An Audit Report on Selected Parole Functions at the Department of Criminal Justice and the Board of Pardons and Paroles
June 2008
Report Number 08-036
Overall Conclusion
The Department of Criminal Justice (Department) addresses identified parole violations in compliance with laws and Department policies; however, the Department should improve compliance with some of its existing processes for identifying potential parole violations.
The Department supervised 77,526 offenders on parole and mandatory supervision during fiscal year 2007. During this same time period, 31,904 allegations of parole violations were presented by the Department to the Board of Pardons and Paroles (Board) for administrative decisions, which resulted in 10,251 revocations of parole.
The Department could improve compliance with its existing processes for monitoring of offenders and identification of potential parole violations. Specifically:
- The Department did not always test offenders for drug use as frequently as required by Department policy and the conditions of parole. For 55 percent of the offenders' records tested, the offender received a drug test from one to three months later than the required frequency interval.
- The Department did not always resolve active and passive global positioning system (GPS) alerts or electronic monitoring alerts within the required timeframes; however, auditors noted significant improvement in this area in fiscal year 2008.
- The Department did not always contact offenders as frequently as required by Department policy. Parole officers had regular contact with the offender, however they did not complete all the specified contacts required for each month.
The Department adequately provided oversight of violations reported by halfway house staff and monitored the payment of offender fees. Also, the Department appropriately processed parole violations according to Department policies. However, the Department did not always ensure that parole officers consistently entered offender-related interactions into the Offender Information Management System (OIMS). For example, only 67 percent of the imposed interventions tested were recorded in OIMS, limiting the availability of offenders' parole history to other parole officers and Department supervisors.
The Board complied with applicable laws and Board policies in addressing identified violations of conditions of parole. Specifically:
- The parole violation hearing process proceeded in a timely manner in all files reviewed.
- The Board complied with the requirements to provide offenders with due process.
- The Board imposed penalties for parole violations by at least a two-thirds vote in all files reviewed.
- The Board scheduled revocation hearings and completed the revocation process within 40 days. The Board also accurately entered the information in its Clemency and Parole System (CAPS).
The Department's Parole Division's utilization of the completed portion of OIMS has improved some administrative processes, reduced the duplication of work, and provided the Parole Division more accountability and supervision over parole officers and offenders. However, some users of OIMS stated they have experienced problems, including slow system performance. Inadequate equipment limits the usability of OIMS and contributes to the system's poor performance. The Department has not documented the system's performance targets and has not fully determined the extent of performance problems.
The Department estimates that the $31 million OIMS project will be completed in July 2008, seven years behind schedule. One of the three OIMS parole modules, parole supervision, was implemented in September 2004 and is now in use. A second module was implemented in September 2006, but it was taken off-line in March 2007 to address user needs recognized during implementation. The third module is not yet implemented. The Department has submitted monthly reports to the State's Quality Assurance Team (QAT) since December 2006 indicating that the OIMS project was 99 percent complete, however project documentation does not support how this figure was determined.
Contact the SAO about this report.
Download the Acrobat version of this report. (.pdf)
If you prefer an HTML version, follow this link to an Adobe site which converts PDF files to HTML.