Offers Discretionary Parole
(20 pts)
Parole Hearings
(30 pts)
Parole Principles
(30 pts.)
Parole Hearing Preparation
(20 pts.)
Transparency
(20 pts.)
Extra points (positive and negative) Grade Source
State Has discretionary parole for new offenses (20 pts) Would mandate face-to-face hearings (15 pts) Would provide method to challenge incorrect information (6 pts) Prohibits input from prosecutors (3 pts) Prohibits input from crime survivors (3 pts) Would allow input from applicant, family, community, employers, prison admin (3 pts) Portion of the incarcerated population that the legislature allows the parole board to consider for release by restricting what offense/sentence types are eligible for parole Employs presumptive parole policies (9 pts) Does not deny parole for subjective reasons (6 pts) Would mandate yearly reviews (3 pts) Would provide case managers to assist individuals (10 pts) Would provide individuals with access to all records (10 pts) Would incorporate parole guidelines (8 pts) Would require parole board to file yearly report to committee with oversight about parole denials and provide justifications (6 pts) Would have meaningful appeal process (6 pts) Points added for Points deducted for Score Lettergrade Data Source
Alabama Yes
(20 pts)
Mandates in-person hearing for all reviews.
(15 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Mandates prosecutor input
(0 pts)
Mandates survivor input
(0 pts)
Yes, from all at hearing
(3 pts)
Data not available from NCRP
(0 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy lists examples of allowed reasons for denial that are subjective.
(0 pts)
No/completely discretionary
(0 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute
(0 pts)
No, or no mention
(0 pts)
Guidelines used but deviations allowed
(2 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc.
(0 pts)
Judicial only
(3 pts)
• Can earn good time toward ending parole
(5 pts)
• Explicit prohibition against associating with others on parole/criminal history
(-5 pts)
43 F Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
Alaska Yes
(20 pts)
Voting members of the parole board are not required to meet with the applicant; but an investigator will meet with the applicant.
(0 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Mandates prosecutor input
(0 pts)
Mandates survivor input
(0 pts)
From anyone in written fashion
(2 pts)
Data not available from NCRP
(0 pts)
Presumptive parole for some offense types/sentences
(5 pts)
The statute/policy lists examples of allowed reasons for denial that are subjective
(0 pts)
No more than 2 years, depending on the crime of conviction
(2 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute
(0 pts)
Yes, without asking.
(10 pts)
No guidelines mentioned
(0 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc.
(0 pts)
Both administrative and judicial
(6 pts)
• Can earn good time toward ending parole.

• Does not impose supervision fees.
(10 pts)
• Explicit prohibition against associating with others on parole/criminal history
(-5 pts)
50 F Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
Arizona Abolished discretionary parole release in 1994
(0 pts)
00 Robina Institute, Parole Boards within Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Structures, April 3, 2018
Arkansas Yes
(20 pts)
Voting members of the parole board are not required to meet with the applicant; but an investigator will meet with the applicant.
(0 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Mandates prosecutor input
(0 pts)
Allows input from survivors of violent crime
(1 pt)
Yes, from all at hearing
(3 pts)
Data not available from NCRP
(0 pts)
Presumptive parole for some offense types/sentences
(5 pts)
The statute/policy lists examples of allowed reasons for denial that are subjective
(0 pts)
More often than yearly
(3 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute
(0 pts)
To some records
(2 pts)
No guidelines mentioned
(0 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc.
(0 pts)
Minimal/none at all
(0 pts)
• Can earn good time toward ending parole
(5 pts)
• Board can extend length of time on parole past the end date of sentence.

• Explicit prohibition against associating with others on parole/criminal history
(-10 pts)
29 F Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
California Except for life and some select other offenses, abolished discretionary parole release in 1977
(0 pts)
0F-Robina Institute, Parole Boards within Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Structures, April 3, 2018
Colorado Yes
(20 pts)
Only one voting member of the parole board is required to meet with the applicant prior to the board's decision. This pre-hearing meeting can take place in person, over the telephone, or over video.
(2 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Statute is silent
(3 pts)
Allows input from survivors of violent crime
(1 pt)
At board's discretion at hearing
(2 pts)
31% eligible for parole release in 2016
(10 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy does not discourage subjective denials
(2 pts)
No more than 2 years, depending on the crime of conviction
(2 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute
(0 pts)
No, or no mention
(0 pts)
Guidelines used but deviations allowed
(2 pts)
Yearly report, to committee with oversight, that includes any deviations from guidelines and explanations, made public
(6 pts)
Judicial only
(3 pts)
• Has actual cap on length of supervision
(5 pts)
• Explicit prohibition against associating with others on parole/criminal history

