Modernizing Parole
As the Maryland legislature begins its 2025 spring session, Campaign Zero is prioritizing critical reforms to modernize the state's parole system.
These changes aim to address systemic inequities, reduce recidivism, and support successful reentry for people who have served their time.
We've outlined the challenges in Maryland's current systems and our responses to recommendations for legislative action.
Updating Parole
The Maryland Parole Commission operates under state laws and regulations, yet it lags behind national standards in fairness, transparency, and efficiency.
Delegates Embry (HB1147) and Phillips (HB1156) have introduced bills aimed at improving parole in Maryland. Our review of both bills is below:
House Bill 1147
1. Add Requirements for What Data the Commission Reports
Current law requires the Commission to "make an annual report to the Governor of its work" with no specifications as to the report's contents. The Commission's annual reports include the number of hearings and grants, but lack other meaningful data on parole decisions, including demographic breakdowns.
HB1147 would require the Parole Commission's annual report to include the following data, disaggregated by race:
- number of parole grants
- number of parole denials (with reasoning for denial)
- number of administrative release grants
- number of hearings held and the purpose of each hearing
- the number of incarcerated people who are parole-eligible but have not been granted parole
Our Review:
These requirements would be a significant step towards increased transparency from the Maryland Parole Commission. Disaggregating the data by race will also ensure the Commission is making decisions based on each person's situation.
2. Automatically Provide Records
Currently, incarcerated individuals are provided notice of their ability to request the documents that will be considered by the Commission (or hearing examiner) during their hearings.
HB1147 would require the documents to be provided automatically alongside the notice of their hearing, removing the administrative delay.
Our Review:
Automatically providing a person their own records that will be used by the Commission to decide release is standard practice across the United States. Incarcerated people should be able to review the documents they will be asked about at their hearing in order to help them prepare for the proceedings.
3. Require Reasoning and Justification For All Commission Decisions
The Parole Commission is required to provide incarcerated individuals with a "written report of its findings" following a parole denial. However, the law does not mandate that the report includes the specific reasons behind the decision, leaving individuals without clarity about why their parole was denied.
HB1147 would require the Commission to include detailed reasons for all parole decisions. These justifications would also be public record.
Our Review:
Providing reasoning and justifications is a common-sense step that ensures individuals understand the basis of the rulings that shape their futures. Making the reasons public record increases accountability for the Commission and also allows friends and family to read the decisions.
4. Provide Prompt Notice of a Decision
Incarcerated individuals often wait between 21 to 30 days to learn the outcome of their hearings.
HB1147 would require decisions to be communicated within seven days of the parole hearing.
Our Review:
Some states provide the incarcerated individual notice of their hearing decision on the same day as their hearing. However, seven days is a significant improvement to the status quo and brings Maryland in line with states like Oklahoma, one of the most conservative parole states in the country.
5. Automatically Schedule Parole Hearings
In most states, state law sets a timeline for subsequent parole hearings following a denial – not in Maryland. Instead, individuals must request a new hearing annually (or every two years for longer sentences), and these requests can be arbitrarily denied. The Parole Commission denied parole hearings to over a thousand people each of the last two years (FY23 and FY24), effectively denying parole eligibility to thousands of people who both the legislature and courts have determined to be eligible.
HB1147 would require parole hearings to occur every two years for individuals who are parole-eligible.
Our Review:
Scheduled hearings ensure that all parole-eligible people (as ruled by state law and sentenced by the courts) are reviewed for their readiness to return home under supervision. A specified cadence also provides a predictable schedule for all parties, including the Commission.
6. Record and Transcribe All Parole Hearings
Maryland law does not mandate specific recording or retention requirements. In its absence, state administrative regulations specify that parole hearing recordings be destroyed within 30 days if no appeal is filed, removing any evidence to reference at future hearings.
HB1147 would require that all hearings are recorded and transcribed within 30 days. These transcripts would be available to the incarcerated person and the general public (upon request). Hearing recordings would be kept for three years after the person finishes their sentence, community supervision, and exhausts all appeals, whichever happens last.
Our Review:
Hearing recordings are relied upon by incarcerated people and their representatives for several reasons, including addressing commissioners' concerns for future programming and potentially preparing appeals. Recordings also provide transparency and accountability of parole commissioners, ensuring they are following commission procedures and ethics.
House Bill 1156
1. Create a Nominating Panel, Move Appointment Authority to Governor
Currently, the Secretary of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) appoints all parole commissioners and hearing examiners. Parole commissioners require oversight by both the Governor and Senate, but hearing examiners, the people conducting the majority of parole hearings, require no review. Maryland is one of only two states (Kansas) that allows the Secretary to select its parole commissioners.
HB1156 would create a nominating panel, made up of a variety of people with diverse perspectives, who would send qualified applicants to the Governor to choose from when appointing a new commissioner.
Our Review:
Maryland would become the seventh state (AL, FL, HI, KY, MA, UT) to create a nominating committee to screen applicants and provide candidates to the Governor to appoint new commissioners. This panel would expand the diversity of expertise and perspectives on the Commission, moving beyond the status quo of selecting individuals solely within the Secretary's purview.
2. Ensure Parole Commissioners Conduct Every Hearing
Generally, parole commissioners only conduct hearings for those convicted of a homicide or serving life sentences. All other hearings are handled by hearing examiners—staff appointees with significant decision-making power but limited accountability.
Most parole hearings in Maryland are conducted by a lone hearing examiner. The hearing examiner interviews the incarcerated person, makes a recommendation for the decision, submits a report to the Commission, and, if the Commission files no exception within five days, their decision is final and given to the incarcerated person.
HB1156 would increase the size of the Commission to at least 15 members (no more than 20) in order to ensure commissioners conduct every parole hearing. Commissioners would sit in panels of at least two, as existing state law requires for hearings for people convicted of homicide and/or sentenced to life sentences.
Our Review:
Most states require parole commissioners to conduct parole hearings – it's the job they're appointed to perform. They are full-time, well-paid state employees who should conduct all parole hearings.
It's Time for Change in Maryland
Modernizing Maryland's parole system is an essential step toward a more equitable and effective justice system. These reforms will reduce recidivism, support successful reentry, and ensure fair treatment of all individuals under Maryland law.
Together, we can create a safer, fairer Maryland for everyone.