Testimony of
Rudy J. Cypser, Chairman, CURE-NY
at the Public Hearing on Parole and Post Release Supervision
New York City, August 10, 2001

1. BACKGROUND

 The Returning Flood. About 27,000 prisoners are released from New York State prisons each year. Thus, there is, in effect, an army of 27,000 entering our New York cities each year. We need to deal with this reality.

A high proportion of those returning from prison have been victims of social and psychological neglect. Many were very poorly educated, lived in substandard housing, had poor socioeconomic background, and had family histories that were un-nurturing, highly disruptive, or part of a foster-care system. Many experienced domestic and street violence in their childhood, were unemployed for long periods, and incurred alcohol or drug addictions. Returning prisoners have served longer prison sentences than in the past, meaning they may be less attached to jobs, their families, and the communities to which they return.

A disproportionate share of the prison population also live with chronic health problems or infectious diseases. In 1997, about one-quarter of the individuals living with HIV or AIDS in the US had been released from a prison or jail that year. Approximately one-third of those infected with hepatitus C and tuberculosis were released from a prison or jail in 1999. Infection rates among prisoners of HIV or AIDS, hepatitis C and TB are five to ten times greater than those found in the general US population.

Similar to victims of trauma, those living through a prison experience have to overcome a whole range of psychological obstacles. After years of subordination, making decisions and following through are new requirements. Suppressed rage and hostility, built up over the years, keep surfacing. Fear of repeated failure, shame, and fear of rejection reinforce a lack of self esteem or sense of social inferiority. Some days depression and despair set in, with the temptation to find solace in drink or drugs.

The Crash Landing.

A released prisoner is expected to make a safe "crash landing" back into society after a long period of debilitating incarceration, without programs for a sensible reintegration. Still burdened with addictions, lack of job skills, and poor life management skills, many can’t compete in our society.

What is the result? A high percentage of that flood will return to crime or violate conditions of parole, be caught, and return to prison. Some others will simply be parasites on society, or will commit crimes and not be caught.

Yet, these are our children, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and neighbors. What is our responsibility to them? How can we make their restoration to wholeness a reality? Parole and post-release supervision must be made a part of that planned objective.

2. BASIC IN-PRISON PROGRAMS TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM

Ex-offenders’ survival while on parole very often depends on how he/she is equipped, while incarcerated. Certain treatment interventions - including cognitive skills, alcohol, drug or sex-abuse treatment, vocational training, educational, and other prison-based programs - are successful at reducing recidivism. However, most prisoners do not participate in adequate, quality prison programs, and the rate of participation has dropped over the last decade. A comprehensive assessment of each inmate’s needs and a plan for each inmate’s recovery is needed at the beginning of sentence. As reported in other states, it’s helpful to invite family members to participate in the formulation of this plan, and to get a commitment from the offender for its execution. Beyond addiction treatment, the following factors deserve major increased attention:

Educational base.

A high percentage of inmates are drop outs from school. Learning disabilities are more rampant in this group. Early assessments, by professionals, to discern the needs for special education, and to establish appropriate Individual Education Programs are a must.

A recent study sponsored by the Virginia Dept. of Correctional Education confirms many earlier studies. The Virginia study tracked re-incarceration rates among offenders in Virginia over a fifteen year period and found that recidivism rates were 59 percent lower for those inmates who had participated in and completed prison educational programs versus those who had not participated. Studies also indicate that the reductions in recidivism increase with the amount of education received.

Post-GED.

In today’s job environment, a GED education is increasingly inadequate for economic survival. Post secondary (vocational and academic) education have been shown to have the greatest effects on both personal transformation, and recidivism (See the booklet by Annette Johnson, "Post Secondary Education and Reductions in Recidivism, A Selected Bibliography," May 15, 2001, produced for the Balancing Justice Task Force on Correctional Education). The hope of post-GED education is also a powerful incentive for inmates to work for their GED. Yet, these Post-GED programs have been all but eliminated in New York State. It makes economic sense to reinstate them.

A living wage.

