February 1, 2000

The Honorable Thomas Vilsack

Governor of Iowa

State Capitol

Des Moines, Iowa

Dear Governor Vilsack:

On behalf of the members and staff of the Iowa Board of Parole, I am pleased to submit our Annual Report for State Fiscal Year 1999.

During State Fiscal Year 1999 the Board approved 1,067 work release applications and 3,114 paroles. The Board has clearly worked diligently to protect the public. Of the 6,377 individuals on parole caseloads during the year, only 373 (5.85 percent) were revoked, of which six (0.09 percent) were for new forcible felonies. While 23,731 paroles have been granted since July of 1989, only 105 (0.4%) have resulted in revocation for new forcible felonies.

This year’s report builds on the expanded report prepared for Fiscal Year 1998, as the Board is attempting to provide a more complete understanding of its workload and the environment in which it functions. We have included additional historical data to permit an understanding of parole trends and have added a new chapter on recidivism among parolees and those who expire their sentences. Among the findings of the study are that parolees have lower recidivism rates than those who expire their sentences, and that misdemeanants tend to have higher recidivism rates than felons.

During the past year the Board of Parole continued its efforts to use technology to assist in its efforts to protect the public and respond to the needs of victims. With its innovative use of the Iowa Communications Network (ICN), the Board has been able to dramatically increase efficiency in considering parole while also considering the wishes of registered victims. The ICN has been of great assistance in our effort to increase paroles in FY99. The ICN also allows us to conduct revocation hearings and offer public education throughout Iowa without leaving our own conference room.

We have also continued an experimental project in the Sixth Judicial District, using the Administrative Parole Judge to conduct probation revocation hearings, thus reducing the workload of criminal court judges and increasing consistency in revocation proceedings. A recent court decision has legitimized the use of administrative law judges in the probation revocation process, and we anticipate increased judicial efficiency as this practice continues.

Respectfully submitted,

Charles W. Larson

Chairperson

II. MISSION STATEMENT *

III. AGENCY OVERVIEW *

IV. BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES *

V. IOWA COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK *

VI. THE PRISON POPULATION *

VII. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PROBATION PROJECT *

VIII. TIME SERVED PRIOR TO PAROLE *

IX. PAROLE REVOCATION *

X. Recidivism *

XI. VICTIM SERVICES *

APPENDIX III. Decisions by Offense Class and Risk, FY99 *

APPENDIX IV. FY 1999 Decisions by Risk *

• The membership of the Board of Parole in FY99 was changed with the addition of new Board member Karen Muelhaupt. In the fall of 1999 the Board’s final vacancy was filled with the addition of Rev. Rogers Kirk, Jr. Clarence Key, Jr., was also appointed new Executive Director of the Board in November, 1999.
• The Board in FY99 approved 1,067 work release applications and 3,114 paroles. Of the 6,377 individuals on parole caseloads during the year, only 373 were revoked, with six of these revocations due to new forcible felonies.
• Of all those paroled since July 1, 1989, only 17.3 percent have been revoked from parole. Less than one percent have been revoked for committing new forcible felonies.
• Parolees released in FY96 showed a felony re-conviction rate of 12.9 percent after a three-year follow-up, compared to 17.1 percent among prisoners who expired their sentences. Misdemeanor re-conviction rates were also lower among parolees than among expirations. Released felons were most likely to be convicted of new felonies, while misdemeanants were likely to be convicted of new misdemeanors.
• In FY99 the Board continued its innovative use of the Iowa Communications Network, which enables the board to maximize productive use of its time and permit interested parties the opportunity to view parole hearings without extensive travel. The Board continued extensive use of the ICN in conducting hearings in FY98, and the families of victims and inmates also attended hearings via the ICN.
• The Board continued to expand its list of registered victims, ensuring that victims are notified of parole, work release, and revocation hearings, and providing them the opportunity for input in the deliberative process.
• The Board continued an experiment in the Sixth Judicial District, using the Senior Administrative Parole Judge for all probation revocation hearings, thereby providing additional consistency in these proceedings. The legality of using administrative judges to handle probation revocations was upheld in a Linn County District Court ruling in September, 1999.
• The Board continued its use of risk assessment in granting or denying work release or parole. This tool has enabled the Board to better protect the public while not delaying release for inmates who are good risks.
• The board continued using the Violator Program as an intermediate sanction for parolees and work releases who need additional supervision but who do not need to be revoked. The existence of this program helps to individualize treatment and supervision regimens and provide a wider range of alternatives for those having difficulty on parole or work release.

