The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles: history and functions

Texas Parole Board

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (herein referred to as the board) is a Texas-based state agency charged with determining "which eligible offenders to release on parole or discretionary mandatory supervision, and under what conditions" (Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 2014). The board, moreover, makes decisions concerning parole revocation and issues clemency recommendations to the governor in an attempt to ensure that offenders are successfully reintegrated into the society, and more importantly, that the safety of the public is preserved (Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 2011). The board is independent of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, but the two work closely, with the latter carrying out such responsibilities as supervising parolees, determining their release, and housing convicted felons (Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 2011).

A Brief History of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles

The Texas legislature, in 1929, did away with the "two-member board of patron advisors, which had existed since 1893, and established a three-person body to advise the governor on clemency matters" (Lucko, 2010). The three board members, one of whom was supervisor of paroles, and another chairman, were appointed by the governor in a process that was subject to senatorial approval (Lucko, 2010). During this period, the board's role was a purely advisory one, and the governor was not obliged to follow the board's advice.

The Texas Constitution was amended in 1935 to make the board an authoritative executive branch member, and the governor's clemency decisions subject to the recommendation of the board (Lucko, 2010). The Texas Criminal Court's presiding judge, the State's chief justice, and the governor were to each appoint one member to the three-member board (Lucko, 2010).

The timeline below lists the sequence of events that followed the 1935 constitutional amendment, all of which have contributed to the board's expansion and achievements. Today, the board is one of the most reputable in the country, headquartered in Huntsville, and with offices in San Antonio, Palestine, Gatesville, Angleton, Amarillo, and Austin (Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 2011).

Year

Event

1947

The board is, with the governor's approval, granted legislative authority to release prisoners, with the exception of death convicts, for probation or parole

1957

A parole supervision division is created to increase the board's capacity to monitor offenders across district offices

1975

Six parole commissioner positions are created to assist the board. The six are appointed in the same manner used to appoint the three board members, but work independently from the board.

1983

A constitutional amendment sees the board's membership expanded to six, and the governor's revoke/release authority transferred to the board, whose membership constitutes of individuals appointed by the governor, with the senate's approval

1989

The board's membership is expanded to 18, and the parole commissioner positions done away with, amidst the creation of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, charged with overseeing parole supervisions, incarceration and probation

1995

The Texas legislature makes mandatory supervision discretionary for all offences committed on or after 1st September, 1996, and grants the board authority to block any releases that, in its opinion, posed a threat to the safety of the public

1997

The eighteen-member board is modified to create a six-member policy board, which, under the precedence of a chair appointed by the governor, would formulate parole policies, establish caseloads, and develop rules for decision-making

2003

Parole commissioners are added to the six-member board to assist with revocation and release decisions. The board today operates under this arrangement; six members appointed by the governor through the senate's confirmation, and twelve parole commissioners, two in each of the six offices.

(Source: Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 2011; own-generated timeline)

The Board's Organizational Structure

An organizational structure, as defined by The Business Dictionary, is essentially "the hierarchical arrangement of lines of authority, communication, rights and duties of an organization." Figure 1 (attached) illustrates the board's organizational structure. Panels made up of at least three members, one of whom must be a board member, "may either meet together or review cases separately to make" granting or revocation decisions (Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 2011, p. 3). The decision-making panel could, therefore, be composed of "any combination of board members, and parole commissioners" (Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 2011, p. 3).

The Board's Hiring Policies

To be eligible to work for the board, a person must be a resident of Texas, having resided in the state for a period of not less than two years (Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 2011). An alien is eligible if they possess a permit that allows them to work in the U.S. (Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 2011). Additionally, an interested applicant ought to be aged at least eighteen, and should be a holder of a Bachelors degree, at the very least. Ceteris paribus, the board gives preference to majors in counseling, criminal justice, social work, psychology, and sociology (Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 2011). Moreover, an applicant should be able to pass a drug test in addition to having a clean record with regard to criminality, with neither felony or domestic violence convictions, nor dishonorable military discharges (Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 2011).

Positions are not necessarily advertised, and applicants have to drop their applications at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Once hired, officers undergo an intensive six-week training program at the board's academy, followed by a six-month course regarding the Texas Law-Enforcement Telecommunication System upon graduation (Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 2011).

The Pros and Cons of Working for the Board

i) The Pros

As public state employees, board employees are entitled to a number of exceptional benefits and privileges, including;

Retirement: the Texas Public Employee Retirement System (TEXPERS) offers a wide range of retirement programs aimed at ensuring the financial security of the state's civil servants, of which the board workforce is part of (Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 2011). Moreover, the State of Texas Discount Purchase Program administers the state's saving program, where employees working in state agencies can enroll in a tax-deferred compensation plan of their choice (Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 2011).

Health Division: employees working in state agencies are required to enroll in at least one of the many pre-paid health/dental programs, in which case the state contributes to premiums. Moreover, employees can enroll in the GIC Dental and Vision Plan, where the state offers 50% coverage for major services such as dental implants, 80% coverage for extractions, and 100% coverage for diagnostic and preventive services.

Paid Leave: leave credits are advanced to state civil servants at the end of every pay period. The credit amount is determined by an employee's years of service, and one is eligible for accumulated credits once they are permanently separated from state service.

Paid Holidays: every state employee in Texas is entitled to payment for thirteen state holidays, in addition to one personal holiday, for which incremental credits are earned every year.

ii) The Cons

Conflicts: since the board's hiring policies demand that the board's workforce be representative of the state's population, the board's workforce is deemed to face numerous conflicts that have to do with diversity, given the wide racial and ethnic diversity characteristic of the state of Texas. Working for the board therefore implies having to deal with misunderstandings brought about by differences in views, values, and beliefs.

The Public's Negativity: with the high levels of recidivism reported annually, the public has lost confidence in the parole board for what it considers failure to enact effective parole release and eligibility conditions (Worsham, 2014). Working for the board could, to this end, largely be taken as working for a failed institution, regardless of an employee's role or position. Inconsistencies in board decisions present another source of negativity. Whereas "no two cases are identical and each case must be evaluated based on their unique circumstances," the board has come under serious criticism for displaying inconsistencies in clemency recommendations, and when deciding whom to, and whom not to grant parole (Worsham, 2014). These inconsistencies give rise to arguments and offer reinforcement to the debate on whether or not "to abolish parole boards and leave parole decisions up to the courts" (Worsham, 2014).

Workload: board employees often face large workloads; having to hear cases, review files, examine options, and make decisions on a large number of cases within a stipulated period of time. This large workload often affects board employees at all levels because, in an attempt to complete tasks within the designated time frame, officers may find themselves having to call upon junior employees, who probably lack the relevant expertise, to offer assistance (Worsham, 2014).