The ability to find a stable and adequate source of income upon release from prison is a critically important factor in an individual’s transition from prison back to the community. Adequate education and job training are essential for jobs with a livable wage to support a family. According to one estimate, a 10 percent decrease in an individual’s wages is associated with a 10 to 20 percent increase in his or her criminal activity and the likelihood of incarceration. More emphasis on work skills, work ethic, and work practice are needed.

Program Recommendations.

1. Provide early and penetrating assessments (by professionals) of special education needs and appropriate Individual Education Program (IEP) plans.

2. Provide extensive addiction treatment for all offenders, both during incarceration and after release.

3. Allocate moneys saved from drug law reform to quality addiction-treatment, education, and training programs, both in-prison and in the community.

4. Mandate increased DOCS funding for quality academic and vocational education.

5. Pass pending legislation S1045, A1289: to authorize academic performance awards (TAP) for incarcerated persons.

2.5 FAMILY PRESERVATION

Marriage Destruction.

The parole and reintegration process depends on community support, particularly that of the offender’s family. Studies show that strong family ties significantly enhance incentives for reform and the reduction in recidivism. Yet, with current practice, Prison Fellowship estimates that only 15 percent of married couples are able to endure a period of incarceration of one partner. Of the 15 percent who do stay together during the prison term, only an estimated 3 to 5 percent are still together one year after release.

Children also at risk.

Parole and reintegration are more stable when children are effectively nurtured by the returning offender. Yet, given that the majority of state prisoners are held in facilities more than 100 miles from their homes, it is not surprising that most fathers and mothers report never having a personal visit with their children after admission to prison.

Under current operations, children of incarcerated parents are more likely to exhibit low self esteem, depression, emotional withdrawal from friends and family, and inappropriate or disruptive behavior at home and in school. Research further shows that incarceration of a mother results in emotional, financial, and social suffering for children, and that often mother-child relationships are beyond repair after a period of incarceration. Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that children of incarcerated parents are at high risk of future delinquency and/or criminal behavior.

The role parents play in the development of their children’s lives and the potential impact of a parent-child separation as a result of incarceration, highlight the urgent need to find ways to help families keep in touch during incarceration and reunite upon release.

The community as family.

Restoring inmates to being productive members of the community requires the rebuilding of a sense of community-belonging. Increased community-involvement in restorative in-prison programs can help directly. Yet, current DOCS policies are insufficient to encourage this, and at times are impediments to attracting volunteers for program participation.

Family Recommendations.

1. Provide family reunion programs at all medium and maximum security facilities.

2. Facilitate family telephone communications. Offer fair and competitive family telephone charges with options of both collect-calling and debit- systems.

3. Establish child friendly centers at all facilities.

4. Enforce further emphasis on respect for and hospitable treatment of relatives during prison visits.

5. Review DOCS policy and practice regarding community volunteers in prison programs, and promote further community participation in restorative programs.

6. Create an Office of the Ombudsman, reporting independently to the NYS legislature.

3. PAROLE DECISIONS

Lawlessness in Parole Policy.

It appears that the current administration has established a policy, contrary to law, that gives scant attention in parole decisions to the rehabilitation efforts of prisoners. Parole board decisions seem to be routinely based on "the nature of the crime." The law specifying a contrary policy is clearly shown in the following.

Judicial decisions.

In the matter of Maye v. Russi NY Div. of Parole, the Court held that the Parole Board decision must comply with the guidelines of Executive Law Section 259-i, including appellant’s institutional record, program goals and accomplishments, academic achievements, vocational education, training or work assignments, therapy and interpersonal relationships with staff and inmates, temporary release programs, release plans, including community resources, employment, education and training, and support services available to the inmate. These considerations encompass all factors that must be considered in deciding whether to grant or deny parole. The Court also held that a parole hearing cannot be predetermined.

In the case of Ausin v. Ward, Supreme Court, Dutchess County 1976, the Court recognized together with Federal Courts that the aim of correctional institutions is to aid prisoners in their effort to rehabilitate themselves and hopefully return to society as useful citizens. Judge Fred Dickenson, in the case People ex rel. Charlton v. Oligiatti, Supreme Court, Dutchess County 1976, recognized that an inmate may not be denied parole release on the basis of his prior criminal record without an opinion as to the progress towards rehabilitation made by him during incarceration.

Yet, it is not uncommon for NYS parole boards to indicate that the severity of the crime and criminal history cannot be mitigated by rehabilitation programs.

