Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:07 pm
Time: 10:07 pm
Results for parole boards
6 results foundAuthor: U.S. National Institute of Corrections Title: Core Competencies: A Resource for Parole Board Chairs, Members, and Executive Staff Summary: Paroling authorities play a critical role in correctional systems nationwide. They make thousands of decisions each year about the timing of release from prison for a significant number of offenders. They set conditions of release and respond to violations of postrelease supervision for many thousand more. Recognizing this critical role, the National Institute of Corrections is engaged in a major initiative to develop useful resources for parole board chairs, members, and their executive staff. This report provides an overview of how the role of paroling authorities is, and should be, changing to meet the challenges facing the corrections field as it looks forward, and is the first of the series intended to both outline the complex and varied challenges facing paroling authorities and identify and nurture the skills needed to address those challenges. Details: Washington, DC: NIC, 2010. 49p. Source: Internet Resource; Parole Essentials: Practical Guides for Parole Leaders, No. 1 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118559 Keywords: ParoleParole BoardsParoling Authorities |
Author: Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspection Title: Governance Inspection of the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland Summary: The Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland (hereafter the Parole Commissioners) are a very important element in the delivery of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. The Parole Commissioners make life-changing decisions about the safe release of offenders back into the community. Originally constituted as the Life Sentence Review Commissioners, the role of the Parole Commissioners is now significantly changed with the Criminal Justice Order 2008 introducing Extended Custodial and Indeterminate Custodial Sentences and making the Parole Commissioners responsible for Determinate Sentence recalls. The Parole Commissioners were established as an independent body with judicial character. Two considerations should be taken into account when reading this inspection report. Firstly, the impact of the Brooke judgement which defined the independence of parole boards, and secondly the Reilly judgement, which consolidated the court-like status of parole boards. The importance of these rulings is manifold in defining the remit of this inspection, the role of the sponsoring body and the nature and extent to which accountability and the trappings of accountability may be exercised. The work of the Parole Commissioners is driven by the number of prisoners considered for release in any one year. In 2008-09 46 cases were referred to the Commissioners and 40 were heard. It was in anticipation of a significant increase in the number of prisoners to be considered (estimates showed a projected increase from 88 in 2009-10 to a potential 407 in 2014-15; 162 cases were referred in 2010-11) that the number of Commissioners was increased from 24 to 40. The Parole Commissioners, led by a Chief Commissioner, make the decision whether or not to release prisoners. Commissioners are paid for their participation in casework decisions and for work ancillary to casework. Their work is supported by a Secretariat that provides assistance in relation to case administration, payment arrangements and other provisions. The current structure of the Parole Commissioners in Northern Ireland is unique. Unlike other arms length bodies within Northern Ireland, it is not an executive agency, a non-departmental public body, a commission or a tribunal. It also differs from the structural arrangements that underpin the work of the Scottish Parole Board and the Parole Board for England and Wales. The Department of Justice (DoJ) have adopted a standard model of governance with an Accounting Officer ostensibly held responsible for decision-making and financial management of the arms length body and set reporting procedures, but this does not happen in practice. The Chief Commissioner is not the Accounting Officer of the Parole Commissioners; is not the Chief Executive, and whilst supported by the Secretariat, is not their line manager. The Accounting Officer role is assigned to an Official within the DoJ reporting to the Permanent Secretary. The Official is the line manager for the Head of the Secretariat. The work of the Parole Commissioners is not subject to oversight by the Secretariat or the DoJ. The DoJ have developed a benefits realisation plan (Appendix 3) but this is a measure of the general effectiveness of the Sentencing Framework Initiative, and as it has not been agreed with the Chief Commissioner, it is not to monitor the work of the Commissioners. Additionally, the normal framework of accountability, as set out in a management statement and financial memorandum, do not apply in this instance due to the independent nature and judicial status of the Commissioners. The central issue in understanding the work of the Parole Commissioners in practice is the question of independence from the Executive in relation to decision-making. An issue is the importance of both real and perceived independence with regard to the work of the Commissioners. This issue has shaped both the establishment