Parole Problems and Solutions

NYS Parole Problems and Recommendations
Submitted by Long-Termers and Lifers Organization
Fishkill Correctional Facility – Beacon, NY

PAROLE BOARD HEARING INTERVIEWS

Problem:
Despite 2011 amendments to Executive Law § 259-c (4) and 259-i requiring parole board commissioners
to measure parole applicants’ rehabilitation and likelihood of success upon release, commissioners mainly
pose questions during hearing interviews that are centered on the nature of the applicants’ crimes and/or
criminal histories—factors that no one can change.
Recommendation 1: Parole board commissioners should be directed to determine whether, at the time of
the parole interview, and viewed objectively, parole applicants have demonstrated rehabilitation and are
likely to succeed upon release. They should be required to focus on dynamic, present and future-focused
risk factors.
Recommendation 2: Parole board commissioners should be instructed to adhere to the legislative
mandate to establish written “procedures” for use in making parole decisions.

Problem:
When denying parole, parole board commissioners often pay lip service to parole applicants’ evidence of
rehabilitation, strong family and community support, viable release plans and low COMPAS risk scores.
Rather than explain in non-conclusory terms how they arrived at the decision to deny parole,
commissioners rely on boilerplate statutory language.
Recommendation: Parole board commissioners should be directed to gauge parole applicants’
rehabilitation, COMPAS risk score and other indicators that applicants are likely to succeed upon release.
They should also be required to comply with the legislative mandate to sufficiently detail parole denials in
non-conclusory language.

Problem:
When denying parole, parole board commissioners routinely pre-print commissioner consensus
worksheets prior to hearings and render boilerplate decisions that track, verbatim, language from
Executive Law § 259-i. This practice deprives parole applicants of guidance on how to better prepare for
the next parole hearing interviews. It also frustrates the court’s ability to fully and fairly review appeals
by parole applicants. Finally, this practice needlessly taxes finite judicial time and monetary resources.
Recommendation: Pre-printed commissioner consensus worksheets—and the use of boilerplate language
in parole denials—should be categorically disallowed. Parole commissioners should be directed to avoid
boilerplate language and instead be mandated to provide parole appellants with detailed requirements for
actions to be taken, programs or accomplishments to be completed, conduct to be made, or other
corrective action in order to improve chances of parole release.

Problem:
When denying parole, parole board commissioners almost uniformly set reappearance hearings scheduled
for 24 months later—the maximum time allowed.
Recommendation: Reappearance hearings should be scheduled in 6-month increments based on a
corrective-action grid that corresponds with the completion of board-stipulated requirements of parole
applicants set forth at the previous parole board appearance.

Problem:
At most correctional facilities, parole applicants “participate” in parole board hearing interviews via
teleconferences, during which parole applicants, parole board commissioners, stenographers, and other
support staff who are “present” cannot be seen on the monitor simultaneously. Something as
consequential as parole release decision-making and the public-safety role of the parole board should not
be treated in a cavalier, impersonal manner.
Recommendation: All parole board hearing interviews should be held with all parties in the same room
so that the body language and nuances of parole applicants’ presentations can be discerned. All
commissioner deliberation discussions should be electronically recorded so as to permit in-camera court
inspection.

Problem:
The parole board relies on an antiquated stenographic method of recording parole hearing interviews.
Recommendation: All parole board hearing interviews should be audio-recorded in their entirety—as is
done during prison disciplinary hearings—to promote transparent commissioner deliberation discussions,
facilitate adequate judicial review, and eliminate or minimize misinterpretations, intentional omissions,
and other recording errors.

Problem:
The composition of the parole board is concentrated with members who have law enforcement
backgrounds.
Recommendation: The governor should expand his pool of prospective parole board appointees to
include reentry service providers.



