SA 1'200 . Al 1,. 0 ( 1 ) FY2000 Annual Report Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles Serving Georgia With Experience, Innovation, and Accountability 2000 Annual Report State of Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles Whether by denying parole to the undeserving offender or providing community-transition structures to the selected, the Georgia Parole Board operates on the phi losophy that beyond categories, statistics, trends, and politics, pub1ic safety always returns to preventing the criminal act of one person. Pa role Decisions "The Parole Board is intensifying its efforts to address the post-prison challenges of women offenders, such as their immediate return to caregiving roles. In many ways, the transitional period for women is more stressful than that for men, and their success or failure has greater impact on the family." D,: Betty Ann Cook, Member "Our prisons will always contain a population of dangerous, mentally ill offenders. Howeve1; we must reduce the prison recycling of other non-violent offenders by providing bette r com.munity-based mental health support and residential treatment. " Walter S. Ray, Chairman Public safety always returns to prevent i ng the criminal act of one person . 7 ICommunication creates alliances ~~--~~-~ Parole Decisions While electronic communication provides the channels for shared and expedited information, it is still personal communication that matters most in public safety endeavors. An important Board mission this year, as in the previous two, was to travel to Georgia communities to meet with citizens and local criminal justice professionals. Public forums , where crime issues relevant to the community were di scussed by Board Members, agency managers, and local parole staff, resulted in alliances which addressed local needs and boosted the overall effectiveness of Board programs. Even more important was the steady building of trust which provides the springboard for innovative public safety strategies. The pattern of communication, accountability, and trust which shaped the Board's activities in 2000 remains the blueprint for its strategies in the next decade. Nonviolent offenders were the majority of Board releases in FY2000 Property 4,202 38% Sex 61 1% / Violent 1,495 14% Drugs 3,823 35% Other 782 7% Structure plus discretion ensures equity Georgia's sentencing laws and the Board's own policy demand long prison stays for serious offenders. Many offenders cannot be paroled; others who are parole-eligible may be released shortly before their prison discharge date in order to undergo intensive supervised re-entry to the community. Most paroles, however, are for non-violent offenders who do not pose a high security risk, and whose departure from prison frees a bed for a newly sentenced, more dangerous felon . In making parole decisions, Board Members review the inmate's case file which contains comprehensive reports concerning the offender's suitability for parole as well as deficiencies which need to be addressed in prison and upon release. For example, an offender's mental health or medical condition would impact on his or her eventual postprison transition, whether on parole or upon di scharge from a full prison term. While most non-violent cases with similar circumstances receive si milar decisions on if or when to parole, the Parole Board's case-by-case review ensures that exceptional situations will be noticed. Individual consideration prevents the early release of an offender serving for a non-violent offense whose prison conduct suggests violent tendencies, just as it allows favorable consideration toward a deserving offender whose sentence for a lowlevel crime is twice the state norm. Due to the unique circumstances which define more serious crimes, case-by-case study is even more essential. 8 Parole Decisions The integrity of Georgia's parole decision-making process has been nationally recognized for more than 20 years when it became one of the first paroling authorities in the nation to build a system of paroledecision accountability. Georgia's Parole Guidelines, periodically evaluated for crime severity ranking and re-aligned with confinement periods reflecting greatly enhanced prison capacity, remains an essential tool to aid Board members in parole considerations for non-life offenders. Guidelines established accountability In l 979 the Georgia Parole Board in- troduced Parole Decision Guidelines, a model of comparative ri sk assessment for offenders sentenced to less than life. It allowed Board Members to identify the lowest- to highestrisk offender categories in the state's prison population . Guidelines weighed the severity of the offense first, and the offender's individual risk factors within that, to suggest an appropriate confinement time consistent with similar cases. Because confinement times are irrevocably tied to prison capacity, the Parole Board relied on the tool when it was called on by the state to help relieve severe priso n overcrowding in the '80s and early '90s. Using Guidelines, the agency was able to identify and retain behind bars those offenders considered most threatening to society while collapsing prison time for others of relatively lower public risk. The agency's quick response preempted the inevitable