Bert Matsuoka

Bert Y. Matsuoka did not apply for the job of chairman of the Hawaii Paroling Authority. He was asked by Gov. Neil Abercrombie to come out of state retirement to fill the role.

Matsuoka’s career, from police officer to other positions, has put him close to people at risk. He became an investigator for the state Department of Human Services’ welfare division and conducted criminal and administrative inquiries.

Twenty years ago, he was transferred to administration of the department’s Volunteer Services Office and soon was appointed, in 1995 by then-Gov. Ben Cayetano, to head the Office of Youth Services, working with dozens of organizations devoted to serving children facing difficulty, including incarceration.

"When we look at an individual," Matsuoka said, "we don’t take into account what the entire inmate population is. We take it on a case-by-case basis, what this individual needs and whether he or she is prepared to be paroled and put back into the community."

A recent study, the Justice Reinvestment Initiative by the New York-based Council of State Governments Justice Center, has called for reducing prison overcrowding in Hawaii by releasing prisoners who have served their minimum sentences if they are at low risk of committing new offenses.

QUESTION: How do you determine whether an inmate ought to be released from prison?

ANSWER: We look at their behavior, the misconduct they have had; also completion of successful programs and then, too, a viable  parole plan that they would provide to the board, residence where they are going to be staying; also, their means of living, the likelihood of them obtaining a job.

Q: City Prosecutor Keith Kaneshiro says the focus should not be on how to release inmates from prison but how to ensure public safety. Are those contradictory?

A: Our primary issue is we want to protect public safety. We look at that and we base that upon the (inmates’) behavior. That will give us an indication, as well as successful programs that they were asked to complete, and with the parole plan it should reflect, too, that they have a solid base out there, that when they do get back into the community the likelihood of them recommitting would be minimum because they have a base out there.

Q: Are you doing anything different from what this report suggested that you do?

A: In practice, I don’t think so … I think the board, we agree with the concept of this. We believe in what it says, and we also believe that in order to minimize recidivism, we think that supervision is important as the sequence back into the community.

Q: The report says parole should be granted to prisoners who qualify for low-risk recidivism. Is that something you are doing now or is more of an emphasis needed?

A: I think we’re doing that now. We are paroling folks who we determine are at low risk, when we see low-risk guys or women who have a plan to be out there.

Q: It also recommends to limit the term of incarceration for violating parole to no more than six months.

A: There is some concern when you mandate a specific amount of time. We don’t disagree with that; in many cases I think with some individuals it will work fine. But I think what we would like, what the board would like, is to have some discretion to view each case individually, because to just put a blanket and say within X-amount of time, everybody goes, they’re all different. They all have different lives.

Q: What are the key signs of whether a person should be paroled or not?

A: I think when they come before us, we ask them if they’re ready for parole, why they’re ready for parole. Again, it’s what’s out there. We don’t want to parole someone who we feel is going to fail. We kind of look at wanting to parole someone who is going to succeed. What we look at — behavior and also what’s out there for them, what they say, what they’ve accomplished while incarcerated, because they go through programs. Some of them are required to go through substance abuse programs, cognitive skills programs, some of them get their high school degree, their GED, and many go through work furlough.

A lot of these folks that we deal with have never had a real paycheck job before. So they go through the work furlough plan and they go through a period of time when they go to work, and they get accustomed to work, they find a job, and a lot of these guys, when they get granted furlough, they continue with these jobs.

Q: The report says that supervision should be mandatory for all felons when their prison terms have been completed.

A: I think that’s a good goal. Realistically, it’s very challenging. For one thing, many don’t want any kind of supervision. They choose to max out. They even waive presence, to come before us, at their parole hearings. They waive presence because they just want to max out; they don’t want to be supervised.

Q: Should they be supervised?

A: I think they should, but then they’re probably going to fail. Because when you are supervised, there are rules, regulations and criterion standards that they have to adhere to, and they don’t seem interested in that. … Some of them are very hardened when they come in. They refuse all programs, and they have such an attitude that, “I just want to max out.” … Generally, they don’t have a place to go. They don’t have any work, means to make a living …

Q: What recommendations made by the Justice Reinvestment Initiative do you consider the most significant and should be followed?

A: I think the most significant outcome of this Justice Reinvestment is that it gave everybody an opportunity to take a careful look at the current system. … I think it’s an entire system. It begins with the Judiciary and it ends, I guess, when someone gets paroled or maxed out.

And I think that’s the big plus out of this Justice Reinvestment. I think it also will give folks, the general public, an idea that, and I agree, that the basic premise of getting better results and a reduced amount of recidivism is the supervision.

Q: What will the board do in that area?

A: We all continue to look at each individual as a person, and I think we are very reasonable in how we make our decisions as to when a person can be placed back into the community. It’s a dual purpose, for the success the individual and also that the public will be protected. …

I think the focus seems to be on the incarcerated population and the reduction of that. But it’s a broader issue and it involves more people than just law enforcement, the Judiciary and Public Safety, because when we see the individual, and where they came from, how they got into the system and, now that they are going to be getting out, in one way or another, education comes into play. Maybe it’s because I was officer of Youth Services at one time and there are individuals I see now in the adult system. When I read their records, they were also in the juvenile system. They are incarcerated at Halawa now. They were at one time incarcerated in the Youth Correctional Facility.

And it’s the prevention part that needs to be worked on. You’ve got a high number of folks in the prison system. We’re looking at ways of reducing the number of these folks who are in the system, but I think we also need to look at how to prevent them from coming into the system in the first place … that goes into a young age. Also, when we want to place folks back into the community, it’s just looked at at the Public Safety access aspect and the parole board aspect in getting these guys out there.

But you need somehow to get labor involved, because they’ll need jobs. Many of these folks suffer from health issues — mental health, emotional health issues, where you need health to come into play. And before they can get stable in the community with the jobs, they may need help before that, so (the state Department of) Human Services may have to come in with regard to providing some kind of public assistance.

So a lot of time the recidivism is based upon just daily living, and the recidivism with regard to substance abuse may go back again to a feeling of “I can’t make it,” and a lot of times they go back into their substance (abuse) or alcohol issues.

So it needs to be looked at in a very broad way, where it’s not just law enforcement and incarceration and that part, if you want to lessen the (prison) population somehow, and it’s going to take awhile. … Let’s deal with it, but let’s put our focus on reducing the amount of folks that even get there or get into this situation.

Q: Are important changes needed or is everybody involved on the right track?

A: When you say it to everyone, they all agree. It’s just a matter of putting it into practice. Of course, it’s a competitive role, and people getting the attention. Unfortunately, I think convicted felons are not high on the list. We see them trying to look for jobs. When they go into the work furlough program they have to go on job search. Jobs are already difficult even for people in the normal population.

Q: One of Gov. Abercrombie’s campaign promises was to bring all Hawaii inmates back from prison facilities in Arizona. Is that doable?

A: I think it is, and I think it’s a good goal. It’s something we should not turn away from. I think it’s something we should work towards.

Q: What are the main things that needs to be done to reach that goal?

A: I think it’s to lessen the amount of folks that we get into the criminal justice system and, right now, to do the best we can with those in the system, to provide for them, to afford them the skills to succeed so they do not have to turn to criminal ways when they are out there.