Abstract
Parole boards have discretion to make prison release decisions by applying a number of factors. While prior research has identified factors that are important, little is known about how parole board members interpret the factors and the degree to which members’ characteristics affect decision making. Using board transcripts, this study explored: (1) how members’ philosophies influence factors used in release decisions and; (2) how board members define and frame factor meanings. The findings provide insights into decisions that may create release disparities.
Introduction
Parole boards have access to an abundance of information to assist in release decisions (Ruhland, et al., 2016), and have discretion as to its use and importance (Rhine, 2012). Board member variations in the use of discretion can lead to disparities in determining who is released. Quantitatively, we know what factors are important in parole board release decisions, but little is known about the way members make meaning of the factors used to determine readiness for release, meanings that have consequences for release decisions.
Using a secondary analysis of qualitative interviews with board members, the author addressed two key research questions: (1) How do individual parole board members’ release philosophies affect the factors used to make their release decisions? and (2) How do parole board members define and frame the meaning of the factors used to determine release readiness? Analyses of responses to these questions are central to understanding parole board members’ in-depth decision making processes and to identifying differences in how board members use and define release factors related to release disparities. For example, decisions across members may be inconsistent and depend heavily on the beliefs of board members who are conducting the release interviews.
Background
Parole Release Guidelines and Risk Assessments
Concerns over broad, unstructured discretion have led some parole boards to develop parole release guidelines and implement risk assessment measures (McVey et al., 2018; Rhine et al., 2017). Standardized risk assessments seek to reduce the impact of human biases and the reliance on “gut instinct” in parole decision making (Andrews et al., 2006). Parole risk predication has been in practice since the 1920s (Schuessler, 1955), but parole board use of risk assessment tools has increased significantly since 1988 (Burkes et al., 2017). All parole boards in U.S. state with indeterminate sentencing practices reported using a risk assessment measure, in response to the 2015 Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Survey (Ruhland et al., 2016). While risk assessments have increased, the extent to which the instruments inform decisions or are even relied upon for the release decision varies across state parole boards (Thomas & Reingold, 2017).
Parole release guidelines were created to reduce disparities in sentence length (Tonry, 2007) and to attain greater consistency between parole board members’ decisions (Thomas & Reingold, 2017). Guidelines often weigh time served, current offense seriousness, and risk of reoffending as standards for release determinations or recommendations (Mechoulan & Sahuguet, 2015). Further, they may provide a release date or suggestions relative to the decision to grant or defer release (Palacios, 1994). Guideline recommendations can be overridden by board members; they are not legally bound to accept them by statute or policy (Rhine et al., 2017). Ultimately, the parole decision remains within the authority of the board member.
Rehabilitation factors
A key function of parole boards is to individualize sentences and release once it is determined that rehabilitation has been achieved (Walker, 1993). In assessing rehabilitation, parole boards review the degree to which individuals sentenced to prison have used the time to participate in a variety of treatment and other programs to better themselves. Parole is designed as a means to motivate individuals to change (Vilcia, 2018). If rehabilitation is successful, the individual will be less likely to recidivate upon release. Commonly considered parole board rehabilitation factors include prison conduct and the completion of programs while incarcerated (Ruhland et al., 2016).
To make sound decisions, it is important that parole board members understand those factors that correlate with criminal offending, as well as evidence-based strategies and program interventions that reduce reoffending (McVey et al., 2018; Paparozzi & Caplan, 2009). It is essential that these factors actually provide evidence of rehabilitation through a reduction in recidivism. Notably, there is a correlation between prison conduct and recidivism upon release; individuals with higher incidences of prison misconduct have a greater likelihood of recidivating upon release (Cochran et al., 2014). Prison programming and its relationship to reentry success is dependent on programming type. For example, while a research study found that earning a college degree while incarcerated supported finding employment upon release, it did not reduce recidivism (Duwe & Clark, 2014). Further, there is greater impact from programs that address criminogenic needs; these are more likely to reduce recidivism (Latessa et al., 2014). Therefore, the focus of parole boards on a candidate’s institutional behavior and programming type is warranted and aligned with current evidence-based research on targeting criminogenic risks and needs.
