• Probationers include adult offenders whom courts place on community supervision instead of incarceration.

• Parolees include those adults conditionally released to community supervision whether by parole board decision or by mandatory conditional release after serving a prison term. They are subject to being returned to jail or prison for rule violations or other offenses.

• At yearend 2003, over 4.8 million adult men and women were under Federal, State, or local probation or parole jurisdiction; approximately 4,074,000 on probation and 774,600 on parole.

• The 1.5% growth in the probation and parole population during 2003 -- an increase of 73,574 during the year -- was about half the average annual growth of 2.9% since 1995.

• At the end of 2003 --

-- Among offenders on probation, half (49 percent) had been convicted for committing a felony, 49% for a misdemeanor, and 2% for other infractions. Seventy-one percent of probationers were being actively supervised at the end of 2003; 9% were inactive cases and 11% had absconded.

-- Nearly all of the offenders on parole (95%) had been sentenced to incarceration of more than 1 year.

-- Women made up about 23% of the nation's probationers and 13% of the parolees.

-- Approximately 56% of the adults on probation were white, and 30% were black, and 12% were Hispanic. Forty percent of parolees were white, 41% black, and 18% were Hispanic.

• State inmates released from prison as a result of a parole board decision dropped from 50% of all adults entering parole in 1995 to 39% in 2002, while mandatory releases based on a statutory requirement increased from 45% to 52%.

• 45% of State parole discharges in 2002 successfully completed their term of supervision, relatively unchanged since 1995. 41% were returned to jail or prison, and 9% absconded.

• By the end of 2000, 16 States had abolished parole board authority for releasing all offenders, and another 4 States had abolished parole board authority for releasing certain violent offenders

The Mechanics of the Parole Guidelines – “Who’s Keeping Score”

The Parole Guidelines were placed into effect the later part of 2001. These guidelines are considered an objective tool based on a "point system" to assist the Parole Board to rapidly assess whether or not an inmate is considered a parolee candidate by risk level. The Parole Guidlines Score is to provide better predictabilty in determining a successful outcome for release. Understand the guidelines are just a tool to assist only in the parole process. They do not automatically determine the outcome based on a single numeric figure.

To clarify the point, the Guidelines were designed to release non-violent offenders, non-sex offenders and low level crime offenders back into society while keeping the violent offenders, aggravated sex offenders and high level crime offenders in prison as society expects. .

The Institutional Parole Officer (IPO) is the one who is responsible for computing the Parole Guideline Score (PGS) for every eligible inmate at the time of the inmate's parole interview. It is also the responsibility of the inmate to tally his or her own score as they see themselves, both now as well as in the past. The composite score result and the interview notes are documented in a Decision Summary Form and sent electronically to the hearing Board office for review.

The parole guidelines are based on two components combined to derive a single score. The first component is the 1. Risk Level Assessment Rank and the second component is the 2. The Offense Severity Ranking. The information used to derive the score is based on the inmate’s official record kept by the TDCJ and the outcome of the IPO interview. The inmate must understand how the IPO is scoring each question and to identify any inconsistencies.

The first guideline component is the inmate’s risk level of recidivism or the risk of falling back into trouble again. The 1. Risk Level Assessment Rank component is divided into two parts,

A. The Static Factors (factors involving the past histories)

• Age at first admission to a juvenile or adult correctional facility
• History of supervisory release revocations for felony offenses
• Prior incarcerations
• The commitment offense

B. The Dynamic Factors (factors that are relevant while incarcerated)

• Inmate’s current age
• Whether the inmate is a confirmed security threat group (gang) member
• Education, vocational and certified on-the-job training programs completed during the present incarceration.
• Prison disciplinary conduct
• Current prison custody level

The Static Factors and the Dynamic Factors are combined to create the Risk Level Score. A lower score equates to a lower risk of recidivism.

A Word of Caution
Based on a review by the Criminal Justice Policy Council (CJPC) a sample of parole case files from previous years, revealed errors in calculating the risk level score and using the wrong offense types to determine the overall parole guideline's score.

• 19% of the cases examined had errors in the risk level score or the guideline score calculation on the Parole Guideline Form.

• The Parole Guidelines Forms are scored only by the Institutional Parole Officers.
Because of the reasons above, every inmate needs to insure that the IPO is scoring the Parole Guideline form correctly. Every inmate should know their own score to insure the numbers match with the IPO.

• Every needs to insure what the severity ranking of the most current offense committed is.

Tip Please take the time to fill-in the Guideline Questionnaire in relation to your loved one to see how the score turns out to best build the interview before the institutional parole officer and plan for the board.

