State Supreme Court Justice Richard Mott ordered the state's parole board to swiftly grant Hank Morris a new parole hearing, finding the board "inexplicably" failed to fairly consider several factors in Morris's favor, including its own internal evaluation which indicates that Morris is no threat to society, and unjustly manipulated the process to keep him in prison for as long as possible. "Specifically, the record demonstrates that the board inexplicably failed to consider and weigh myriad relevant factors, all of which categorically supported petitioner's release on parole."
The new hearing took place yesterday, on April 22. Morris was granted parole and will be paroled by June 3.
Morris told parole commissioners that after his release he intends to work with not-for-profit agencies advocating parole reform. "I think there's a crying need for it," he said.
Related articles:
Reversing Course, Parole Board Set to Release Morris, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, April 24 2013)
After a Productive Two Years, Hank Morris Wins His Freedom, by Jacob Gershman (Wall Street Journal Law Blog, April 23 2013) (Includes a transcript of Morris's parole hearing)
Hank Morris, who aided corruption of disgraced ex-Controller Alan Hevesi, being freed in June, by Kenneth Lovett (New York Daily News, April 24 2013)
Breaking News: Hank Morris Wins Parole, by Ken Lovett (New York Daily News, April 23 2013)
Update: Hank Morris wins parole, out by June 3, by Chris Churchill (Timesunion.com, April 23 2013) (Includes Morris's Parole Board decision and release conditions)
Hank Morris wins parole, will be out by June 3, by Casey Seiler (Capitol Confidential, April 23 2013)
Parole Granted for Consultant in Corruption Case, by Jesse McKinley (New York Times, April 23 2013)
For further details of the case and earlier articles, see:
Hank Morris challenges parole compliance with the law (Parole News, April 19 2013)
Showing posts with label Risk and Needs Assessment (COMPAS). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Risk and Needs Assessment (COMPAS). Show all posts
April 23, 2013
April 19, 2013
Hank Morris challenges parole compliance with the law
Hank Morris, the imprisoned former political advisor to ex-Comptroller Alan Hevesi, has brought a legal challenge against the state Parole Board, claiming officials do not follow proper procedure.
At the heart of his challenge is that the NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and the Board of Parole are violating New York law and its Constitution with impunity by conducting unlawful parole hearings that do not comply with statutory amendments that took effect on October 1, 2011.
These new laws mandate that written risk assessment procedures should be developed and utilized when making parole determinations, and that a transition accountability plan (TAP) should be developed for each inmate to be utilized when making parole determinations.
State Supreme Court Justice Richard Mott has ordered the state's parole board to swiftly grant Hank Morris a new parole hearing, finding the board "inexplicably" failed to fairly consider several factors in Morris's favor, including its own internal evaluation which indicates that Morris is no threat to society, and unjustly manipulated the process to keep him in prison for as long as possible. "Specifically, the record demonstrates that the board inexplicably failed to consider and weigh myriad relevant factors, all of which categorically supported petitioner's release on parole."
"Put simply, the amended statute required that respondent develop written procedures that implement risk and needs principles, determine the likelihood of an inmate's success upon release, and adopt those procedures as an exercise of its rule-making power," Mott stated. "Disregard of a legislative mandate through an administrative agency's inaction as here, is arbitrary and capricious."
The outcome of this case may affect as many as 15,000 inmates who have appeared before the board since the amendments to the legislation in 2011.
Morris's new parole hearing will take place on April 22.
Related articles:
Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Corr.and Community Supervision 2013 NY Slip Op 50604(U) (Decided on April 15, 2013)
Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Corr.and Community Supervision 2013 NY Slip Op 50603(U) (Decided on April 4 2013)
Parole Board Grants New Interview to Morris, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, 22 April 2013)
Parole board that thinks it's judge and jury, by Chris Churchill (Timesunion.com, April 20 2013)
For a Political Devil, Some Sympathy Please, by Jim Dwyer (New York Times, April 18 2013)
Judge Blasts Parole 'Machinations' to Delay Political Consultant's Release, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, April 18 2013)
Judge Says Parole Board Maneuvered to Keep Morris in Jail, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, April 17 2013)
Judge orders new NY parole hearing for Hank Morris (Wall Street Journal, April 15 2013)
Judge Orders New Parole Hearing for Hank Morris, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, April 15 2013)
State Supports Denial of Parole for Hank Morris, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, April 12 2013)
Hearing Set to Consider Parole Compliance With Law, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, April 8 2013)
Judge Won't Toss Morris Legal Challenge, by Nick Reisman (Capital Tonight, April 5 2013)
Parole Denied, Disgraced Political Guru Hank Morris Files Suit, by Nick Reisman (Capital Tonight, March 7 2013)
Hank Morris Denied Release by the Board of Parole (NYS DOCCS, November 15, 2012)
Alan Hevesi Granted Release by the Board of Parole (NYS DOCCS, November 15, 2012)
At the heart of his challenge is that the NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and the Board of Parole are violating New York law and its Constitution with impunity by conducting unlawful parole hearings that do not comply with statutory amendments that took effect on October 1, 2011.
These new laws mandate that written risk assessment procedures should be developed and utilized when making parole determinations, and that a transition accountability plan (TAP) should be developed for each inmate to be utilized when making parole determinations.
State Supreme Court Justice Richard Mott has ordered the state's parole board to swiftly grant Hank Morris a new parole hearing, finding the board "inexplicably" failed to fairly consider several factors in Morris's favor, including its own internal evaluation which indicates that Morris is no threat to society, and unjustly manipulated the process to keep him in prison for as long as possible. "Specifically, the record demonstrates that the board inexplicably failed to consider and weigh myriad relevant factors, all of which categorically supported petitioner's release on parole."
"Put simply, the amended statute required that respondent develop written procedures that implement risk and needs principles, determine the likelihood of an inmate's success upon release, and adopt those procedures as an exercise of its rule-making power," Mott stated. "Disregard of a legislative mandate through an administrative agency's inaction as here, is arbitrary and capricious."
The outcome of this case may affect as many as 15,000 inmates who have appeared before the board since the amendments to the legislation in 2011.
Morris's new parole hearing will take place on April 22.
Related articles:
Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Corr.and Community Supervision 2013 NY Slip Op 50604(U) (Decided on April 15, 2013)
Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Corr.and Community Supervision 2013 NY Slip Op 50603(U) (Decided on April 4 2013)
Parole Board Grants New Interview to Morris, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, 22 April 2013)
Parole board that thinks it's judge and jury, by Chris Churchill (Timesunion.com, April 20 2013)
For a Political Devil, Some Sympathy Please, by Jim Dwyer (New York Times, April 18 2013)
Judge Blasts Parole 'Machinations' to Delay Political Consultant's Release, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, April 18 2013)
Judge Says Parole Board Maneuvered to Keep Morris in Jail, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, April 17 2013)
Judge orders new NY parole hearing for Hank Morris (Wall Street Journal, April 15 2013)
Judge Orders New Parole Hearing for Hank Morris, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, April 15 2013)
State Supports Denial of Parole for Hank Morris, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, April 12 2013)
Hearing Set to Consider Parole Compliance With Law, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, April 8 2013)
Judge Won't Toss Morris Legal Challenge, by Nick Reisman (Capital Tonight, April 5 2013)
Parole Denied, Disgraced Political Guru Hank Morris Files Suit, by Nick Reisman (Capital Tonight, March 7 2013)
Hank Morris Denied Release by the Board of Parole (NYS DOCCS, November 15, 2012)
Alan Hevesi Granted Release by the Board of Parole (NYS DOCCS, November 15, 2012)
September 22, 2012
An interview with former parole board commissioner Tom Grant
An interview with former parole board commissioner Tom Grant. For complete report, see:
Q & A: Tom Grant, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, 21 September 2012)
Tom Grant gives his views on the parole process, including the selection of parole commissioners, pre- and post-interview preparation and discussion, the risk-and-needs assessment instrument, the movement towards a determinate sentencing structure, pressure on parole commissioners from public officials and members of the public, and unpopular parole decisions that result in public scrutiny and criticism.