Remorse
In evaluating rehabilitation, paroling authorities also value highly an individual’s remorse for past offenses; a demonstration of remorse during the interview is important (Brinke et al., 2012). Its absence is believed to reveal a risk for future offending, and individuals who lack remorse are viewed as having character flaws that are deserving of more punishment (Zong et al., 2014).Over the course of punishment, an individual who is achieving rehabilitation reflects on the harms and begins to take responsibility for past actions (Collica-Cox & Sullivan, 2017). However, a study of judges’ attitudes toward remorse found some believed that lack of remorse should not warrant more punishment because, if an individual is innocent, they cannot be expected to show remorse (Zong et al., 2014). Regardless, some have argued that assessing remorse is in the purview of the parole board’s roles and responsibilities (Martel, 2010).While remorse is a highly valued factor for parole boards, there is little research linking the expression of remorse to recidivism (Bandes, 2016). Furthermore, remorse and what it is or is not, is not consistent across interdisciplinary fields (Bandes, 2016). Often, individuals believe that remorse can be measured by the facial expressions or the demeanor of a person, although there is no evidence to support this (Bandes, 2016). Nonetheless, it often remains a salient factor for parole board members (Connor, 2016).
Retributive factors
The justice system’s response to crime reflects a tension between utilitarian goals that are forward-looking and emphasize rehabilitation and backward-looking ones, stressing sentencing as retribution related to the seriousness of the offense of conviction (Rhine, 2012). Parole board decisions are often caught within this tension, with members predominantly concerned with the amount of prison time served and the severity of the current crime, as well as criminal history and input from the victim (Caplan, 2007). This orientation has remained constant over time (Burns, et al., 1999; Rhine et al., 1991; Tewksbury & Connor, 2012).
Board members’ priority concern with the current offense demonstrates a greater alignment with the goal of retribution (Vilica, 2018) than rehabilitation. Inmates are commonly not released at their first eligible release date because parole board members are concerned with the sufficiency of the amount of time served (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1988). Prior research indicates that, as the severity of the crime increased, so did the amount of time incarcerated, with the author concluding that “parole board members appear to believe that an inmate is not ready for parole until he has suffered commensurately for the crime he has committed” (Scott, 1974, p. 217). Consistent with a retributive framework, this thought process is not linked with discretion (Cullen & Jonson, 2017). However, when parole board members consider if enough punishment has been served, they are using discretion informed by retributive goals. As Reamer (2017), a former board member, wrote: Punishment may not always deter future crime . . . but it is necessary in order to satisfy the compelling need of victims and the broader society for some sort of retribution in response to heinous acts. (p. 140)
The reliance on the current offense remains important at the first parole interview and in subsequent interviews (Cotton, 2008). Yet, the concern is that this is a static factor and the facts of the offense will not change, no matter how much programming an individual completes. It has been argued in cases with a minimum date set by a judge or statute, that date is the sufficient amount of time needed to be served if rehabilitation has also been reached (Cotton, 2008).
Characteristics of Parole Board Members
The characteristics of the board members may produce differences in release outcomes. In parole release decision making, personal bias should be eliminated (Gottfredson & Ballard, 1966) as the biases and personality factors of the board member can influence decision making. The characteristics of the individual making the decisions are important to understanding the release decision (Conley & Zimmerman, 1982). Research has shown that board member’s personality type as assessed by the Myers Briggs Typology Inventory, can affect parole decisions. Using simulated cases, the study found that board members with certain types of personalities were more likely to grant or deny parole (Hancock et al., 2018).
Current Study
Defined decision making factors, board member characteristics, and outside influences can affect the ways in which parole board members view and weigh readiness for release factors. Previous research has identified the factors used by boards, but there is limited research exploring how parole board members make meaning of or define these factors. In this study, the author investigated the factors parole boards considered and how they were defined and influenced by members’ decision making philosophies. The research questions are: How does the individual parole board member’s philosophy regarding release affect the factors used to make release decisions? And how do parole board members define and make meaning of the factors used to determine readiness for release?
Methods
To address the research questions, qualitative transcripts of interviews with 16 parole board members in two states were analyzed, a sample comprising every board member in both states. The Robina Institute of Crime and Criminal Justice provided technical assistance to U.S. parole boards who were interested in learning more about their release (and revocation) decision making. The Robina Institute sought to collaborate with boards from different geographical areas, and these boards were selected because they desired technical assistance to better understand board member release practices. Specifically, how were parole board member release decisions and practices similar or different from each other? With this goal, all board members from the two states (one West Coast state and one East Coast state) were invited to participate in the voluntary interviews. All boards members agreed to participate.
