LINCOLN — State lawmakers advanced numerous changes to Nebraska’s parole system Wednesday that the introducer said could take the state from imposing punishment to improving lives.

Among many changes in Legislative Bill 631, proposed by State Sen. Terrell McKinney of Omaha, it would place parole supervision under the oversight of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, limit the reasons the Board of Parole may defer parole and expand the reasons for which a board member may be removed from the full-time position.

“The biggest thing, to me, is just making sure the people inside have better outcomes,” McKinney told the Nebraska Examiner.

Currently, the Board of Parole,  an independent board created in the State Constitution, oversees the Division of Parole Supervision. Under LB 631, the supervision of paroled inmates would move back under the Nebraska Department of Corrections, where it was prior to 2016.

The change, offered by State Sen. Carolyn Bosn of Lincoln and included in LB 631, would directly move the board under the department director.

LB 631 also includes proposals from Omaha State Sens. Justin Wayne and Mike McDonnell.

The bill has an estimated fiscal impact of $2.38 million.

‘We Can’t Sit On Our Hands’

Board members consider whether to grant parole during more than 1,000 hearings in a calendar year. They can be removed, in part, for “neglect of duty.”

 LB 631 would expand that definition to include not attending 12 full days of hearings within a calendar year. Days missed for a medical appointment that couldn’t reasonably be rescheduled or delayed, a family emergency, illness, an act of God or other similar circumstances beyond the member’s control would not count.

McKinney has often clashed with the department, often referring to it as “the Department of Punitive Services” during floor speeches, but he said Wednesday he felt good after LB 631 advanced on a 30-7 vote.

He said there’s a feeling among lawmakers that change is necessary, and “we can’t sit on our hands.”

“This Legislature isn’t going to sit idle any more,” McKinney said.

Telling Board Members ‘How To Do Their Job’

State Sen. Rick Holdcroft of Bellevue, one of seven senators to vote against McKinney’s bill, said his major concern is the Legislature telling the Board of Parole “how to do their job” when the members are already working hard.

He praised Corrections Director Rob Jeffreys, as did Bosn, for his focus on reentry and being blunt in wanting to fix issues.

Jeffreys has acknowledged with inmates and lawmakers that the department must do better and that the status quo won’t last, Bosn explained. She, McKinney and others met with Jeffreys directly about the varying provisions in LB 631.

 Holdcroft said he believes LB 631 could have a negative impact on the Board of Parole, discouraging members from wanting to serve another term. He doesn’t oppose moving the board under the department director’s oversight, however, and he’s supportive of some other provisions of LB 631.

“I think we can work out all the details, and I think I’ll probably be a ‘yes’ vote on select (second-round debate),” Holdcroft told the Examiner.

Reasons To Defer Or Deny Parole

The Board of Parole may currently defer parole for four reasons.  LB 631 would reduce it to two, removing the ability to delay release if doing so would “depreciate the seriousness” of the crime or “promote disrespect for law,” or if an inmate’s release would have a “substantially adverse effect on institutional discipline.”

The board, under the bill, could defer parole if there is a substantial risk that the person would not conform to the conditions of parole or that continued correctional treatment, medical care or vocational or other training would “substantially enhance his or her capacity to lead a law-abiding life when released at a later date.”

Parole couldn’t be denied solely because the department did not offer needed programming or otherwise delayed programming because of operational matters.

The Board of Parole would be unable to consider the inmate’s prior criminal record as a factor for parole and must state a “single primary reason” if it  denies or defers parole.

Under LB 631, the department director could also authorize an inmate, without a Board of Parole recommendation, to attend certain events (such as a funeral, medical appointment or meeting with a prospective employer), work at paid employment or participate in a training program, or leave the facility for substance abuse evaluations or rehabilitation and treatment.

Inmates would return to their facility after completing their limited release.

Moving From The Status Quo

Other parts of McKinney’s bill promote collaboration among the department’s various employment divisions, such as requiring performance metrics and obtaining proper accreditation by the American Correctional Association by Jan. 1, 2028.

The Parole Board would need to begin regularly conducting “Parole School” sessions in each facility, so offenders have the knowledge, skills and confidence to successfully navigate the process.

“Parole School” curriculum would include:

• Understanding parole guidelines.
• Preparing for Parole Board hearings and understanding factors the board will consider.
• Interacting with the Parole Board and its officers.

Bosn said some inmates get to their parole hearings but are not released because they did not complete a certain program, which was not offered to them to begin with.

She said more centralized oversight could help avoid some of those issues.

“We’re on a path to positive change,” Bosn said.

LB 631 calls on the director to establish a book donation program, requiring a culturally diverse selection.

The Board of Parole would be legally required to carry out its duties during an overcrowding emergency to “immediately consider or reconsider committed offenders eligible for parole who have not been released on parole.”

Under current law, the board is supposed to continue granting parole during such an emergency until the correctional population is at operational capacity.

“We have to change,” McKinney said during floor debate. “We cannot keep going with business as usual or the status quo because it doesn’t work — it has not been working.”

Editor’s note: This story has been revised to correct the description of the Board of Parole and clarify the oversight of parole supervision.

This story was published by Nebraska Examiner, an editorially independent newsroom providing a hard-hitting, daily flow of news. Read the original article: https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/04/04/legislative-package-advances-to-...