Challenges in Parole Supervision: Views from the Field

ABSTRACT

This article looks at parole supervision from the perspective of those most directly tasked with it, the parole field officers. The article draws on qualitative data (a focus group with parole officers) from one large state (Pennsylvania), collected as part of a larger inquiry following the imposition of a moratorium on all parole releases, which was triggered by a series of violent incidents involving recently released parolees. The special circumstances of the research allowed an in-depth investigation of the state’s parole processes. The perspectives of the parole field officers, discussed here, are particularly illumining about the challenges encountered in the day-to-day task of supervising parolees. The policy implications that emerged from considering the views of parole officers are also discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Parole/conditional release
• community supervision
• parole officers
• Pennsylvania
• United States

Acknowledgments

Although the discussion of the study presented is the sole responsibility of the author, the author wishes to acknowledge that the research project itself was the product of intensive team work, consisting, in addition to the author, of the now late Professor John Goldkamp, Professor M. Kay Harris (now Emerita/retired), and Research Associate Doris Weiland, all of Temple University, Department of Criminal Justice. The author would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments and suggestions.

Funding

Research presented in this article was funded by a grant from the Government of Pennsylvania, USA, specifically, the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency and the Governor’s Office. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the government of Pennsylvania or any of the agencies named herein.

Notes

1. In fact, because the moratorium only targeted the actual release of prisoners via parole, and by nature it was temporary, pending the review of parole and correctional processes, the parole board continued to hold parole hearings and review eligible cases during the moratorium period and to make parole decisions. The parole board reasoned, rightly so, that by continuing to review eligible cases and make decisions, it would avoid serious backlog issues in anticipation of the eventual resumption of parole releases. The difference was that now, if decisions were favorable, calling for release, the individuals whose cases were so decided were not in fact to be released until the lifting of the moratorium occurred. For more details, please see Goldkamp, Vîlcică, Harris, & Weiland, 2010, and Vîlcică, 2016.

2. The agreement regarding the use of the data prevented collection of their demographic characteristics.

3. The Institutional Review Board deemed that the study was exempt from human subjects protocol (based on the exception of research activities conducted for public benefit or service programs).

4. To clarify, parole field agents could get access to a parolee’s visitor log, but not through their access to the DOC website; instead they would have to make a special request for that information if they deemed it relevant.

Additional information

Funding

Research presented in this article was funded by a grant from the Government of Pennsylvania, USA, specifically, the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency and the Governor’s Office. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the government of Pennsylvania or any of the agencies named herein.