Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:56 am
Time: 3:56 am
Results for parole board
6 results foundAuthor: Anwar, Shamena Title: Testing for Racial Prejudice in the Parole Board Release Process: Theory and Evidence Summary: We develop a model of a Parole Board contemplating whether to grant parole release to a prisoner who has finished serving their minimum sentence. The model implies a simple outcome test for racial prejudice robust to the inframarginality problem. Our test involves running simple regressions of whether a prisoner recidivates on the exposure time to the risk of recidivism and its square, using only the sample of prisoners who are granted parole release strictly between their minimum and maximum sentences and separately by race. If the coefficient estimates on the exposure time term differ by race, then there is evidence of racial prejudice against the racial group with the smaller coefficient estimate. We implement our test for prejudice using data from Pennsylvania from January 1996 to December 31, 2001. Although we find racial differences in time served, we find no evidence for racial prejudice on the part of the Parole Board based on our outcome test. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper No. 18239: Accessed July 24, 2012 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18239 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18239 Shelf Number: 125756 Keywords: BiasParole (U.S.)Parole BoardParoleesRacial DisparitiesRacial Prejudice |
Author: McAleenan, Dawn Title: Is There a Difference in the Perception of Risk: Between IPP prisoners and members of the parole board' Summary: Background -- The IPP sentence is the fastest growing sentence in the UK. This growth in the population is due to large numbers of offenders being sentenced to IPP sentences and then becoming stagnant in the prison population, as they are unable to reduce their risk sufficiently and progress through the penal system. Despite this, few studies have explored risk in relation female IPPs and how this relates to public protection. Aim -- The aim of the research is to explore perception of risk as it applies to female prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for public protection (IPP). Method -- This research was conducted using semi-structured interview with ten female prisoners serving a sentence to imprisonment for Public Protection, two Legal Advisors and one Senior Member of the Parole Board. Conclusion -- The research found that there was a clear difference in the perception of risk from the female IPP prisoners and the Parole Board. These differences potentially have a profound effect upon the identification of risk factors and the way in which they are reduced. Details: London: The Griffins Society, 2012. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Paper 2012/01: Accessed August 22, at: http://www.thegriffinssociety.org/Research%20Paper%202012-01.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.thegriffinssociety.org/Research%20Paper%202012-01.pdf Shelf Number: 129676 Keywords: Female InmatesParole BoardPrisoners (U.K.)Risk Assessment |
Author: Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending Title: Parolable Lifers in Michigan: paying the Price of Unchecked Discretion Summary: Hundreds of Michigan prisoners sentenced to "parolable life" terms have been eligible for release for one, two or even three decades. As a group, they are aging, low-risk and guilty of offenses comparable to those for which thousands of other people have served a term of years and been paroled. Each parole board decision to incarcerate a lifer for another five years - often based on nothing more than a single board member's review of a file - costs taxpayers roughly $200,000. Americans have certain expectations of government. In times of tight budgets and soaring costs, the one most discussed is cost-effectiveness. We want to spend as few taxpayer dollars as possible to fulfill governmental functions. We also want transparency, so we know how decisions are being made; accountability, so that decisions are subject to review and, if necessary, correction; consistency, so that outcomes are predictable and similarly situated citizens are similarly treated; and objectivity, so that decisions are based on evidence, not emotions or unsupported assumptions. The parole decision-making process for lifers violates all these norms. It is one of the few areas where a group of unelected officials has virtually unlimited power over people's lives and the public purse. Over the last few decades, a series of policy changes with no proven impact on public safety has undermined the parole process for prisoners generally and for lifers in particular. The solutions are simple and straightforward: return to practices that protected both public safety and taxpayers' pocketbooks. Details: Lansing, MI: CAPPS, 2014. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2014 at: http://www.capps-mi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Parolable-Lifers-in-Michigan-Paying-the-price-of-unchecked-discretion.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.capps-mi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Parolable-Lifers-in-Michigan-Paying-the-price-of-unchecked-discretion.pdf Shelf Number: 131898 Keywords: Costs of ImprisonmentDecision-MakingJudgesLife ImprisonmentLife Sentence ParoleParole Board |
Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: Investigation into the Parole Board Summary: The National Audit Office has today published the findings from its investigation into the Parole Board (The Board). The Board is responsible for deciding whether prisoners can be safely released from prison and advising on movement between closed and open prisons across England and Wales. The NAO examined the Board in 2008 and made a number of recommendations to improve efficiency, in particular to address a backlog of outstanding cases. A Supreme Court ruling in 2013 (The Osborn ruling) broadened the circumstances in which the law requires the Board to hold an oral hearing. This led to an increase demand for oral hearings by the Board. The number of outstanding parole cases increased sharply, leading to increased delays and additional costs. The key findings of the investigation are as follows: The Osborn ruling in October 2013 had an immediate impact on the demand for oral hearings conducted by the Board. There were 6,872 oral hearings conducted by the Board in 2014-15, an increase of 48% in comparison to 4,628 in 2012-13. Hearings increased to a high of 7,148 in 2015-16. The number of outstanding cases increased by more than 140% following the Osborn ruling. The Board had a backlog of cases for several years, but the number of outstanding cases increased by 143% from October 2013 to a peak of 3,163 in January 2015. Of the 2,117 oral cases outstanding in September 2016, 13% were more than a year past their target date for a hearing. A further 16% were more than six months past their target date. The Board's ability to reduce the number of outstanding cases is limited by the number of cases it is able to list in any month. For example, the Board listed 701 cases for oral hearings in September 2016, while the queue of cases waiting for a hearing date was 1,257. Once listed, 34% oral hearings were deferred, and more than half of these (21%) were deferred or adjourned on the day of the hearing. The increase in demand for oral hearings has meant that older and more complex cases have been less likely to be heard. In 2015-16, 64% of cases were provided with an oral hearing date within 90 days of being ready to list, against a 90% target. The oldest of the outstanding cases in September 2016 had an original target date in 2009, with another 404 cases having target dates in 2015 or earlier. At December 2016, 3,081 prisoners on indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPPs) were in prison beyond their tariff expiry date. IPP prisoners make up around half of the cases waiting more than 90 days for a hearing. Of the 3,683 IPP prisoners still in custody in December 2016, 84% (3,081) were beyond their tariff expiry date. Of these, 48% had been in prison five or more years beyond their tariff and 11% were eight years or more beyond their tariff. In July 2016, the Board announced its intention to reduce the number of IPP prisoners in prison to 1,500 by 2020. The Board has paid £1.1 million in compensation claims to prisoners since 2011-12 as a result of delayed hearings, with £554,000 paid out in 2015-16. The backlog means some prisoners may have spent longer in prison than needed. Spending on member fees increased by 43% from £4.7 million in 2010-11 to £6.7 million in 2015-16. In October 2015, the Board set a target to reduce outstanding cases to 1,200 by April 2017, but this level of outstanding cases does not reflect efficiencies it has made since 2013. In June 2016, the Board moved the date to achieve this target to the end of 2017, and has so far not set out what it expects the level of outstanding cases to be after this. Under its new chair and chief executive, the Board launched a strategy to tackle the backlog in September 2016. The strategy includes aims to prioritise the safe release of IPP prisoners and to improve workflow by listing as many cases as possible and reducing unnecessary deferrals and adjournments. In 2016, the Ministry of Justice, on behalf of the Board, launched a major member recruitment exercise for the first time in four years. The Ministry did not recruit new members between 2012 and 2016, and member numbers fell 23% between 2010-11 (284) and 2015-16 (218). In 2016 it recruited 104 members, around half starting in 2016-17 and the remainder in 2017-18. Details: London: NAO, 2017. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: HC 1013; Session 2016-17: Accessed February 28, 2017 at: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Investigation-into-the-Parole-Board.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Investigation-into-the-Parole-Board.pdf Shelf Number: 141248 Keywords: Offender SupervisionParole BoardParole OfficersParolees |
Author: MacDonald, Shanna Farrell Title: Reasons for parole waivers, postponements, and withdrawals: Examining indicators for low-risk offenders Summary: One of the Correctional Service of Canada's (CSC) strategic priorities is the safe transition of offenders from the institution to the community. Discretionary release provides offenders with a gradual and structured reintegration process for this transition. In addition, offenders on discretionary release, i.e. parole, are more likely to remain in the community than offenders who are released on statutory release (Public Safety Canada, 2015). For offenders who waive, postpone, or withdraw their parole application, the potential amount of time they have to reintegrate into society prior to the end of their sentence is shortened. This is particularly problematic for offenders deemed a low-risk to reoffend and who could be suitably managed and supported in the community (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Office of the Auditor General, 2015). For this study, all parole reviews scheduled in FY2014-2015 for men and FY2014-2015 and FY2015-2016 for women were extracted. The main focus of this study was to examine parole review outcomes for low-risk offenders, i.e., offenders that were determined to be at a low-risk to reoffend based on actuarial measures. Overall, 8,476 parole reviews were scheduled for lowrisk offenders during the study period, representing 3,663 offenders. Women accounted for 12% of the offenders in this study, 3% of which were Indigenous. Among men, 6% were Indigenous. Of the parole reviews scheduled for low-risk offenders, 37% were waived, postponed, or