• Comprehensive and efficient consideration for parole and work release of offenders committed to the Department of Corrections.

The Iowa Board of Parole consists of five members appointed by the Governor. The chairperson and vice-chair are full-time salaried members of the Board. Four members, whose terms are staggered, serve four years on a per diem basis.

Iowa law states that the membership of the Board must be of good character and judicious background, must include a member of a minority group, may include a person ordained or designated a regular leader of a religious community and who is knowledgeable in correctional procedures and issues, and must meet at least two of the following three requirements:

CHARLES W. LARSON, Chairperson, Cedar Rapids. Larson was appointed to the Board of Parole in May, 1998 after serving as Iowa’s Drug Policy Coordinator since 1993. This is his second term with the Board of Parole. Larson also served for seven years as United States Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa. He spent from 1979 to 1982 in Saudi Arabia as a consultant to the Kingdom’s Highway Patrol Project. From 1973 to 1979 he served as Iowa’s Commissioner of Public Safety. Larson retired as a colonel from the Active Army Reserves.

ELIZABETH ROBINSON-FORD, Vice Chairperson, Davenport. Robinson-Ford was appointed to the Board in November, 1994, and appointed Vice-Chairperson in 1999. She was also recently appointed to serve on the Iowa Prisoner Minority Over-Representation Task Force. Robinson-Ford has worked for the City of Shreveport, Louisiana, as an Administrative Assistant and Records Specialist for the Police Department. She is a member of the Minority Chamber of Commerce, the Iowa Invests Mentor Program, the Juvenile Justice Committee, Big Sisters, and United Way. She has an Associate Degree in Applied Sciences from Southern University at Shreveport and an Associate Degree in Business Administration/Accounting from Commercial Business College in Alexandria, Louisiana. She retired as Administrative Assistant with the Scott County Decategorization Program in 1999.

CURTIS S. JENKINS, West Des Moines. Jenkins was appointed to the Board of Parole by Governor Terry Branstad in 1997. Jenkins has BS from Southern Illinois University. He is the Business Manager of the Corinthian Baptist Church, Member of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Des Moines Alumni, and is President of KAPSI Foundation. Jenkins served in the United States Air Force. His volunteer work includes Internal Audit Committee and Tax Return Preparation for the Corinthian Baptist Church; he is on-call Consultant for Mid-City Business Center; Speaker, Panel of Americans, NCCJ; and Speaker on Diversity.

KAREN KAPLAN MUELHAUPT, Des Moines. Governor Thomas Vilsack appointed Muelhaupt to the Board of Parole in 1999. She received her BA degree from Drake University in 1988. She worked for the Department of Corrections as a Pre-sentence investigator from 1975-1985. In 1985, she was hired as a rape counselor with Polk County Victim Services. She co-created one of the nations first Homicide Crisis Response teams, and in 1997 was the recipient of the Presidential Crime Victims award. She retired in 1998. Muelhaupt is a licensed Social Worker.

ROGERS KIRK, JR., Davenport. Kirk was appointed to the Board in November, 1999. For the past four years he has been the Pastor of the Third Missionary Baptist Church of Davenport. Pastor Kirk is President of the Iowa Congress of Christian Education, Dean of the Eastern District Association, Instructor in the National Congress of Christian Education, and Instructor at the American Baptist Theological Seminary. He is also past-president of the NAACP Metro-Com Branch, Quad City Interfaith and serves on many state and local boards. Pastor Kirk attended Northeast Louisiana University and has served parishes in Monroe and Ruston, Louisiana.

Clarence Key, Jr., Executive Director. The Board of Parole selected Clarence Key, Jr., as its Executive Director in November, 1999. Key has a BA degree in Criminal Justice from Simpson College and has worked in state government well over twenty years. Mr. Key has served as a probation officer for the 5th Judicial District Department of Correctional Services, as an Assistant for Corrections (Prison Ombudsman) for the Citizen's Aide Ombudsman, and as a Justice Systems Analyst for the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning. Key also currently serves as an executive board member of the Des Moines Branch of the NAACP and has been president of the Iowa Corrections Association (1993-1994).

