Report 2008-104 Recommendations
When an audit is completed and a report is issued, auditees must provide the State Auditor with information regarding their progress in implementing recommendations from our reports at three intervals from the release of the report: 60 days, six months, and one year. Additionally, Senate Bill 1452 (Chapter 452, Statutes of 2006), requires auditees who have not implemented recommendations after one year, to report to us and to the Legislature why they have not implemented them or to state when they intend to implement them. Below, is a listing of each recommendation the State Auditor made in the report referenced and a link to the most recent response from the auditee addressing their progress in implementing the recommendation and the State Auditor's assessment of auditee's response based on our review of the supporting documentation.
Recommendations in Report 2008-104: Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: It Does Not Always Follow Its Policies When Discharging Parolees (Release Date: August 2008)
|Recommendations to Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of|
To prevent the automatic discharge of parolees, Corrections should ensure that staff promptly prepare discharge review reports for all eligible parolees.
Corrections should finalize and implement the draft regulations and policy memorandum that will detail the policy and procedures governing its parole discharge process. The new policy should prohibit unit supervisors and district administrators from altering discharge review reports prepared by others. In addition, the new policy should require district administrators to document their justifications for discharging parolees against the recommendations of both parole agents and unit supervisors. Finally, the new policy should require that discharge review reports be prepared for deported parolees.
To ensure that parolees are discharged in accordance with its policies and with state laws, Corrections should make certain that the appropriate authority makes decisions to discharge or retain parolees.
To document more accurately whether its staff completed discharge reports, Corrections should ensure that staff members properly code in its database the reasons for parolees' discharges. Further, to better identify the entities that make final discharge decisions for given cases, Corrections should establish a more precise method for maintaining information about which entity made the final discharge decisions, such as a new discharge reason code or a new data field that will track this information.
Because we found some discharges that did not comply with Corrections' policies even after Corrections had implemented its protocol requiring that regional and district administrators review 10 percent of the discharge decisions made by subordinates, Corrections should consider providing to parole staff and analysts from the Case Records Office additional training on its discharge policies. If, after providing this training, regional and district administrators find that staff are still not following discharge policies, Corrections should consider requiring that the respective administrators perform these reviews before discharge decisions are finalized.