The Department of Justice was created. [AGSRP]

The good time statute was amended to provide that the good time specified in the act of 1867 applied only to institutions in which no other good time credits were allowed. In all other cases, the deductions applicable to state prisoners were to apply. [AGSRP]

A general revision of the good-time credit statute was made, placing all federal prisoners, wherever confined, on an equal basis. The schedule of good-time credits was made more liberal and graduated so as to increase with the length of sentence. The credits allowed per month follow: Five days upon a sentence of not less than 6 months nor more than 1 year; six days upon a sentence of more than one year and less than 3 years; seven days on sentence of at least 3 years but less than 5 years; eight days on a sentence of at least 5 years but less than 10 years; and ten days on a sentence of 10 years or more. In addition, a prisoner in a camp or employed in prison industry could earn an additional three days per month in the first year and five days per month in each succeeding year. [AGSRP]

Good-time credits are primarily under the control of the officials of the institution at which the prisoner is confined. Forfeitures for breach of institutional rules are determined by the warden after the prisoner has been given a hearing before a disciplinary board composed of three members of the prison staff with the deputy warden or disciplinary officer acting as chairman. The prisoner has the privilege of replying and may choose some member of the staff to represent him as counsel. This board thoroughly investigates the alleged misconduct, hears the prisoner and any witnesses he may wish to present, and the members individually recommend to the warden the extent of discipline. The Bureau of Prisons issues general policies concerning the administration of good-time deductions. [AGSRP]

The Attorney General is granted authority to restore credits lost because of misconduct of prisoners in any United States penitentiary upon recommendation and evidence submitted to him by the warden in charge. As to prisoners in state or territorial institutions, restorations are governed by the rules of the particular institution. [AGSRP]

There was no post-release supervision for persons released by good time. [HUSBP]

The federal parole system was created with the passage of an act authorizing the parole of prisoners sentenced to terms of one year or more. Any such prisoner was made eligible for parole upon the expiration of one-third of his or her sentence. The power to grant and revoke parole was placed in the hands of the respective boards of parole established at the several penitentiaries and prisons. The board of parole at each penitentiary was composed of the superintendent of prisons in the Department of Justice and the warden and physician of the particular penitentiary. The board of parole at any federal prison other than a penitentiary was composed of the superintendent of prisons and such officers of the particular prison as the Attorney General designated. [AGSRP]

The first person to hold the position of Superintendent of Prisons was Robert V. Ladow. [HUSBP]

A parole officer was provided for each penitentiary to supervise parolees and to perform such other duties as the board of parole might direct. It was provided that supervision of parolees might also be devolved upon the United States Marshals. [AGSRP]

The parole officer at each penitentiary served mainly as a clearing house for the volunteers and United States Marshals who had personal contact with the parolees. [ARUSBP (1970-72)]

The Act of 1910 also provided that whenever any person has been convicted of any offense against the United States and sentenced and confined in any state reformatory or institution, he becomes subject to the parole laws applicable to the inmates of such institution. [AGSRP]

The Act of 1910 further provided that no parole from either a state or federal institution became effective until approved by the Attorney General. [AGSRP]

Upon violation of parole, the Warden or any member of the institutional board of parole was empowered to issue a warrant for his retaking. A revocation hearing was conducted by the board of parole at the institution soon after his return. Each institution employed a parole officer (at a salary not to exceed $1,500) to assist parole applicants in obtaining employment and supervise parolees after release. U.S. Marshals were used as parole supervisors when needed. A system of monthly reports by parolees and their "first friends" was initiated. [HUSBP]

The federal parole statute was amended so as to make prisoners serving a life term eligible for parole after the service of 15 years. [AGSRP]

No further amendments were made to the parole law until 1930. [AGSRP]

The federal parole system was materially altered by legislation in 1930:

• In lieu of the several institutional parole boards, there was created a single parole board in the Department of Justice to be composed of three members appointed by the Attorney General. This board (the United States Board of Parole) was given power to grant parole without any requirement of approval by the Attorney General. Salaries for the three parole board members in 1930 were $7,500 per year each.
  
  
• Eligibility for parole of persons sentenced to federal institutions with sentences of more than one year was set at one third of the maximum sentence or 15 years in the case of a life sentence:
  
  
• "Every prisoner who has been or may hereafter be convicted of any offense against the United States and is confined in any United States penitentiary or prison, for a definite term or terms of over 1 year, or for the term of his natural life, whose record of conduct shows that he has observed the rules of the rules of such institution, and who, if sentenced for a definite term, has served one-third of the total of the term or terms for which he was sentenced, or, if sentenced for the term of his natural life has served not less than 15 years, may be released on parole" if it appears to the Board of Parole "that such applicant will live and remain at liberty without violating the laws, and if in the opinion of the Board such release is not incompatible with the welfare of society."
  
  
• A federal offender serving his sentence in a state institution was eligible for parole under the same terms and conditions and by the same authority as a prisoner committed to that institution by a state court, but all such paroles were subject to approval by the United States Board of Parole. Supervision within the state was provided by state authorities. If the parolee was permitted to return to his home outside that state, his supervision was devolved upon the United States Marshal in the district in which the parolee resided.
  
  
• The legislation also provided for the transfer of the supervision of federal parolees to the probation officers that supervised probationers for the federal courts by providing that federal probation officers shall perform such duties with respect to persons on parole as the Attorney General shall request. The position of federal probation officer had been established by legislation in 1925 that for the first time authorized courts to impose probation in federal cases. As originally enacted, the probation statute required appointments for probation officers to be made by the judge of the particular district from the civil service register, but in 1930 the requirement for use of the civil service register was removed. The Bureau of Prisons (which had general oversight responsibility for the probation system) promulgated general qualifications which appointees should possess. In brief, these provided that persons selected should have physical vigor and mental adaptability, at least a high school education plus one year in college or a year's experience in organized probation work, and thorough training in the technique of social investigation. General oversight of supervision activities with respect to persons on parole was provided by the parole executive whose office was attached to the Board of Parole in Washington, D.C. [AGSRP]

Appointments to the parole board by the Attorney General were for an indefinite period. [HUSBP]

Although the Federal Probation Act was passed in 1925, the first Congressional appropriation to implement that act was in 1927, and five officers were appointed that year. Two more were appointed in 1928, including Richard A. Chappell who was later to serve on the Board of Parole. [HUSBP]

Preparation for parole was the responsibility of institutional parole officers, who, as staff members in the several institutions, participated in classification procedures, developed social histories, prepared and assembled official reports, and were responsible for social case work involving the prisoner and his or her family in the community. Under the original parole act, an institutional parole officer was appointed by the parole board at each institution. In 1930, this authority was transferred to the United States Board of Parole, but was actually exercised by the Bureau of Prisons, subject to the satisfaction of the Board of Parole. In 1930, the salary of an institutional parole officer was set at $2,000 to $2,600 per year. [AGSRP]

