Parole Rules in the United States: Conditions of Parole in Historical Perspective, 1956–2020

• Author: Kelly Lyn Mitchell,Edward E. Rhine,Bree Crye,Benjamin Wiggins,Robin Tu
• Date: 01 June 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/07340168211020811
• Published date: 01 June 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Parole Rules in the United States:

Conditions of Parole in Historical

Perspective, 1956–2020

Benjamin Wiggins

1

, Edward E. Rhine

1

, Bree Crye

1

,

Robin Tu

1

, and Kelly Lyn Mitchell

1

Abstract

This article reports the results of our census of standard conditions of parole throughout the United

States in 2020. Using in vivo qualitative content analysis, we coded standard conditions of parole for

each of the United States’ 52 jurisdictions into categories that follow the model of the previous five

censuses. Comparing our census with the previous five, we outlined the ways the standard condi-

tions of parole have expanded significantly across the last 7 decades. Through this analysis, we

identified four trends in the evolution of parole: the ever-expanding reach of technology in parole

management, the increasing prevalence of fees and restitution imposed upon people on parole, a

dramatic rise in the overall number of standard conditions, and an emergence of conditions related

to reentry and rehabilitation.

Keywords

parole, community supervision, law, history, United States, reentry

The Standard Conditions of Parole

Standard conditions of parole are imposed on all people on parole throughout the United States and

cover such matters as when to report, maintaining a known address, and abiding by restrictions on

movement and travel. Special conditions may be added, often designed to deter certain behaviors

(e.g., random drug and alcohol testing) or to provide tangible treatment or assistance related to the

reentry of formerly incarcerated people (e.g., outpatient, community-based programming). But

while termed “standard” in both the legal literature and in the documents that outline these condi-

tions for people on parole, the standard conditions of parole display considerable variability in scope

and breadth at the jurisdictional level (the 50 states, District of Columbia, and Federal). In practice,

they serve as the focal point of supervision informing where parole officers direct the lions’ share of

their attention. The monitoring and enforcement of standard supervision conditions carries

1

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Corresponding Author:

Benjamin Wiggins, O. Meredith Wilson Library, University of Minnesota, 309 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55419,

USA.

Email: benwig@umn.edu

Criminal Justice Review

ª2021 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/07340168211020811

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr

2022, Vol. 47(2) 185–207

enormous implications for people on parole as they seek to navigate the transition from prison to the

community.

This article reports the results of our census of standard conditions of parole throughout the

United States in 2020, compares the results to five previous censuses of standard conditions of

parole, and sketches some of the ways the development of standard conditions of parole are signif-

icantly impacting the criminal-justice system (Arluke, 1956, 1969; Hartman et al., 1996; L. Travis &

Latessa, 1984; L. Travis & Stacey, 2010). Despite these previous five censuses and our sixth, there

has been little analysis of the standard conditions of parole or their significant expansion and

complexity since the ascendancy of mass penal control and the growth of mass community super-

vision. This is an oversight in need of correction. Continuing to outline the nature and volume of

parole rules, especially given their substantial growth and escalating restrictiveness, is imperative.

Only in the last decade has some awareness emerged that such rules, as constituted, present an issue

of significant consequence for criminal-justice practice and reform (Corbett, 2015; Klingele, 2013).

This attention is centered on concern over the capacity of parole conditions to undermine rather

than reinforce the postrelease prospects of people on parole to achieve a successful transition to the

community. Confronting this possibility, national calls for the reform of parole have as part of their

agenda for change focused attention on the salience and impact of the conditions currently imposed.

What follows is a continuation of the effort to build a foundation for this overdue discussion through

our sixth census of parole rules in the United States. After placing our census in historical perspec-

tive, we highlight three trends revealed in our survey that stand in tension with efforts to reform

parole supervision conditions alongside another that appears more supportive of reentry. Our dis-

cussion then places these trends in the larger context of advocacy that aims at facilitating positive

reintegration postrelease, in part, through a fundamental rethinking of the terms and conditions of

parole supervision.

Parole in the United States

The concept and practice of parole is inclusive of both paroling authorities and parole or postrelease

supervision. As influential agencies within corrections, they typically function autonomously rela-

tive to each other. They remain, however, functionally connected by virtue of their shared respon-

sibilities for the enforcement of parole-related obligations. Paroling authorities impose wide-ranging

supervision conditions setting the terms of release applicable to people on parole subsequent to

imprisonment. They also play a pivotal role in the decision chain associated with the parole viola-

tions and revocation process (Reitz & Rhine, 2020).

Across the nation, parole field services agencies are responsible for formerly incarcerated people

subject to postrelease supervision. The translation of this mandate into action occurs mainly through

parole officers’ monitoring and enforcement of wide-ranging conditions. In discharging their duties,

officers exert substantial leverage in determin ing if and when to initiate the violations process

against people on parole believed to be in noncompliance with any of their conditions of supervision.

This is a consequential matter that may and all-too-often does result in revocation and reimprison-

ment. Over time, and given pronounced population growth, the postrelease supervision function has

come to occupy a prominent niche within the realm of penal control, one that may engineer upward

or downward changes in states’ prison populations.

As is well known, the rate of imprisonment has shown a robust increase for over 4 decades, a

historically unparalleled phenomenon referred to as mass incarceration (Alexander, 2010;

Gottschalk, 2015; J. Travis et al., 2014). Though modest declines have occurred for the past several

years (Carson, 2018), the exponential rise in the U.S. prison population is without comparison (Enns,

2016). During this same period, the boundaries of parole supervision also experienced a notable

186 Criminal Justice Review 47(2)