and corrections policy: The experience of justice reinvestment in states. Report, Urban Institute. Available at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/86691/reforming_sentencing_and_corrections_policy_final.pdf

16.

IDAPA (n.d.) IDAPA 50: Commission of pardons and parole: 50.01.01, rules of the commission of pardons and parole. Available at: https://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/50/500101.pdf

17.

Klingele

(2013) Rethinking the use of community. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 103(4): 1015–1070.

18.

Latessa

Listwan

Koetzle

(2015) What Works (and Doesn’t) in Reducing Recidivism. New York, NY: Routledge.

19.

Lawrence

(2015) Making sense of sentencing: State systems and policies (National conference of state legislatures. Available at: https://www.ncsl.org/documents/cj/sentencing.pdf

20.

Listwan

Cullen

Latessa

(2006) How to prevent prisoner re-entry programs from failing: Insights from evidence-based corrections. Federal Probation 70(3): 19–25.

21.

Lowenkamp

Latessa

Holsinger

(2006a) The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime & Delinquency 52(1): 77–93.

22.

Lowenkamp

Latessa

Smith

(2006b) Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy 5(3): 575–594.

23.

MacKenzie

Lattimore

(2018) To rehabilitate or not to rehabilitate: That is the questions for corrections! Criminology and Public Policy 17(2): 355–377.

24.

MacKenzie

(2000) Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime & Delinquency 46(4): 457–471.

25.

McNeill

Farrall

Lightowler

, et al. (2012) Reexamining evidence-based practice in community corrections: Beyond “a-confined view” of what works. Justice Research and Policy 14(1): 35–60.

26.

McVey

Rhine

Reynolds

(2018) Modernizing Parole Statutes: Guidance from Evidence-Based Practice. Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice. Available at: https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/sites/robinainstitute.umn.edu/files/parole_ebp_report.pdf

27.

Makarios

Lovins

Latessa

, et al. (2016) Staff quality and treatment effectiveness: An examination of the relationship between staff factors and the effectiveness of correctional programs. Justice Quarterly 33(2): 348–367.

28.

Manchak

Farringer

Anderson

, et al. (2019) Current U.S. agency-level trends in supporting implementation of evidence-based practices in parole. Corrections 4(3): 169–182.

29.

Maruschak

Minton

(2020) Correctional populations in the United States, 2017-2018. Available at: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus1718.pdf?utm_content=cpus1718&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

30.

Mathews

Walker

Rhine

(2020) Awakening the sleeping giant: The future of paroling authorities in America. Corrections 5: 206–221.

31.

Morris

. (1974) The future of imprisonment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

32.

National Parole Resource Center (n.d.) Paroling authority self-assessment toolkit. Available at: https://nationalparoleresourcecenter.org/toolkit2/ten-practice-targets.php

33.

Ndrecka

Listwan

Latessa

(2017) What works in reentry and how to improve outcomes. In Stojkovic

(ed.) Prisoner Reentry. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillian, pp. 177–244.

34.

Palacios

(1994) Go and sin no more: Rationality and release decisions by parole board. South Carolina Law Review 45(3): 567–615.

35.

Paparozzi

Caplan

(2009) A profile of paroling authorities in America: The strange bedfellows of politics and professionalism. The Prison Journal 89(4): 401–425.

36.

Paparozzi

Guy

(2009) The giant that never woke: Parole authorities as the lynchpin to evidence-based practices and prisoner reentry. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 25(4): 397–411.

37.

Petersilia

Reitz

(2012) The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

38.

Reitz

(2020) Prison-release reform and American decarceration. Minnesota Law Review 104: 2741–2779.

39.

Rhine

Mitchell

Reitz

(2018) Levers of change in parole release and revocation. Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice. Available at: https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/levers-change-parole-release-and-revocation

40.

Rhine

Petersilia

Reitz

(2017) The future of parole release. Crime and Justice 46(1): 279–338.

41.

Rhine

Smith

Jackson

(1991) Paroling Authorities: Recent History and Current Practices. Alexandria, VA: American Correctional Association.

42.

Ruhland

(2020) Philosophies and decision making in parole board members. The Prison Journal 100: 640–661.

43.

Ruhland

Laskorunksy

(under review) You’re never getting out: Perspectives on the parole board release process.

44.

Ruhland

Rhine

Robey

, et al. (2016) The continuing leverage of releasing authorities: Findings from a national survey. Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice. Available at: https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/continuing-leverage-releasing-authorities-findings-national-survey

45.

Schwartzapfel

(2015) Parole boards: Problems and promise. Federal Sentencing Report 28(2): 79–84.

46.

Taxman

Belenko

(2012) Implementing Evidence-Based Practices in Community Corrections and Addiction Treatment. Berlin: Springer.

47.

Tyler

(2003) Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice 30: 283–357.

48.

Viglione

(2019) The risk-need-responsivity model: How do probation officers implement the principles of effective intervention? Criminal Justice and Behavior 46(5): 655–673.

49.

Viglione

Rudes

Taxman

(2015) Misalignment in supervision: Implementing risk/needs assessment instruments in probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior 42(3): 263–285.

50.

Von Hirsch

Hanrahan

(1979) The Question of Parole: Retention, Reform, or Abolition. Pensacola, FL: Ballinger.