Key Findings
Total People in Prison Past Their Parole Eligibility1
People in Prison Are Past Their Parole Eligibility Year
States pay a high price to incarcerate people beyond initial parole eligibility.
In 2023, 31 of the 34 paroling states collectively held more than 210,000 people past their parole eligibility. These states collectively spend over $8 billion per year incarcerating people who are beyond their parole eligibility year.1
Parole populations have a limited impact on public safety.
Despite the focus on crimes committed by people released on parole, only a small fraction of felony crimes—about 5 percent—are committed by individuals currently on parole supervision. In fact, 96 percent of homicides and violent crimes are committed by people not under parole supervision.2 While violent crime committed by people on parole represents a small part of the overall crime landscape, it has a disproportionately large impact on the size and cost of the prison population. Redirecting funding from this area to broader public safety strategies could have a far greater effect on reducing crime.
The parole-eligible population in state prisons ranges from 7 to 98 percent of the state prison population.
The total number of people eligible for parole in a state ranges from 630 to over 64,000. We estimate that at least half of the incarcerated population are past their parole eligibility dates in 10 states: Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas.
Between 2019 and 2022, the number of people released on parole dropped by 41 percent.
This decline is influenced both by whether parole hearings are held in the first place and by the rate at which parole is granted. Between 2019 and 2022, there was a 27-percent decline in parole hearings, from 273,898 to 200,037 annual decisions. Parole grant rates, which measure the percentage of hearings resulting in approval where release is possible but not guaranteed, showed significant variation in 2022 between states, ranging from 10 to 78 percent.3
There are racial differences in how long people remain in prison beyond their parole eligibility.
On average, Black and Hispanic people remained incarcerated 3.8 and 3.3 years, respectively, beyond their parole eligibility, compared to 3 years for White people across 24 states.4 This adds up: In 2019, almost 75,000 Black, non-Hispanic individuals collectively spent over 282,000 years in prison past their parole eligibility year, over 34,000 Hispanic individuals collectively spent over 111,000 years in prison past their parole eligibility year, and almost 83,000 White, non-Hispanic individuals collectively spent over 248,000 years in prison past their parole eligibility year.
Over 100,000 people held past their parole eligibility year were convicted of nonviolent offenses in 28 states.5
Thousands of people who have not committed violent offenses remain incarcerated after their parole eligibility date. This includes approximately 38,000 people convicted of property offenses, over 32,000 convicted of drug offenses, and almost 28,000 convicted of public order offenses.
1 The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center conducts an annual survey of prison populations from each state department of corrections. The survey includes information on the average cost of incarceration per individual from each state. The average cost of incarceration is generally calculated as the annual total correctional budget divided by the number of people who were incarcerated. This differs from the marginal cost, which would represent the cost of housing one additional person. Note: Since the CSG Justice Center reports the average cost per individual, reliable conclusions cannot be made about how much a state would save or spend if the prison population changes.
2 Brian Reaves, Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2009 – Statistical Tables (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2013), Table 6, page 10, https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fdluc09.pdf.
3 “Appendix: Discretionary Parole Grant Rates by State, 2019-2022,” Prison Policy Initiative, accessed September 26, 2024,https://www.prisonpolicy.org/data/parolerates_2019_2022.html. Additionally, the following paroling states are not included due to missing data in one or both years: Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and West Virginia.
4 These states were included in these analyses: Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
5 These states were included in this analysis: Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
The Need for Data
Insufficient data and reporting on parole board decisions and outcomes exists in most states.
This leaves policymakers in the dark about current parole practices. As a result, they are hamstrung in their efforts to provide oversight, ensure transparency, and provide proper resourcing to parole boards.
Regular data collection on paroling decisions is crucial to ensure parole boards operate transparently, equitably, and efficiently while prioritizing public safety. Key data points states should collect and share regularly include:
- Time Past Parole Eligibility: Track how long people remain incarcerated past their parole eligibility date to identify inefficiencies and address unnecessary delays.
- Paroling Decisions for Those Returning to Prison: Collect data on parole hearing timelines, outcomes, and reasons for denial for people who return to prison after being paroled to improve reentry strategies and reduce recidivism.
- Hearing Outcomes and Denials: Monitor the frequency, outcomes, and reasons for parole decisions to ensure consistency and fairness.
