Office of Performance Evaluations

Increasing Efficiencies in Idaho's Parole Process

Released February 2010

Report 10-02

The executive summary of the report is provided below. The full report with exhibits is available in PDF (see above), and a limited number of printed copies are available from the Office of Performance Evaluations (OPE). Specific questions about the report should be directed to OPE. General questions should be directed to the Department of Correction or the Commission of Pardons and Parole.

Executive Summary

The Unified Sentencing Act is the cornerstone of Idaho's current parole process and requires a fixed incarceration time that must be served by the offender for every felony sentence. Additionally, Idaho Code § 20-223 gives full discretion to parole commissioners when making decisions on whether to grant parole. Our evaluation of the parole process was conducted within this statutory framework.

The Commission of Pardons and Parole plays a critical role in Idaho's criminal justice system by making difficult decisions about when public safety and justice are served by releasing offenders back into the community and determining the conditions of their release. The public interest is best served to the extent that the commission has adequate procedures, sufficient resources, and coordination with other criminal justice agencies to make fully informed and timely decisions.

Delays within the parole process not only have implications for the efficient administration of justice, but also have a direct impact on state taxpayers by housing offenders in expensive prison beds longer than necessary. When looking at the total number of offenders in our timeframe who were granted parole between January 1, 2007 and September 14, 2009, and who were incarcerated beyond their tentative parole date, we estimate the state spent nearly $7 million in continued offender management.¹

For the parole process to operate effectively, several critical elements need to be in place and operating well, particularly coordination between the Department of Correction (IDOC) and the commission. The remainder of this executive summary highlights the key areas of strengths and weaknesses we found in the parole process and provides a summary of our recommendations for increasing efficiencies.

Parole Release Delays Continue to Increase; Timing of Programming Linked to Delays

The commission and IDOC, which are responsible for the oversight and management of Idaho's parole process, must work closely together to ensure offenders are moved through the correctional system in a timely manner while still ensuring public safety. The working relationship between these entities has improved over the last several years. However, as shown in exhibit E.1, the percent of offenders being released on time (within two days of their tentative parole date) has decreased. In 2004, almost 40 percent of offenders were released on time, compared with only 17 percent in 2008.²

To better understand factors associated with release delays, we analyzed information for 2,017 offenders who were released from prison between January 2007 and September 2009.³ We found that those offenders who began at least some programming after their parole hearing were significantly more likely to have a release delay than those offenders who began their programming prior to the hearing. Of the offenders in our timeframe, 78 percent of those who began programming after their parole hearing were also released after their tentative parole date.

The measure of delay is only one part of an agency’s overall efficiencies. In our review of the parole process, we found IDOC has made significant strides in improving its operations to maximize efficiencies and provide staff with the tools to perform their duties successfully. We also found the commission conducts its hearings in a timely manner and has made some progress in improving its efficiencies. However, the commission lacks policies and procedures, sufficient guidance for hearing officers and commissioners, and an effective process in place to ensure commission staff are treated fairly.

To further streamline the joint processes between IDOC and the commission, we have made recommendations that focus on improvements in four areas: communication, training, policy, and data management. We have also made recommendations to address the operational issues of the commission.

IDOC and Commission Should Strengthen Communication to Reduce Delays

One of the critical roles IDOC plays in offender management is conducting assessments and placing offenders into appropriate programming. In June 2009, IDOC began implementation of its Pathways for Success program, an approach designed to provide specific guidelines for offender programming based on standardized assessments. This approach will help to ensure that each offender has made sufficient progress in program completion by the time he or she attends a parole hearing.

Although IDOC has the responsibility to properly assess an offender’s risk and needs and ensure he or she has access to appropriate programming, the commission is ultimately responsible for granting or denying parole. When granting parole, the commission also has the right to require additional programming, even if the addition does not align with the offender’s programming already assigned by IDOC.

We recognize the commission’s commitment to public safety and acknowledge commissioners’ discretion to require that an offender complete additional programming. However, IDOC and the commission should create more opportunities for their staff to communicate throughout an offender’s incarceration. Ongoing, reciprocal communication will help ensure that IDOC’s approach to programming more closely aligns with the release expectations of the commissioners, reducing the number of offenders who are directed to complete additional programming before being released on parole.

Commission Should Provide Staff and Commissioners with More Tools to Guide Parole Decisions

The commission has not regularly updated its hearing officer manuals, nor does it have a systematic approach to review or guide the work of its hearing officers. Although the commission has made some improvements to standardize the reports officers complete, staff are not always formally trained in conducting interviews, understanding assessments, or formulating recommendations to commissioners.