Richard E. George, Administrative Law Judge

James C. Twedt, Senior Administrative Parole/Probation Judge

Jerry Menadue, Liaison Officer

Heather Hackbarth, Statistical Research Analyst

Karen Myers, Executive Officer

Lori Myers, Case Coordinator and Liaison Officer

Diane Jay, Victim Coordinator

Jo McGrane, Administrative Secretary

Carol Edmonston, Clerk

Virginia Shannon, Clerk

Paul Stageberg, Ph.D., Report Consultant

The Board wishes to extent its appreciation to Paul Stageberg, Ph.D., for his assistance in analysis of data and preparation of this report.

This project was supported by Grant number 99C2-1951, awarded by the Governor’s Alliance on Substance Abuse (GASA). Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of either GASA or the U.S. Department of Justice.

Inmate Reviews and Interviews. By law, the Board systematically reviews the status of each person committed to the custody of the Director of the Iowa Department of Corrections and considers the person’s prospects for parole or work release. The Board reviews at least annually the status of persons other than Class A felons, Class B felons serving time under the 95% law or felons serving mandatory minimum sentences. The Board also provides the person written notice of its parole or work release decision.

Not less than twenty days prior to conducting a hearing at which the Board interviews the person, the Board notifies the Department of Corrections of the scheduling of the interview. The Department then makes the person available to the Board at the person’s institutional residence.

Risk Assessment. The Board has used offender risk assessment since March, 1981. Its use has enabled the Board to increase paroles while maintaining a high degree of public safety. An offender is rated on a scale from one to nine.

Victim Notification. The Board notifies registered victims of violent crimes of upcoming interviews with identified offenders and of decisions made at those interviews. The victim or appointed counsel has the right to attend the interviews and testify. In addition, all written communications from victims become a permanent part of offenders’ files.

Parole. The Board is empowered to grant, rescind, and revoke parole, as well as discharge offenders from parole. The Board decides the conditions of parole which may be added to by the supervising Judicial District. In order to be granted parole, those receiving a parole risk score of one through six require three affirmative votes from the Board; a risk score of seven or eight requires four votes; and a risk score of nine requires all five votes.

Work Release. The Board is empowered to grant or rescind work release. Work release periods are approximately six months, but may be adjusted through Board action.

Review of Parole and Work Release Programs. The Board is required to review parole and work release programs being instituted or considered nationwide and determine which programs may be useful for Iowa. Each year the Board also reviews current parole and work release programs and procedures used in the State of Iowa.

Release Studies. The Board is required to conduct studies of the parole and work release system as requested by the Governor and the General Assembly.

Review of Computer System. The Board is required to increase utilization of data processing and computerization to assist in the orderly operation of the parole and work release system.

The information contained in this section provides a statistical summary of the Board’s workload for fiscal year 1999. As the tables and charts on the following pages indicate, the Board conducted a total of 10,006 release deliberations. These deliberations resulted in the Board’s granting 3,114 paroles and 1,067 work releases. The majority of parole and work release grants were derived from case reviews rather than inmate interviews.

In FY99 the Board continued taking particular care in paroling inmates convicted of crimes against persons. While 30 percent of the 8,129 deliberations involving felons resulted in paroles, only 10.4 percent of those involving felonies against persons resulted in paroles. Those convicted of crimes against persons were also less likely to be granted work release.

Parole revocation hearings totaled 543 in FY99, compared to 515 in fiscal year 1998. Of the total hearings, 373 resulted in revocation of parole. Eighty-four of these (or 22.5%) were automatic revocations due to new convictions for felonies or aggravated misdemeanors. Rescission reviews, which involve consideration to rescind a parole or work release grant prior to actual release from prison, totaled 156; all were rescinded. Three of the 156 parole rescissions were due to refusals by inmates. Out of 101 work release rescissions, 32 were refused.

Reviews of applications for restoration of citizenship totaled 578, with 524 (90.7%) recommended to the Governor. Both these figures were down somewhat from FY98, when there were 685 reviews and 610 (89.1%) recommendations.

The Board reviewed 43 appeals from inmates requesting reconsideration of prior decisions resulting from revocation hearings. Also, the number of offenders receiving simultaneous parole and discharge totaled 339. Since May 1, 1991, the number of discharges processed by the Board has dropped significantly because each district Director of Correctional Services may also process discharges. Consequently, for FY98 the Board processed 408 total discharges.

The research division completed 2,909 offender risk assessments in FY 1999, compared to 2,761 in FY98 and 2,032 in FY97. As shown in the appendix, the Board makes consistent use of these assessments in determining whether to approve or deny parole or place inmates on work release.

Also, the victim coordinator reviewed 369 victim requests and mailed 1,767 notices to registered victims. The total number of registered victims at the end of FY99 was 2,854, compared to 2,579 in FY98 and 2,267 in FY97.

The table and graphs on the following pages show the workload of the Board and staff members for FY 1999.

As is suggested in the chart above, expiration of sentence has played an increasing role as a means of exit from Iowa’s prison population. This is due primarily to the Board’s belief that there are certain types of offenders from whom the public must be protected as long as possible. While the Board supports the concept of supervision after release from prison, it is thought that maintaining some offenders as long as possible in a secure environment will contribute to public safety. To illustrate the variation among offender types in release practices, Table IV is presented below:

Readers interested in an expanded version of this table are urged to consult Appendix VI, which lists paroles, expirations, and expiration percentages by offense.

On July 14, 1994, the Board began to make use of the new Iowa Communications Network (ICN) to manage the State’s prison population more effectively and efficiently.

The ICN is a statewide two-way full motion fiber optic communication network that uses modern technology to connect points throughout all of Iowa’s ninety-nine counties. This network facilitates a variety of Board functions including parole interviews, registered victim input, and parole revocation hearings. Further, the ICN has allowed criminal justice students and the public to observe actual interviews of inmates being considered for parole or work release.

The ICN has been used as an educational tool in high schools across Iowa.

Iowa is the first state in the Nation to use its fiber optics system for monthly parole interviews. Since its initial use of the system in July of 1994, the Board experienced few difficulties with the ICN; the benefits (i.e., cost effectiveness, reduced travel time, and ease of use) have generated positive reactions from the Board, the media, the public, and other states. Inmates and family members have also expressed support for participation in the interview process via the ICN.

With the completion of its own classroom in October, 1995, the Board greatly increased its use of the ICN in the parole process. The Board no longer needs to prepare volumes of inmate files for transport to an ICN classroom; files are reviewed from the Board’s conference room. Thus, transportation and security concerns regarding inmate files have been greatly reduced.

Prior to ICN, victims desiring input were required to travel to a distant institution, were subjected to a rigorous security check, and were possibly seated in the same room as the inmate’s family and friends. With the creation of the Board’s TeleVictim Program, a registered victim is notified of the intended release hearing and is directed to an ICN site near the victim’s home. The victim travels to the local site, provides input, and returns home. The process often requires a few minutes instead of many hours under the old process. Further, the ICN separates victims from inmates, families, and friends and helps defuse potentially tense situations. The incorporation of the registered victim input process via the ICN continues to be a model for parole board interaction with registered victims.

Four hundred fifty-two parole revocation hearings have been conducted via the ICN since July of 1994. Prior to the creation of the ICN, parole revocation hearings required travel to counties where the alleged parole violation occurred, which could involve as many as four hours of travel one-way. With the advent of ICN, the Parole Judge travels to a nearby ICN classroom, conducts the hearings, determines violations and appropriate sanctions, and proceeds to the next case.

The Board plans continued use of such technological advances as the ICN as it strives to protect the public from serious crime.

This section is included because, while boards of parole have some control over output from prisons, they have little control over input to prisons. Although boards of parole may have some impact on the nature of the prison population through paroling activity (e.g., through either hastening or delaying release of certain types of prisoners), by and large the prison population is a "given" with which a board must work.

Table VII shows the make-up of Iowa’s prison population on June 30, 1999, dividing the population into offense classes and persons/non-persons groups. The largest portion of the population is serving time for Class C and Class D felonies (ten-year and five-year maximums) which are not against persons. The only other category of offense accounting for more than ten percent of the population is Class B felonies against persons (principally robbery in the first degree).

Source: ACIS. Excludes 59 compact/safekeepers.

Table VIII, below, presents data on the length of sentences of inmates in residence on June 30 going back to 1990. The table shows increases in each category, but larger increases in unknowns (not a significant group) and the shorter sentences. Three of the four groups showing percentage increases greater than the overall population increase are shorter sentences: those of less than two years (again, not a significant group), those serving two years to less than five, and five years to less than ten. This does not suggest the "hardening" of the prison population, about which there has been much speculation in recent years. It may, however, suggest either a greater likelihood on the part of judges to incarcerate aggravated misdemeanants and Class D felons or a higher rate of failure among probationers in those categories (these data don’t distinguish between direct court commitments and probation revocations).