federal lawsuit while the state implemented fast-track prison construction. Other states with similar prison emergencies were forced to make arbitrary release deci sions, including across-theboard clemency, which often resulted in disastrous consequences to public safety. "During the next few years, offenders s sentenced under Georgia tough sen- tencing codes will begin to emerge from long prison terms. Community transition centers, which have always been an effective re-entry platform for long-confined inmates, will become even more important for public safety. " Bobby K. Whitworth, Senior Member 9 Parole's 90-percent policy affirms tough sentencing laws Parole Decisions "Our children are e:.'Cposed to drugs and violence at increasingly earlier ages. Without aggressive intervention from all segmems of society, 1hose children a re at high-risk/or entering zhe criminal )us/ice system as adolescents - and never leaving. " Gmfield Hammonds, h: Member G eorgia's two-strikes legislation, passed in 1998, mandates that persons convicted for the first time of murder. rape, armed robbery, kidnapping, aggravated sodomy. aggravated sexual battery, or aggravared child molestation, serve all of their prison sentence without possibility of parole. Persons convicted a second time of any of those seven crimes recei ve a life sentence without possibility of parole. The Parole Board suppoited the legislation because it understood the public's demand for clearly stated tough sentences. The Georgia Board, considered one of the nation's most conservative parole authorities, was already using its clemency powers to require lengthy and often maximum prison confinement times for those same categories of offenders. To fu11her respond to the public's need for cla1ity on sentencing and prison time. the Board cemented its tough decision-making practices into written policy by declaring that offenders convicted of the next tier of 20 violent crimes would serve at least 90 percent of their full sentence in prison. As in all cases reviewed by the Board, parole consideration did not imply release, and could result in I00 percent service. The self-i nitiated 90-percent policy. while extending the overall time-toserve percentage in some crime categories, more precisely refl ected both the conservative and consistent Board decisions typically delivered on severe cases. The 90-percent policy remains in effect, with more than 5,600 decisions rendered under its provisions s ince its effective date of January 1998. Supreme Court rules in favor of Board Because the U .S. Supreme Court reviews few of the many cases submitted to it annually. the Georgia Parole Board considered itself fortunate when Garner V. J ones. et al a case questioning the constitutionality of a Board rule - was pJaced on the calendar. The issue was whether the Board could legally apply an 8-year interval between parole considerations on life-sentenced inmates who committed their crimes prior to 1995 when the rule was adopted. On March 28, 2000, in ruling the Board's retroactive policy was constitutional, the Court noted the Georgia Board's policy permitted a more frequent or expedited review if needed. The Court further noted that the 10 8-year reconsideration policy enabled the Board to put its resources to better use by ensuring attenti on, and more timely release, to those prisoners who should receive parole. Legislative biU conserves state resources Georgia Senate Bill 474, signed into law thi s year, grants counties the authority to provide local jurisdi ction punishment fo r mi sdemeanant offenders and prohibits their transfer to state pri sons where they occupy beds needed for violent offenders. Because they will no longer be automaticall y considered for parole, the Board can concentrate on its most serious cases. Parole Decisions "Our agency works not just with offenders, but also with their families. Our successful intervention efforts with the parolee can dramatically impro ve the well-being of his or her children as well - our best crime prevention. " Dr. Eugene P. Walker Member Parole Board's 90% service policy Serve 90% of sentence ~ Serve >90% but < 100% 188 ....... Serve 100% of sentence (More than 1/'J of all catlfl) 1,914 3,510 Serve <90% of sentence 6 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 From January 1998 to October 2000, the Board processed 5,618 inmates under the 90% policy. Total Cases Processed Under 90% Policy Incest Feticide Robbery Car jacking Bus jacking Statutory rape Attempted rape Child molestation Attempted murder Aggravated battery Aggravated assault Vehicular homicide Cruelty to children Residential burglary Aggravated stalking Vol. manslaughter lnvol. manslaughter Enticing a child Agg. bat-Officer Agg . asslt.-Officer 19 1,024 18 0 203 18 716 183 1,383 80 122 1,399 70 229 47 16 1 88 Total Decisions as of 10/3/2000 5,618 11 Parole population remains steady despite inmate rise Pa r ole Decisions 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Inmate Population - Parole Population - - Board Releases - - Max Outs - Inmate Population, Parole Population and Prison Releases FY1992 to FY2000 ~ -- Inmate Population -- ~ --- ~ - -- ---- .......... ..__ - - - .._ .._ Parole Population ---------- _,.