Parolee in the United States

Introduction to Parole

Parole refers to criminal offenders who are conditionally released from prison to serve the remaining portion of their sentence in the community. Prisoners may be released to parole by a parole board decision (discretionary release/discretionary parole), according to provisions of a statute (mandatory release/mandatory parole), through other types of post-custody conditional supervision, or as the result of a sentence to a term of supervised release. In the federal system, a term of supervised release is a sentence to a fixed period of supervision in the community that follows a sentence to a period of incarceration in federal prison, both of which are ordered at the time of sentencing by a federal judge.

Parolees can have a number of different supervision statuses, including active supervision, which means they are required to regularly report to a parole authority in person, by mail, or by telephone. Some parolees may be on an inactive status, which means they are excluded from regularly reporting, and that could be due to a number of reasons. For instance, some may receive a reduction in supervision, possibly due to compliance or meeting all required conditions before the parole sentence terminates, and therefore may be moved from an active to inactive status. Other supervision statues include parolees who only have financial conditions remaining, have absconded, or who have active warrants. Parolees are also typically required to fulfill certain conditions and adhere to specific rules of conduct while in the community. Failure to comply with any of the conditions can result in a return to incarceration.

Statistics

The majority (87%) of parolees, in the United States, were male in 2015, which was similar to percentages observed in both 2014 and 2005 (88% each). In 2015, 44% of parolees were white, 38% were black, and 16% were Hispanic or Latino. The number of parolees being supervised for a drug offense decreased from 37% in 2005 to 31% in 2015. The percentage of parolees being supervised for a violent crime increased from 26% to 32% during that period.

With the exception of 2009 and 2013, each year from 2005 to 2015 saw an increase in the number of individuals supervised on parole. The parole exit rate increased from 33 exits per 100 parolees in 2014 to 54 exits per 100 in 2015. The rate had remained between 35 and 32 exits per 100 parolees since 2008. In 2015, the rate of reincarceration was 14 exits per 100. The rate remained unchanged from 2013 to 2014 but declined from 25 per 100 in 2005.

The annual rate of exiting parolees returned to prison has dropped significantly since 2005 (from 25 exits to incarceration per 100 parolees to 14), while the parallel rate for probation has remained relatively constant around 8 exits per 100 probationers

An estimated 4.65 million adults were on probation, parole, or some other form of post-prison supervision at year end 2015. This was a decrease of about 62,300 offenders from yearend
2014 and the lowest number of adults under community supervision since 2000.

Probationers accounted for the majority (81%) of adults under community supervision, and the probation population was more than four times the parole population.

Parolee in Juvenile Law

Parole is a period of conditional supervised release in the community following a prison term. In this context, Parolee information is available through this American legal Encyclopedia.

Parolee and Refugees

A definition of Parolee, in the context of refugee resettlement and non-emergency repatriation, may be provided here: An alien, appearing to be inadmissible to the inspecting officer, allowed into the United States for urgent humanitarian reasons, such as a medical emergency, or when that alien’s entry is determined to be for significant public benefit, such as, aliens who enter to take part in legal proceedings, as well as for some Cuban and Haitian Entrants. Parole does not constitute a formal admission to the United States and confers temporary status only, requiring parolees to leave when the conditions supporting their parole cease to exist. Individuals who are paroled into the U.S. as refugees or asylees under INA § 212(d)(5) are also eligible for refugee assistance and services.

Resources

See Also

• Refugee Resettlement
• Non-Emergency Repatriation
• Probation
• Parole
• Parole Officer

