Releasing Authority Chairs: A Comparative Snapshot Across Three Decades

This report provides a comparative analysis of releasing authority chairs' views of the issues and challenges confronting them at two points in time: 1988 and 2015. Drawing from two surveys, one conducted during the tenure of an ACA Parole Task Force that functioned from 1986-1988, and the other a survey published in 2016 by the Robina Institute called The Continuing Leverage of Releasing Authorities: Findings from a National Survey, this new publication highlights both change and constancy relative to a wide range of comparative markers including, but not limited to, structured decision tools, prison crowding and risk aversion, and the myriad factors considered in granting or denying parole

The Continuing Leverage of Releasing Authorities: Findings from a National Survey

The Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice launched a national survey of releasing authorities in March 2015 to each state, and the U.S. Parole Commission. The importance of the survey was underscored by an endorsement from the Association of Paroling Authorities International (APAI). We are pleased to present the results from this important survey here. This is the first comprehensive survey of parole boards completed in nearly 10 years. Its findings provide a rich database for better understanding the policy and practice of paroling authorities. The last survey to be conducted of paroling authorities was in 2007/2008.The current report offers an expansion and update of previous surveys. The results summarized throughout the report offer a timely resource for paroling authorities, correctional policy-makers and practitioners, legislators, and those with a public policy interest in sentencing and criminal justice operations. It is our hope that the document and its findings provide key justice system and other stakeholders with an incisive snapshot of the work of paroling authorities across the country in a manner that contributes to a larger conversation about sound and effective parole release and revocation practices.The completion of this comprehensive survey and the reporting of its findings offers a timely and invaluable resource for releasing authorities. It provides them and other key justice system stakeholders with a comparative understanding of their colleagues' work across the nation, and contributes to a larger conversation pertaining to effective parole release and revocation practices

Profiles in Parole Release and Revocation Maryland

The Maryland Parole Commission (MPC) was created in 1976 to replace the Board of Parole, which had been established in 1968. The first Advisory Board of Parole was founded in 1914. Maryland has had advisory sentencing guidelines since 1983. A sentence pronounced under the guidelines represents the maximum time an offender may serve and the parole commission then determines when an inmate will be considered for release

Profiles in Parole Release and Revocation Nevada

Felony sentences in Nevada have both a minimum and a maximum term, unless a definite term is required by statute. In 2017, legislation was passed creating the Nevada Sentencing Commission. The Commission hasmany statutory duties, including formulating statutory sentencing guidelines to be enacted by the legislature. Nevada's first Pardons Board was created in 1867. The Board was granted the power to parole inmates in 1909. In 1989, Nevada passed legislation that required the Board to create standards for parole release and revocation.Nevada also signed justice reinvestment legislation in 2007, which increased incentives for parolees to comply with supervision and expanded alternatives to incarceration

Profiles in Parole Release and Revocation Hawaii

Hawaii has an indeterminate sentencing system in which the sentencing court sets only the maximum, but not the minimum sentence to be served. The sentencing court chooses from only five possible maximum prison sentences when imposing a sentence (life without parole, life, 20 years, 10 years, or 5 years). While some paroling discretion has been curbed by mandatory minimum sentencing laws, in many cases the parole board still plays a large role in incarceration length. There is no sentencing commission or sentencing guidelines; and while there are no parole release guidelines, guidelines do play a role in setting the date of parole eligibility

Profiles in Parole Release and Revocation Rhode Island

Rhode Island does not have a sentencing commission or statutory sentencing guidelines. The Rhode Island Superior Court, which has jurisdiction over felony crimes and sentences, uses sentencing benchmarks as well as general, statutory authority to sentence offenders to a specific term of imprisonment. Rhode Island has had conditional release since 1896, and the Parole Board has existed in some form since 1915. In 1993, the legislature passed an act that increased the number of board members from 6 to 7 and added a fulltime chairperson

Putting Public Safety First: 13 Strategies for Successful Supervision and Reentry

Outlines organizational- and case management-level strategies to reduce recidivism through risk reduction and behavior change, such as by aligning resources with risk factors. Describes each practice's benefits, evidence base, and examples from the field

Increasing Use of Risk Assessment at Release in The Continuing Leverage of Paroling Authorities: Findings from a National Survey

The Parole Release and Revocation Project launched a national survey of paroling authorities across the United States in 2015. Preliminary results from the survey has allowed the Parole Project team to examine changing and current practices regarding how paroling authorities use risk assessment tools to determine release from prison. This brief covers three surveys, including surveys conducted by the Association of Paroling Authorities International, and spans twenty-five years. This brief is the first in a series of briefs that will be released in the coming months. As additional states respond to the 2015 survey, the results will be updated.The current data show that, over the last 25 years, there has been a significant increase in the number of states that use risk assessment tools when making a release decision. In addition, the majority of parole board chairs surveyed reported that actuarial tools are essential to making informed decisions about parole release and contribute to greater public safety in release decisions. The types of risk assessments used at release have changed since 2008, with substantial increases in the use of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) and the Static-99, the two most commonly used tools at release

Lessons from the Andean Community Integration. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series. Vol. 6, No. 12 June 2006

[From the Introduction]. Ever since it was born in the sixties, the Andean Regional Integration Process has attempted to become a strategy to promote a harmonious and balanced development among the Andean Countries. This paper has tree mains goals: (a) To explain and analyse the theoretical concept of the Andean New Regionalism in the framework of Latin American region in a comparative perspective with the European Model of Regional Integration; (b) To show the coexistence of two different regional integration models. Where the dominating one during the sixties was known as old regionalism, and the other that is currently being used is known as new regionalism, and (c) To analyse the way in which this coexistence appears to be an obstacle for the Andean countries to define their regional integration model and to advance toward their main goal: the balanced and harmonious development of each and every country member