Performance Audit, Board of Pardons and Paroles

              DOLJGLAS R NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
LINDA J BLESSING CPA
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENFRAL
March 13, 1990
Members of the L e g i s l a t u r e
State of Arizona
The Honorable Rose Mofford
Governor of the State of Arizona
Mr. A r t e r L. Johnson, Chairman
Board of Pardons and Paroles
Transmitted herewith i s a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Board of Pardons and Paroles. This report i s i n response to
a June 14, 1989, r e s o l u t i o n of the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Oversight Committee
and was conducted as a part of the Sunset Review set f o r t h i n A. R. S.
9541 - 2351 through 41 - 2379.
The report concludes t h a t the Board of Pardons and Paroles can strengthen
i t s a b i l i t y to decide parole cases by e s t a b l i s h i n g a s t r u c t u r e d
decision- making process. A t the present time, the Board lacks clear
guidelines f o r e v a l u a t i n g prisoners seeking release and members often
d i f f e r on which f a c t o r s are most important and how they should be
a p p l i e d . We also found that the Board needs to improve i t s a b i l i t y to
manage a growing case load to allow members s u f f i c i e n t time to prepare for
and hold hearings f o r inmates.
I n a d d i t i o n , we found t h a t the Board can save up to $ 356,000 annual l y by
making more e f f e c t i v e use of i t s s t a f f . The Board c u r r e n t l y uses hearing
o f f i c e r s to gather and summarize i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s already a v a i l a b l e
from e x i s t i n g sources. We question the need to use hearing o f f i c e r s for
t h i s purpose and present options for reducing the cost of gathering
informat ion.
The Board general l y agrees wi t h our f i n d i n g s and recommendat ions. The
Board's response i s contained on the ye1 low pages of the r e p o r t . However,
2700 NORTH CENTRAL AVE. * SUITE 700 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 ( 602) 255- 4385
March 13, 1990
Page two
one Board member disagrees w i t h our report and has submitted an i n d i v i d u a l
response f o l l o w i n g the Board response.
My s t a f f and I w i l l be pleased to discuss or c l a r i f y items in the r e p o r t .
S i n c e r e l y ,
~ dsCSJ) as R . Norton
Auditor General
DRN : I mn
S t a f f : W i l l iam Thomson
Mark Fleming
Lucinda A . Trimble
Roberta A. Leighton
Carol L . Keith
Leonard P. Wojciechowicz
SUMMARY
The O f f i c e o f the Auditor General has conducted a performance Audit of
the Board of Pardons and Paroles ( BPP) i n response to a June 14, 1989,
r e s o l u t i o n of the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Oversight Committee. This
performance a u d i t was conducted as p a r t o f the Sunset Review set f o r t h i n
Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) 4541- 2351 through 41- 2379.
The Board of Pardons and Paroles consists of seven members appointed by
the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The board has j u r i s d i c t i o n
over a l l a d u l t felons sentenced to the Arizona Department of Corrections
( DOC) and c e r t i f i e d as e l i g i b l e f o r p a r o l e . During f i s c a l year ( FY)
1989, BPP held hearings f o r 6,403 prisoners and approved 2,295 releases.
The board i s assisted by a 36 FTE s t a f f and has a budget of $ 1,563,800
f o r FY 1990.
The Board of Pardons and Paroles
Should Establish a Structured
Decision- making Process ( see pages 7 - 12)
C u r r e n t l y , BPP has no c l e a r g u i d e l i n e s or c r i t e r i a for evaluating
prisoners for release. As a r e s u l t , each member determines which f a c t o r s
are the most s i g n i f i c a n t and how they should be a p p l i e d . Although there
i s some agreement among board members as to what f a c t o r s are considered,
they disagree about which f a c t o r s are most important. For example, some
board members place a considerable importance on f a m i l y support, while
others b e l i e v e i t i s of lesser value. F u r t h e r , board members sometimes
disagree as t o whether a f a c t o r weighs " f o r " or " against" a p r i s o n e r .
When we asked board members to t e l l what f a c t o r s p o s i t i v e l y o r n e g a t i v e l y
influenced t h e i r decisions i n 50 cases, board members responded i n
opposite ways 16 percent of the time.
Parole boards i n 22 s t a t e s and the D i s t r i c t of Columbia used g u i d e l i n e s
f o r decision- making. BPP should develop i t s own g u i d e l i n e s to a s s i s t i n
release decisions and t o p r o v i d e g r e a t e r a c c o u n t a b i l i t y and consistency
i n decision- making. The board can o b t a i n f i n a n c i a l and technical
assistance f o r developing these g u i d e l i n e s from the National I n s t i t u t e of
Correct ions.
The Board of Pardons and Paroles Needs to
Improve Its Ability to Manage a Growing
Caseload ( see pages 13 - 20)
The number of prisoners c e r t i f i e d f o r parole hearings has grown
d r a m a t i c a l l y i n t h e past decade, more than two and a h a l f times f a s t e r
than Arizona's p r i s o n p o p u l a t i o n . As a r e s u l t , the board has d i f f i c u l t y
managing i t s caseload. Board members may hear as many as 50 cases during
10 to 12 hour days. The average hearing l a s t s 13 minutes, and board
members have l i t t l e or no time to review an inmate's f i l e and other
information before seeing the inmate. In c o n t r a s t , professional
standards suggest t h a t p a r o l e a u t h o r i t i e s hear no more than 20 cases per
day and allow an average of 30 minutes, i n c l u d i n g preparation time, per
case.
Although the board has taken some steps t o increase i t s a b i l i t y to handle
i t s caseload, a d d i t i o n a l a c t i o n i s needed. One change would be for the
L e g i s l a t u r e to lengthen the time between parole hearings from four to s i x
months. However, t h i s change would a f f e c t o n l y p r i s o n e r s sentenced a f t e r
the change i s made.
A more immediate s o l u t i o n would be for the board to d i v i d e i n t o three
panels. The use of three panels would enable the board to meet
recommended standards for the foreseeable f u t u r e . The board i s
requesting l e g i s l a t i o n that would allow i t to hear cases i n three,
two- member panels. Although t h i s appears to be the most economical
option a v a i l a b l e , i t may create problems such as t i e votes. I f
two- member panels a r e a u t h o r i z e d by the L e g i s l a t u r e , the board should
e s t a b l i s h procedures to minimize the impact of t i e votes on processing
parole d i s p o s i t i o n s .
BPP does not use i t s hearing o f f i c e r s e f f e c t i v e l y . Unlike hearing
o f f i c e r s at other State agencies, most of the board's 12 hearing o f f i c e r s
do n o t preside over q u a s i - j u d i c i a l proceedings or make d e c i s i o n s t h a t
serve as the basis f o r f i n a l agency a c t i o n . I n s t e a d , t h e board p r i m a r i l y
uses hearing o f f i c e r s t o c o l l e c t and summarize i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s
already avai l a b l e t o the board. F u r t h e r , most members r e l y p r i m a r i l y on
presentencing i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t s and t h e i r own impressions o f inmates
during personal hearings r a t h e r than the hearing o f f i c e r s ' r e p o r t s t o
determine s u i t a b i l i t y f o r p a r o l e .
We question the need f o r t h e board to use hearing o f f i c e r s as i n f o r m a t i o n
c o l l e c t o r s . The board could save approximately $ 356,000 annually by
e l i m i n a t i n g most o f i t s hearing o f f i c e r p o s i t i o n s and several r e l a t e d
support p o s i t i o n s , and r e p l a c i n g them w i t h four case a n a l y s t s who would
be able t o compile i n f o r m a t i o n from c e n t r a l record sources. However,
some board members feel t h a t a summary r e p o r t i s e s s e n t i a l . I n t h a t
case, we estimate t h a t nine case analysts can produce the desired
r e p o r t s . This could s t i l l produce savings o f approximately $ 187,000.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING I: THE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES
SHOULD ESTABLISH A STRUCTURED
DECISION- MAKING PROCESS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Board Lacks Guidance f o r
Decision- Making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
S t r u c t u r e d Decision- Making Would Promote
Greater Consistency i n P a r o l e D e c i s i o n s . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING I ! : THE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES
NEEDS TO IMPROVE ITS ABILITY TO
MANAGE A GROWING CASELOAD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BPP's Caseload Has lncreased D r a m a t i c a l l y . . . . . . . . .
lncreased Caseload Has L i m i t e d the
Board's A b i l i t y t o Evaluate and Process Cases. . . . . . .
Some Changes Have Been Made
t o Handle Increased Caseload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A d d i t i o n a l Steps t o Improve Caseload
Management Are Necessary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F l ND l NG I I I : THE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES
CAN SAVE UP TO $ 356,000 ANNUALLY THROUGH
MORE EFFECTIVE USE OF STAFF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Board Hearing O f f i c e r s Do Not
Function As T y p i c a l Hearing O f f i c e r s . . . . . . . . . . .
Questionable Need f o r Hearing O f f i c e r s . . . . . . . . . .
Hearing O f f i c e r and Other P o s i t i o n s
CanBe E l i m i n a t e d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS Con t ' d
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Administrative Releases Provide
Incentive to Refuse Parole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
BPP's Use of Alternative Release
Programs Is Increasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
SUNSETFACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
AGENCY RESPONSE
APPENDICES
I . Methodology for Estimating Savings from
Restructuring BPP Information Collection
Process
I I . Methodology for Observations of Hearing Officer
Interviews and Board Hearings
TABLE OF CONTENTS Cont ' d
Page
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 Statement of FTEs, and Actual and Budgeted
Expenditures f o r F i s c a l Years 1987- 88, 1988- 89,
and 1989- 90 ( Unaudited). . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
TABLE 2 Estimated Annual Savings by Implementing
Option A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
TABLE 3 Estimated Savings by Implementing
Option 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
TABLE 4 Approvals of Early Release and
Home Arrest Candidates
J u l y through November 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . 39
TABLE 5 Approvals of Work Furlough Candidates
July through November 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . 40
TABLE 6 Outcome of Home Arrest C e r t i f i c a t i o n s
October 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The O f f i c e o f the Auditor General has conducted a performance a u d i t o f
the Board of Pardons and Paroles i n response t o a June 14, 1989,
r e s o l u t i o n of the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Oversight Committee. This
performance a u d i t was conducted as p a r t of the Sunset Review set f o r t h i n
Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) 6941- 2351 through 41- 2379.
History
The opportunity for parole was f i r s t provided to A r i z o n a ' s p r i s o n e r s i n
1901, w i t h the establishment of a Board of Control, c o n s i s t i n g of the
Governor, the t e r r i t o r i a l a u d i t o r , and one c i t i z e n appointed by the
Governor to serve a two- year term. The Board of Control had a u t h o r i t y to
grant paroles, u n t i l the S t a t e ' s f i r s t Criminal Code became e f f e c t i v e i n
October 1913. A t t h a t time, the Board of Pardons and Paroles ( BPP) was
establ ished as an independent State agency w i t h " exclusive power to pass
upon and recommend reprieves, commutations, paroles, and pardons."
The composition of the Board of Pardons and Paroles has been modified
several times since i t s establishment. The o r i g i n a l Board of Pardons and
Paroles was a three- member board, c o n s i s t i n g of the State Superintendent
of Public I n s t r u c t i o n , the Attorney General, and one c i t i z e n member, who
acted i n the capacity of board chairman. I n 1966, the composition of the
board was changed t o f i v e lay members. Board membership became f u l l - t i m e
i n 1968, when the board was modified to consist of three f u l l - t i m e
members. Board size was then increased to f i v e members i n 1978 and seven
members i n 1984.
Parole Process
BPP has j u r i s d i c t i o n over a l l a d u l t felon offenders, male and female,
sentenced to the State Department of Corrections ( DOC) and c e r t i f i e d as
e l i g i b l e to be heard for release by the board. Pursuant to A. R. S.
541- 1604.06, DOC c e r t i f i e s inmates e l i g i b l e for parole. Under the
present c r i m i n a l code, a " p r i s o n e r ' s e a r l i e s t parole e l i g i b i l i t y occurs
when the prisoner has served one- half of h i s sentence unless such
prisoner i s sentenced according to any provisions of law which p r o h i b i t
the release on any basis u n t i l serving n o t l e s s than two- thirds of the
sentence imposed by the c o u r t . " However, there are c e r t a i n offenses
t h a t , by s t a t u t e , do not allow the p o s s i b i l i t y for parole. For example,
a prisoner convicted of a dangerous crime against c h i l d r e n under the age
of 15 ( such as sexual a s s a u l t , kidnapping, aggravated assault r e s u l t i n g
i n serious i n j u r y , or second degree murder) i s not afforded the
p o s s i b i l i t y f o r p a r o l e . As another example, a p r i s o n e r c o n v i c t e d of
second degree murder between August 3, 1984, and August 13, 1986, must
serve the e n t i r e sentence imposed without the p o s s i b i l i t y of parole.
Once an inmate i s c e r t i f i e d , i t i s BPP's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to authorize ( or
deny) the release of an applicant i f the inmate has reached h i s or her
e a r l i e s t parole e l i g i b i l i t y date, and " i t appears to the board, i n i t s
sole d i s c r e t i o n , t h a t there i s a s u b s t a n t i a l p r o b a b i l i t y that the
applicant w i l l remain at l i b e r t y without v i o l a t i n g the law." I f approved
by the board, the applicant i s then paroled to t h e l e g a l custody of DOC
u n t i l e x p i r a t i o n of the term s p e c i f i e d i n the sentence or u n t i l absolute
discharge from p a r o l e . I f a prisoner i s denied release by the board, a
subsequent parole hearing i s scheduled for e i t h e r four or s i x months from
the date o f d e n i a l , depending on the c r i m i n a l code under which the
prisoner was sentenced.
Although BPP has sole d i s c r e t i o n over p a r o l e d e c i s i o n s , the board i s only
one p a r t o f the system by which prisoners are released. DOC also has
s u b s t a n t i a l a u t h o r i t y t o make release decisions under a v a r i e t y of
programs enacted by the L e g i s l a t u r e i n recent years ( see Other Pertinent
Information, pages 33 - 36). In f a c t , DOC releases almost twice as many
inmates as does BPP. According to both DOC and board o f f i c i a l s , out of
approximately 6,000 releases each year, BPP i s responsible for only 2,000
of those releases, w h i l e DOC releases the remaining 4,000. However, by
law, an inmate becomes e l i g i b l e for p a r o l e o r other release granted by
the board before becoming e l i g i b l e for DOC a d m i n i s t r a t i v e releases,
Personnel and Budclet
BPP consists of 7 f u l l - t i m e members who are appointed by the Governor and
confirmed by the Senate. S t a t u t o r y requirements f o r appointment to the
board requi re that members have " broad p r o f e s s i o n a l or educat i onal
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and experience and s h a l l have demonstrated an i n t e r e s t i n
the s t a t e ' s c o r r e c t i o n a l program." The law also requires that no more
than two members at one time may be of the same p r o f e s s i o n a l d i s c i p l i n e .