The first offices of the Board of Parole were located in Room 201 of the Tower Building in Washington, D.C. The first three parole board members entered on duty on June 13, 1930. An executive secretary was employed to act as the administrative officer of the board. [HUSBP]

In the Board's first year of operation, the Board's three members traveled as a group to hold hearings in institutions. After a short experimental period in which they discovered that two-thirds of their time was spent in travel status, they began traveling singly to conduct hearings with the vote taken later at headquarters in Washington, D.C. When traveling as a group, the Board heard an average of 40 cases per day and made on-the-spot decisions relative to parole. The Board also made decisions on federal prisoners serving sentences in state institutions. In these cases, a local board made recommendations to the Board of Parole. [HUSBP]

During the first year of operation, the Board heard a large number of offenders who had violated the National Prohibition Act. In the year or two after the Board was created, it paroled a large percentage of this type of law violator. [HUSBP]

Due to the volume of work, three secretaries were assigned to the parole board in addition to the administrative clerk. Two reporters were also employed to transcribe the Board's hearings. [HUSBP]

Legislation was enacted providing for parole for the purposes of deportation. During this year, 133 such paroles were granted. [HUSBP]

Two significant amendments were made to the parole law. First, it was provided that a parolee shall continue on parole until the expiration of the maximum terms specified in his sentence without deduction for such allowance for good conduct. Previously, in the case of a person who was released on parole, good conduct deductions earned in prison operated to shorten the period of parole. Second, it was provided that any person to whom parole is not granted, but who is released prior to the expiration of the maximum term because of good-conduct deductions shall upon release be treated as if released on parole and shall be subject to all provisions of law relating to the parole of United States prisoners until the maximum term or terms specified in his sentence. [AGSRP]

Legislation creating a separate parole board for the District of Columbia removed from the federal parole board jurisdiction over prisoners confined in institutions of the District of Columbia. [HUSBP]

The National Prohibition Act was repealed and there was a dramatic reduction in the number of this type of law violator in federal prisons. The proportion of parole grants to denial also declined. [HUSBP]

James V. Bennett was promoted from Assistant Director to Director of the Bureau of Prisons, replacing Sanford Bates. The Parole Board and the Federal Probation System were still assigned to the Bureau of Prisons and thus under Mr. Bennett' supervision. [HUSBP]

Reports written during this year show that there was an emphasis by the Board to ensure that parolees were returned to their bona fide residences at the time of their release. The Board attempted to "diminish the assaults and larcenies committed against prisoners en route to their homes" by mailing most of the prisoners' money to them at their city of residence. [HUSBP]

The Board appointed its first hearing examiner on May 21, 1939. Three were eventually appointed. Initially, they held hearings in cases of prisoners serving terms of one year and one day. [HUSBP]

Attorney General Murphy called a National Parole Conference, which was held in Washington, D.C. The conference followed a long term fact-finding project financed largely by Works Project Administration (WPA) funds. The project was directed by Wayne L. Morse, who later became a Senator of the United States, and resulted in the five-volume Attorney General's Survey of Release Procedures. As a result of this conference, "A Declaration of the Principles of Parole" was adopted. The conference proceedings were published as Proceedings - National Parole Conference, Washington, D.C., April 17-18, 1939. [HUSBP]

In contrast to the liberal trend of granting reparole, which was extended by the Board five or six years before, the Board in 1939 granted no reparoles at all and rereleased only five conditional releasees. [HUSBP]

The following were the basic parole board procedures (circa 1939):

• Application for Parole. A short while before a federal prisoner became eligible for parole, he is furnished with an application form. This is a very brief form on which the applicant was to enter certain information about himself, his plans, the nature of his crime, his prospective employer, and the person he desires as his parole advisor. If a prisoner does not desire to apply for parole, he is directed to sign a waiver of his right to apply for parole on a form that will be furnished to him.
  
  
• Information About the Prisoner. When a federal offender is committed to a penitentiary or other institution, the judge and district attorney of the committing court file reports and recommendations concerning him. In some instances, a presentence report is made by a probation officer, and in such cases the probation officer's report is also forwarded to the institution to which the offender is committed. Each prisoner is studied closely in connection with the institutional classification procedure. Reports will be filed concerning his progress by the various institutional officers from time to time. Immediately after his admission to the institution, the parole officers begin to study the family, and the social and economic conditions with which he will be faced when he is released on parole. An attempt is made to effect desirable community and home adjustments, and to prepare the community to which the offender will go for his reception.
  
  
• Hearings. Parole hearings are held at each of the federal penal and reformatory institutions four times each year, or once every three months. The hearings are usually conducted by one member of the board. They are ordinarily attended only by the member, the institutional parole officer, the applicant, and a stenographic assistant. The warden and other institutional officers ordinarily do not attend the hearings. No attorney, relative or other person may appear for or against the applicant. However, such persons may write to or interview members of the Board.
  
  
• Disposition. After the return to Washington of the board member who held the hearing, a final determination is made by the whole Board.
  
  
• Conditions of Parole. Before an offender is released on parole, he must agree to the conditions of his parole and an adviser is secured for him. An effort is made to arrange suitable employment for him. Also upon release he is given the usual gratuities which are allowed to federal offenders upon their discharge from an institution.
  
  
• Supervision. Each person released on parole is required to file with the parole executive an arrival report and subsequent written reports at intervals of not more than one month. In some cases the parolee is required to report every few days while in other cases he is required to report monthly. Each report must be countersigned by the parolee's advisor. Each parolee is under the supervision of a probation officer. In some cases, the officer makes frequent visits to the parolee. In other cases, where the parolee has a strong adviser and his case is not a hazardous one, the probation officers may visit him infrequently.
  
  
• Each parolee has an adviser. In many cases, the person chosen is the person suggested by the parolee himself. In other cases, the parole executive finds it necessary to select some other person. In every case, an attempt is made to secure as adviser the person in the community in which the parolee will live who will be most able to direct him toward rehabilitation through the normal community agencies of social control.
  
  
• Violations of Parole. Sole authority to issue a warrant for the arrest of a parole violator rests with the Board of Parole or any member thereof. Such a warrant may be issued at any time prior to the expiration of the sentence if the Board or any member thereof has reliable information that the offender has violated his parole. The violation of parole interrupts the running of the sentence in the manner of an escape. The warrant may be executed by any officer of the prison from which the parolee was released or by any federal officer authorized to serve criminal process within the United States. Upon return to a federal institution, the violator is given an opportunity to appear before the Board at its next meeting. The Board may then or at any time in its discretion revoke the order and terminate such parole or modify the terms and conditions thereof. When parole is revoked, the parolee shall serve the remainder of the sentence originally imposed; and the time that the prisoner was out on parole shall not be taken into account to diminish the time for which he was sentenced.
  
  
• A federal parole violator may be reparoled at any time by the Board of Parole.
  
