Access and Utilization of State Department of Corrections Compassionate Release Policies

Background: Compassionate release (CR) is a mechanism by which eligible incarcerated persons are released into the community due to chronic and terminal illness and has emerged as a feasible approach to smart decarceration. However, unlike other forms of probation and parole, states are not required to report access and utilization of CR as is the case with the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Identifying the frequencies and rates of persons who are eligible, apply, and are later released under CR is critical to the refinement of existing policies and laws related to chronic or terminal illness in state Department of Corrections ([DOCs]; Maschi et al., 2015). The current study describes state practices related to monitoring CR and the frequency of qualification, application, and discharge under such policies from 2013 to 2015 across the United States.

Methods: The current study employed both informal and formal information requests from every state DOC. Number of persons that 1) qualified, 2) filed, and 3) were discharged for CR between 2013 and 2015 were gathered in the requests. Frequencies, descriptive statistics (e.g., M, SD, range), and proportions (i.e., number released of persons applied; number released of total inmate population) were calculated to describe access and utilization of CR in DOCs.

Results: Of the 50 U.S. states, 49 states (not Arizona) responded to information requests. Nearly 80% of DOCs tracked the number of persons released under CR (n=39). However, only 32 states (64%) kept records of those who applied for CR and fewer (n=18; 36%) tallied the number of persons eligible for CR. Sixteen states (32%) collected data across all three CR phases. Between 2013 and 2015, 5,932 persons were eligible (M=329.5; SD=393.69; n=18 states), 2,223 persons applied (M=69.47; SD=57.24; n=32 states), and 2,600 persons were discharged under CR (M=66.67; SD=97.71; n=39 states). Regarding trends, the number of persons eligible for CR increased over the three-year observation period: 1,640 (2013), 1,810 persons (2014), and 2,482 (2015). Interestingly, the number of persons who applied for CR in state DOCS varied greatly over time: 789 (2013), 1,240 (2014), and 722 (2015). The number of persons released under CR was also inconsistent: 842 (2013), 966 (2014), and 792 (2015).

Conclusions and Implications: The vast majority of states fall short when compared to BOP efforts in meeting the needs of chronically or terminally ill incarcerated persons. For example, the proportion of inmates discharged under BOP CR policy was 0.103% compared to .004% in state DOCs. However, these numbers may be misleading as only one-third of states track inmates across all three phases of CR. Thus, it is recommended that all state DOCs track these frequencies throughout the CR process to aid in the refinement of existing policies and to allow for evaluation of state DOC efforts to meet the needs of this vulnerable group. Social workers are acutely aware of the need for timely and effective discharge planning and are thus well positioned to advocate for policy reformation aimed at increased state transparency regarding CR access and utilization.