How Does the Alabama Board of Pardons & Paroles Make Decisions?

This writing is intended as an overview of “evidence based methods” called Risk Assessment Tools, and their use throughout the criminal justice system to predict recidivism and influence sentencing. Some of the producers are COMPAS, LSI, and ORAS amongst others. We also hope this piece will help bridge the gap between technology and justice. In pursuit of providing the best parole and probation legal representation possible, we find it necessary for all parties involved (clients, families, lawyers, and even the law enforcement/sentencing authority) to have an understanding of the pieces at play.

With mounting over population of prisons and jails all across the county, particularly in Alabama, we became very curious about what non-human mechanisms are being used to make parole decisions. After digging into the procedures of the Alabama Board of Pardons & Paroles (ABPP), we discovered that the Board, as of the date of this article, uses the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS).

ORAS is a conglomerate of tests, that when used properly, claim to improve consistency and facilitate communication across criminal justice agencies when classifying and predicting recidivism. The ORAS test can be administered at pretrial, probation (sentencing), lock up intake, or upon parole consideration. While the human being making the actual decision can override the results of the risk assessment tool, their results are nonetheless given strong consideration.

Lets examine how ORAS (an actuarial assessment tool) is used to classify inmates based on their “Dynamic Risk Factors” (aka criminogenic needs). Aside from the criminal charge at hand, these tools also consider: criminal history, social bonds, substance abuse, employment history, economic status, criminal attitudes/lifestyle, etc. Further, “Responsivity Factors” that create “Treatment Barriers” such as handicap or literacy limitations can skew results if not properly identified. To be most effective, risk assessment tools depend on proper classification to match the person’s needs with the resources available to curb future recidivism.

ORAS was crafted on the results of a yearlong case study of over 1,800 offenders in Ohio. By using information gained through detailed interviewing (45-90 minutes per inmate) for over 200 risk factors, self-reporting, and tracking ORAS was born. 1 point is granted for each of the risk factors identified, and 0 points are added for non-existent risk factors. Thus, the higher the ORAS score, the higher risk inmate and a higher chance of recidivism. Based upon the ORAS score, each person is classified into a different risk category, which is then considered by the deciding authority.  

For parole decisions, ORAS is made of 20 factors across 4 domains (areas): age, criminal history, social bonds, and criminal attitudes. Conversely, in deciding probation matters ORAS uses 35 factors across 7 domains to give a score for likeliness to recidivate, or come back to jail. Respectively, the correlation rate between the ORAS score and future recidivism is about 36% accurate for both paroles and probation. Quick question, was 36% ever a passing score for any test you’ve taken? Me neither.

A huge part of what we do at THP is advocate the decision makers to see beyond risk assessment scores and records on paper, to see the human being in front of them.

Click Here to sign up for parole, probation, or any incarceration relation matter.