assessment and by partnering with correctional agen-
cies, parole is ideally situated to contribute to offender
rehabilitation while also addressing ongoing concerns
by the public and politicians regarding the costs of
corrections and risk to public safety.
Notwithstanding changes in legislation over the
past three decades, parole remains an integral part of
the criminal justice system. At both international and
domestic levels, parole continues to be relied on to
ensure the timely and safe transition of offenders from
the confines of incarceration to community supervi-
sion. In this manner, it acts as a tollbooth for offenders
as they pass from prison back to the community. Parole
decision makers, informed by law and policy and on
a case-by-case basis, determine the amount of toll
required. Despite variations across countries and juris-
dictions, their decision is typically informed by guide-
lines regarding eligibility, some element of desert or
judgment that the prisoner has served sufficient time
according to the seriousness of his or her crime(s), and
a judgment that community safety would not be jeop-
ardized by the offender’s release.Definition
Variability in the use of the term parolehas been an
obstacle in conducting a review of parole research and
practice. In this entry, parole refers to discretionary or
conditional release. The former reflects release prior to
the expiration of the sentence, whereas the latter reflects
the designation of conditions that must be met by the
offender when he or she is granted mandatory parole.
Typically, if the conditions are not met, the offender
may be returned for a further period of incarceration.
Some jurisdictions impose guidelines regarding limits
to eligibility for parole release following breaches in
the community on an earlier release.Context
Despite the waning interest in parole due to a gradual
shift in public policy toward a focus on punitive solutions
to crime, a 2001 review of U.S. paroling jurisdictions
conducted by the Association of Paroling Authorities
International indicates that parole boards with legislative
discretionary release authority have survived in approxi-
mately two thirds (34) of state and federal correctional
jurisdictions. Similarly, in Canada,all provinces and the
federal correctional system have parole boards, although
the federal board has jurisdiction for some provincialoffenders. Indeed, Canada has served as a model for
numerous countries in terms of parole policy and train-
ing (e.g., Australia, Bermuda, Great Britain, Hong Kong,
New Zealand, and Russia).
Several examples will serve to highlight the scope
of parole and its potential impact on corrections and
communities. In 2003, the U.S. Parole Commission
made 10,771 decisions regarding release or revoca-
tion. In the fiscal year 2004 to 2005, the Pennsylvania
Board of Probation and Parole conducted 9,588 hear-
ings regarding parole violations and 19,624 panels/
interviews for parole. In 2005, the Massachusetts
Parole Board conducted approximately 10,000 face-
to-face hearings and rendered decisions on approxi-
mately 20,000 cases. It is difficult to determine the
exact number of parole decisions made annually, but a
reasonable extrapolation from these data suggests that
400,000 would not be inflated. Moreover, since
offenders are released on both parole and expiration
of sentence, it is not surprising that close to 600,000
offenders are released and return to communities
across the United States each year.
In Canada, the numbers are smaller but equally
compelling. In 2005, the National Parole Board made
an estimated 22,295 decisions. Also, this board made
more than 16,711 contacts with victims regarding
release decisions and reviewed 22,900 pardon
requests. Although these data do not control for popu-
lation rates, parole decisions clearly affect the lives of
a significant number of offenders, their families, and
the community at large.
In the United States, from 1980 to 2003, the pro-
portion of discretionary parole releases from state
prisons markedly diminished from about 55% to
about 22%. During the same time period, mandatory
parole releases (conditions imposed) increased from
about 18% to about 36%, whereas expiration
of sentence releases only modestly increased from
14% to 19%. These changes are partly due to statutory
changes eliminating parole release and partly due to
increased reluctance on the part of boards of parole to
release offenders prior to expiration of sentence. This
trend in parole decision making situates potential con-
tributions of parole decision research and can perhaps
best be understood through the lens of public policy,
particularly in North America.
Prior to 1970, the belief was that the criminal jus-
tice system should be used to rehabilitate offenders;
this was reflected in indeterminate sentencing and
discretionary release practices. However, doubts542 ———Parole DecisionsP-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 542