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 |
DOI | 10.1177/07340168211020811 |
Published date | 01 June 2022 |
Date | 01 June 2022 |
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)
To continue reading
Request your trial