Examining the policies of paroling authorities in the United States to support evidence-based practices
| Author | Ebony Ruhland,Erin Harbinson |
| DOI | 10.1177/2066220320980870 |
| Published date | 01 December 2020 |
| Date | 01 December 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
980870EJP0010.1177/2066220320980870European Journal of ProbationHarbinson and Ruhland
2020
Original Article
European Journal of Probation
2020, Vol. 12(3) 182 –199
Examining the policies of
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
paroling authorities in the
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/2066220320980870
DOI: 10.1177/2066220320980870
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejp
United States to support
evidence-based practices
Erin Harbinson
University of Minnesota, USA
Ebony Ruhland
University of Cincinnati, USA
Abstract
While much research in community corrections examines ways in which direct
supervision can reduce recidivism, less is known about the role of paroling authorities in
using or supporting evidence-based practices. This study presents a selection of results
from a survey of paroling authorities across the United States conducted in 2015. We
analyze and discuss survey results on the following three topics: (1) What is the structure
and power/authority of the paroling authorities? (2) What are the appointments and
requirements of paroling authorities? and (3) What evidence-based practices are
paroling authorities utilizing? These results demonstrate the state of evidence-based
practices in parole decision-making and illustrate ways in which paroling authorities
can implement policies and practices that promote sustainability of evidence-based
practices in community supervision. The findings indicate that many paroling authorities
have adopted policies supportive of evidence-based practices; however, there are some
areas in which parole can create continuity and promote better application of them.
Keywords
Community supervision, evidence-based practices, parole, policy, survey
Corresponding author:
Erin Harbinson, Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School,
Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Email: eharbins@umn.edu
Harbinson and Ruhland
183
Substantial advances have been made in the adoption and application of evidence-based
practices (EBPs) to reduce recidivism among people under parole supervision in the United
States (Manchak et al., 2019). Staff supervising individuals on parole, most often parole
supervision officers in the United States, are among many of the corrections professionals
who have received training in tools such as risk and needs assessments and cognitive-
behavioral interventions. Research has documented much of the improvements in adopting
rehabilitative efforts in community supervision (Andrews et al., 1990; MacKenzie and
Lattimore, 2018), but less is known about the transformation of paroling authorities (PAs)
to embrace these practices. This is critical to ascertain, since the decisions PAs make at
release can set-up someone to receive effective supervision or conversely, create barriers
from receiving effective supervision (Matthews et al., 2020; Paparozzi and Guy, 2009).
PAs in some states not only determine when someone is released from prison, but PAs may
also set their supervision conditions and decide when to revoke someone from supervision
when their conditions are not followed (Ruhland et al., 2016). Because of this, it is essential
that these decision-makers embrace and employ EBP to establish the best outcomes to
reduce recidivism and maintain public safety.
In this article, we use data from a survey of PAs in the United States conducted by the
Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice in 2015.1 The survey covered
several topics related to their staffing, operations, and practices for releasing decisions
and parole supervision. A selection of survey questions are presented and analyzed to
document the structure of PAs in the United States. These results are discussed to illus-
trate the ways in which PAs are using EBP today and can make decisions that support
EBP in community supervision.
Literature review
Parole in the United States
Approximately four decades ago, there were calls to abolish PAs in the United States.
There were several reasons attributed to this but one main overarching reason was the
concern regarding the broad discretion PAs exercised. Those of a more liberal persuasion
did not trust PAs to be fair and consistent or to consider the best interests of individuals
who were being considered for release, while those with more conservative views
believed decision-makers on PAs were too lenient (Cullen and Gilbert, 2013). As a result,
some believed that discretion for PAs should be limited (Morris, 1974) or abolished all
together (von Hirsch and Hanrahan, 1979). What followed in some states was a move to
determinate sentencing, which included policies such as “truth-in-sentencing” and “three
strikes” laws (Frase 2005). With determinate sentencing, some states completely removed
their PAs and implemented automatic release after a defined period of time served. Other
states kept their PAs but severely limited their powers (i.e. reserving decisions to certain
offenses) (Rhine et al., 1991). However, many states either remained completely indeter-
minate or have elements of both indeterminate and determinate (Lawrence, 2015).
Despite the widespread existence of indeterminate systems and their subsequent discre-
tion with release and revocations functions, little is known about how PAs use EBP to
inform parole decisions (Rhine et al., 2018).
184
European Journal of Probation 12(3)
Recently, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that the correctional populations in
the United States have dropped overall (prison, jail, and probation) and been at their low-
est in 2018 since 1992; however, there was a slight increase in the parole population
(0.3%) (Maruschak and Minton, 2020). Similar to other areas of correctional control, the
United States supervises people on parole at a much higher rate than other European
countries (Corda et al., 2016). And while the proportion of people on parole out of the
total US correctional population seems relatively small, it is important to understand the
nuances of the paroling process and parole supervision in contrast to the probation or
incarcerated populations. PAs are an entirely different decision-making body who have
authority to determine when to release someone from prison and when to revoke their
supervision (which often results in a return to prison). Approximately, two-thirds of
states have some form of a PA that exercises significant discretion in back-end sentenc-
ing decisions (Matthews et al., 2020; Reitz, 2020). Even though PAs have a prominent
role in determining the amount of time served by sentenced individuals in the United
States, they are less understood relative to their other correctional counterparts (Rhine
et al., 2017). There is a wealth of research examining sentencing decisions by judges at
the front end and a large body of evidence identifying “what works” to reduce recidivism
when people re-enter the community, yet less research has examined the “black box” of
PA decisions to release, revoke, set conditions, or other areas within their authority
(Petersilia and Reitz, 2012; Rhine et al., 2017).
In the past 10 years, the parole population has grown from 11% to 14% (Maruschak
and Minton, 2020) and around the same time, there has been a resurgence in reforming
parole policy. Many states participating in the Justice Reinvestment Initiative have incor-
porated changes to their parole policies as one mechanism to reduce prison populations
(Harvell et al., 2016). Some states have implemented release policies that are designed to
shorten the length of stay for individuals (Harvell et al., 2016). These policies might
focus on the release practices of PAs, including the development of structured release
guidelines. Release guidelines are a formal policy that outline specific criteria to guide
decision-makers in identifying people appropriate to release from prison with the ulti-
mate goal to incorporate criteria related to public safety and preparedness for release
(Rhine et al., 2017). Other back-end policies might include earned time credits, improv-
ing administrative practices in release decisions, and expanding options like medical
parole (Harvell et al., 2016). Regardless of the specific policy implemented, the goal is
to address prison populations from the back end rather than the front end, giving PAs
significant discretion and leverage to reduce the length of prison sentences. In short,
there is great potential to impact prison populations by focusing on parole policies; how-
ever, it is critical that these policies are implemented effectively so that individuals are
successful on supervision and refrain from engaging in criminal activity again.
Snapshot of PAs in the United States
As discussed earlier, sentencing reforms a few decades prior resulted in the abolishment
of PAs in some states or a mixed approach to release and post-release decisions across
the United States. The variation of PAs among states can make it difficult to generalize,
but there are some broad trends about their structure and operations. A majority of
Harbinson and Ruhland
185
respondents to the survey used in this study had the authority to revoke and release peo-
ple on parole, and set supervision conditions (Ruhland et al., 2016). A majority of PAs
(40; 89%) were housed under the executive branch in their respective states (i.e. the state
governor’s branch) while a few remaining ones were autonomous independent agencies,
and a handful of PAs...
To continue reading
Request your trial