• Drug testing fee.
(-10 pts)
48 F Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
Connecticut Yes
(20 pts)
Hearings (which may be in-person or via video) are required before release; but someone can be denied release without a hearing of any type. (The Connecticut Supreme Court held in 2007 that there is no right to parole hearing.) Preliminary interviews are conducted in person by an Institutional Parole Officer.
(0 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Allows prosecutor input
(1 pt)
Mandates survivor input
(0 pts)
Statute is silent
(0 pts)
15% eligible for parole release in 2016
(5 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy does not discourage subjective denials
(2 pts)
No/completely discretionary
(0 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute
(0 pts)
If individual or attorney files FOIA.
(5 pts)
Guidelines used but deviations allowed
(2 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc.
(0 pts)
Minimal/none at all
(0 pts)
• No restriction on associating with others on parole/criminal history.

• Does not impose supervision fees.

• Can earn unconditional release from parole
(15 pts)

50 F Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program. See also the Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles, Parole: An Informational Brochure
Delaware Abolished discretionary parole release in 1990
(0 pts)
0F- Robina Institute, Parole Boards within Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Structures, April 3, 2018
Florida Abolished discretionary parole release in 1983
(0 pts)
0F- Robina Institute, Parole Boards within Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Structures, April 3, 2018
Georgia Yes
(20 pts)
Voting members of the parole board are not required to meet with the applicant; but an investigator may meet with the applicant
(0 pts)
No
(0 pts)
If the parole board decides to grant parole, the parole board is required to notify the prosecutor (and others)
(2 pts)
Mandates survivor input
(0 pts)
Statute is silent
(0 pts)
39% eligible for parole release in 2016
(10 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy does not discourage subjective denials
(2 pts)
No/completely discretionary
(0 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute
(0 pts)
No, or no mention
(0 pts)
Guidelines must be used without deviation
(8 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc.
(0 pts)
Minimal/none at all
(0 pts)
• No restriction on associating with others on parole/criminal history
(5 pts)
• Supervision fee
(-5 pts)
42 F Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
Hawaii Yes
(20 pts)
Face-to-face hearings are held when the board anticipates denying release, but for release on presumptive parole face-to-face hearings are not considered necessary.
(15 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Allows prosecutor input
(1 pt)
Allows input from survivors of violent crime
(1 pt)
Yes, from all at both hearings
(3 pts)
40% eligible for parole release in 2016
(10 pts)
Presumptive parole for most offense types/sentences
(8 pts)
The statute/policy does not discourage subjective denials
(2 pts)
Yearly
(3 pts)
Mentions "parole investigator" or someone similar
(5 pts)
No, or no mention
(0 pts)
Hawaii has a two step presumptive parole process. The first step determines minimum release date and is based on guidelines. The actual release decision, however, is not based on guidelines.
(6 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc.
(0 pts)
Judicial only
(3 pts)
• Board must consider termination after set length of time
(5 pts)
• Explicit prohibition against associating with others on parole/criminal history
(-5 pts)
77 C+ Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
Idaho Yes
(20 pts)
Voting members of the parole board are not required to meet with the applicant; but an investigator will meet with the applicant
(0 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Statute is silent
(3 pts)
Mandates survivor input
(0 pts)
Yes, from all at hearing
(3 pts)
34% eligible for parole release in 2016
(10 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy lists examples of allowed reasons for denial that are subjective
(0 pts)
No/completely discretionary
(0 pts)
Actually assigns staff and calls them counselors/case managers
(10 pts)
No, or no mention
(0 pts)
Guidelines used but deviations allowed
(2 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc.
(0 pts)
Both administrative and judicial
(6 pts)


54 F Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
Illinois Abolished discretionary parole release in 1978
(0 pts)
0F- Robina Institute, Parole Boards within Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Structures, April 3, 2018
Indiana Abolished discretionary parole release in 1977
(0 pts)
0F- Robina Institute, Parole Boards within Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Structures, April 3, 2018
Iowa Yes
(20 pts)
Voting members of the parole board are not required to meet with the applicant; but an investigator will meet with the applicant
(0 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Statute is silent
(3 pts)
Mandates survivor input
(0 pts)
Statute is silent
(0 pts)
Data not available from NCRP
(0 pts)
Presumptive parole for some offense types/sentences
(5 pts)
The statute/policy does not discourage subjective denials
(2 pts)
No more than 2 years, depending on the crime of conviction
(2 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute
(0 pts)
Yes, if individual requests
(8 pts)
No guidelines mentioned
(0 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc.
(0 pts)
Both administrative and judicial
(6 pts)
• Can earn unconditional release from parole.