Sample
Sixteen board members were interviewed. In the Western state; the members’ tenure on the board ranged from 1.5 to 9 years, with an average term of 3 years. Members’ time on the board in the Eastern state ranged from 6 months to 5 years, with an average 2-years term. Despite some shorter tenure reports, these members had several years of prior experience working in criminal justice. Individually, each had over 15 years’ experience in such professions as attorney, community corrections officer, police officer, as well as victim service advocate and psychologist. Between the two boards, the sample included 6 females and 10 males. To ensure confidentiality and due to the sensitivity of the topics covered, the names of the board members quoted below have been changed along with other identifying information (e.g., age or years on the board).
Data Collection Procedures
Individual interviews were conducted in a private office or conference room by the author and colleagues at the Robina Institute in 2016–2017, as part of technical assistance support provided to each board. As per the research questions, the interviews probed how parole board members made decisions, including the release factors they used and the ranking in importance of these factors, as well as how they made decisions once release was granted. Follow-up questions elicited additional information, with interviews lasting from 30 to 60 minute. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed.
Study Sites
Both states had indeterminate sentencing structures; judges imposed a minimum and maximum sentence date based on statutory requirements. The actual release dates from the institution were determined by the parole boards. In both states, board members conduct individual interviews and make individual decisions on nonviolent offenders. After the individual decision, another board member may co-sign that decision. Both boards utilized parole release guidelines to assist in their decision making. Within the guidelines, there were a number of weighted factors, including risk assessment scores. The guidelines provided either a score or a recommendation to either grant or deny parole. The guideline instruments were there to aid the board’s decision making. However, board members still had discretion, and they were not bound to take the recommendation of the risk assessment tools. More than one individual makes release decisions on violent offenders, which must then either proceed to a panel of members or the full board. At the time of these interviews, both boards had interviewed and made decisions on approximately 17,000 cases annually. Additionally, both had similar rates in granting release—around 45%.
Analysis
The author conducted secondary analyses of the transcripts guided by the research questions. Open coding was conducted on the responses to extract themes within and across boards. The transcripts were also read and coded for discussions of and insights into release factors, board members’ decision making philosophies, and their definitions of the factors. After this initial coding review, a coding scheme was developed, and two research assistants read and coded one transcript each. Upon their completion, the research team met to compare areas in which the coding was aligned. Where an item of information was coded differently, it was discussed further. Once there was agreement, the research assistants read the rest of the transcripts while the author reread and recoded the transcripts. This recoding is recommended in qualitative analysis to be sure information is not missed and that the codes still hold true (Elo et al., 2014).
Responses were tracked for each board member in order to assess consistency in their responses. For instance, in one part of the interview, the board member may have indicated that remorse was important to their decision making but, in a later part of the transcript, they may have downplayed its role. Tracking responses by board member also supported comparisons across board member responses—as different or similar between colleagues, as well as across the two boards.
Several steps were taken to ensure the validity of the data. First, in the data collection, multiple individuals conducted the interviews, using an interview guide. This is useful in decreasing bias in the manner in which questions were asked (Patton, 1999), and because interviewees might respond differently to different interviewers (Matteson & Lincoln, 2009). Second, all board members, not just a sample, were interviewed to provides insight into how these boards operate. Utilizing two boards further supported comparisons and contrasts between board operations. Third, multiple coders were employed to ensure consistent and unbiased data coding (Berends & Johnston, 2005).
Results
Philosophy on Parole Release
Public safety
In the Eastern state, the parole board members were asked about their decision making philosophy. All but one member said “public safety” was their “number one” explicit goal. This was the lens through which they filtered decisions, and it was the “number one” factor considered in their decisions. Paul’s response illustrates this point: “I’m looking at safety to the community first.” Another parole board member, Jacob said, “my philosophy on parole [release] is public safety front and center, and I start my interviews out saying public safety is at front and center.” The one board member, Lincoln, who did not explicitly address public safety but alluded to it in his response regarding his approach to release decision making: “I come back to one simple question . . . that I ask myself; is this somebody that I would be comfortable having living next door [to me]?”