of the Parole Commissioners and subsequent formation. A key component of the debate is the Brooke judgement. The Brooke case was a judicial review that dealt with the issues of accountability and independence governing the Parole Board for England andWales. In this instance, the Court of Appeal found that the sponsoring department curtailed the independence of the Parole Board by exercising too much control over the appointment and tenure of the Commissioners by specifying the use of funding, by not adequately segregating support services and by including a policy element in the role of the Commissioners. The ruling extends not only to the decision-making but also the processes and arrangements that support decision-making. Although the Court of Appeal found that the ‘normal’ relationship between a ‘sponsoring department and its sponsored parole body did not automatically create a conflict of interest or automatically infringe the independence of the body’ the implication is that the relationship between a sponsoring body and its parent department may create a conflict. The subsequent ruling in the Reilly application (another judicial review) confirming the court-like status of the Parole Board strengthens the independence of the Commissioners and demands clear water between the Commissioners and the Executive – a situation not best met by the current arrangements. A straightforward comparison with the costs of cases in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales shows the former to be considerably higher. The average cost per referral was just under £8,000 in 2010-11. The comparable figures in England and Wales, and Scotland, are around £2,500, thus Northern Ireland is around three times as expensive. The Northern Ireland Parole Commissioners do not enjoy the economies of scale of the other jurisdictions (England andWales have almost 30,000 referrals per year). The development of the support structures, policies, procedures, recruitment and training of Commissioners and Secretariat staff incurred significant costs. This should reduce over the coming years and alongside increasing numbers of cases should see the unit cost decrease. There is a low level of delay in the cases heard by the Parole Commissioners and no judicial reviews of their decisions (both significant factors following the increase in cases in England and Wales). The Northern Ireland approach has incurred costs, although the achievement of timely hearings, the very low level of lifer recalls or judicial reviews indicate a high quality service. Our inspection has found that there is an inevitable conflict between any governance model proposed by the DoJ and that which complies with the legal rulings in a series of cases culminating in Brooke and Reilly. The thrust of these judgements was to emphasise the independence of the parole bodies and create a governance framework within which the sponsoring authorities must operate. The resulting impracticality of the current sponsorship arrangements with the potential legal ramifications arising from the Brooke judgement requires a rethink of the existing arrangements. The inspection recommends a strengthening in the governance arrangements underpinning the work of the Commissioners – within the constraints set by the Brooke judgement. Reconstituting the Commissioners as a tribunal accompanied by a transfer to the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS) and listing the Chief Commissioner under Schedule 1 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, would provide a more suitable environment for a body of judicial character. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2011. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 3, 2011 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/03/03b77ef8-d196-447c-8d8d-52875dda6dcc.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/03/03b77ef8-d196-447c-8d8d-52875dda6dcc.pdf Shelf Number: 122628 Keywords: Parole (Northern Ireland)Parole BoardsParole Officers |
Author: Burke, Peggy Title: Special Challenges Facing Parole Summary: Parole boards, releasing authorities, and parole executives make a variety of critical decisions concerning the timing of release, conditions to be imposed, and supervision strategies for thousands of offenders each year. As the development of this series of papers progressed and guidance was sought from its advisory group, a number of challenging topics surfaced. One had to do with certain subpopulations of offenders who present unique challenges for parole boards. Another had to do with the intractable issue of identifying appropriate housing for offenders returning to the community. The feeling among the advisory group was that new parole board members—or even more senior members—would benefit from an easily accessible source of information on these topics. They envisioned a document that would lay out the context, summarize the key issues, highlight the recent research, and provide suggestions about where to find more extensive and detailed resources. To accomplish that goal, the paper presents basic and current information about populations identified by the project advisory group: •• Inmates who have committed sex offenses. •• Those who have significant mental health or substance abuse issues. •• Female offenders. •• Aging or geriatric offenders. •• Youthful offenders incarcerated in the adult correctional system. This publication includes, where