- -- - - - , - .._____ - Board Releases,-' --. .._ -- ', .... _,,- __ - __ - -- Max Outs FY1992 24 ,330 23 ,237 14,820 1,848 FY1993 26,487 23,103 13,952 2,064 FY1994 29,934 20,320 9,925 2,429 FY1995 33,679 18,641 8,414 3,636 FY1996 34,713 21,560 12,845 3,869 FY1997 36,339 21,119 10,079 4 ,092 FY1998 37,908 21 ,025 11 ,389 4,140 FY1999 41,268 22,348 12,042 3,886 FY2000 43,324 22,211 10,960 5,499 Note: Inmate and Parole Populations are as of June 30, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 . Inmate Population Parole Population *Top graph includes Georgia parolees released 10 out-of-state supervision. Nonviolent 17,319 82% 12 Parole Decisions Georgia's Correctional Population - FY2000 CRIME TYPE PROBATION INMATE PAROLE Violent Personal Sex Offense Property 19,705 4,937 49,501 47% 46% 75% 18,680 45% 5,427 51% 9,716 15% 3,578 9% 272 3% 7,169 11% Drug Sales 7,611 49% 3,823 24% 4,233 27% Drug Possession Habitual Violator/ D.U.I. Other 34,542 12,173 11,219 82% 88% 79% 3,352 8% 648 5% 2,023 14% 3,991 948 978 10% 7% 7% TOTAL 139,688 43,669 21,169 % of STATE TOTAL 68% 21% 10% TOTAL 41,963 10,636 66,386 15,667 41,885 13,769 14,220 204,526 100% Inmate population does not include inmates in county jails awaiting transfer to state prisons. Parole population excludes out-of-state cases under supervision in Georgia. Probation population includes offenders in boot camps, detention or diversion centers , but not the 156,000-plus offenders under private probation supervision. Georgia female parolee population by crime type (2,369 under supervision) Probatlonera 88% Offender Population Breakdown Source: The Office of Criminal Justice Research, State Board of Pardons and Paroles (OTIS - 6/2000) 13 Professional panel unites experience and vision Parole Decisions WALTERS. RAY CHAIRMAN Ceated by Constitutional amendment in I943, the Georgia Parole Board is a national model for stable and professional leadership. The agency was well-constructed: It contains authority to carry out established needs of the criminal justice system, flexibility to address the unforeseen challenges, and protection to make decisions on paroles and policy free from political influence. What has made Georgia's Board such a leader, however, is the professionalism of its five members. Their collective experience and commitment to criminal justice ideals keep Georgia's Board continually attuned to longterm as well as short-term public-safety solutions. Chairman Walter S. Ray, of Douglas, appointed to the Board in 1996, was at first reluctant to leave the State Senate where he had represented his friends and neighbors in the 19th Georgia District for twelve years. However, after serving in the leadership roles of President Pro Tempore, Majority Leader, and chairman of several committees, he recognized that the Parole Board appointment would enable him to contribute to public safety in a larger role, representing all Georgia citizens. Determined to remain connected to the communities and especially crime victims, he assumed his new position with that as a primary objective. Elected chairman in 1997, 1998, 1999, and again in 2000, he has led the agency in re-establishing its visibility in the community and, more importantly, its accountability to victims and to all citizens. BOBBY WHITWORTH SENIOR BOARD MEMBER Senior Board Member Bobby Whitworth, of Hartwell, was appointed to the Board in 1993 to fill an interim term, and then reappointed in 1996. He joined the Georgia Department of Corrections in 1973 and rose through the ranks until being named Commissioner in l 989. In that position he oversaw the most aggressive prison-building program in Georgia's history, resulting in the eventual construction of 35,000 prison beds. He is considered one of the most knowledgeable criminal justice professionals in the country - one who can transform ideas into workable policy. The Board depends on his in-depth experience, his broad-based knowledge of parole and corrections, and his strategic planning expertise to propel the agency to design and implement effective, innovative agency policy with the greatest impact on the safety of Georgia. 14 Garfield Hammonds, Jr., of Atlanta, appointed in 1995, has devoted his career to law enforcement beginning in 1969 when he joined the DEA as a Special Agent working undercover in Detroit and New York. He quickly advanced to supervisory positions, including Country Attache in Jamaica, and subsequently became the Special Agent in Charge of the Southeast Region, from which he later retired so he could remain in Georgia. Shortly afterward, Governor Miller appointed him to the Parole Board. While a DEA leader, his concern about youth at risk for drug addiction and criminality led him to implement an award-winning prevention program which he later duplicated for the Parole Board. His tough stance on criminals, his expert knowledge of the impact of drugs, and his dedication to divert youth from crime add impetus to the agency goals of public safety. Parole Decisions GARFIELD HAMMONDS, JR. BOARD MEMBER Dr. Betty Ann Cook was appointed in January 1997, 25 years after she began her career as a criminal justice instructor at Morris Brown College. She rose to academic leadership positions at Atlanta University Center and Chicago-based Argonne National Laboratory and the Opinion Research