Public safety in some instances was defined simply as making sure that, if they released an individual, they would not commit further crimes or parole violations upon their release. It was also defined in ways that could be difficult to measure. Paul from the Eastern state saw public safety as, “things that make me comfortable that putting him on the street that I am reasonably assured that he’s not going to reoffend. There’s no guarantees . . . I just want to be reasonably comfortable that he will not reoffend.” In this quote, public safety is defined by reoffending, but the factors to prevent it were determined by the parole board members’ levels of comfort. Jacob, on the same board as Paul, viewed public safety as their main theoretical orientation, stating, “I’m going to advance safety” and, to do that, he continued with asking himself, “Do I believe that this person is not yet mature enough or motivated enough to stay on the right path?” A third person on the same board, Cheryl, knew that public safety could be achieved when she heard: Some demonstrated commitment and action with the emphasis on action taken by the inmate to fit him or herself into society again and begin a successful life. Something that they can live as a citizen, as a member of our community. . . and if that’s not possible, a non-harmful . . . maybe pleasant member of our community.
Second chances
In the Western state, only two parole board members emphasized public safety as the philosophy guiding their release decisions. For this board, the majority saw their role as giving individuals a “second chance.”—the themes of rehabilitation were prevalent in their philosophy of giving second chances. Joshua said, “I believe that the vast majority of these individuals have worked their way into the DOC and they need to work their way out.” Working their way out meant showing that they had changed. Another board member Alice observed, “I do believe that people do have the capacity to change and people do get tired of being in prison or being an addict and being away from their family and things like that. When they’re ready, they’re ready.” Then Alice went onto say, “I think it would be nice if we . . . could tell who they were” [the ones that wanted to change].
Parole board members in the Eastern state spoke of a second chance as a philosophy that guided their release decisions, but it was mentioned less frequently than in the Western state. Wyatt, in the Eastern state, said public safety was the overall philosophy but “offenders should always be given a second chance. I mean, if you go in with a mindset as a board member and not give anyone a second chance, to me, that’s not fair.” Jacob, on the same board, said this of second chances, “I think that everyone deserves a second chance, and I mean everyone. I mean there’s no limit on who should not—who should get a chance or not.”
The board members in these two states saw their philosophical roles as ensuring public safety and granting second chances. Interwoven in the idea of second chances was the theoretical orientation of rehabilitation. Under public safety, it was less clear if this was achieved through rehabilitation or through punitive means, as there were conflicting statements within and across the board members’ responses.
Information Used to Determine Readiness for Release
Parole boards commonly have a great deal of information available to them to make release decisions (Caplan, 2007; Ruhland et al., 2016), and this was no different for the two boards in this current study. Tony from the Eastern state reported, “We have everything we need, but it’s a ton of stuff . . . The amount information we get is really overwhelming.” Although both parole boards used parole release guidelines to aid in their decision making, some factors (e.g., violent crimes, extensive criminal history) were weighted more heavily than others. Within the guidelines and/or in addition to those guidelines, they had the following information available to them: current offense information, criminal history, risk assessment scores, participation/completion of institutional programming, institutional conduct/behavior, mental, physical health of the individual, IQ score, demographic information (race, gender, age, educational level), input/recommendations from sentencing judge, prosecutors, victim, institutions, and reentry plans. This is not an exhaustive list.
Although this information was available for each of the individuals being considered for parole release, board members varied in how they used and considered the information. When asked what information members used, one board member noted, “Everybody’s different.” Board members were asked what factors or information was most important to them in determining readiness for release. Responses varied; yet, consistent with other research studies, board members in this study were concerned with the current offense (Burns et al, 1999; Rhine et al, 1991; Ruhland et al., 2016; Tewksbury & Connor, 2012).
Current offense
For almost all board members, the severity and type of current offense was an important factor to ponder in their release decisions, but the reason for considering it varied. For David, the consideration of the seriousness of the current offense came from his desire to make certain that the appropriate amount of time had been served, based on the nature and severity of that offense. David saw his role as being equivalent to a judge, saying that “we are judges as much as we may not want to admit [it], we are . . . we sentence people every time we decide to release them or not.” However, David’s colleague, Joshua, had an opposite viewpoint. He believed the board’s role is not to re-sentence the case when examining the severity and nature of the offense. He addressed the current offense in the release interviews to evaluate developments in maturity since the crime: Have you matured? Do you understand what you did? Do you understand the impact you had on yourself and on your family and your community? What are you going to do differently out there; what did you learn? It’s not just about punishment and incarceration; it’s a matter of getting some tools for your future if you’re self-motivated.