  
• Final Discharge. Upon the expiration of the parolee's sentence, the parole executive sends him a letter stating that he has apparently completed his parole period satisfactorily. No formal certificate of discharge is issued to him. [AGSRP]

On July 1, 1940, the Federal Probation Service was transferred from the Bureau of Prisons to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Responsibilities of probation officers with respect to parolees continued as before. [HUSBP]

During the ten years the Probation System was under the supervision of the Bureau of Prisons, it expanded from one with eight officers in eight judicial districts to a nationwide program employing 238 officers in eighty-three United States District Courts. [FPJ: 4/2, statement by James V. Bennett, Director, U.S. Bureau of Prisons]

On August 28, 1945, the Attorney General ordered the parole board to report directly to him for administrative purposes. Staff formerly employed by the Bureau of Prisons and assigned to the Board were transferred officially to the Board on February 15, 1946. [HUSBP]

During the year, the character of the federal prison population changed in that the number of persons who had been court-martialed by military authorities and transferred to federal prisons increased. These offenders generally had longer sentences than those imposed by civilian courts. [HUSBP]

On September 30, 1950, the Youth Corrections Act was passed by Congress. Under this legislation, federal offenders less than 22 years of age at the time of conviction could be sentenced to indeterminate sentences with no minimum period of parole ineligibility. The maximum period of imprisonment was fixed by statute at six years, but longer maximum terms were permitted in the case of very serious offenses. This Act contained three other significant features. First, all youth offenders must be initially released on supervision at least two years prior to the expiration of the maximum sentence. Thus, each offender would be initially released with a period of supervision of at least two years. Second, it authorized a court to commit an offender for a period of observation and study prior to sentencing. Third, it provided that the parole board could grant an early discharge from parole supervision, an action that "set the conviction aside" and granted relief from various legal disabilities imposed by the conviction. The Youth Corrections Act was to become effective only upon the certification of the Attorney General that facilities to house such offenders were available. [HUSBP]

The Youth Corrections Act also changed the structure of the parole board. First, it created a three-member Youth Division within the parole board. Second, it increased the number of parole board members from five to eight. Third, it provided that all parole board members would be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for six-year, staggered terms. [HUSBP]

The Youth Corrections Act also provided for an Advisory Corrections Council to be composed of federal judges and federal correctional officials to study and advise on correctional practices. [HUSBP]

Until 1951, prisoners released by expiration of sentence less good time were under supervision until the expiration of their maximum sentence. Legislation approved June 29, 1951, provided that such prisoners were to be released from supervision 180 days prior to the expiration of the maximum sentence. With the implementation of this Act, the number of mandatory releasees under supervision dropped sharply. In general, prisoners with sentences of 18 months or less who were released by expiration of sentence less good time would no longer be released to supervision. [HUSBP]

Legislation approved July 31, 1951, made two changes in parole eligibility. Up to this time, adult prisoners serving sentences of more than one year were eligible for parole after service of one-third of their sentences, except for prisoners serving life sentences who were eligible after the service of 15 years. Under the revised legislation, adult prisoners serving sentences of 180 days to one year were also eligible for parole after service of one-third of their sentences. In addition, prisoners serving terms of more than forty-five years were eligible for parole after fifteen years in the same manner as prisoners serving life sentences. [HUSBP]

The first presidential appointments were made to the parole board in 1953. [HUSBP]

Mr. Scovel Richardson became the first African American appointed to the parole board. [HUSBP]

By order of the Attorney General dated October 15, 1953, juveniles committed by the District of Columbia Juvenile Court to the National Training School for Boys came under the parole jurisdiction of the federal parole board. Prior to this time, the District of Columbia Visiting Committee had acted as the paroling authority for such juveniles. [HUSBP]

The Board hired its first staff director (Dr. Conway Esselstyn). [HUSBP]

During 1955, the parole board began paroling prisoners to outstanding local detainers if they were otherwise considered to be suitable for parole. Previously, an outstanding detainer had acted as a bar to parole. [HUSBP]

Dr. Conway Esselstyn, the Board's first staff director, resigned and was replaced by James Neagles, who served as staff director until 1976. [HUSBP]

The Attorney General called the second National Conference on Parole, which was held in Washington, D.C., on April 9-11, 1956. The Conference was sponsored by the federal parole board and the National Probation and Parole Association. Approximately 500 delegates attended. Out of this conference came Parole in Principle and Practice: A Manual and Report. One of the recommendations of this conference was that release from prison by expiration of sentence less good time be termed "mandatory release" rather than "conditional release." The U.S. Board of Parole implemented this recommendation. [HUSBP]

Congress enacted the Uniform Narcotic Control Act. This Act provided for mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for certain drug offenders. In addition, such offenders were made ineligible for parole consideration. [HUSBP]

On October 4, 1956, the Youth Corrections Act was made available to the federal courts west of the Mississippi River. [HUSBP]

On August 25, 1958, Congress approved legislation that allowed courts to impose an adult sentence on which the prisoner would be eligible for parole consideration after serving less than one-third of the maximum sentence. That is, in addition to the traditional sentencing procedure under which the prisoner had to serve one-third of the maximum sentence before being eligible for parole, the court could now impose (1) a sentence with a period of parole ineligibility that was less than one-third of the maximum sentence, or (2) a sentence with no period of parole ineligibility. In addition, this legislation authorized a court to commit an adult offender for a period of observation and study prior to sentencing, a provision that earlier had been available only for youthful offenders. Furthermore, this legislation provided for the judicial sentencing institutes for federal judges. Finally, this legislation authorized the parole board to terminate releasees from active supervision prior to the expiration of their maximum sentences. [HUSBP]

In addition, legislation passed in 1958 authorized the courts to use the provisions of the Youth Corrections Act in certain cases for persons who were less than 26 years of age at the time of conviction. [HUSBP]

This first federal judicial sentencing institute was held at Boulder, Colorado. A primary topic was the issue of unwarranted sentencing disparity. [HUSBP]

Congress passed the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. This legislation barred certain individuals with criminal records from serving in certain labor or labor-management positions. The federal parole board was given the authority to conduct a hearing for any person who applied for relief from the disabilities imposed by this legislation, and to grant exemptions from these disabilities in deserving cases. [HUSBP]

The Annual Report of the U.S. Board of Parole describes the second phase of a research study on offenders sentenced under the Youth Corrections Act (pertaining to prison programming). [ARUSBP (1959)]

The Annual Report of the U.S. Board of Parole also notes the parole board's evaluation of recidivism statistics indicates that (1) maturation appears to be a significant factor in rehabilitation in that adult offenders have lower recidivism rates than youth offenders, and (2) most parole violations occur within the first or second year after parole and the number of warrants issued in the fifth year after parole is "practically non-existent." [ARUSBP (1959)]

Congress passed the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act, which had provisions for civil commitment of narcotic addicts as well as special provisions for those convicted of criminal offenses. Under this Act, the maximum period of imprisonment on a criminal commitment was fixed by the court with parole eligibility after six months in treatment. A certificate of release readiness from the Surgeon General was a prerequisite for parole. [HUSBP]