possible, examples of practices adopted in various jurisdictions to address these populations. A final section provides a framework for considering housing issues from the perspective of paroling authorities. Clearly, a single document cannot present all there is to know on these topics. The current document is intended to provide a solid grounding in these issues that is relevant to the perspective of parole board members and to point the way to more extensive resources on these topics. Although this paper addresses a set of issues that may appear, at first, to be somewhat unrelated, a clear pattern emerges from the following discussion. First, it highlights the specialized knowledge that parole leaders are required to master. Given the limited and staggered terms typical of paroling authority members, continuing training, self-education, and peer consultation are critical. With respect to the particular populations and challenges discussed in this paper, paroling authority members often have little direct authority over the types of assessments or programs that are available in correctional institutions or in the community. This underlines the continuing importance of building strong, collaborative partnerships with other correctional stakeholders to create support for strong, evidence-based assessments and interventions and for their targeted deployment. Finally, the issues addressed in this paper may be very closely related, even in the context of a single case. Substance abuse, sexual offending, and mental illness, for example, all can be exhibited by a single offender, whether male or female, young or old. Hopefully, the information in this paper will assist paroling authority members as they work to address these challenges, however they present themselves. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2011. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Parole Essentials: Practical Guides for Parole Leaders No. 4: Accessed October 20, 2011 at: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024200.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024200.pdf Shelf Number: 123060 Keywords: Parole (U.S.)Parole BoardsParolees |
Author: Kuziemko, Ilyana Title: Should Prison Inmates be Released via Rules or Discretion? Summary: In 1980, nearly all state and federal prisoners were released via the discretion of a parole board, whereas today the majority are subject to rules-based regimes where the original sentence is binding. While opponents of parole have argued that boards are discriminatory or overly lenient, discretion might also have important benefits. If prison time lowers recidivism risk and if parole boards can accurately estimate inmates' risk, then, relative to a rules-based regime where sentences are binding, discretion produces allocative-efficiency benefits (costly prison space is allocated to the highest-risk offenders) and incentive bene ts (prisoners know they must reduce their recidivism risk to gain an early release, so invest in their own rehabilitation). Exploiting quasi-experiments from the state of Georgia, I show that prison time reduces recidivism risk and that parole boards set prison time in an allocatively efficient manner. Prisoners respond to these incentives -- after a reform that limited parole for certain offenders, they accumulated a greater number of disciplinary infractions, completed fewer prison rehabilitative programs, and recidivated at higher rates than inmates unaffected by the reform. I estimate that eliminating parole increases the prison population by ten percent while simultaneously increasing the crime rate through deleterious effects on recidivism. Details: Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2011. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 3, 2012 at: http://www.princeton.edu/~kuziemko/parole_29oct2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.princeton.edu/~kuziemko/parole_29oct2011.pdf Shelf Number: 125854 Keywords: DiscretionEarly ReleaseParoleParole BoardsRecidivism |
Author: Utah. Legislative Auditor General Title: A Performance Audit of the Board of Pardons and Parole Summary: Utah's Board of Pardons and Parole (BOP or board) plays a critical and unique role in the state's criminal justice system. For example, last year, they made nearly 18,000 decisions, including releasing offenders from prison, setting the conditions of release and supervision, and responding to over 1,000 parole violations. Consequently, they wield significant influence on public safety and the use of public resources. Utah's parole board has considerable discretion because of wide sentencing time-frames coupled with an indeterminate system. The level of discretion appears to be greater than is found in other states. This report examines opportunities for the board to better deploy such broad discretion and recommends improvements to the BOP's oversight, structure, decision making, data collection, and business operations. These recommendations come at a time when criminal justice reform (both nationally and locally) is working toward improved outcomes and lowered costs. BOP Can Benefit from Improved Planning, Oversight, and Structure Improved Planning, Performance Measures, and Transparency of Information Is Needed. The BOP has always been a crucial player in Utah's criminal justice system. The board has been especially involved in justice reinvestment efforts since the Legislature passed H.B. 348 in the 2015 