Landon used the current offense to assess if they took responsibility for the harm caused. He explained, “I try not to linger on the offense. Sometimes we will spend some time on that because they’re having a hard time telling me what they did and that weighs on me if they don’t own what they did.” Claire had multiple reasons for reviewing the current offense that included gauging rehabilitation, but she also listened to see if the individual engaged in repeated offenses. Claire observed: The current crime, I’m listening to severity of the crime and then previous crimes with the history. Is there a pattern here? . . .I’m listening for what programs, what rehabilitation or what punishment have you suffered. And when I say punishment, I don’t mean it like people usually mean it. . .we’re thinking about correction. What correction have you received?
At least five board members from both states were concerned with why the offender did the crime. They wanted to know “what the individual was thinking” when they committed the offense. For these board members, examining the current offense was about trying to understand the mindset at the time of the offense to determine if they were “capable of committing this kind of crime again.” Lincoln from the Eastern state illustrated this point: I have the facts of your crime. I know that you raped ten five-year-olds. . . Tell me what you did. . . Now, does everything have to exactly match up? . . . What happened that got you into that situation? What kind of person were you back then? All right, it’s 10 years later; tell me what kind of person you are now. Because I tell the. . . I’m not voting for the person that murdered somebody 20 years ago, I’m voting for the person who’s sitting in front of me.
Some looked at the current offense to ascertain if “this is a one-time thing” or is it something “he’s done over and over and over again.”
Almost all of the board members mentioned that the current offense was an important factor for determining readiness for release. However, the reasons for doing so varied. In contrast to other quantitative research, it also was often not the most important release for many of the board members in these interviews.
Most significant factors to determining readiness for release
Because there was so much information, members had factors that were more important than others in making their decisions. Board members were asked what was important to them in determining readiness for release. Principally, they were concerned with “if this person was going to commit a future crime or hurt somebody else,” but specific issues important to answering this concern varied. Nonetheless, each appeared to have a question that they asked individually or a factor they looked for in each interview.
Claire, a former mental health therapist, always asked about marital status and number of children because she was concerned if they had pro-social support. Claire also wanted to know each family member’s’ name. In contrast, Claire’s colleague, Alice, said “I don’t ask them if they’re married or how many kids they have and things like that . . . because it doesn’t help me decide anything.” Alice was a former parole officer and looked for answers to these questions to make her release decisions: “have they tried to get into programs; if so, how have they done? Do they have a place to parole to? Do they take responsibility for the offense? Those are the main things that I’m looking at.”
The factors that were important to board member seemed to be influenced by their personal or professional backgrounds. In the interviews, members were queried about prior careers but were not asked directly how their backgrounds influenced release decisions. Yet, former careers emerged as a theme in the analysis. A board member who had previous experience as a substance abuse counselor noted, “Having been a substance abuse counselor, I always talk about, ‘What are you going to do about relapse prevention?’ I talk to them about their addiction and their recovery. I hang a lot on that too.”
Leah had prior experience as a victims’ advocate in a nonprofit organization. In her parole release interviews, she said: I think I focus a little bit more on understanding. . .the impact that their crime caused. . . Not only on the victim, but on their family, on the community, just to see if they have that awareness of this one little thing that they did had severe consequences because I think the de-personalization of the victims can lead to future victimization.
Prior personal experience also impacted decision making. A board member reported his mother used to work in education and that appeared to influence his decision making as he referred to that quite a bit in the interview. In his parolee interviews, he sought prison educational programs in which individuals enrolled or documentation that they had completed a GED. Another board member, who was recovering from alcohol addiction, drew on his experience to determine release readiness, noting that “People who are addicted, I want to see . . . how are they going to stay clean and sober? Because everything is going to follow from that.” For this board member, if the individual completed drug and alcohol programming while incarcerated and if they continued to work on their recovery, it “weighs heavily on me” in his decision making. He also felt very confident about knowing when addicts were ready to be released or not: I trust my instincts on that one in particular. I know what an addict and an alcoholic’s going to say. They’re not going to run any of their BS by me. I know that. . . I’m not afraid to call them out on it because that’s one thing I know.
Each board member could identify factors that were significant in their decision making process. This seemed to intersect with past professional or personal experiences.
Remorse and responsibility
Taking responsibility and demonstrating remorse were also commonly mentioned important factors for at least half of the board members in both states. To illustrate this point, Cheryl observed: I really look at . . . responsibility. . . I do because, to me, isn’t that the heart of the matter? Isn’t that what we do all of this stuff for? So that the inmate understands what they did, acknowledges what they did; takes remorse for what they did so that they can use that to repair themselves and repair their life a bit.
