David McCallum is denied parole

David McCallum has been denied parole for the fourth time, for a crime he insists he did not commit.

For details:
Inmate Who Claims He Falsely Confessed Loses Parole Bid, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, April 26 2013)
When Admitting Guilt Is Not An Option, by Martin H. Tankleff (New York Law Journal, March 11 2013)
Inmate Cannot Clear His Name Without Evidence of Guilty Party, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, March 6 2013)

Inmate Cannot Clear His Name Without Evidence of Guilty Party

David McCallum "has a plethora of loyal advocates certain of his innocence, a pro bono legal team that has been working on his behalf for a decade, a supportive family that never has stopped believing in him and a district attorney who is willing to listen and even agreed to post-conviction DNA testing."

He has maintained a spotless disciplinary record while in prison, a "stunningly good record," and the parole board's own risk assessment places him at the lowest risk of re-offending, being arrested or absconding.

Yet he has been turned down for parole three times, at least in part because he refuses to accept responsibility for a crime he insists he did not commit.

His next parole hearing will be in April.

John Caher reports on McCallum's case:
Inmate Cannot Clear His Name Without Evidence of Guilty Party, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, March 6 2013)

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."

Summary and comparisons of parole board appearances for A1 violent offenders in 2011

CURE-NY give the following unofficial summary and comparisons of parole board appearances and releases in 2011 for A1 violent offenders.

2011 A1VF SUMMARIES AND COMPARISONS:

INITIAL BOARDS:
218 interviews, 26 releases; for a release rate of 12%. Two of those 26 were rescinded. In 2007 there were 41 initial releases, 25 in 2008 after the hearing held by Senator Nozzolio, in 2009 there were 38 initial releases, and 39 in 2010, making 2011 the second lowest number of release decisions, as well as the second lowest rate of releases, in the last five years. Three of those initial release decisions were for deportation only, making the % of those released to their home communities 10.5%

REAPPEARANCES:
979 interviews, 209 releases; for a release rate of 21%. That is the second highest in the past five years. 31 of the 209 were released for deportation making the rate released to the U.S. 18%. Four of the 209 were released to another state and another 4 were released on special consideration hearings.

MEDICAL PAROLE:
This year saw what is believed to be the first A1VFs released on medical parole. A man was released on a medical parole board, although he had been parole eligible since 2002. A woman was released on a "true" medical parole board several years before reaching her parole eligibility date.

GENDER BREAKDOWN:
Of the 218 initial interviews, 212 were males (97%), 6 were females (3%). Of the 26 initial releasees, 25 were males (96%), 1 was female (4%).

Of the 979 reappearance interviews, 957 were males (98%), 22 were women (2%). Of the 209 releasees, 201 were male (96%) and 8 were female (4%).

RACIAL/ETHNIC BREAKDOWN:
Of the 218 INITIAL interviews, 123 (56%) were Black, 58 (27%) were Hispanic, and 32 (15%) were White. Of the 26 initial releasees, 16 were black (62%), 8 were Hispanic (31%) and 2 were White (8%). (Remaining numbers are other and unknown ethnicities.)

Of the 979 REAPPEARANCE interviews, 522 (53%) were Black, 239 (24%) were Hispanic, and 208 (21%) were White. Of the 209 releasees, 116 were Black (55%), 61 (29%) were Hispanic [or 51 and 24% excluding deportations], and 28 (13%) White. Remaining numbers are other and unknown ethnicities.

PRISON CATEGORY:
MEDIUMS: 728 (61%) of all interviews with 178 released (75% of releasees).
MAXIMUMS: 451 (38%) of all interviews with 57 released (24% of releasees).
The remaining interviews were in other facilities such as Walsh Medical Center or CNYPC.

