Second Chances Resource Library

FAMM’s Compassionate Release Report Cards look at how well states provide compassionate release to medically vulnerable, aging, and terminally ill incarcerated people. They grade each state program on key measures such as eligibility criteria, procedures, release planning, and data collection/public reporting. Connecticut’s three compassionate release programs, “Medical Parole,” “Compassionate Parole Release,” and “Nursing Home Release” all received grades of F, and Connecticut’s overall grade is also F.

FAMM’s Compassionate Release Report Cards look at how well states provide compassionate release to medically vulnerable, aging, and terminally ill incarcerated people. They grade each state program on key measures such as eligibility criteria, procedures, release planning, and data collection/public reporting. Colorado’s compassionate release program, “Special Needs Parole,” received a grade of A+, and Colorado’s overall grade is also A+.

FAMM’s Compassionate Release Report Cards look at how well states provide compassionate release to medically vulnerable, aging, and terminally ill incarcerated people. They grade each state program on key measures such as eligibility criteria, procedures, release planning, and data collection/public reporting. California has three compassionate release programs. “Recall of Sentence” received a grade of C-, “Medical Parole” received a grade of C, and “Elderly Parole” received a grade of F. California’s overall grade is D-.

FAMM’s Compassionate Release Report Cards look at how well states provide compassionate release to medically vulnerable, aging, and terminally ill incarcerated people. They grade each state program on key measures such as eligibility criteria, procedures, release planning, and data collection/public reporting. Arkansas’ three compassionate release programs, “Medical Parole,” “Early Release to Home Detention,” and “Executive Clemency Due to a Life-Threatening Medical Condition” all received grades of F, and Arkansas’ overall grade is also F.

FAMM’s Compassionate Release Report Cards look at how well states provide compassionate release to medically vulnerable, aging, and terminally ill incarcerated people. They grade each state program on key measures such as eligibility criteria, procedures, release planning, and data collection/public reporting. Arizona’s two compassionate release programs, “Executive Clemency Due to Imminent Danger of Death” and “Compassionate Leave” both received grades of F, and Arizona’s overall grade is also F.

FAMM’s Compassionate Release Report Cards look at how well states provide compassionate release to medically vulnerable, aging, and terminally ill incarcerated people. They grade each state program on key measures such as eligibility criteria, procedures, release planning, and data collection/public reporting. Alaska has two compassionate release programs. “Special Medical Parole” received a grade of F and “Geriatric Parole/Discretionary Parole Based on Age” received a grade of D. Alaska’s overall grade is also F.

FAMM’s Compassionate Release Report Cards look at how well states provide compassionate release to medically vulnerable, aging, and terminally ill incarcerated people. They grade each state program on key measures such as eligibility criteria, procedures, release planning, and data collection/public reporting. Alabama has two compassionate release programs. “Medical Parole” received a grade of F and “Medical Furlough” received a grade of B-. Alabama’s overall grade is D+.

Win With Justice is partnering with For The People, a leading national nonprofit who supports prosecutors and family members as they seek to remedy unjust sentences. Together, we are offering “A New Tool To Win With Justice: Prosecutor-Initiated Resentencing” for prosecutors and community members working to bring their loved ones home. With this new tool, prosecutors now have the ability to reunite families and restore communities that have been decimated by mass incarceration.

For The People presents the first national guide supporting key stakeholders in advancing Prosecutor-Initiated Resentencing. The guide is broken up into three key parts: 1) Understanding PIR, 2) Enacting PIR legislation, and 3) Implementing PIR within a prosecuting agency. Along with digging deep into the origins and mechanics of PIR, the guide equips various stakeholders with resources to propose PIR legislation in their jurisdiction and supports prosecutors in launching their own resentencing units to begin reviewing cases.

For The People is grateful for the support of peer reviewers at NDAA, Right on Crime, Vera Institute of Justice, American University, and other key community organizations in reviewing this guide.