• No restriction on associating with others on parole/criminal history
(10 pts)

56 F Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
Kansas Abolished discretionary parole release in 1993
(0 pts)
0F- Robina Institute, Parole Boards within Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Structures, April 3, 2018
Kentucky Yes
(20 pts)
Mandates in person hearing
(15 pts)
Yes
(6 pts)
Mandates prosecutor input
(0 pts)
Mandates survivor input
(0 pts)
From anyone in written fashion
(2 pts)
52% eligible for parole release in 2016
(12 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy does not discourage subjective denials
(2 pts)
No/completely discretionary
(0 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute.
(0 pts)
If individual or attorney files FOIA
(5 pts)
No guidelines mentioned
(0 pts)
Yearly report, to committee with oversight, that includes any deviations from guidelines and explanations, made public
(6 pts)
Both administrative and judicial
(6 pts)

• Explicit prohibition against associating with others on parole/criminal history.

• Supervision fee/drug testing fees.

• Board can extend length of time on parole past the end date of sentence
(-15 pts)
59 F Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
Louisiana Yes
(20 pts)
Hearings are held by video or phone call.
(5 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Statute is silent
(3 pts)
Statute is silent
(3 pts)
At board's discretion at hearing
(2 pts)
7% eligible for parole release in 2016
(0 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy lists examples of allowed reasons for denial that are subjective
(0 pts)
No more than 2 years, depending on the crime of conviction
(2 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute.
(0 pts)
No, or no mention
(0 pts)
No guidelines mentioned
(0 pts)
Yearly report, to committee with oversight, that includes any deviations from guidelines and explanations, made public
(6 pts)
Both administrative and judicial
(6 pts)
• No restriction on associating with others on parole/criminal history
(5 pts)
• Supervision fee
(-5 pts)
47 F Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
Maine Abolished discretionary parole release in 1976
(0 pts)
0F- Robina Institute, Parole Boards within Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Structures, April 3, 2018
Maryland Yes
(20 pts)
Voting members of the parole board are not required to meet with the applicant; but an investigator will meet with the applicant
(0 pts)
Yes
(6 pts)
Statute is silent
(3 pts)
Allows input from survivors of violent crime
(1 pt)
From anyone in written fashion
(2 pts)
4% eligible for parole release in 2016
(0 pts)
Presumptive parole for some offense types/sentences
(5 pts)
The statute/policy does not discourage subjective denials
(2 pts)
No more than 2 years, depending on the crime of conviction
(2 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute.
(0 pts)
Yes, without asking
(10 pts)
Guidelines used but deviations allowed
(2 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc.
(0 pts)
Both administrative and judicial
(6 pts)
• No restriction on associating with others on parole/criminal history.

• Can earn unconditional release from parole
(10 pts)
• Supervision fee
(-5 pts)
64 D Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
Massachusetts Yes
(20 pts)
For life sentences, the entire hearing is in-person and public. For non-life sentences, most of the hearing is held without the presence of the applicant.
(8 pts)
Yes
(6 pts)
Statute mandates prosecutor input for life sentences, the statute is silent about other offense types.
(1 pt)
Allows input from survivors of violent crime
(1 pt)
At board's discretion at hearing
(2 pts)
21% eligible for parole release in 2016
(5 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy lists examples of allowed reasons for denial that are subjective
(0 pts)
No more than 2 years, depending on the crime of conviction
(2 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute.
(0 pts)
No, or no mention.
(0 pts)
No guidelines mentioned
(0 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc.
(0 pts)
Both administrative and judicial
(6 pts)

• Explicit prohibition against associating with others on parole/criminal history.