HOW MANY BOARDS–NUMBER OF RELEASES–PERCENT OF TOTAL (235):
First —26–11%
Second —41–17%
Third —43–18%
Fourth —28–12%
Fifth —30–13%
Sixth —24–10%
Seventh —12*–5% *includes 1 medical release
Eighth —14–6%
Ninth —5–2%
Tenth —7–3%
Eleventh —4–1.6%
Twelfth —2–0.8%

AGES AND LENGTH OF INCARCERATION:
9 of those released were between the ages of 73 and 83, all on reappearances.
26 of those released were in prison since the 1970s, one since the 1960s, 111 since the 1980s and 97 since the 1990s.
[2 of the initial releasees were born after 27 of the other releasees had gone to prison.]

**None of the previous numbers are official or scientific; nor account for any de novo boards. The results are based upon unofficial, best efforts research. Please FOIL the Board of Parole for exact and official data.

Building Bridges conducts research into 180 parole hearings in the state of New York

Research from Building Bridges, March 2011:

"Building Bridges submitted a FOIL Request to Parole and received 9 months worth of commissioners' names who were present for hearing from 1/1/10-9/15/10 (approximately 180 hearings). We wanted to learn if there was any substance to readers' protests that some commissioners never release people with A1 violent felony convictions at the completion of their minimum sentence, and that commissioners were not assigned randomly, as the Parole Board has claimed. We also were trying to see if there was any evidence to support claims that hearings are predetermined, as is the almost universal opinion of men and women who appear before the parole board. Bear in mind that parole boards are made up of either two or three commissioners, and the decisions are made in the name of the lead questioner at the hearing, so there is no way to know how specific individuals voted.

That said, here is what we saw as we looked at the record: Some commissioners were paired with each other more often than would be expected to randomly occur, specifically Ferguson and Elovich, Gallivan and Greenan, Hagler and Smith, Grant and Loomis. Some, particularly in Western NY, tend to be on boards in their home area more often than not, with Gallivan appearing on 5 out of the 7 hearings held at Gowanda during the Foil period, Greenan on 4 out of 7 at Wende/Collins and Crangle on 4 out of 7 at Albion.

Crangle, Hernandez, Lemons, Ludlow and Thompson were each twice on boards that released a person with an A1VO on his/her initial appearance, while Ferguson and Gallivan each were only once on a board that released an A1VO on his or her first board. We could find no initial releases of A1VOs under boards with Smith, Greenan, Hagler or Elovich during the Foil period (9 months).

All A1VO initial releases came out of mediums except for 3 which came from max’s. All three of those at max's were released by Grant, Loomis and Ross. We do not understand this. Surely the Board understands that being in a maximum facility does not mean that the person is any less deserving of release than someone in a medium. There are many reasons a person could be in a max; not all are punitive by any means. For example, a person can request to be transferred to one. Max's have cells as opposed to dormitories and some people prefer the privacy. They also have family reunification programs, and weekday visiting hours, which makes prisoners with families nearby prefer them.

No A1VO was released on an initial board from any of the facilities in the Elmira hub, not just in the 9 months of data Foiled but in the four years that Building Bridges has published these statistics. The Elmira hub consists of Elmira, Auburn, Five Points, Cayuga (med) and Southport. The second hub least likely to be released from on a first hearing is the Watertown hub - Gouverneur, Watertown, Cape Vincent, Ogdensburg and Riverview (all mediums) - which has seen the release of only two A1VOs on initial boards in the last four years, while Elmira has seen zero, according to our research.

That was perhaps the most disturbing fact of all - that some facilities have no/virtually no initial board releases of A1's. It gives support to the theory that decisions are predetermined and not based on individual merit. We will continue to search for the reasons. If readers can add anything to our research, please do so."

Parole Boards Would Lose Authority Under Cuomo Plan

Joel Stashenko discusses Governor Andrew M. Cuomo's proposals for parole reform in New York, raising concerns about the control of the parole board and the proposed reduction in the number of authorized parole commissioners from 19 to 13.

Parole Boards Would Lose Authority Under Cuomo Plan (New York Law Journal, March 11 2011)

Traditionally, three commissioners have heard applications for parole.