Ethan, on the other state board, said, “I think it’s important they accept responsibility for what they did. I think it’s important that they have remorse and they have empathy for the victims.”
Depending on the board member, if individuals did not take responsibility, this could result in a denial of release. Alice commented: My philosophy is firstly that they need to take responsibility for what they’ve done. If they come to the hearing and they start making excuses for their behavior or blaming the victim, then I feel like they’re not ready . . . they’re not at that point where they’re willing to change and take responsibility because they’re not even taking responsibility for past behavior. That to me is a huge focus. Not just at my hearings, but also of the full board. So when one of my colleagues brings someone to full board and they start out by saying, ‘Well, he said he didn’t do this or he’s blaming the victim,’ I’m hitting defer as soon as I hear that. So that’s my own personal Achilles Heel. Whether I’m right about that or not, that is a lot of my philosophy
Having remorse, however, could result in a positive vote for release; as Ethan remarked, “If they have genuine remorse, they’ve done something to change, then I vote for them.”
Genuine is the key word. Taking responsibility and feeling remorse for the incarcerated individual is a delicate balance. It was important for many members, but the responses had to be sincere and not a “canned response.” David from the Western state said, “‘I take responsibility for what I did.’ Well, that’s just a phrase that is overused and not really truly understood.” Lincoln, from the Eastern state, added, “‘I’m really remorseful for what I did, I’m sorry the victim had to suffer that’, blah blah blah and you can tell it’s rehearsed. Especially after you’ve interviewed five or six inmates and they all came in and said the exact same thing to start off. You know its BS.” Cheryl compared this to a windup toy, “Yeah, just like mechanical windup toys, you know? They come up [to the interview and say], ‘I take responsibility.’” In a previous quote, Cheryl found taking responsibility to be the heart of the whole interview but, later in the interview, indicated it was an overused response by the individuals incarcerated. While remorse is an important factor for board members, it seems difficult to navigate whether and when it is sincere.
Offenses Bias
Due to the array of information and discretionary power to make their decisions, members’ biases can be relevant because they focus on factors of personal importance. While board members were not asked directly about biases, the coding scheme tracked when a member mentioned a bias or something that was a particular individual focus of concern. Some board members even offered that they were aware that they or other board colleagues had biases. Paul admitted, “I do have biases. And I voice those biases at these meetings constantly. I have biases against sexual offenses and I have biases [on crimes] against females.” The reason for his bias was that he could not find justification for those kinds of behaviors—“a guy who’s had a drug problem; he’s committing thefts and even robberies to support that drug habit. I can understand that part of it.” But he could not understand sexual offenses or hurting a woman.
Paul was not alone in this type of offense bias, as coding uncovered other offense issues board members found problematic. For example, Cheryl reported she took issue with individuals who committed “random” violent crimes. For her, these individuals needed to be “locked up as long as possible because they don’t value other people.” Additionally, for her, it was difficult to release individuals who permanently damaged their victims: The person [incarcerated individual] comes up on their minimum [release date]; they have no misconducts; they’ve gone through all their . . . rehab programming and. . .it just seems wrong to me. You’re going to waltz out of here, in three years . . . This [victim] can’t walk anymore and can’t think anymore. It just strikes me as morally wrong [to release them].
For Tony, drug use, in particular, using PCP was a real concern: “if somebody commits a heinous crime under the influence of PCP and they’re out there and they’re using again, we need to get them off the street.” Joshua also was bothered by people who used substances or were addicted. For him, “Those are the folks that can become very desperate in the situation where they commit a robbery, or they go out and do a home invasion or a carjacking or something like that because they get so consumed in their addiction.” Even if they had a low risk assessment score, Joshua thought these individuals were some of the most dangerous individuals.
Consistency in Release Decision Making
The importance of different factors, as well as the manner in which board members define the meaning of a given factor, may produce inconsistent release decisions across the board. When asked if they thought their decision making was consistent with other members, Claire pointedly answered, “no, not as often as it could, no, I don’t [think].” Alice, who was on the same board as Claire, offered, “when you look at our state . . . we all seem to kind of hang together but I wouldn’t say that we’re all exactly consistent.” Landon said individuals incarcerated “see it as pretty arbitrary process, unfortunately, depending on who they see. We are trying to be more consistent.” Almost all of the board members reported that they did not get any sort of feedback on the individual release decisions they made. They had no idea how many individuals they released recidivated. “We don’t get that much feedback.” David said: In regards to feedback from my fellow parole board members, I don’t think I get any and I don’t give any. We just sort of get a sense of it by how one votes at full board hearings. . . Beyond that, I don’t think I’ve ever really talked to anyone about their decisions nor has anyone talked to me about mine.
