Examining the policies of paroling authorities in the United States to support evidence-based practices

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.

“The Second Sentencing”: A Qualitative Exploration of Women Going Up for Parole

“…Like Alexis, Mina worried that the parole board would not take her seriously because she is a "habitual offender." This finding is unsurprising as prior research found that criminal offense severity influences parole decisions (Caplan, 2007;Connor, 2016;Harbinson & Ruhland, 2020;Tewksbury & Connor, 2012). In contrast, Kayla, a woman who did not believe her convictions would impact the parole board's decision, felt so because her offense was not a very serious or violent crime.…”

“…Other responses included completing your requirements, having support, building a reentry plan, mentally preparing, and reviewing documents (i.e., PSI and police report). Much of the women's advice aligns with factors considered influential in parole hearings (Caplan, 2007;Connor, 2016;Harbinson & Ruhland, 2020;Lavin-Loucks & Levan, 2018;Tewksbury & Connor, 2012;West-Smith et al, 2000). Most importantly, these findings should be shared with parole-seeking women and individuals working with them, and methods of doing so are discussed in the implications.…”

“…Previous literature on parole hearings focuses on the parole board's perspective, with little attention paid to the individuals going up for parole. When incarcerated individuals' perspectives are explored, they tend to use majority male samples with few women (Lavin-Loucks & Levan, 2018;Silverstein, 2006;West-Smith et al, 2000) included and used quantitative methods (Harbinson & Ruhland, 2020;Huebner & Bynum, 2006;Kelly et al, 2020;(Renaud, 2019;Ruhland et al, 2016;Tewksbury & Connor, 2012). The current study fills a gap in the literature by qualitatively exploring parole-seeking women's experiences, which is a study strength.…”

“…The studies also tend to use quantitative data and analysis rather than qualitative (e.g., Harbinson & Ruhland, 2020;Huebner & Bynum, 2006;Kelly et al, 2020;(Renaud, 2019;Ruhland et al, 2016;Tewksbury & Connor, 2012). When qualitative methods are used, the samples either include both men and women (e.g., Lavin-Loucks & Levan, 2018;Silverstein, 2006;West-Smith et al, 2000), only include the parole board members (e.g., Connor, 2016;Ruhland, 2020), or include parole-seeking individuals and parole board members (e.g., Lavin-Loucks & Levan, 2018;Silverstein, 2006).…”

“…Between 2009 and 2015, Michigan’s male prison population decreased by 8%, but women experienced a 30% increase (Sawyer, 2018). Despite women’s growing presence in the criminal justice system, most studies on parole hearings use primarily male samples (e.g., Huebner & Bynum, 2006; Kelly et al, 2020; West-Smith et al, 2000), or they ignore parole-seeking individuals entirely and focus solely on the parole board (e.g., Connor, 2016; Harbinson & Ruhland, 2020; Ruhland, 2020; Ruhland et al, 2016).…”