- Racial Disparities and Offense Types: Analyze parole data by race and offense type to address inequities in decision-making and time served.
- Programming and Risk Assessments: Evaluate the availability of required programming and the use of objective, validated assessments in structuring parole decisions.
These metrics enable policymakers to provide oversight, reduce incarceration costs, and promote more effective and equitable parole practices.
States in Action
States are making improvements to parole.
In recent years, states have made significant strides in reforming their parole systems by tackling release delays, professionalizing parole boards, and expanding access to effective programming and reentry services. These efforts, driven by data and a commitment to improving public safety, ensure people are not kept incarcerated longer than necessary due to administrative inefficiencies. By embracing innovative strategies to streamline parole decision-making, improve transparency, and align resources with the needs of people who are incarcerated, states are showcasing the transformative potential of data-driven policymaking to build a more efficient, fair, and equitable criminal justice system.
States are investing resources to increase the capacity of required programming. States have also made improvements to how programming is offered.
After reviewing data that showed many people who posed little risk to reoffend were being held months more than intended due to bureaucratic processes, Pennsylvania passed legislation in 2019 that enabled people who are sentenced to short stays in prison for nonviolent offenses to bypass the processes generating delays and be required to receive any necessary programming in the community.
In 2007, state policymakers in Texas learned waiting lists for substance use treatment programs in prison and the community were delaying releases and reducing the parole grant rate. The prison population was projected to exceed capacity by 17,332 within five years, requiring billions in construction costs—far more than the cost of providing the needed treatment programs in a timelier fashion.6 State investment in thousands of additional in-prison and community-based substance use treatment slots allowed the state to reduce release delays for people at a low risk of reoffending and to eliminate the need for building additional prison capacity.
In 2014, Mississippi passed legislation that (1) mandates that the Department of Corrections create case plans for all parole-eligible people, upon admission, to ensure needed treatment and services are completed before parole review and (2) relieves the requirement for a parole hearing except in cases where people have not met parole release requirements, such as treatment and programming, or where victims or law enforcement specifically request a hearing.
States are adopting legislation to structure parole decision-making, improve transparency, and preserve parole discretion for the most difficult cases.
Following legislation in 2014, Idaho emphasized using parole guidelines to structure decisions and ensure people who are ready and at low risk of recidivism are released. Idaho sentences have a fixed term (the minimum before parole eligibility) and then an indeterminate (parole-eligible) term. This legislation requires the Department of Corrections to track and report on the percentage of fixed time served for people released to their first time on parole (that is, on average, how far past the fixed, judicial minimum term are people serving?).
In 2018, Michigan passed legislation to restrict the parole board’s ability to deny parole unless there are “substantial and compelling objective reasons,” which are carefully defined in the law, such as “verified objective evidence of substantial harm to a victim that could not have been available for consideration at the time of sentencing.”
In 2021, Vermont adopted legislation that created presumptive parole, which allow people to be released to supervision if they meet their minimum sentence requirement and key criteria related to good behavior while incarcerated.
States are professionalizing parole boards and increasing resources available to this group of people making critical public safety decisions.
In 2012, Hawaii’s legislature responded to the volume of people in prison by increasing the size of the parole board from three to five members.
The Iowa Parole Board moved to full-time positions for all board members in 2024. Previously, only the chair and vice chair were full-time and additional board members were part-time employees.
Montana legislation in 2017 professionalized the membership of the parole board, changed membership from part-time to full-time, and required the adoption of parole decision guidelines.
States are using objective assessments of risk and needs for parole boards to utilize in structured decision-making.
In 2015, Alabama enacted legislation requiring its parole board to follow structured parole guidelines that consider risk of reoffending and criminogenic needs, institutional conduct, and prison programming when making release decisions.
Legislation in Nebraska in 2015 required the use of a validated risk and need assessment by the board of parole. 2024 legislation limits reasons for denial of parole.
Effective in 2024, and after a lengthy, data-driven process, the Pennsylvania Parole Board adopted comprehensive new decision guidelines focused on risk and readiness for release.
6 The Council of State Governments Justice Center, Justice Reinvestment in Texas: Assessing the Impact of the 2007 Justice Reinvestment Initiative (CSG Justice Center, 2009), https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Texas_Bulletin.pdf.