Center. In 1995 Governor Miller appointed her as Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Natural Resources and later that year as Director of the State Office of Highway Safety. Dr. Cook is a nationally recognized researcher and author on topics including criminal justice and women's issues. She has won numerous awards for community activism, a tradition she continues by meeting frequently with church, civic, and victims' groups. She merges vision, experience, and research to create policy and programs that improve the security of Georgia's communities. DR. BETTY ANN COOK BOARD MEMBER Dr. Eugene Walker from DeKalb County was appointed to the Board by Governor Roy Barnes in April 1999. His distinguished educational background includes a Rockefeller Foundation Fellowship and Ph.D. in History from Duke University. He was a professor of history at Clark College and a vice president at DeKalb College before advancing to other administrative positions with the DeKalb County school system. Elected to the State Senate in 1984, Dr. Walker served until 1992 as a member of several committees and as Majority Whip. In January 1995 Governor Zell Miller named him the Commissioner of the Department of Juvenile Justice. His experience in working with juveniles both in the educational and judicial settings accelerates the Board's mission to prevent crime by breaking the generational cycle of crime. DR. EUGENE WALKER BOARD MEMBER 15 Advocating for victims enhances accountability Victims' Advocacy Worth County students produced posters for a Victims ' Rights Week project sponsored by the Worth County Sheriff's Department, the Tift Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, and the Cordele Parole Office. w. the Parole Board ,enamed its Office of Victim Services to Victims' Advocacy in 1998, it intended to prove that a parole authority could aggressively promote the rights of Georgia's crime victims. The agency saw no conflict: the Parole Board is a community corrections agency, and victims - or potential victims - comprise the communities the Board is pledged to protect. Plus the Board had only to review its progress since establishing a victims' program in 1991. With each elevation of its services to victims and involvement in the victim ' movement, all functional areas of the agency improved by becoming more responsive to the community. Parole Board staff, working from 60 field offices around the state, are members of the communities they serve. They know crime victims personally, may have been victimized themselves, and worry about the safety of their families. Moreover, they under tand the devastating long-term effects of crime on victimized families and communities. Before the Parole Board had forma ll y structured its victims' programs, field staff had initiated ways to increase victim input in the parole proce s and had formed alli ances with local victims' advocates. Their self-motivated work informed the Board of needed services and built the community networks for success. 16 Victims' Advocacy Because of the agency's official and grassroots commitment to victims, the evolution from "assistance" to "advocacy" was inevitable. But the transformation took on the urgency of a top-ranked mission as Parole Board Members, who had already established a positive reputation in victims' circles, assumed a more visible role in Georgia's communities. They traveled to meet with victims, and to discuss with public officials, media, and concerned citizens the agency's strategies to prevent crime and to help restore communities harmed by crime. With "victim advocacy" as the agency's goal and challenge, Board Members defined the course by promoting as well as responding to the needs of victims. Communication is heart of program At the inauguration of its victims' serv- ices program in 1991, the agency specified a primary goal: to respond promptly and thoroughly to the questions and needs of crime victims. That element remains the top priority. During FY2000, the Parole Board Victims' Advocacy Office registered more than 4,500 direct communications with victims or advocates, and in its annual Victim Response survey, received assessments of excellent or good totaling 99 percent. The agency remains diligent in increasing its accessibility to victims of crime across the state. Through its Web site, victims can submit a Victim Impact Statement or Victim Notification form electronically as well as email inquiries on specific cases. Meanwhile, parole field workers continue to forward Victim Impact Statements contained in local district attorney files, and, if not located at that source, they contact victims of serious crimes by letter or phone to ensure the opportunity for their input to Board Members. Parole Board seeks advice In November 1997 the Board created the 14-member advisory council composed of victims' advocates and criminal justice professionals from around the state. These volunteer panel members, all leaders in their respective fields, serve as liaisons who campaign for improved victim programs while educating their communities about Board services now available. They assist the Board in assessing current initiatives and designing policy and direction for future victim advocacy services. Restorative Justice expands Restoring justice to the community is the goal of the Restorative Justice Program which, with federal grants, began in FY98 as a pilot project in four areas of the state. The project mission is to restore healing to victims and communities, to restore offenders to the community, and to restore trust in the criminal justice system. The Board now has three fulltime and three part-time restorative justice coordinators who serve as liaisons with victims and victims' advocates in their local areas, who advocate for victims in their communities, and who establish work projects for certain non-violent parolees. A law effective July I, providing immunity for qualified program participants, will promote expansion of the Restorative Justice Community Work Project. 