Parole boards decide who gets out of prison early, but not everyone has the same chance at freedom. Data from across the United States reveal large disparities in parole approval based on race, gender, and location. For example, non-white incarcerated people have been released on parole at significantly lower rates than white people in the same state. Women in prison often see higher parole approval rates than men. And where someone is incarcerated can be the biggest factor of all: some state parole boards approve the majority of candidates, while others release almost no one. These gaps mean that two people with similar records can face very different outcomes at their parole hearings simply due to who they are and where they serve time.

Racial Disparities in Parole Decisions

Racial inequities are evident at nearly every stage of the criminal justice system, and parole is no exception. Black and Hispanic incarcerated people generally have a harder time securing parole than white people. One national review found that in 24 states, Black individuals remained in prison an average of 3.8 years beyond their parole eligibility date, compared to about 3.0 years for white individuals (Hispanic people averaged 3.3 years). This indicates that people of color often wait longer in prison even after they qualify for release. In New York State, newly released data showed the parole board’s bias in stark terms: in 2022–2023, only about 30% of parole applicants of color were approved for release, versus 41% of white applicants. In fact, racial gaps in New York parole approvals have worsened in recent years – the release rate for people of color was around 19% lower than for whites from 2016–2021, but nearly 29% lower by 2022. An investigative analysis noted that if Black and Latino people had been paroled at the same rate as white people in New York over a recent two-year period, there would have been 675 fewer people in prison than there were. Such numbers underscore how parole denials contribute to racial disparities in incarceration.

“The parole board was significantly less likely to grant parole to incarcerated men compared to women and to Black people compared to white people…Black men were least likely to be granted parole, whereas white women were the most likely,” according to a comprehensive study of 43,000 parole hearings. This research, which examined a decade of hearings in South Carolina, confirms that Black applicants (especially Black men) face the lowest odds of parole, even when controlling for factors like offense severity and behavior in prison. Similarly, New York’s data on initial parole interviews show Black applicants are consistently less likely to be released than white applicants under comparable circumstances. These patterns suggest that racial bias – whether overt or implicit – influences parole outcomes. Decades of higher incarceration rates for people of color (driven by policing and sentencing disparities) mean parole boards see a disproportionate number of Black and Latino candidates, yet the boards often fail to counterbalance this injustice at the release stage. Instead, they may be perpetuating it by more frequently denying parole to people of color.

Parole statistics in some states do show progress toward equity, but only in a few places. A recent 50-state analysis noted that between 2001 and 2018, only 7 out of 47 states succeeded in reducing the Black–white gap in parole rates. In most states the gap held steady or widened. One positive example comes from Georgia, where reforms in parole board composition (adding Black board members) have made a measurable difference. A study in Georgia found that when the board had a higher proportion of Black members, Black prisoners had better parole outcomes and lower recidivism, effectively closing the Black–white gap in parole violation rates. This suggests that increasing diversity and awareness on parole boards can help reduce racial disparities. Overall, however, people of color continue to face an uphill battle for parole in many jurisdictions. The cumulative impact is significant: tens of thousands of Black and Brown individuals collectively spend additional years in prison beyond eligibility, simply because parole was denied at disproportionate rates.

Gender Disparities in Parole Outcomes

Gender also plays a role in who gets paroled. The prison population is predominantly male, but data indicate that incarcerated women are paroled at higher rates on average than incarcerated men. The South Carolina study cited above found that women were more likely to be granted parole than men, all else being equal. In fact, the lowest likelihood of release was observed for Black men, whereas the highest was for white women, reflecting compounding effects of race and gender. This trend is echoed in other states that track gender statistics. For instance, Montana reports that women have a higher parole grant rate than men, both at their first hearing and at subsequent reconsideration hearings. Nevadalikewise publishes parole data by sex, showing that in recent years women were approved more often than men for parole. These findings align with the broader understanding that female offenders, who often have lower recidivism rates and typically are incarcerated for less violent offenses, tend to receive more favorable consideration for early release.

National-level parole data by gender is not routinely published, but where available it consistently points to a parole advantage for women. One analysis found that around 90% of eligible women in a certain cohort were approved for parole, compared to about 75% of men. While that statistic may not apply universally, it highlights a significant gap. The reasons behind this disparity could include perceptions that women pose lower risk to public safety, or that they have more compelling family responsibilities that boards take into account. Additionally, many parole boards and risk assessment tools were historically designed around male-dominated prison populations; as a result, they may inadvertently classify women as lower risk when they don’t fit the typical profile of violent male offenders. Whatever the causes, the outcome is clear: being female improves one’s odds of parole, whereas men – and especially men of color – face a harsher parole process in many states.

