Renames the state board of parole the state board of re-entry; makes conforming changes.
This bill renames the State Board of Parole as the State Board of Re-entry and makes a broad set of conforming changes throughout the Executive Law, Correction Law, Criminal Procedure Law, Judiciary Law, Mental Hygiene Law, Public Health Law, and Penal Law. The measure updates statutory references to the board, its chairperson, hearing officers, records, funding, and related procedures so that the new terminology is used consistently across laws governing parole, conditional release, post-release supervision, medical parole, temporary release, and related correctional and court processes.
Beyond the name change, the bill also modernizes terminology in several places, including replacing references to "alcoholism and substance abuse services" with "addiction services and supports," and making gender-neutral wording changes such as "chairperson" and "such member." It preserves the board’s existing powers and duties, including discretionary release decisions, revocation hearings, recordkeeping, and coordination with the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, while updating cross-references and definitions to fit the new board name.
The bill would amend a large number of statutes that currently refer to the State Board of Parole, requiring agencies, courts, and correctional officials to use the new title State Board of Re-entry in parole-related administration and legal proceedings. It would not appear to change the core legal standards for parole release, supervision, revocation, or related programs, but it would revise statutory language governing those processes across multiple titles of law. The practical effect is a statewide terminology update affecting the board, DOCCS, courts, interpreters, victim notification, temporary release programs, medical parole procedures, and records access rules.
The bill’s apparent purpose is administrative and symbolic rather than substantive, and the text suggests a reform-oriented framing around "re-entry" instead of "parole." Because no committee transcript or vote history is provided, there is no recorded opposition or support in the materials beyond the bill’s introduction and referral. Based on the text alone, the measure appears neutral-to-positive in tone, with an emphasis on modernization and rehabilitation language.
The main point of contention likely concerns the policy and messaging implications of renaming the parole board, since "re-entry" may be viewed by some as a more rehabilitative framing and by others as a cosmetic change that does not alter parole outcomes. Another possible issue is the bill’s sweeping conforming amendments, which touch many statutes and could create implementation burdens if agencies must update forms, regulations, and procedures. No specific objections or supporters are identified in the provided materials.