Perhaps the most significant part of the interview is where Grant admits that there are some inmates who may never be paroled, no matter how well they do while in prison, and even if there is no likelihood that they will ever commit another crime:
"I happened to see one inmate on two separate occasions during my time on the parole board. He had participated in a heartbreaking crime as a teenager and he had subsequently done remarkably well during his lengthy period of incarnation. I don't believe he had one disciplinary infraction. He had already been denied by two or three parole boards, primarily due to the nature of the offense. It was a fatal shooting and he had an accomplice. During his interview, the other board commissioners and I focused on the logistics because it was unclear who might have actually fired the fatal shot. We denied him. From time to time I thought about the case. I said to myself, "I'll re-examine this, if I ever see this guy again," but it's all random who comes before you at an interview so I didn't know if I would see him again.
Four years go by, and I see him and the same questions come up, as they would. He was still doing well. In my opinion, he had no more likelihood of committing a crime than you or I. This time I voted to release him and the two other commissioners on the panel voted to keep him in. He is still in. He has life at the end of his sentence. I still think about it. We got bogged down with the logistics. He may never go home. That is the one I think about."
Grant's views on risk-and-needs assessment:
"The recent statute requiring the parole board to use a risk-and-needs assessment is perhaps the most significant positive change in parole-related statutes in the last two decades. Now that the Legislature and the Executive have moved away from an indeterminate sentencing structure to a determinate sentencing scheme, most of the cases the parole board will see in the future will be the non-drug A1 violent felons where the maximum sentence is life. If you look at the last two decades of research, the recidivism rate for released A1 violent felons is remarkably low. I would expect the risk-and-needs assessment instrument will provide the commissioners with a valuable empirical tool that will greatly aid them in decision making."
Grant makes the following two recommendations for reform:
"There should be a one-term limitation for parole board commissioners. The commissioner would, on the day of confirmation, know exactly when his term would end. This would reduce, if not eliminate, any perceived "outside influences" on the parole decision making process.
The second reform would offer the inmate an option to have a hearing, rather than just an interview, between the inmate and the commissioners for A1 felony (non-drug) cases. The inmate would be able to call witnesses on his behalf, perhaps relatives, employers, corrections counselors, someone from the Fortune Society or the Osborne Association. On the other side, if there was opposition to the release, the district attorney could participate, victims or their representatives, if they chose, could talk about how they and their families have been affected.
The hearing system for the A1's would ensure that the Parole Board had enough information to make an informed and reasoned decision based on the governing statutes.
If both of these proposals were enacted, they would encourage the board members to take even more care in their decision making."
Q & A: Tom Grant, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, 21 September 2012)
Tom Grant gives his views on the parole process, including the selection of parole commissioners, pre- and post-interview preparation and discussion, the risk-and-needs assessment instrument, the movement towards a determinate sentencing structure, pressure on parole commissioners from public officials and members of the public, and unpopular parole decisions that result in public scrutiny and criticism.
Perhaps the most significant part of the interview is where Grant admits that there are some inmates who may never be paroled, no matter how well they do while in prison, and even if there is no likelihood that they will ever commit another crime:
"I happened to see one inmate on two separate occasions during my time on the parole board. He had participated in a heartbreaking crime as a teenager and he had subsequently done remarkably well during his lengthy period of incarnation. I don't believe he had one disciplinary infraction. He had already been denied by two or three parole boards, primarily due to the nature of the offense. It was a fatal shooting and he had an accomplice. During his interview, the other board commissioners and I focused on the logistics because it was unclear who might have actually fired the fatal shot. We denied him. From time to time I thought about the case. I said to myself, "I'll re-examine this, if I ever see this guy again," but it's all random who comes before you at an interview so I didn't know if I would see him again.
Four years go by, and I see him and the same questions come up, as they would. He was still doing well. In my opinion, he had no more likelihood of committing a crime than you or I. This time I voted to release him and the two other commissioners on the panel voted to keep him in. He is still in. He has life at the end of his sentence. I still think about it. We got bogged down with the logistics. He may never go home. That is the one I think about."
Grant's views on risk-and-needs assessment:
"The recent statute requiring the parole board to use a risk-and-needs assessment is perhaps the most significant positive change in parole-related statutes in the last two decades. Now that the Legislature and the Executive have moved away from an indeterminate sentencing structure to a determinate sentencing scheme, most of the cases the parole board will see in the future will be the non-drug A1 violent felons where the maximum sentence is life. If you look at the last two decades of research, the recidivism rate for released A1 violent felons is remarkably low. I would expect the risk-and-needs assessment instrument will provide the commissioners with a valuable empirical tool that will greatly aid them in decision making."
Grant makes the following two recommendations for reform:
"There should be a one-term limitation for parole board commissioners. The commissioner would, on the day of confirmation, know exactly when his term would end. This would reduce, if not eliminate, any perceived "outside influences" on the parole decision making process.
The second reform would offer the inmate an option to have a hearing, rather than just an interview, between the inmate and the commissioners for A1 felony (non-drug) cases. The inmate would be able to call witnesses on his behalf, perhaps relatives, employers, corrections counselors, someone from the Fortune Society or the Osborne Association. On the other side, if there was opposition to the release, the district attorney could participate, victims or their representatives, if they chose, could talk about how they and their families have been affected.
The hearing system for the A1's would ensure that the Parole Board had enough information to make an informed and reasoned decision based on the governing statutes.
If both of these proposals were enacted, they would encourage the board members to take even more care in their decision making."
August 02, 2012
Parole Granted to Murderer Who Had Prosecutors' Support
Noah Lazore has finally been granted parole:
"A convicted killer whose release after 36 years in prison was supported by both the prosecutor who put him away and the incumbent district attorney has been granted parole. In a split decision, a three-commissioner panel of the Board of Parole noted Noah Lazore's "strong rehabilitative record," his "clean disciplinary record since 2007" and the fact that a new, legislatively mandated risk analysis concluded that he is "at low risk of felony violence, arrest and absconding." ... ..."
For complete reports, see:
Parole Granted to Murderer Who Had Prosecutors' Support, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, August 2 2012)
Prisoner's Bid for Parole Wins Support From Unlikely Allies, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, July 26 2012)
"A convicted killer whose release after 36 years in prison was supported by both the prosecutor who put him away and the incumbent district attorney has been granted parole. In a split decision, a three-commissioner panel of the Board of Parole noted Noah Lazore's "strong rehabilitative record," his "clean disciplinary record since 2007" and the fact that a new, legislatively mandated risk analysis concluded that he is "at low risk of felony violence, arrest and absconding." ... ..."