Both boards were trying to be more consistent through the use of risk assessments and parole guidelines. Although the parole boards had access to risk assessment scores, for most members, it was just one of the many sources of information used in decision making. Ethan said of the risk assessment, “do I look at it? Sure. But I think face-to-face is very important. Otherwise, you could just have a robot, right?” Paul, from the same board, noted, “I’m old school . . . if you take . . . the human decision making out of it, I think you’ll lose.” Paul believed that parole board members could determine who was capable of committing further offenses better than a risk assessment. When David was asked if he used the risk assessment, he laughed and said, “I do not, for the most part . . . I’d like to think I can discern or come to the same conclusion as the [assessment].” A few of the board members thought they could make better decisions than a risk assessment because there were certain things (although it was not entirely clear from the interviews what those were) that a risk assessment could not pick up what could be found during the interview. If there was a “perfect” risk assessment, then there also seemed to be a concern that the board would not be needed. Leah illustrated this point, “if we just had the release . . . instrument, you wouldn’t need parole board members so I think there is that human factor that data just can’t pick up.” A few did not trust that the instruments could produce valid results, so they did not have concerns with not following the recommendations of the assessment. Alice added, “Well if you had total faith in the guidelines then ideally you’d want to concur with it all the time. But I don’t have faith in those guidelines so it doesn’t bother me when I don’t concur.”
The most common time that board members used the risk assessment was the situation when they were on the “fence on a person” on whether to release or deny release. Alice explained, “The only time I really, really use it is if I’m on the fence and I just can’t decide what to do.” There were two other instances when some of the board members used the risk assessment. First, a few members said they applied it to help suppress biases. Jacob described, “I look at the assessments to help with my biases more so than with anything else.” Jacob used the risk assessment to feel comfortable in releasing an individual when his gut was unsure. This echoes the other reason board members may use the risk assessment as a “CYA [cover your ass].” For Tony: The assessments are kind of like a CYA for us too. Because if the assessments are all low and it’s evidence-based practice and you’re looking at the assessments and the assessments say everything we have, this guy should be good to go, and then the guy goes out and kills somebody and you get called downtown and they’re screaming at you. . . At least you got the assessments.
Joshua who relied on the risk assessment did so because it is “the sleep well at night policy that you made a good decision based on the information you had.”
Discussion
Parole board members in this study had a significant amount of discretion in how they made their release decisions and the types of information they used to form them. The findings provide insight into the variations that manifest within and across two boards. All board members had access to the same types of information, but the weight and the meanings drawn from the information varied. The weight of the factors and the manner in which they were defined or viewed correlated with members’ past personal or professional experiences. These differences may have implications for parolee release decisions—who is getting released may result primarily from individual board member preexisting views and values.
This study is not without limitations. First, while this research provides a snapshot of board members’ practices and beliefs, the findings may not be generalizable to all parole boards. Board practices vary across states due to statutory and policy requirements. This investigation relied on a small sample, analyzing interviews from only two state parole boards. Second, the author cannot attest as to how these views directly affect release decisions or measure how these differences in factor importance or philosophy impacted who was released or not released.
Despite these limitations, the findings provide insight into a process where there is limited research. A review of the literature on parole boards finds much of the research is dated (Burns et al., 1999; Conley & Zimmerman, 1982; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1988). This study provides a direction for future quantitative examinations of the relationship between parole board decision release factors and personal, professional, and philosophical variables. For example, similar to findings in Caplan (2007), almost all board members weighed the nature and seriousness of the current criminal offense. This study uncovered a continuum of factors in the reason for such “weighing.” Some board members were ensuring enough punishment had been served. For others, it was to gage the offender’s mindset when they committed the crime. Finally, still others had to determine if the current offense was reflective of past criminal behavior. For sentences that have minimum sentence dates, it may be appropriate to consider that enough punishment has been served once that date arrives (Cotton, 2008). After that date passes, the question of enough time and applied retribution would evolve to forward-thinking, rehabilitative goals (Dagan & Segev, 2015; McVey et al., 2018). In this sense, the goal of parole release is to address if the incarcerated individual has learned from his or her past offense, understands how it impacted others, and demonstrates a commitment to moving forward, crime-free.
