Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

61 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4506 (2026)

 Recidivism risk reduction incentive minimum.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 4506.  Recidivism risk reduction incentive minimum.

(a)  Generally.--The board or its designee shall issue a decision to parole, without further review by the board, an inmate who has been sentenced to a recidivism risk reduction incentive minimum sentence at the expiration of that recidivism risk reduction incentive minimum sentence upon a determination that all of the following apply:

(1)  The department certified that it has conducted an appropriate assessment of the treatment needs and risks of the inmate using nationally recognized assessment tools that have been normed and validated.

(2)  The department has certified that it developed a program plan based on the assessment conducted under paragraph (1) that is designed to reduce the risk of recidivism through the use of recidivism risk reduction incentive programs authorized and approved under this chapter that are appropriate for that particular inmate.

(3)  The department advised the inmate that the inmate is required to successfully complete the program plan.

(4)  The inmate has successfully completed all required recidivism risk reduction incentive programs or other programs designated in the program plan.

(5)  The inmate has maintained a good conduct record following the imposition of the recidivism risk reduction incentive minimum sentence.

(6)  The reentry plan for the inmate is adequate.

(7)  Individual conditions and requirements for parole have been established.

(8)  Notice and opportunity to be heard was provided by the board to the sentencing court and the prosecuting attorney in a manner consistent with section 6137(g)(2) (relating to parole power).

(9)  The department has certified that the inmate continues to be an eligible offender. In the event that a recidivism risk reduction minimum sentence was imposed under section 4505(b) (relating to sentencing), the department certifies that it has not received additional information demonstrating a history of past or present violent behavior which was not available at the time of sentencing and the prosecuting attorney was unaware of that information at the time of sentencing.

(10)  There is no reasonable indication that the inmate poses a risk to public safety.

(b)  Funding.--The department shall make all reasonable efforts to seek appropriate funding and resources in order to implement the recidivism risk reduction program.

(c)  Program content.--Nothing in this section shall do any of the following:

(1)  Require the department to include recidivism risk reduction programs in an individual program plan where the risk assessment indicates that such a program is unlikely to reduce recidivism for that particular inmate.

(2)  Prohibit the department from including appropriate community works or public service projects as part of the program plan.

(3)  Prohibit the department from making modifications to the program plan at any time in order to ensure appropriate treatment and recidivism risk reduction incentive program placement.

(d)  Adjudication.--Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as granting a right to be paroled to any person, and any decision by the board and its designees or the department, under this section, shall not be considered an adjudication under 2 Pa.C.S. Ch. 5 Subch. A (relating to practice and procedure of Commonwealth agencies) and Ch. 7 Subch. A (relating to judicial review of Commonwealth agency action).

 

Cross References.  Section 4506 is referred to in section 6137 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2010–2024 · leading case: Homa v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 192 A.3d 329 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018).
Homa v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 192 A.3d 329 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018). · cites it 5× “He points to the language of Section 4506(a) of the Prisons and Parole Code (Parole Code), 61 Pa.C.S. § 4506(a), as granting him a right to parole provided he satisfies certain criteria, which he claims he has.”
Commonwealth v. Pardo, 35 A.3d 1222 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011). “61 Pa.C.S. § 4506. A trial court is required, by statute, to determine if a defendant is eligible for an RRRI minimum sentence.”
Commonwealth v. Hansley, 994 A.2d 1150 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “See 61 Pa.C.S. §§ 4506(a), (d); 4511. Should the offender fail to complete his DOC program or the Parole Board finds his progress in rehabilitation insufficient to merit parole, see 61 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Main, 6 A.3d 1026 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010). “After the defendant serves the RRRI minimum sentence, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole assesses the defendant’s progress in RRRI programs, along with other factors, and determines whether the defendant shall be paroled.”
J.A. Vaccarello v. PBPP (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019). · cites it 3× “nd assessments and/or level of risk indicates Vaccarello is a risk to the community, (4) 6 For this reason, Vaccarello’s argument that the sentencing judge already determined that he is not a risk to the community or public safety lacks merit because the Board is to render a…”
T.J. Kimball v. PBPP (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2024). · cites it 3× “61 Pa. C.S. §4506(a). The Parole Board’s demurrer asserts that Kimball’s petition does not state a mandamus claim.”
Com. v. Schier, B. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020). “61 Pa.C.S. § 4506. A trial court is required, by statute, to determine if a defendant is eligible for an RRRI minimum sentence.”
Com. v. Schier, B. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). “61 Pa.C.S. § 4506. A trial court is required, by statute, to determine if a defendant is eligible for an RRRI minimum sentence.”
Com. v. Pedro, M. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023). “See also 61 Pa.C.S. § 4506 - 29 - J-S35014-22 & J-S35015-22 (establishing that an offender is eligible for parole at the expiration of the RRRI minimum sentence).”
Com. v. Pedro, M. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023). “See also 61 Pa.C.S. § 4506 - 29 - J-S35014-22 & J-S35015-22 (establishing that an offender is eligible for parole at the expiration of the RRRI minimum sentence).”
J. LoDuca v. Pa. D.O.C. & Prob. & Parole (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2024). “The Department argues that it fully acknowledged Inmate’s RRRI eligibility pursuant to the trial court’s sentencing order, but it decertified him for the RRRI program for failure to meet the additional criteria required by Section 4506(a)(1-10) of the Prisons and Parole Code…”
C.M. Salsman v. Com. of PA, PPB (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2024). “” 61 Pa. C.S. § 4506(d) (emphasis added). Likewise, “[o]ur precedent .”
— 61 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4506(a) — 5 cases
Homa v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 192 A.3d 329 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018). “He points to the language of Section 4506(a) of the Prisons and Parole Code (Parole Code), 61 Pa.C.S. § 4506(a), as granting him a right to parole provided he satisfies certain criteria, which he claims he has.”
Commonwealth v. Hansley, 994 A.2d 1150 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010). “See 61 Pa.C.S. §§ 4506(a), (d); 4511. Should the offender fail to complete his DOC program or the Parole Board finds his progress in rehabilitation insufficient to merit parole, see 61 Pa.”
J.A. Vaccarello v. PBPP (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019). “nd assessments and/or level of risk indicates Vaccarello is a risk to the community, (4) 6 For this reason, Vaccarello’s argument that the sentencing judge already determined that he is not a risk to the community or public safety lacks merit because the Board is to render a…”
J. LoDuca v. Pa. D.O.C. & Prob. & Parole (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2024). “The Department argues that it fully acknowledged Inmate’s RRRI eligibility pursuant to the trial court’s sentencing order, but it decertified him for the RRRI program for failure to meet the additional criteria required by Section 4506(a)(1-10) of the Prisons and Parole Code…”
T.J. Kimball v. PBPP (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2024). “61 Pa. C.S. §4506(a). The Parole Board’s demurrer asserts that Kimball’s petition does not state a mandamus claim.”
— 61 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4506(a)(10) — 2 cases
Homa v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 192 A.3d 329 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018). “He points to the language of Section 4506(a) of the Prisons and Parole Code (Parole Code), 61 Pa.C.S. § 4506(a), as granting him a right to parole provided he satisfies certain criteria, which he claims he has.”
J.A. Vaccarello v. PBPP (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019). “nd assessments and/or level of risk indicates Vaccarello is a risk to the community, (4) 6 For this reason, Vaccarello’s argument that the sentencing judge already determined that he is not a risk to the community or public safety lacks merit because the Board is to render a…”
— 61 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4506(a)(3) — 1 case
T.J. Kimball v. PBPP (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2024). “61 Pa. C.S. §4506(a). The Parole Board’s demurrer asserts that Kimball’s petition does not state a mandamus claim.”
— 61 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4506(d) — 4 cases
Homa v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 192 A.3d 329 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018). “He points to the language of Section 4506(a) of the Prisons and Parole Code (Parole Code), 61 Pa.C.S. § 4506(a), as granting him a right to parole provided he satisfies certain criteria, which he claims he has.”
J.A. Vaccarello v. PBPP (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019). “nd assessments and/or level of risk indicates Vaccarello is a risk to the community, (4) 6 For this reason, Vaccarello’s argument that the sentencing judge already determined that he is not a risk to the community or public safety lacks merit because the Board is to render a…”
C.M. Salsman v. Com. of PA, PPB (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2024). “” 61 Pa. C.S. § 4506(d) (emphasis added). Likewise, “[o]ur precedent .”
T.J. Kimball v. PBPP (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2024). “61 Pa. C.S. §4506(a). The Parole Board’s demurrer asserts that Kimball’s petition does not state a mandamus claim.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.