General Session. We are encouraged by the board's actions, but more can be done. We believe the BOP should: develop a strategic plan, track and monitor key data elements, measure its impact on the criminal justice system through targeted performance measures, and improve its transparency. BOP's Internal Organizational Structure Should Be Reviewed. As discussed in the previous section, several operational improvements are needed at the BOP. To help ensure these improvements are made and effective, the board should review its organizational structure. We do not question the dedication of BOP employees, but the board needs to ensure it has adequately defined its roles and the roles of its staff to maximize the needed operational improvements. BOP Should Adopt More Proven Practices Structured Decision Making Will Increase Consistency of Decisions. The BOP can do more to ensure its decisions are consistent, fair, and properly structured for the best outcomes. Nationally recognized research organizations that study paroling authorities recommend that parole boards adopt a structured decision-making (SDM) model. SDM is an evidence-based, policy-driven approach to decision making that uses established risk and needs factors to make quality release decisions. Paroling authorities that use SDM are better at setting goals and report better outcomes. Currently, BOP parole release decisions are based mainly on individual professional judgement and experience. BOP decision makers have differing philosophies and may weigh factors in the same case differently. The lack of a common paroling philosophy may be the cause for the large number of inmates and inmate advocacy groups expressing concerns about the inconsistency of paroling decisions. The board has taken steps to implement SDM but as a prerequisite, the BOP should establish a common paroling philosophy to facilitate consistency in parole decisions. BOP Should Improve Rationale for Its Decisions. A second area to aid the BOP in decision making is an improved rationale sheet. The only information an inmate receives about the content of the board's decision is a rationale sheet that lists some aggravating and mitigating factors. Several individuals at the BOP told us that this sheet does not capture the important factors the board uses in weighing their decisions. Further, inmates, families, and advocates list the rationale sheet as one of their primary concerns because they find it confusing, vague, and unclear. Best practices discuss communication with inmates as an important factor. We also found that other states' releasing authorities have more informative rationale sheets that focus on specific areas of improvement and/or risk to the community. The board agrees that it needs to improve its rationale sheet and is currently working on a new version of the form. Use of Research-Based Practices Can Help BOP Improve Its Outcomes. In addition to the two best practices just discussed, we recommend that the BOP adopt and integrate the nationally recognized ten practice targets that incorporate evidence-based practices in parole decisions. The board agrees and is already working toward implementation of some of these practice targets. BOP Should Adopt an Electronic File Management System The BOP's Current Paper Process Is Vulnerable to Errors. Our review of the BOP's business process revealed two areas that are vulnerable to errors. One vulnerability is the way the board documents and enters decisions. The BOP's current decision-making process relies on board members' handwritten notes, which are unclear and subject to misinterpretation. In most cases, we could not decipher the handwritten notes to validate that clerical staff entered decisions correctly. Second, calculations for time served made in case files are also vulnerable to inaccuracies. Paper-Based System Limits Data Tracking and Transparency. The BOP's paper-based system limits the ability to track key performance metrics and data critical to board operations. Paper files also limit transparency and availability of information to external entities. Adopting an electronic file management system will help the board begin collecting and analyzing data on how its actions affect the larger criminal justice system. This will also promote more informed decision making. Paper-Based System Creates Operational Inefficiencies. In addition to the data limitations, there are also operational inefficiencies that result from a paper-based file management system. These include limitations on information sharing with surrounding agencies as well as BOP workflow, since only one activity can be performed on an offender's file at a time. Board staff devote significant amounts of time to the paper process. Staff time spent printing, copying, filing, and locating paper files is costly and time intensive. Electronic BOP System Will Promote Alignment with Other Criminal Justice Agencies. With other Utah criminal justice agencies as well as other state parole boards adopting electronic file management systems, it is increasingly clear that it is time for the board to convert to a paperless record-keeping system. The current board supports transition from a paper-based to electronically based record-keeping system. To do this, the board will need to determine if it is in their best interest to develop an electronic system that piggybacks on the UDC's database or purchase a system from a private vendor. Funding the