11. Updates and clarifies the current initial and reclassification procedures.
12. Clarifies the procedures for requesting and authorizing a reclassification hearing prior to a previously scheduled recall date.
13. Permits alteration of a classification decision due to changes in institution program or placement resources that occur subsequent to the original decision.
14. Creates language in various sections to reflect bifurcated sentencing guidelines implemented after December 31, 1999, also referred to as “truth in sentencing”.
15. Provides a process for a department registrar to contact the sentencing court and the inmate if there is uncertainty in the sentence imposed by the court.
16. Updates the chapter to clarify the process for waiver of good time, mandatory release or release to extended supervision.
17. Repeals certain earned releases formerly under 302.113 (9h), Stats. of 2009, and elements of positve adjustment time repealed by 2011 Wisconsin Act 38. This is due to the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in State ex rel. Aman Singh v. Paul Kemper, 2016 WI 67, and the Wisconsin Court of 18. Appeals decision in State ex rel. Aman Singh v. Paul Kemper, 2014 WI App 43, 353 Wis. 2d 520, 846 N.W.2d 820. 19. Updates the chapter to reflect statute change of the Wisconsin earned release program to the Wisconsin substance abuse program resulting from 2011 Wisconsin Act 38. 20. Updates the chapter to reflect statute changes to the challenge incarceration program resulting from 2011 Wisconsin Act 38. 21. Updates the chapter to reflect statute changes to risk reduction sentences resulting from 2011 Wisconsin Act 38.
22. Creates a department process for extraordinary health condition and geriatric petition release from prison under s.301.113 (9g).
F. Summary of, and Comparison with, Existing or Proposed Federal Statutes and Regulations: There are no federal statutes or regulations that regulate the activities addressed by the proposed rule.
G. Comparison of similar rules in adjacent states:
Illinois rules concerning classification and transfers apply to both adult and juvenile inmates of the Illinois Department of Corrections. (20 ILAC 503.10) Wisconsin has a separate set of rules which addresses incarcerated juveniles.
Illinois rules require evaluation of inmates for placement and classification purposes at a reception and classification center for initial assignment to a correctional facility or program. The process includes an evaluation of the following factors: criminal, educational and employment history, health care condition, and any other information deemed relevant to placement. The Director determines an inmate’s initial placement based on the classification center’s recommendation. The rules require that an inmate’s classification or program be reviewed at regular intervals. (20 ILADC 503.20) Similarly, Wisconsin rules require that an inmate’s classification and placement be initially determined at intake. Wisconsin rules consider similar factors in determining classification and placement. Unlike Illinois, Wisconsin rules require that the classification procedure be determined during a hearing and then reconsidered during incremental re-hearings.
Illinois rules permit that an inmate may be administratively transferred to any of the department’s facilities or programs or as otherwise permitted by law. (20 ILADC 503.120) Illinois rules permit that an inmate may be transferred for discipline as the result of an adjustment committee decision. (20 ILADC 503.140) Illinois rules permit that an inmate may be transferred for mental health purposes by emergency or after a hearing and review process. (20 ILADC 503.150) Wisconsin rules require that permanent changes in custody or institution placement of an inmate requires a reclassification hearing. Wisconsin rules permit a temporary placement following a rule violation or for medical emergencies.
Illinois rules concerning sentence computations apply to both incarcerated adults and juveniles. The rules do not apply to persons committed as delinquents, as a result of a finding of contempt, or to those serving sentences of periodic imprisonment. (20 ILADC 107.100) Wisconsin has a separate set of rules which addresses incarcerated juveniles. Wisconsin rules do not distinguish between those committed due to contempt or period imprisonment.
Wisconsin rules require the department to calculate an inmate’s sentence and inform the inmate in writing of parole eligibility, projected release, and projected discharge dates. Illinois does not have a similar rule.
Illinois rules establish a process to review inmates serving indeterminate sentences. The rules require those inmates to appear before a prison review board prior to parole eligibility after serving a minimum sentence or 20 years, whichever is less, less applicable statutory good time, compensatory good time, and day for day credit. If an offender must serve the maximum indeterminate sentence, he or she shall be released after serving the maximum of the sentence, less statutory good time, compensatory good time, and day for day credit. (20 ILADC 107.110)
Illinois rules require that an inmate serving a determinate sentence shall be released after serving his determinate sentence, less any applicable credit awarded. (20 ILADC 107.110)
Wisconsin rules establish a process to review inmates serving indeterminate sentences. Wisconsin rules require that an inmate serving an indeterminate sentence shall be eligible for parole when 25% of the sentence imposed, or 6 months, whichever is greater, less all credit which the inmate is entitled to by statute, has been served. An inmate is not eligible for parole consideration for at least 60 days following admission to DAI. If an inmate has more than one sentence, the inmate shall be eligible for parole on each non-bifurcated sentence. If an inmate has received consecutive sentences, the non-bifurcated sentences shall be computed as one continuous sentence for purposes of determining parole eligibility.
Illinois rules establish a process for determining when an inmate serving indeterminate sentences may receive statutory good time, compensatory time, and supplemental sentence credit. Illinois rules require that compensatory good time be prorated for those inmates serving indeterminate schedules at a rate also provided by a table, and normally at the rate of 7.5 days for each month in custody. Offenders are not eligible to receive compensatory good time for any month during which they are reported by their work or program supervisor for carelessness, negligence, or refusal to work if so recommended by the facility’s Adjustment Committee and approved by the Chief Administrative Officer. Inmates in segregation or confinement for a period of 3 days or more are not awarded compensatory good time for that month pursuant to a hearing before an adjustment committee. If an offender is on investigative status, an offender earns compensatory good time for that month if the investigation findings indicate the offender did not commit a violation. Awarded compensatory good time may not be revoked. (20 ILADC 107.120)
Illinois rules permit offenders who enroll in full-time substance abuse program, industries assignment, other programs, behavior modification programs, life skill courses, or re-entry plans to be eligible for additional credit.
