As the Maryland legislature begins its 2025 spring session, Campaign Zero is prioritizing two critical reforms: modernizing the state’s parole system and ending the harmful practice of charging people for their own incarceration, commonly referred to as “pay-to-stay” fees.
These changes aim to address systemic inequities, reduce recidivism, and support successful reentry for people who have served out their time.
Both issues—ending pay-to-stay fees and modernizing parole —have garnered significant public support. Below, we outline the challenges in Maryland’s current systems and our recommendations for legislative action.
Ending Pay-to-Stay Fees
Maryland’s “pay-to-stay” policies impose financial burdens on incarcerated individuals, perpetuating cycles of poverty and hindering successful reentry. These fees include deductions from wages earned in correctional work programs and charges for weekend incarceration.
State-Level Fees
The Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) deducts up to 80% of wages earned by individuals in work-release programs, including 30% for room and board. The room and board fees that are collected are then deposited into the Division of Correction General Fund. Although this practice is not explicitly authorized by state law, it continues unchecked.
Recommendation:
Ban all pay-to-stay fees at the state level, including deductions for room and board.
County-Level Fees
Maryland counties charge individuals serving weekend sentences fees ranging from $10 to $100 per weekend for their “stay”, often with minimal financial benefit to the county and significant harm to individuals.
Recommendation:
Repeal the authority for counties to impose weekend incarceration fees.
Updating Parole
The Maryland Parole Commission operates under state laws and regulations, yet it lags behind national standards in fairness, transparency, and efficiency. After a comprehensive review, we have identified several key issues and actionable solutions:
1. Maryland Denies Parole Hearings to Eligible Individuals
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. This practice effectively extends sentences without judicial oversight.
Recommendation:
Mandate automatic scheduling of parole hearings after denials.
2. Parole Commissioners Don’t Conduct Most Hearings
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.
Recommendation:
Require commissioners to conduct all parole hearings, sitting in panels of at least two members. They are full-time, well-paid state employees who should be present at all parole hearings.
Increase the Commission size by 5-10 members, reallocating the budget from existing positions.
3. Most Parole Hearings Are Heard and Decided By One Person
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 no exception is filed by the Commission within five days, their decision is final and given to the incarcerated person.
Recommendation:
No solitary commissioner should hold a parole hearing. All hearings should be held by at least two commissioners. If the two members disagree on a decision, the tie should be broken by a rehearing with three commissioners, keeping with existing state law.
4. Only One Person Appoints the Commissioners and Hearing Examiners
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.
This centralized authority limits the diversity of expertise and perspectives on the Commission, as appointments are drawn solely from individuals within the Secretary’s purview.
Recommendation:
Establish a parole commissioner candidate panel to review applicants and recommend qualified candidates to the Governor.
This model, used in six states (Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Utah), ensures a more robust and transparent selection process.
5. Not Everyone May Appeal a Parole Denial
Parole denials following hearings by commissioners are final, with no option for appeal. However, individuals whose hearings are conducted by hearing examiners may file an appeal (referred to as an “exception”) to the Commission. These appeals are rarely successful, and the dual standard creates inequities based solely on who conducted the hearing.
Recommendation:
Allow all individuals to appeal parole denials, regardless of who conducted the hearing.
Assign appeals to an independent judicial body, such as an administrative law judge, to ensure impartiality. Oregon provides a strong model, where parole appeals are reviewed by the state’s Court of Appeals.
6. People Wait Too Long for Their Release Decision
Incarcerated individuals often wait between 21 to 30 days to learn the outcome of their hearings.
Recommendation:
Require decisions to be communicated within seven days, aligning with best practices in states like Oklahoma, one of the most conservative parole states in the country.
7. Parole Hearing Recordings Are Destroyed Too Quickly and Not Available to the Public
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.
Recommendation:
Parole hearing recordings and transcripts should be kept until the incarcerated person is released from prison, completes all supervision, and exhausts all appeals. Hearing records are essential for transparency and accountability of parole commissioners, ensuring they are following commission procedures and ethics, and are relied upon by incarcerated people and their representatives for future appeals.
8. Tilting the Scales—Victims May Speak, Supporters Cannot
Parole hearings are closed to the public unless requested to be “open” by the victim. Victims have a right to attend these open hearings and are permitted to provide oral testimony at the hearing before the Commission.
In contrast, supporters may not speak at the parole hearing and must request meetings with the Commission in advance. Often, they do not get to meet with the commissioner who will conduct their loved one’s hearing and decide their release.
Recommendation:
Input should be equal between victim(s) and supporters. A supporter of the incarcerated person’s choosing should be allowed to attend and provide oral testimony at the parole hearing (if an open hearing is requested by the victim).
If an open hearing is not requested, the law should guarantee the supporters will meet with the commissioner(s) who will conduct their loved one’s hearing.
9. No 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.
Recommendation:
Require detailed reporting, including data on rehearings, denials, and racial disparities.
10. The Commission Does Not Have to Justify Its 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.
Recommendation:
Require the Commission to include detailed reasons for all parole decisions, ensuring that individuals understand the basis of the rulings that shape their futures.
Make the reasons for parole decisions public record to increase transparency and accountability, as outlined in existing Maryland law.
11. Parole Considerations Are Redundant, Immeasurable, and Incomplete
State law requires the Commission to assess “moral qualifications” and other vague factors, while neglecting evidence-based criteria like age at the time of the offense. Whether the person committed a crime as a teenager or is currently the age of a grandparent, the Commission should be required to consider these two factors.
Recommendation:
Remove subjective criteria and include factors like age at offense and hearing, reflecting contemporary research on brain development, rehabilitation, and risk.
12. Records Are Not Automatically Provided
Currently, incarcerated individuals must request documents considered during their hearings, causing unnecessary delays.
Recommendation:
All incarcerated people with scheduled parole hearings should be automatically provided the documents the Commission will consider.
It’s Time for Change in Maryland
Modernizing Maryland’s parole system and eliminating pay-to-stay fees are essential steps 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.
Campaign Zero urges legislators to prioritize these changes during the spring session and beyond. Together, we can create a safer, fairer Maryland for everyone.