It’s important to note that even though women have higher success rates, they represent a small minority of those appearing before parole boards. Female prisoners make up roughly 7% of the state prison population, so the overall impact of gender disparity is less pronounced than that of race or geography. Nonetheless, gender-based differences in parole raise questions of fairness on an individual level. Every incarcerated person is supposed to be evaluated on their merits, but the data suggests otherwise. Ideally, parole boards should apply consistent standards of risk and rehabilitation to all, regardless of gender. The fact that outcomes diverge by sex signals room for improvement in achieving truly individualized and unbiased parole decisions.

Geographic Disparities: Location Determines Parole Chances

Discretionary parole grant rates by state (most recent data as of 2025). A few states approve well over half of parole applicants (e.g. Wyoming 76%), while others grant parole in only a small fraction of cases (e.g. California ~20%, Texas ~39%, and South Carolina just 4%).

Where a person is incarcerated can dramatically shape their chances of parole. Parole approval rates vary wildly from state to state. In some states, a majority of eligible prisoners are released on parole, whereas in other states almost no one gets out early. Recent data show that among the 35 states with discretionary parole, only 10 states granted parole to at least half of applicants in the past year. At the top end, states like Wyoming and North Dakota approve around 70–76% of parole candidates, meaning most people who come up for parole in those states actually get released. By contrast, states such as California grant parole in only about one out of five cases despite holding thousands of hearings, and South Carolina has an alarmingly low approval rate – around 4% in 2024. Many other states fall somewhere in between. Texas, for example, approved roughly 39% of parole reviews in its 2024 fiscal year, which is neither especially high nor extremely low by national standards. Meanwhile Alabama’s parole grant rate fell into the single digits during 2023 (around 7–10% that year) amid a widely criticized parole board crisis. These disparities mean the luck of geography plays a huge role: an inmate in Wyoming or New Jersey may have a far better shot at parole than an equivalent inmate in Georgia or Oklahoma, purely because of the state’s parole policies.

Why are there such geographic disparities? One reason is that parole board practices differ tremendously across jurisdictions. Each state has its own laws and guidelines governing parole, and boards exercise broad discretion. In some places, parole boards operate under a “tough on crime” culture that makes release rare. For instance, Southern states like Alabama and South Carolina have recently almost shut the door on parole, claiming that most people up for parole “are the ones that don’t need to be out” according to one Alabama official. In other states, boards are more willing to release people, especially if prison populations are high or political pressures favor reducing incarceration. The resources and composition of parole boards also matter. A report by the Prison Policy Initiative noted that under-resourced boards with too few members tend to hold fewer hearings and make more hasty decisions – often defaulting to denial – given the political risks of releasing someone. This has been exacerbated in recent years: between 2019 and 2022, the number of parole hearings nationwide dropped by 27%, and discretionary parole releases fell by about 41% overall. Some states virtually stopped or slowed parole during the COVID-19 pandemic and never fully resumed, leading to a backlog of eligible people still behind bars.

Another factor is the state laws on parole eligibility and wait times. States not only decide who can be paroled (for example, some states exclude certain offenses or have truth-in-sentencing laws that delay eligibility), but also whensomeone gets another chance if denied. In Texas, if parole is denied, the board issues a “set-off” – a future date when the person will be reconsidered. By rule, most Texas set-offs range from 1 to 3 years. However, for more serious offenses, Texas law allows much longer set-offs: people serving life for a capital felony or certain aggravated crimes can be set off up to 5 years, and in extreme cases (such as capital life with certain circumstances) even 10 years before the next hearing. This means some individuals are set off again and again, languishing for years despite being eligible for release. Not all states impose such long deferrals. A few require more frequent reviews – for instance, Colorado, Hawaii, Mississippi, Vermont, and Wyoming law mandate at least annual parole hearings for those denied parole. On the other end, states like Georgia (up to 8-year set-off) and California (up to 15-year set-off) allow exceptionally long gaps before reconsideration. Such policies contribute to geographic inequality. An incarcerated person in a state with 15-year set-offsmight effectively lose any realistic chance at parole, whereas someone in a state with yearly reviews has many more opportunities to eventually convince the board.

The bottom line is that parole remains a postcode lottery. As one analysis put it, “those inconsistent decisions lead to wildly different parole grant rates from state to state”. A prisoner’s fate may hinge less on their own rehabilitation and more on the habits of a particular board. This undermines the principle that parole should be a merit-based system rewarding personal growth and readiness to reenter society. Geographic disparities also reflect a broader failure to use parole as a tool to manage prison populations. Some of the states with the lowest grant rates (for example, Alabama, South Carolina) have severe prison overcrowding and humanitarian crises, yet their boards are releasing very few people. By contrast, states with higher parole rates often have smaller prison populations and possibly a more functional parole process. Uniformly, however, there is a national trend of declining parole grants: even traditionally lenient states have pulled back some, and very few states are increasing parole releases in recent years. Without changes, where a person serves their time will continue to largely determine whether they have a meaningful chance at parole or will just serve out most of their sentence behind bars.