“... Right now, we don’t anticipate a reduction,” Ms. Glazer said. “I don’t think this will happen. I think the way in which we have been operating so far, with the 13 [commissioners] has permitted us to operate with the three-man boards and I anticipate that will continue.”

If two-member boards were used, a second panel would have to hear any cases in which there is a tie.

Parole commissioners make $101,600 each. The chair of the board makes $120,800.

Middletown attorney Robert N. Isseks, who represents inmates before the parole board, contended that the current commissioners are overworked as it is.

“We feel the more on the panel the better,” Mr. Isseks said in an interview. “The caseload for commissioners now could be up to 100 hearings a day, where the commissioners get the paperwork that day and the hearings are perfunctory and last maybe five to seven minutes, more or less, and the commissioners are only half listening at best because they are looking at the paperwork for the next case.”

Albert O’Connor of the Defenders Association said that smaller parole panels would make release harder for some inmates.

“When you have three members, you have a more diverse panel,” Mr. O’Connor said. “You have an opportunity for a commissioner to persuade a colleague. When you cut that down to two, obviously, it’s unlikelier that you’ll connect with a board member. The chances of gaining release are diminished for the harder cases, for ones where there might be some historical reluctance to release.”

See CURE-NY's blog for the full text of the article.

Interview with Tom Grant, member of the NYS Board of Parole from May 2004 to June 2010

Tom Grant, member of the NYS Board of Parole from May 2004 to June 2010 joins the Board of CURE-NY and reflects on his experiences as a Parole Commissioner.

From CURE-NY's Winter 2011 Newsletter:

Mr. Grant was a Member of the NYS Board of Parole from May, 2004 thru June, 2010. Immediately prior to his appointment to the Board he served as the Executive Assistant to the Chairman of the Board for eight years. He also served for ten years as the Committee Director/Clerk to the NYS Senate Codes Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is a Certified Auditor for the American Correctional Association and is a Mediator with a particular interest in Restorative and Parallel Justice Issues. He also serves as a member of the Restorative Justice Commission of the Albany Roman Catholic Diocese and is active with the Family and Friends of Homicide Victims.

With his term on the Parole Board behind him, Tom looks back and shares with us his experience as a Parole Commissioner.

The following is an excerpt from an interview with Tom Grant by Debbie Boar, the Task Force Coordinator of the Upper Manhattan Reentry Task Force. "The Ones With Life After Their Name":

What interested you in serving on the Board?

I had a long standing interest in criminal justice issues, but over the years I became more interested in a micro approach than a macro approach. Many times you make criminal justice policy based on trends, but I became more and more interested in individual cases. What types of situations do individuals find themselves in that lead them to incarceration? What happened in that person’s life that caused them to appear before three strangers who would judge whether they would get released or not?

What type of training do you receive as a member of the Parole Board?

There is a bit of a vetting process when you get appointed by the Governor’s Office, looking at your interests and your background. When you get confirmed by the Senate, you receive an overview of what the Division and the Board is all about and training from the Division of Parole’s Counsel’s Office and Operation’s Office. Most important is the training given by the Counsel’s office. You learn the requirements of Executive Law §259 and the standards under the law for release consideration. You observe the interviewing process for a couple of weeks. The best training is really in the actual hands on process, the longer you are on the Board, the better perspective you get. That is why I think that when people initially get on the Board, because they have less experiential knowledge, they don’t understand some of the accomplishments an individual who comes before them was able to achieve. As you spend more time on the Board, you are able to compare and contrast people who go before you.

Do you remember the first individual that came before you?