I n a d d i t i o n to the 7 board members, BPP was a l l o c a t e d 36 FTEs i n FY
1989- 90, which includes 15 hearing o f f i c e r s , c l e r i c a l s t a f f , a p r o j e c t
s p e c i a l i s t , f i s c a l services s p e c i a l i s t , a p l a n n e r , and an executive
di rector . ( I )
TABLE 1
STATEMENT OF FTEs, AND ACTUAL AND BUDGETED
EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL YEARS
1 987- 88, 1 988- 89, AND 1 989- 90
( Unaud i t ed)
1987- 88 1988- 89 1989- 90
Actual Actual Budgeted
FTEs 4 0 40 43
Personal services $ 1 ,051 ,777 $ 981 ,149 $ 1 ,074,500
Employee- related " 198,943 200,351 316,200
T r a v e l , i n - s t a t e 32,563 40,345 33,100
out- of- state 1 ,248 1,225
Equ i pmen t 8,624 68,537
Other operating 202,903 184,066 140,000
TOTAL
Source: Arizona F i n a n c i a l Information System and the State of Arizona
Appropriations Report for the F i s c a l Year Ending June 30, 1990
( 1) As of January 25, 1990, there were two vacant hearing o f f i c e r p o s i t i o n s . I n a d d i t i o n ,
one of t h e c u r r e n t h e a r i n g o f f i c e r s i s on l e a v e w i t h o u t pay i n d e f i n i t e l y .
A d d i t i o n a l l y , there i s a p o s i t i o n f o r an a s s i s t a n t executive d i r e c t o r t h a t has been
vacant since October, 1987. However, due t o budgetary c o n s t r a i n t s , t h a t p o s i t i o n has
not been f i l l e d f o r t h i s c u r r e n t f i s c a l year.
Scope and Methodology
This a u d i t was conducted as a Sunset Review as defined by A. R. S.
541- 2352. The purpose of the a u d i t was to determine whether the Board of
Pardons and Paroles i s needed and the extent t o which i t has accomplished
i t s s t a t u t o r y goals. The a u d i t focuses p r i m a r i l y on how well the board
manages the process f o r making parole decisions and presents three
f i n d i n g s :
The need f o r g u i d e l i n e s f o r board decisions
The board's a b i l i t y t o manage i t s workload
The need for hearing o f f i c e r s i n the parole process
We addressed these areas because they encompass the board's major
a c t i v i t i e s and provide an assessment of the agency's performance i n
c a r r y i n g out assigned r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Information on the need f o r the
board i s presented i n the Sunset Factors s e c t ion ( see page 43). Although
the board makes recommendations to the Governor for pardons, reprieves,
and commutations, these a c t i v i t i e s make up a r e l a t i v e l y small p o r t i o n o f
i t s workload ( approximately 1.7 percent) and were, t h e r e f o r e , not
reviewed as p a r t o f the a u d i t .
Much of the information on management of the parole process was gathered
by observing board members and s t a f f and attending hearings during
October and November 1989. The observations also included data recorded
by board members and s t a f f as they completed a c t i o n on cases during those
months. The d e t a i l e d methodology i s presented i n Appendix I I .
We also developed information regarding p o t e n t i a l d i s i n c e n t i v e s t o parole
and the board's use of e a r l y release, home a r r e s t , and work furlough ( see
Other P e r t i n e n t Information, page 36 - 42).
This a u d i t was conducted i n accordance w i t h generally accepted
governmental a u d i t i n g standards.
The Auditor General and s t a f f express a p p r e c i a t i o n t o the board members,
Executive D i r e c t o r , and s t a f f of the Board of Pardons and Paroles for
t h e i r cooperation and assistance during the course of our a u d i t .
FINDING I
THE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES SHOULD
ESTABLISH A STRUCTURED DECISION- MAKING PROCESS
The Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles ( BPP) needs to e s t a b l i s h a
s t r u c t u r e d process f o r d e c i s i o n making. C u r r e n t l y , the board does not
have c l e a r g u i d e l i n e s f o r making d e c i s i o n s . Such g u i d e l i n e s could
provide greater a c c o u n t a b i l i t y and consistency i n decision making while
s t i l l a l l o w i n g board members to exercise t h e i r own d i s c r e t i o n .
Background
In an e f f o r t to handle i t s growing caseload, the seven- member Board of
Pardons and Paroles considers most of i t s cases i n two three- member
panels. The panel membership i s determined by a random drawing and
panels are changed every three months. Each of the two panels
d e l i b e r a t e s on parole decisions i n two ways. F i r s t , some release
decisions are made a f t e r a review of cases i n the Parole Board's
B
o f f i c e s . This process i s c a l l e d board review. Second, i f a release i s
not approved i n board review, a personal hearing w i t h the prisoner i s
held at the i n s t i t u t i o n , and a d e c i s i o n i s made a f t e r the hearing. The
panels r o t a t e each month between i n s t i t u t i o n s to insure that both panels
v i s i t a l l i n s t i t u t i o n s and consider prisoners convicted of a l l types of
offenses.
The Board Lacks Guidance for
Decision- Making
The board does not c u r r e n t l y use a s t r u c t u r e d process i n evaluating
prisoners f o r release. C u r r e n t l y , the s t a t u t e s do not o f f e r any
substantive guidance to the board regarding c r i t e r i a f o r release. They
s t a t e only that the board may release any e l i g i b l e candidate i f " i t
appears to the board, i n i t s sole d i s c r e t i o n , that there i s a s u b s t a n t i a l
p r o b a b i l i t y that the a p p l i c a n t w i l l remain a t l i b e r t y without v i o l a t i n g
the law."
The only w r i t t e n c r i t e r i a are found i n some annual reports published by
the board. The board's 1986 annual report and the d r a f t 1989 r e p o r t s t a t e
that when making decisions on release, " the Board w i l l be guided by i t s
knowledge of human nature and of the ways of the world." I n a d d i t i o n ,
some annual r e p o r t s provided a l i s t of f a c t o r s for consideration when
releasing a p r i s o n e r . The l i s t included such f a c t o r s as the nature of the
offense for which the prisoner was committed, past h i s t o r y o f convictions
and a r r e s t s , the p a t t e r n of conduct while incarcerated and any changes in
t h a t p a t t e r n , p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n educational or t r a i n i n g programs, and
p r i s o n e r ' s w i l l i n g n e s s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n r e h a b i l i t a t i v e programs i f
p a r o l e d . ( ' ) Even though the l i s t of f a c t o r s was r e f e r r e d to as
" g u i d e l i n e s , " they o f f e r no s p e c i f i c guidance as to the r e l a t i v e
importance of the various f a c t o r s . Moreover, board- members do not appear
to consider these f a c t o r s to be g u i d e l i n e s . When board members were asked
i f formal guidelines were used i n t h e i r p a r o l e d e c i s i o n making, a l l seven
members responded n e g a t i v e l y .
F i n a l l y , there i s no board t r a i n i n g to provide s t r u c t u r e to the
decision- making process. Although some board members have p a r t i c i p a t e d i n
t r a i n i n g sessions o f f e r e d by the National I n s t i t u t e of Corrections ( NIC)
on matters relevant to a l l p a r o l i n g a u t h o r i t i e s , the board does not
provide t r a i n i n g for i t s members as to decision- making c r i t e r i a . The
board r e l i e s p r i m a r i l y on on- the- job t r a i n i n g during hearings to
f a m i l i a r i z e new members w i t h the parole decision- making process.
In the absence o f any s t r u c t u r e d process, each board member makes an
independent decision based on h i s or her personal b e l i e f s and experience.
Although there i s some agreement among board members as to what factors
a r e g e n e r a l l y considered, they disagree about which f a c t o r s are the most
important. For example, some board members place a considerable
importance on f a m i l y s u p p o r t , w h i l e o t h e r members believe i t i s of lesser
value. Board members even d i f f e r about whether a f a c t o r weighs " f o r " or
" against" a p r i s o n e r . We asked board members to complete a questionnaire
a f t e r they reached a d e c i s i o n i n 50 cases. Some of the questions dealt
w i t h whether s p e c i f i c f a c t o r s influenced the decisions i n p o s i t i v e or
( 1) 1980 and 1984 Annual Reports, and the d r a f t 1989 r e p o r t
8
negative ways. Approximately 16 percent of t h e t i m e , board members
responded i n opposite ways.
In a d d i t i o n to the lack of consensus about the importance o f c e r t a i n
f a c t o r s , board members d i f f e r i n the f a c t o r s they consider. For instance,
r i s k assessments are a v a i l a b l e for the e a r l y release and home a r r e s t
candidates being considered by t h e board, but when board members were
asked how often they considered r i s k assessments when making t h e i r
decisions, the responses v a r i e d w i d e l y . ( l ) One member considers r i s k
assessments i n only about 20 percent of h i s d e c i s i o n s ; another says he
nearly always uses them.
The lack of guidelines takes on added s i g n i f i c a n c e w i t h the board's use of
two panels for decisionmaking. As stated e a r l i e r , most board decisions
are made by panels of three members. Persons appearing before the board
should have a reasonable expectation of being t r e a t e d e q u a l l y by e i t h e r of
the two panels. However, the lack of guidelines may c o n t r i b u t e to
v a r i a t i o n i n the decisions of the two panels. For example, we compared
the approval rates for the two panels for the months of October and
November.( Z) Although the two panels saw approximately the same " mix" o f
persons during t h i s p e r i o d , ( 3 ) one panel had a 14 percent higher approval
rate than t h e other panel . ( 4 ) Guidel ines may help ensure such di f ferences
are minimized and/ or that such d i f f e r e n c e s occur mainly because of the
facts of the cases.
( 1 ) A r i s k assessment i s a model t h a t attempts to measure the r i s k o f violence and
r e c i d i v i s m .
( 2 ) Auditor General analysis of board decisions i s based on a review of t h e p e r i o d October
through November 1989. We developed data on approval rates f o r i n d i v i d u a l board
members and the two panels. A1 though the d e t a i l e d d a t a a r e l i m i t e d t o two months, the
o v e r a l l approval r a t e f o r a l l p a r o l e d e c i s i o n s from October through November i s
generally consistent w i t h the data from the preceding three months.
( 3) The two panels a l t e r n a t e among i n s t i t u t i o n s each month so t h a t f o r the two months we
reviewed, each panel heard cases from the same i n s t i t u t i o n s and from a l l custody
1 eve1 s.
( 4) The differences i n the approval rates of panels have been noted by the prisoners.
Board members and s t a f f have said t h a t prisoners sometimes waive t h e i r appearances
b e f o r e t h e board a f t e r seeing which members are going t o hear t h e i r case.
A s t r u c t u r e d decision- making process can p r o v i d e g r e a t e r a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
and consistency i n parole decisions. Many parole a u t h o r i t i e s throughout
the United States use guidelines to make t h e i r d e c i s i o n s . Professional
associations also advocate s t r u c t u r e d d e c i s i o n making and provide
assistance to s t a t e s i n developing deci sion- making processes.
Benefits o f a s t r u c t u r e d process - Several b e n e f i t s can be derived from a
s t r u c t u r e d decision- making process. Guidelines combine the v a r i e t y o f
backgrounds and experience represented on the board i n t o a set of
p r i n c i p l e s to guide the e n t i r e membership and thus promote greater
consistency i n decision making. Guidelines can also communicate
standards to others i n the system and to the p u b l i c , p r o v i d e a defensible
b a s i s f o r i n d i v i d u a l decisions, and a l l o w f o r the c o l l e c t i o n o f data and
analysis regarding the effectiveness of decision making.
Although guidelines can promote consistency, they do not have to be
unnecessarily r i g i d or r e s t r i c t i v e . Guidelines are intended to r e f l e c t
the parole p o l i c y o f the board as a whole and, as such, may be revised i n
response to changes i n board membership or p u b l i c and professional
opinion regarding p a r o l i n g p o l i c y . They also do not e l i m i n a t e i n d i v i d u a l
d i s c r e t i o n ; members may deviate i f they see f i t , as long as the reasons
for the deviations are documented. I n f a c t , a recent survey of the 50
states and the D i s t r i c t of Columbia reported that 57 percent of the
parole chairs f e l t that guidelines d i d not l i m i t board d i s c r e t i o n
excessively, while only 20 percent f e l t that they d i d . I n a d d i t i o n , 76
percent f e l t parole guide1 ines c o n t r i b u t e d to c o n s i s t e n c y . ( l )
Guidelines for decision making are supported by p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s
such as the American C o r r e c t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n ( A C A ) , the Association of
Paroling A u t h o r i t i e s I n t e r n a t i o n a l ( APAI), and the National I n s t i t u t e of
( 1 ) Information compi 1 ed by the American C o r r e c t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n ' s Parole Task Force,
1989.
Corrections ( NIC). ACA standards require w r i t t e n c r i t e r i a which are
" s p e c i f i c enough to permit consistent a p p l i c a t i o n to i n d i v i d u a l cases."
I t i s f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t the c r i t e r i a " should go beyond s t a t u t o r y
minimums to include the types of information which have a consistent
r e l a t i o n s h i p t o parole success or f a i l u r e . " In a d d i t i o n t o the immediate
b e n e f i t s of g u i d e l i n e s , some c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e professionals believe that
guidelines w i l l play a r o l e i n the f u t u r e s u r v i v a l o f the parole
process. The use of d i s c r e t i o n by parole board members i s one area that
has come under a t t a c k , and parole boards are developing structured
decision- making p o l i c i e s i n response to the challenges.
Guidelines in use on s t a t e and federal level - S t r u c t u r e d d e c i s i o n making
i s used widely throughout the United States. Twenty- two s t a t e parole
boards, the D i s t r i c t of Columbia's board, and the U. S. Parole Commission
use some form of g u i d e l i n e s . Most of these systems also incorporate some
form of r i s k assessment. The i n i t i a t i v e for guidelines has been both
i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l , coming from parole boards i n some states and from
l e g i s l a t u r e s i n other s t a t e s .
The Federal Parole Guidelines, created i n the e a r l y t o mid- seventies,
have served as a model for some s t a t e parole boards. The federal system
combines assessments of the s e v e r i t y o f the offense and the o f f e n d e r ' s
recidivism r i s k . I t does not replace the board's d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y
but provides a reference p o i n t for a l I board members to enable more
u n i f o r m i t y i n decision making. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles
i s s i m i l a r t o the federal system; however, i t has i t s own set of c r i t e r i a
for assessing p r o b a b i l i t y , i n c l u d i n g a s e v e r i t y index and parole success
score, which when intersected on a g r i d , provides a presumptive parole
date. The s e v e r i t y index ranks offenses by r e l a t i v e seriousness, and the
parole success score i s determined by assigning p o i n t s f o r f a c t o r s such
as age, p r i o r criminal behavior, h i s t o r y of drug use, employment, and
diagnostic t e s t i n g scores. The t o t a l points determine the parole success
score ( or r i s k l e v e l ) w i t h higher scores representing lower r i s k s . For
example, i f the offender were 27 years or older at the time of h i s or her
f i r s t conviction, 5 p o i n t s would be added to the score. However, i f he
or she were 19 to 26 years of age, only 3 p o i n t s would be added.
