Historically (and, in many places, currently), releasing authorities have set a long list of compulsory conditions that apply to all offenders uniformly. In some cases these conditions of release may have been supplemented by a few "special" conditions for the particular individual. This "more is better, one-size-fits-all" method tends to set up parolees for failure in two ways. First, the more conditions that are imposed, the more likely it is that a person will violate one, especially when some of the conditions are as broadly restrictive as precluding attendance at social occasions where alcohol is served. Second, generalized conditions are less likely to get at each person's true criminogenic factors. Thus, a failure to thoughtfully establish individualized conditions of release may wind up costing more money (increased supervision over them means increased conditions and more money for bed space when people violate). At the same time, this approach offers less protection because the critical issues are either missing from or buried in the list of conditions. The releasing authority should be charged with taking the information and recommendations from the transition planning team and establishing conditions of release that are research-based, realistic, and relevant. (See Policy Statement 17, Advising the Releasing Authority, for more on information gathered and analyzed by the transition planning team to prepare the releasing authority for its final decisions.)

"Evidence-based practices" are those initiatives, programs, or actions that research has shown to be effective. In the context of re-entry, the term often refers to a practice that has had a demonstrable, positive outcome in terms of lowering recidivism, increasing victim satisfaction, or decreasing expenditures. ^[1]   There must be an evidence base to both the method of assigning release conditions and the conditions that are ordered. Assigning conditions that target an individual's criminogenic needs and capacities, instead of applying them universally or randomly, is most likely to enable that individual to make an effective transition to the community.

Example: Results Driven Supervision, Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles

Georgia's front-line parole officers and their managers developed the Results Driven Supervision (RDS) model by merging the latest recidivism research with the insight of hands-on experience. Researchers found that specialized intervention in four critical behavioral areas-education, substance abuse, employment, and cognitive skills-yielded significant results in deterring crime, even in offenders formerly considered intractable.

The releasing authority (perhaps in conjunction with the transition planning team) should perform an inventory of each of the conditions it orders as part of its current practices, examining current research and assessing the effectiveness of each one. (See Policy Statement 2, Developing a Knowledge Base, for more on surveying current policies and procedures related to re-entry.) Treatment or other interventions should be not only targeted and timely but also proven to meet the specific risks that the offender presents.

Example: Matrix, Iowa Department of Correctional Services

Community Corrections in Iowa's Sixth Judicial District has developed an intranet-based management system called the Matrix that provides statistical analyses of the effectiveness of different treatment resources and supervision strategies, based on the success rates of district parolees.

Thus, before ordering a person to attend Narcotics Anonymous (N.A.) nightly, the releasing authority should seek evidence of the effectiveness of N.A. in reducing the risk of recidivism or achieving other goals of the releasing authority. In some cases, long-established conditions may be found to have little value (or little value for certain kinds of parolees, depending on the results of assessment instruments), and should therefore be omitted. In other cases, research will indicate new programs and treatment options that should be considered. Ultimately, a releasing authority's firm adherence to evidence-based practices should build capacity for more effective programs, especially when paroling authorities have the means to contract with community-based providers.

In addition to being research-based, the conditions of release should also be realistic, recognizing both the limitations of each individual and the issues likely to confront him or her upon release. For example, a blanket condition of release, such as obtaining a GED, may not be attainable by all offenders. The releasing authority should identify and measure the competency of the individual as well as the capacity of the community to provide services and support necessary for fulfillment of the conditions. Similarly, the completion of a substance abuse program should not be set as a condition of release if no spaces are available in such a program within the community to which a parolee will return. (See Policy Statement 17, Advising the Releasing Authority, for more on the transition planning team's survey of available community resources for re-entering individuals.) Only when conditions are achievable should the person under supervision be held accountable for lapses in compliance, although he or she should always be held responsible for any new crime committed.

To be most effective, the conditions of release should be responsive to the temperament, learning style, motivation, gender, and culture of the individual. ^[2]   Finally, any release conditions should apply specifically to the particular probationer or parolee's criminogenic needs, as well as the needs of the community and the victim.

Soliciting community or victim input to the conditions of release, as indicated in Policy Statement 17, Advising the Releasing Authority, can help to ensure that these conditions will be relevant to the needs of the victims and the community as well. The releasing authority should recognize the unique knowledge and ability to inform recommendations that these stakeholders may have, and should carefully consider their interests. But above all, decisions relating to the conditions of release must reflect considerations of public safety and reintegration, rather than an individual's or community's emotion or desire for retribution.

By limiting the conditions of release to those that are research-based, realistic, and relevant, the releasing authority clearly communicates to community corrections officials what their priorities should be and communicates to the person being released what will be expected of him or her. It is critical, therefore, that the conditions set by the releasing authority have integrity. If the community corrections agency does not have the resources to enforce one or more of the conditions of release imposed by the releasing authority, then the set of release conditions as a whole will lose credibility. Even if the community corrections agency lacks resources, it should always strive to enforce release conditions essential to public or individual safety to maintain the overall credibility of the agency and the release process. Improved cooperation between the releasing authority and community corrections should ensure that the releasing authority is always appraised of community corrections' capacity.