The changes would allow broader consideration of a parole applicant’s discipline record and more flexibility with job and housing plans.

By:Ralph Chapoco-August 28, 2025 6:59 am

Article courtesy of: https://alabamareflector.com/

Legislators signaled to Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles staff Wednesday that they will recommend modifications to the parole guidelines finalized by the board last month.

The changes could include weighing a parole applicants’ disciplinary record beyond 12 months instead of placing greater consideration for a person’s behavior in prison within the year, and giving more flexibility for housing and job plans after release when considering parole.

“If an inmate is in prison, and let’s say they have been in there for 15 years, and they have a lot of disciplinaries in the first two or three years, and then they tail off, and in the last five they had none, that tells me something,” said Sen. Clyde Chambliss, R-Prattville, who chairs the Legislature’s Prison Oversight Committee. “That tells me they were a little wild, but they have matured.”

Chambliss also recommended amendments to the housing plan and the plan for securing employment, both of which are required as part of the application packet for an applicant to be seriously considered for parole.

“If you have those, it means that is positive, but some people are not able to get those at that point, and maybe they should not be penalized,” Chambliss said.

In an interview after the meeting, Hal Nash, the chair of the board, and Cam Ward, the director of the Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles, which oversees supervision of those on probation and parole, appeared open to those modifications.

‘“How do you have a job if you are in prison?,” Ward said, echoing what critics have said about the updated parole guidelines. “You can’t do a job interview while you are in prison, so that has been a big issue.”

The parole board finalized the guidelines in July following a public comment period. The guidelines use a point system to determine whether an applicant qualifies for parole. The results are not binding on the board’s decisions.

Civil rights groups criticized several aspects of the initial version of the board’s proposed guidelines, which penalized applicants for disciplinaries for both nonviolent and violent behavior in the past 12 months leading up to the parole hearing date, which they felt was a longer time horizon for consideration.

The Legislative Council, whose members include both House and Senate leadership, may review the guidelines and request the parole board amend the guidelines, rescind them and begin the process over again, or approve what the parole board had established.

The revisions came years behind schedule, leading to mounting criticism from legislators. Last spring, Chambliss got an amendment added to the General Fund budget making funding for the parole board contingent on members adopting the guidelines. The board unveiled them in May.

Wednesday was the first time that the parole board appeared before legislators since Gov. Kay Ivey appointed Nash as chair in July.

“I believe that people need second chances,” Nash told lawmakers during the meeting. “I believe that we do not need to take hope away from people. I also believe in public safety.”

Legislators Wednesday expressed concerns about the conformance rates, the frequency that the board follows the guidelines when they make decisions regarding parole. As recently as 2024, the conformance rate was near 25%.

“I would just ask that you write the guidelines that people are looking at in a manner that you are applying them,” Chambliss said during the meeting. “That is something that I feel strongly about that we, as a state, if we are going to write the guidelines, go by the guidelines generally.”

The parole rate declined precipitously from 2017 to 2023, falling from nearly 50% to just 8%. Parole rates have been hovering around 30% over the past month.

“You will, in my opinion, never see a 50% grant rate again,” Ward told lawmakers during the meeting because of changes to the law. “I think, realistically … you are looking at anywhere from 26% to 31% is the ideal grant rate.”