SDMF Site Implementation and Outcome Study

The summary for the SDMF Site Implementation and Outcome Study grant is detailed below. This summary states who is eligible for the grant, how much grant money will be awarded, current and past deadlines, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) numbers, and a sampling of similar government grants. Verify the accuracy of the data FederalGrants.com provides by visiting the webpage noted in the Link to Full Announcement section or by contacting the appropriate person listed as the Grant Announcement Contact. If any section is incomplete, please visit the website for the National Institute of Corrections, which is the U.S. government agency offering this grant.

SDMF Site Implementation and Outcome Study: Parole, best known as discretionary release is, the early releasing entity for people serving time in institutions, began in the state of New York and has been a part of the criminal justice system since 1907. By 1942, all the state and federal criminal justice systems implemented a paroling system to determine who could and could not be released early from prison. Paroling authorities had to develop a release decision making process to determine who was “ready” for early release, based on the premise that people who received early released would agree to abide by certain behavioral conditions, including not committing new crimes, in exchange for serving the remainder of their sentence in their community. This agreement to commit no new crimes recognizes that people in the criminal justice system can change their criminal behavior, making parole decisions key to public safety. Over the years, there has been an increase in the use of parole supervision as institutions have been overcrowded. During 2020, the parole supervision population increased in 30 states and decreased in only 19 states and Washington, D.C.1In the 1979 U.S. Supreme Court case Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, it was established that people who are incarcerated have no “liberty interest” in the parole release process unless an interest is created by state legislation. This ruling meant that most laws/legislation for parole release are determined by state legislature, courts, and parole board member themselves.2 Many paroling authorities have taken steps to establish transparency in how release decisions are made as well as the criteria used. To gather more insight, NIC convened a focus group of several parole boards who stated the importance of establishing a set of foundational principles to guide their release decisions.3Parole releasing decisions should be done with due diligence that is consistent and transparent. The principles guiding parole decision making have evolved over time. It began with an unstructured judgement approach, where board members relied on unclear/unarticulated factors that reflected personal experience, values, beliefs, and “gut feelings.” As the criminal justice field began to embrace evidence-based practices, parole release decision models began to reflect the use of some of these practices. The use of decision matrices is another approach, where a combination of factors are cross referenced with an actuarial risk score. The matrix produces a presumptive parole decision. The structured professional decision guidelines approach uses evidence-based factors that are assigned a rating and calculated into a final score. According to Paroling Authorities Strategic Planning and Management for Results, “the most common and original form of guidelines are matrices incorporating typically, some combination of severity of offense and risk of re-offending bound within specific factors to be considered in each case.4 Today, paroling authorities use some combination of these three basic approaches. As more research is conducted on parole decision making models, more effective models can be developed. Unfortunately, there is scarcity in the research on paroling authorities and the breadth of their decision making.5