A common but misleading way to think about parole is that some states have it and some states do not. It’s true that many resources (including our own reports) will say that since 1976, more than a dozen states have done away with discretionary parole, requiring most or all criminally sentenced people to serve their full sentence instead of having an opportunity to demonstrate to a parole board their transformation and readiness for release. This approach taken by 17 states (and D.C.) to date is also known as part of a “truth-in-sentencing” structure for determining criminal sentences, and indeed took away a huge opportunity for early release for the vast majority of people entering prisons.

However, binary thinking about parole does not reflect the wide range of ways that states “do” parole and other forms of “early release” — particularly those states that are thought to have no parole. Their parole systems are just as worthy of assessment and reform as those we included in our recent two-part report on discretionary parole. In this briefing, a companion to that report, we answer some common questions about states “without parole” and how they compare to states with active discretionary parole systems.

IMAGE

Here, we also fill in data gaps, providing a comprehensive table describing these often overlooked “post-parole” states. Using state statutes, agency websites, and news media, we compiled information about how these hollowed-out parole systems work, including eligibility criteria, board composition, outcomes, and other ways (if any) incarcerated people can earn an early release. These details can be found in full in the appendix table accompanying this briefing.

In 17 states and D.C., people are eligible for discretionary parole under old laws or narrow criteria

Every state that abolished or curtailed discretionary parole — which can also be generally described as shifting to a determinate sentencing structure — still has a fully functioning paroling authority, holding hearings and making a variety of decisions related to release and supervision. Even where some states’ parole-eligible populations are dwindling, the boards are typically tasked with other work, such as processing clemency applications or setting conditions for other types of release.

Characteristics of parole release systems in states without discretionary parole, 2026

TABLE

Table 1. Characteristics of parole release systems in the jurisdictions that have eliminated or curtailed discretionary parole as of 2026 (17 states and D.C.). For the full table, which includes more information about each state’s parole board (or equivalent) and other opportunities for early release, see the Appendix.

Our findings about parole in these states include:

  • In all 17 states and D.C., people who committed crimes before parole was abolished are still eligible for parole. In states such as Maine and Indiana, this means that someone must still be incarcerated for a crime committed in the 1970s or earlier; Wisconsin and Virginia are among the states that passed their corresponding laws in the 1990s.
  • In 10 states, there are other situations that make someone eligible for discretionary parole, such as having a life sentence (4 states), being a youth or young adult at the time of the crime (5 states), or being sentenced outside of the truth-in-sentencing guidelines (3 states).
  • The number of parole-eligible people — in the few states where we could locate such data — ranges from zero (in Maine) to over 41,000 (in California). States where eligibility is based solely on the date of the crime generally have low and dwindling parole-eligible populations.
  • Parole boards or their equivalent (such as a “review board”) in these states range in size from three to 21 members, but more than half (9 states) have five-member boards. In every state except Ohio, these board members are appointed by the governor.
  • Where data were available, we found parole grant rates ranging from 1% (in Virginia) to 23% (in Minnesota). By contrast, our analysis of states with discretionary parole found recent grant rates as high as 76%, with a dozen states reporting over 50% of hearings resulting in a grant. (Note that parole grant rates are difficult to compare to one another because parole applicants and eligibility criteria can vary so widely.)
  • Most states (15) offer some type of medical parole or compassionate release, but in some cases this opportunity is framed as an “extraordinary” release; in Wisconsin, an approved medical situation can result in resentencing, rather than a direct release.

Looking at the structure and function of these parole systems, it’s evident that states without discretionary parole look a lot like states with it. Every state’s parole board, hearing format, and eligibility rules offer something for advocates to note and assess, for example against the core principles of parole.

Other opportunities for early release aren’t unique to states without discretionary parole, and aren’t actually letting many eligible people out

It is critical for states to have mechanisms for evaluating long sentences and releasing people whose incarceration is no longer justifiable. Other than discretionary parole, there are several statutory “release valves” that states could be using, such as medical parole, resentencing, and earned or good time systems; we introduce these and more in our 2018 report, Eight Keys to Mercy.

Every incarcerated person should have access to discretionary parole as a bedrock opportunity for release.It would be one thing if the 17 states without discretionary parole (plus D.C.) had well-functioning release tools, with streamlined application processes and broad eligibility leading to thousands of releases annually, but this is objectively not the case. Plenty of states with discretionary parole have these release mechanisms, too, and they are universally underutilized. Below, we break down some of the most common early release opportunities found in prisons, showing that these 17 states and D.C. should (but do not) lean on them more heavily to relieve overcrowded prisons and safely return people to their communities.

Mandatory parole. Some states that ended discretionary parole replaced it with a system of mandatory parole, where at least some time on supervision is required at the end of someone’s sentence. For example, Illinois has had Mandatory Supervised Release since 1978, and New Mexico has post-release supervision, two programs for which the parole boards set conditions for people but do not have the final say in their readiness for release. But mandatory supervision is not an innovation from states that eliminated parole; it exists in many other states, like Alabama, Massachusetts, Texas, and West Virginia.