Conversely, IDOC has made significant progress in updating its approach to offender management. To guide their work, several divisions are in the process of updating or drafting new procedure manuals. These manuals generally standardize processes, clearly define expectations, and provide a mechanism to ensure quality and oversight.

We recommend the commission update its manuals to provide officers with comprehensive, ongoing guidance in completing their work. The commission should work closely with IDOC in updating the commission’s manuals to align the communication expectations of hearing officers with both parole officers and case managers. The commission and IDOC should also work together to give hearing officers clear guidance on how to understand the role of assessments and programming in offender management.

We also found that commissioners, who are appointed by the Governor and serve in a part-time capacity, have not undergone a standardized training protocol to guide their work. To align with national standards, we recommend the commission develop a training program for all commissioners. The program could include a training manual and standardized checklist, as well as information about how to formally incorporate assessments and other specific criteria into making parole decisions.

Commission Should Maximize Use of Technology

Data management, including accuracy and accessibility of data, continues to be a challenge for both IDOC and the commission. To remedy its data issues, IDOC has nearly implemented the first phase of its Correctional Integrated System (CIS). Part of this new computer system will provide a more centralized and standardized approach to how offender information is entered, maintained, and retrieved.

Because the work of IDOC and the commission is interrelated, IDOC’s implementation of CIS includes a dedicated component, called a module, to be accessed and used by all commission staff. However, we found that not all commission staff have an adequate understanding of the technology they use and that the commission may not have sufficiently involved its staff in the development and design of the commission module.

We recommend the commission take steps to improve its understanding of how CIS will work and closely examine whether more elements of commission data should be maintained through its module. Additionally, we recommend commission staff undergo more training in basic word processing and data management to assist them in maximizing efficiencies. By taking advantage of existing technologies, the commission will be able to reduce the time spent entering data, to streamline processes, and to help ensure information is entered accurately, timely, and in a consistent format.

Commission Should Adjust Daily Operations to Improve Working Environment

The commission’s executive director has served the commission for 25 years and possesses a wealth of information about the pardons and parole process. Attendance at parole hearings requires the executive director to be out of the office for one to two weeks each month to read commissioner decisions to each offender and advise commissioners on statutes and rules. We recommend commissioners consider options to allow the executive director more flexibility in meeting her other workload demands.

In the course of our interviews with commission staff and management, 40 percent of staff raised concerns about the overall working environment of the commission, ranging from being frustrated with management to being fearful of retaliation by the executive director. Given the impact of the working environment on the overall efficiencies and effectiveness of any agency, we recommend the Office of the Governor work closely with the executive director to create a formal grievance and communication process to improve conditions and ensure all staff are treated fairly.

Legislature Should Consider Modifying Statute to Reflect Current Efforts

The current statutory configuration does not reflect the actual operations of the commission and its working relationship with IDOC. We recommend the Legislature review current statute and decide whether the commission should become a completely independent state agency. By designating the commission as an independent agency, the commission will be accountable for specific performance measures.

The Legislature should also consider expanding the statutory definition of rehabilitation to more accurately reflect the work of IDOC. In recent years, IDOC has made a focused effort to improve and standardize its approach to offender programming, recognizing the role effective programming plays in successful reentry into the community. A clear, comprehensive definition of rehabilitation in Idaho Code that applies to all offenders will assist IDOC in meeting its goal of standardized programming through Pathways for Success.

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the assistance we received from the following entities: the Department of Correction, the Commission of Pardons and Parole, the Idaho State Judiciary, legislative Budget and Policy Analysis, the Office of the Attorney General, and the Division of Financial Management within the Office of the Governor.

We appreciate the information provided by members of the Criminal Justice Commission, as well as staff at the Idaho Association of Counties and the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association.

Amy Lorenzo, Jared Tatro, and Hannah Crumrine of the Office of Performance Evaluations conducted this study. Margaret Campbell and Brekke Wilkinson of the office were the copy editor and desktop publisher respectively.

Dr. Kathleen Sullivan, former professor and director of the Center for Education Research and Evaluation at the University of Mississippi, conducted the statistical analyses and quality control review.

Dr. Tedd McDonald, professor and director of the Master of Health Science Program at Boise State University, interviewed hearing officers, violation hearing officers, administrative staff, and managers, and then analyzed responses

_______________________________________________