Congress also passed legislation transferring responsibility for D.C. youth offenders confined in the D.C. Youth Center from the federal parole board to the District of Columbia government. Supervision of such cases also was transferred from U.S. Probation Officers to the District of Columbia government. [HUSBP]

The parole board adopted a procedure for a "dispositional review" where a parolee or mandatory releasee was serving a subsequent sentence and a violator warrant was lodged as a detainer. Such a review could include a hearing at the place of confinement if the parole board determined such a hearing was indicated. [HUSBP]

The National Training School for Boys was closed, and juveniles committed by the District of Columbia Juvenile Court were placed in D.C. institutions. Accordingly, the federal parole board had no further jurisdiction over D.C. juvenile offenders. [HUSBP]

The parole board increased its complement of hearing examiners to eight. A schedule was adopted under which parole board members conducted about one-third of the hearings and hearing examiners conducted about two-thirds of the hearings. This allowed parole board members more time for voting on cases. In general, decisions were made by a concurrence of two parole board members. If the hearing was conducted by a parole board member, the parole board member hearing the case cast the first vote. The case file was then circulated among other parole board members at the parole board's office in Washington, D.C., until a concurrence of two votes was obtained. If the hearing was conducted by a hearing examiner, the examiner made a recommendation but did not vote. The case file was then circulated among the parole board members at the parole board's office in Washington, D.C., until a concurrence of two votes was obtained. [HUSBP]

Congress passed legislation authorizing the parole board to impose a special condition that a parolee or mandatory releasee reside in and/or participate in a program of a community treatment center (formerly called a pre-release guidance center) as a special condition of parole. This special condition could be used, in some cases, as an alternative to parole revocation. [HUSBP]

Congress amended the Criminal Justice Act to provide for court-appointed counsel for alleged parole and mandatory release violators who could not afford to hire their own attorney. [HUSBP]

Congress also passed legislation authorizing hearing examiners to conduct initial and revocation hearings for youth offenders. [HUSBP]

The parole board began a pilot project that included the following goals: (1) the development of explicit paroling policy guidelines to provide greater consistency and equity in parole decision-making; (2) the provision of well-reasoned, written decisions; (3) more timely decisions; (4) the development of procedures to provide the opportunity for representatives to appear at parole hearings; (5) the development of a two-level appellate process to provide greater due process; and (6) increased liaison between the Board and related agencies. Key features of this project were the decentralization of the parole board into five regions (each headed by a board member) with the Chairman and two other members forming a National Appeals Board in Washington, D.C.; the use of explicit guidelines for parole decision-making; hearings conducted by panels of two hearing examiners with review by the regional parole board member on the record; and the provision of written reasons for parole decisions. [EUSBPR]

The first hearings under this reorganization project were conducted at the Kennedy Youth Center in Morgantown, West Virginia in October 1972. [EUSBPR]

The pilot project comprised five Federal institutions in the northeast region of the country. They were the Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania; the Kennedy Youth Center, Morgantown, West Virginia; the Reformatory for Women, Alderson, West Virginia; the Reformatory, Petersburg, Virginia, and the Correctional Institution, Danbury, Connecticut. [ARUSBP (1972-73)].

The parole board established a Research Unit and hired its first Research Director (Peter Hoffman). [ARUSBP (1970-72)]

The explicit paroling policy guidelines adopted by the parole board were developed in cooperation with a project funded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration and conducted by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. The guidelines were in the form of a two-dimensional grid. The seriousness of the prisoner's current offense (offense severity) was considered on the vertical axis with six categories (later increased to seven and then eight categories). The prisoner's likelihood of recidivism (parole prognosis) was considered on the horizontal axis with four categories. The dimension of parole prognosis was determined by use of a "salient factor score," an empirically derived parole prediction instrument. The intersections of the vertical and horizontal axes formed a grid containing time ranges (such as 12-18 months). The time range set forth the parole board's policy on the customary time to be served before release for a prisoner having that offense seriousness and parole prognosis, assuming good institutional conduct. Decisions outside the guidelines may be made for good cause and upon the provision of case-specific written reasons. For example, misconduct in the institution might warrant a decision above the applicable guideline range, and exceptionally good participation in institutional programs might warrant a decision below the applicable guideline range. [PDMR]

The parole board implemented the procedures for due process in the revocation of parole set forth in Morrissey vs. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S. Ct. 2593. [ARUSBP (1972-73)]

In May 1973, Maurice Sigler, Chairman of the U.S. Board of Parole, submitted the Board's reorganization proposal to the Department of Justice. In July 1973, this proposal was approved by Attorney General Elliot Richardson. [EUSBPR]

The Research Center of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency published a fourteen-volume set of reports on the Federal Parole Decision-Making Project. [PDMR]

Regional offices were established in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Atlanta Georgia, Dallas, Texas, Kansas City, Missouri, and Burlingame, California. Each regional office included a parole board member, five hearing examiners, two case analysts, and clerical staff. [EUSBPR]

The parole board's budget for Fiscal Year 74 was $2,025,000, up from 1,391,000 in Fiscal Year 73 and from approximately $500,000 in 1965. The increase from Fiscal Year 73 to Fiscal Year 74 included the cost of implementing the reorganization. Personnel increased from 48 positions in Fiscal Year 65 to 125 positions in Fiscal Year 74. [EUSBPR]

Each regional office has approximately 20 employees. A typical regional office is staffed with a Board member acting as the Regional Director, an administrative hearing examiner and four hearing examiners, a pre-release analyst, a post-release analyst, and administrative and clerical support personnel. [EUSBPR]

Hearing examiner panels, each consisting of two persons, conduct parole interviews at each institution within the region. At the conclusion of each interview, the examiners inform the prisoner of the recommended (tentative) parole decision. If the recommendations of the examiners differ, the prisoner is informed of both recommendations. All panel decisions are reviewed in the regional office by an administrative hearing examiner and the regional board member. It is the regional board member who makes the final decision, subject to certain limitations (if the regional board member wishes to alter a panel recommendation by more than six months, the case must be sent to the national board members for review). After a decision is made, a Notice of Action is mailed to the prisoner within 15 working days of the hearing. If the prisoner is not granted parole at that time, the reasons are given as part of the Notice of Action. If the prisoner is dissatisfied with the decision, he or she has available a two-step administrative appeal process. [EUSBPR]

According to a report of field visits by Department of Justice Management Programs and Budget staff --

• The average hearing lasted 30 minutes. Revocation hearings took anywhere from 45 to 90 minutes. The hearing began with a review of the inmate's file by one hearing examiner while the other examiner dictated the results of the last hearing. The review usually took 10 to 15 minutes. The offender's prior criminal history was closely examined during the file review. After the file was reviewed by one examiner, he provided a brief summary of the file to the other examiner, who had completed dictating the results of the previous hearing.
  
  
• Prior to the interview with the inmate, the hearing panel discussed the inmate's progress with the institutional case manager. At the beginning of the interview with the inmate, the hearing examiner carefully explained the Board's procedures to the inmate and his right to appeal the decision. The principal discussion points initiated by the hearing examiners were: the validation of the salient factor score, the inmate's offense and the surrounding circumstances of the crime, and his institutional behavior and program participation.
  
