Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

History of Probation and Parole in the United States

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_20

Overview

Probation and parole are two types of community supervision that form the “bookends” of corrections in America. Probation is a community supervision sanction imposed in lieu of incarceration, while parole involves supervision of individuals released from incarceration. Together, these two broad types of supervision take on the lion’s share of criminal clients under the formal control of the criminal justice system. Designed to surround incarceration, these correctional settings offer offenders conditional release into the community. Offenders receive formal, written supervision conditions, and a supervision officer monitors their progress and behavior in the community. An offender who commits a new crime while on community supervision or violates the supervision conditions may be placed into an institutional setting. Within probation and parole, offenders may be managed differently. Offenders who commit more serious crimes and are also considered high risk may be placed on...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Auerhahn K (2007) Do you know who your probationers are?: using simulation modeling to estimate the composition of California’s felony probation population, 1980–2000. Justice Q 24(1):121–142Google Scholar
  2. Brown v. Plata 563 U.S. ____ (2011)Google Scholar
  3. Camp C, Camp G (1996) The corrections yearbook, 1996. Criminal Justice Institute, South SalemGoogle Scholar
  4. Clear TR, Byrne J (1992) The future of intermediate sanctions: questions to consider. In: Byrne J, Lurigio A, Petersilia J (eds) Smart sentencing: the emergence of intermediate sanctions. Safe, Beverly Hills, pp 319–331Google Scholar
  5. Cromwell PF Jr, Killinger GC, Kerper HB, Walker C (1985) Probation and parole in the criminal justice system, 2nd edn. West Publishing Company, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  6. Flanagan T (1985) Questioning the other parole: the effectiveness of community supervision of offender. In: Travis LF III (ed) Probation, parole, and community corrections: a reader. Waveland, Prospect Heights, pp 167–183Google Scholar
  7. Gagnon v. Scarpelli 411 U.S. 778 (1973)Google Scholar
  8. Glaze L, Bonczar T (2006) Probation and parole in the United States, 2005. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Holsinger A, Lurigio A, Latessa E (2001) Practitioners’ guide to understanding the basis of assessing offender risk. Federal Probation 65(1):46–50Google Scholar
  10. Jalbert SK, Rhodes W, Flygare C, Kane M (2010) Testing probation outcomes in an evidence-based practice setting: reduced caseload size and intensive supervision effectiveness. J Offender Rehabil 49:233–253Google Scholar
  11. Latessa EJ, Allen HE (1997) Corrections in the community. Anderson Publishing, Co., CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  12. Latessa E, Smith P (2011) Corrections in the Community, 5th edn. Elsevier, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. MacKenzie DL, Browning K, Skroban SB, Smith DA (1999) The impact of probation of the criminal activities of offenders. J Res Crime Delinq 36(4):423–453Google Scholar
  14. Morrissey v. Brewer 408 U.S. 471 (1972)Google Scholar
  15. Sabol W, Minton T, Harrison P (2007) Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2006. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Travis LF III (2012) Introduction to criminal justice, 7th edn. Anderson Publishing, Co., NewarkGoogle Scholar
  17. Wilson J (2005) Bad behavior or bad policy? An examination of Tennessee release cohorts, 1993–2001. Criminol Public Policy 4(3):485–518Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Criminal JusticeKennesaw State UniversityKennesawUSA
  2. 2.School of Criminal JusticeUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA