Inmates typically are released from prison through one of the three following ways:

• statutorily mandated release to supervision;
• discretionary parole; or
• mandatory release at the completion of a sentence without supervision.

Over the past two decades, numerous state legislatures have limited the discretion available to parole boards, or have eliminated discretionary parole altogether (see sidebar on following page). ^[1]     A collateral consequence of limiting this discretion has been to reduce the opportunity to tailor release conditions for inmates who have a mental illness.  In those states where parole boards still have some discretion, parole decision makers may be reluctant to exercise it when the potentially eligible inmate has a mental illness.  Parole board members' lack of confidence in community-based mental health services also contributes to their reluctance to release from prison a person with mental illness.  In the face of incomplete information, inadequate assessments, lack of confidence in community resources for this population, misconceptions about mental illness, or fear of a negative public response, parole board members may choose not to release the inmate, thereby compelling him or her to serve the maximum sentence allowed by law.

A study conducted in Pennsylvania illustrates this phenomenon.  In 2000, 16 percent of all releasees in Pennsylvania served their maximum sentence.  For inmates with mental illness, however, 27 percent served their maximum sentence; of those diagnosed as having a serious mental illness, 50 percent served their maximum sentence.  Often, inmates with mental illness served their maximum sentence because they did not have an approved parole housing plan, which was due to the lack of housing, mental health, and substance abuse services available in the community, especially in rural areas. ^[2]  

Determining the level of risk that an offender poses to the community is one of the central responsibilities of parole board members in making their decision as to whether to release an offender and the types of conditions of release that should be imposed.  Even in states that do not have a discretionary parole system, corrections departments often use a validated instrument to assess the risk of offenders who are eligible for release. These corrections departments and releasing authorities, however, rarely take into account factors involving the person's mental illness.

The recommendations that follow describe how to address these obstacles that impede effective release decision making:  1) the lack of professional, clinical expertise as part of the prerelease consideration process; 2) the lack of sufficient, reliable information regarding the treatment history and needs of the offender; and 3) the lack of sufficient community-based resources and options for this population.

Recommendations:

a.

Develop guidelines regarding release decisions that address issues unique to  inmates with mental illness, and consult with mental health professionals during the decision-making process.

b.

Develop protocols to share information and resources among parole agencies, departments of corrections, and mental health organizations.

c.

Establish special conditions of release that are realistic, relevant, and research-based to address the risks and needs of parolees with mental illness.

d.

Ensure that the releasing authority can identify and obtain access to community-based programs and resources adequate to support the treatment and successful community reintegration of parolees with mental illness and that such programs and resources are available in the communities to which parolees return.

e.

Train parole board members to increase their knowledge of the risks/needs of persons with mental illness and factors that mitigate that risk so release decisions and special conditions can be determined appropriately.