Executive team members of the Board of Parole Hearings visited San Quentin during Mental Wellness Week. The visit gave residents a chance to ask questions about changing laws, parole denials, and rehabilitative efforts.

Executive officer Scott Wyckoff, one of four team members to participate in the panel discussion gave two reasons for his visit. First, he said he wanted to ensure residents that he would relay the concerns of residents to commissioners and second, for those having to go through the parole suitability process, he wanted to leave them with a little hope.

“The people coming before the board have mental health issues and the fact that they are dealing with them and are able to recognize their triggers is going to help our commissioners be more confident in the decision to find somebody suitable,” said Wyckoff. “… hopefully for the people who put in the hard work and transform themselves, they get to go home.”

Other panel members included, Chief Counsel Jessica Blonien, Chief Deputy of Program Operations Tara M. Doetsch, and Chief Psychologist Jasmine A. Tehrani.

When the floor opened for questions, resident Steve W. asked about the California Static Risk Assessment interview saying, “the language in my CSRA was harsh” and asked if he was less transparent during the psychologist interview, would that affect his chance of a parole grant. According to the California Code of Regulations Title 15, the California Static Risk Assessment uses static indicators of a person that don’t change including gender, age, and offense history of the offender to predict recidivism.

The assessment produces a risk value; 1-Low Risk, 2-Moderate Risk, 3-High Risk Drug, 4-High Risk Property, and 5-High Risk Violence as predictions to the likelihood a person incur a felony arrest within a three-year period after released on parole.

Chief Psychologist Tehrani said that residents should be truthful in their CSRA interview and then use the CSRA report as a roadmap.

A resident, who is a part of the deaf community, said that he’s been denied parole nine times and credit those denials to the lack of communication of information from him and the interpreter, who presented the information to the commissioners.

Chief Counsel Jessica Blonien said if any resident feels that an attorney, translator, or interpreter is communicating information incorrectly, that resident should immediately stop the hearing.

“The attorney should be going through the CSRA interview and helping fle objections for you,” said Blonien. “If you are in your hearing or your CSRA interview and you feel like they are not doing a good job as your interpreter, you should tell someone right away in that hearing because right there at that moment we can stop because what you have to say is really crucial for the hearing.”

Other residents raised questions about staff misconduct, how receiving a faulty disciplinary write up affects residents who have to address it with a commissioner.

Wyckoff said that commissioners are more concerned about the actions/response of the person answering questions about a disciplinary write up.

“There are ways to talk about that where you can have a little insight. Think about how you can address that [Rules Violation Report],” Wyckoff said. “How are you responding to situations? That is what the commissioners are looking at.”

Resident Josh asked if there was anything in place offering parole dates and rehabilitation credits back to people who lost it behind the legal challenges of Prop 57.

“Unfortunately there is nothing we can do about that. The legislature makes the laws about who gets dates and we interpret it with California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation case records,” said Blonien. “That would take legislative action.”

Wyckoff said it might raise a red fag for a commissioner during the parole hearing, but that’s an individual choice.

“The risk that goes along with that is, maybe you don’t tell the psychologist something and that may refect differently when you change an answer during the actual hearing,” said Wyckoff.

Wyckoff said the commissioners wanted residents to know that they understand a little more about a person’s transformation, when they see a person willing to ask for help.

“How are [commissioners] to learn about how you’re going to cope on the outside, if you don’t ask for help on the inside,” Wyckoff said.

Wyckoff went on to say that, he wanted to clear up the myth about people getting denied parole because they were getting mental health services. He said he heard that people are reluctant to participate in mental health programs because there is a false belief that it makes a person look bad or crazy at their parole hearing.

“There is no penalty for being in mental health services,” said Wyckoff. Adding that sometime people stop programming right before they go to board because they want to focus on their insight or they stop programming right after being found suitable.

Wyckoff said, “it is a red fag for commissioners if a person drops out of mental health services and encouraged resident to keep programming whether they receive a parole date or not.

“If you need help, get help. If you are getting help, keep getting help,” Wyckoff said.

In closing, Wyckoff said he appreciates the work and transformation that is going on in San Quentin.

“I can’t imagine what that must feel like and to the extent that we can make the process feel a little more safe for them, help them understand the expectations and hopefully for the people who put in the hard work and transform themselves, they get to go home,” he said.