• Supervision fee
(-10 pts)
41 F Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
Michigan Yes
(20 pts)
Face-to-face hearings for anticipated denials, but for release on presumptive parole face-to-face hearings are not considered necessary.
(15 pts)
Yes
(6 pts)
Mandates prosecutor input
(0 pts)
Allows input from survivors of violent crime
(1 pt)
Statute is silent
(0 pts)
12% eligible for parole release in 2016
(5 pts)
Presumptive parole for most offense types/sentences
(8 pts)
The statute/policy specifically prohibits subjective denials
(6 pts)
No more than 2 years, depending on the crime of conviction
(2 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute.
(0 pts)
No, or no mention.
(0 pts)
Guidelines must be used without deviation
(8 pts)
Yearly report, to committee with oversight, that includes any deviations from guidelines and explanations, made public
(6 pts)
Minimal/none at all
(0 pts)
• Supervision fee
(-5 pts)
72 C- Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
Minnesota Abolished discretionary parole release in 1982
(0 pts)
0F- Robina Institute, Parole Boards within Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Structures, April 3, 2018
Mississippi Yes
(20 pts)
Face-to-face hearings for anticipated denials, but for release on presumptive parole face-to-face hearings are not considered necessary.
(15 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Statute is silent
(3 pts)
Allows input from survivors of violent crime
(1 pt)
From anyone in written fashion
(2 pts)
Data not available from NCRP
(0 pts)
Presumptive parole for some offense types/sentences
(5 pts)
The statute/policy does not discourage subjective denials
(2 pts)
Yearly
(3 pts)
Actually assigns staff and calls them counselors/case managers
(10 pts)
No, or no mention
(0 pts)
Guidelines used but deviations allowed
(2 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc.
(0 pts)
Administrative only
(3 pts)
• No restriction on associating with others on parole/criminal history
(5 pts)

71 C- For parole eligibility and presumptive parole, go to Practioner Guide to HB 585 For all else, go to Mississippi Code Title 47-7-3.1. We also used the National Corrections Reporting Program.
Missouri Yes
(20 pts)
Voting members of the parole board are not required to meet with the applicant; but an investigator will meet with the applicant
(0 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Mandates prosecutor input
(0 pts)
Allows input from survivors of violent crime
(1 pt)
Limits to very few
(1 pt)
19% eligible for parole release in 2016
(5 pts)
Presumptive parole for some offense types/sentences
(5 pts)
The statute/policy does not discourage subjective denials
(2 pts)
No/completely discretionary
(0 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute.
(0 pts)
No, or no mention
(0 pts)
Guidelines used but deviations allowed
(2 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc
(0 pts)
Both administrative and judicial
(6 pts)
• Can earn good time toward ending parole
(5 pts)
• Explicit prohibition against associating with others on parole/criminal history.

• Supervision fee
(-10 pts)
37 F Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
Montana Yes
(20 pts)
Mandates in-person hearing for all reviews
(15 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Allows prosecutor input
(1 pt)
Allows input from survivors of violent crime
(1 pt)
Yes, from all at hearing
(3 pts)
60% eligible for parole release in 2016
(12 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy does not discourage subjective denials
(2 pts)
No/completely discretionary
(0 pts)
Mentions "parole investigator" or someone similar
(5 pts)
If individual or attorney files FOIA
(5 pts)
Guidelines used but deviations allowed
(2 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc
(0 pts)
Minimal/none at all
(0 pts)

66 D See the website of the Montana Board of Pardons and Parole. We also used the National Corrections Reporting Program.
Nebraska Yes
(20 pts)
Before parole eligibility, two parole board members (or one designee) interview the applicant. If those people do not believe that a release on parole is likely, a hearing is not scheduled
(0 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Statute is silent
(3 pts)
Allows input from survivors of violent crime
(1 pt)
Yes, from all at hearing
(3 pts)
6% eligible for parole release in 2016
(0 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy lists examples of allowed reasons for denial that are subjective
(0 pts)
Yearly
(3 pts)
Actually assigns staff and calls them counselors/case managers
(10 pts)
To some records
(2 pts)
No guidelines mentioned
(0 pts)
Yearly report, to committee with oversight, that includes any deviations from guidelines and explanations, made public
(6 pts)
Minimal/none at all
(0 pts)
• Can earn good time toward ending parole
(5 pts)
• Explicit prohibition against associating with others on parole/criminal history
(-5 pts)
48 F Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
Nevada Yes
(20 pts)
The parole board may not deny release without an in-person hearing
(15 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Mandates prosecutor input
(0 pts)
Mandates survivor input
(0 pts)
At board's discretion at hearing
(2 pts)
34% eligible for parole release in 2016
(10 pts)
Presumptive parole for some offense types/sentences
(5 pts)
The statute/policy lists examples of allowed reasons for denial that are subjective
(0 pts)
No/completely discretionary
(0 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute
(0 pts)
No, or no mention
(0 pts)
Guidelines used but deviations allowed
(2 pts)
Yearly report, to committee with oversight, that includes any deviations from guidelines and explanations, made public
(6 pts)
Both administrative and judicial
(6 pts)
• Can earn good time toward ending parole
(5 pts)
• Explicit prohibition against associating with others on parole/criminal history
(-5 pts)
66 D Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
New Hampshire Yes
(20 pts)
Mandates in-person hearing for all reviews
(15 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Mandates prosecutor input
(0 pts)
Mandates survivor input
(0 pts)
At board's discretion at hearing
(2 pts)
40% eligible for parole release in 2016
(10 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy lists examples of allowed reasons for denial that are subjective
(0 pts)
No/completely discretionary
(0 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute
(0 pts)
No, or no mention
(0 pts)
No guidelines mentioned
(0 pts)
Yearly report, to committee with oversight, that includes any deviations from guidelines and explanations, made public
(6 pts)
Judicial only
(3 pts)
• Board can consider termination of parole at any time
(5 pts)