Mandatory post-release supervision may sound like an improvement on discretionary parole because, for the most part, a parole board cannot stop someone’s “mandatory” release. But research suggests that this approach to release may not be effective, with higher re-arrest levels compared to discretionary parole release and lower levels of successful supervision completion. Even when mandatory supervision “works,” it is no replacement for discretionary parole.

Medical or geriatric parole. As we have explained, medical parole often sets an extremely high bar for applicants to meet, and as a result, many extremely ill or incapacitated people remain locked up and sometimes die before their cases are considered. Most states have medical parole, geriatric parole (for older people, regardless of health condition), or both, but they release so few people that they are effectively “everywhere and nowhere.” Of the 18 jurisdictions without discretionary parole, Arizona is the only one with neither medical parole nor geriatric parole, leaving few options for addressing the reality of prisons turning into nursing homes.

Some states are revisiting their medical parole laws to expand eligibility or streamline the application process, but these efforts have not resulted in more releases. According to some prison systems’ own data, dozens of people are so sick that they require acute long-term care or 24-hour nursing care behind bars at any given time, vastly outnumbering those who are granted medical parole over an entire year.

Image

Earned time and good time. These policies credit days off of a criminal sentence for completing programs or education behind bars, or maintaining a clean disciplinary record. Sentencing credit structures range from day-for-day (one day without disciplinary infractions leads to one day off of the sentence) to just a few days’ credit for a month of compliant behavior. States with strict truth-in-sentencing laws tend to have stingy earned and good time policies, so they should not be considered comparable to discretionary parole. Rather, sentencing credits should complement opportunities to discuss growth and transformation in front of a parole board.

Resentencing, sentence review, or “second look” sentencing. More and more, states are responding to the vast body of research showing that long prison sentences don’t work, passing legislation that authorizes judges to review a sentence after someone has served a specific amount of time. This mechanism, while fundamentally different from discretionary parole in its core question and structure, has great potential to redress excessive prison sentences rooted in outdated ideas about punishment. Disappointingly, only 15 states have second look laws on the books (beyond those that address juvenile or young adult life-without-parole sentences); seven of those states lack discretionary parole.

Finally, most governors have the authority to grant release or modify a sentence as an act of clemency or under extraordinary circumstances. However, they often shy away from such merciful actions due to inevitable political blowback.

States that have done away with discretionary parole are still making sweeping changes to their parole systems

Advocates in states that don’t have discretionary parole should still pay attention to their parole or post-release supervision system because reforms or rollbacks can easily move the needle on decarceration in either direction. In a move that will place release further out of reach for incarcerated people, Kansas recently overhauled its parole board, increasing victim and law enforcement experiential requirements and transferring the power to appoint board members from the corrections director to the state attorney general and governor, further solidifying the board as an extension of political power rather than a professional agency.

New Mexico, on the other hand, passed legislation acknowledging that parole should be based on dynamic factors and demonstrated rehabilitation, rather than static factors such as the original crime or a conviction history. The static factors are still included in the law as part of the bevy of information the parole board will look at, but this statutory framing that prioritizes readiness for release is a huge step forward, grounding parole in forward-looking criteria.

The biggest recent change to parole in this cohort of states likely took place in Minnesota, where an entirely new Supervised Release Board (SRB) was established in 2024 to oversee post-release supervision for a growing number of incarcerated people. The SRB will now replace the commissioner of corrections as the decision-making authority for releasing eligible people (such as those with life sentences), increasing the capacity to hold hearings and post decisions.

Further, unlike many other states in our analysis, Minnesota’s SRB does not handle clemency or medical parole applications, potentially making its workload lighter than that of other boards. Still, some incarcerated people in Minnesota have to serve 30 years behind bars before becoming eligible for supervised release, far longer than what many advocates suggest is reasonable.

Parole in every state is flawed, but discretionary parole should be an option for all incarcerated people

As our research over the years has shown, no state is “doing” parole well. But every incarcerated person should have access to discretionary parole as a bedrock opportunity for release after showing transformation and preparedness. Lawmakers in the 18 jurisdictions that have curtailed discretionary parole should consider that loved ones and taxpayers are footing the bill for such an ineffective approach.

Beyond some of the changes described above, some advocates in these states (namely Illinois and Maine) are going to the root of the problem and campaigning to reinstate discretionary parole. Still other states, such as Wisconsin and Washington, have advocates working on establishing or expanding compassionate release, resentencing, or other release mechanisms to combat excessively long sentences and the crisis of aging in prison. Ultimately, any reform related to parole, sentencing, or early release should be retroactive, set out broad criteria that do not carve out certain convictions, and offer a straightforward process for consideration.

Parole and other release mechanisms are found in every state but are vastly underused. When wielded more broadly, more urgently, and without politics, they can meaningfully reduce the nation’s overreliance on incarceration.



Stay Informed


Get the latest updates:



Share on 𝕏 Donate


Events

Not near you?
Invite us to your city, college or organization.