The goal of any releasing authority should be to make release decisions that are consistent and that accurately account for the risks that a person is likely to present to the community upon release. The results from a validated, objective risk-assessment tool, along with salient supplemental information detailed in Policy Statement 17, Advising the Releasing Authority, can form the basis of the release decision. But, if members of the releasing authority are not qualified and properly trained to objectively and effectively apply the information they receive, the information cannot lead to reliable and consistent decisions.

Releasing authorities should be made up of professionals with experience in criminal justice and/or corrections who understand the process leading up to eligibility for release and the repercussions of release decisions. Although two-thirds of the states have no professional qualifications for parole board members, members of a releasing authority should be required to meet some professional criteria to ensure that expertise can be applied to release decision-making. ^[1]   (See Policy Statement 3, Incorporating Re-Entry into Organizations' Missions and Work Plans for more discussion about appointments related to releasing authorities.)

Example: Ohio Parole Board

In Ohio (unlike in virtually all other states, the vast majority of which rely on gubernatorial appointments), the director of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction appoints individuals to the parole board. State law mandates that appointees be qualified by "education or experience" in law, social work, or correctional work (broadly defined to include law enforcement, criminal prosecution, or victim advocacy). ^[2]   Currently, the majority of board members holds advanced degrees, including law degrees and doctorates. Further, members of the board have all held executive positions in county, state, or federal government, and have worked an average of 28 years in public service.

One way of ensuring that people who will make critical release decisions have the appropriate training and background is to require board members to obtain standardized certification. Administrators and policymakers should consider collaborating with professional membership organizations or other associations that include paroling authorities to develop standards for board certification or training accreditation.

Given that so few states mandate professional or competency requirements for parole board appointees, additional professional education is vital to ensure that decisions are based on the best and most current research available. Members of the releasing authority should be trained in the proper use of objectively assessed risk factors and in the decision-making process generally. Even an experienced professional who believes in the use of objective data will not necessarily know how to use or interpret it properly. New members should therefore be required to attend training programs that are designed for their specific needs and that focus on the use of objective tools and their proper application to the decision-making process.

Example: Training for New Parole Board Members, National Institute of Corrections and Association of Paroling Authorities International

The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and Association of Paroling Authorities International (APAI) offer New Parole Board Training for individuals who have served fewer than two years of their parole board term. New parole board members are required to review an extensive series of materials (and complete discussion questions) before they can even participate in this first level of training. The four-day program features corrections experts addressing issues such as individualized interviewing, structured decision-making, risk assessment instruments, consequences of making the decision of whether to release, re-entry, legal issues, and "best practices" in managing supervision and violations.

Training need not be limited to new parole board members. In addition to training new parole board members, for instance, NIC and APAI provide ongoing training in sessions that vary from year to year. In 2004, for example, available sessions included Hearing Officer Training (for parole board members and others who participate in hearings related to parole or revocation) and Board Members Professional Development (for tenured parole board members). ^[3]   Further, an annual conference for parole board chairs focuses on topical issues such as risk-assessment instruments for individuals who have been convicted of a sex offense and managing special populations. There are also more cost-efficient methods for increasing competency, such as internet and distance learning programs. NIC and APAI, for example, each offer written materials as well as video broadcasts that are accessible on the internet. ^[4]