61 D- Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
New Jersey Yes
(20 pts)
Face-to-face hearings are held when the board anticipates denying release, but for release on presumptive parole face-to-face hearings are not considered necessary.
(15 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Mandates prosecutor input
(0 pts)
Mandates survivor input
(0 pts)
At board's discretion at hearing
(2 pts)
Data not available from NCRP
(0 pts)
Presumptive parole for almost all offense types/sentences
(9 pts)
The statute/policy does not discourage subjective denials
(2 pts)
Yearly
(3 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute
(0 pts)
No, or no mention
(0 pts)
Guidelines used but deviations allowed
(2 pts)
Yearly report, to committee with oversight, that includes any deviations from guidelines and explanations, made public
(6 pts)
Both administrative and judicial
(6 pts)
• Board can consider termination of parole at any time.

• No restriction on associating with others on parole/criminal history
(10 pts)

75 C Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
New Mexico Abolished discretionary parole release in 1979
(0 pts)
0F- Robina Institute, Parole Boards within Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Structures, April 3, 2018
New York Yes
(20 pts)
All parole board members who will be voting on that applicant, will meet the applicant via video prior to a vote.
(7 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Mandates prosecutor input
(0 pts)
Mandates survivor input
(0 pts)
From anyone in written fashion
(2 pts)
11% eligible for parole release in 2016
(5 pts)
Presumptive parole for some offense types/sentences
(5 pts)
The statute/policy does not discourage subjective denials
(2 pts)
No more than 2 years, depending on the crime of conviction
(2 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute
(0 pts)
If individual or attorney files FOIA
(5 pts)
No guidelines mentioned
(0 pts)
Yearly report, to committee with oversight, that includes any deviations from guidelines and explanations, made public
(6 pts)
Both administrative and judicial
(6 pts)
• Has actual cap on time of supervision
(5 pts)
• Explicit prohibition against associating with others on parole/criminal history
(-5 pts)
60 D- Robina Institute state parole profile, 9 CRR-NY 8002.1 and National Corrections Reporting Program
North Carolina Abolished discretionary parole release in 1994
(0 pts)
0F- Robina Institute, Parole Boards within Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Structures, April 3, 2018
North Dakota Yes
(20 pts)
Access to in-person hearings dependings on custody level of facility
(8 pts)
Yes
(6 pts)
Allows prosecutor input
(1 pt)
Allows input from survivors of violent crime
(1 pt)
From anyone in written fashion
(2 pts)
Data not available from NCRP
(0 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy lists examples of allowed reasons for denial that are subjective
(0 pts)
No/completely discretionary
(0 pts)
Actually assigns staff and calls them counselors/case managers
(10 pts)
To some records
(2 pts)
Guidelines used but deviations allowed
(2 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc.
(0 pts)
Minimal/none at all
(0 pts)

52 F Prison Policy Initiative volunteer Sari Kisilevsky interviewed Steve Hall of the North Dakota Parole Office in February 2019.
Ohio Abolished discretionary parole release in 1996
(0 pts)
0F- Robina Institute, Parole Boards within Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Structures, April 3, 2018
Oklahoma Yes
(20 pts)
Full hearing depends on crime
(8 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Statute is silent
(3 pts)
Allows input from survivors of violent crime
(1 pt)
At board's discretion at hearing
(2 pts)
17% eligible for parole release in 2016
(5 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy lists examples of allowed reasons for denial that are subjective
(0 pts)
No/completely discretionary
(0 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute
(0 pts)
No, or no mention
(0 pts)
No guidelines mentioned
(0 pts)
Yearly report, to committee with oversight, that includes any deviations from guidelines and explanations, made public
(6 pts)
Minimal/none at all
(0 pts)

• Explicit prohibition against associating with others on parole/criminal history.