Yes, it was a drug possession case, when I first saw him, I was taken aback. I asked myself, “How can I release someone like that?” The first case you see is the worst case you see. It takes a while as a Parole Board member to get perspective on the population you are looking at. Sometimes, depending on your perspective when you get on the Board you might have a “lock um up and throw away the key” attitude in the back of your head. But you shouldn’t write these individuals off. The more you learn about reentry programs such as Fortune and Osborne, Father Young’s, you realize there is room for reentry. The work that the Upper Manhattan Reentry Task Force does shows the practical benefit of reentry to the community. Reentry improves community safety. Your work demonstrates all the positive things that can occur for formerly incarcerated individuals when they have support in the community. That’s why it is important when you first get on the Board to keep an open mind.

Did you find that some Parole Board members clash in their philosophies?

Yes, very much so. It takes two members to grant release. The clash reveals itself in the deliberation process. After you interview someone, you discover there are tremendous differences of opinion, which is good. You don’t want to have a unanimous opinion. You want thoughtful consideration. You want thoughtful decision-making. I used to love the give and take you have in the deliberations. That was one of my favorite parts of being on the Board. Dennison encouraged dissent. Before he become Chairman, dissent was very unusual, decisions were almost always unanimous. There was a real interest in collegiality. One of Bob Dennison’s real accomplishments was encouraging dissent. He would encourage you to prepare a written dissent if you felt that strongly. I think from a lot of the unanimous decisions in the past, people would get the wrong impression. They thought the decision was basically a rubber stamp. I didn’t find that to be the case, but I can see a lot of situations where maybe there was a push to have a unanimous decision.

What do you think of criticism that the Parole Board frequently overly focuses or exclusively focuses on the severity of the crime without considering the rehabilitative accomplishments of an inmate?

I think it is vitally important to consider the instant offense, you have to. You’d often have someone come before the Board who had committed a very, very heartbreaking crime when he was 18 or 19. He had been given a sentence commensurate with that, a lengthy sentence. When I’d see him, 25 or 30 years later, I would want to compare that person with the person who committed the instant offense. How had he changed? I was one of the people who strongly considered the instant offense, but in comparison with how that person was now.

Would you advocate using an evidence-based risk assessment tool that has the capacity to assess an individual’s likelihood of reoffending as part of the release decision process?

That would be very, very important. The current Chairwoman of the Division of Parole, Andrea Evans is working on developing a risk assessment modality. Now that the statute has been switched from an indeterminate sentencing structure to determinate structure, most of the cases the Parole Board will see are the A1 violent felons (maximum sentence is life).

What are reforms to the Parole Board that you believe should be made?

I think there should be term limitations for Parole Board members. Your decision making should just be based on Executive Law §259. I think in the past there may have been some Parole Board Commissioners, who, in the back of their head thought they might want to get reappointed. I am not saying this happens, but they could be influenced based on public reactions that are separate from the statute. Term limitation would take care of that to some extent.

What is next for you?

I am a mediator. I just got appointed to the Restorative Justice Commission in the Albany Dioceses. I believe in restorative justice and parallel justice. I am active with Friends and Families of Homicide victims and also working closely with prisoner’s rights groups. There is more commonality you would think between the offenders and victims. The system right now is a good system, but sometimes it doesn’t work as well as you like. The more knowledge and groups you can get together, the better. We should be trying to repair harms. Many times punishment is appropriate, but you also want to give victims a sense of why these things happened to them and offer prisoners a chance for redemption.

Shu'aib Raheem is paroled

Shu'aib Raheem is finally paroled, amid furore from the media.

See articles below:
Outrage As Convicted Cop Killer Walks Free In New York (myfoxdetroit.com, July 3 2010)
Man convicted in 1973 cop slay freed (New York Post, July 3 2010)
Police blast release of man in 1973 officer slay (Associated Press, July 3 2010)
Cop killer Shu'aib Raheem paroled 37 years later, NYPD outraged by decision (New York Daily News, July 3 2010)
Cop Killer Walks: outrage from victim's kin and police pals (New York Post, July 3 2010)
Brooklyn cop killer Shu'aib Raheem free after 35 years behind bars for Stephen Gilroy death (New York Daily News, July 2 2010)

Shu'aib A. Raheem wins parole release from prison

Amid the ongoing controversy over the parole release of violent criminals and the injustice and inconsistencies inherent in New York State's Parole Statute, Shu'aib A. Raheem has won his release from prison. His particular case has caused much dispute but finally, at his rescission hearing on Thursday June 3rd, the Parole Board voted 2 to 1 to free him. According to officials, Parole Board members Thomas Grant and Debra Loomis voted for his release, while Henry Lemons voted against it. Raheem will be freed no later than July 8th.

