State of Recidivism: the Revolving Door of America's Prisons

More than four in ten offenders nationwide return to state prison within three years of their release despite a massive increase in state spending on prisons, according to a Pew report.

States today spend more than $50 billion a year on corrections, yet recidivism rates remain stubbornly high. As the slumping economy forces states to do more with less, policy makers are looking for a better public safety return on their corrections dollars.

While overall figures are discouraging, the report highlights the strategies that three states— Michigan, Missouri and Oregon— have employed to reduce returns to prison.

The PEW Center on the States, April 13 2011

Building Bridges - April 2011 edition

The April edition of Building Bridges has been issued by the Prison Action Network.

Of particular interest to parole reform in this edition:

7. The NYS Parole Campaign has attracted 4 more organizations who support the SAFE Parole Act.: Center for Nuleadership on Urban Solutions, Institute for Juvenile Justice Reform and Alternatives, Greenhope Services for Women, Inc., and the Morningside Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends. Legislative Advocacy efforts will start in earnest in May.

8. NYS Prisoner Justice Network tells us what’s wrong with New York’s prison system...and what we can do about it: New York’s prison system is spending $3 billion on “corrections” – that don’t correct anything – while cutting education, health care, and other social programs to the bone. This system of mass incarceration is inhumane, unnecessary, uneconomical, and ineffective. Read the article to find out what you can do!

9. Parole News - Of the 84 parole hearings in February, 2 applicants were released at their initial hearings and 14 were released at a reappearance. DOCS and Parole have been merged into one Department, while the Parole Board remains independent.

A major change was the merging of DOCS and Parole into one agency headed by one person. In theory it could be a benefit. A seamless process from incarceration through reentry is certainly something to be desired, especially when the goal is successful reintegration. Of course, as with most laws, everything depends on the nature of those implementing them. We have faith that Commissioner Brian Fischer will do his best to promote successful reintegration, but under future administrations who knows? In extreme times, as we can see by Sen. Little’s suit against the new Gerrymandering law (see article 5), when people don’t like a law, they can try to overturn it and often do. In fact that is what we hope to do with Gov. Cuomo’s rewrite of the parole board statute, formerly known as 259-i and now broken up and placed in new locations in NYS laws.

Changes include the removal of section 1 of 259-i more than 20 years after the Board lost the authority to set minimum sentences. Other changes require the Parole Board to use risk and needs assessment principles in the parole release decision, and the use of a Transitional Accountability Plan (TAP) by the newly created Department “to be a comprehensive, dynamic and individualized case management plan based on the programming and treatment needs of the inmate. The purpose of such plan shall be to promote the rehabilitation of the inmate and their successful and productive reentry and reintegration into society upon release.” [To request a copy of the sections of legislation which contain the above changes please email parole.reform@gmail.com with your request.]

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."

Building Bridges - March 2011 edition

The March edition of Building Bridges has been issued by the Prison Action Network.

Summaries of Articles:

1. Actions, events, and meetings are listed geographically and chronologically, so you can easily check for those in your area at times you are free. Three legislative advocacy days are listed (under Actions). These are excellent opportunities to get comfortable talking to legislators. If you support the S.A.F.E. Parole Act, you really ought to attend one of them. Winning over legislators will be an important part of our success.

2. Bob Gangi, former Exec. Dir. of C.A. is moving on, not to retire, but to take the position of Senior Policy Advocate at the Urban Justice Center. On Monday, April 4th, he will begin work there on justice related issues like the questionable arrest policies of the NYC Police Department. He looks forward to having contact, professional and/or personal, with many of you in the future.

3. Bronx Community Solutions - Your organization is invited to participate in the Bronx Reentry Community Forum and Resource Fair: “I’m Home ... What’s Next?” on Saturday, May 7, by hosting a resource table, contributing items for door prizes, or by bringing participants or students from your program.