Professional assoc i a t i on prov i des ass i stance i n deve l opi ng processes -
The Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles can o b t a i n assistance i n
developing i t s own g u i d e l i n e s . For several years, the National l n s t i t u t e
of Corrections ( NIC) has been p r o v i d i n g t e c h n i c a l assistance to states
i n e s t a b l i s h i n g c o n s i s t e n t , responsible, and o b j e c t i v e parole
decision- making processes. NIC involves the parole decision makers and
t h e i r s t a f f i n d e f i n i n g the f a c t o r s of importance t o the board, the
components of the d e c i s i o n , the decision o p t i o n s , and the p r i o r i t y of
each component. I t i s an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d process, and the end r e s u l t i s a
decision- making t o o l that r e t a i n s the d i s c r e t i o n needed, and r e f l e c t s the
standards and p o l i c i e s of the i n d i v i d u a l s t a t e and board.
Funding f o r t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e can also be obtained through NIC and
does not r e q u i r e any matching funds from the requesting agency.(')
Short- term t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e provides up to $ 6,000 i n t r a v e l , per
diem, and fees for on- site c o n s u l t a n t s , and long- term technical
assistance provides up to $ 15,000. Since NIC has been a c t i v e i n t h i s
process f o r some time, they can also recommend o t h e r c o n s u l t a n t s
experienced i n working w i t h S t a t e p a r o l i n g a u t h o r i t i e s . ( Z )
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Board of Pardons and Paroles should develop a s t r u c t u r e d process
to a s s i s t i n release decisions and to p r o v i d e g r e a t e r a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
and consistency i n decision making.
2. The Board of Pardons and Paroles should consider contacting the
National I n s t i t u t e f o r C o r r e c t i o n s t o o b t a i n t e c h n i c a l assistance i n
developing a s t r u c t u r e d decision- making process.
( 1 ) Assistance can be requested by w r i t i n g to the Community Corrections D i v i s i o n o f the
National I n s t i t u t e of Corrections i n Washington, D. C. and o u t l i n i n g t h e type of
assistance needed.
( 2) According to an NIC s t a f f member, t h e c o s t of consultants t o a s s i s t i n the development
of the process would most l i k e l y be covered completely by the grant. However, the
implementation of the process would requi re State f u n d i n g .
FINDING I1
THE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES NEEDS TO IMPROVE
ITS ABILITY TO MANAGE A GROWING CASELOAD
The Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles needs to improve i t s abi I i t y to
manage a growing case load. The board's caseload has increased by 710
percent over the l a s t t e n years, and t h i s growth has I imited the board's
a b i l i t y to process and evaluate cases. Although the board has taken some
steps to manage caseload, a d d i t i o n a l a c t i o n i s necessary.
BPP's Caseload Has
Increased Dramatically
The number of inmates c e r t i f i e d e l i g i b l e to be seen by BPP for a parole
or other type of release consideration has increased s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n
recent years. In f i s c a l year 1979- 80, an estimated average of 118
inmates were c e r t i f i e d e l i g i b l e for consideration each month.(') In the
f i r s t h a l f of f i s c a l year 1989- 90, an average of 956 inmates were
c e r t i f i e d each month. This represents a 710 percent increase over the
ten- year period.
Increase due t o p r i s o n population growth and s t a t u t o r y changes - Much of
the increased caseload i s traceable to the growing p r i s o n population and
s t a t u t o r y changes t h a t a f f e c t e l i g i b i l i t y for release.
Prison population growth - Arizona's p r i s o n p o p u l a t i o n has grown
approximately 270 percent i n the past ten years: the approximate
3,500 inmate count i n f i s c a l year 1979- 80 has grown to a current
population i n excess of 13,000.
( 1 ) The board considers inmates c e r t i f i e d by DOC on a v a r i e t y of parole and other types of
releases. The release types include: a) e a r l y release on general p a r o l e , b ) general
parole, c) parole t o a consecutive sentence i n Arizona Department of Corrections, d)
parole t o a detainer from another j u r i s d i c t i o n , another s t a t e , or the Immigration and
N a t u r a l i z a t i o n Service ( I N S ) , e) home a r r e s t , or f ) work furlough. I n a d d i t i o n , the
board i s responsible f o r commutations, pardons, absolute discharges, reprieves,
paroles i n absentia, parol e revocations, and parol e r e c i ssions. However, t h i s l a s t
group comprises a p r o p o r t i o n a l l y small p a r t of the board's work and i s , t h e r e f o r e , n o t
included i n the workload estimates presented i n t h i s f i n d i n g .
More frequent rehearings - In 1978, m o d i f i c a t i o n of the c r i m i n a l code
changed the time p e r i o d f o r r e c e r t i f i c a t i o n for an inmate who has
been heard and denied by BPP. The i n t e r v a l was changed from s i x
months to a maximum of four for those sentened a f t e r the e f f e c t i v e
date of the law. We estimate that t h i s change caused the number of
hearings conducted by the board to increase by approximately 32
percent .( I)
E a r l i e r e l i g i b i l i t y - Two forms of release, e a r l y parole release and
the home a r r e s t program, have allowed some inmates to be c e r t i f i e d
e l i g i b l e for board c o n s i d e r a t i o n b e f o r e reaching t h e i r regular work
furlough o r parole e l i g i b i l i t y dates.( 2) P r i o r to implementation of
these programs, an inmate was not e l i g i b l e for release u n t i l h a l f or
two- thirds of h i s or her sentence had been served o r , i n the case of
work furlough, u n t i l 14 months b e f o r e p a r o l e e l i g i b i l i t y . Now
candidates c e r t i f i e d for these releases can be seen repeatedly even
before reaching t h e i r regular parole e l i g i b i l i t y date. These e a r l y
release mechanisms c u r r e n t l y add over 100 personal hearings to the
board's agenda each month.
Work furlough changes - In 1982, the L e g i s l a t u r e gave the
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for consideration of inmates for work f u r l o u g h t o the
board, a function previously performed by the Department of
Corrections. This change, coupled w i t h a change i n the DOC
c e r t i f i c a t i o n process, has added approximately 90 hearings each
month . ( 3 )
increased Caseload Has Limited the
Board's Ability to Evaluate and Process Cases
The increase i n the board's caseload l i m i t s the time the board has to
process and evaluate cases. This i n turn may a f f e c t the qua1 i t y of the
board's decisions.
( 1 ) The estimate assumes a 40 percent parole r a t e . The number of hearings a r e c a l c u l a t e d
f o r those denied and reheard a t four- month i n t e r v a l s , and a t six- month i n t e r v a l s
during a one- year period.
( 2 ) Early parole release, A. R. S. 531- 2331, i s an o p t i o n a l l o w i n g DOC t o c e r t i f y c e r t a i n
inmates f o r parole p r i o r t o t h e i r parole e l i g i b i l i t y date when the i n s t i t u t i o n s are
housing over 98 percent of capacity. The option was enacted i n 1982 and f i r s t used i n
November of that year. It has been i n e f f e c t since t h a t date except f o r a period of
less than two months i n 1987.
The home a r r e s t program, A. R. S. 531- 236, was created i n July 1988, and the f i r s t
inmates were released i n December 1988.
( 3 ) P r i o r to January 1989, work furlough candidates were required t o submit an a p p l i c a t i o n
t o the board i n order to be considered. Under t h i s process, the board heard an
average of 21 inmates a month f o r work furlough. However, a f t e r the change, DOC began
c e r t i f y i n g a l l inmates f o r work furlough as soon as they served enough time t o meet
s t a t u t o r y time requirements. The change more than quadrupled the number of work
furlough hearings held by the board. For example, i n October 1989, 165 inmates were
. c e r t i f i e d e l i g i b l e f o r work f u r l o u g h c o n s i d e r a t i o n by the board, and 90 were heard.
To provide for adequate review and evaluation of the f a c t s to be
considered i n a parole d e c i s i o n , p r o f e s s i o n a l standards set by the
American Correctional Association ( A C A ) suggest that a board should not
hear more than 20 cases per day, and should allow f o r a minimum of 30
minutes per case. The 30 minute time frame i s suggested i n p a r t to allow
a board adequate preparation as well as hearing time.
Arizona's two panels each may hear as many as 40 to 50 cases per day.
And despite o f t e n working 10- to 12- hour days, the panels average only 13
minutes ( approximate) per hearing. This a l lows l i t t le or no preparation
time and only l i m i t e d hearing time. The 13 minutes i s not only below
standards, b u t i t i s below the average hearing time of other s t a t e s we
contacted. We found these s t a t e s average 21 minutes per hearing.
Given the nature of the decisions the board makes and t h e i r possible
consequences f o r s o c i e t y , providing adequate time f o r hearings seems
c r i t i c a l .
Some Changes Have Been Made
to Handle Increased Caseload
In an attempt to manage the board's large caseload, both the L e g i s l a t u r e
and the board have made some changes. The L e g i s l a t u r e has increased both
support s t a f f and the number of board members, and the board has
implemented a v a r i e t y of procedural changes.
Members added to the board - Since f i s c a l year 1978, the board size
has been s t a t u t o r i l y increased twice: from three t o f i v e members and
then to the present s i z e o f seven. In an e f f o r t t o d i v i d e the
caseload, most c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a r e decided by panels of three members.
Staffing increases - Since f i s c a l year 1983- 84, 25 FTEs have been
added to the board, i n c l u d i n g b o t h h e a r i n g o f f i c e r s and c l e r i c a l
s t a f f .
Work furlough hearings to be conducted by hearing officers -
Because the board i t s e l f i s not s t a t u t o r i l y bound to see a l l inmates
denied work furlough as they are w i t h a i l other releases, hearing
o f f i c e r s w i l l conduct the only personal hearings on work furlough as
of February 1, 1990. I n the p a s t , the board has seen a l I work
furlough candidates not approved i n board review.
a Board review r e i n s t i t u t e d - The board reviews cases p r i o r to a
hearing at an i n s t i t u t i o n . This process i s c a l l e d board review. I t s
purpose i s to i d e n t i f y and parole prisoners who appear to be good
candidates for parole, and eliminates the need for personal
hearings. Although the board had previously suspended board review,
i t has been r e i n s t i t u t e d as yet another measure to control caseload.
Additional Steps to improve
Caseload Management Are Necessary
Addi t ional steps could be taken to improve case load management. As a
long- range s t r a t e g y , the board could seek a s t a t u t o r y change to increase
the time between hearings. In a d d i t i o n , a small amount of r e l i e f might
also be obtained by making greater use of the board's a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
powers to delay hearings for inmates who have l i t t l e chance of parole i n
the near f u t u r e . A t h i r d , more immediate strategy would be to form a
t h i r d panel t o conduct f i e l d hearings to increase the board's capacity to
hear cases.
Time between hearings should be increased - As a long- range strategy the
board should pursue a s t a t u t o r y change to increase the i n t e r v a l for
rehearing inmates from four to s i x months or even l o n g e r . ( ' ) As
mentioned e a r l i e r , the reduced i n t e r v a l from s i x months to four months
increased the board's caseload by approximately 32 percent. Changing to
a six- month i n t e r v a l would s t i l l leave Arizona w i t h one of the most
frequent rehearing i n t e r v a l s , and would not unduly l i m i t the number of
inmates released on parole.
The m a j o r i t y o f the 20 states we researched have a rehearing i n t e r v a l of
one year or more. Only one, North Dakota, required a rehearing period of
less than one year. North Dakota requires r e c e r t i f i c a t i o n from s i x to
nine months a f t e r d e n i a l . S e t t i n g the rehearing i n t e r v a l i n Arizona at
( 1 ) ACA standards recommend t h a t the i n t e r v a l s be no longer than one year.
s i x months rather than f o u r should not g r e a t l y impact the number of
inmates p a r o l e d s i n c e most inmates paroled are paroled a t t h e i r f i r s t
hearing. According to the 1988 r e p o r t of the Arizona Cost E f f i c i e n c y
Commission, 76 percent of parole releases are granted a t the inmate's
f i r s t hearing before the board.
This, however, i s a long- term s t r a t e g y . The increased i n t e r v a l would not
impact the board's caseload for several years because, according to legal
counsel, i t could not apply to inmates already i n the system; only new
inmates entering the system would be subject to i t . However, i t would be
a proactive step curbing f u t u r e caseload problems as the prison
population grows.
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y delaying more rehearings - As an a d d i t i o n a l measure, the
board could make greater use of i t s p r e r o g a t i v e to postpone an inmate's
r e c e r t i f i c a t i o n f o r up t o one y e a r . ( ' ) C u r r e n t l y , t h i s o p t i o n i s seldom
used. The l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t of t h i s p r o v i s i o n was to allow the board to
avoid having to hear, every four months, inmates that have l i t t l e chance
of being paroled i n the near f u t u r e . By s t a t u t e , inmates whose offenses
were committed a f t e r July 1 , 1984, are the only ones e l i g i b l e for the
p r o v i s i o n . According to the board chairman, the m a j o r i t y of inmates that
come before the board f a l l i n t o t h i s group. However, board members
believe t h i s o p t i o n should be l i m i t e d t o prisoners who are exceptional
problems, or who e x h i b i t v i o l e n t or d i s r u p t i v e behavior. They believe
applying t h i s p r o v i s i o n too f r e q u e n t l y might: 1) v i o l a t e the s p i r i t of
the law c a l l i n g f o r more frequent hearings; 2) d i l u t e the message
c u r r e n t l y being sent when problem inmates receive the postponement; and
3) allow inmates t o be . released w i t h less supervision under a DOC
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e release. ( See Other P e r t i n e n t Information, pages 33 -
36.) While i t i s d i f f i c u l t to assess how many problem inmates' hearings
could be postponed, board members admit that the p r o v i s i o n could be used
more frequently than i t i s a t present.
( 1 ) Pursuant t o A. R. S. $ 41- 1604.06, BPP can postpone an inmate's r e c e r t i f i c a t i o n f o r a
period o f up t o one year. However, the board uses i t s o p t i o n t o postpone
r e c e r t i f i c a t i o n on1 y i n f r e q u e n t l y .
Going to three panels - Because increasing the rehearing i n t e r v a l w i l l
not help control the board's caseload for some time, a d d i t i o n a l changes
are needed. We estimate t h a t i f the board were to comply w i t h the ACA
standards mentioned e a r l i e r , the two panels could conduct approximately
400 f i e l d hearings per month.( l) The present number of f i e l d hearings
required of the board i s approximately 550 per month. c2) Therefore, the
two panels could not meet ACA standards at present. To meet standards
the board could, as some other states do, use hearing o f f i c e r s to hold
hearings i n place of the board hearings. However, because the board
c u r r e n t l y lacks a s t r u c t u r e d decision- making process ( see Finding I , page
71, delegation of t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o several hearing o f f i c e r s would
make i t even more d i f f i c u l t to p r o v i d e c o n s i s t e n t d e c i s i o n s . In
a d d i t i o n , according to an NIC o f f i c i a l , i t i s prefexred that i n d i v i d u a l s
w i t h decision- making a u t h o r i t y conduct personal hearings w i t h release
candidates. Furthermore, board members have s t a t e d t h a t they would be
most comfortable holding personal hearings themselves. Thus, the most
f e a s i b l e s o l u t i o n to a s s i s t the board i n handling i t s caseload appears to
be moving from two to three panels.
