Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parole Guidelines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Speakers at Alabama prison oversight hearing urge changes to parole guidelines and board practices
Summary
Public commenters, victims’ families and advocacy groups told the Joint Prison Oversight Committee that proposed changes to parole set‑offs, inconsistent parole‑board verification, and barriers to reentry undermine rehabilitation and public safety.
Representative England convened the joint legislative hearing and said the committee is holding its third public hearing under legislation introduced by Representative England and signed by the governor.
Several speakers urged the committee not to adopt a policy that would “double the parole set off period from 5 to 10 years” for people with long sentences, saying such a change would reduce incentives for rehabilitation and complicate plea resolution and parole‑board decisionmaking. Dr. Laura Click, who teaches employment and life‑skills classes for people released after felony convictions, told the committee, “My students tell me how critical the chance of parole was in motivating them to change the behaviors that sent them to prison.” She said extending set‑offs “based only on someone's distant past undermines the entire goal of rehabilitation.”
Advocates also pressed the committee to require parole‑guideline verification and to remove procedural obstacles that penalize people for lacking housing or work plans they cannot realistically secure from inside prisons. Carla Crowder of Appleseed told members the proposed guidelines treat absence of a home plan or job as a negative factor even though the Statewide Reentry Task Force found the Alabama Department of Corrections lacks capacity to connect people with housing and employment from custody. Crowder recommended the guidelines reward verified reentry planning rather than automatically penalize lack of it.
Several family members and former incarcerated people described errors or gaps in parole‑board practice. Colleen Howell, who attended a parole hearing on behalf of her son, said the parole board initially denied parole based on inaccurate information and then reversed its decision only after staff verified the applicant’s enrollment in a medications‑for‑opioid‑use‑disorder (MOUD) program. Howell summarized the sequence to the committee: the board denied parole, the family produced evidence the applicant was enrolled in MOUD and a crime‑bill class, the board later verified those facts and granted parole contingent on program completion. Howell said the error “exposed something more troubling — a system that didn't do the work to see the full picture.”
Committee members acknowledged shortcomings and said some of the issues are already under review. Representative England and other legislators credited constituent testimony with prompting legislation to increase transparency and create an office to assist incarcerated people’s families. Committee members said the proposed parole guidelines are not final and must go through legislative counsel; they urged submitters to file written recommendations and said they will continue oversight.
The committee did not take votes at the hearing. Members said they will receive written comments and additional input as the parole guidelines undergo administrative and legislative review.