Misinterpretation.

In the light of the above, there is an issue of a possible misinterpretation of the law (Executive Law Section 259-i) when the parole boards newly emphasize "crime severity and criminal record" in determining release decisions. While these two factors are to be used in fixing the Minimum Period of Incarceration when the court has not done so, there appears to be no authorization in the law for the Board to strongly utilize these two factors at parole release decisions in cases where the court has already imposed the minimum. This issue needs clarification.

Misrepresentation.

Another factor in parole board decisions may be that the parole board is not representative of the communities to which the prisoners must return. Since those communities have the public safety issue and the responsibility to aid the reintegration of the offender, representatives of those communities should be involved in the release decisions. Ideally, some of the members of each parole board should be from the community of the inmate being processed, and the appointment of parole board members should be in the hands of the legislature to insure such representation.

Parole Decision Recommendations.

1. Take legislative action calling for the operation of parole according to current law, taking full account of rehabilitative progress.

2. Review the Executive Law statutes to question the extensive use of "severity of the crime and criminal record" in parole board release decisions.

3. Legislate more representative composition of parole boards. Pass pending legislation, S1365, A2632, requiring that parole board and parole hearing officers residing in any county be in the same proportion as the inmates residing in that county.

4. Pass pending legislation S2549, A4849, requiring that the parole board to be appointed upon the recommendation of the four legislative leaders in the state senate and assembly.

4. PAROLE OPERATIONAL REFORM

Parole Violations. Growing incarceration and release rates over the last two decades have resulted in a growing parolee population, and resources have not kept pace with those increases. Caseloads are higher, per capita spending is lower, and services have diminished. Limited resources often translate into only nominal supervision, or increased focus on surveillance over rehabilitation.

The rate of parole violations has increased significantly over the years. As a result, parole revocations now account for an excessive percentage of prison admissions. This is a national problem. Nationally, in 1984, 70 percent of parolees successfully completed their parole term. By 1998, that number had dropped to 45 percent. Part of this increased failure rate may reflect cutbacks in preparation for reentry, such as in-prison and community-based treatment, job training, and education.

Supervision strategies that simply increase the levels of supervision and drug testing have not been found to reduce re-offending. It rather increases the likelihood of detecting violations. There is no support for the argument that violating parolees on technical conditions suppresses new criminal arrests. At the same time, supervision strategies that include some level of rehabilitation or treatment in combination with surveillance techniques have been shown to reduce recidivism.

Parole Operations Recommendations.

1. Restate the mission of parole emphasizing their responsibilities for aids to reintegration.

2. Call for smaller caseloads for parole officers that will enable them to provide effective transition services.

3. Require the use of alternatives to re-incarceration for parole violations, to include more intermediate sanctions, such as residential treatment, community service, counseling, drug/alcohol testing, and/or reprimand by higher officials or judges.

4. Require the re-direction of prison funding, now spent on the increased admissions of technical violators, to strengthening community-corrections systems.

5. THE TRANSITION FROM PRISON TO HOME

Incentives for offender reform. Americans work by a profit motive. Yet, such staples of correctional management as good-time credits earned through compliance with requirements and successful completion of important in-prison programming, have been curtailed or abolished in many instances. Merit time should be fully restored in New York State.

Continuity.

A continuity of addiction treatment programs is essential. The most successful outcomes have been found among those who participated in both in-prison treatment and community treatment during the period of post-release supervision. For substance abuse and other health issues, the critical point for reentry management is to link prison-based services with community-based services.

Work Release.

Few transitions can be expected to be successful without facilitating the reentry into the workplace. Yet, in New York State, work release has been eliminated for all who have been convicted of any so-called "violent" crimes. More prisoners need to be allowed work release.

Community-based service providers.

A major problem exists in NYS (not in some other states) because funds for things like welfare, medicaid, and vocational-aid are county-bound; and cross-county flows of funds to service-providers are stuck in procedural quagmires. Often, cross-county placements of ex-offenders in community-based rehab centers are thus unfunded. The very helpful roles of community-based service organizations should be further recognized, encouraged, and supported.

Community Service.