I f the board divides i n t o three panels, we estimate i t could conduct up
to 600 f i e l d hearings per month. The board has proposed creating three,
two- member panels under some circumstances and i s c u r r e n t l y requesting
the necessary s t a t u t o r y change. However, the proposed l e g i s l a t i v e change
suggests that t h i s i s a measure designed to meet emergency peaks in
caseload. Because the board's caseload i s t i e d to the prison population,
and neither i s projected to decrease, we see the move to a three- panel
system as a permanent move.
( 1 ) The recommended 20 hearings per day of 30 minutes each c o n s t i t u t e s a ten- hour work
day. Three and one- thi rd ( t e n hour) days of hearings plus over s i x hours t r a v e l time
approximate a 40- hour work week f o r each board member. I n r e a l i t y some hearing days
may be shorter than o t h e r s , and t r a v e l time may vary. Given these c o n d i t i o n s , each
panel can conduct approximately 200 f i e l d hearings per month.
( 2) This does not i n c l u d e commutations, i n absentia parole hearings, parole revocation or
r e s c i s s i o n hearings, o r absolute discharges. Phase I commutation, i n absentia, and
absolute discharge hearings are held a t t h e b o a r d ' s o f f i c e and comprise only a very
small number of hearings each month. A r e l a t i v e l y small number of parole revocations
are held a t various i n s t i t u t i o n s during the month.
A move to three, two- member panels could r e s u l t i n t i e votes, creating
the need f o r a d d i t i o n a l review by a t h i r d board member. This could slow
the processing of hearing d i s p o s i t i o n s which i n turn might slow
releases. The board has proposed handling t i e s by having the chairman
cast a t h i r d vote i n the board's o f f i c e . The board should develop and
formalize e x p l i c i t i n t e r n a l p o l i c i e s to handle t i e votes i n order to
minimize delays and encourage consistency. However, because members w i l l
have more time a v a i l a b l e to come to a d e c i s i o n , there may be greater
o p p o r t u n i t y for dialogue which may increase the consensus w i t h i n panels
and reduce the l i k e l i h o o d o f t i e votes. In a d d i t i o n , board members have
unanimously expressed a w i l l i n g n e s s t o develop g u i d e l i n e s f o r s t r u c t u r e d
decision making that could reduce p o t e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n approval rates
between panels. F i n a l l y despite concerns regarding t i e votes, the use of
two- member panels would be more economical than other a v a i l a b l e
opt i o n s . ( ' )
A more c o s t l y o p t i o n i s to request that the L e g i s l a t u r e increase the
board size to nine so t h a t three panels of t h r e e c o u l d h o l d
d e l i b e r a t i o n s . Several s t a t e s we contacted have increased t h e i r board
size i n the l a s t year i n response to growing case load^.(^^ I f membership
of BPP were increased by two members, the a d d i t i o n a l expense i n salary
and emp loyee- re lated expenses wou Id be $ 1 15,000.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The L e g i s l a t u r e should consider:
Amending A. R. S. 941- 1604.06 to increase the i n t e r v a l a t which
inmates are r e c e r t i f i e d for release c o n s i d e r a t i o n b e f o r e the
board from 4 to 6 months,
( 1 ) The cost o f the t h i r d panel of two would i n c l u d e an a d d i t i o n a l panel s e c r e t a r y ,
$ 18,000 i n s a l a r y and ERE, and approximately $ 13,000 i n a d d i t i o n a l t r a v e l expenses.
( 2 ) F l o r i d a , Tennessee, Utah, and Texas have increased t h e i r board membership by a t l e a s t
two i n the l a s t year.
Amending A. R. S. $ 31- 401. H to allow two members t o c o n s t i t u t e a
quorum except i n executive clemency matters o r business meetings
so that the board may conduct hearings at the i n s t i t u t i o n s w i t h
panels of two.
2. I f the L e g i s l a t u r e authorizes the board to hear parole cases w i t h
two- member panels, the board should e s t a b l i s h procedures to ensure
that t i e votes do not unduly delay the processing o f hearing
d i s p o s i t i o n s .
3. The board should make greater use of i t s prerogative to postpone an
inmate's r e c e r t i f i c a t i o n for up to one year when appropriate.
FINDING I l l
THE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES
CAN SAVE UP TO $ 3 5 6 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 A ~ T~ H~ RO~ U~ G~ H~
MORE EFFECTIVE USE OF STAFF
The Board of Pardons and Paroles does not e f f e c t i v e l y use most of i t s
hearing o f f i c e r s . The m a j o r i t y of the board's hearing o f f i c e r s do not
perform t y p i c a l hearing o f f i c e r d u t i e s , and board members question the
need f o r some hearing o f f i c e r f u n c t i o n s . The board could save between
$ 186,000 and $ 356,000 annually without l i m i t i n g i t s access to relevant
i n f o r m a t i o n by r e s t r u c t u r i n g i t s information- gathering p r o c e s s . ( ' )
Board Hearing Officers Do Not
Function As Typical Hearing Officers
For the most p a r t , the b o a r d ' s hearing o f f i c e r s do n o t perform t y p i c a l
hearing o f f i c e r d u t i e s . While some hearing o f f i c e r s conduct actual
hearings, the major f u n c t i o n of the b o a r d ' s h e a r i n g o f f i c e r s i s to gather
informat ion from various sources and prepare a summary report for the
board t o use i n i t s decision- making process.
Few of the hearings conducted by BPP hearing o f f i c e r s are actual
hearings. One hearing o f f i c e r i s generally assigned a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e
number of " s p e c i a l h e a r i n g s .' I Most special hearings are pre l iminary
parole revocation or r e s c i s s i o n hearings to determine probable cause.
These proceedings are a d v e r s a r i a l and are u s u a l l y h e l d i n a formal,
q u a s i - j u d i c i a l manner i n which expert testimony may be presented,
witnesses may be c a l l e d , and other evidence presented. I n special
hearings, the board's hearing o f f i c e r s f u n c t i o n l i k e t y p i c a l hearing
o f f i c e r s at other agencies. For example, hearing o f f i c e r s at other
agencies may preside over hearings i n which d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s are
present, testimony and evidence are o f f e r e d , and f i n d i n g s of f a c t and
( 1 ) For details o f the cost analysis and workload calculations, see Appendix I
concIusions of law are developed. These hearing o f f i c e r s have
s u b s t a n t i a l influence as they prepare what generally serves as the basis
for the f i n a l order or a c t i o n o f t h e i r agency.
However, most BPP hearing o f f i c e r s do not conduct the special hearings
t y p i c a l l y associated w i t h hearing o f f i c e r s . On average, only about 10
percent o f the cases heard monthly by board hearing o f f i c e r s are special
hearings. Instead, t h e i r work more t y p i c a l l y consists of the f o l l o w i n g :
E x t r a c t i n g and compiling information on inmates from the DOC f i l e s .
T y p i c a l l y , such information includes c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y , n a t u r e o f
present offense, education and work h i s t o r y , programming during
incarceration, and so f o r t h . Hearing o f f i c e r s note s i g n i f i c a n t
p o i n t s as they review the f i l e s .
I n t e r v i e w i n g inmates a t the i n s t i t u t i o n s . Interviews w i t h the
inmates are generally very informal: usually no counsel or witnesses
are present; evidence i s not normally introduced; and the interview
i s not recorded.
D i c t a t i n g reports t o i n c l u d e i n f o r m a t i o n obtained in the p r e l i m i n a r
review. The hearing o f f i c e r r e p o r t s g e n e r a l l y summarize i n f o r m a t i a t
extracted from other sources and r a r e l y include a d d i t i o n a l
information gathered during the inmate i n t e r v i e w . Included i n the
report i s the hearing o f f i c e r ' s recommendation, which board members
may or may not consider when making t h e i r d e c i s i o n .
In a d d i t i o n , although hearing o f f i c e r s i n other agencies are generally
lawyers, only one of the BPP hearing o f f i c e r s i s a lawyer. Most are
former Department of Corrections employees or have backgrounds i n areas
such as c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e , social services, and education.
Questionable Need
for Hearing Officers
We question the usefulness of hearing o f f i c e r a c t i v i t i e s since most
information needed by board members i n making parole decisions i s r e a d i l y
a v a i l a b l e to the board. Hearing o f f i c e r interviews and recommendations
add l i t t l e to t h i s information. Board members also express concerns
about the accuracy and r e l i a b i l i t y of the hearing o f f i c e r reports.
Board members r e l y on v a r i o u s i n f o r m a t i o n sources - Board members use a
wide range of information sources i n making release decisions. Although
hearing o f f i c e r r e p o r t s p r o v i d e some of t h i s informat ion, much of t h i s
same information i s r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e t o the board from other sources.
For the most p a r t , members base t h e i r decisions on two sources: the
parole hearing and the inmate's presentencing i n v e s t i g a t i o n ( PSI)
report . ( I )
Most board members rated the inmate's parole hearing w i t h the board as an
important source of information i n making t h e i r decisions. They feel
that the o p p o r t u n i t y t o see the inmate provides a d d i t i o n a l information
about the inmate ( such as a t t i t u d e , demeanor, and the e x t e n t t o which the
inmate has accepted r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for h i s or her o f f e n s e ) t h a t enables
them to evaluate the information a v a i l a b l e from f i l e documents.
Members also describe the PSI as a u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n source for board
decisions. County probation departments prepare the PSI for the c o u r t ' s
use i n determining sentences. PSIS provide a broad range of personal and
criminal h i s t o r y information about an inmate, and may include a
d e s c r i p t i o n of the crime, statements to the c o u r t , a r r e s t record, social
h i s t o r y , family h i s t o r y , h e a l t h , m i l i t a r y service, r e s t i t u t i o n statement,
and v i c t i m ' s statement. Thus, the PSI provides much p e r t i n e n t
information about the inmate and the offense.
Although hearing o f f i c e r s summarize information from the PSI and other
sources, they do not appear to provide the board w i t h unique
information. Likewise, other sources reviewed by hearing o f f i c e r s appear
to be e a s i l y understandable by board members. Along w i t h the PSI and the
hearing o f f i c e r summary, the f o l l o w i n g source documents are provided to
the board at each hearing:
Adult Information Management System reports - Prepared by DOC.
Include sentencing information, DOC f a c i l i t i e s and levels of custodv
housing the inmate, and the inmate's d i s c i p l i n a r y record.
Inmate progress reports - Prepared by DOC counselors to assess the
( 1 ) We asked board members t o i n d i c a t e the importance of the various sources of
information a v a i l a b l e to them a t selected parole hearings during November 1989. On
average, three board members r a t e d t h e board hearing as the most important source,
while the o t h e r t h r e e i n d i c a t e d t h a t the P S I was the most important.
inmate's r i s k to s o c i e t y , describe p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n prison programs
and release plans, and give the counselor's comments.
* Sentencing/ time computation r e p o r t s - DOC r e p o r t s t h a t l i s t general
sentencing and parole e l i g i b i l i t y dates.
An i n s t i t u t i o n a l f i l e - Each i n s t i t u t i o n maintains f i l e s for i t s
inmates. These f i l e s may contain copies of the inmate's d i s c i o l i n a r v
records work, and housing assignments; cert i f i cates of achiebement:
and a record of schooling and programming.
A risk assessment report - Prepared by board s t a f f to measure an
inmate's r i s k of violence and r e c i d i v i s m . C u r r e n t l y , the board only
uses r i s k assessments for inmates e l i g i b l e for home a r r e s t and early
release.
Other information - Includes l e t t e r s from v i c t i m s , and testimony from
the inmate's family and f r i e n d s . Such information provides
a d d i t i o n a l perspective about the inmate.
Although hearing o f f i c e r s may develop some o r i g i n a l information through
interviews w i t h inmates, the hearing o f f i c e r s do not normally summarize
the new information i n t h e i r reports to the board. Further, board
members often cover the same information w i t h the inmates at board
hearings.
Thus, the board appears able t o o b t a i n needed information without using
hearing o f f i c e r r e p o r t s . In f a c t , f i v e of the seven members indicated
that they could make release decisions without hearing o f f i c e r reports,
i f other information continues to be a v a i l a b l e . However, most p r e f e r t o
have a report a v a i l a b l e . Due to the workload, the board has already
reduced i t s use of hearing o f f i c e r s for some cases; i t no longer uses
hearing o f f i c e r s to provide information for home a r r e s t and e a r l y release
deci s i o n s . ( l ) Instead, board members use the avai lab le records and the
hearing with the inmate for these cases.
Board members question value o f recornendations - Throughout the a u d i t ,
board members also questioned the value of hearing o f f i c e r
recommendations to t h e i r release d e c i s i o n s . S t a t u t e s require that
hearing o f f i c e r s prepare recommendations for a l l cases i n which they
( 1 ) Due t o a large caseload, the hearing o f f i c e r s have not been hand1 i n g cases of inmates
c e r t i f i e d f o r home a r r e s t and e a r l y parole release since August 1989. According t o
board s t a f f , t h i s i s only a temporary measure.
conduct a hearing. Although hearing o f f i c e r s spend time preparing
recommendations, only two board members t h i n k the recommendations are
r e l a t i v e l y important. Four board members t o l d auditors that they seldom
or never refer to hearing o f f i c e r recommendations before making t h e i r
decisions. One board member said that he looks at the recommendations
only a f t e r making h i s decision. I n a d d i t i o n , when comparing hearing
o f f i c e r recommendations to board votes, we found t h a t , o v e r a l l , the
board's October 1989 votes d i f f e r e d from hearing o f f i c e r recommendations
32 percent of the time.
Concerns about q u a l i t y - Board members also express concerns about the
q u a l i t y of the hearing o f f i c e r s ' r e p o r t s . Few members f e e l t h a t the
reports are the most r e l i a b l e sources for information. Only one board
member considered hearing o f f i c e r reports t o be the most r e l i a b l e source
for criminal h i s t o r y information, while three members considered them to
be the least r e l i a b l e source. Even a member who generally considered
hearing o f f i c e r reports to be accurate and r e l i a b l e noted several
improvements that could be made to the r e p o r t s . Five board members noted
that the reports sometimes contain inaccurate information. Further,
board members have also questioned the completeness of the r e p o r t s . For
example, three board members pointed out that i n some cases, new
information that should have been i d e n t i f i e d by the hearing o f f i c e r was
provided by the inmate at the personal hearing.
Hearing Officer and Other Positions
Can Be Eliminated
The board can make more e f f e c t i v e use of i t s s t a f f resources and achieve
s i g n i f i c a n t savings by r e s t r u c t u r i n g i t s information- gathering process
for parole decisions. Restructuring would eliminate most of the e x i s t i n g
hearing o f f i c e r p o s i t i o n s , reduce some r e l a t e d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and support
p o s i t i o n s , and a1 low the use of more a p p r o p r i a t e l y graded s t a f f for
c o l l e c t i n g information. Successful r e s t r u c t u r i n g would a l s o r e q u i r e the
board to provide clear d i r e c t i o n to the s t a f f .