  
• The inmate's remarks usually began with a description of the mitigating circumstances of his offense and past criminal behavior. This was most often followed by the inmate's statements regarding his participation in institutional programs and his motivation to become a better citizen. The inmate usually made some reference to his parole release plan. The period of time for the discussion with the inmate ranged from five to 15 minutes. When an inmate's representative was present, the discussion period required as much as one-half hour.
  
  
• Following the inmate's discussion, he was asked if he had any questions he would like to ask the panel. If not, he left the room and the hearing examiners discussed the case. In most instances, the decision-making process, which takes from two to five minutes, was a straightforward application of the guidelines and salient factors to the individual case.
  
  
• The inmate returned to the hearing room and was advised of the panel's tentative decision. When parole was approved, the discussion continued on the completion and validation of the release plan. When parole was denied, the examiners advised the inmate of the reasons and the right to appeal the decision. The process of advising the inmate of the decision required approximately five minutes.
  
  
• Most representatives who were observed by the evaluation teams were institutional staff; however, relatives, prospective employers, and educators have appeared at a number of hearings. Generally, hearing examiners and Bureau of Prisons institutional staff agree that the inmate representative does not have a major effect on parole decisions; however, the representatives can have a positive effect on the inmate's attitude. Cases have occurred where Bureau of Prisons institutional staff members serving as inmates' representatives have directly contradicted the observations and recommendations of the inmate's caseworker. In these instances, the examiner stated that the representative can have a major impact on their decision. [EUSBPR]

The Parole Commission and Reorganization Act (Public Law 94-233) became effective on May 14, 1976. A major revision of the statutes pertaining to parole, this Act retitled the agency as the United States Parole Commission. The primary provisions of this Act are listed below.

• The U.S. Parole Commission is created with a membership of nine Commissioners. The Youth Correction Division was eliminated and its duties absorbed within the new Commission.
  
  
• No fewer than five regions are mandated; a Regional Commissioner is placed in charge of each. Three Commissioners are assigned to a National Appeals Board. Authority and responsibilities of the Commission, the Chairman, and the Regional Commissioners are set forth.
  
  
• Eligibility for parole for prisoners with long sentences, including life terms, is reduced to ten years, from the previous fifteen years.
  
  
• Explicit Guidelines for Decision-Making are mandated.
  
  
• Reasons for denial of parole must be provided to the prisoner in writing. Decisions outside the guidelines must be for "good cause" and must contain specific written reasons for such departure.
  
  
• Parole applicants have a right to examine their own case file (with limited exceptions) prior to the hearing.
  
  
• Parole applicants may be accompanied at their hearings by a representative of their choice, who may make a statement on the applicant's behalf.
  
  
• If a prisoner's sentence is less than seven years, he must be reviewed no later than at 18 month intervals after the initial hearing. If this sentence is seven years or more, he must be reviewed no later than at 24 month intervals following the initial hearing.
  
  
• Prisoners with terms of five years or more and satisfactory institutional conduct must be paroled after service of two-thirds of the term, unless the Commission finds that there is a "reasonable probability" of further crime.
  
  
• A two-level appeal system is mandated.
  
  
• Regular and special conditions of release set by the Commission may be modified only after an opportunity has been offered to the releasee to comment on the proposed modifications. Such modifications are also appealable.
  
  
• The Commission must review a parolee's progress under supervision after two years and at least annually thereafter, and may terminate supervision prior to completion of the sentenced term. Termination of supervision ends the jurisdiction of the Commission over the releasee.
  
  
• After five years of supervision in the community, the Commission must terminate jurisdiction unless it finds, after a hearing, that there is a likelihood of further crime. Such decision is appealable.
  
  
• At the discretion of the Commission, alleged violators may be summoned to a hearing in lieu of being arrested on a warrant, and may be released under supervision pending a revocation hearing.
  
  
• Reviews of parole violation warrants placed as a detainer, while a prisoner is serving a subsequent sentence, must be reviewed within 180 days and a decision made with regard to disposition of the warrant.
  
  
• Alleged parole violators have the right to confront "adverse" witnesses at a preliminary interview and any revocation hearing held in the local community. At such interview or at any revocation hearing, the prisoner may be represented by an attorney (either retained or appointed). Voluntary witnesses may also be present.
  
  
• A preliminary interview is not necessary if the releasee has been convicted of a crime while under supervision.
  
  
• The Commission may subpoena witnesses in revocation proceedings.
  
  
• Following revocation, the parolee receives credit for time under supervision in the community unless he has been convicted of a crime committed while under supervision. If he absconded from supervision, he is credited with the time from the date of release to supervision to the date of such absconding.
  
  
• Attorney representation, privately retained or court appointed, is permitted in any revocation proceeding and at any termination hearing scheduled after five years on parole. [ARUSPC (1976-78)]

The Parole Commission modified the permissible grounds for a prisoner's appeal to make them more specific. The modified grounds for appeal are:

• That the guidelines were incorrectly applied.
  
  
• That a decision outside the guidelines was not supported by the reasons of facts as stated.
  
  
• That especially mitigating circumstances justify a different decision.
  
  
• That a decision was based on erroneous information and the actual facts justify a different decision.
  
  
• That the Commission did not follow correct procedure in deciding the case, and a different decision would have resulted if the error had not occurred.
  
  
• There was significant information in existence but not know at the time of the hearing.
  
  
• There are compelling reasons why a more lenient decision should be rendered on grounds of compassion. [ARUSPC (1976-78)]

Mexico and the United States signed a treaty for the mutual exchange of prisoners incarcerated for crimes while transient aliens within each nation's jurisdiction. The Commission's legal staff participated with the State Department and other units of the Department of Justice in the development of prisoner transfer treaties and implementing legislation. In December 1977, 154 U.S. citizens convicted of crimes in Mexico were transferred to the United States. A special docket was set up to provide prompt parole hearings to these cases. Shortly thereafter, Canada and Bolivia followed this precedent by establishing similar treaties with the United States. [ARUSPC (1976-78)]

After a pilot test of the concept in the Parole Commission's Western Region, the Commission implemented a new procedure that has come to be called "presumptive parole." The purpose of the presumptive parole procedure is to provide the prisoner at the beginning of his sentence a date on which it is presumed that release will take place, provided the prisoner maintains a good institutional adjustment and has developed adequate release plans. This procedure is designed to remove much of the dysfunctional uncertainty and anxiety surrounding the parole process, while retaining the flexibility to deal with substantial changes in circumstances. Presumptive parole procedures went into effect in September 1977. All prisoners with seven years or less (regardless of sentence procedure) and all prisoners with no minimum sentences are heard within 120 days of commitment or as soon thereafter as practicable. A presumptive release date may be set up to four years from the date of the initial hearing (previously, parole dates were set up to six months from the date of the hearing). If a presumptive release date is not set within four years from the date of the initial hearing, the prisoner will be continued to a reconsideration hearing four years from the date of the initial hearing (a "four-year reconsideration hearing"). In addition, interim hearings are conducted as required by statute to consider whether there are any substantial positive or negative changes in circumstances (e.g., outstanding institutional program achievement, disciplinary infractions) that may warrant modifying the presumptive release date originally set. In addition, a prerelease record review is conducted to ensure that the conditions of the presumptive release date (good institutional conduct and a suitable release plan) have been satisfied. Failure to satisfy these conditions may result in retardation of the release date or the scheduling of a rescission hearing. [ARUSPC (1976-78)]

