NCJ Number
75287
Date Published
1981
Length
33 pages
Annotation
The recent criticism of parole practices and procedures does not mean that parole is a particularly ineffective component of American corrections, but rather that parole, standing at the end of the system's flow, embodies and objectifies the cumulative effect of shortcomings throughout earlier stages in the process.
Abstract
Meaningful evaluation of parole is difficult because the measures of its effectiveness vary considerably. For example, recidivism in some studies makes no distinction between parolees involved in new crimes, and those returned to prison on the 'reasonable proof' standard rather than the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard employed with first offenders. The myth that two-thirds of those released from prison ultimately return devices from the faulty assumptions of such evaluation inconsistencies. Historically, parole developed as an economical expedient for cutting the cost of keeping and guarding prisoners. Except for the belief that parole should cut costs and reduce recidivism, the goals of parole vary considerably. The difficulty in assessing the success of parole is further complicated by the dual role demanded of parole officers: they act as both surveillance officers and social workers. Finally, some parolees expect too much of their parole officers. Most studies of intervention strategies conclude that no one strategy is significantly better than another in improving parole effectiveness. The apparent failure of correctional rehabilitation has led to recent major studies of parole in which conclusions tend to focus upon either major modifications or abolition. Issues such as correctional facility overcrowding and changes in sentencing practices will significantly influence the nature and extent of parole in the future. References (89) are included.