17 Victims' Advocacy Parolee supervision fees returned $1,Il7,228 to the state treasury in FY2000 Field advocate keeps momentum high The Georgia Board was one of first parole authorities in the nation to assign an agency representative to visit district attorneys, local victim advocates, community groups, and field parole offices to create more regional working relationships in all corners of the state. The agency-sponsored victim advocate also determines which local programs or parole office activities can be models for other areas and, during periods of national emphasis such as Victims' Rights Week in April and Domestic Violence Month in October, serves as liaison with Board headquarters, local districts, and community activists. As in the previous year, all 52 parole districts participated in these observations and, in many instances, initiated and led those activities. Parole and Corrections sponsor workshop The Parole Board and the Department of Corrections together conducted the first Post-Conviction Services workshop from May 30 to June I, 2000. More than 65 representatives from district attorneys' offices and other victims' advocacy groups attended the seminar to learn about parole functions, victims' rights, and opportunities for communication during the parole decision process. Fee collection provides direct aid to victims The agency focus on advocacy has not detracted from another important element of its duties to citizens and victims: fee collection. During FY2000 the agency collected $I, 117,228 in supervision fees which were returned to the general treasury plus another $225,683 specifically earmarked for deposit to the Crime Victims Emergency Fund. And Georgia's parolees paid $187, 142 in direct restitution to victims. Victim protests are heard The Parole Board's commitment to vic- tims of crime is demonstrated by its continual refinement of procedures to secure their input for their parole deliberations. During FY2000 the Board denied or postponed parole to 97 percent of those cases protested by victims or communities. Perhaps more than any other crusade at the turn of the century, the victims' movement resulted in heightened public accountability and consequently greater public-safety measures across all segments of the criminal justice system. The Board acknowledges the positive impact on its own operations, and - as a professional goal, but above all from personal commitment of Board Members and agency staff - vows to raise the victims' advocacy bar even higher during the new decade. 18 Georgia's parole supervision sets national standards Parolee Supervision ACA accredited since 1994 Council of State Go vernments Innovations Award 1999 American Probation and Parole Association President's Award 2000 e Boa,d Chai,mao Waite , Ray calls Georgia' Results- Dri ven S upe rvision model "an inspired product" c reated by "an in spired staff." Hi s agency pride is co nfi rmed by the Council of State Governments a well as the Ame rican Probati on and Paro le Assoc iati on: Both awarded the Georgia model the ir respecti ve nati onal innovations award s, prais ing it as a prototype of effecti ve public poli cy, and acc laiming the agency that produced it as a pi oneer in 2 1st century vision. Res ults- Dri ven S upe rvision is more than an evo luti on of 20th century parole practices: it is a qu antum leap into a n age of foc used inte rventi on and accountability. B y targetin g releasees most li kely to return to pri so n, matc hing the m with interventi on programs proven to reduce that likelihood , and tracking results electro nica lly fo r real-time assessments, the Parole Board seeks to lower rec idi vism with the most effic ient use of the state's fund s. 19 Georgia's parole population in 2000 Paro lee Supe rvision Women gain ground Georgia 's parole population of 21,169 is 89% male, but the female population of 2,369 represents a significant increase since 1990. Minorities comprise 68% of the total for men, and 62 % for women. The average age of Georgia sfemale parolees is 36.2 yea rs, slightly older than the 34.8 years fo r males. According to the National institute of Justice, nearly 6 in JO f emale state prisoners ha ve experienced physical or sexual abuse, which may contribute to their high rates of mental illness. ln Georgia, 26.8% off emale inmates are classified mentally ill, compared to 10.5% of their male counterparts. 