The Parole Commission published Federal Parole Decision Making: Selected Reprints, Volume I. [PDMSR (1)]

In October 1978, the Commission began a periodic review of its paroling policy guidelines at 28 C.F.R. 2.20 and 2.21. In addition to its usual publishing and posting of the proposal, copies were sent to over 1,000 interested persons. Public hearings were held in Atlanta, Denver, and Washington, D.C., and at the Atlanta and Englewood facilities of the Bureau of Prisons. Testimony was received from 69 witnesses, generating over 3,000 pages of transcript. Those giving their views included representatives from the Judiciary, defense and prosecution attorneys, federal prisoners, enforcement agencies, the Bureau of Prisons, the Probation Service, state correctional systems, and scholars. As a result of this effort, certain listed offense behaviors were defined more specifically, certain previously unlisted offense behaviors were added to the guidelines, and certain offense behaviors were moved from one category to another or subdivided. The revised paroling policy guidelines became effective June 4, 1979. [ARUSPC (1978-80)]

Decision guidelines were established for decisions to retard or rescind a parole on account of institutional misconduct. These guidelines are set forth at 28 C.F.R. 2.36. [ARUSPC (1978-80)]

Decision guidelines were established to reward sustained superior program achievement by a reduction from a previously established presumptive release date. The advancement for superior program achievement under these guidelines was deliberately kept modest. It is the intent of the Commission to encourage voluntary program participation, not superficial attendance in programs merely in an attempt to impress the parole decision-makers. These guidelines are set forth at 28 C.F.R. 2.60. [ARUSPC (1978-80)]

The Parole Commission's presumptive release date procedures were expanded. Under the revised procedures, presumptive release dates are set up to ten years from the date of the initial hearing. A defendant who does not receive a presumptive release date will be scheduled for a ten-year reconsideration hearing. Procedures for interim hearings, as required by statute, to review the case for any significant changes in circumstances are unchanged. [ARUSPC (1978-80)]

From April 9-11, 1980, the Parole Commission, in joint sponsorship with the National Institute of Corrections, conducted the Third National Parole Symposium. The conference was held at the University of Maryland at College Park. United States District Judge Frank A. Kaufman, Governor Brendan T. Byrne of New Jersey, and Charles Silberman, author of Criminal Violence, Criminal Justice, were featured speakers. Approximately 250 persons attended. The proceedings of the conference were published as Parole in the 1980's: Proceedings of the National Parole Symposium. [ARUSPC (1978-80)]

The Parole Commission published Federal Parole Decision Making: Selected Reprints, Volume II. [PDMSR (2)]

The Parole Commission published Federal Parole Decision Making: Selected Reprints, Volume III. [PDMSR (3)]

Effective August 31, 1981, the Parole Commission, as a result of a research study, revised its Salient factor Score, an actuarial device used in determining risk of recidivism. The new Salient Factor Score (SFS 81) includes six items, which, when added together, produce a score with a range from zero to ten points. The higher the score, the higher is the likelihood of favorable outcome. SFS 81 demonstrates predictive validity and stability equivalent to that of the seven-item predictive device previously used by the Commission. Of prime importance, the revised device holds promise for greater scoring reliability and ease of scoring. [ARUSPC (1980-83)]

The Parole Commission published the first Rules and Procedures Manual, which consolidated the Parole Commission's rules (28 C.F.R. 2.1 et seq.) with the accompanying procedures. Previously, these had been published separately.

The Parole Commission published Federal Parole Decision Making: Selected Reprints, Volume IV. [PDMSR (4)]

The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-473, October 12, 1984) was passed. This legislation provided for the creation of a United States Sentencing Commission to promulgate explicit decision guidelines (by May 1, 1986) to be used by Federal judges in making sentencing decisions. The Chairman of the Parole Commission serves as an ex officio, non voting member of the Sentencing Commission. The Parole Commission was to be abolished five years from the date the sentencing guidelines took effect. During the five-year transition period, the Parole Commission was to continue in existence to handle cases of parole eligible defendants convicted of offenses committed before November 1, 1987. Cases sentenced under the new law would serve determinate sentences with limited reduction for good time (about 15%). For such cases, post-release supervision would be called supervised release rather than parole, and decisions regarding the conditions of supervised release and revocation would be made by the courts rather than by the Parole Commission. This legislation also repealed Youth Corrections Act. The legislation did not, however, affect parole eligibility for military code or D.C. Code offenders or the Parole Commission's responsibility for making parole release decisions for military code and D.C. Code offenders confined in Bureau of Prisons institutions.

The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 also eliminated the Parole Commission's intermediate administrative appeal (regional appeal), providing a one-step rather than a two-step administrative appeal. [ARUSPC (1986-87)]

The Parole Commission published Federal Parole Decision Making: Selected Reprints, Volume V. [PDMSR (5)]

The Parole Commission sought various legislative initiatives to facilitate the transition between the current and new systems. Legislation was enacted (Public Law 99-646, November 10, 1986) containing two provisions that afforded the Parole Commission flexibility to facilitate its phase out. First, the legislation eliminated the requirement of "no less than five regions." Second, it authorized hearings conducted by one examiner (with the requirement of a panel of two hearing examiners met by a review on the record by the second examiner). [ARUSPC (1985-86)]

The Parole Commission also provided assistance to the newly created Sentencing Commission. As the move toward the establishment of federal sentencing guidelines was based, in large part, on the successful development and use of federal parole guidelines, much of the research conducted and experience gained in the parole context was directly relevant to the sentencing guidelines' effort. The Parole Commission provided a number of data bases for the Sentencing Commission's use, and staffs of both agencies met regularly to examine the data, review the documentation, and discuss the empirical findings. [ARUSPC (1985-86)]

The Parole Commission published Federal Parole Decision Making: Selected Reprints, Volume VI. [PDMSR (6)]

In March 1986, the Parole Commission implemented an experimental program, called Special Curfew Parole, to provide a substitute for Community Treatment Center residence for the 60-day period preceding the otherwise scheduled parole release date. This program, a joint effort of the Parole Commission, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Probation System, was designed for prisoners who were transferred to Community Treatment Centers for a 30-120 day period prior to parole, but who no longer required the support services provided there. Under this program, a qualified prisoner could have his release date advanced by up to 60 days on the condition that he remain at his place of residence between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. each night unless given permission in advance by his probation officer. The Probation Service provided high-activity supervision of the parolee during this period (at least weekly in person contact as well as monitoring compliance with the curfew by random telephone calls). Failure to comply with this special condition could result in imposition of Community Treatment Center residence as a condition of parole or revocation of parole and return to prison. Implemented as a cost-reduction procedure through which the Bureau of Prisons could reduce the number and expense of inmates confined in Community Treatment Centers, this project saved over one million dollars in its first eighteen months of operation. [ARUSPC (1985-86)]

