Most prisoners are eventually released back into society. Two thirds of these are released on some form of post-release community supervision. Others are released without such conditions.

The decision to release a prisoner—the release mechanism—varies from one state to another. Release mechanisms are of two broad types—discretionary and nondiscretionary. Parole boards make decisions in discretionary systems; they must balance the demands of public safety, the law, and the objective of readmitting prisoners into society. With nondiscretionary release, the release date is set at the time of sentencing. How- ever, while in custody, prisoners can usually earn an earlier release with credits for “good behavior.” Each type of release system has strengths and weaknesses.

As they attempt to fit back into their families, jobs, and communities, reentering prisoners are often burdened by a host of challenges such as housing, employment, education, family responsibilities, substance abuse issues, mental health problems, and physical illnesses or disabilities. Prison rarely improves these problems. Parole officers have the dual responsibility of supporting the reentering prisoner to establish and maintain a crime-free life and surveillance and enforcing sanctions, including reincarceration, when necessary. POs serve as both law enforcement officers and social workers.

To the extent that prisons and parole agencies can establish a plan to connect the reentering prisoner to the means of overcoming these challenges, that individual has a greater chance of success, and the institution and the community have a reduced burden of recidivism and increased pubic safety.

Although perceptions of justice and fairness, relative lenience or severity, and other factors are relevant in evaluating the merits of the various aspects of parole, from a research perspective, the core method for measuring the quality or “success” of parole is recidivism. Evidence-based practices are those shown by vigorous research to be effective. Although it is difficult and expensive for every promising program to undergo this sort of evaluation, the enormous costs of administering parole and providing programming and services for hundreds of thousands of parolees make it crucial that approaches most likely to work receive sufficient funding and approaches not likely to work are either revised or discontinued. Determining which programs are and which are not subject to intensive evaluation is often less a function of merit and equity than of available resources or gaining the interest of a well-funded research university. There is a movement to label pro- grams as “promising” if they have been shown to be effective in less strict research. This can reduce the likelihood that a truly beneficial program is overlooked or cancelled before it has a chance at full evaluation.

Despite the ever-fluctuating notion of what works for parole, over time, much has been learned about which system elements and characteristics do the most to maximize the ability of parole to protect public safety and facilitate successful reintegration for reentering prisoners.

• To grasp the origins of parole and how parole has evolved.
• To understand the basic function of parole and its role in the corrections system.
• To be able to name and describe the different types of parole release.
• To grasp how a parole board is constituted and what its functions are.
• To gain a sense of the tension between a law enforcement and a social work approach to parole supervision.
• To understand what parole officers do and how they do it.
• To understand the differences and similarities between probation and parole.
• To grasp how evidence-based practice relates to parole and how parole success is measured.
• To be able to describe common obstacles to successful reentry for parolees.