• Supervision fees
(-10 pts)
35 F Robina Institute state parole profile (It is possible that we were overly generous in giving Oklahoma some points for in-person hearing access. According to the statutes, hearings are not required non-violent offenses, and the complicated, two-step, process for violent offenses does not explicitly require a full in-person hearing.)
Oregon Abolished discretionary parole release in 1989
(0 pts)
0F- Robina Institute, Parole Boards within Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Structures, April 3, 2018
Pennsylvania Yes
(20 pts)
Voting members of the parole board are not required to meet with the applicant; but an investigator will meet with the applicant
(0 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Mandates prosecutor input
(0 pts)
Mandates survivor input
(0 pts)
Statute is silent
(0 pts)
36% eligible for parole release in 2016
(10 pts)
Presumptive parole for some offense types/sentences
(5 pts)
The statute/policy does not discourage subjective denials
(2 pts)
Yearly
(3 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute.
(0 pts)
No, or no mention.
(0 pts)
Guidelines used but deviations allowed
(2 pts)
Yearly report, to committee with oversight, that includes any deviations from guidelines and explanations, made public
(6 pts)
Minimal/none at all
(0 pts)
• No restriction on associating with others on parole/criminal history
(5 pts)
• Supervision fee.
(-5 pts)
48 F Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
Rhode Island Yes
(20 pts)
Mandates in-person hearing for all reviews
(15 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Mandates prosecutor input
(0 pts)
Mandates survivor input
(0 pts)
From anyone in written fashion
(2 pts)
50% eligible for parole release in 2016
(12 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy does not discourage subjective denials
(2 pts)
No/completely discretionary
(0 pts)
Actually assigns staff and calls them counselors/case managers
(10 pts)
No, or no mention
(0 pts)
Guidelines used but deviations allowed
(2 pts)
Yearly report, to committee with oversight, that includes any deviations from guidelines and explanations, made public
(6 pts)
Minimal/none at all
(0 pts)

• Supervision fee.

• Explicit prohibition against associating with others on parole/criminal history
(-10 pts)
59 F Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
South Carolina Yes
(20 pts)
Applicant is not allowed to present in-person, only via video. If the applicant hires an attorney, the attorney must present from the facility via video. Other witnesses, including victims, prosecutors, arresting officers and presiding judge may testify in person.
(5 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Mandates prosecutor input
(0 pts)
Mandates survivor input
(0 pts)
At board's discretion at hearing
(2 pts)
24% eligible for parole release in 2016
(5 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy lists examples of allowed reasons for denial that are subjective
(0 pts)
No more than 2 years, depending on the crime of conviction
(2 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute.
(0 pts)
Yes, without asking
(10 pts)
No guidelines mentioned
(0 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc.
(0 pts)
Administrative only
(3 pts)


47 F https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t24c021.php
South Dakota Yes
(20 pts)
When the warden reports that an applicant has not substantively complied with his or her Individual Program Directive, a face-to-face hearing is held to determine compliance and decide about release. Otherwise releases are made presumptively on the first eligibility date.
(15 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Statute is silent
(3 pts)
Allows input from survivors of violent crime
(1 pt)
At board's discretion at hearing
(2 pts)
Data not available from NCRP
(0 pts)
Presumptive parole for some offense types/sentences
(5 pts)
The statute/policy does not discourage subjective denials
(2 pts)
No more than 2 years, depending on the crime of conviction
(2 pts)
Mentions "parole investigator" or someone similar
(5 pts)
If individual or attorney files FOIA
(5 pts)
Guidelines used but deviations allowed
(2 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc.
(0 pts)
Judicial only
(3 pts)


