The divergence among state practices regarding release may be greater than it is at any other phase in the continuum from intake to re-entry, making it difficult to present generally applicable, consensus-based recommendations about release processes. How can one compare the release decision making in Texas (a state with an appointed parole board that has authority over who is released on parole, conditions of supervision, and revocation) with that of Oklahoma (where the governor makes the decision to release based on information from the parole board) or Maine (where parole was abolished in 1976). (See Appendix, Chart of Status of Parole by State, for a state-by-state guide to the discretion allotted to each state's decision makers concerning release from incarceration.)

What is clear is that, at some point during nearly every person's incarceration, he or she faces either the possibility of release, in states where there is discretion in the release decision; or the certainty of release, in states where sentencing laws require mandatory release after a period of incarceration. Whether the releasing authority-such as a parole board, commission, governor, or judge-has discretion both in making the release decision and setting or adjusting the conditions of release, or just in setting the conditions of release, it must have some basis for making its determinations. (See sidebar, Community Supervision: A Concise Guide, in Policy Statement 17, for further explanation of "releasing authority" and other terms related to community supervision.) No matter the exact provisions of their charge, these decision makers need information about the progress, risks, needs, and strengths of each re-entering individual. Such information should guide decisions even when there will be no period of supervised release after incarceration, and therefore no enforceable conditions of release. In these cases, corrections officials and community-based service providers seeking to interrupt the cycle of recidivism must still determine transitional programming for the final stage of a person's incarceration and facilitate linkages between the person and community-based resources that he or she can pursue voluntarily after release.

This chapter explores the information-gathering and analysis that shape decisions made as a person draws near the point of release, as well as the process and steps involved in making the decisions themselves. Without equating the divergent systems in different states, the policy statements that follow seek to provide common lessons and make recommendations that are relevant to many different kinds of release systems. Where a principle or directive refers to one particular model, however, it has been noted in the text. In general, Policy Statement 17, Advising the Releasing Authority, addresses the period in which information and recommendations are collected and presented to the releasing authority. Policy Statement 18, Release Decision, focuses more on the period in which a release decision is made or a pre-established release date is imminent.