in-20260916-IR-220260318RAA: IDAPA 50.01.01 § 250

TITLE 220 PAROLE BOARD Regulatory Analysis LSA Document #26-318 I. Description of Rule II. Fiscal Impact Analysis III. Impacted Parties IV. Changes in Proposed Rule Section Change Reason for Change General corrections throughout Changing to using gender neutral pronouns for parolees Current language only reflects male parolees even though female parolees are supervised as well 220 IAC 1.1-3-1 Initial reporting Adding "or placement" after program Most parolees now are released to a placement rather than a program so this change will clarify the rule and be more in line with current parole practices 220 IAC 1.1-3-2 Employment and residence Adding clarifying language regarding residence requirements By adding the clarification regarding continuous residency, this rule will more accurately represent policy and should eliminate confusion. 220 IAC 1.1-3-5 Alcohol or controlled substances abuse Changes "parole release agreement" to "conditions of parole" The Parole Division has moved away from using "Parole Release Agreement" because it implies a contract, 220 IAC 1.1-3-6 Jail or correctional institution visitation Incorporates language about communicating with incarcerated individuals on parole rather than just visiting them Due to technological advances, the manner of "visiting" incarcerated individuals usually involves phone calls, video calls, or tablet communication. In person visits were the norm when the rule was written and are no longer as common. State Form 23 has been updated to reflect this so the regulation needs to mirror that as well. 220 IAC 1.1-3-8 Firearms and dangerous weapons Incorporates lookalike language State Form 23 has been updated to include language that clarifies that parolees are prohibited from possessing lookalike weapons so this regulation needs to mirror that. 220 IAC 1.1-3-9 Home visitation and search Amends "officer" to "agent" This change is meant to update to more accurate terminology. 220 IAC 1.1-3-12 Lifetime Parole Conditions Adding Lifetime Parole Conditions to Administrative Code The conditions of Lifetime Parole (State Form 57201) need to be included in Administrative Code to better supervise these individuals. V. Benefit Analysis VI. Cost Analysis VII. Sources of Information VIII. Regulatory Analysis IX. Contact Information of Staff to Answer Substantive Questions Readoption Review LSA Document #26-318 I. Statement Whether the Subject Matter Covered by the Rule Remains Carried out by the Agency II. Rationale for the Continued Need for the Rule III. Analysis of fees, fines, and civil penalties under IC 4-22-2-19.6 IV. Cost-Benefit, Economic Impact, Fiscal Impact, or Regulatory Burden Statements V. Alternative Methods of Achieving the Purpose of the Rule VI. Complaints and Comments VII. Difficulties Encountered VIII. Changes in Technology, Economic Conditions, or Other Factors IX. Other State or Federal Requirements State Citation Comparison to Indiana Idaho IDAPA 50.01.01 § 250 Idaho has substantially the same conditions of parole as Indiana. Idaho does also include a few more restrictions than Indiana, including the requirement to support dependents, not harm self or others, and prohibits all alcohol use. For the support of dependents and harming others, Indiana has criminal statutes pertaining to these actions and therefore these requirements are still covered from a public safety standpoint while not needing to be included here. Idaho does prohibit all alcohol use while on parole whereas Indiana's general requirement is less restrictive, only prohibiting intoxication by means of alcohol while on parole. ,Illinois 20 Ill. Adm. Code § 1610.120 Illinois has comparable parole conditions; however, the conditions listed in the administrative code are vaguer than Indiana's conditions. Illinois is an indeterminate sentencing state so parole releases could be happening after a meeting with the parole board, at which point an individualized plan can be created and stipulations put in place to achieve that plan. Indiana's enumeration of specific conditions of parole release should not be seen as more restrictive simply because they are more uniform; they are simply more appropriate for a determinate sentencing and release system. Kentucky 501 KAR 1:030 501 KAR 1:080 KYPB 11-00 Kentucky has extremely similar conditions for parole releases, enumerating 9 oof our 10 conditions. Kentucky also allows for special stipulations to be added to enhance parole supervision on a case-by-case basis. The only condition that they do not have anything comparable to is the prohibition against owning, leasing, or operating a motor vehicle without consent of an agent. IPB does believe this additional regulation adds to public safety and that added public safety outweighs the small administrative burden. Similarly to other states, Kentucky has a total prohibition on alcohol use while on parole whereas Indiana's standard condition relates to intoxication by alcohol rather than a blanket prohibition of any use of alcohol, which makes the regulation less restrictive. Michigan Mich. Adm. Code R. 791.7730 Michigan's regulation as to the conduct of parolees is significantly vaguer than Indiana's but generally has the same expectations. Michigan has indeterminate sentencing, differing from Indiana's determinate sentencing and mandatory parole release dates, so Michigan has the ability to tailor conditions more closely to individual cases at the parole hearing. Indiana does not have this ability and therefore needs clearly enumerated conditions so the regulation is not more restrictive but rather fitting into a different mode of sentencing. Michigan also allows for parole user fees which would be significantly more restrictive to the population of supervised individuals. Ohio Ohio Admin. Code 5120:1-1 Ohio's regulations as to the conduct of parolees are comparable to Indiana's regulations. The same basic things are required of parolees and similar to Indiana, there is a provision to add additional stipulations when necessary. Ohio uses the additional stipulations as a sanction for less serious violations. Indiana does this as well but Indiana also allows for special stipulations to be added at the beginning of a parole period, prior to any issues arising, which adds to the overarching goal of public safety by being proactive with supervision rather than reactive. South Dakota ARSD 17:60:03:03 SDDOC Policy 500-10 South Dakota has parole release conditions outlined in DOC policy. The conditions are comparable to Indiana. South Dakota does allow for parole user fees which is significantly more restrictive to the population of supervised individuals. X. Previous Amendments XI. Integration into Indiana Code XII. Contact Information of Staff to Answer Substantive Questions Notice of First Public Comment Period: 20260916-IR-220260318FNA Notice of Determination Received: August 31, 2026