Restructured process and s t a f f i n g - We b e l i e v e that the board does not
need hearing o f f i c e r s for much of i t s information gathering. E l i m i n a t i n g
the unnecessary hearing o f f i c e r p o s i t i o n s and r e l a t e d s t a f f would enable
the board to o b t a i n necessary i n f o r m a t i o n at a lower c o s t . The board
could e f f e c t i v e l y r e s t r u c t u r e the process i n t h i s manner, and replace
eleven hearing o f f i c e r p o s i t i o n s and s i x i n f o r m a t i o n processing
p o s i t i o n s . Depending on the format of the i n f o r m a t i o n provided t o the
board, these p o s i t i o n s would be replaced w i t h a c l e r k t y p i s t and e i t h e r
four or nine case analysts for a n e t annual savings of approximately
$ 1 86,000 to $ 356,000.
As noted above, four board members agree that hearing o f f i c e r i n t e r v i e w s
and recommendations are seldom b e n e f i c i a l . However, s i x board members
also express reservations about hearing the inmates w i thout some summary
r e p o r t , but lack consensus on what should be included i n them. Board
members agree that case analysts could provide the same type of report to
the board that i s presently provided by hearing o f f i c e r s .
Based on our analysis and board member comments, we have developed two
options for implementing a r e s t r u c t u r e d system. We o f f e r the cost
savings for b o t h o p t i o n s ( see pages 29 through 30). The f i r s t option
uses case a n a l y s t s t o gather and compile i n f o r m a t i o n , but the analyst
w i l I not i n t e r v i e w inmates, make recommendat ions, or prepare r e p o r t s for
the board. The second o p t i o n i s based on case analysts c o l l e c t i n g
i n f o r m a t i o n and preparing summaries as hearing o f f i c e r s do now, but
without i n t e r v i e w i n g inmates or o f f e r i n g recommendations to the b o a r d . ( ' )
( 1 ) See Appendix I f o r c a l c u l a t i o n s o f s t a f f i n g costs f o r each option.
OPTION A
Replace Eleven Hearing Officers with
Four Case Analysts
There are c u r r e n t l y 15 hearing o f f i c e r p o s i t i o n s at the board, of which
12 are f i l l e d . ( ' ) Most are employed a t a Grade 20, which has a salary
range of $ 26,887 to $ 40,690. The t o t a l cost for hearing o f f i c e r s
including employee- related expenses ( ERE) and t r a v e l expenses for inmate
interviews i s more than $ 530,000.
We estimate that the board needs to maintain one hearing o f f i c e r t o
conduct special hearings and three hearing o f f i c e r s to conduct work
furlough hearings. As i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 2 ( see page 28), by using
hearing o f f i c e r s t o manage only those cases t h a t r e q u i r e s u b s t a n t i a l
judgment or involve formal legal procedures, the board could save over
$ 376,000 annua l l y .
E l i m i n a t i n g eleven hearing o f f i c e r p o s i t i o n s would a l s o a l l o w the board
to reduce some other s t a f f p o s i t i o n s . Six Information Processing
S p e c i a l i s t s ( IPSs) are devoted mainly to typing hearing o f f i c e r r e p o r t s .
One IPS I I mainly tracks d i c t a t i o n tapes used by the hearing o f f i c e r s ,
while another IPS I assists i n special hearing preparation. We estimate
that s i x o f these eight p o s i t i o n s could be eliminated i f the number of
hearing o f f i c e r s were reduced. The board could save an a d d i t i o n a l
$ 98,000 annually by e l i m i n a t i n g these p o s i t i o n s .
However, the board w i l l need to create several p o s i t i o n s to secure needed
information that i s now provided by the hearing o f f i c e r s . These persons
would need to ensure that the board receives accurate and appropriate
information p r i o r to board review or board hearings. This would l a r g e l y
encompass photocopying and c o l l a t i n g information from DOC c e n t r a l f i l e s .
( 1) One o f t h e c u r r e n t hearing o f f i c e r s i s on leave without pay
2 7
Statutes already a l l o w the board to employ " case a n a l y s t s " to " a i d the
board i n making i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , s e c u r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n and i n performing
necessary admini s t r a t ive functions to a s s i s t the board i n passing upon
a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r parole and commutation." Thus, without amending present
s t a t u t e s , the board could h i r e case analysts to assemble and v e r i f y
information, but they would not provide summary r e p o r t s , i n t e r v i e w
inmates, or o f f e r recommendations. We estimate that the board would need
four Grade 17 case analysts and another Grade 8 c l e r k t y p i s t I at an
annual cost of approximately $ 118,000.
As i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 2, the board could save over $ 356,000 annually by
implementing the above recommended changes. Such changes would reduce
costs but would s t i l l ensure t h a t the board r e c e i v e s necessary
information f o r d e c i s i o n making.
TABLE 2
ESTIMATED ANNUAL SAVINGS BY
IMPLEMENTING OPTION A
P o s i t i o n s t o E l i m i n a t e Sav i ngs
11 Hearing O f f i c e r s $ 376,834
6 I n f o r m a t i o n Processing S p e c i a l i s t s 98,563
Total savings
P o s i t i o n s t o Add Costs
4 Case Analysts
1 C l e r k T y p i s t I
Total costs
NET SAVINGS
Source: Auditor General analysis and estimates based on f i g u r e s obtained
from the Department of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Unit and
the board's f i s c a l services s p e c i a l i s t
OPTION B
Replace Eleven Hearing Officers with
Nine Case Analysts
A l l board members express r e s e r v a t i o n s about e l i m i n a t i n g summary
r e p o r t s . As noted above, they agree t h a t case analysts could compile
summary r e p o r t s . However, they s t a t e t h a t more than four case analysts
would be needed t o prepare these reports every month. Although we
question the degree to which board members r e l y on the r e p o r t s , we agree
that more than four case analysts would be needed to prepare r e p o r t s f o r
every case. We b e l i e v e that the board could s t i l l save over $ 186,000 i f
case analysts prepared r e p o r t s f o r the board.
Option 0 , l i k e Option A, e l i m i n a t e s eleven hearing o f f i c e r and s i x
information processing s p e c i a l i s t p o s i t i o n s . I t d i f f e r s from Option A i n
that i t provides more case analysts to prepare summary r e p o r t s f o r the
board. I n order t o produce r e p o r t s f o r each case, we estimate that the
board would need to e s t a b l i s h nine case analyst p o s i t i o n s and one c l e r k
t y p i s t I p o s i t i o n at an estimated annual cost of about $ 246,000 ( see
Table 3, page 30). The board c o u l d a v o i d the need f o r information
processing s p e c i a l i s t s to produce summary reports by o b t a i n i n g computers
f o r the a n a l y s t s , who could prepare reports for parole hearings d i r e c t l y
from source documents. The i n i t i a l cost f o r implementing such a system
would be less than t h e c o s t of maintaining the IPSs, and would decrease
a f t e r the f i r s t year. We estimate that nine case analysts could be
supplied w i t h and t r a i n e d i n the use of new computers for about $ 41,200.
TABLE 3
ESTIMATED SAVINGS BY
IMPLEMENTING OPTION 6
P o s i t i o n s t o Eliminate
11 Hearing O f f i c e r s
6 Information Processing S p e c i a l i s t s
Total savings
Positions t o Add
9 Case Analysts
1 Clerk Typist I
Computer Equ i pmen t and T ra i n i ng( a)
Total costs
FIRST YEAR
Sav i ngs
Costs
( a) Cost during f i r s t year o n l y .
( b) Computer equipment and t r a i n i n g costs would be minimal a f t e r the f i r s t year.
Therefore, estimated savings would amount to approximately $ 228,150 i n the second and
subsequent years.
Source : Auditor General analysis and estimates based on figures
obtained from the Department of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n C l a s s i f i c a t i o n
Unit and the board's f i s c a l services s p e c i a l i s t
Board should provide c l e a r d i r e c t i o n t o s t a f f - Regardless of the opt ion
chosen f o r r e s t r u c t u r i n g the b o a r d ' s i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r i n g process, the
board w i l l need to provide c l e a r d i r e c t i o n to i t s s t a f f . C u r r e n t l y ,
board members are d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h the hearing o f f i c e r reports, yet they
feel t h a t some form of summary report i s necessary. However, they admi t
that they have not t r a n s l a t e d t h i s perceived need i n t o d i r e c t i o n for the
s t a f f who must col l e c t and organize the information. Such d i r e c t i o n may
be lacking p r i m a r i l y because the board i t s e l f cannot reach a consensus
about the k i n d o f i n f o r m a t i o n needed for i t s decision making. To ensure
that the r e s t r u c t u r e d process meets the board's needs, the board should
d e f i n e the kinds of i n f o r m a t i o n i t wants and the appropriate format for
p r o v i d i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n . This d i r e c t i o n should be incorporated i n t o
the board's p o l i c i e s and procedures.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . The Board of Pardons and Paroles should r e s t r u c t u r e i t s process for
g a t h e r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n f o r parole hearings by e l i m i n a t i n g eleven
hearing o f f i c e r p o s i t i o n s and s i x IPS I p o s i t i o n s , and replacing them
w i t h a c l e r k t y p i s t I and e i t h e r
Four case analysts to assemble documents for board use at
hearings, or
Nine case analysts to assemble documents and produce summary
reports for board use at hearings.
2 . I f the board chooses the second o p t i o n , i t should
Provide c l e a r j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the a d d i t i o n a l case analyst
p o s i t i o n s based on the need for summary information, and
Provide the case analysts with computers for note taking and
report d r a f t i n g .
3. The board should determine what information i s required to make
e f f e c t i v e decisions, and e s t a b l i s h clear p o l i c i e s and procedures to
provide d i r e c t i o n t o s t a f f regarding information c o l l e c t i o n and
a n a l y s i s .
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
During the a u d i t , other p e r t i n e n t information was developed on
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e releases which provide an incentive for p r i s o n e r s t o
refuse p a r o l e . I n f o r m a t i o n was also developed on the board's use of
a l t e r n a t i v e release programs.
Administrative Releases Provide
Incentive to Refuse Parole
The a v a i l a b i l i t y of several d i f f e r e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e releases makes i t
advantageous i n many instances for p r i s o n e r s t o refuse parole. The
Department of Corrections has a u t h o r i t y to release prisoners through a
v a r i e t y of mechanisms that are not part of the parole process. In some
cases, the timing and the post- release supervision requirements of the
a l t e r n a t i v e releases are more advantageous to the inmate than parole
release. These advantages c o n t r i b u t e to the large number of prisoners
that refuse to appear ( RTA) before the board for parole consideration.
Two- thirds of a l l the prisoners released p r i o r to the e x p i r a t i o n of t h e i r
sentence are released by DOC through an admi ni s t rat ive re lease. These
releases, many of which can be combined, include:
Mandatory Release ( MR) app l i es to those of fenders se rv i ng t i me for an
offense committed p r i o r to August 7, 1985. E l i g i b l e offenders may be
released on MR s i x months p r i o r to sentence e x p i r a t i o n i f : a) there
are no previous release v i o l a t i o n s ; b) one calendar year has been
served; c) inmate's sentence allows for the p o s s i b i l i t y of early
release; d) the offense i s not under a s t a t u t o r y exception; and e) a
consecutive sentence does not f o l l o w the current sentence.(')
Prisoners are placed under the supervision o f a p a r o l e o f f i c e r and
are required to meet c e r t a i n conditions a f t e r release such as
maintaining employment, regular contact w i t h the parole o f f i c e r , and
p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a treatment program i f indicated. F a i l u r e t o comply
w i t h the conditions may r e s u l t i n a r e t u r n t o custody. The offender
usually remains under the supervision of a parole o f f i c e r for six
months.
( 1 ) Statutory exceptions include sentences f o r c e r t a i n drug or sexual offenses.
a Provisional Release ( PR) app l i es to those offenders serv i ng t ime for an
offense committed on or a f t e r August 7, 1985. E s s e n t i a l l y , the same
e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a must be met as are required fo; Mandatory
Re lease, but re lease i s also dependent upon the approval of the
d i r e c t o r of DOC. E l i g i b l e offenders may be released on PR s i x months
p r i o r to the sentence e x p i r a t i o n date or earned release c r e d i t date.
Offenders are placed under the supervision of a parole o f f i c e r and
must meet the same conditions as persons on mandatory release or
parole. Supervision l a s t s approximately s i x months, or u n t i l the
offender reaches h i s or her earned release c r e d i t date.
Earned Release c r e d i t s are accrued by those offenders serving time
for an offense committed on or a f t e r August 13, 1986, unless they are
serving " f l a t time." A f t e r reaching parole e l i g i b i I i t y , c r e d i t s are
earned for good behavior and are accrued at a r a t e depending upon the
sentence s t r u c t u r e . I f a prisoner has not been released on parole or
p r o v i s i o n a l release, he or she i s automatically released on the
Earned Release Credit Date ( ERCD). This i s an unsupervised release,
a Discretionary Release prov i s i ons vary depend i ng upon whet her an
offender was sentenced for a crime committed p r i o r to October 1,
1978. Those sentenced for crimes committed p r i o r t o the October date
may be granted a d i s c r e t i o n a r y release 360 calendar days p r i o r to the
mandatory release date. Those sentenced for crimes committed on or
a f t e r October 1, 1978, who are not e l i g i b l e f o r MR or PR, may be
released 180 days e a r l y . Prisoners released under the d i s c r e t i o n a r y
release provision are placed under the supervision of a parole
o f f i c e r and must meet the same types of condi t ions as persons on MR
or PR.
a Temporary Release ( TR) may be granted to those offenders who have
been approved for another form of release or are w i t h i n 90 days of
the e x p i r a t i o n of sentence. I f MR, PR, ERCD or parole has- been
approved, the d i r e c t o r of DOC may release the offender on TR status
up to 90 days p r i o r to the e l i g i b i l i t y date of the granted release.
During the time a prisoner i s on TR, he or she i s supervised by a
parole o f f i c e r and must comply w i t h the same conditions as i n MR, PR,
and parole.
Parole i s not a v i a b l e option i n some cases - Given the current
e l i g i b i l i t y s t r u c t u r e , parole i s not a v i a b l e o p t i o n f o r persons
sentenced to r e l a t i v e l y short sentences. The following example
i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s p o i n t .
Example - A person was sentenced to two years, and the sentence began
on January 5, 1989. His sentence required that he serve one- half of
h i s term p r i o r to parole e l i g i b i l i t y which made him e l i g i b l e for
parole release on January 5 , 1990, e l i g i b l e for provisional release
on February 11, 1990, and e l i g i b l e for earned c r e d i t release on
August 10,
on temporar
h i s release
e l i g i b i l i t y
1990. I f he were granted p r o v i s i o n a l release and released
y release status 60 days p r i o r to t h a t e l i g i b i l i t y date,
date would be approximately one month p r i o r to h i s parole
date.
As shown i n the example, an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e release may occur j u s t a f t e r ,
or even j u s t before, parole e l i g i b i l i t y . Even when a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
release occurs a f t e r parole, some prisoners choose the DOC release
because i t may require less supervision. When a person i s released on
parole, he or she i s supervised by a parole o f f i c e r u n t i l the e x p i r a t i o n
of the sentence, or u n t i l an absolute discharge from supervision i s
granted by the parole board. The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e releases o f t e n require
less, or no supervision. To i l l u s t r a t e , i f the person i n the above
example was paroled, he would be supervised u n t i l January 5 , 1991. Under
the DOC releases, supervision would end on August 10, 1990. I n f a c t , i n
some cases where a nonsupervised release i s imminent, the board may
choose to p a r o l e a p r i s o n e r because of a b e l i e f t h a t he or she would
b e n e f i t from some supervision.