Table VIII also shows that, since FY1990, Iowa’s prison population has risen 88.2%, or slightly under ten percent per year. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that nationally, prison populations increased an average of 6.0 percent each year from 1990 to 1998. While prison populations have risen steadily throughout the Nation since 1990, Iowa’s increase has clearly eclipsed the national average; according to BJS, Iowa’s increase from 1990 to 1998 was the Nation’s tenth highest.

The chart below also presents this information, but eliminates sentences of less than two years and the unknown category to make interpretation easier. This shows even more clearly the dramatic rise in those serving sentences of five years to less than ten years (principally Class D felons). At least a portion of this rise has been due to the creation of a new offense, Burglary-3^rd degree (a Class D felony), in 1992. With the creation of this offense there has been a large decrease in the number of Burglary-2^nd convictions, reducing the rise in Class C felony convictions and contributing to the rise in Class D convictions.

Source: Department of Corrections E-1 Reports.

To further provide an idea of the nature changes in the prison population, Table IX is presented below, showing changes in the number of broad offender types in prison admissions. The largest changes over the period shown on the table have been seen in OWI and traffic offenses (+272%), escape (233%), drug offenses (178%), assault (133%), and weapons offenses (+104%). Only three of these increases, however, have involved significant numbers of offenders: OWI/traffic, drug offenses, and assault. Of these three, only one (OWI) showed a double-digit increase in FY99.

Three offenses showed decreased admissions during the eight-year period: murder/manslaughter (perhaps stemming from fewer homicides), arson, and pimping/prostitution. Each of these offenses involves a small number of admissions each year, and such small numbers are susceptible to large yearly fluctuation. Last year, for example, pimping/prostitution was included among the offenses having the largest percentage increase over the period.

Fully ten of the sixteen offenses included here showed decreases in FY99 from FY98. The most noteworthy of these were found for burglary (a drop from 438 to 366 admissions), forgery/fraud (drop from 281 to 212), and assault (drop from 325 to 298). Each of these offenses accounts for many admissions each year, and continued drops would have hopeful implications for controlling growth in Iowa’s prison system.

Another source of change in the population is shown in Table X, which presents data on the yearend population, persons serving life sentences, and persons serving mandatory minimum sentences. This table is somewhat surprising in regards to "lifers," as, while there have been steady increases in persons serving life sentences, over the last ten years their percentage change has been less than that of the population as a whole (perhaps due to a general drop in homicide). Due in part to legislative action, the number of those serving mandatory minimum terms, however, has risen faster than the population as a whole, with most of the increase occurring since fiscal year 1993.

Table XI shows a broader picture of changes in the prison population, examining the inmate population by the type of commission offense. It shows that, between FY1990 and FY1999, the increase in inmates committed for non-persons offenses clearly outstripped that for persons offenses. Beginning in FY93, the population also includes a breakdown of those committed for "chemical offenses," which include drug and alcohol offenses. Since that time the percentage increase in chemical offenses is much greater than for either persons or non-persons offenses, and the raw increase in chemical offenses almost equals that for non-persons offenses. Note that the drop in population in FY99 was due entirely to a reduction in inmates committed for non-persons offenses.

Comparing Iowa’s prison population to the state prison populations nationally, in 1999 Iowa’s population of 7,231 consisted of 47% persons offenders, 42% non-persons offenders, and 27% drug offenders. Sentenced prisoners nationally consisted of 47% violent offenders, 22 percent property offenders, 21% drug offenders, and ten percent public order offenders. While the Iowa percentages shown above are not directly comparable to the national totals because of the lack of data on public order offenders, the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning has prepared comparable figures for its 1999 Inmate Profile. That report shows Iowa with 43 percent violent offenders, 29 percent property offenders, 19 percent drug offenders, and six percent public order offenders. This suggests that property offenders are slightly over-represented in the Iowa prison system compared to prison systems in other states.

National figures also differ from Iowa’s in the types of offenses resulting in population increases. Nationally, fully 50% of the increase in prison population between 1990 and 1997 consisted of violent offenders, with drug offenders accounting for another 19 percent, property offenders 16 percent, and public-order offenders 15 percent. In Iowa, however, most of the increase has been due to chemical (drug and alcohol) offenders, whose numbers have more than doubled since 1993.

Another look at the prison population is presented in the graph below, which shows changes in the types of prison admissions since state fiscal year 1983. A nearly steady increase in overall admissions has been seen since FY83, with the only exceptions occurring in 1991 and 1999. The largest total increase occurred during FY98, when admissions increased by 485.

Both probation revocations and direct court commitments reached their highest levels in FY98. While direct commitments have generally risen gradually over the period, the increase in probation revocations and suspensions has occurred primarily since 1993, more than doubling between 1993 and 1998 before a decrease in FY99. This means that a significant portion of the prison population has already had opportunities to avoid incarceration by serving periods of probation in the community, but that they have failed. This is one of the factors leading to increased caution on the part of the Board in granting parole. Note, also, that the overall decrease in commitments in FY99 was due entirely to a reduction in probation revocations. While there was somewhat of a leveling off of direct court commitments and parole returns during FY99, new policies in community-based corrections appear to have been responsible for the entire reduction in commitments in FY99.

This reduction in probation revocations has significance also because increases in probation revocations have recently been one of the driving forces behind Iowa’s increasing prison population. Between FY91 and FY98, probation revocations had increased from 578 to 1,694 (or 193%). During the same period direct court commitments increased from 2,891 to 4,735 (or 64%). In FY92 parole revocation and suspensions and probation revocations were nearly equal. Since then, however, probation revocations and suspensions have reached a level almost four times that of parole revocations and suspensions. Even with the drop in probation revocations in FY99, they outnumbered parole revocations by 3:1.

Source: Department of Corrections E-1 Reports.

A final look at the prison population is illustrated in the graph below, which shows end-of-year prison population, total admissions, total releases, and parole releases. More than previous tables and charts, this one shows increasing caution on the part of the Board in protecting the public. As shown previously in the Workload section, until FY99 paroles had accounted for a smaller portion of overall releases in recent years, as the Board has allowed more inmates to expire sentences rather than granting them parole. This is consistent with public safety concerns, as Iowa research has previously shown that some high-risk inmates are best incapacitated for as long a period as possible to ensure public safety. The net result of this approach is that, until FY99, the number of paroles granted has varied little since 1986, when there were 1,216 paroles out of a total prison population of 2,722. That year, slightly more than half the releases from prison were via parole. Since that time, with the advent of additional release opportunities such as work release, paroles as a percentage of all releases have dropped. See page 14 for further illustration of this trend. Note that figures for this chart come from ACIS; due to delays in release, rescissions, and other factors, the number of paroles in this chart may not necessarily agree with figures presented elsewhere in this report.

Source: Department of Corrections E-1 Reports.

During the 1997 legislative session, Governor Branstad recommended that the legislature authorize the Parole Board’s Administrative Parole Judges to conduct probation revocation hearings in the Sixth Judicial District on an experimental basis. The reasons for this recommendation were two-fold:

• To reduce the workload of criminal court judges.
• To take advantage of the parole Judges’ correctional sanctioning expertise.

The General Assembly accepted this recommendation and passed Senate File 503, which became effective July 1, 1997. The Parole Board began implementing the statute on that date and held numerous planning sessions with the Sixth District judges, county attorneys, clerks of court, sheriffs, and Department of Corrections. Due to an early interpretation of the statute, the Board not only was deemed in charge of hearings, but also arrest warrants, bonds, initial appearances, and appointment of counsel. The Board proceeded under this interpretation of the law until December 31, 1997, when Sixth District Court Judge David M. Remley ruled the project invalid. The Parole Board appealed this decision to the Iowa Supreme Court but dismissed its appeal when the legislature modified the statute to correct the alleged deficiencies of the project by passing Senate File 2377, which became effective on May 22, 1998.

A further challenge to the Sixth District project occurred in 1999, resulting in a ruling handed down by District Court Judge L. Vern Robinson on September 2. Petitioners had both received suspended sentences and had been placed on probation, only to have the probation later revoked by an administrative law judge. In this case, as in earlier cases, the petitioners claimed a lack of due process and equal protection, and also challenged the use of administrative law judges in revocations on the basis of separation of powers. The Court determined that the revocation procedure used in the Sixth Judicial district as set out in section 907.8A was not unconstitutional.

As to the due process contentions of the appellants, the Court noted that

On the issue of equal protection, the Court noted that, while there were "minor distinctions" between the rights or probationers in the 6^th District and those in other districts, they "do not rise to constitutional infirmity."

The Court added that using the 6^th Judicial District to test an administrative system is a "reasonable legislative prerogative," and may "result in a court system which is more efficient and is able to resolve more disputes."