new system will likely require funding from several sources, including federal funds, nonlapsing funds, and other state resources. BOP Should Consider Implementing Process Efficiencies A Streamlined Decision Process Is Needed for Less Serious Offenders. As the state's population grows, BOP's workload will continue to increase. The PEW Charitable Trusts group studied Utah's criminal justice system in 2014. They estimate that Utah's prison population will grow 37 percent in the next 20 years. To deal with this growth, we believe the board should consider process efficiencies before adding more hearing officers. Other states have achieved efficiencies in streamlining the parole processing of low-risk, less severe offenders and maintained quality of decisions. In this section, we recommend a continuum of options the board could pursue to achieve efficiencies in processing low-level offenders, such as limiting case preparation requirements, reducing the number of board member votes for release decisions, and in limited circumstances allowing hearing officers a vote. BOP Should Review Expungement Process and Recommend Statutory Changes. The BOP has received an increase in the number of pardon requests over the last year and a half. This increase is due partially to more people seeking pardons because the Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI) rejected their expungement requests for relatively minor offenses. Some applicants rejected by BCI are turning to the board, which has greater authority to pardon and, by extension, expunge criminal records. The board's pardon process involves significant staff time and resources. Therefore, we recommend that the BOP and BCI review the expungement process and recommend to the Legislature statutory changes that reduce pardon workloads. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Legislative Auditor General, 2016. 100p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 28, 2016 at: http://le.utah.gov/audit/16_01rpt.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://le.utah.gov/audit/16_01rpt.pdf Shelf Number: 146164 Keywords: Decision-MakingPardonsParoleParole BoardsProbation |
Author: McVey, Catherine C. Title: Modernizing Parole Statutes: Guidance from Evidence-Based Practice Summary: Nearly one million people are released or supervised under conditions established by state paroling authorities each year. The appointed members of those paroling authorities determine whether and when individuals are released from prison, how they are supervised post-release, and the punishment (including reincarceration) they may face for violating the conditions of their supervision. The power over an individual's liberty exercised by paroling authorities is vast, in some respects as much as sitting felony sentencing judges, more in some jurisdictions. How paroling authorities carry out their responsibilities matters to those sentenced, their families and their victims at the individual case level, as well as in the aggregate through the collective impact these decisions have on the key goals of managing criminal justice system costs, reducing recidivism and increasing public safety. Research has grown on what works relative to evidence-based practice. Paroling authorities are increasingly working to apply this research to the policies and tools driving the parole release and supervision function. Their efforts have been supported and nurtured by such organizations as the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), the National Parole Resource Center (NPRC), the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), and The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center. Although states have made considerable progress in incorporating evidence-based practices in parole board decision making, many paroling authorities still operate under state laws that have not been amended in decades. Paroling authorities often find their new practices require that the statutory requirements need to be modernized, either because they directly conflict with evidence-based practices, or they do not support efforts to ensure parole decisions and supervision practices are rooted in what the research says works. This paper offers broadly crafted recommendations for legislation to serve as a starting place for those states and paroling authorities interested in modernizing parole laws around three core areas: the parole decisionmaking process, the terms and conditions of supervision post-release, and the administration of the paroling authority itself. The proposals are designed to support the continuing transition of paroling authorities to effective, evidence-based organizations. In several instances, sound or best practices formed the basis of the recommendations in this paper, drawing from published works and advocacy efforts undertaken by organizations committed to parole reform (see Appendix A: Key Resources for Releasing Authorities). Details: Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2018. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 30, 2018 at: https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/modernizing-parole-statutes-guidance-evidence-based-practice Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/modernizing-parole-statutes-guidance-evidence-based-practice Shelf Number: 151305 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesOffender SupervisionParoleParole BoardsParoling Authorities |