Illinois rules require that inmates found guilty of misconduct or rules violations may lose statutory good time, day for day credit, statutory sentence credit, supplemental credit, or program sentence credit (20 ILADC 107.150) The Director also has discretion to revoke statutory good time, day for day credit, statutory sentence credit, supplemental sentence credit, and program sentence. (20 ILADC 107.150) Illinois rules permit the restoration of statutory good time, day for day credit, statutory sentence credit, supplemental sentence credit, and program sentence credit either by his own action or upon recommendation of an administrative review board, adjustment committee, or a deputy director. (20 ILADC 107.160)
Wisconsin rules permit offenders to waive good time, mandatory release or extended supervision. Illinois rules do not have a similar provision.
Wisconsin rules permit inmates eligible to earn extra good time for performing above average in vocational, education, or job assignment are involuntary assigned, or are in a status of administrative confinement, observation, temporary lockup, or out of the institution for a court or medical appointment and were earning extra good time immediately prior to the placement. Wisconsin rules permit inmates to earn one day of extra good time credit for every six days in an eligible status.
Illinois rules permit participation in an Impact Incarceration Program. (20 ILADC 460.10) Illinois rules require that upon successful completion of the program, inmates serve a term of mandatory supervised release. (20 ILADC 460.10) Wisconsin rules permit inmates to participate in a challenge incarceration program. In Wisconsin, upon completion of the program, the Department either advises the parole board or the sentencing court of the inmate’s completion for those bodies to determine the effect on the inmate’s sentence.
Wisconsin rules permit inmates who meet extraordinary health conditions or geriatric petitions to request a modification of their bifurcated sentence upon review by a committee and hearing. Illinois does not have a similar rule.
Iowa has a statute that provides that the department of corrections may develop and utilize an inmate classification system. ICA s. 904.202 provides that the department may utilize a classification system to aid in the rehabilitation of the inmates and requires that the trial judge, prosecuting attorney, and presentence investigators furnish the department’s director with any previously authorized presentence investigation report and a full statement of facts and circumstances attending the commission of the offense so far as known or believed by them. Wisconsin also requires a review of similar information in determining inmate classifications.
Iowa does not have a comparable administrative code concerning classification, sentence computations, or release provisions.
The Iowa department of corrections has issued policies and procedures which addresses offender classifications (Policy Number IS-CL-02 (eff. 8/2014)), classification rehearings (Policy Number IS-CL03 F-6 (eff. 10/2014)), program placement (Policy Number IS-CL-03 (eff. 2/2015)), and inter-institutional transfers (Policy Number IS-CL-08 (eff. 10/2014))
Michigan rules requires that the department of corrections determine an inmate’s classification to determine the level of confinement necessary for public safety and the safety and security of the facility. (Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.4401). The rules require that classification determinations be made based on safety and security concerns, including prevention of escape, maintenance of control and order, and medical and mental health care needs of the inmate. The rules provide that classification assignments will determine the placement of the inmate. This is similar to Wisconsin rules.
Michigan rules require that inmate classification be determined by a committee at each institution. (Mich. R. 791.4401(3)). Wisconsin rules require that inmate classification is determined by a hearing.
Michigan rules permit an inmate who objects to a reclassification decision to file a grievance. (Mich R. 791.4401(4)). Similarly, Wisconsin rules permit inmates to request administrative review of classification decisions.
Michigan rules permit designation of an inmate to community status after serving a minimum sentence imposed by the court. Prison officials determine community status by reviewing the inmate’s classification level, sentence, assaultive risk, health care needs, pending charges, or other special designation by the department. (Mich. R. 791.4410(1) & (2)). Wisconsin does not have a similar rule.
Minnesota statues permit recordkeeping for inmate participation in substance abuse treatments. (MSA s. 241.416).
Minnesota rules create procedures for determining an inmate’s sentence and release. (MN ADC 2940.1500). Inmates with indeterminate sentences may request a release date adjustment. Minnesota rules create a program review team tasked with reviewing requests and making recommendations to an executive officer of hearings for an inmate’s release. (MN ADC 2940.1500).
Minnesota rules create a procedure to calculate an inmate’s loss of good time or extension of imprisonment for disciplinary infractions. (MN ADC 2940.1600). The procedures are based upon an inmate’s sentence structure and projected release date. Wisconsin similarly has rules in place to determine sentencing guidelines based upon sentence structure and adjustments based upon extensions for misconduct.
H. Summary of the factual data and analytical methodologies that DOC used in support of its determination of the rule’s fiscal effect on small businesses under s. 227.114, Stats: The department of corrections has determined that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses since the rule does not regulate small businesses as that term is defined in s. 227.114, Stats.
I. Analysis and supporting documents that the department of corrections used in support of the department's determination of the proposed rule’s effect on small businesses or that was used when the department of corrections prepared an economic impact report: Not applicable.
J. A copy of any comments and opinion prepared by the Baord of Veterans Affairs under s. 45.03 (2m), Stats., for rules proposed by the Department of Veterans Affairs: Not Applicable.
K. Effect on small businesses: Not applicable.
L. Agency contact person:
Mark Heise, Director
Bureau of Offender Classification and Movement
Department of Corrections
PO Box 7925
Madison, WI 53707-7925