Some prisoners may also favor a DOC release because i t does not require
them to pay a s u p e r v i s i o n fee. When a prisoner i s released on parole,
the law r e q u i r e s t h a t a monthly fee of n o t l e s s than $ 30 be assessed,
unless the board waives a l l or part of the fee due to i n a b i l i t y to pay.
This f a c t , when combined w i t h the timing and supervision of the
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e releases, may make the DOC releases seem more advantageous
than parole.
Many inmates choose a release other than parole - Approximately 25
percent of a l l prisoners c e r t i f i e d as e l i g i b l e for parole, refuse to
appear ( RTA) f o r p a r o l e consideration. Most refuse to appear because of
the avai labi l i ty o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e releases.
During our a u d i t , we reviewed RTAs for the period August through October
1989, and found that 69 percent of a l l RTAs d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d were due
to other DOC releases. A d d i t i o n a l l y , we interviewed 32 prisoners i n 3
d i f f e r e n t u n i t s that had r e c e n t l y waived t h e i r parole hearing. I n 10 of
the 32 cases reviewed, the of fender had seen the board on one occasion
and had been denied par0 l e . However, the date of the second hearing was
so close t o an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e DOC release, they chose t o waive a second
p a r o l e h e a r i n g i n favor of the other upcoming DOC release. In 4 of the
32 cases, the offenders waived t h e i r f i r s t appearance before the board
due to an imminent DOC release.
BPP's Use of Alternative
Release Programs Is Increasing
Regular parole accounts f o r approximately 55 percent of the Board of
Pardons and Paroles' caseload. I n a d d i t i o n to regular p a r o l e , there are
three other a l t e r n a t i v e means of release over which the board has
a u t h o r i t y : e a r l y release due to overcrowding, home a r r e s t , and work
f u r l o u g h . During our a u d i t , we reviewed the board's use of these
a l t e r n a t i v e forms of release and found that the approval r a t e has shown a
steady increase from July through November 1989 f o r home a r r e s t and e a r l y
release, and has remained f a i r l y s t a b l e f o r work furlough releases. We
also found that due to e r r o r s , changes i n prisoner s t a t u s , and prisoner
waivers, more prisoners are c e r t i f i e d as e l i g i b l e f o r these programs than
the board ever a c t u a l l y considers.
E a r l y release - A . R . S $ 31- 233( 1) provides for suspension of normal parole
e l i g i b i l i t y procedures for c e r t a i n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of prisoners when the
prisoner population exceeds 98 percent o f c a p a c i t y . This i s considered a
form of general p a r o l e . In a d d i t i o n to the p r i s o n population
requirement, i n order to be e l i g i b l e for t h i s type of parole release, the
prisoner must:
Be serving time f o r a Class 4, 5, or 6 felony that d i d not involve
the use of a weapon or the i n f l i c t i o n of serious i n j u r y ;
Have no consecutive sentences ; and
Have no p r i o r felony c o n v i c t i o n s .
Since e a r l y release i s t e c h n i c a l l y a form of regular p a r o l e , the same
level of supervision i s provided, and the prisoner must agree to comply
w i t h c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s i n order to remain at l i b e r t y . These c o n d i t i o n s
include such things as r e g u l a r c o n t a c t w i t h the parole o f f i c e r ,
maintaining employment, and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n treatment programs i f
i n d i c a t e d . As i s the case w i t h a l l parole releases, the board i s
requi red by s t a t u t e to assess a s u p e r v i s i o n fee of no less than $ 30 per
month unless they f i n d the prisoner i s unable to pay. I f t h i s occurs,
the board may waive a l l or p a r t o f the fee. The payment of the
supervision fee and any r e s t i t u t i o n ordered by the court are included as
c o n d i t i o n s t o parole. F a i l u r e to comply w i t h the c o n d i t i o n s o f parole
can r e s u l t i n r e i n c a r c e r a t i o n .
As shown i n Table 4, ( see page 39) the BPP has approved 122 offenders for
e a r l y release during the period of J u l y through November 1989. Due to
the f a c t that some of these persons were c e r t i f i e d as e l i g i b l e f o r only
e a r l y release and some were c e r t i f i e d e l i g i b l e for both e a r l y release and
home a r r e s t , i t i s not possible to c a l c u l a t e an approval rate f o r just
the e a r l y release category. However, the approval r a t e f o r e a r l y release
and home a r r e s t was 52 percent f o r the period reviewed.
Home arrest - A. R. S 331- 236 established the home a r r e s t program and
provides for a c o n d i t i o n a l , d i s c r e t i o n a r y release granted to e l i g i b l e
p r i s o n e r s . I n order to be e l i g i b l e f o r the home a r r e s t program, a
prisoner must:
Be serving time for a Class 4 , 5 , or 6 f e l o n y which was n o t a sexual
offense and which d i d not i n v o l v e s e r i o u s p h y s i c a l i n j u r y or a
weapon, and not have any p r i o r felony c o n v i c t i o n s ; - or
Have served at least one year and be c e r t i f i e d as e l i g i b l e under
A . R . S . $ 31- 233( 1).
Home a r r e s t may also be used f o r parolees who commit technical
v i o l a t i o n s . A technical v i o l a t i o n i s the v i o l a t i o n of a c o n d i t i o n of
parole by an act that i s not against the law ( i . e . , f a i lure to appear for
an appointment w i t h the parole o f f i c e r ) . Persons w i t h technical
v i o l a t i o n s can be returned to confinement. The home a r r e s t program
allows some offenders to remain i n the community, but under closer
supervision.
The home a r r e s t program has been i n e f f e c t approximately one year. I t
was o r i g i n a l l y designed to accommodate approximately 225 p a r t i c i p a n t s and
i s r e s t r i c t e d to metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson. P a r t i c i p a n t s in the
home a r r e s t program are under constant survei I lance by means of an
e l e c t r o n i c monitoring device i n a d d i t i o n to frequent contacts w i t h a
parole o f f i c e r . The p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e r e q u i r e d to remain a t home except
for approved a c t i v i t i e s such as work or p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a treatment
program. Home a r r e s t p a r t i c i p a n t s are assessed a fee of $ 3.35 per day
for the e l e c t r o n i c monitoring device i n a d d i t i o n to the monthly
supervision fee of $ 30. These two fees t o t a l approximately $ 130 monthly:
however, the board may waive a l l or p a r t o f t h i s fee i f the prisoner i s
unable to pay.
Table 4 ( see page 39) shows that the BPP approved 136 candidates for t h i s
program during the period of July through November 1989. During that
time, concern was expressed regarding t h e stow implementation of the
program, and the board was c r i t i c i z e d for not approving more of the
candidates. Board members acknowledged t h a t there had been communication
problems between BPP and DOC, but these problems have since been
r e c t i f i e d . I n a recent report to the L e g i s l a t u r e , Dr. Dennis Palumbo
stated that the home a r r e s t program has not been c o s t - e f f e c t i v e thus far
because i t has not been f u l l y implemented. According to Dr. Palumbo,
however, when f u l l y implemented, the program could save the State
approximately $ 30 per day for each p a r t i c i p a n t . Regarding the board's
use of the home a r r e s t program, Dr. Palumbo found that the board approved
48 percent of those p r i s o n e r s t h a t were e l i g i b l e and s u i t a b l e .
TABLE 4
APPROVALS OF EARLY RELEASE AND HOME ARREST
CANDIDATES JULY THROUGH NOVEMBER 1989
E a r l y Home
Re l ease A r r e s t T o t a l
Heard Approved Approved Approved( a) Rate
July 73 16 16 32 43.8%
August 5 4 8 2 1 29 53.7%
September 21 3 5 0 68 118 55.4%
October 104 3 7 23 6 0 57.7%
November 5 1 11 3 2 ( b ) 37.3%
TOTAL a 122 23 52.1 %
( a) The s t a t i s t i c s f o r e a r l y release and home a r r e s t include many candidates who are c e r t i f i e d
as e l i g i b l e f o r both categories. Therefore, the number approved shown here are f o r the
combination of e a r l y re1 ease and home a r r e s t .
( b) Due to the f a c t t h a t DOC missed the deadline f o r submitting new c e r t i f i c a t i o n s , the only
candidates considered f o r e a r l y release and home a r r e s t i n November were those t h a t had
been considered previous1 y and denied.
Source: The data f o r J u l y , August, and September were taken from the
board's monthly r e p o r t s , and the data for October and November were
compiled by Auditor General s t a f f from board agendas
Work furlough - A. R. S 531- 233( C) provides for release on work furlough
for prisoners who meet s t a t u t o r y requirements and s p e c i f i c e l i g i b i l i t y
c r i t e r i a . In order t o s a t i s f y the s t a t u t o r y requirements, the prisoner
must be w i t h i n 14 months of h i s or her parole e l i g i b i l i t y date and have
served a minimum of 6 months. I n a d d i t i o n to the s t a t u t o r y requirements,
the board requires t h a t the prisoner be i n a minimum or lesser custody
s t a t u s ; have no major d i s c i p l i n a r y v i o l a t i o n s w i t h i n the previous s i x
months; and be free of detainers and warrants. Table 5 ( see page 40)
shows that during the period of July through November 1989, the BPP
approved 141 of the 379 work furlough candidates considered, an approval
rate of 37.2 percent. However, i t should be noted that those c e r t i f i e d
by DOC as e l i g i b l e for work furlough were only screened for the s t a t u t o r y
requirements and not the board's requirements. This fact could explain
the lower approval rate for t h i s category of release since some of those
seen by the board would be denied due to the fact that they did not meet
the board's basic requirements.
TABLE 5
APPROVALS OF WORK FURLOUGH CANDIDATES
JULY THROUGH NOVEMBER 1989
Heard Approved Rate
July 2 5
August 97
Sep tembe r 86
October 9 0
November .- 8 1
TOTAL 379 141 37.2%
Source: The data for J u l y , August, and September were taken from the
board's monthly reports, and the data for October and November were
compiled by Auditor General s t a f f from board agendas
Numbers c e r t i f i e d vs. numbers heard and approved - In assessing the
board's use of a l t e r n a t i v e releases, i t i s necessary to determine the
number of persons a c t u a l l y considered by the board. The number of
persons that are c e r t i f i e d by DOC as e l i g i b l e for release i s much larger
than the number that are eventually heard by the board. This i s true for
a l l release categories. Some persons are found to be i n e l i g i b l e a f t e r
c e r t i f i c a t i o n , and some waive t h e i r hearing.
Ineligibles - Approximately 13 percent of a l l prisoners c e r t i f i e d by
DOC are found to be i n e l i g i b l e for consideration by the board.
l n e l i g i b i l i t i e s may be the r e s u l t o f an e r r o r in c e r t i f i c a t i o n or an
occurrence since the c e r t i f i c a t i o n such as a d i s c i p l i n a r y v i o l a t i o n .
DOC n o t i f i e s the board of the i n e l i g i b i l i t i e s , and the names are
removed from the board's agenda for that month. Without n o t i f i c a t i o n
from DOC, the board i s required by s t a t u t e to consider a l l those
c e r t i f i e d as e l i g i b l e by DOC.
Waivers - Approximately 25 percent of a l l prisoners c e r t i f i e d by DOC
waive consideration. Those who waive t h e i r hearing are removed from
the board's agenda f o r t h a t month.
Table 6 ( see page 42) provides an example of how these factors impact the
caseload. This example pertains to home a r r e s t cases for the month of
October 1989, but the impact can be found i n a l l categories i n any given
month. I t should be noted that 48 percent of those c e r t i f i e d were not
seen by the board. I f the board's approval rate were based on the t o t a l
c e r t i f i e d , the rate would be only 19.2 percent. However, i f the approval
rate were based on the actual number considered, a f t e r subtracting those
i n e l i g i b l e s , waivers, and approvals for other categories, the rate would
be approximately 49 percent.
TABLE 6
OUTCOME OF HOME ARREST CERTIFICATIONS
OCTOBER 1989
Total certified for home arrest
Number Percent
120 100 . O%
Less: Waived c o n s i d e r a t i o n for home a r r e s t ( 31 ) ( 25 . a%)
i n e l i g i b l e f o r home a r r e s t ( 27) ( 22.5%)
Denied home a r r e s t or passed t o next month ( 24) ( 20 . O%)
Approved on another type o f c e r t i f i c a t i o n c a ) ( 15) ( 12.5%)
TOTAL APPROVED FOR HOME ARREST 23 19.2%
( a) Some o f those c e r t i f i e d as e l i g i b l e f o r home a r r e s t were a l s o e l i g i b l e f o r e a r l y
release ( 233[ 1]) o r general p a r o l e ( 412a).
Source: S t a t i s t i c s compiled from board agendas by Auditor General s t a f f
SUNSET FACTORS
I n accordance w i t h A . R . S . 541- 2354, the L e g i s l a t u r e should consider the
f o l l o w i n g 12 f a c t o r s i n determining whether the Board of Pardons and
Paroles should be continued or terminated.
Objective and purpose in establishing the board
The Board of Pardons and Paroles was established as an independent
agency to have " e x c l u s i v e power to pass upon and recommend reprieves,
commutations, paroles and pardons." As such, the board has sole
d i s c r e t i o n to approve a p r i s o n e r f o r parole p r i o r to completion of
h i s or her sentence only i f " i t appears . . . t h a t there i s a s u b s t a n t i a l
probabi l i ty t h a t the a p p l i c a n t w i l l remain at l i b e r t y without
v i o l a t i n g the law." I f approved f o r release, the a p p l i c a n t i s then
paroled to the legal custody of the Department of Corrections which
i s responsible f o r parole supervision. A prisoner released on parole
by the board remains on parole s t a t u s u n t i l e x p i r a t i o n of the term
s p e c i f i e d i n the sentence or u n t i l h i s or her absolute discharge by
the Board of Pardons and Paroles.
2. The effectiveness with which the board has met its objective and purpose and
the efficiency with which it has operated
The board has generally met i t s o b j e c t i v e and purpose by reviewing
p r i s o n e r s ' e l i g i b i l i t y for parole and approving those who meet i t s
c r i t e r i a for release. During FY 1988- 89, the board held release
hearings for 6,403 prisoners and approved 2,295 releases. However,
there i s no a v a i l a b l e data to determine i f the board's decisions have
been e f f e c t i v e . C u r r e n t l y , n e i t h e r the board nor DOC maintains
s t a t i s t i c s on r e c i d i v i s m .
The board's e f f i c i e n c y i n meeting i t s o b j e c t i v e and purpose i s
hampered by an increasing caseload and severe time c o n s t r a i n t s
r e s u l t i n g from the high numbers of cases that have to be processed
each month ( see Finding I I , page 13). I n a d d i t i o n , the e f f i c i e n c y of
board operations can be f u r t h e r improved by r e s t r u c t u r i n g i t s
information- gathering process. Changes i n the current process can
save the board between $ 1 87,000 and $ 356,000 annual l y . ( See Finding
I I I , page 21 - 31.)