In collaboration with the Bureau of Prisons and the National Institute of Justice, the Parole Commission initiated an experimental program in which selected prisoners would have their parole dates advanced if they volunteered to complete 400 hours of "reparative work." Reparative work is defined as unpaid volunteer work for public or nonprofit private agencies (such as the Volunteers of America, the Salvation Army, or Goodwill Industries). The purpose of the project was to develop an alternative form of punishment that returned something of value to the community and, at the same time, saved prison bed space. During the first phase of the project, 100 prisoners in selected cities each completed the 400 hours of reparative work while residing in halfway houses. These prisoners logged 38,481 hours of unpaid service, work which would have cost the participating agencies over $168,000 for paid employees to perform. In return, release dates were advanced by 5,538 days, providing a substantial savings in prison bed space. Upon release, some parolees were offered full-time paid positions with the agencies they had worked for in the program. A second phase of the program was begun at the Federal Correctional Institution at Forth Worth. In this phase, a limited number of prisoners performed reparative work in the community while still residing at the institution. [ARUSPC (1985-86)]

On April 14, 1987, the U.S. Sentencing Commission transmitted its initial sentencing guidelines to Congress. These guidelines took effect, as scheduled, on November 1, 1987, and applied to all defendants whose offenses were committed on or after that date.

The Bureau of Prisons reported that the cumulative savings from the Special Curfew Parole Project exceeded two million dollars and requested that the program be extended indefinitely. [ARUSPC (1986-87)]

The Parole Commission was accredited by the American Correctional Association's Commission on Accreditation.

The Parole Commission initiated a "Community Control Project," a joint effort with the Bureau of Prisons and U.S. Probation System, using electronic monitoring to ensure compliance with a curfew. Because of population pressures, the Bureau of Prisons was placing offenders in halfway houses up to six months prior to release even if there was no treatment need for such placement. Under this experimental program, selected low-treatment-need offenders were released to the community up to 180 days prior to their normally scheduled parole date with a curfew, electronic monitoring, and intensive supervision substituted for Community Treatment Center placement. Two districts (Southern District of Florida and Central District of California) were selected for this project. [ARUSPC (1986-87)]

The Reparative Work Project was terminated. During the two phases, 132 offenders each performed 400 hours of reparative work and had their parole dates advanced by up to 60 days. A total of 51,281 hours of unpaid community service work was completed and participants had their parole dates advanced by a total of 7,458 days. The value of the work done was estimated to be over $225,000 (for paid employees to have done the same work) and the project was well received by the non-profit agencies involved. Despite these positive findings, the project was terminated because the Bureau of Prisons did not believe that the staff time needed to monitor the project could be spared given the current level of overcrowding. [ARUSPC (1986-87)]

The Special Curfew Parole Project continued. The cumulative number of offenders participating reached 3,000. Very few problems were reported and the revocation rate for violations occurring while on curfew parole was less than three percent. [ARUSPC (1987-88)]

The Community Control Project continued. To date, 120 offenders have participated in this project. During the year, the project was expanded to four additional districts. [ARUSPC (1987-88)]

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 gave the Parole Commission jurisdiction over new-law transfer treaty cases (transfer treaty cases in which the offense was committed on or after November 1, 1987). In such cases, the Parole Commission is to determine the release date by applying the sentencing guidelines promulgated by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. [ARUSPC (1987-88)]

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 also gave the Parole Commission continuing responsibility over all state defendants who are accepted into the U.S. Marshals Service Witness Protection Program. Once a state defendant is accepted into this program, the Parole Commission assumes jurisdiction over the case.

Fifty percent of the initial hearings conducted in Fiscal Year 1988 involved offenders with drug-related convictions, 26% involved property crimes, and another 11% involved crimes of violence (murder, kidnapping, arson, robbery, and assault). [ARUSPC (1987-88)]

The Commission's had 179 authorized positions (Commissioners and staff) and a budget of $11,665,000.

The Parole Commission began an Intensive Supervision Project with the U.S. Probation Office for the District of Maryland for high risk cases. [ARUSPC (1988-89)]

The number of hearings conducted by the Parole Commission began to decline as the sentencing guidelines took effect for defendants who committed offenses on or after November 1, 1987. In Fiscal Years 1987 and 1988, the Commission conducted 19,796 and 20,465 hearings, respectively. In Fiscal Year 1989, the number of hearings declined to 16,619. [ARUSPC (1988-89)]

The Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 extended the life of the Parole Commission by an additional five years until November 1, 1997, because the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 had failed to make adequate provision for the handling of old-law cases. Retrospective abolition of parole release consideration (for defendants who had already committed their offenses) would raise a serious constitutional issue under the ex post facto clause. [ARUSPC (1989-90)]

The Parole Commission has jurisdiction over the following cases: (1) "Old Law" Cases (persons sentenced to prison terms of more than one year for offenses committed prior to November 1, 1987, unless sentenced under a statute expressly prohibiting parole eligibility); (2) Transfer Treaty Cases (persons transferred to the United States from foreign countries to complete service of a foreign sentence, regardless of the date of the offense); (3) State Witness Protection Cases (probationers and parolees serving state sentences who are transferred to federal jurisdiction because of participation in the Federal Witness Protection Program, regardless of the date of the offense); (4) D.C. Code Offenders in Federal Institutions (persons sentenced under the District of Columbia Code who are confined in correctional facilities of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, regardless of the date of the offense); and (5) Military Offenders in Federal Institutions (persons convicted of military offenses who are confined in correctional facilities of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, regardless of the date of the offense).

The number of Parole Commission hearings continued to decline as the sentencing guidelines were applied to new-law cases by the courts. There were 13,568 hearings conducted in Fiscal Year 1990. This included 903 hearings for D.C. Code offenders housed in federal institutions. [ARUSPC (1989-90)]

The Parole Commission was re-accredited by the American Correctional Association's Commission on Accreditation.