Why Do Parole Disparities Exist?

Several systemic factors help explain these disparities in parole outcomes:

• Subjective Decision-Making: Parole boards have enormous discretion and often operate behind closed doors. There are typically few hard rules governing decisions, which means personal biases can influence outcomes. Extensive research and journalism indicate that certain groups pay a “parole penalty” – for example, Black applicants may face harsher scrutiny – much as they face bias in earlier stages of the justice process. If a board (consciously or not) views a Black prisoner as higher risk, or a female prisoner as less threatening, those perceptions translate into different decisions. The South Carolina study clearly demonstrated such bias at work, since race and sex independently affected decisions even when controlling for inmates’ behavior and crimes.
• Emphasis on the Original Crime: Many parole boards place heavy weight on the nature of the inmate’s original offense. In practice, this often outweighs evidence of rehabilitation. Parole hearing records show board members frequently denying release “due to the severity of the offense,” essentially punishing the person again for their past act. This hurts certain groups disproportionately. For instance, racial minorities are more likely to have been convicted of serious offenses (due to systemic inequalities in arrests and sentencing) and thus are more often deemed “too dangerous” to parole. Boards’ fixation on static factors like the crime – which cannot change – means that even model prisoners who have transformed their lives can be set off repeatedly because of an unchangeable history. This practice undermines people who might actually be low risk (notably, studies show those convicted of violent crimes have among the lowest recidivism rates after release). It also contributes to racial disparities, as Black inmates are disproportionately serving time for violent offenses and then being denied parole on that basis.
• Lack of Transparency and Data: Most parole boards do not publish detailed data on their decisions. According to the Council of State Governments, “insufficient data and reporting on parole board decisions and outcomes exists in most states,” leaving policymakers “in the dark” and making oversight difficult. Without public statistics on approval rates by race or gender, it can be hard to even identify disparities, let alone fix them. The available data we have (often from investigative efforts or academic studies) strongly suggest disparities, but boards rarely acknowledge or examine them. This opacity allows unequal patterns to continue unchecked. It also means parole applicants and their supporters lack clear guidance on how to improve their chances – fueling sentiments that “no one really knows how to get parole.”
• Parole Board Composition and Culture: Who sits on a parole board and the culture of the board significantly impact outcomes. Boards lacking diversity may not fully understand or empathize with inmates from different backgrounds. The Georgia study showing improved outcomes for Black prisoners under a racially diverse board is a telling example. Conversely, homogeneous boards might unconsciously favor people who look like them or share their background. Board members are often former law enforcement or corrections officials, which can bias the board toward a punitive mindset. Political appointment processes can also result in boards stocked with members who are explicitly tough on parole. A single board member’s philosophy matters too: in some states one dissenting vote can veto a parole, so a particularly strict member can skew results. Geographic disparities stem partly from these cultural differences – some boards see themselves as gatekeepers who rarely let people out, while others see parole as an earned opportunity for second chances.
• Resource Constraints and Backlogs: Parole boards with fewer staff or heavy caseloads may spend less time on each case and default to denials more often. Since denying parole is the “safe” option (it avoids any risk of releasing someone who reoffends), an overworked board might err on that side. The recent decline in parole hearings and grants in many states suggests boards are overwhelmed or underfunded, leading to fewer opportunities for inmates to even be heard. When hearings do occur, they may be perfunctory. This environment disadvantages all applicants, but especially those who don’t stand out as obviously low-risk. It can also worsen racial and gender gaps if, for example, implicit biases fill in the gaps when there isn’t time for careful consideration of each individual.

Overall, parole disparities persist because parole systems have not been designed or operated with equity in mind.Discretion, by its nature, allows unequal treatment. Combine that with insufficient oversight, vague criteria, and external political pressures, and you get a process where bias can thrive. As a result, parole – which should be a forward-looking assessment of rehabilitation – often replicates many of the same inequalities that existed at sentencing. The consequence is that certain populations (like men of color or those in certain states) remain incarcerated longer not because of what they’ve done since entering prison, but because of systemic factors beyond their control.