4. Formerly Incarcerated People’s Movement - A gathering of formerly incarcerated persons began efforts to launch a campaign against the New Jim Crow. We marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, met with state legislators, and began organization building. We will be doing the same on the east coast. There were people there from around the country. You can see some video footage on www.YouTube.com/allthingsharlem

5. In Your Face heads to Washington D.C., on foot! - Readers can keep informed about the In Your Face WALK 2 WASHINGTON on the In Your Face Movement FaceBook pages, where you can also read the numerous write-ups they've received.

6. NYS Parole Reform Campaign Report - The latest organizations to sign a letter in support of the SAFE Parole Act are Exodus Transitional Community, National H.I.R.E. Network, and the Sylvia Rivera Law Project. Campaign members helped design a logo for the Campaign's Thousand Kites campaign website, soon to come online.

7. NYS Prisoner Justice Network - Everyone is invited to any of their series of regional and local meetings (listed in the article) and events taking place around the state to inform people in local communities about the statewide network, to share ideas and strategies for challenging and changing New York’s criminal INjustice system, and to encourage people to attend the Legislative Awareness Day for Prisoner Justice on May 3rd in Albany.

8. Parole News- January A1VO statistics show only one release on an initial hearing. A recent FOIL request asking the date and location of Parole Board Release Hearings and the names of the Parole Commissioners who were on each Board produces more questions than answers. Will DOCS and the Division of Parole merge under Cuomo? Read the article by Joel Stashenko in the NY Law Journal, in which he claims Parole Boards would lose authority under Cuomo, posted on rethinkingreentry.blogspot.com

9. Prison Media: Thread News! www.threadnews.org is a digital multimedia magazine available online and free of charge. Their first issue deals with the complexities of prison re-entry, as seen through the eyes of 35 year old recent parolee Manny Borras, a playwright, who must now navigate life on the outside. You can submit your stories for future consideration.

10. Think Outside the Cell: Their upcoming National Symposium on Sept. 24th will bring together national experts and policy makers, as well as hundreds of those who live in the long shadow of prison, whose voices and concerns have rarely been raised on the national stage. The Rev. Al Sharpton, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, and CNN journalist Soledad O’Brien will be among them. Anyone with prison in their backgrounds is encouraged to attend. An audience of more than 800 is anticipated.

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.

Purpose and Intent Statement for the Safe and Fair Evaluations (SAFE) Parole Act

Details of the Purpose and Intent Statement for the Safe and Fair Evaluations (SAFE) Parole Act—proposed by the NYS Parole Reform Campaign.

DELETION OF SUBDIVISION 1: This section of the statute is outdated and no longer relevant. In 1980, the legislature placed the full responsibility for setting the minimum period of imprisonment on the courts, determining that the courts were better suited than the Parole Board to perform this function. Since the change in 1980, the courts have set the minimum for all indeterminate sentences.

THE INTERVIEW SHALL TAKE PLACE WITH ALL PARTIES PRESENT IN THE SAME ROOM: In-person interviews result in a more engaged, effective and meaningful process for parole applicants and parole commissioners. By increasing the opportunity for fairness, concern and serious consideration, such hearings increase the applicants’ trust in the process and in the goal of reintegration. At the same time, by their very nature, in-person hearings create an environment in which the parole board can more fully and fairly evaluate applicants.

THE INTERVIEW SHALL BE RECORDED AUDIO/VISUALLY: Videotaping interviews ensures that the final record is accurate and comprehensive, and eliminates the mistakes and omissions commonly found in transcripts. Recording the interviews in this way allows for a more effective review of the hearing, the atmosphere in which it takes place and the demeanor of all parties—and holds everyone accountable for their conduct. The cost of videotaping hearings and providing copies, when requested, to parole applicants is more than offset by the savings realized by eliminating the cost of stenographers and, in many cases, the cost of transcripts.

NO DOCUMENTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PAROLE BOARD SHALL BE CONSIDERED CONFIDENTIAL EXCEPT WHEN FOR THE SAFETY OF THE PAROLE APPLICANT: Providing for full disclosure to the applicant of those documents that are already available to the Parole Board for consideration results in greater transparency, fairness and trust in the parole process. With full and fair disclosure, the applicant can address errors or other information, thereby ensuring a more accurate portrayal of him/her on which to base the board’s decision.