Petitioners also claimed that section 907.8A breached the separation of powers by entrusting a judicial function to a representative of the Executive Branch. The Court also rejected this contention, indicating that

Probation revocation hearings held by the Administrative Law Judge rose markedly during FY99, as shown below:

The distribution of these dispositions is shown in the chart below.

The FY99 figures are notable in several respects. First, there was a large increase in the number of cases adjudicated (from 24 in FY98 to 74 in FY99). There was also a shift away from revocations to jail (7 in FY98, compared to 1 in FY99 despite added numbers). There was similarity in revocations as a percentage of the total (54% in FY98 vs. 56% in FY99). Four individuals were referred to Violator Programs operated by the Department of Corrections (vs. 1 in FY98). Twenty-nine cases (39%) involved placement in residential facilities (the Hinzman Center, Hope House, or the Nelson Center).

In making corrections to the original statute enabling establishment of this project, the General Assembly also required an evaluation, which is to be submitted during the 2001 legislative session by the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning. The Board continues to support this project and anticipates a favorable evaluation outcome.

A number of factors affect the amount of time individuals spend incarcerated prior to release on parole. The most obvious of these is the inmate’s maximum term of incarceration, which in Iowa is set by statute. There appears to be some public misunderstanding of prison terms in Iowa, in part because of the indeterminate nature of the State’s sentencing structure. Three groups set terms of incarceration in Iowa:

• the Legislature, which establishes maximum terms of incarceration and may choose to require either mandatory incarceration or a mandatory minimum term of incarceration;
• judges, who in sentencing determine who is incarcerated and who is not (and after imprisonment may choose to release an offender on "shock probation" after a period of up to three months); and
• the Board of Parole, which determines when offenders may be released on work release and/or parole.

Indeterminate sentencing is also misunderstood because when a judge sentences an offender to a specific term -- say, ten years of incarceration -- the sentence, absent a mandatory minimum, is actually zero-to-ten years, and the offender may be legally paroled at any time after reception by the prison system. Additionally, under Iowa’s "good time" statute, most offenders’ sentences are also reduced by up to half by good behavior in the prison system, so most ten-year sentences will expire in about five years.

There have been a number of changes in Iowa statutes in recent years whose effect has been to raise the prison population. Most of these either increase the maximum penalty for an offense or delay the time at which the Board of Parole may consider inmates for release. These include:

• a requirement that inmates sentenced for Murder-2nd, Attempted Murder, Sex Abuse-2nd, Sex Abuse-3^rd, Kidnapping-2nd, Robbery-1st, and Robbery-2nd serve 85 percent of their maximum terms of incarceration prior to release;
• lengthening the maximum term of incarceration for some drug, weapons, sex, and OWI offenses.

Another factor influencing the size of the prison population has been increasing caution on the part of the Board in releasing inmates who may pose a threat to society. The Board’s use of risk assessment in release deliberations has had two distinct effects: to hasten release of good risks who do not need to be incarcerated for reasons of public safety; and to delay release of bad risks who present a threat to society. Appendix V shows mean time to parole by offense class by risk. Delaying release of high-risk inmates is one of the factors responsible for low recidivism among Iowa parolees. See Chapter X.

The Board’s caution is also illustrated in Appendix VI, which shows percentages of offenders released in FY99 via either parole or expiration. This appendix shows clearly that the Board is increasingly willing to allow sex offenders, in particular, to expire their sentences rather than being released on parole.

Table XIII, below, presents an overview of paroling activity during FY99, presenting the amount of time served prior to parole for all offenses accounting for ten or more paroles in FY99. Readers interested in offenses not on the table are urged to consult Table 11, which presents all offenses accounting for paroles in FY99.

Table XIV, on the pages following, presents a complete itemization of paroles for FY1999, listing the felony class, the specific offense, whether or not consecutive sentences were involved, the number of persons paroled during the year, and the maximum, minimum, and mean lengths of stay. In a change from reports prior to last year’s, in an effort to avoid redundancy the table does not list a total separately when all of the paroles for a certain offense either did or did not involve consecutive sentences. For example, the one parole for robbery with aggravation involved a consecutive sentence, so the column for consecutive sentences notes "Y/Total" to note that the numbers for the total and for the consecutive sentence category were the same. Similarly, all the controlled substance offenses in the "other" category did not involve consecutive sentences, so they are all listed as "N/Total."