PRE-PAROLE BOARD PRACTICES

Problem:
Favorable information and records are supposed to be included in parole applications, and guidance and
parole files generally are misinterpreted, misplaced or omitted therefrom. (Examples are certificates or
transcripts of program completion, progress reports, letters of reasonable assurance and support, and
letters of recommendation from defense attorneys, district attorneys, and sentencing judges.)
Recommendation 1: DOCCS staff should be adequately trained and supervised in collecting, analyzing
and otherwise processing information and records required to be included in parole applications and
guidance and parole files.
Recommendation 2: Such training shall include record keeping, data processing, information technology
and other skills necessary for the competent performance of their duties.
Recommendation 3: Such supervision shall include confirmatory reviews by supervisory staff of
guidance and parole files to ensure that all requisite records are contained therein. In cases where required
information or records presumably favorable to an applicant are omitted, either a favorable inference shall
be drawn and entered into said application or files, or DOCCS staff shall be prohibited from drawing
unfavorable inferences relevant to the information or record in question.

Problem:
A. Erroneous and excessively prejudicial information and records are included in parole applications and
guidance and parole files. (Significantly, print and electronic letters and petitions prepared and
disseminated by for-profit third-party vendors are included in applications.)
B. Parole applicants are deprived of meaningful opportunities to review general and confidential
information or records contained in parole applications and guidance and parole files. (Examples are the
Presentence Investigation Report, Victim Impact Statement, Sentencing Transcript, and letters of
recommendation by sentencing judges, district and defense attorneys.) Significantly, in response to FOIL
requests, disclosure of relevant information is withheld, sometimes without the applicant’s knowledge
that particular information exists.
C. Parole applicants are deprived of meaningful opportunities to challenge the accuracy and completeness
of information and records contained in parole applications and guidance and parole files. Significantly,
applicants’ challenges are met with obstinate refusals based on boilerplate language to dilatory tactics that
amount to denials.
Recommendation 1: Parole applicants shall be permitted reasonably in advance to automatically review
general information and records contained in parole applications and guidance and parole files before or
at the time staff conducts a risk assessment interview.
Recommendation 2: Parole applicants shall be permitted to review upon request “confidential
information” reasonably redacted to protect the privacy and safety of sources; and be able, upon request,
to make oral or written comments or challenges to the accuracy or completeness of any information.
Recommendation 3: DOCCS and the parole board should be prohibited from including in parole
applications any third-party letters and petitions processed by for-profit vendors, either in print or
electronic form, opposing an applicant’s parole; or attach to such letters and petitions a caveat indicating
that the author or signatories do not have personal knowledge or involvement to the facts and
circumstances of the applicant’s case.

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS PROCESS

Problem:
The NYS Parole Board Appeals Unit is composed of the same commissioners who serve as parole board
hearing commissioners. This is a classic case of conflict of interest, as they render decisions at both the
parole board hearing and appeals unit levels.
Recommendation: An independent parole appeals unit should be legislatively established, with the sole
responsibility of reviewing parole denial appeals.

Problem:
The Parole Appeals Unit routinely fails to provide appellants or their attorneys with copies of the parole
hearing transcripts within a reasonable time. Court stenographers are able to print copies of hearings in
the same day. Why can’t parole hearing transcripts be provided in the same timely manner?
Recommendation: All parole hearings should be electronically recorded through CD audio recording,
and transcripts should be computer-generated upon request. This will both address the time delay in
acquiring parole board transcripts, and the issue of discrepancies and inaccuracies in the transcription
process.

Problem:
The Parole Appeals Unit routinely fails to render appeal decisions within the legislatively prescribed 120
days from the date applicants perfect their appeals.
Recommendation: Any failure of the Appeals Unit to render an appeal decision within the 120-day
statute of limitations should be deemed by the court as a constructive concession, and should
automatically result in a de novo hearing as a sanction.

Problem:
Appeals Unit decisions do not contain the printed names of commissioners rendering such decisions.
Recommendation: A database program should be created that automatically prints the commissioners’
names with the hearings in which they participate.