In order to reintegrate, parolees need to have the opportunity to publicly redeem themselves in the eyes of society by making a positive contribution to their communities. Reintegration programming that utilizes the strengths of ex-inmates to build houses for Habitat for Humanity, volunteer at homeless shelters, or counsel young people in trouble with the law, transforms ex-offenders to valuable community resources.

To certify this redemption, the ex-offender needs to be let off of parole. Where justified, he also needs to be officially restored to the status of a community member through the sealing of his criminal conviction.

A Second Chance.

A related proposal currently before the legislature is a "second chance" pardon plan for nonviolent drug felons that would expunge their felonies on the condition that they complete their sentences, receive a high-school equivalency diploma and pass their drug tests after release. This philosophy should be encouraged.

Transition Recommendations.

1. Provide more comprehensive transitional assistance at least six months prior to release date.

2. Increase the use of graduated sanctions, with decreasing levels of security and opportunities for work release and community service. Savings from the use of lower cost half-way houses should be used to improve addiction-treatment, education, training and other transitional services.

3. Pass pending legislation, S02151, A02882; regarding merit time incentives for all prisoners.

4. Pass pending legislation, S2770, A5103, to allow certain "violent" felons to become eligible for the work release program.

5. Mandate that parole and probation be more active in coordinating mentoring and other re- integrative services by community-based service providers.

6. Increase funding for, and facilitate cross-county funding for, community-based organizations that provide transitional services.

7. Pass pending legislation S0370, A00292; regarding a second chance for ex-offenders.

6. PILOT REINTEGRATION PROGRAMS

Neighborhood concentrations.

Prisoners typically return to a relatively few neighborhoods, which are already experiencing significant disadvantage. High concentrations of prisoner return can further destabilize these communities. For example, in Brooklyn, 11 percent of the city block-groups account for 9 percent of the population, yet they house 50 percent of all the parolees in Brooklyn.

The federal Reentry Partnerships initiative provides an outline of successful neighborhood-based reintegration programs. They involve institutional and community corrections, law enforcement, faith-based organizations, social services, victim support groups, and neighborhood organizations to build the monitoring, coordinating services, and community links that are essential to support the individual’s successful reentry and to enhance public safety.

Three phase programs.

Experience has shown that a 1 to 3 year period of intense re-integration training is often necessary for crime-free survival. Drug and alcohol addiction, in particular, usually cannot be curbed in less time. The concept of graduated sanctions should be employed. This training must often extend over 3 stages:

(1) during incarceration,

(2) through a period of work, treatment and education in community-based residential supervision (such as the existing Phoenix House second stage of CASAT, the PY/HIT programs, or the Delancy Street Programs, and

(3) out-patient aftercare (under parole or post-release supervision).

Pilot Program Recommendations.

1. Implement pilot reintegration programs in four high-crime counties of New York State.

2. Implement the February 19, 1999 recommendations of the New York State Criminal Justice Alliance, that would provide funding to DOCS and community-based service providers for four demonstration re-integration projects, involving selected state prisons and community services in the participating counties.

3. The demonstration projects should address the restorative re-integration of offenders in all three phases: prison-based rehabilitation, community-based residential programs, and out-patient aftercare.

4. Funds should augment community-based re-integration services in those participating counties.

I. Stage One - Prison-Based Rehabilitation

The foundation of the re-integration program must be a holistic program of rehabilitation undertaken during the time served in prison, based on a comprehensive assessment of the needs, and a contract with the offender for pursuit of an individual restoration program. The needs of the prisoner for successful re-entry may include, for example, alcohol or drug treatment, mental illness treatment, criminal-thinking treatment, education, vocational and work-ethic training, and/or cognitive skills development.

II. Stage Two - Community-Based Residential Programs

A staged reintegration often requires a period of time spent in an adequately supervised, community-based environment, prior to full release in the community. The community-based service provider should be located in or near the community in which the offender will live.

Today, many inmates are released without an adequate home to go to. We now discharge people into community-based homeless-shelters which are without restorative programs and are crime-prone. That money should be better spent on adequate transitional housing with adequate transitional services. Such environments should offer, in stage-two of the re-integration process:

A. Three levels of community-based, residential supervision for different categories of offenders:
· Recovery Homes where 24 hour supervision and control is needed. · Half-Way Houses where work-release is allowed and daily supervision is enforced.
· Supportive Living Housing where work release is allowed and weekly counseling is provided.