Almost every board member in this study valued when an individual took responsibility for their offense and demonstrated the appearance of honest remorse. Yet, assessing remorse was shown to be problematic. Some who are seeking parole may state they are innocent and may, in fact, be innocent. Forcing them to accept responsibility can impact later attempts to appeal their case (Meowed, 2008). Honest demonstrations of remorse are also subjective. How can the parole board member truly know when it is real and when it is not? Several board members, who heard similar statements case after case, felt responses were rehearsed. Many times, board members were seeking an individual’s critical assessment and introspective reflection of past offenses and their impact on victims, themselves, and the community. Are parole board members aware that offenders may not have the skills to fully articulate such responsivity factors or engage in self-critical thinking? (Latessa et al., 2014). If remorse and declarations of responsibility are salient to parole board release decisions, then future research should examine their connections to post-release recidivism.
Board members are allowed to use their professional judgment to determine individual release dates that document rehabilitation has been achieved. Interviews with board members revealed that many felt they knew an individual offender better than a standardized assessment because of their personal or professional experiences. Yet, such reliance often leads to biases and stereotypes that may affect release decisions (Miller et al., 2012). For example, a number of the interviewed board members shared the personal belief that some sex offenses deserved more punishment. To introduce the option of rehabilitation, the board member may need to come to understand that, after receiving and completing treatment, many sex offenders are less likely to reoffend (Soothill, 2010). Research has shown relatively lower recidivism rates for certain sex offenders (Bench & Allen, 2013). The Static-99 has had positive results in predicting risk for reoffending in this population (Boccaccini et al., 2017), compared to parole board members who are not good at classifying sex offenders (Hood et al., 2002). Therefore, in making release decisions on individuals convicted of sexual offenses, it may be beneficial for boards to rely more prudently on risk assessments. The findings suggest that the moral incomprehension of sexual offenses makes it challenging for board members to assess such offenders without inserting their bias into their decision making process.
To address biases and achieve greater consistency across board members’ release decisions, risk assessments instruments and parole guidelines should continue to be used and further developed (McVey et al., 2018).The board members in this study were not resistant to the use of risk assessments. However, they did not always trust their results, opining that their professional or personal judgments were better. In order for risk assessments to be applied, there must be confidence in their usage (Austin, 2006). Clearly, training is essential so that board members can understand the development of the assessment, what it measures, and how successful it is at predicting risk. In addition to risk assessment tools, machine learning that can forecast re-arrests for violent and nonviolent crimes has shown promising results for informing release decisions (Berk, 2017).
Some board members expressed concern that reliance on predictive instruments could eliminate the need for parole boards. In one interview, a parole board member commented on decision making, “I mean really underneath . . . [I am]trying to calculate what [is] their chance of a successful return to the community.” But criminogenic risk and needs assessments do a better job at predicting reoffending than professionals (Andrews et al., 2006).To gage rehabilitation, a board member thought it was difficult to decipher incarcerated individuals who were ready to change and those who were not; she thought it would be nice if “they could tell who they were”—the ones that wanted to change and those that did not. Utilizing evidence-based tools and instruments to assess risk and rate criminogenic factors also insulates the board from political pressures when release decisions go awry (Rhine et al., 2017).
The denial of parole release has had significant implications for prison rates. The rate of incarceration in U. S. state prisons climbed to 698 per 100,000 individuals (Wagner, 2014). The Western State in this study had a similar rate, but the Eastern State’s rate of imprisonment surpassed the U.S. rate. With the last decade’s calls to reduce mass incarceration, greater attention from academics, researchers, and policy makers should be directed to parole boards and their decision making. Given the significant discretionary roles and responsibilities of parole boards, it is unclear why they have not been a greater focus of research. Latessa et al. (2002) wrote that “academics have abandoned correctional practitioners” (p. 47). With parole boards, this certainly appears true. As parole boards have begun to open their decision making processes to the public and display greater transparency in how decisions are formed (Rhine, 2012), more qualitative and quantitative research is needed to understand the complexity of release decisions. This study is important in documenting that parole board members reported getting little to no feedback on their release decisions or information on how many of the individuals they released recidivated. This is a critical issue for research to address to ensure fairness and consistency in release decisions and to introduce evidence-based practices into parole board member training.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.