1A ) Risk Level Assessment Rank - Static Factors (1^st component)

NOTE: The system does not keep your guideline score.

The Static Factors and Associated Points Part 1

The static factors entail the inmate’s prior record.  Of course these factors can not change like dynamic factors. Below are the five static factors and the associated points.  An inmate’s score can be assigned between 0 (best) and 9 (worst) points for static factors.

The Final Results and Discussion about the PGS and Parole Board's Decisions

By filling out the Parole Guideline form objectively and selected the correct rank for the current crime committed then you will derive the computed final Parole Guideline Score (PGS). By "clicking on" the parole board that will handle the parole case you will see the actual considerations, approvals and percentage of approvals for each member as they voted in fiscal year 2004.

You can also switch to different board offices to see "what if" scenarios as the percentages of approvals can change drastically from one voting individual to another. Percentages of approvals can sway as much as 34% from one office to another.This is a disturbing reality because it indicates that individual members have full discretion to vote the way they personally see and feel that day and to disregard documentation that could clearly show a possible favorable position for parole.

Case in point, an inmate may have a final parole score of 7. If that inmate's fate lies with Mr. Roy Garcia from the Palestine Board Office, that inmate stands a better than a 76.5% chance for parole approval. Where as that same inmate would stand a lesser chance for parole approval at 32.6% from Mr. Alvin Shaw in the Gatesville Board Office, a 44% difference of opinion.

Please understand that last years considerations and approval ratings are not reflective in the current year's voting statistics.

  Board Office Voting Discrepancies Highlighted for Fiscal Year 2004

(Click here for Parole Statistics by the Voting Board)

The Computation Charts

Computing the Final Score – Combining the Risk and the Rank

After the first component (Risk Level Assessment) score has been determined and the second component (Offense Severity Rank) has been identified,  it now time to merge into a table that creates the overall inmate’s parole guideline score.

Two things to keep in mind while deriving this score,  first,  the higher the number the better risk he/she is predicted to complete a successful parole.  And secondly,  the guideline score is discretionary,  meaning any voting board member can vote against the score if an inmate’s individual case warrants such a decision. This is an important key o remember as you will see little later on.

Parole Guidelines scores range from 1 - the poorest probability for a successful parole to a 7 – the greatest probability for a successful parole.

The Inmate’s Guideline Score Verses Suggested Parole Approval

The suggested parole approval rates are simple benchmarks for the voting Board members to use at their discretion.  These target percentages, in place by a consulting group, are not actually reflective of how the Board members vote.  The true approval percentages are actually much lower than the suggested parole approval targets by more than fifty percent with the least severity in crime and the least in risk level assessment. 

Consulting Group Targets

Guideline Projections and Actual Approval Trends

The Criminal Justice Policy Council projects that 12 more prisoners will enter the prison system than are released each day. Parole approval rates are at historically low levels. Even after adoption of the risk guidelines, intended to help guide low risk prisoners into parole while keeping violent offenders incarcerated, the parole approval rates did not meet the Board’s guidelines. This information was extrapolated in 2002, however, statically trends have not varied too much from year to year.

What this table displays is that those inmates classified in the high to highest risk levels of recidivism and crimes committed are more closely matched to the Guideline's approval ranges. Where as those inmates classified in the low to moderate risk levels of recidivism and non-violent, non-sexual crimes, the percentage disparity is much greater (highlighted in blue).

For example, look at the first line in the table. 7 Low Severity / Low Risk of recidivism, the parole consultants tabulated that between 76% to 100% should be approved for parole under supervision. To find the Mean Percentage, take 76, the low end percentage add to 100 the high end percentage and then divide by two to get 88. 88% represents the average percentage of inmates that should be released on parole according to the Guideline Levels. Only 55.9% were released on parole in 2002. This discrepancy is over 32% or close to 20,000 inmates that should have be released to the Parole Division, according to the Guidelines, are instead kept incarcerated.

Potential Shortfalls of the Parole Guidelines

• The Parole Guidelines does not take into account the time served by an offender.
  
  For example, an inmate is denied parole at his or her's first parole hearing. Two years later the guideline scores could potentially be the same if the disciplinary status remains the same. The only item to change would be the offender's age and not taking into account the additional time served on the guideline matrix.

• Returning parole violators with technical violations are scored on their original offense.
  
  The guidelines do not account for previous time spent for the original offense nor for the time spent on parole or that the return to prison is for a technical violation only.

• Board approval rates should be more in line mean Guideline approval rates.
  Particularly with lower risk recidivism rates and lower severity offenses as they were initially designed.