Toward Fairer Parole: Recommendations

Despite these challenges, there are clear steps that can be taken to reduce disparities in parole approval and make the process more fair and data-driven. Experts and justice reform organizations recommend measures such as:

• Increase Transparency and Data Collection: State parole boards should regularly publish detailed statistics on parole hearings and outcomes. This data should be broken down by race, gender, age, offense type, and other relevant factors. Transparent reporting would allow officials and the public to identify biases or inconsistencies. It would also hold boards accountable for their decisions. Right now, many boards only report the total number of hearings and overall approval rates, if that. Requiring them to track and release demographic data is a crucial first step in shining light on any disparities and prompting corrective action.
• Diversify Parole Board Membership: Governors and other appointing authorities should appoint diverse board members who bring different perspectives. Research indicates that having more Black decision-makers on a parole board can improve outcomes for Black inmates and reduce the racial gap in approvals. Gender diversity and diversity in professional background (including people with social work or rehabilitative expertise, not just law enforcement) are also important. A broader range of experiences on the board can check groupthink and implicit bias. At the same time, provide regular training on implicit bias and cultural competency to all board members. A more representative and well-trained parole board is likely to make more equitable decisions.
• Expand and Support Parole Boards: Many states simply need to invest more in their parole boards so that they can function effectively. This means filling all board vacancies, hiring additional commissioners or hearing officers if caseloads are high, and providing adequate staff support for case review and investigations. A larger, well-resourced board can hold more hearings and give each case the attention it deserves. This helps avoid the backlogs and perfunctory reviews that lead to blanket denials. States should also consider presumptive parolepolicies for low-risk cases – essentially fast-tracking those who meet certain criteria – which would free up boards to focus on more complex cases. The goal is to prevent the current bottleneck where too few board members are processing too many cases, a situation that has hurt parole grant rates nationwide.
• Establish Clear, Fair Criteria Centered on Rehabilitation: Parole decisions should be guided by objective risk assessments and evidence of rehabilitation, not subjective impressions or the immutable details of the original crime. States should revise parole guidelines to prioritize factors like the inmate’s conduct in prison, program completion, release plan, and demonstrated change. Conversely, guidelines should de-emphasize or forbid using factors that cannot change (such as the nature of the offense or broad judgments about “seriousness” that often simply mirror the sentencing court’s punishment). Many advocates urge adopting a “presumption of release” – meaning the board should grant parole unless there is clear evidence the person poses a current threat. This flips the mindset to one that rewards transformation. At minimum, parole boards should document specific reasons for any denial and those reasons should be grounded in the individual’s recent behavior or risk level, not vague notions of the crime or politics. By clarifying and tightening decision criteria, states can limit arbitrary denials and make the process more consistent across cases.
• Ensure Regular and Timely Hearings (Limit Set-Offs): People who are denied parole should not be set off for excessive lengths of time. Long waiting periods for the next hearing only magnify disparities and hopelessness. States should standardize a reasonable maximum interval (such as 1 or 2 years) before reconsideration. Best practice is at least an annual review for parole-denied individuals. This gives everyone a yearly chance to show improvement. It also prevents a single denial from effectively becoming a many-year punishment. As noted, some states currently allow multi-year or even decade-long gaps before a new hearing – those policies should be reformed. Shorter set-offs would particularly help older inmates or those who were denied for static reasons, since it forces the board to re-evaluate if circumstances have changed. Regular hearings make the parole system more dynamic and just, ensuring no one is “lost” in prison for years without reconsideration.
• Make Hearings More Accessible and Consider Special Populations: Parole processes should be adjusted to give every candidate a fair shot. This includes allowing support people to participate (family or lawyers providing input), ensuring applicants can speak and present evidence, and even using technology to include those who cannot attend in person. Accessibility also means accommodating disabilities or language needs among the incarcerated population. Furthermore, parole boards should pay attention to groups like aging prisoners or those with medical issues – individuals who often pose low risk – and create avenues for their release. For example, some jurisdictions have started presuming parole for inmates over a certain age who have served long sentences without serious disciplinary issues. Focusing on such cases can help reduce prison populations and show compassion without compromising public safety. Overall, the hearing process must not erect unnecessary barriers; it should be a genuine opportunity for the incarcerated person to make their case.

By implementing these recommendations, states can move toward a parole system that is more equitable and effective. The changes above address the root causes of disparity: better data and oversight to spot problems, a more diverse and prepared decision-making body, rules that emphasize who the person is now rather than who they were, and a commitment to giving every candidate a meaningful and timely review. Parole will always involve some individual judgment, but with reforms, it need not be a roll of the dice stacked against certain groups. Instead, it can fulfill its promise as a cornerstone of second chances – one that operates fairly for all who come before the board, regardless of race, gender, or geography.

Sources:

• Council of State Governments Justice Center, Overlooked: How Parole Boards Shape Lives and Systems
• Prison Policy Initiative, No Release: Parole grant rates have plummeted…
• Prison Policy Initiative, Parole in Perspective: How parole decisions are made
• Garavito et al., 2023, Effects of Race and Sex in South Carolina Parole Hearings
• NYU Law, The Problem With Parole: Failing System of Release (2023)
• Montana Board of Pardons and Parole, 2025 Dispositions Report (via PPI)
• Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, Parole FAQs and Texas Gov. Code §508 (set-off rules)
• Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group, Parole Board Racial Composition Study
• Albany Times Union analysis of NY Parole (via NYU report)
• Nevada and Montana Parole Statistics (via PPI report)