Further Reading

• Alper, M. (2016). By the numbers: Parole release and revocation across 50 states. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota: Robina Institute of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice.
• Apel, R. (2016). The effects of jail and prison confinement on cohabitation and marriage. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665(1), 103–126.
• Armstrong, S., & Weaver, B. (2013). Persistent punishment: User views of short prison sentences. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 52(3), 285–305.
• Austin, J., Cadora, E., Clear, T., Dansky, K., Greene, J., Gupta, V., et al. (2013). Ending Mass Incarceration: Charting a New Justice Reinvestment. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
• Austin, J., & Krisberg, B. (1981). Wider, stronger, and different nets: The dialectics of criminal justice reform. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18(1), 165–196.
• Blomberg, T. G., & Lucken, K. (2000). American penology: A history of control (2d ed.). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
• Bradley, M., & Engen, R. (2014). Leaving prison: A multilevel investigation of racial, ethnic, and gender disproportionality in correctional release. Crime & Delinquency, 62(2), 253–279.
• Burke, P. (2007). When offenders break the rules: smart responses to parole and probation violations, Washington, DC, Pew Center on States.
• Cavender, G. (1982). Parole, a critical analysis. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press.
• Chan, J., & Ericson, R.V. (1981). Decarceration and the economy of penal reform. Toronto: Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto.
• Cohen, R. (1995). Probation and parole violators in state prison, 1991. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• Corda, A., Alper, M., & Reitz, K. (2016). American exceptionalism in parole supervision. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota: Robina Institute of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice.
• Cox, A. (2015). Fresh air funds and functional families: The enduring politics of race, family, and place in juvenile justice reform. Theoretical Criminology, 19(4), 554–570.
• DeMichele, M. T. (2007). Probation and parole’s growing caseloads and workload allocation: Strategies for managerial decision making. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Program, Department of Justice.
• Durnescu, I., Enengl, C., & Grafl, C. (2013). Experiencing supervision. In F. McNeill & K. Beyens (Eds.), Offender supervision in Europe (pp. 19–50). Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Glaze, L. E., & Bonczar, T. P. (2011). Probation and parole in the United States, 2010. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• Grattet, R., Lin, J., & Petersilia, J. (2011). Supervision regimes, risk, and official reactions to parolee deviance. Criminology, 49(2), 371–399.
• Grattet, R., Petersilia, J., Lin, J., & Beckman, M. (2009). Parole violations and revocations in California: Analysis and suggestions for action. Federal Probation, 73, 2–11.
• Huebner, B. M., & Bynum, T. S. (2008). The role of race and ethnicity in parole decisions. Criminology, 46(4), 907–938.
• Hughes, T., Wilson, D. J., & Beck, A. (2001). Trends in state parole, 1990–2000 (No. NCJ 184735). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• Ireland, C. S., & Prause, J. (2005). Discretionary parole release: Length of imprisonment, percent of sentence served, and recidivism. Journal of Crime & Justice, 28(2), 27–46.
• Kaeble, D., & Bonczar, T. P. (2016). Probation and parole in the United States, 2015. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• Kassebaum, G., & Davidson-Coronado, J. (2001). Parole decision making in Hawaii: Setting minimum terms, approving release, deciding on revocation, and predicting success and failure on parole. Manoa, HI: Social Science Research Institute University of Hawaii at Manoa.
• Lerman, A. E., & Weaver, V. M. (2014). Arresting Citizenship: The Democratic Consequences of American Crime Control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lin, J. (2010). Parole revocation in the era of mass incarceration. Sociology Compass, 4(12), 999–1010.
• Lynch, M. (2000). Rehabilitation as rhetoric the ideal of reformation in contemporary parole discourse and practices. Punishment & Society, 2(1), 40–65.
• Pager, D. (2007). Marked: Race, crime, and finding work in an era of mass incarceration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Petersilia, J. (2002) Reforming probation and parole. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.
• Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home:Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Petersilia, J. (2014). California prison downsizing and its impact on local criminal justice systems. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 8.
• Petersilia, J. (2016). Realigning corrections, California style. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 664(1), 8–13.
• Robinson, G. (2016). The Cinderella complex: Punishment, society and community sanctions. Punishment and Society, 18(1), 95–111.
• Siegel, J. A., Harding, D. J., & Morenoff, J. D. (2016). Parole sanctions and earnings after release from prison. Presented at the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA.
• Simon, J. (1993). Poor discipline: Parole and the social control of the underclass, 1890–1990. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Solomon, A. L., Kachnowski, V., & Bhati, A. (2005). Does parole work? Analyzing the impact of postprison supervision on rearrest outcomes. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
• Steen, S., & Opsal, T. (2007). “Punishment on the Installment Plan”: Individual-Level Predictors of Parole Revocation in Four States. The Prison Journal, 87(3), 344–366.
• Steen, S., Opsal, T., Lovegrove, P., & McKinzey, S. (2012). Putting parolees back in prison: Discretion and the parole revocation process. Criminal Justice Review, 38(1), 70–93.
• Travis, J., & Lawrence, S. (2002). Beyond the prison gates: The state of parole in America. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
• Wodahl, E. J., Boman, J. H., & Garland, B. E. (2015). Responding to probation and parole violations: Are jail sanctions more effective than community-based graduated sanctions? Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(3), 242–250.