Senate Republicans, led by Senator Martin Golden, reacted to the news of Raheem's parole release by immediately joining with police organizations to call for stronger parole laws.

The Paterson administration gave a swift response: "Sen. Golden's comments are outrageous and he owes Governor Paterson and his administration an apology," said Paterson spokesman Morgan Hook. "The two Parole Board members who voted in favor of releasing Shu'aib Raheem are Pataki appointees. Both of their terms expire this month and they will both be replaced by Gov. Paterson."

Further details may be found in the following articles:
On June 3, Shu'aib Raheem was granted parole release for the second time in three years (Building Bridges, June 13 2010)
Golden says Paterson Admin has blood on its hands over parolee (NY Daily News, June 8 2010)
Senate Republicans join with police organizations to call for stronger parole laws (New York State Senate, June 8 2010)
'What the hell WERE they thinking?' Parole idiots suck up to '73 cop killer Shuaib Raheem (NY Daily News, June 5 2010)
Cop-killer on the roam (New York Post, June 5 2010)
Parole for Police Officer's Killer (NY Times, June 4 2010)
Shu'aib Raheem, who killed NYPD cop in 1973 botched robbery, to be released from prison (NY Daily News, June 4 2010)

Convicted of Murder as Teenager and Paroled at 41

Convicted of Murder as Teenager and Paroled at 41, by Trymaine Lee (New York Times, June 4 2010)

A story in the New York Times follows Diana Ortiz through all her parole hearings. Ortiz was sentenced to 17 years to Life for her role in the killing of an off-duty police officer in 1983. Robert Dennison was Chairman of the Parole Board that finally freed her, after she had spent more than half her life in prison.

Brief extracts from the article follow, where Robert Dennison refers to the subjectivity and the pressure of parole hearings, particularly in the case of so-called A1 violent offenders:

... Parole Board members, who must have a college degree and five years of experience in criminal justice, sociology, law, social work or medicine, can serve an unlimited number of six-year terms, earning $101,600 a year. By law, they must interview inmates in person and are required to consider their criminal histories, prison achievements and sense of remorse. Ultimately, though, parole decisions are subjective. "It's a real hard issue: how much time should you do for taking a life?" Mr. Dennison said. "Many times, the parole commissioners feel differently than the judge and probably say to themselves or say to one another, 'I don't really care what the judge gave the person, I don't feel comfortable letting this person out. And I am going to hold him for two more years.' And that can go on and on and on forever."

... Governor Pataki, a Republican, at one point tried to change state law so that A-1 offenders could not be paroled, and in 2006, a group of A-1 offenders filed a class-action suit claiming his administration had an unwritten policy that violated their rights by denying parole based solely on the severity of the crime. "I never got any direct pressure from Pataki not to let certain people out," Mr. Dennison said, "but he did make it clear in the newspapers that he didn't want violent felons released."

... Mr. Dennison said he witnessed spirited debate and angry outbursts among the commissioners, and developed a keen understanding of the subtle — or not — messages sent from the offices of elected officials about certain kinds of cases. "The way it works is that you are free to make whatever decision you feel is the right decision," he explained. "However, if you were sponsored by a particular state senator and you made a decision he didn't like, it is conceivable that the next time you are up to be reappointed, he may not push your name to the governor."