For complete reports, see:
Parole Granted to Murderer Who Had Prosecutors' Support, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, August 2 2012)
Prisoner's Bid for Parole Wins Support From Unlikely Allies, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, July 26 2012)
May 15, 2012
Building Bridges - May 2012 edition
The May edition of Building Bridges has been issued by the Prison Action Network.
A summary is given below, please see Building Bridges for full details:
1. Carl Berk Remembered. A friend remembers that "He normally submitted a poem to one of the Jewish Newsletters or Lifers' notes. We didn't receive one for February." We share a prose poem, inspired by Hemingway, that Carl sent us shortly before his death.
2. Building a Better Criminal Justice System. The Fortune Society and The Sentencing Project are collaborating on a panel discussion about The Sentencing Project’s recent publication, To Build a Better Criminal Justice System: 25 Experts Envision the Next 25 Years of Reform. In the new publication, 25 leading scholars and practitioners have contributed essays on their strategic vision for the next 25 years of criminal justice reform. Issues addressed in the collection include racial justice strategies, linking public health and criminal justice reform, challenging the war on drugs, and the viability of fiscal pressures as a focus for reform.
3. Clemency, a discussion: "Among its benign if too-often ignored objects, the clemency power can correct injustices that the ordinary criminal justice process seems unable or unwilling to consider."
4. The Merit Time Bill falls victim to questionable tactics, while ill-advised bills continue to be scheduled for voting at the Senate's Crime Victims, Crime and Corrections Committee on May 15. Building Bridges also reports on the fate of bills presented to the Committee on April 18.
"The Merit Time Bill S338/A154, sponsored by Senator Velmanette Montgomery and co-sponsored by Senator Dilan is no longer sitting in the Senate Crime Victims, Crime and Corrections Committee. Due to a troubling turn of events, it has been reported to the Rules Committee, headed by Majority Leader Dean Skelos, where it will sit probably forever, or at least until the end of this session." (See Building Bridges for full details.)
Please sign the petition in support of the Merit Time Law.
5. Parole News: March releases (reappearance rates are up), excerpts from two articles by John Caher, and a report from the NYS Parole Reform Campaign. "The Campaign has been working with the organizations who have put the SAFE Parole Act on the agenda for their legislative advocacy days. We're very grateful for the support we’ve received from these and other organizations! We've come a long way since last year at this time when our bill was just a proposal and removing nature of the crime from what the parole board could consider was believed to be too radical and so controversial that no one would touch it. We now have legislative sponsors, and many people are seeing that without this bill violent offenders with "incredible prison records" and the lowest risk scores on COMPAS, will continue to be denied parole."
6. Prisoners Are People Too! "Broken On All Sides: Race, Mass Incarceration and New Visions for Criminal Justice in the US." Karima Amin gives details of this important new film about the US prison system.
7. The NYS Prisoner Justice Network reviews the bad news and the good news and invites us to join them in a day of action: NYS Prisoner Justice Network's Prison and Parole Justice Day, in Albany, on May 22nd.
8. In Our Name: Restoring Justice in America, a retreat in beautiful upstate NY, is open to families and friends of incarcerated people and formerly incarcerated persons. This August weekend gathering of academics, activists, and advocates will work together to formulate proposals for reform of the criminal justice and penal systems. We need to share our input.
9. The Yale Law Journal welcomes submissions for their first prison law writing contest.
10. A call for stories from adult children of incarcerated, or formerly incarcerated, parents.
11. Justus Support Group forms in Troy NY.
A summary is given below, please see Building Bridges for full details:
1. Carl Berk Remembered. A friend remembers that "He normally submitted a poem to one of the Jewish Newsletters or Lifers' notes. We didn't receive one for February." We share a prose poem, inspired by Hemingway, that Carl sent us shortly before his death.
2. Building a Better Criminal Justice System. The Fortune Society and The Sentencing Project are collaborating on a panel discussion about The Sentencing Project’s recent publication, To Build a Better Criminal Justice System: 25 Experts Envision the Next 25 Years of Reform. In the new publication, 25 leading scholars and practitioners have contributed essays on their strategic vision for the next 25 years of criminal justice reform. Issues addressed in the collection include racial justice strategies, linking public health and criminal justice reform, challenging the war on drugs, and the viability of fiscal pressures as a focus for reform.
3. Clemency, a discussion: "Among its benign if too-often ignored objects, the clemency power can correct injustices that the ordinary criminal justice process seems unable or unwilling to consider."
4. The Merit Time Bill falls victim to questionable tactics, while ill-advised bills continue to be scheduled for voting at the Senate's Crime Victims, Crime and Corrections Committee on May 15. Building Bridges also reports on the fate of bills presented to the Committee on April 18.
"The Merit Time Bill S338/A154, sponsored by Senator Velmanette Montgomery and co-sponsored by Senator Dilan is no longer sitting in the Senate Crime Victims, Crime and Corrections Committee. Due to a troubling turn of events, it has been reported to the Rules Committee, headed by Majority Leader Dean Skelos, where it will sit probably forever, or at least until the end of this session." (See Building Bridges for full details.)
Please sign the petition in support of the Merit Time Law.
5. Parole News: March releases (reappearance rates are up), excerpts from two articles by John Caher, and a report from the NYS Parole Reform Campaign. "The Campaign has been working with the organizations who have put the SAFE Parole Act on the agenda for their legislative advocacy days. We're very grateful for the support we’ve received from these and other organizations! We've come a long way since last year at this time when our bill was just a proposal and removing nature of the crime from what the parole board could consider was believed to be too radical and so controversial that no one would touch it. We now have legislative sponsors, and many people are seeing that without this bill violent offenders with "incredible prison records" and the lowest risk scores on COMPAS, will continue to be denied parole."
6. Prisoners Are People Too! "Broken On All Sides: Race, Mass Incarceration and New Visions for Criminal Justice in the US." Karima Amin gives details of this important new film about the US prison system.
7. The NYS Prisoner Justice Network reviews the bad news and the good news and invites us to join them in a day of action: NYS Prisoner Justice Network's Prison and Parole Justice Day, in Albany, on May 22nd.
8. In Our Name: Restoring Justice in America, a retreat in beautiful upstate NY, is open to families and friends of incarcerated people and formerly incarcerated persons. This August weekend gathering of academics, activists, and advocates will work together to formulate proposals for reform of the criminal justice and penal systems. We need to share our input.
9. The Yale Law Journal welcomes submissions for their first prison law writing contest.
10. A call for stories from adult children of incarcerated, or formerly incarcerated, parents.
11. Justus Support Group forms in Troy NY.
May 03, 2012
Effect of Risk Assessment Rule on Parole Decisions Is Unclear
Extract from a report by John Caher, reviewing the impact of recent changes in the parole statute:
ALBANY - A new law requiring the state parole board to consider inmates' rehabilitation and use a "risk assessment" procedure to gauge whether parole-eligible inmates have reformed appears to be having little effect as release rates are largely unchanged and the board is routinely basing its denials on boilerplate statutory language emphasizing the offense, records suggest.