WITH THE PAROLE APPLICANT’S CONSENT, A COPY OF HIS/HER PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION AND “PAROLE RELEASE PLAN” SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO A REQUESTING VICTIM, OR VICTIM’S REPRESENTATIVE. THE PAROLE BOARD SHALL CONSIDER SUPPORTIVE OR CRITICAL INPUT FROM THE VICTIM CONCERNING BEHAVIOR OF THE PAROLE APPLICANT POST-SENTENCING: This change provides more information than ever before to victims and their representatives, who have typically been uninformed about the parole applicant’s progress while incarcerated, and alienated from the parole process. With this kind of information, victims have a more complete picture of the parole applicant’s behavior since sentencing and his/her readiness for release, and they can provide input in the parole process in a more meaningful way.

RELEASE ON PAROLE SHALL BE GRANTED FOR GOOD CONDUCT AND EFFICIENT PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES WHILE CONFINED, AND PREPAREDNESS FOR REENTRY AND REINTEGRATION INTO SOCIETY, THEREBY PROVIDING A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONCLUDE THAT, IF SUCH PERSON IS RELEASED, HE OR SHE WILL LIVE AND REMAIN AT LIBERTY WITHOUT VIOLATING THE LAW: With this change, the parole board is given more specific, workable criteria by which to determine parole releases. It requires the board to more thoroughly evaluate whatever changes have taken place in the parole applicant since sentencing, based on his/her institutional record, behavior and other reliable indicators while confined.

THE PAROLE BOARD WILL BE REQUIRED TO STATE IN DETAIL THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN, PROGRAMS OR ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO BE COMPLETED, OR CHANGES IN PERFORMANCE, OR CONDUCT TO BE MADE, OR CORRECTIVE ACTION OR ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN, IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR PAROLE RELEASE: Requiring the Parole Board to explicitly set forth detailed conditions for release is consistent with the proposed New York State Transitional Accountability Plan (TAP), which was a collaboration between the Department of Correctional Services and the Division of Parole. This change makes for good corrections, providing a fairer, more thoughtful and transparent process by which the Parole Board can make determinations regarding current and future release. It also alleviates the frustration and confusion experienced by parole applicants when they are not given clear and complete instructions regarding what they must do in order to meet the expectations of the next Parole Board. In the end, this change holds everyone accountable—the applicant, the Department of Correctional Services and the Parole Board.

THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES SHALL PROVIDE TO THE PAROLE APPLICANT ACCESS—WITHIN 90 DAYS—TO THE PROGRAM OR PROGRAMS, ACTIVITIES AND/OR FACILITIES NEEDED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH BY THE PAROLE BOARD: Having created goals and expectations for the parole applicant, good and consistent corrections practices require that the applicant be given the opportunity to meet these goals. Such opportunities must be made available quickly, in order to take advantage of the applicant’s heightened motivation and willingness to participate. Doing so is also in keeping with the proposed TAP, and it promotes collaboration between Parole and Corrections.

THE PAROLE APPLICANT SHALL BE SCHEDULED FOR A REAPPEARANCE BEFORE THE BOARD UPON COMPLETION OF THE STIPULATED REQUIREMENTS, OR AFTER 24 MONTHS, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST. IF THE REQUIREMENTS PREVIOUSLY SET FORTH BY THE PAROLE BOARD HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED, RELEASE SHALL BE GRANTED: This change requires the initial Parole Board to be more thoughtful, thorough and specific regarding the evaluation of and expectations for the parole applicant. For example, at an applicant’s first parole hearing, the Parole Board must make a thorough, detailed assessment of the applicant’s strengths and deficits. Should the applicant be denied parole at that first hearing, the Parole Board must provide specific, detailed criteria that the applicant must fulfill in order to address the deficits. Once all criteria are fulfilled, and if the applicant’s record remains satisfactory, the applicant must be released.