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 conditions 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.
AlexanderM. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.
2.
AllenF. A. (1981). The decline of the rehabilitative ideal: Penal policy and social purpose. Yale University Press.
3.
AlperM. E. (2016). By the numbers: Parole release and revocation across 50 states. Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School.
American Probation and Parole Association. (2017). Statement on the future of community corrections. Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
6.
ArlukeN. (1956). A summary of parole rules. NPPA Journal, 2, 6–13.
7.
ArlukeN. (1969). A summary of parole rules—Thirteen years later. Crime & Delinquency, 15, 267–274.
8.
BurkeP.GelbA.HorowitzJ. (2007). When offenders break the rules: Smart responses to probation and parole violations(Public Safety Policy Brief, No. 3). The Pew Charitable Trusts.
9.
CahalanM. W. (1986). Historical corrections statistics in the United States, 1850-1984. Government Printing Office.
10.
CarsonE. A. (2018). Prisoners in 2016. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
11.
CarsonE. A.GolinelliD. (2014). Prisoners in 2012: Trends in admissions and releases, 1991-2012. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
12.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1837). Resolves of the general court of the commonwealth of Massachusetts. Dutton and Wentworth.
13.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1855). Acts and resolves of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Secretary of the Commonwealth.
14.
CorbettR. P.Jr (2015). The burdens of leniency: The changing face of probation. Minnesota Law Review, 99, 1697–1732.
15.
CorbettR. P.JrRhineE. E. (2020). Probation and parole - shaping principles and practices in the early 21st century: A US perspective. In UgwudikeP.GrahamH.McNeillF.RaynorP.TaxmanF. S.TrotterC. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to rehabilitative work in criminal justice. Routledge.
16.
CordaA.AlperM.ReitzK. (2016). American exceptionalism in parole supervision. Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School.
17.
CordaA.PhelpsM. (2017). American exceptionalism in community supervision. American Probation and Parole Association (APPA)—Perspective, Spring.
18.
CullenF. T. (2013). Rehabilitation: Beyond nothing works. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 42, 299–376.
19.
EckhouseL.LumK.Conti-CookC.CiccoliniJ. (2019). Layers of bias: A unified approach to understanding problems with risk assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48, 185–209.
20.
EnnsP. (2016). Incarceration nation: How the United States became the most punitive democracy in the world. Cambridge University Press.
21.
FAT/ML (2014). Principles for accountable algorithms and a social impact statement for algorithms. https://fatml.org
22.
FeeleyM.SimonJ. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30, 449–474.
23.
GarlandD. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. University of Chicago Press.
24.
GarlandD. (2017). Penal power in America: Forms, functions, and foundations. Journal of the British Academy, 5, 1–35.
25.
GottschalkM. (2015). Caught: The prison state and the lockdown of American politics. Princeton University Press.
26.
HarcourtB. (2007). Against prediction: Profiling, policing, and punishment in an actuarial age. University of Chicago Press.
27.
HarcourtB. (2015). Risk as a proxy for race: The dangers of risk assessment. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 27, 237–243.
28.
HartmanJ.TravisL.LatessaE. (1996, March). Thirty-nine years of parole rules[Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Las Vegas, NV, United States.
29.
HintonE. (2020). From the war on poverty to the war on crime: The making of mass incarceration in America. Harvard University Press.
30.
HughesT.WilsonD. J.BeckA. (2001). Trends in state parole, 1990-2000. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
31.
JacobsonM. (2005). Downsizing prisons: How to reduce crime and end mass incarceration. New York University Press.
32.
JacobsonM.SchiraldiV.DalyR.HotezE. (2017). Less is more: How reducing probation populations can improve outcomes. Harvard Kennedy School.
33.
JankowskiL. (1991). Probation and parole, 1990. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
34.
JohndrowJ. E.LumK. (2019). An algorithm for removing sensitive information: Application to race-independent recidivism. Annals of Applied Statistics, 13, 189–220.
35.
KaebleD. (2018). Probation and parole in the United States, 2016. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
36.
KalishC. B. (1983). Probation and parole, 1982. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
37.
KlingeleC. (2013). Rethinking the use of community supervision. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 103, 1015–1070.
38.
LumK.IsaacW. (2016). To predict and serve?Significance, 13, 14–19.
39.
MaconochieA. (1846). The mark system: Framed to mix persuasion with punishment, and make their effect improving, yet their operation severe. J. Hatchard and Son.
40.
MartinsonR. (1974). What works: Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest, 35, 22–54.
41.
McVeyC. C.RhineE. E.ReynoldsC. V. (2018). Modernizing parole statutes: Guidance from evidence-based practice. Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School.
42.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. SAGE Publications.
43.
MitchellM.WuS.ZaldivarA.BarnesP.VassermanL.HutchinsonB.SpitzerE.RajiI. D.GebruT. (2019). Model cards for model reporting[Conference session]. Proceedings of the Association for Computing Machinery FAT* ‘19: Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Atlanta, GA, United States.
44.
MorrisN. (2003). Maconochie’s gentlemen: The story of Norfolk Island and the roots of modern prison reform. Oxford University Press.
45.
PetersiliaJ. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press.
46.
PetersiliaJ. (2008). California’s correctional paradox of excess and deprivation. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 37(1), 207–278.
PhelpsM.CurryC. (2017). Supervision in the community: Probation and parole. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology.
50.
ReitzK. R. (2018). American exceptionalism in crime and punishment. Oxford University Press.
51.
ReitzK. R.RhineE. E. (2020). Parole release and supervision: Critical drivers of prison supervision policy. Annual Review of Criminology, 3: 281–298.
52.
RhineE. E.ThompsonA. C. (2011). The reentry movement in corrections: Resiliency, fragility and prospects. Criminal Law Bulletin, 47(2): 177–209.
53.
SabolW. J.WestC. W.CooperM. (2009). Prisoners in 2008. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
54.
ShahR. (2017). The meaning of rehabilitation and its impact on parole: There and back again in California. Routledge.
55.
SimonJ. (1993). Poor discipline: Parole and the social control of the underclass, 1890–1990. University of Chicago Press.
56.
SolomonA. L.WinterfieldJ. W. L.ElderbroomB.BurkeP.StrokerR. P.RhineE. E.BurrellW. D. (2008). Putting public safety first: 13 Parole supervision strategies to enhance reentry outcomes. The Urban Institute.
57.
TonryM. (2013). Sentencing in America, 1975-2025. Legal Studies Research Paper Series, 44, 1–58.
58.
TravisJ. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. The Urban Institute.
59.
TravisJ.WesternB.RedburnS. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring the causes and consequences. National Research Council, National Academies Press.
60.
TravisL.LatessaE. (1984). “A summary of parole rules—Thirteen years later”: Revisited thirteen years later. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 591–600.
61.
TravisL.StaceyJ. (2010). A half century of parole rules: Conditions of parole in the United States, 2008. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 604–608.
62.
U.S. Department of Justice (1939). The Attorney general’s survey of release procedures: Digest of federal and state laws on release procedures (Volume 1). Government Printing Office.
63.
van Zyl SmitD.CordaA. (2018). American exceptionalism in parole release and supervision. In ReitzK. (Ed.) American exceptionalism in crime and punishment (pp. 410–486). Oxford University Press.
64.
WesternB. (2018). Homeward: Life in the year after prison. Russell Sage Foundation.
65.
WigginsB. A. (2020). Calculating race: Racial discrimination in risk assessment. Oxford University Press.