In October, the panel was legislatively required to "incorporate risk and needs principles to measure the rehabilitation of persons appearing before the board, the likelihood of success of such persons upon release."
The board did so, but advocates say the new process appears to have no impact.
"My experience has been it doesn't matter because most of the guys are scoring the lowest risk assessment level and they are still hitting them and saying they are a threat to society," said Cheryl Kates, an attorney near Rochester whose practice consists of advocating for inmates seeking parole. "It doesn't make any sense. They've added an evidence-based procedure but still cite the statute the same way they did previously. It is just a façade. It is status quo."
Similarly, Edward Hammock, a former parole board chairman who now practices criminal law, much of it post-conviction, said he has not seen any change.
"It is my impression that nothing is really happening," Hammock said. "Why do a risk assessment if you are not going to deal with it when considering someone for release?"
Part of the problem is that there is uncertainty about why the statute was changed and what the revision was supposed to achieve. It is not clear if the revision represents a sea change in the operations of the parole board, a tweak of one of the existing factors it takes into consideration, or something in between ... ...
For complete report, see:
Effect of Risk Assessment Rule on Parole Decisions Is Unclear, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, April 30 2012)
See also:
Judge Finds Parole Risk Assessment Not Retroactive, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, May 21 2012)
Acting Supreme Court Justice Mark Fandrich wrote: "While the changes may modernize the parole laws, there is no indication that they were intended to correct any past oversight or clarify the law in any way."
Inmate Loses Parole Bid Despite his 'Incredible Prison Record', by John Caher (New York Law Journal, April 24 2012)
Matter of Thwaites v New York State Bd. of Parole 2011 NY Slip Op 21453
Matter of Hamilton v New York State Div. of Parole 2012 NY Slip Op 22112
ALBANY - A new law requiring the state parole board to consider inmates' rehabilitation and use a "risk assessment" procedure to gauge whether parole-eligible inmates have reformed appears to be having little effect as release rates are largely unchanged and the board is routinely basing its denials on boilerplate statutory language emphasizing the offense, records suggest.
In October, the panel was legislatively required to "incorporate risk and needs principles to measure the rehabilitation of persons appearing before the board, the likelihood of success of such persons upon release."
The board did so, but advocates say the new process appears to have no impact.
"My experience has been it doesn't matter because most of the guys are scoring the lowest risk assessment level and they are still hitting them and saying they are a threat to society," said Cheryl Kates, an attorney near Rochester whose practice consists of advocating for inmates seeking parole. "It doesn't make any sense. They've added an evidence-based procedure but still cite the statute the same way they did previously. It is just a façade. It is status quo."
Similarly, Edward Hammock, a former parole board chairman who now practices criminal law, much of it post-conviction, said he has not seen any change.
"It is my impression that nothing is really happening," Hammock said. "Why do a risk assessment if you are not going to deal with it when considering someone for release?"
Part of the problem is that there is uncertainty about why the statute was changed and what the revision was supposed to achieve. It is not clear if the revision represents a sea change in the operations of the parole board, a tweak of one of the existing factors it takes into consideration, or something in between ... ...
For complete report, see:
Effect of Risk Assessment Rule on Parole Decisions Is Unclear, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, April 30 2012)
See also:
Judge Finds Parole Risk Assessment Not Retroactive, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, May 21 2012)
Acting Supreme Court Justice Mark Fandrich wrote: "While the changes may modernize the parole laws, there is no indication that they were intended to correct any past oversight or clarify the law in any way."
Inmate Loses Parole Bid Despite his 'Incredible Prison Record', by John Caher (New York Law Journal, April 24 2012)
Matter of Thwaites v New York State Bd. of Parole 2011 NY Slip Op 21453
Matter of Hamilton v New York State Div. of Parole 2012 NY Slip Op 22112
April 16, 2012
Building Bridges - April 2012 edition
The April edition of Building Bridges has been issued by the Prison Action Network.
Items discussed in the April newsletter include the following, see Building Bridges for full details:
1. The Senate's Crime Committee passed all but one of the mostly - but not only - sex-offender related bills at their meeting on March 20. The legislation considered by the committee is listed in detail.
2. People in prison weigh in on Parole Reform: talking about the moral high ground and the optimism that is felt not just despite, but because of, the escalation of prison abuses. This includes a perceptive item by Ismael Igartua, "The Moral High Ground", responding to the suggestion that facility parole officers have more influence at parole board hearings than previously thought. Igartua is writing in response to this article: State tells parole officers to surrender guns, by Brendan J. Lyons (New York Times, 24 February 2012).
3. Parole releases for February are depressing, but there is a recent favorable court decision in the case of Emmanuel Patterson. In response to requests, the Prison Action Network has reposted biographies of current members of the Parole Board.
Update in the case of Thwaites: Douglas Thwaites filed an Article 78 contesting the Parole Board's denial of his appeal that his parole hearing denial should be overturned: State Supreme Court Judge Ecker ruled in his favor on the Article 78 and stated that at the new hearing Mr. Thwaites needed to be judged by whether there is a reasonable probability that if released, he will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and not on his past offense. According to the Board's website, his reappearance is scheduled for June 2012. We will be waiting to learn the decision.
In a recent court decision, Emmanuel Patterson received a favorable ruling on his Article 78: Patterson v Cully, Index # 1-2011-4748, Erie County, Michalski, 2012. The court noted the criteria governing release is contained in NYS Executive Law 259 (i)(2)(c)(a). Due to the timing of the case (2010), the court also refers to NYS Executive Law 259 (i)(1)(2)(c) which has now been changed and added to the preceding section.
The court stated the Board cannot solely cite the serious nature of the crime as a reason for denial, IGNORING THE CASE PRECEDENT IN King and Johnson. The court indicated the statement: "criminal behavior being extreme and violent with a total disregard for human life" could be said about any homicide and was not enough to constitute an aggravating circumstance beyond the serious nature of the crime, Patterson (id). The court found this decision "irrational and improper" Patterson (id).
The court concluded "the Parole Board's reliance on the severity of the crime to deny parole not only contravenes the discretionary scheme mandated by statue, but also effectively constitutes an unauthorized resentencing" Patterson (id).
4. Parole reform strategies: talking points that stress the importance of removing "the seriousness of the offense" from the Parole Board's consideration, when discussing effective changes to Parole Board policies. It is an opportune time because we are now at a point when there is concrete evidence of the parole board's lawlessness, arbitrariness and their refusal to follow the mandates of the legislature. In other words, they have demonstrated their bad faith to give fair consideration to parole applicants.
On March 31, 2011 several significant amendments to the Executive Law were signed into law including an amendment to Executive Law § 259-c(4) which requires the parole board to:
Establish written procedures for its use in making parole decisions as required by law. Such written procedures shall incorporate risk and needs principles to measure the rehabilitation of persons appearing before the board, the likelihood of success of such persons upon release, and assist members of the state board of parole in determining which inmates may be released to parole supervision.
The effective date of this mandate imposed on the parole board was October 1, 2011. As of April 5, 2012 the parole board has failed and refused to establish the written procedures that were required by the state legislature. The result of this bad faith on the part of the parole board is that they have failed to establish lawful procedures by which they will consider the risk and needs instrument that they are using, the COMPAS, and that they have no rules that control how they are to implement risk and needs principles. Not only does this make all decisions since October 1, 2011 unlawful, by failing to establish rules it prevents judicial review since the courts have no way of knowing whether the board decisions are consistent with law procedures. This total disrespect for the legislature and its mandated reform clearly requires stronger action on the part of the legislature. The parole board cannot be trusted to use its own devices to establish written procedures that will be fair and appropriate. If they will not follow the law as directed to them by the legislature, how can they be counted on to make their own rules?
Therefore, it is time for the legislature to act in response to this affront by the parole board and establish tighter control of parole board decision making. In order to do this, more specific statutory requirements must be imposed. Now is the time to impose the statutory requirements of the SAFE Parole Act!
One of the dominant features of the SAFE Parole Act is that it removes "the seriousness of the offense" from the parole board's consideration. There are several strong reasons why that factor is no longer appropriate for parole board consideration:
*Double counting of the crime and criminal record. This factor is used in the COMPAS risk and need assessment and is currently also being used by the parole board as a separate factor. By double counting, this factor creates an imbalance in the factors to be considered. It serves no legitimate purpose when it comes to the ultimate decision that the parole board is called upon to make, which is whether "there is a reasonable probability" that the parole applicant, if released, "will live and remain at liberty without violating the law." The seriousness of the crime has no predictive value in determining if the person is likely to reoffend.
*Currently as it is being used, the parole board is abusing the use of this factor. Even in cases where the COMPAS risk assessment score indicates low risk, the parole board is defaulting to the "seriousness of the offense" to support their conclusion that the parole applicant is a high risk. In other words, nothing has changed with the parole board, despite the legislature’s attempt to reform the process.
*The factor, "seriousness of the offense" originally appeared in the Executive Law § 259-i (1) as a factor to be considered by the parole board at a time, years ago, when the parole board actually had the authority to set the minimum sentence when the court had not. In such cases, because the parole board was serving a sentencing function, it was appropriate to consider that factor because the sentencing function properly considers punishment as a sentencing goal. However, since the parole board no longer sets the minimum, and therefore no longer is charged with the responsibility of considering punishment, it should no longer be considered as a factor.
*In 2011, subdivision (1) was repealed. Unfortunately, and without debate of discussion about the rationale, this factor was moved to subdivision (2) for parole board consideration in general. That repositioning of this factor was without sound rationale, and should be removed.
5. Building Bridges is polling their readers on the delivery of the Transitional Accountability Plan and the COMPAS risk and needs instrument. When are they being administered? Have they made a difference in parole decisions?
6. NYS Prisoner Justice Network announces May 22 Justice Action Day, including a meeting with legislators and a rally to demand fairer parole decisions and to show how much statewide support there is for Parole Board reform.
7. Merit Time for violent offenders is still on the table. Add your name to a website which already has over 2000 signatures in support of this bill, S338/A154.
8. Photo ID for visitors is to be required and maintained in DOCCS data bases. Prison officials plan to start photographing visitors to state inmates in a pilot program this fall at a facility in northern New York and possibly a few others. Those pictures will be filed in the corrections department's central visitor identification system. Regulations to establish the practice in all 60 facilities housing 56,000 prisoners are expected to follow. Separately, the department issued final regulations earlier this week to require adult visitors present a photo identification starting Oct. 1 at all state prisons.
Items discussed in the April newsletter include the following, see Building Bridges for full details:
1. The Senate's Crime Committee passed all but one of the mostly - but not only - sex-offender related bills at their meeting on March 20. The legislation considered by the committee is listed in detail.
2. People in prison weigh in on Parole Reform: talking about the moral high ground and the optimism that is felt not just despite, but because of, the escalation of prison abuses. This includes a perceptive item by Ismael Igartua, "The Moral High Ground", responding to the suggestion that facility parole officers have more influence at parole board hearings than previously thought. Igartua is writing in response to this article: State tells parole officers to surrender guns, by Brendan J. Lyons (New York Times, 24 February 2012).
3. Parole releases for February are depressing, but there is a recent favorable court decision in the case of Emmanuel Patterson. In response to requests, the Prison Action Network has reposted biographies of current members of the Parole Board.
Update in the case of Thwaites: Douglas Thwaites filed an Article 78 contesting the Parole Board's denial of his appeal that his parole hearing denial should be overturned: State Supreme Court Judge Ecker ruled in his favor on the Article 78 and stated that at the new hearing Mr. Thwaites needed to be judged by whether there is a reasonable probability that if released, he will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and not on his past offense. According to the Board's website, his reappearance is scheduled for June 2012. We will be waiting to learn the decision.
In a recent court decision, Emmanuel Patterson received a favorable ruling on his Article 78: Patterson v Cully, Index # 1-2011-4748, Erie County, Michalski, 2012. The court noted the criteria governing release is contained in NYS Executive Law 259 (i)(2)(c)(a). Due to the timing of the case (2010), the court also refers to NYS Executive Law 259 (i)(1)(2)(c) which has now been changed and added to the preceding section.
The court stated the Board cannot solely cite the serious nature of the crime as a reason for denial, IGNORING THE CASE PRECEDENT IN King and Johnson. The court indicated the statement: "criminal behavior being extreme and violent with a total disregard for human life" could be said about any homicide and was not enough to constitute an aggravating circumstance beyond the serious nature of the crime, Patterson (id). The court found this decision "irrational and improper" Patterson (id).
The court concluded "the Parole Board's reliance on the severity of the crime to deny parole not only contravenes the discretionary scheme mandated by statue, but also effectively constitutes an unauthorized resentencing" Patterson (id).
4. Parole reform strategies: talking points that stress the importance of removing "the seriousness of the offense" from the Parole Board's consideration, when discussing effective changes to Parole Board policies. It is an opportune time because we are now at a point when there is concrete evidence of the parole board's lawlessness, arbitrariness and their refusal to follow the mandates of the legislature. In other words, they have demonstrated their bad faith to give fair consideration to parole applicants.
On March 31, 2011 several significant amendments to the Executive Law were signed into law including an amendment to Executive Law § 259-c(4) which requires the parole board to:
Establish written procedures for its use in making parole decisions as required by law. Such written procedures shall incorporate risk and needs principles to measure the rehabilitation of persons appearing before the board, the likelihood of success of such persons upon release, and assist members of the state board of parole in determining which inmates may be released to parole supervision.
The effective date of this mandate imposed on the parole board was October 1, 2011. As of April 5, 2012 the parole board has failed and refused to establish the written procedures that were required by the state legislature. The result of this bad faith on the part of the parole board is that they have failed to establish lawful procedures by which they will consider the risk and needs instrument that they are using, the COMPAS, and that they have no rules that control how they are to implement risk and needs principles. Not only does this make all decisions since October 1, 2011 unlawful, by failing to establish rules it prevents judicial review since the courts have no way of knowing whether the board decisions are consistent with law procedures. This total disrespect for the legislature and its mandated reform clearly requires stronger action on the part of the legislature. The parole board cannot be trusted to use its own devices to establish written procedures that will be fair and appropriate. If they will not follow the law as directed to them by the legislature, how can they be counted on to make their own rules?