withdrawn. Variations by type of delay/cancellation, gender, ethnicity and region were evident. Indigenous women and men had higher rates of parole delays and cancellations than nonIndigenous offenders. Rates were highest in the Ontario and Pacific regions. Postponements, however, were more common in the Quebec region. Examination of the reasons provided by offenders for parole delays and cancellations showed that avoid a negative decision, program non-completion, and other were the most common. Additional analyses were conducted to determine if structured indicators (such as demographics, criminogenic factors, offender behaviour, and correctional interventions) collected by CSC supported the reasons provided by offenders. For instance, among offenders citing program noncompletion, almost two-thirds were referred to programming. Among these offenders, many were either still in the program, waitlisted or had recently completed the program in relation to their scheduled review date. Furthermore, waiving, postponing, or withdrawing parole does not appear to negatively impact on the Parole Board of Canada's decisions at subsequent parole reviews. This study builds on prior research examining the reasons that offenders choose to delay or cancel their parole reviews while also exploring the specific characteristics based on the reasons endorsed by offenders. Overall, these results provide CSC with targeted areas for intervention in order to support offenders at low-risk to reoffend reintegrate to the community in a timely and successful manner. Future research areas are also identified. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2017. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: 2017 No. R-396: Accessed February 21, 2018 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-396-eng.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Canada URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-396-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 149193 Keywords: Low Risk OffendersParoleParole BoardParole PostponementsParoleesRisk Assessment |
Author: Parole Preparation Project Title: New York State Parole Board: Failures in Staffing and Performance Summary: There are nearly 22,000 people serving indeterminate sentences in New York State prisons. Every year, 12,000 of these individuals appear before the Board of Parole in an attempt to secure their freedom. Due to the Board's punitive policies and practices, and their susceptibility to political influence, the large majority of parole-eligible people are denied release. However, thanks to the tireless work of advocates and formerly incarcerated leaders, preliminary statistical evidence shows a marginal improvement in release rates since September 2017, when new parole regulations were implemented and new Commissioners joined the Board. While we are encouraged by these developments and what they may bring, the Board of Parole is now facing staffing issues of catastrophic proportions, and continues to engage in unlawful, unethical and harmful behavior, despite repeated admonishments by the New York State judiciary and legislature. Although the Executive Law that governs parole permits 19 Commissioners to serve on the Board, as of May 2018, only 12 Commissioners were seated. Such severe understaffing has led to myriad procedural problems, over-worked Commissioners, higher caseloads, shorter parole interviews, and less time for individualized evaluations of parole applicant files. These realities have led to devastating consequences for people in prison and their loved ones. Understaffing has also led to a significant increase in two-person parole panels, a practice that in August 2017 Parole Board Chairperson Stanford relayed would no longer be used. Additionally, parole interviews are being postponed for no discernible or statutorily authorized reason. Compounding these issues of understaffing, two long-serving Commissioners, W. William Smith and Marc Coppola who frequently engage in racist, unlawful and repugnant behavior, remain on the Board. The Governor can and should dismiss these Commissioners immediately and replace them with qualified candidates who better reflect the identities and experiences of people in prison. Commissioner Smith, in violation of the Executive Law, almost unilaterally denies parole to people convicted of violent crimes despite their demonstrated rehabilitation and low risk to public safety. Additionally, people in prison have reported numerous instances where Commissioner Smith lost his temper, slammed his hands down on the table or mocked the interviewee. Commissioner Smith also has deep political ties to the New York State Senate. He has donated nearly $20,000 to the very Senators responsible for confirming his appointments to the Board. Commissioner Coppola's record is equally abhorrent. During interviews, Commissioner Coppola is often unprepared and absent, asking questions that have already been answered or referencing facts from case files of other parole applicants. He also fails to consider the achievements of applicants, their advancing age, or their youth at the time of conviction, all factors required by the law. We are calling on Governor Cuomo to dismiss Commissioners Smith and Coppola, end two-person panels and needless postponements, and fill the vacancies on the Board with candidates from a broad range of professional backgrounds who believe strongly in the principles of rehabilitation, mercy, and redemption. The lives of thousands of incarcerated people depend on it Details: New York: The Authors, 2018. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 8, 2018 at: http://rappcampaign.com/wp-content/uploads/AAA-Parole-Board-Report-Final-3.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://rappcampaign.com/wp-content/uploads/AAA-Parole-Board-Report-Final-3.pdf Shelf Number: 153360 Keywords: Elderly Inmates Parole Parole Board |