Entry
Reader's guide
Entries A-Z
Subject index
Parole Commission, U.S.
Early use of parole at the federal level can be traced back to the beginning of the 20th century. During a period of growth in the 1930s and 1940s, federal parole was administered by the U.S. Board of Parole in the U.S. Attorney General's office. Administrative reorganization—from centralization of administrative functions to decentralization—took place in the 1970s, and the board was renamed the U.S. Parole Commission (USPC) in 1976. With the onset of the “get-tough” approach to crime, the USPC was scheduled for phaseout.
History
Parole was initially established in the mid-1800s as a Progressive Era penal reform at the local and state levels. Parole at the federal level was first utilized in 1910. Each of the three existing federal penitentiaries had its own parole board, which consisted of the prison warden, the physician of the institution, and the superintendent of prisons from the Department of Justice.
The U.S. Board of Parole was established in 1930, shortly after the establishment of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), with three full-time members appointed by the U.S. attorney general. Administrative operations of the U.S. Board of Parole fell under the BOP during this period. In 1945, the administrative functions of the board were placed under the U.S. attorney general. Two additional members were added to the board in 1948 because of an increase in the federal prison population after World War II. The board was increased to eight members in 1950. These members were appointed by the president to six-year staggered terms and administrative functions were placed under the Department of Justice.
Administrative Reorganization in the 1970s
As the BOP built new prisons and housed more inmates eligible for parole, operating one central office was deemed inefficient. In 1972, the U.S. Board of Parole initiated a pilot reorganization project. This reorganization created five geographic regions, explicit parole guidelines for parole hearings, the requirement of written reasons for parole decisions, and an administrative appeal process in cases where an inmate was denied release after the parole hearing. The five geographic regions were operational by 1974, with each region having one member and five hearing examiners. In addition, the chair of the Board of Parole and two members remained in Washington, D.C., at the board's headquarters. In 1976, the Board of Parole was renamed the U.S. Parole Commission (USPC) under the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act. This act allowed for nine commissioners to be appointed by the president to six-year terms. They would include the chair, five regional commissioners, and a three-member National Appeals Board. In addition, this act incorporated many features from the pilot reorganization project, including explicit parole guidelines, written reasons for parole decisions, an administrative appeal process, and a regional structure.
The Tough-on-Crime Movement and Federal Parole
During the 1980s, the role of the USPC was changed considerably with the onset of the “tough-on-crime” movement, which resulted in stricter sentencing practices, an increase in prison populations, and a lack of support for rehabilitative programs for prison inmates and for community-based initiatives such as parole. The changing landscape of corrections and criminal justice at large during this period led to the passage of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. This act established federal sentencing guidelines, which were influenced by the success of the USPC in creating and using parole guidelines. Rather than operating as a discretionary release decision by the members of the USPC, supervised release became a part of the sentence handed down by the court to the offender. However, it should be noted that the USPC still maintained jurisdiction over federal offenders sentenced prior to November 1, 1987, who were subject to early release consideration.
...
- Actuarial Risk Assessment
- Classification Systems
- COMPASS Program
- Firearms Charges, Offenders With
- Hare Psychopathy Checklist
- Level of Service Inventory
- Offender Needs
- Offender Responsivity
- Offender Risks
- Prediction Instruments
- Predispositional Reports for Juveniles
- Risk and Needs Assessment Instruments
- Risk Assessment Instruments: Three Generations
- Wisconsin Risk Assessment Instrument
- Absconding
- Augustus, John
- Benefit of Clergy
- Boston's Operation Night Light
- Case Management
- Caseload and Workload Standards
- Circle Sentencing
- Conditional Sentencing and Release
- Conditions of Community Corrections
- Continuum of Sanctions
- Crime Control Model of Corrections
- Curfews
- Diversion Programs
- Drug Courts
- Faith-Based Initiatives
- False Negatives and False Positives
- Family Courts
- Family Group Conferencing
- Family Therapy
- Felony Probation
- Field Visits
- Investigative Reports