Therefore, it is time for the legislature to act in response to this affront by the parole board and establish tighter control of parole board decision making. In order to do this, more specific statutory requirements must be imposed. Now is the time to impose the statutory requirements of the SAFE Parole Act!
One of the dominant features of the SAFE Parole Act is that it removes "the seriousness of the offense" from the parole board's consideration. There are several strong reasons why that factor is no longer appropriate for parole board consideration:
*Double counting of the crime and criminal record. This factor is used in the COMPAS risk and need assessment and is currently also being used by the parole board as a separate factor. By double counting, this factor creates an imbalance in the factors to be considered. It serves no legitimate purpose when it comes to the ultimate decision that the parole board is called upon to make, which is whether "there is a reasonable probability" that the parole applicant, if released, "will live and remain at liberty without violating the law." The seriousness of the crime has no predictive value in determining if the person is likely to reoffend.
*Currently as it is being used, the parole board is abusing the use of this factor. Even in cases where the COMPAS risk assessment score indicates low risk, the parole board is defaulting to the "seriousness of the offense" to support their conclusion that the parole applicant is a high risk. In other words, nothing has changed with the parole board, despite the legislature’s attempt to reform the process.
*The factor, "seriousness of the offense" originally appeared in the Executive Law § 259-i (1) as a factor to be considered by the parole board at a time, years ago, when the parole board actually had the authority to set the minimum sentence when the court had not. In such cases, because the parole board was serving a sentencing function, it was appropriate to consider that factor because the sentencing function properly considers punishment as a sentencing goal. However, since the parole board no longer sets the minimum, and therefore no longer is charged with the responsibility of considering punishment, it should no longer be considered as a factor.
*In 2011, subdivision (1) was repealed. Unfortunately, and without debate of discussion about the rationale, this factor was moved to subdivision (2) for parole board consideration in general. That repositioning of this factor was without sound rationale, and should be removed.
5. Building Bridges is polling their readers on the delivery of the Transitional Accountability Plan and the COMPAS risk and needs instrument. When are they being administered? Have they made a difference in parole decisions?
6. NYS Prisoner Justice Network announces May 22 Justice Action Day, including a meeting with legislators and a rally to demand fairer parole decisions and to show how much statewide support there is for Parole Board reform.
7. Merit Time for violent offenders is still on the table. Add your name to a website which already has over 2000 signatures in support of this bill, S338/A154.
8. Photo ID for visitors is to be required and maintained in DOCCS data bases. Prison officials plan to start photographing visitors to state inmates in a pilot program this fall at a facility in northern New York and possibly a few others. Those pictures will be filed in the corrections department's central visitor identification system. Regulations to establish the practice in all 60 facilities housing 56,000 prisoners are expected to follow. Separately, the department issued final regulations earlier this week to require adult visitors present a photo identification starting Oct. 1 at all state prisons.
February 28, 2012
NY DOCCS Moves Toward Supervising Parolees by Risk Level
Extract from report by the Upper Manhattan Reentry Task Force (UMRTF):
... Historically, NY DOCCS (Division of Corrections and Community Supervision) has employed a static risk assessment ("DCJS Risk") to assign individuals being released to the community a risk level. The assessment looked at age, gender, and history of criminality to determine the risk of a parolee's recidivism. The assessment did not take into account the attitudes and beliefs of individuals leaving prison, one of the prime predictors of recidivism. Therefore, unless the individual had "aged out" of criminal activity, he/she was considered to be the same risk that he/she was prior to his/her prison term. Once released to the community, Field Parole Officers supervised all parolees similarly, independent of risk, until he/she got to know the client personally and made adjustments to the client's supervision mandates.
Now, DOCCS is in the midst of implementing some massive changes. As I learned at a County Reentry Task Force Meeting this past Friday, February 28, 2012, as of March 1, 2012, every individual being paroled from all NY DOCCS facilities will receive an actuarial risk assessment called "COMPAS Reentry." The COMPAS tool, created by Northepointe, Inc., "a research and consulting firm, offering software products, training, and implementation services to local, state, and federal criminal justice systems and policy makers," measures standard risk factors in combination with reentry domains such as early onset of delinquency, history of non-compliance, occurrences of prison misconduct, substance abuse, the risk of housing problems, criminal thinking, etc. The COMPAS then calculates a client's risk of recidivism and risk of absconding, and offers a personalized client needs scale to parole officers and case managers that can be used to prioritize case planning and supervision.
NY DOCCS will be using the risk numbers produced the COMPAS tool to determine how intensively parolees will be supervised. DOCCS has created four risk level designations (Levels 1-4) that will be assigned to a parolee based on his/her COMPAS score. Each Bureau Chief across the state will determine how to divide up parolees on a PO's caseload using the risk levels. For instance, a Bureau Chief can determine that a PO will supervise only cases that are assigned one risk level. A high risk caseload may consist of 25 parolees, while the lowest risk caseload may consist of as many as 120 parolees. DOCCS did not give us an estimate regarding how long this transition to the level system will occur.
We also learned, that by statute, the Parole Board must now receive a risk assessment of every inmate that goes before them. This risk assessment will be the COMPAS. ...
For complete report, see:
NY DOCCS Moves Toward Supervising Parolees by Risk Level (Re-thinking Reentry, 28 February 2012)
... Historically, NY DOCCS (Division of Corrections and Community Supervision) has employed a static risk assessment ("DCJS Risk") to assign individuals being released to the community a risk level. The assessment looked at age, gender, and history of criminality to determine the risk of a parolee's recidivism. The assessment did not take into account the attitudes and beliefs of individuals leaving prison, one of the prime predictors of recidivism. Therefore, unless the individual had "aged out" of criminal activity, he/she was considered to be the same risk that he/she was prior to his/her prison term. Once released to the community, Field Parole Officers supervised all parolees similarly, independent of risk, until he/she got to know the client personally and made adjustments to the client's supervision mandates.
Now, DOCCS is in the midst of implementing some massive changes. As I learned at a County Reentry Task Force Meeting this past Friday, February 28, 2012, as of March 1, 2012, every individual being paroled from all NY DOCCS facilities will receive an actuarial risk assessment called "COMPAS Reentry." The COMPAS tool, created by Northepointe, Inc., "a research and consulting firm, offering software products, training, and implementation services to local, state, and federal criminal justice systems and policy makers," measures standard risk factors in combination with reentry domains such as early onset of delinquency, history of non-compliance, occurrences of prison misconduct, substance abuse, the risk of housing problems, criminal thinking, etc. The COMPAS then calculates a client's risk of recidivism and risk of absconding, and offers a personalized client needs scale to parole officers and case managers that can be used to prioritize case planning and supervision.
NY DOCCS will be using the risk numbers produced the COMPAS tool to determine how intensively parolees will be supervised. DOCCS has created four risk level designations (Levels 1-4) that will be assigned to a parolee based on his/her COMPAS score. Each Bureau Chief across the state will determine how to divide up parolees on a PO's caseload using the risk levels. For instance, a Bureau Chief can determine that a PO will supervise only cases that are assigned one risk level. A high risk caseload may consist of 25 parolees, while the lowest risk caseload may consist of as many as 120 parolees. DOCCS did not give us an estimate regarding how long this transition to the level system will occur.