B. Two sets of social support services:
· In depth, holistic treatment of alcohol and drug addiction.
· Re-socialization, including life management skills, parenting skills, anger management, and conflict resolution.

C. Job readiness
· GED.
· Vocational training in marketable skills.
· Job application and work ethic training.
· Temporary job placement and work release.
· Permanent job placement.

Once a prisoner has served most of his or her minimum sentence (or at least one-third of a definite sentence), the prisoner should remain in state prison only until such time as there is convincing evidence, from prison-based rehabilitation programs, that s/he can safely be transferred to a half-way, community-based residence by order of the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS). It is recommended that half-way, community-based residential facilities should be operated by DOCS or by non-profit organizations, specifically designed as environments that facilitate rehabilitation and re-integration back into the community.

III. Stage Three - Out-Patient Aftercare In high crime neighborhoods or communities, a "Community Liaison Office" should be developed and supported as a focal point for returning ex-offenders. Each Community Liaison Office should operate with a community advisory board and maintain numerous ties with responsible members of the community. The Community Liaison Office should provide initial direction to the returning ex-offender, and arrange for mentoring, community support and accountability from both the community and the ex-offender.

IV. Case Management A unified case management must apply over all three stages. A designated case manager should be empowered to insure that each prisoner’s restoration needs are met in all three phases. All components of restoration in all three phases should be accountable to the case manager for a particular offender. The case manager will insure the establishment of linkages among service providers designated in individual restoration and reentry plans, and will monitor the delivery of appropriate treatment and transition services and responses to new issues as they arise.

REFERENCES

J. Travis, A.L. Solomon, M. Waul, "From Prison to Home: The Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry," Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, June, 2001

T.M. Hammett, "Health-Related Issues in Prisoner Reentry to the Community." Paper prepared for the Reentry Roundtable, Washington, D.C., October 12 and 13, 2000, Urban Institute.

A.J. Beck, "Prisoners in 1999," Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 183476, August, 2000.

C. Riveland, "Prison Management Trends, 1975-2025." In M. Tonry and J. Petersilia (Eds), Prisons. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

K.A. Hull, S. Forrester, J. Brown, D. Jobe, and C. McCullen, "Analysis of Recidivism Rates for Participants of The Academic/Vocational/Transition Education Programs Offered by the Virginia Department of Correctional Education." Journal of Correctional Education, 51,2, 256-261, June 2000.

J. Kling, D.F. Weiman, and B. Western, "The Labor Market Consequences of ‘Mass’ Incarceration," Paper Prepared for the Reentry Roundtable, Washington, D.C., October 12-13, 2000, Urban Institute.

M. Dallao, "Coping With Incarceration From The Other Side of the Bars." Corrections Today, 59, 96-98, 1997.

C.J. Mumola, "Incarcerated Parents and their Children," Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 182335, August 2000.

J. Hagan and J. Petty, "Returning The Captives of the American War on Drugs: Issues of Community and Family Reentry," Paper prepared for the Reentry Roundtable, Washington, D.C., October 12-13, 2000, Urban Institute.

Blumstein and Beck, 1999, "Population Growth in U.S. Prisons, 1980-1996."

J. Petersilia "A Decade of Experimenting With Intermediate Sanctions: What Have We Learned?" In Perspectives on Crime and Justice, Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 1998.

J. Petersilia and S. Turner, "Intensive Probation and Parole." In M. Tonry (Ed.) Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 17. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.

L. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S. Bushway, Preventing Crime, What Works; What Doesn’t; What’s Promising. College Park: University of Maryland, 1997.

Harrison, "The Challenge of Reintegrating Drug Offenders in the Community." Paper presented at the Reentry Roundtable, Washington,D.C., October 12-13, 2000, Urban Institute.

Source: NYS Division of Parole Snapshot File, Nov. 2000.

"Transitional Reintegration," a report of the Reintegration Committee of the New York State Criminal Justice Alliance, Feb. 19, 1999.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

In the Delaware experience, offenders completing both the prison stage of drug treatment and a work-release stage with continued drug treatment, were twice as likely to remain drug free than offenders who only received the first prison stage of treatment.

The Wisconsin experiment (in two of its largest counties), for example, involves graduated sanctions and a greater use of rehabilitation in Community Corrections:

Three levels of community support have been used for different categories of offenders: Recovery Homes where 24 hour supervision is needed; Half-Way Houses where work-release is allowed and daily supervision is enforced; and Supportive Living Housing where work release and weekly counseling is provided.

Two good examples of privately-run re-integration programs are:

Transition From Prison Industry

Another comprehensive program is that of Florida's Prison Rehabilitative Industries and Diversified Industries (PRIDE). After release from the prison industry programs, PRIDE offers job placement and emergency assistance plus a year-long follow-up program.

For more information on PRIDE, click:


PRIDE

Indiana Mentors

An organization called "One Church-One Offender," originated by the Rev. Clyde Adams, in Fort Wayne, Indiana, identifies non-violent, one-time offenders who have served their sentence and are on parole or under house arrest.

Each selected returning offender is assigned to a five-member group affiliated with a local church.This group serves as a family, provides direction and encouragement, and helps the individual complete his education or locate a job. This enables the individual to become a respectable member of society and develop a sense of pride.

The proof is in the statistics. The Allen County Jail in Fort Wayne reports a recidivism rate of 50 percent, while the rate for One Church-One Offender is only 15 percent. It is estimated that this program saves the community $600,000 annually. Currently 28 churches are involved in the program.

For further information, phone (219) 422 8688

The Detroit Mentors

TOP is a project begun in 1993 by Prison Fellowship Ministries and 24 churches in Detroit. The goals of TOP are twofold:

1) to help primarily African American men make a successful transition from prison to free society in Detroit, and

2) to increase the role of black church and community in criminal justice issues.

TOP works with its ex-offender participants in three broad areas: case management, church, and family. Core aspects of this work are connecting participans with employers through a job bank that TOP set up, addressing substance abuse issues, helping to locate housing, and involving participants in weekly "moral reconation therapy" group sessions.

(taken from a paper by Tom O'Connor, Patricia Ryan, and Crystal Parikh, "A Model Program for Churches and Ex-Offender Reintegration," Journal of Offender Rehabilitation.

The Swedish Approach

It is said that the big difference between the Swedish Correctional System and that of the U.S.A. is the amount of community participation in the Swedish system.

In Sweden, for each parole officer, there are 16 civilian volunteers who serve as mentors for the returning offenders. They provide a supporting ear, encouragement, and assistance when needed. Incidental expenses, such as travel expenses are paid by the state, but otherwise, the "supervisors," as they are called, are volunteers without pay.

In Sweden the labor unions are also very involved in the prisons. The unions oversee the vocational training programs, and provide a link to the unions on the outside when the trained returning offender seeks work.

Other CURE-NY Recommendations re Community Corrections and Parole:

A. Establish Reintegration Phase

Establish a policy of requiring offenders to spend at least 6 months in transitional, re-integration community-correctional facilities before release to parole. Job preparation, life skill development, appropriate addiction treatment and education, and work release should be mandated.

Following the Wisconsin practice, such confinement may include electronic monitoring or very frequent (e.g. 20 per month) contacts with the offender or with people in close contact with the offender, such has his employer.

B. Augment Evaluation-of- Risk Information

Establish procedures to obtain evaluation information from qualified correctional staff at the institutions where offenders have spent relatively long periods of time. Drug treatment counselors, senior counselors, teachers and other program administrators, who have had extensive contact with the offender over long periods of time should be included.

C. Extend Risk-Assessment Procedures

Establish parole risk-assessment procedures that more fully take into account the offender’s age, employment prospects, community support groups, background, rehabilitation efforts and the success achieved as witnessed by qualified corrections staff.

D. Support the recommendations of the Green Haven Legislative Conference:

1. Ensure that NYS Parole Board is representative of the communities from which the majority of prisoners come and to which they will return.

2. Establish a Community Parole Advisory Council to develop community specific programs that allow the community to be directly involved in preparing and re-acclimating the parolees to the community.

Let your voice be heard. See the Action Page

To return to Home Page, click:


Home Page