... "It is an easy job if you don't have courage and you don't have compassion," he said. "Because then you really don't care. And then it is easy to make whatever decision you want without feeling guilty, without feeling, 'Gee, maybe I made the wrong decision.' "

... Mr. Dennison said he loved the job, taking pride in having an impact on people's lives — freeing those he deemed deserving, leaving caged those he determined were dangerous.

... Having left the board in 2007, Mr. Dennison, now 63, spoke plainly about Ms. Ortiz's case in a recent interview. "He was an off-duty police officer," he said of the victim, "and, basically, people didn't want to let her out because of that."

NYS Parole Board responds to pressure and reconsiders two parole decisions

The NYS Parole Board has responded to pressure by agreeing to reconsider their decisions in two cases where parole had initially been granted, as they did in the case of Shu'aib Raheem almost two years ago.

Again and again members of the Parole Board are being overruled when they have made a decision that proves to be politically unpopular, particularly in cases where a victim of crime or victim's representative has not taken the opportunity to provide a statement in good time for a parole hearing.

In one of the injustices of the NYS Parole Statute, Executive Law § 259-i (2)(c)(A)(v), victim's impact statements submitted at a parole hearing can be used to keep an inmate in prison despite the fact that statements made by a crime victim or victim's representative were taken into account by the judge at the time of original sentencing. Thus an inmate is effectively sentenced over and over again; once by the sentencing judge at the time of his trial, and again by the Parole Board each time he comes up for a parole hearing.

Prosecutors cited an incomplete parole record and rushed to delay the parole release of José Diaz, who shot Bronx Assistant District Attorney Sean Healy in 1990. The parole record lacked statements from Sean Healy's own boss, Bronx District Attorney Robert T. Johnson; in addition, Healy's family had not taken the opportunity to give victim's impact statements. The State Parole Board has now reversed its decision to free Diaz.

In a separate hearing, Pablo Costello was recently granted parole after serving more than thirty years for his involvement in the murder of Officer David Guttenberg, who was shot when he interrupted a robbery. His parole release has been postponed to give David Guttenberg's widow, Barbara, an opportunity to file a victim's impact statement. Her statement will be reviewed by the Parole Board before a final decision is made.

Commenting on Pablo Costello's case, PBA President Pat Lynch stated, "It is our firm belief that, absent a death penalty, life in prison without the possibility of parole is the only just sentence for cop killers." (New York Daily News, September 26th 2009)

In these cases and others, it would appear that despite every effort an inmate has made while incarcerated and because of the injustice of the NYS parole system, the victim's impact statement is the single overriding factor which keeps an inmate in prison.

See also:
Cop killers' pal: Parole Board's Thomas Grant keeps voting to turn 'em loose (NY Daily News, October 19 2009).
Menaces to society: Parole Board pair rightly overruled on freeing murderous drug dealer (NY Daily News, September 25 2009).

Parole hearing information is now on the NYS Division of Parole's web site

Information about parole hearings in NYS, available on the NYS DOCS Inmate Population Information Search web site, has now also been added to the NYS Division of Parole's web page.

The first phase of the NYS Division of Parole's new initiative went online today, allowing users to look back at parole board determinations over the past two years, and forward to cases due to come before the board within the next six months. A link has been added to make it easier for crime victims to submit a victim impact statement.

Phase II of the initiative is due to go online later this year and will add search capabilities and information on individuals currently on parole, such as the length of sentence served by the offender, the supervising parole officer, and contact information for the appropriate regional parole office.

A statement about the new initiative by George B. Alexander, Chairman of the NYS Division of Parole, may be found here.

Parole update from Cheryl L. Kates Esq.

The statement below is from Building Bridges:

"April 9, 2008 - PAROLE UPDATE (Submitted by Cheryl Kates, Esq.). We have just learned that Parole will see parole applicants 4 months prior to their earliest release date in order to make time to prepare them for re-entry if they are released. They have adjusted most peoples' dates in the computer and they will be seen 2 months earlier than they were already scheduled."