We also learned, that by statute, the Parole Board must now receive a risk assessment of every inmate that goes before them. This risk assessment will be the COMPAS. ...
For complete report, see:
NY DOCCS Moves Toward Supervising Parolees by Risk Level (Re-thinking Reentry, 28 February 2012)
February 15, 2012
Building Bridges - February 2012 edition
The February edition of Building Bridges has been issued by the Prison Action Network.
Items in this issue include the following:
1. Pepsi Beverages Company has agreed to a $3.1 million settlement following federal charges that Pepsi committed racial discrimination in its hiring practices, specifically by eliminating approximately 300 African American applicants based on arrest records (but not necessarily convictions).
2. Threat to close Auburn Prison's Hospitality Center alarms families who depend on this service to provide shelter while they wait from the time the bus drops them off until the beginning of visiting hours.
3. Today's "Incarcerated Man" is vastly different from the representative specimen of yesteryear. For the first time in "incarcerated man's" history there are more notable success stories than failures, as evidenced by a dwindling prison population and the success of the many women and men in leadership positions in re-entry programs throughout the state.
4. Two Job Opportunities: 1) Full time Development Associate at the Correctional Association. 2) Combine your desire to sharpen your skills and your commitment to fair criminal justice policies by training to become a media volunteer with the NYS Parole Reform Campaign. Free training.
5. Standardize Marijuana Offenses: We need a permanent, statewide solution like the bipartisan version proposed by Assemblyman Jeffries and Senator Grisanti. Please support A.7620 (Jeffries)/S.5187 (Grisanti): legislation that would end the racially biased, costly, and unconstitutional marijuana arrests throughout New York State.
6. How is the merger of DOCCS going to be implemented, and when? Who is overseeing the process? In this vast system with all its tensions and conflicts - between agencies, between management and unions - who is monitoring this monolithic entity? Building Bridges attempted to find out by attending, and reading testimony from, the Public Hearing on the Merger of DOCS and the Division of Parole into the new Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Thursday, November 10, 2011 and a hearing on the Public Protection portion of the 2012-13 Executive Budget, held by the State Legislature's fiscal committees on January 30, 2012. Please scroll down to section 6 of the Building Bridges newsletter for their report on this highly complex situation, including information on TAP and COMPAS.
7. The Merit Time Bill S338/A154, sponsored by Senator Velmanette Montgomery and co-sponsored by Senator Dilan is sitting in the Senate Crime Victims, Crime and Corrections Committee and in the Assembly’s Correction Committee, as is the SAFE Parole Act. Brianne Russo has posted a petition in support of Senator Montgomery’s Merit Time Bill, S338. If you want to make your voice heard, please sign the petition.
8. Last chance to decide to attend the Caucus weekend workshops. The NYS Parole Reform Campaign of the Coalition for Fair Criminal Justice Policies has a room that holds 500. Think of the impression it would make if it was filled! But if you can’t get there, you can help to get your legislators to support the SAFE Parole Act. People are suffering in prison waiting for us to win this struggle. It won’t be easy, but it can be done if we ALL get involved!
9. Mass Incarceration and the NYS Prisoner Justice Movement: "Dear Prisoner Justice Network, I have been in prison for 27 years. My last parole hearing lasted 4 minutes." Mass incarceration is a false solution that gets in the way of real solutions. It does not interrupt violence - it feeds the cycle of violence.
10. Parole News: Updates on Thwaites decision, and Graziano's:
Douglas Thwaites reports that the Assistant Attorney General is appealing Judge Lawrence H. Ecker's ruling in which the Judge ordered the Parole Board to hold a new hearing for Mr. Thwaites with a different panel within 30 days of the decision dated 12/21/11. Thwaites is challenging the appeal. He thanks all who have written in support and asks us to keep faith alive. His next parole hearing is scheduled for March 2012.
In a new decision on January 26 2012, Judge Lawrence H. Ecker handed down an almost identical ruling in the case of Newlly Velazquez as he did for Douglas Thwaites, one month previously. He again quotes Professor Phillip Genty's interpretation of the governor's revisions to the Parole Statute, including: "[T]he most important change is the replacement of static, past focused "guidelines" with more dynamic present and future-focused risk assessment "procedures" to guide the Parole Board."
Graziano does not give up! It is not the end of the road yet. Lawyers are waiting for a date to argue their federal case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. They also plan to request leave to appeal the state case to the New York Court of Appeals.
11. Stop and Frisk policies are the scourge of a Black person's life, particularly for males, and particularly for young males. But as this story reveals, even grey haired 70 year old Black men are not immune to being stopped and frisked.
12. Veterans in Prison, a report by Karima Amin in Buffalo, where the first Veteran's Treatment Court in the nation was created by Judge Robert T. Russell, Jr.
13. Over 37,000 New Yorkers are denied their constitutional right to vote because they are on parole, even though they are living and working in their communities. Join the effort to change this!
Items in this issue include the following:
1. Pepsi Beverages Company has agreed to a $3.1 million settlement following federal charges that Pepsi committed racial discrimination in its hiring practices, specifically by eliminating approximately 300 African American applicants based on arrest records (but not necessarily convictions).
2. Threat to close Auburn Prison's Hospitality Center alarms families who depend on this service to provide shelter while they wait from the time the bus drops them off until the beginning of visiting hours.
3. Today's "Incarcerated Man" is vastly different from the representative specimen of yesteryear. For the first time in "incarcerated man's" history there are more notable success stories than failures, as evidenced by a dwindling prison population and the success of the many women and men in leadership positions in re-entry programs throughout the state.
4. Two Job Opportunities: 1) Full time Development Associate at the Correctional Association. 2) Combine your desire to sharpen your skills and your commitment to fair criminal justice policies by training to become a media volunteer with the NYS Parole Reform Campaign. Free training.
5. Standardize Marijuana Offenses: We need a permanent, statewide solution like the bipartisan version proposed by Assemblyman Jeffries and Senator Grisanti. Please support A.7620 (Jeffries)/S.5187 (Grisanti): legislation that would end the racially biased, costly, and unconstitutional marijuana arrests throughout New York State.
6. How is the merger of DOCCS going to be implemented, and when? Who is overseeing the process? In this vast system with all its tensions and conflicts - between agencies, between management and unions - who is monitoring this monolithic entity? Building Bridges attempted to find out by attending, and reading testimony from, the Public Hearing on the Merger of DOCS and the Division of Parole into the new Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Thursday, November 10, 2011 and a hearing on the Public Protection portion of the 2012-13 Executive Budget, held by the State Legislature's fiscal committees on January 30, 2012. Please scroll down to section 6 of the Building Bridges newsletter for their report on this highly complex situation, including information on TAP and COMPAS.
7. The Merit Time Bill S338/A154, sponsored by Senator Velmanette Montgomery and co-sponsored by Senator Dilan is sitting in the Senate Crime Victims, Crime and Corrections Committee and in the Assembly’s Correction Committee, as is the SAFE Parole Act. Brianne Russo has posted a petition in support of Senator Montgomery’s Merit Time Bill, S338. If you want to make your voice heard, please sign the petition.