20 Parolee Supervision Reading newspapers is a homework assignment for this parolee studying for his GED. The average reading level for male offenders is grade level 7.6, and for females 8.9, despite self-reported grade level completion of 12.9 for women, and ll .2 for men. Average sentence length (excluding life) males: 8. 9 years females: 6.3 years A paro"Lee with her son visits the graves of three family members, all killed directly or indirectly by drugs. The parolee served prison time for crimes related to her own addiction. Approximately 70% of Georgia '.s inmates have substance abuse problems which in many cases contributed to their criminal behavio1: Parole mandates professional assessment of all parolees whose history, behavior; or self-report indicates a problem with drugs or alcohol. Appropriate treatment is then expedited. Ninety-nine percent of Georgia's female parolees ha ve at least one child; the average is 2.5 children. 21 RDS incorporates research, theory, and technology Parolee Supervis ion G eorgia's front-line parole officers and their managers developed the Results Driven Supervision (RDS ) model by merging the latest rec idivism research with the insight of hands-on experience. The RDS system was embraced and standardized by agency leaders who recognized the vision and practicality of the system, as well as its timeliness. The challenge was to rapidly and accurately eval uate the effectiveness of intervention strategies which promi ed tangible result to the public. An ACA auditor reviews records with Board managers. The agency was re-accredited in 2000 with a score of 99.5 out of JOO maximum poims. 22 A computerized case-management system was critical. When Parole's technology speci ali ts were unable to locate ready-made software, they created a tailor-made system to meet demands of parole officers, agency management, and the public. The translation of Results-Driven Supervision from theory to working application reflected the cost-saving concepts of the model itse lf: By developing its own computer programs, the agency saved the state at lea t half a million dollars in projected vendor costs. The bottom line i accountability. With the public's awareness that no state can build enough prisons to free itself of crime, intervention programs th at claim to lower recidi vism are sc rutinized for results. OnJy an agency confident of its professional delivery of services creates a system to faci litate that public review. The Parole Board has a history of voluntarily subjecting its practices and policy to outside appraisal in order to improve them. The Georgia Parole Board remains one of only a handful of community corrections agencies in the nation to undergo the exhaustive accreditation process by the American Correctional Association. Continually accredited since its first application in 1994, thi s year the agency retained its e lite status by achieving an overall score of 99 .5 out of 100 points in 195 areas ranging from victim notifications to an-est procedures. Even while ACA auditors were announcing the outstanding score, plans to correct the element costing the 0.5 percent deduction were underway. Focusing intervention where it counts Parolee Supervision R esearchers have found that specialized intervention in four critical behav ioral areas - education, substance abuse, employment, and cognitive ski ll s - yields ignificant results in deterring crime, even in offenders formerly considered intractab le. Under the Result Driven Supervision approach , Georgia's parole officers assess each paro lee under their supervi ion to determine weaknesses in those areas and then, factoring in the unique circumstances of the case, establi sh "tracks" of short- and long-term goals to achieve objectives. Failure to stay "on track" resu lts in appropriate sanctions, including revocation to prison. Georgia Parole's computerized casemanagement system - the Field Log of Interactive Data, or FLOID - aids the parole officer in monitoring progress by the ease of its point-and-click case-entry, its action and deadline prompts, and its continuous summation of the parolee's performance. Using RDS as the supervi sion model and FLOID as the organizing tool , Georgia's parole officers gain control over their extensive caseload documentation to provide what was more difficult in a manual system : timely, progress ive encouragement or puni shment to prod the parolee toward specified goa ls. Swift, appropriate reinforcement - positive or negative - is well-documented as _a powerful change force . 0- ~~ ~"%. ~ .,~ .,..k, ,"% -I;,, ~ - ?9,.--!i, -i.~ , . , ~-'-.~l>""~~ o ' d- ~ -C,......--d' Education track Although many offenders cou ld bene- fit by upgrading their education, their motivation must be strong to attend classes and complete assignments while working and attending other parole-mandated programs. However, if the educational deficit prevents their job pl acement or advancement, if it significantly hampers daily interactions, or if it impedes their progress toward desired goa ls such as advanced academic or vocational training, they are placed on the education track. Many parole di stricts offer in-house GED classes as a convenience to parolees. The classroom setting with other offenders facing similar experiences can also facilitate the learning experience. Monthly, nearly 200 parolees are referred to the education track 23 Substance abuse track Parolee Supervision Electronic monitoring provides additiona l structure for serious offenders, including those with substance abuse problems. 