The Origins of Supervised Release

Taylor CollinsOctober 23, 2025

California’s parole system touches the lives of over 35,000 people, yet its roots and the intentions behind this system are rarely looked at. Today, it’s often criticized for practices rooted in control rather than care. At Project Protocol, we believe understanding this history matters, because we can’t change what we don’t understand. 

What we now call “parole” originally began as informal agreements to offer a second chance to individuals released from prison. In the 1840s, a shoemaker named John Augustus helped people stay out of jail by giving them support, guidance, and a chance to change. He believed people deserved a second chance, not a jail cell.

The first public employees paid to assist individuals released from prison were appointed in 1845 in Massachusetts. After chattel slavery was abolished in 1865, new laws called Black Codes were enacted to control the labor and movement of newly freed Black citizens. These laws allowed authorities to arrest freed Black people for minor infractions and commit them to involuntary labor. By the 1870s, Jim Crow laws helped turn prisons into a tool for cheap labor and control – a pattern that still exists today.

Parole in California was first introduced in 1893 as a way to relieve governors from the burden of granting clemency and to reduce excessive sentences for state prisoners. It was initially intended as a substitute for executive clemency, offering "early" release for prisoners serving what were seen as "excessive" terms. By 1901, 19 additional states introduced parole statutes. 

Starting in the 1970s, new laws were enacted that greatly expanded the prison population. In 1977, California replaced its indeterminate sentencing system with the Determinate Sentence Law. This law allowed judges to impose broad prison sentences, with the parole board, a group appointed by the governor, determining the actual time served. The 1980s and 90s “tough on crime” movement introduced the “Three Strikes" law that applied a mandatory life sentence for a third felony conviction. This law hit Black and Brown communities the hardest, often imposing harsh sentences for non-violent or minor infractions. 

By 2000, over a third of prison admissions nationwide were the result of parole revocations, not new criminal convictions. In California, people returning to prison from parole made up over 60 percent of prison admissions by 2005. In an effort to superficially reduce the prison population nationwide, some people were shifted from state prison to local jails and probation. Local governments were forced to expand and fund their own systems, which pushed them toward privatization. Parole then became a trap, focused solely on supervision and punishment. People were sent back to prison for small mistakes like missing meetings or curfew. There was no guidance or support in finding housing, jobs, or healthcare. Black and Brown communities were affected the most and there was no system to report unfair or biased treatment. 

The Money Pit

If we want to understand what our society values, we need to follow the money. Looking at where the criminal justice system puts its resources shows us its priorities, but this system hasn’t been very democratic. Too often, the people most impacted have little say in how decisions are made or where funding goes.

For 2025, California has allocated $13.6 billion to the prison and parole system, while funding for critical resources like quality education, housing, healthcare, and mental health care continues facing threats.  This disparity highlights the growing need to challenge what California taxpayer dollars are really supporting.

Current public investments often prioritize enforcement and oversight, leaving the people most impacted with little say over their care and support. By contrast, funding programs that center human connection, guidance, and individualized support gives people on parole greater control over their own success. Prioritizing these investments means not just supervising compliance, but creating pathways for healing, opportunity, and long-term stability within the community.

Prioritizing Care Over Control in the Parole System

Reentry doesn’t have to remain trapped in the oppressive systems of the past. Project Protocol exists to provide people in reentry with tools to share their experiences, mainly when it comes to the interactions they have with parole officers and experiences they have with service providers that support people on parole. By doing so, we amplify voices that are often overlooked and use those insights to create better, more accountable systems.

While law enforcement agencies operate with billion-dollar budgets to perpetuate punishment, we recognize the real value of community-driven support. Systems rooted in care move us closer to understanding the root causes of harm, rather than relying on band-aid solutions that only perpetuate cycles of punishment. 

That’s why we rely on community power to build systems that empower and uplift. Project Protocol takes this a step further by using data collected directly from justice-impacted people to reshape the narrative, challenging harmful assumptions with truth, transparency, and lived experience. Together, we can invest in systems that work and divest from those that profit from incarceration.

Let’s reshape the future of reentry. Help us continue to develop this platform and transform the system for good. If you’re on parole—or have been in the past—you can share your experience by rating your parole officer and providing feedback on the services you’ve used, helping others navigate their journey more successfully.