8. Last chance to decide to attend the Caucus weekend workshops. The NYS Parole Reform Campaign of the Coalition for Fair Criminal Justice Policies has a room that holds 500. Think of the impression it would make if it was filled! But if you can’t get there, you can help to get your legislators to support the SAFE Parole Act. People are suffering in prison waiting for us to win this struggle. It won’t be easy, but it can be done if we ALL get involved!
9. Mass Incarceration and the NYS Prisoner Justice Movement: "Dear Prisoner Justice Network, I have been in prison for 27 years. My last parole hearing lasted 4 minutes." Mass incarceration is a false solution that gets in the way of real solutions. It does not interrupt violence - it feeds the cycle of violence.
10. Parole News: Updates on Thwaites decision, and Graziano's:
Douglas Thwaites reports that the Assistant Attorney General is appealing Judge Lawrence H. Ecker's ruling in which the Judge ordered the Parole Board to hold a new hearing for Mr. Thwaites with a different panel within 30 days of the decision dated 12/21/11. Thwaites is challenging the appeal. He thanks all who have written in support and asks us to keep faith alive. His next parole hearing is scheduled for March 2012.
In a new decision on January 26 2012, Judge Lawrence H. Ecker handed down an almost identical ruling in the case of Newlly Velazquez as he did for Douglas Thwaites, one month previously. He again quotes Professor Phillip Genty's interpretation of the governor's revisions to the Parole Statute, including: "[T]he most important change is the replacement of static, past focused "guidelines" with more dynamic present and future-focused risk assessment "procedures" to guide the Parole Board."
Graziano does not give up! It is not the end of the road yet. Lawyers are waiting for a date to argue their federal case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. They also plan to request leave to appeal the state case to the New York Court of Appeals.
11. Stop and Frisk policies are the scourge of a Black person's life, particularly for males, and particularly for young males. But as this story reveals, even grey haired 70 year old Black men are not immune to being stopped and frisked.
12. Veterans in Prison, a report by Karima Amin in Buffalo, where the first Veteran's Treatment Court in the nation was created by Judge Robert T. Russell, Jr.
13. Over 37,000 New Yorkers are denied their constitutional right to vote because they are on parole, even though they are living and working in their communities. Join the effort to change this!
December 23, 2011
Transitional Accountability Plans (TAP) and Risk and Needs Assessment (COMPAS)
Extract from Building Bridges, December 2011:
Transitional Accountability Plans (TAP) and Risk and Needs Assessment (COMPAS)
From the testimony of Andrea Evans, Chairwoman of the Board of Parole, before the Assembly Committee on Correction, Nov 10, 2011, we gained some further insight into how TAP and Risk and Needs Assessments will be used in parole decisions. The following information is from her written testimony to the Committee.
The Board has been working closely with the DOCCS in developing the TAP instrument. It will be the instrument that measures the rehabilitation of persons appearing before the Board, as well as their likelihood of success in the community when released. Each member of the Board has received training in the use of both the TAP instrument and a risk and needs instrument known as the COMPAS instrument. Currently the use of these instruments is being piloted in 3 correctional facilities for the purpose of establishing appropriate conditions of supervision. When the pilot phase is concluded, the Board will use them to assess the appropriateness of an inmate’s release to community supervision. Because the TAP instrument reflects an inmate’s overall effort toward his or her rehabilitation while incarcerated and draws upon information closely associated with their risk of re-offending, and their needs in order to become successful, the Board’s written procedures will call for the use and careful consideration of these documents.
As an interim measure, I have instructed the Board to use the TAP instrument where and when it has been prepared for a parole eligible inmate. I have emphasized that when the Board considers an inmate for parole, they must ascertain what steps he or he has taken toward their rehabilitation and the likelihood of their success once released to community supervision.
The one function that has been transferred from the Board to DOCCS is the granting of certificates of relief and certificates of good conduct. Last year the Board granted 1,695 such certificates. DOCCS has granted 1,581 since April 2011.
See also:
Andrea W. Evans' memorandum to the Members of the Board of Parole, dated October 5 2011, regarding the recent amendment to Executive Law §259-c(4).
In the memorandum she gives details of the COMPAS Risk and Needs Assessment tool and the TAP instrument, and lists the statutory criteria to be considered by the Board. She states: "Please know that the standard for assessing the appropriateness for release, as well as the statutory criteria you must consider has not changed through the aforementioned legislation."
She ends the memorandum by giving the following instruction to the Board: " Therefore, in your consideration of the statutory criteria set forth in Executive Law §259-i(2)(c)(A)(i) through (viii), you must ascertain what steps an inmate has taken toward their rehabilitation and the likelihood of their success once released to parole supervision. In this regard, any steps taken by an inmate toward effecting their rehabilitation, in addition to all aspects of their proposed release plan, are to be discussed with the inmate during the course of their interview and considered in your deliberations."
Transitional Accountability Plans (TAP) and Risk and Needs Assessment (COMPAS)
From the testimony of Andrea Evans, Chairwoman of the Board of Parole, before the Assembly Committee on Correction, Nov 10, 2011, we gained some further insight into how TAP and Risk and Needs Assessments will be used in parole decisions. The following information is from her written testimony to the Committee.
The Board has been working closely with the DOCCS in developing the TAP instrument. It will be the instrument that measures the rehabilitation of persons appearing before the Board, as well as their likelihood of success in the community when released. Each member of the Board has received training in the use of both the TAP instrument and a risk and needs instrument known as the COMPAS instrument. Currently the use of these instruments is being piloted in 3 correctional facilities for the purpose of establishing appropriate conditions of supervision. When the pilot phase is concluded, the Board will use them to assess the appropriateness of an inmate’s release to community supervision. Because the TAP instrument reflects an inmate’s overall effort toward his or her rehabilitation while incarcerated and draws upon information closely associated with their risk of re-offending, and their needs in order to become successful, the Board’s written procedures will call for the use and careful consideration of these documents.
As an interim measure, I have instructed the Board to use the TAP instrument where and when it has been prepared for a parole eligible inmate. I have emphasized that when the Board considers an inmate for parole, they must ascertain what steps he or he has taken toward their rehabilitation and the likelihood of their success once released to community supervision.
The one function that has been transferred from the Board to DOCCS is the granting of certificates of relief and certificates of good conduct. Last year the Board granted 1,695 such certificates. DOCCS has granted 1,581 since April 2011.
See also:
Andrea W. Evans' memorandum to the Members of the Board of Parole, dated October 5 2011, regarding the recent amendment to Executive Law §259-c(4).
In the memorandum she gives details of the COMPAS Risk and Needs Assessment tool and the TAP instrument, and lists the statutory criteria to be considered by the Board. She states: "Please know that the standard for assessing the appropriateness for release, as well as the statutory criteria you must consider has not changed through the aforementioned legislation."
She ends the memorandum by giving the following instruction to the Board: " Therefore, in your consideration of the statutory criteria set forth in Executive Law §259-i(2)(c)(A)(i) through (viii), you must ascertain what steps an inmate has taken toward their rehabilitation and the likelihood of their success once released to parole supervision. In this regard, any steps taken by an inmate toward effecting their rehabilitation, in addition to all aspects of their proposed release plan, are to be discussed with the inmate during the course of their interview and considered in your deliberations."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)