1200+ parolees are referred to the substance abuse track each month Approx imately 70 percent of offenders have seri ous pro blems with alcoho l or drug abuse whi ch often is corre lated to the ir criminal acti vity. Paro le Board Members may stipul ate a paro lee's participation in substance abuse recovery programs as a parole conditi on, or the supervising parole officer may determine the need fo r referral during the initi al interview or later. Substance abuse is an ongo ing, causati ve fac to r in recidi vism and the Board empl oys several intervention strategies which address the chroni c nature of addicti on without sacri fic ing publi c safety. The Board contracts with 23 part-time substance abuse counselors and five vendors to de li ver substance abuse services in fi e ld paro le offices or in locations accessible to parolees. The Board also depends on 12 Community Service Boards to ful fi ll these same needs, but, because time liness of assessment and service is critica l to public safety, the Board contracts with these prov iders to expedite place ments fo r paro lees. At the close of the fi scal year the Board tallied more th an 9,000 parol ees on the RDS sub tance abuse track, with 6,026 who had been referred to a structured program. Thi s is an 18 percent increase over the agency's goa l fo r FY2000 which was to have at least 5,000 parolees in higher-intensity treatment programs. Dru g sc reens admini stered in FY2000 rose from last year's fig ure of I02,000 to 124,299, yet the rate of pos iti ve drug screens dec lined by 19 percent. Parolees who lapse to drug or alcohol use are assessed indi viduall y. Those who need stabili zatio n and res identi al structure may be confined at the 236- bed Whitworth Detention Center whi ch offers a six-month program addressin g the ir substance abuse and re lated issues. Offe nders who successfull y complete the program return automaticall y to parole statu s; otherwise, they are revoked to the general prison popul ati on. Parolees with repeated fa ilures or whose conduct threatens public safety may be revoked to Homerville State Prison which deli vers an intensive seven-to-nine month progra m. The Whitworth and Ho mervill e faci liti es are fo r male offenders; fe ma les with severe substance abuse problems can receive simil ar residenti a l interventi on at Pul aski State Prison. 24 Employment track Parolee Supervision Steady employment has always been the bedrock of the offender's successful merger in society. After the Board's establishment in 1943, but before parole officer positions were authorized, offenders selected for release were placed under the community supervision of responsible employer "sponsors." Common sense and research confirm that offenders who support themselves and their families with productive work, who feel valuable to their bosses and co-workers, and who have a chance for advancement, will build the confidence and self-control which deter them from criminal behavior. Parole officers routinely observe the large number of employers who patiently coach parolees attempting to learn new work habits and skills. The Parole Board salutes such employers for their altruism, their community spirit, as well as their wise business practices. Parolees who work with specific, clear expectations from parole officers and employers, while receiving the support to fulfill those demands, frequently become model employees who continue their job growth long after their paroles expire. Because employment is so highly correlated to successful assimilation in the community, the Parole Board, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Corrections combine their expertise in TOPPSTEP - The Offender Parolee Probationer State Training Employment Program. The TOPPSTEP collaborative effort begins within the prison as Corrections personnel prepare the inmate's Job Development Package which contains the social security card, birth certificate, and labor screening application. This Package expedites the parolee's referral to the local Department of Labor representative who specializes in offender placements. The parolee may also be assigned to pre-employment training on interview techniques or workplace expectations. By applying his highest skills to compatible employment, the parolee returns to society with better wages than he would garner otherwise and more potential for job growth. During FY2000 the Board developed TOPPSTEP brochures to inform community corrections personnel and potential employers about the advantages of the program, including tax credits and the availability of federal bonding for parolees. Because of the individualized nature of Results Driven Supervision, parolees not in the TOPPSTEP program may be placed on the employment track to pursue other vocational goals, or to address job issues which arise during the parole term. At the close of FY2000, the parolee employment rate was 88 percent - a figure that contrasts sharply with the pre-prison employment rate of 50 percent. The pre-prison employment rate for Georgia's female parolees is 33%. TOPPSTEP and Parole help women <~ffenders - many qf'whom are heads