3. The extent to which the board has operated in the public interest
When considering any inmate for release, the board attempts to take
a l l f a c t o r s i n t o account i n determining i f there i s a s u b s t a n t i a l
p r o b a b i l i t y that the inmate w i l l remain at l i b e r t y without v i o l a t i n g
the law. However, the board could p r o v i d e g r e a t e r a c c o u n t a b i l i t y and
consistency i n t h e i r p a r o l e d e c i s i o n s by e s t a b l i s h i n g and
implementing a s t r u c t u r e d decision- making process ( see Finding I ,
pages 7 - 12).
4. The extent to which rules and regulations promulgated by the board are
consistent with the legislative mandate
The b o a r d ' s c u r r e n t r u l e s were promulgated i n 1980. These r u l e s were
consistent with the l e g i s l a t i v e mandate i n place at that time.
However, since 1980, changes i n l e g i s l a t i o n have occurred. The board
i s c u r r e n t l y i n the process of d r a f t i n g r e v i s i o n s to the r u l e s to
assure a l l new l e g i s l a t i v e mandates are promulgated by r u l e .
5. The extent to which the board has encouraged input from the public before
promulgating its rules and regulations and the extent to which it has informed
the public as to its actions and their expected impact on the public
The board i s conscientious about n o t i f y i n g the p u b l i c of upcoming
meetings and hearings held i n the parole board's o f f i c e . During our
a u d i t , we found no evidence that the board's meetings were not held
i n accordance w i t h the open meeting laws ( A. R. S. 938- 431 ) . A l l
not ices of open meetings are posted i n conspicuous places to assure
that the p u b l i c i s aware of the d a t e , t i m e , and place of the meetings.
In a d d i t i o n , i n accordance with A. R. S. 331- 411 . G, before holding a
parole hearing, the board must n o t i f y the Attorney General, the
p r e s i d i n g judge of the superior c o u r t , the county attorney i n the
county i n which the prisoner was sentenced, and the v i c t i m of the
offense for which the prisoner i s incarcerated 15 days p r i o r to the
hearing. The n o t i c e to the v i c t i m or the v i c t i m ' s immediate family
i s mailed to the last known address, but board s t a f f do not follow up
i f the v i c t i m does not respond.
We found that the board generally complies w i t h the v i c t i m
n o t i f i c a t i o n requirement. We reviewed a sample of 68 inmates that
were scheduled to appear for the November 1989 board hearings and
found that of the 43 inmates that had v i c t i m s , 33 v i c t i m s were
n o t i f i e d . Board s t a f f d i d not n o t i f y the remaining 10 v i c t i m s e i t h e r
because they could not f i n d an address or because the board found the
inmates were i n e l i g i b l e f o r p a r o l e . I n a d d i t i o n , 12 of the inmates
scheduled to appear had no v i c t i m s , and the board was unable to
determine i f 13 other cases involved v i c t i m s . We also found t h a t ,
for the most p a r t , the board met the s p e c i f i e d time requirement.
However, there were two cases i n which the v i c t i m s were not n o t i f i e d
u n t i l seven and f i v e days p r i o r to the hearing.
F i n a l l y , as noted i n f a c t o r number 4, the board i s c u r r e n t l y i n the
process of r e v i s i n g i t s rules and r e g u l a t i o n s . Board s t a f f
a n t i c i p a t e that hearings on the revisions w i l l be held i n midsummer
1990.
6. The extent to which the board has been able to investigate and resolve
complaints that are within its jurisdiction
This f a c t o r does not apply since the Board of Pardons and Paroles i s
not a regulatory agency.
7. The extent to which the Attorney General or any other applicable agency of
State government has the authority to prosecute actions under enabling
legislation
This f a c t o r does not apply since the Board of Pardons and Paroles i s
not a regulatory agency.
8. The extent to which the board has addressed deficiencies in its enabling
statutes which prevent it from fulfilling its statutory mandate
The board has formed a l e g i s l a t i v e committee to review the current
s t a t u t e s ; i d e n t i f y d e f i c i e n c i e s , amendments, and repeals; and develop
new l e g i s l a t i o n needed i n order to enhance board operations. For
example, f o r the 1990 l e g i s l a t i v e session, the board i s proposing two
changes: 1) create three two- member panels to conduct parole
hearings, and 2) revise the work furlough n o t i f i c a t i o n process to
make i t consistent w i t h the n o t i f i c a t i o n process for a l l other types
of releases. ( C u r r e n t l y , n o t i f i c a t i o n t o v i c t i m s , prosecuting
a t t o r n e y s , the Attorney General, and others regarding work furlough
hearings i s given 30 days p r i o r t o the release hearing. A l l other
types of releases have a n o t i f i c a t i o n deadline of 15 days.)
The board, i n conjunction w i t h the Department of Corrections, was
instrumental i n developing the home arrest program that was enacted
i n July 1988.
9. The extent to which changes are necessary in the laws of the - boar- d to
adequately comply with factors listed in the Sunset law
Based on our a u d i t work, we recommend the f o l l o w i n g l e g i s l a t i v e
changes :
The L e g i s l a t u r e should consider amending A. R. S. 931- 401. H to
allow the board to hear cases using three panels by r e v i s i n g
s t a t u t e s to allow panels to be composed of two rather than three
members ( see Finding l l , pages 13 - 20).
As another o p t i o n t o b e t t e r caseload management, the Legislature
should consider amending A. R. S. 41- 1604. G to change the length
of time between parole hearings ( f o r i n d i v i d u a l s previously
denied p a r o l e ) t o s i x months from the current four- month
p r o v i s i o n ( see Finding l l , pages 13 - 20).
10. The extent to which the termination of the board would significantly harm the
public health, safety, or welfare
Because the Board of Pardons and Paroles grants t h e release o f only
o n e - t h i r d of the inmates released yearly from Arizona's prisons, the
termination of the board would not s i g n i f i c a n t l y harm the public
h e a l t h , s a f e t y , o r w e l f a r e . The Department of Corrections would
continue to release inmates based upon i t s determination that an
i n d i v i d u a l i s ready for release without posing danger upon the
community. In f a c t , i n some s t a t e s , parole boards have l i t t l e or no
r o l e i n d i s c r e t i o n a r y releases. One s t a t e , Minnesota, does not have
a p a r o l e board. A d d i t i o n a l l y , nine other states have parole
a u t h o r i t i e s w i t h l i m i t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n over d i s c r e t i o n a r y release
decisions. For instance, C a l i f o r n i a ' s parole board has d i s c r e t i o n a r y
release j u r i s d i c t i o n only over prisoners sentenced to l i f e i n
prison. In Oregon, the parole board has no a u t h o r i t y t o grant
d i s c r e t i o n a r y release, but i s s t i l l responsible for s e t t i n g
conditions for those released.
Although terminating BPP would not necessarily harm p u b l i c health,
s a f e t y , o r w e l f a r e , t h e r e are several reasons for continuing i t s
existence. According to a recent National I n s t i t u t e of Corrections
study, parole boards provide " checks and balances w i t h i n our system
of c r i m i n a l sanctioning." As noted e a r l i e r , Arizona's board was
purposely set up as an independent agency to pass upon paroles and
commutations. Moreover, 49 states continue to use parole boards for
at least some release decisions. E l i m i n a t i o n o f t h i s independent
review of release candidates i n Arizona would place f u l l
responsi b i l i t y w i t h DOC and cou Id possibly lead to inappropriate
release decisions. The s t a t e o f F l o r i d a , which previously abolished
i t s parole board, reestablished i t s board because state o f f i c i a l s
f e l t that the release formula did not adequately d i f f e r e n t i a t e
between low- risk and h i g h - r i s k inmates. The F l o r i d a Control Release
A u t h o r i t y was created to add some d i s c r e t i o n t o the release formula.
11. The extent to which the level of regulation exercised by the board is
appropriate and whether less or more stringent levels or regulation would be
appropriate
This factor does not apply since the Board of Pardons and Paroles i s
not a regulatory agency.
12. The extent to which the board has used private contractors in the performance
of its duties and how effective use of private contractors could be
accomplished
To a s s i s t the board panels i n the hearing process, the board has
attempted to use p r i v a t e c o n t r a c t o r s as i n t e r p r e t e r s for the
non- English speaking inmates. However, according to board s t a f f , the
board has not been s a t i s f i e d w i t h the q u a l i t y of i n t e r p r e t e r s that
have been hi red. As a r e s u l t , the board has chosen to use DOC s t a f f
as i n t e r p r e t e r s whenever p o s s i b l e .
a
ROSE MOFFORD
GOVERNOR
MICHAEL D. GARVEY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOA
1645 WEST JEFFERSON
SUITE 326
PHOENIX, W N A 85007
( 602) 542- 5656
ARTER L JOHNSON
CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS
ROBERT L ARAU
RAY R. FLORES
FRANK R. STARTZELL
ROBERT L. TUCKER
STAN F. TURLEY
LUIS M. VEGA
I, Df: ll. tg 1 as R. N o t - t on, C; F1? t, f41. td it 1~ 1r- G e r t e r - a 1
i- 3 - ffZice 1 ~ 1 1 ' t h e Qctd iti: li- Genet- a1
2 100 N o t - t h Certt r- a l f4ver11- ce, S u i t e 7C) O
F'hi: ter~ i x , Qt- 1 -.- 1,- 1- rt a 8 5 i3 il) 4
rn D e a r - Mr-. N o r - t c~ r: t
The Flr- izclr~ a Roar- d o f Flat- dons artd P a r - a l e s is i n r e c e i p t 111f t h e
f i r t a l dr- af t o f t h e Auditclt- Genet- al' s S u n s e t Review uf t h e Rgertcy.
The Roar- d w~ al- tld l i k e tcl thank. ycll. tr- s t a f f for- t h e o p p o r t u r ~ i t y t h e y
I) prctv ided to g i v e clzlrtirtiertt s and expand on s~: trtie o f t h e at- eas
a d d r e s s e d . Th is let t et- s h a l l ser- ve as the f i r ~ a l r- espctrcse t o t h e
r- epc~ lrt a r ~ dc ~:~ rtsitt #. it es t h e cclr~ serts~- tI: I~ s' t h e tioat- d.
FTNUING I - ESTRBLISH Ci STRUCTURED DECISION- MRKING F1Ri3CESS
8
The Roar- d is i re aqr- eertient w i t h t h e Rud it I: I~- Gerter- a l ' 5
r- ecomrt~ er~ diaotr c of put- suing st r c t c t ured d e c i s i o n - n ~ a k i n g . The
N a t iortal I n s t it 1- tte sf Cur- rect i ~ z t r t s ( NIC) w i 1 1 be c o r ~ t a c t e dt t : ~
~ - e q l - \ e s t f urcdirry fclr a c o n s t - t l t a n t t o a i d t h e bclard i n t h i s ar- ea.
I t shol- tld be rtctted t h a t S t a t e f ttrtd i r ~ y wt-~ t- tld a l s u be . r- eqt-\ it- ed t t:,
@ erchartce t h e g r a n t rnor~ i es t- ece i ved i rt o r d e r to f u 1 1y i r11p1 e rnertt a
st t- uet up- ed d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r c ~ c e s s . Addit itz~ rtall y , t h e time
i r t v o l v e d w i t h e s t a b l i s h i n g such a pr-~ zlcess alorcq w i t h tr- airtirtg a r ~ d
p a r t i c i p a t i o n tinle w i l l reqctit- e a mirtir~ iur~ oi f 13rte year b e f o r e t h i s
pr- ucess would be o p e r a t i orla 1.
FINDING I 1 - MRNRGEMENT OF GROWING CqSELUUD
The Hoard is i n agr- eemertt w i t h t h e Flctd it or- Gertera 1 ' s
r- ecommer~ datior~ s ctf arliendinq f4. H. S. 9 4 1 - 1 6 ( : ) 4 . C ) G tct irtcr- ease t h e
i rtt er- va 1 at wh i ch i rtrnat es ar- e r - e c e r - t i f i ed f I r- e 1 ease
c r ~ r t s i d e r aito n fr- am fol- tr to s i x rnorrths and artier~ di ng U. H. S.
Do~ ig1a s R. Nclrt on
Mar- ch 3, 1330
Page 3
v i c t i m n c ~ it f icat ion is ar~ i s s u e b e c a u s e , d e s p i t e t h e i r t c r - e a s e i n
wok- l- c. lc~ ad, t h e l31: lar. d st i 11 h a s or11y or~ eI n f u r r ~ ~ iautr ~ F r- ucessil-~ g
S p e c i a l ist I I ( I P S 11) p o s i t iclr~ to mai 1 o v e r 1, 000 v i c t i r l i
nclt i f i c a t iorc letter- s arid art eqcial rturtiber uf n o t if icat i s r ~ let ter- s
to t h e Attst- rrey Gerreral, t h e p r - e s i d i n g jl- tdge uf t h e ssctperil~~ r-c
~ t , avid ct: tunty a t t o r - r r e y s e a c h r~ lctr~ th. The Boar- d is ~ . t n a b l et l - I
r- esear- ch artd f o l l o w ctp cllrt v i c t i m rtot i f icat i o n letters r - e t 1- tr- ned
b e c a u s e u f t h e l a c k of s t a f f t o do so. Reducing cler- ical s t a f f
i n an agency as s m a l l as t h e Euar- d w i 11 t- esl- tlt i n l a c k uf back. up
i i t h e r - e m a i r ~ i r ~ q p ~ t s i t i i ~ r i s . W i t h~: tut backup artd ct- oss t r- a i r ~ e d
s t a f f , rlcl one w~: tt. ild be a b l e to f i l l i n fot- t h e Boar-. d S e c r - e t a r - i e s ,
Uyer~ da Cler- k or- V i c t i r n N o t i f icat i111vt C l e r k dl- it- ing t h e i r - a b s e n c e s .
Reduct icir~ i r ~ clerical s t a f f w i 11 cat- tse fur- ther- p r u b l e r n s i n t h e
r~ lartagemerrt o f t h e a g e n d a s , scr- eert i ng and cot- r- ect i o n o f
cer- t i f i cat i o n s r- ece i ved from DOC, r- esear- ch i ng and t- espand i r ~ g t o
i 71ql. t i v i e s f t- om t h e Flt t orrrey Gerret- a 1 ' s O f f i ce artd cc~ rtipel t e
a c c c t r a c y art execi- tt i v e c lernency act i arts.
The E~: tar- d v i e w s t h i s r - e p o r t as t h e f i r - s t s t e p towar- d d e v e l o p i r ~ g
l~:~ rtq- range p l a r ~ r t i n g uver- a per- iod of t h e t h e rtext t went y- four-months
ts d e a l w i t h t h e i s s u e s u f c a s e l o a d g r o w t h , d e c i s i c l n
making, u t i 1 i z a t iclr~ o f h e a r i n g 11lf f icer- s, p r i s o r t c ~ v e r c r o w d i r t g and
bi- tdqet c c t r ~ s t r - a i n t s . However-, cat- ttictn is ur- ged i n making d t - a r n a t i c
s t a f f a n d b u d g e t c u t s .
a g a i n , t h e Euar- d would 1ik. e to t h a n k t h e s t a f f of t h e Rl- iditor-
Genet- a 1 s Off ice for t h e i r - p r o f e s s i 111na1 ism artd ded icat iu n wh i 1e
pr- epar i nq t h i s r - e p o r t .
ROSE MOFFORD
GOVERNOR
ARTER L. JOHNSON
CHAIRMAN
MICHAEL D. GARVEY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
1645 WEST JEFFERSON
SUITE 326
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007
( 602) 542- 5656
Dctuy 1a s R. Nl: trt tz~ rt, CF'FI, R~ tdi t clr Gertera 1
Ol'f i ce ~ f t he ! At- td i t or. Genet- a 1
270Ci Nor- th C e n t r a l Gvertt- te, $ 51- iite7 U 0
F1ht: len i x , Gr* i zorla t35(: 104
Dear- M r . Nc~ rctlr t :
MEMBERS
ROBERT L. ARAZA
RAY R. FLORES
FRANK R. STARTZELL
ROBERT L. TUCKER
STAN F. TURLEY
LUIS M. VEGA
Because of t h e pc~ tertit al a d v e r s e r - a r n i f icat i o n s r- egar- d irrg t h e
FSt- td i t111r- General s Sctrtset Review Hepl: lr- t, I f e e l lrlbl i g a t e d arid
ci--~ r~ i1p 1ee d t u wr- i t e t h is 1e t t er- of d i sserrt . I ' r11 cortcer- rred t h a t
i n s t it ut ing and imposing any r- educt i o n s i n s t a f f oi- f i r r a n c i a 1
r - e s o c t r - c e s w i 1 1 d i m i n i sh t h e e f f e c t i vertess of fctt ur- e Ecctardcj t o
f u l l y cctrnp'ly w i t h a1 l s t a t u t u r - y r* equit- ertlertts.
The r e p o r t p r - e s e n t s t h r e e ( 3) f irtd irtgs t- egar- ding I ) decisiclrt
r~~ ak. irtg pr- ocess, Z) rnarrageabi 1 it y ~ zlf caselclad, arrd 3) use 111f
s t a f f . While t h e r- epor- t appear- s tcl clffer* some s ~ l ~ t t i ~ = tl: t t r ~ s
pr- ob lerris artd r- ecori~ rnendati orts t[: I i rtipr- ove t h e e f f i c ierrcy (: If t h e
Qr- i zona Boar- d 13f Par- duns artd F'ar- c11e s ( FIBOFIF1i, it is my upi r~ i ort i t
h a s t h e p o t e n t ial to create rr~ clre pr- oblert~ s 1: lf a g r e a t e r - m a g n i t u d e
t h a n it w i l l s o l v e . The r e p o r t f a i l s to r- ecclgriize t h e irripact t h e
FSBOPP h a s on t t 7 e pr- i sort over- cr- uwd i rtg i sst- te and t h e ert~= tr- mousc ~ lst
it s a v e s t h e P I - t b l i c by vir- t1. t~ ~: lf its r - e s p o r t s i b i l i t i e s . The
r- eport a110 fai 1s to t- ec~:~ grrite t h e ircipact new l e g i s l a t i a n artd
o t h e r Ct- iminal J u s t ice Flger~ cies have clrt t h e FSBOFIF1 when t h e y
irtst it u t e changes. The recoriimendat i I Z I ~ I S i n t h e r- epot- t ar- e
i rradequat e t r= c a d d r e s s t h e magrr i t ude and cortlpl e x it y of t h e
pr- oblerns w e ar- e facirrg nuw arrd w i 11 c a n t irtue to f a c e i n t h e
f c t t I- tre.
The r- epor- t s u g g e s t s t h e QBOFIP d e v e l o p and adopt a st r - ~ c1t- t r- ed
d e c i s i o r ~ rilak. irtg pr- acess. ! As j 1. t5.1; i f icat iurr, t h e r e p o r t ment iclns
t h a t t h i s w i 11 impr- ctve itrii fur- mi t y among d e c i s i o r r s arid t h a t 22
states ut i 1 i z e t h i s r~ iethud. Wh i le I art1 n c ~ t ctppclsed tcl expl~:~ t- irtq
t r ~ t h e r d e c i s i c ~ r r rnakiriy rnethclds 1- 1r- expanding o u r krrowledge i n t h i s
ar- ea, I air1 r - e l 1- tctarrt to ml: ld i f y o u r pr- esertt systerir w it h l z ~ ~ tft 1 - 11l y
i r r v e s t i g a t i n g t h e l o g i s t i c a l , s c ~ c i a l artd f i r r a r r c i a l irnpact c~ ri t h e
other- s y s t e m s which w i l l be a f f e c t e d by srtch a change.
N o t w i t h s t artd ing its h a r r n l e s s artd pr- ogr- essive appear- arrce, I
b e l i e v e it w i 11 create mor- e pr- oblerns of a g r e a t e r rnagrtitude t h a n
it w i l l s a l v e .
Douglas R. N o r - t o r t
Mat- ch 3, 133(:)
Page 2
St r- 1.1ct ~- t. tred d e c i s i c * r t making is based C I ~ It h e develctprner~ t s f
sets o f ct- iter- ia which r t l l - t s t be sat i s f i e d by inrrlates befctr- e t h e y
r e c e i v e f avor- able c a n s i d e r a t ion. S ts - ~ t c1t- tt- ed d e c i s i c t r ~ m akirig a 1s lr~
corrtairts s t a r r d a r - d s w i t h i n t h e sets o f criter- ia which r r i c ~ s t be
met . R str- ctctut- ed d e c i s i o n rnakir~ y rtiudel rrlay cctrrtairr as many as
s i x ( GI sets o f criter- ia st- tch as 1) p a s t crirnirial histup- y, 2 )
ernplctyrt~ ent s k . i 115, 3) a c a d e m i c 5k. i 1 ls, 4 ) pr- ograrnrnir~ g, 5 ) social
and p s y c h s l u g ical suppot- t and t3) adeql-~ acy o f r- elease p l a n s . ' The
c ~ r ~ rnct~ v e r s y w i t h t h e s e rnudels ctccurs when someorre c h a1 1e rrges t h e
a d e q u a c y uf ex ist irtg s e t - v i c e s tr- 1 r~ leet t h e s e starrdar- ds. Other-c
h a l l e r r g e s o f tert cctrne fr- or11 t h e pub1 ic sect or- whr- 1 dertiarlds
t= tb, ject i v e n e s s i n t h e i r develctprnerrt arrd t h e demarrd t h a t t h e y be
d i s c r - i m i r t a t clr- y f r e e i n t h e manner- t h e y at- e a p p l i e d . I simp1 y
f e e l t h a t s~: lrtieone h a s t l= l be accourrt a b l e when t h e s e c h a l l e r ~ g e s are
made, artd i rradeql- tat e t - e s p s n s e s cart r e s u 1 t i VI pel1 it i ca 1
r - e p r e c 1 . 1i~ ct~ rr s. I f e e l t h i s r- ecumnlendat it:~ rr h a s t h e p o t e n t ial t o
r- esul t i n mare t e d i o u s paper- work, t h e creat i r t r ~ ctf new dt:~ curnertt s,
r - e s u l t i n fewer- p a r o l e s which w i 11 a g g r a v a t e t h e uver- crowding
pr- oblern and i r r c r e a s e publ ic scrl- tti rty which cctuld r- esul t i r ~ m ot- e
l a w 5 1 - t i t s l e v i e d a g a i n s t t h e RBOF'F'. The eclect ic met hod 1.1t i 1 i zed
by t h e RE( OFIF1 at t h e p r e s e r r t t ir11e is a d e q u a t e . Boar- d rtiernbers
c o n s i d e r a m i - t l t i t u d e tzlf f a c t o r s i n rtiak. ing t h e i r - d e s i s i c l r ~ s which
f a l l i n t h e f~: lllowirtg areas, 1) p r i o r - h i s t u r - y , 2 irrst i t i - c t i1: 1rra1
recor- d arrd 3) . forwar- d view.
With r- egar- ds to f irldirrg # Z, t h e RBOFIF1 is a l r e a d y a d d r e s s i n g
t h is area a d e q u a t e l y and w i 1 1 ccti- rt i rrue t 1- 1 dlrl so.
F i n d i n g # 3, which is t h e most r a d i c a l and critical p a r t o f
t h e rep~ ztr- t is where I have t h e rticlst prlztblerns. I t s l - i g g e s t s a
red1.1ct iclrt i n s t a f f artd f i r t a r ~ c i a l c a p a b i 1 i t y irr t h e f a c e ctf a
yr- ow i n g pr- i scm popl- tlat . ii: ln I be 1 i e v e ever- yorre w o ll~ d agr- ee t h e
p r i sclrt pop1. t 1a t i l: lrr w i 11 c o r ~ it n ue t grow as we1 1 as t h e cost of
p ri s u n c c ~ r ~ r- srdtc t ictrt. T h e r e are rriarly r e a s o n s for- t h e i n c t - e a s e i n
prisctrt p o p u l a t i o n which at t h e pr- eserrt t i r n e is apprctxirnately GI
new i n m a t e s in t h e Rr- i zona Depar- tmerrt Of C a r t - e c t i n n s ( UDOC) per-mc~
rtt h . T h i s t r e r t d w i l l currtirrcce arid grow to 80 new i n m a t e s per-rtittrtth
for- QDOC f o r 1' 331. While t h e rtl- rmber of comr~ litrrlents ti: l t h e
RDOC a f f e c t s t h e c a s e l o a d 111f t h e RBOFIF1, so w i l l t h e new
l e g i s l a t i v e p r c t p o s a l s t h a t are ~. tp f o r a p p r o v a l . Befor- e t h e ertd
o f 1330, t h e RBOFtFt and RDOC w i 1 1 be pr- essur- ed to d e a 1 w i t h arr
over- cr- ctwd ing pr- oblerri. The QBUPP n e e d s a1 l t h e t- esol- tr- ces it h a s
at t h e p r e s e n t t i r n e to d e a l w i t h t h i s pr- oblern e f f e c t i v e l y .
The RBOF'P and @ DOC w i l l have to develclp rtieti- ruds o f e x p e d i t irrg
irtrnat es thr- ctctgh t h e systern. S t a f f c u t s by t h e RBOFIP w i l l
c e r t a i n1 y i r~ cr- easet h e r - i s k for er- t- l:~ r. s wh i c h rnay pr- eserrt an ur~ d1- te
r - i s k arrd harnif ul e f f e c t un publ ic s a f e t y . The r- eport recorrirnertds
t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r pr- ctgrarri be el imirrated fctr t w o r- easorts, 1 )
b e c a u s e t h e major- i t y cif board member- s dc~ nt' r e l y on t h e hear- i ng
o f f i c e r - r e p o r t forq t h e i r - decisiclrrcj and 2 ) b e c a u s e it cl: luld s a v e
Dctuqlas R. Nortun
March 3, 1330
Ftage 3
ct p
pt- e
pr- u
to
f e r -
b a t i
$ 356, 000 p e r y e a r . The r e p o r t st at es sorne bctard rnernbers
t t : ~ r e l y c ~ r ~ t h e p r - e s e r ~ t e r ~ cree p o r t ( P S I ) p r e p a r e d by t h e
. o n o f f i c e r - to rnak. e t h e i r - d e c i s i o n s . T h i s is d e s p i t e t h e
f a c t t h a t t h e i n f o r r n a t it: tn i n t h e FtSI is i. ts~. tal l y t h r e e ( 3) yeat- s
and d e , irt sorne cases t h e r e is TIO FtSI. Marly o f t h e
C I Z I ~ I CI~. ~ S ~ U Y I S o f t h e F'SI ar- e reel lunqet- a p p l i c a b l e when i n m a t e s at- e
seer1 fot- parclle. I art1 b e w i l d e r e d as to why s~= trneonew ctt- tld chcll: lse
tct r e l y ctrl infl: tr- ma ti or^ t h a t is b e t t e r t h a n t h r e e y e a r s clld artd
p r e p a r e d by someone whctrn t h e y ' v e rlever 1 a i d e y e s cart f ot- t h e i s-d
e c i s i o n s o v e r ircf urrliat ictr~ t h a t is r e l e v a n t , cl- tr- rent artd pt- epar- ed
by S C l l l l e 6 Y 1 e who w ~ r - k sf ~ yfrt1. t ~- Rqerrcy. I do rlctt f e e l t h a t s t a f f
h a s to be a f f e c t e d thr-~:~ t. tgh t e r m i n a t i o n s .
The r- eput- t also 5 1 - t q g e s t s t h a t up t o 8356; OC10 c o u l d be s a v e d
by el imirlat i n g t h e hear- irrq ~ f f ice?' prugr- arri. Wh i le t h i s so~. tnds
a p p e a l ircg and nt:~ ble, I sl. tbrnit t h e cctst s a v i r ~ q sw i 1 1 be close t t - I
rroth i n g wherr a p p l i c a b l e persorcnel r - i qht s ar- e e x e r c i s e d . The
t- epot- t a l s c t dctes rcctt p r l s v i d e al 1 t h e f ir~ arccial and a c t u a l d e t ai 1s
as to how t h i s cost s a v i n g s w i 11 be r e a l i z e d .
Losing t h e h e a r i rcg o f f i c e r - pr- ogt- arn w i 1 1 ser i o1. t~ 1 y weak. erc t h e
a b i l i t y o f t h i s and fa- ttur- e Boards t t - I r ~ i a i r ~ t a i np ace w i t h a
burqectninq c a s e l o a d which w i 11 have a t r e m e n d o u s e f f e c t 1: 1n t h e
p r is c ~ r ~ uv ercr- owd i n g i ssr~ e. E l i r c ~ i n a t i o n~ = lft h e h e a r i n g ~: afficer-program
w i l l r o b t h e Bt~ tat- d o f t h e f l e x i b i l i t y to brctader~ t h e b a s e
o f t h e d e c i s i u r r r~ iak. ing pt- r- tcess and t:~ rqarri ie i t s e l f i n t o wr- tli-- kable
ar- ranqernent s ~: tf h e a r i n g o f f i c e r s arid buar- d rriernbers c a p a b l e o f
h a r t d l i n g c a s e l o a d s o f I t o 2,5(:)(:) per- r~ ictrcth. The 105s I Z I ~ t h e
h e a r i r ~ g o f f i c e r prograrn rnay also r e s u l t i n t h e l o s s o f rtiany
a l r e a d y t r a i n e d cr irriirtal . j u s t ice pt- act it it: tner- s t h a t k. now t h e
systern, t h e y w i 11 have t u be r e p l a c e d w i t h new, 1. trrtt- airred
p e r s o n n e l who w i 1 1 be a s k e d t u dct mot- e f ctt- 1 ess pay, t h e rliora 1 e
o f t h e Rgency w i l l d i r n i r ~ i s h arid t h e RBOPF w i l l once a g a i r ~ be i n
t h e m i d s t of c o n t r u v e r s y and t u r r ~ i o1i . I do rtot be1 i e v e t h e cost
s a v i r r g s to be real i i e d thr- ctctgh t h e proposed c u t s o f t h e r e p o r t
ar- e h a r d l y worth t h e pt- oblerns w e w i l l be f a c i r r g i n t h e n e a r
f ~ tutr e .
R rnuch b e t t e r recornrner~ dati ctrc wr- 11. t 1d have beer1 t ct c o n v e r t t h