The Parole Commission's workload continued to decline. In Fiscal Year 1991, 10,720 hearings were conducted. [ARUSPC (1990-91)]

In August 1991, as part of its phase down effort, the Parole Commission closed its Philadelphia and Atlanta Regional Offices and consolidated these operations in a new Eastern Regional Office, co-housed with the Headquarters Office in Chevy Chase, Maryland. [ARUSPC (1990-91)]

The Special Curfew Parole Project, which had started in 1986, reached a cumulative total of 3,500 cases. As electronic monitoring (started under the Community Control Project) became available in each judicial district, it replaced the curfew parole project. [ARUSPC (1990-91)]

Due to the Parole Commission's phase down, its research unit was eliminated. [ARUSPC (1990-91)]

The Parole Commission, in cooperation with the U.S. Probation Service, developed an experimental project to place technical parole violators in "sanction centers," rather than return them to prison. In 1992, two sanction centers were opened, one in the Baltimore, Maryland, area and one in the Washington, D.C. area. [ARUSPC (1991-92)]

The Parole Commission's Intensive Supervision Project in Hyattsville and Baltimore, Maryland, which had started in 1988, was terminated due to the downsizing of the Commission. An evaluation of the Hyattsville project, prepared by the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives, concluded that the early intervention and increased surveillance of the project provided a tool for preventing escalating criminal behavior. [ARUSPC (1991-92)]

As part of its phase-down effort, the Commission closed its Dallas Regional Offices and consolidated that operation in its Eastern Regional Office co-housed with the Headquarters Office in Chevy Chase, Maryland. This closing resulted in a savings of more than one million dollars in operating funds and reduced the number of Commission personnel by 22 positions. The Commission also eliminated a number of mid-management positions. [ARUSPC (1993-94)]

Given the requirement for the downsizing of the Commission, the Commission began using single hearing examiners to conduct parole hearings. From 1974 to 1994, hearings had been conducted by two-person panels of hearing examiners. Under the revised procedure, a second examiner would review the case record and hearing summary at the Commission's office. [ARUSPC (1993-94)]

The Parole Commission was re-accredited by the American Correctional Association's Commission on Accreditation.

The Parole Commission revised the Salient Factor Score by adding an additional item for older offenders. The revised Salient Factor Score was designated as SFS 95.

The Parole Commission published a Desk Book on Training and Reference Materials as part of a program of staff training.

The Parole Commission closed its Kansas City Regional Office and consolidated that operation in its Eastern Regional Office co-housed with the Headquarters Office in Chevy Chase, Maryland. As with the closing of the Dallas Regional Office in 1993, this closing resulted in a savings of more than one million dollars in operating funds and reduced the number of Commission personnel by 22 positions. With the closing of this office, all Commission functions are conducted from its Chevy Chase, Maryland, office.

Congress passed the Parole Commission Phaseout Act of 1996. This Act extended the life of the Parole Commission by an additional five years (until November 1, 2002). In addition, it reinstated the twelve-year limitation on total service as a Parole Commissioner, and provided for the reduction in the number of Parole Commissioners to two Commissioners on December 31, 1999, and to one Commissioner on December 31, 2001. Furthermore, it required the Attorney General to report to the Congress annually, beginning in May 1998, as to whether it is more cost effective for the Parole Commission to remain a separate agency or whether its functions should be transferred elsewhere. If the Attorney General recommends incorporating the Commission's functions in another component of the Department of Justice, the Attorney General's plan shall take effect in November of the year in which it is submitted unless Congress, by law, provides otherwise. If the Commission's functions are transferred to another component within the Department of Justice, all laws pertaining to these functions remain in effect notwithstanding the November 1, 2002, termination date for the Commission set forth elsewhere in the legislation.

The Parole Commission, with the assistance of a grant from the Office For Victims of Crime, established two Victim/Witness Coordinator positions, and developed a program to enhance the Commission's responsiveness to victims and witnesses at revocation hearings.

Due to the phasing down of the Parole Commission, the Commission had 48 positions (Commissioners and staff) at the end of 1996, a substantial reduction from 145 positions in 1992. At the beginning of 1996, there were six Parole Commissioners. By the end of 1996, this number was reduced to three due to resignations and the provisions of the Parole Commission Phaseout Act of 1996. The Commission's budget was $5,446,000.

The Parole Commission began an experimental project in which parole hearings are conducted using video-conferencing equipment. In February 1997, the first hearings in this project were conducted for prisoners at the Federal Correctional Institution in Oakdale, Louisiana.

The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 gave the Parole Commission several additional responsibilities. First, it provided for the abolition of the District of Columbia Board of Parole by August 5, 2000 and the transfer of its responsibilities to the U.S. Parole Commission. The Act required the Parole Commission to assume jurisdiction by August 5, 1998 over all parole release decisions for felony prisoners confined under D.C. Code felony sentences, and to assume jurisdiction by August 5, 2000 over parole and mandatory release supervision and revocation decisions for all persons serving D.C. Code felony sentences. Second, the Act required the District of Columbia to move to a determinate sentencing system (at least for certain offenses), provided for terms of supervised release to follow these determinate sentences, and gave the Parole Commission ongoing responsibility for supervision and revocation decisions for D.C. Code offenders subject to terms of supervised release under the new determinate sentencing system. Third, it increased the authorized size of the Commission to five Commissioners.

The Parole Commission was re-accredited by the American Correctional Association's Commission on Accreditation.

The Parole Commission revised the Salient Factor Score by increasing the weight given to prior commitments and age at offense, and deleting the drug-abuse item. The revised Salient Factor Score was designated as SFS 98.

The Parole Commission assumed jurisdiction over parole grant hearings for D.C. Code felony offenders confined in District of Columbia Institutions (effective August 5, 1998). The District of Columbia Board of Parole continued to make post-release supervision and revocation decisions for D.C. Code cases.

The Parole Commission assumed jurisdiction over supervision and revocation decisions for D.C. Code parolees and mandatory releasees (effective August 5, 2000). The District of Columbia Board of Parole was abolished.

The District of Columbia moved to a determinate sentencing system for all D.C. Code offenses committed on or after August 5, 2000 (The Sentencing Reform Amendment Act of 2000). (As the law was signed at 5:00 p.m. on August 11, 2001, offenses committed on or after August 5, 2001 but before 5:00 p.m. on August 11, 2001 may be subject to the provisions of the ex post facto clause.). Court-imposed terms of supervised release are mandatory for felony offenders sentenced to imprisonment. For felony offenders sentenced to imprisonment for more than one year, the length of the term of supervised release is fixed by statute at five years (if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized for the offense is twenty-five years or more) or three years (if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized for the offense is more than one year but less than twenty-five years), except in the case of certain sexual offenses for which longer terms of supervised release are authorized. By statute, the Parole Commission is responsible for supervision and revocation decisions for these offenders.

The first D.C. Code determinate-sentence offenders were released on supervised release under the jurisdiction of the Parole Commission.

The Parole Commission began using its hearing examiners to conduct probable cause hearings in D.C. Code parole violation cases. Previously, probable cause hearings for alleged D.C. Code parole violators had been conducted by personnel of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.

The Commission re-established the position of research director.

In FY 2001, the Commission had an authorized total of 81 positions (Commissioners and staff) and a budget of $8,836,000.

Due to the additional responsibilities given the Parole Commission by The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, the Commission was authorized a total of 100 positions (Commissioners and staff) for FY 2002 and a budget of $9,876,000.

The Parole Commission published a revised Desk Book on Training and Reference Materials for hearing examiners and analysts as part of a program of staff training.

The 21^st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act of 2002 extended the life of the Parole Commission until November 1, 2005.