65 D https://doc.sd.gov/about/faq/parole.aspx
Tennessee Yes
(20 pts)
Voting members of the parole board are not required to meet with the applicant; but an investigator will meet with the applicant
(0 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Allows prosecutor input
(1 pt)
Allows input from survivors of violent crime
(1 pt)
From anyone in written fashion
(2 pts)
34% eligible for parole release in 2016
(10 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy lists examples of allowed reasons for denial that are subjective
(0 pts)
No/completely discretionary
(0 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute
(0 pts)
No, or no mention
(0 pts)
Guidelines used but deviations allowed
(2 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc
(0 pts)
Administrative only
(3 pts)

• Has an option called Community supervision for life - for people who have finished their sentence but is never released from parole
(-5 pts)
34 F https://codes.findlaw.com/tn/title-40-criminal-procedure/tn-code-sect-40-28-117.html
Texas Yes
(20 pts)
Voting members of the parole board are not required to meet with the applicant; but an investigator will meet with the applicant
(0 pts)
No
(0 pts)
Mandates prosecutor input
(0 pts)
Allows input from survivors of violent crime
(1 pt)
From anyone in written fashion
(2 pts)
55% eligible for parole release in 2016
(12 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy lists examples of allowed reasons for denial that are subjective
(0 pts)
No/completely discretionary
(0 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute
(0 pts)
No, or no mention
(0 pts)
Guidelines used but deviations allowed
(2 pts)
Yearly report, to committee with oversight, that includes any deviations from guidelines and explanations, made public
(6 pts)
Both administrative and judicial
(6 pts)
• No restriction on associating with others on parole/criminal history
(5 pts)
• Supervision fee
(-5 pts)
49 F Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
Utah Yes
(20 pts)
Mandates in-person hearing for all reviews
(15 pts)
Yes
(6 pts)
Mandates prosecutor inputs
(0 pts)
Mandates survivor input
(0 pts)
From anyone in written fashion
(2 pts)
Data not available from NCRP
(0 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy lists examples of allowed reasons for denial that are subjective
(0 pts)
No/completely discretionary
(0 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute
(0 pts)
Yes, without asking
(10 pts)
Guidelines used but deviations allowed
(2 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc.
(0 pts)
Both administrative and judical
(6 pts)
• No restriction on associating with others on parole/criminal history.

• Can earn good time toward ending parole.

• Has actual cap on time of supervision
(15 pts)
• Supervision fee
(-5 pts)
71 C- Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
Vermont Yes
(20 pts)
Mandates in-person hearing for all reviews
(15 pts)
Yes
(6 pts)
Allows prosecutor input
(1 pt)
Mandates survivor input
(0 pts)
Yes, from all at hearing
(3 pts)
37% eligible for parole release in 2016
(10 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy does not discourage subjective denials
(2 pts)
No more than 2 years, depending on the crime of conviction
(2 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute
(0 pts)
Yes, without asking
(10 pts)
No guidelines mentioned
(0 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc.
(0 pts)
Minimal/none at all
(0 pts)
• No restriction on associating with others on parole/criminal history.
(5 pts)
• Supervision fee
(-5 pts)
69 D+ Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program
Virginia Abolished discretionary parole release in 1995
(0 pts)
0F- Robina Institute, Parole Boards within Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Structures, April 3, 2018
Washington Abolished discretionary parole release for most offenses in 1994
(0 pts)
0F- Robina Institute, Parole Boards within Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Structures, April 3, 2018
West Virginia Yes
(20 pts)
Mandates in-person hearing for all reviews
(15 pts)
Yes
(6 pts)
Mandates prosecutor input
(0 pts)
Allows input from survivors of violent crime
(1 pt)
At board's discretion at hearing
(2 pts)
20% eligible for parole release in 2016
(5 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy lists examples of allowed reasons for denial that are subjective
(0 pts)
Yearly
(3 pts)
No mention at all of case management or staff assistance in statute
(0 pts)
Yes, without asking
(10 pts)
Guidelines used but deviations allowed
(2 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc.
(0 pts)
Minimal/none at all
(0 pts)
• No restriction on associating with others on parole/criminal history
(5 pts)
• Supervision fee
(-5 pts)
64 D http://www.wvlegislature.gov/wvcode/chapterentire.cfm?chap=62&art=12&section=13
Wisconsin Abolished discretionary parole release in 2000
(0 pts)
0F- Robina Institute, Parole Boards within Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Structures, April 3, 2018
Wyoming Yes
(20 pts)
Mandates in-person hearing for all reviews.
(15 pts)
Yes
(6 pts)
Mandates prosecutor input
(0 pts)
Mandates survivor input
(0 pts)
Statute says that applicant may request the presence of families, friends and/or an attorney. (The statute does not say that the board is required to grant that request.)
(2 pts)
34% eligible for parole release in 2016
(10 pts)
No presumptive parole policies at all
(0 pts)
The statute/policy does not discourage subjective denials
(2 pts)
Yearly
(3 pts)
Actually assigns staff and calls them counselors/case managers
(10 pts)
If individual or attorney files FOIA
(5 pts)
Guidelines used but deviations allowed
(2 pts)
Yearly report, to governor or another person, with minimal basic data - numbers released, revoked, etc.
(0 pts)
Judicial only
(3 pts)
• May be rewarded good time on parole and shorten supervision
(5 pts)

83 B- Robina Institute state parole profile and National Corrections Reporting Program

Sources and methodology

Has discretionary parole for new offenses (20 pts)
16 states have abolished discretionary parole for most or all new offenses, although some of these states may have retained a system of mandatory parole for the end of some sentences and all would have retained discretionary parole for offenses committed before the change in the law. These 16 states received a final score of F-. For more on this, see the methodology.
Would mandate face-to-face hearings (15 pts)
Does the board hold face-to-face parole hearings with parole applicants or are applicants only able to meet with board staff, etc.? (For more on the perils of video meetings, see footnote 1.)
Would provide method to challenge incorrect information (6 pts)
Does the board allow parole applicants to rebut information they claim is factually incorrect?
Prohibits input from prosecutors (3 pts)
Does the board prohibit prosecutors from offering testimony at parole hearings? For more on this and why we gave some states partial credit, see our methodology.
Prohibits input from crime survivors (3 pts)
Does the board prohibit survivors of violent crimes from offering testimony at parole hearings? (For more the role that survivors should play, see our article Should prosecutors and survivors have a voice in shortening long sentences? )
Would allow input from applicant, family, community, employers, prison admin (3 pts)
Does the board allow family members and those with day-to-day knowledge of the parole applicant (such as correctional staff) to provide testimony at parole hearings? For more on this, see the relevant section of the report.
Portion of the incarcerated population that the legislature allows the parole board to consider for release by restricting what offense/sentence types are eligible for parole
What percentage of the incarcerated population were eligible to have parole hearings in 2016? For more on the value and weaknesses of this measure as a way to determine how much discretion the legislature gives parole boards, see the methodology.
Employs presumptive parole policies (9 pts)
To what extent does the state offer presumptive parole, which releases incarcerated individuals at their first parole eligibility date without a hearing if they accomplish set criteria?
Does not deny parole for subjective reasons (6 pts)
Ideally, states would prohibit parole boards from denying release for subjective reasons. For more on the importance of objectivity and why we gave some states partial credit, see our methodology.
Would mandate yearly reviews (3 pts)
Does the board review applicants within one year after a denial? For more on the importance of timely re-hearings, see the relevant section of the report.
Would provide case managers to assist individuals (10 pts)
Are case managers provided to parole applicants to assist them prepare for parole hearings?
Would provide individuals with access to all records (10 pts)
Does the board allow parole applicants access to the records and information the board relies on to arrive at its decision?
Would incorporate parole guidelines (8 pts)
Does the board have guidelines based on best practices that it employs to arrive at parole decisions, and are those guidelines made public?
Would require parole board to file yearly report to committee with oversight about parole denials and provide justifications (6 pts)
Does the board file yearly public reports that have statistical measures and explanations of any deviations from parole guideline recommendations? For more on why this detail is essential and why we gave zero points to states that publish statistical reports that do not explain denials, see the methodology.
Would have meaningful appeal process (6 pts)
Are incarcerated individuals who are denied parole offered a meaningful process, administratively or statutorily, to appeal that denial?
Points added for
We gave extra credit for some specific policies that are very likely to help people succeed while on parole. For more, see the extra credit discussion in the methodology
Points deducted for
We removed points for some specific policies that are very likely to make it harder people too succeed while on parole. For more, see the extra credit discussion in the methodology

Stay Informed

Get the latest updates:


And our other newsletters:







Tweet this page Follow @PrisonPolicy on Twitter Donate Now hiring: Policy Fellow

Stay Informed

Get the latest updates:


And our other newsletters:







Events

Nothing scheduled right now. Invite us to to your city, college or organization.