- Juvenile Probation Officers
- Manhattan Bail Project
- Mediation
- Mental Health Courts
- Neighborhood Probation
- Offender Supervision
- Pre-Sentence Investigation Reports
- Pretrial Detention
- Pretrial Supervision
- Probation
- Probation: Administration Models
- Probation: Early Termination
- Probation: Organization of Services
- Probation: Private
- Probation and Judicial Reprieve
- Probation and Parole: Intensive Supervision
- Probation and Parole Fees
- Probation Mentor Home Program
- Probation Officers
- Probation Officers: Job Stress
- Project Safeway
- Recognizance
- Reparation Boards
- Restorative Justice
- Revocation
- Sanctuary
- Shock Probation
- SMART Partnership
- Specialized Caseload Models
- Teen Courts
- Victim-Offender Reconciliation Programs
- Wilderness Experience
- Attitudes and Myths about Punishment
- Attitudes of Offenders toward Community Corrections
- Bail Reform Act of 1984
- Banishment
- Beccaria, Cesare
- Bentham, Jeremy
- Certified Criminal Justice Professional
- Civil and Political Rights Affected by Conviction
- Community Corrections Acts
- Community Corrections and Sanctions
- Community Corrections as an Add-on to Imprisonment
- Community Corrections as an Alternative to Imprisonment
- Community Partnerships
- Cook County Juvenile Court
- Costs of Community Corrections
- Determinate Sentencing
- Employment-Related Rights of Offenders
- Ethics of Community-Based Sanctions
- Flat Time
- Front-End and Back-End Programming
- Goals and Objectives of Community Corrections
- History of Community Corrections
- Humanitarianism
- Indeterminate Sentencing
- Law Enforcement Administration Act Initiatives
- Long-Term Offender Designation
- Loss of Capacity to Be Bonded
- Loss of Individual Rights
- Loss of Parental Rights
- Loss of Right to Possess Firearms
- Loss of Welfare Benefits
- Net Widening
- Philosophy of Community Corrections
- Political Determinants of Corrections Policy
- President's Task Force on Corrections
- Prison Overcrowding
- Public Opinion of Community Corrections
- Public Safety and Collaborative Prevention
- Punishment
- Punishment Units
- Reducing Prison Populations
- Reintegration into Communities
- Second Chance Act
- Sentencing Guidelines
- Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative
- Split Sentencing and Blended Sentencing
- Temperance Movement
- Three Strikes and You're Out
- Victims of Crime Act of 1984
- Violent Offender Reconciliation Programs
- Volunteers and Community Corrections
- Boot Camps
- Community Service Order
- Community-Based Centers
- Community-Based Vocational Networks
- Day Reporting Centers
- Electronic Monitoring
- Financial Penalties
- Fine Options Programs
- GPS Tracking
- Group Homes
- Halfway Houses and Residential Centers
- Home Confinement and House Arrest
- NIMBY Syndrome
- Probation and Parole: Intensive Supervision
- Residential Correctional Programs
- Residential Programs for Juveniles
- Restitution
- Restitution Centers
- Absconding
- Brockway, Zebulon
- Discretionary Release
- Elmira System
- Firearms and Community Corrections Personnel
- Furloughs
- Good Time and Merit Time
- Graduated Sanctions for Juvenile Offenders
- Irish Marks System
- Maconochie, Alexander
- Pardon and Restoration of Rights
- Parole
- Parole Boards and Hearings
- Parole Commission, U.S.
- Parole Commission Phaseout Act of 1996
- Parole Guidelines Score
- Parole Officers
- Pre-Parole Plan
- Prisoner's Family and Reentry
- Probation and Parole: Intensive Supervision
- Reentry Courts
- Reentry Programs and Initiatives
- Salient Factor Score
- Truth-in-Sentencing Provisions
- Victim Impact Statements
- Work/Study Release Programs
- Addiction-Specific Support Groups
- Correctional Case Managers
- Counseling
- Crime Victims' Concerns
- Cultural Competence
- Disabled Offenders
- Diversity in Community Corrections
- Drug- and Alcohol-Abusing Offenders and Treatment
- Drug Testing in Community Corrections
- Effectiveness of Community Corrections
- Elderly Offenders
- Environmental Crime Prevention
- Evaluation of Programs
- Female Offenders and Special Needs
- Job Satisfaction in Community Corrections
- Juvenile Aftercare
- Juvenile and Youth Offenders
- Liability
- Martinson, Robert
- Motivational Interviewing
- Offenders with Mental Illness
- Public Shaming as Punishment
- Recidivism
- Sex Offender Registration
- Sex Offenders in the Community
- Sexual and Gender Minorities and Special Needs
- Sexual Predators: Civil Commitment
- Therapeutic Communities
- Therapeutic Jurisprudence
- Thinking for a Change
- Victim Services
- “What Works” Approach and Evidence-Based Practices
- Women in Community Service Program
- Loading...
Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL
-
Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
-
Read modern, diverse business cases
-
Explore hundreds of books and reference titles
Sage Recommends
We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.
Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches