Search

This article examines the United States Parole Commission's development and use of an expedited revocation procedure for parole violations not involving serious new felony offenses. The majority of parole revocation proceedings involve charges of administrative violations (such as alcohol abuse, drug use, or failure to report) or misdemeanor offenses, and most parolees charged with such violations admit them. When there is no dispute as to the charged violation, the sole issue is the determination of the appropriate sanction. In 1996, the commission began a pilot project designed to expedite the processing of parole violations involving administrative, misdemeanor, and lesser felony charges. Certain alleged parole violators were given the option of waiving the right to a revocation hearing, acknowledging responsibility for the charged violation, and accepting a specified revocation penalty determined by the commission on the basis of the case record. The goal was to conserve commission resources without negatively affecting the due process rights of the alleged parole violator or the integrity of the guideline system used to sanction parole violations. In 1998, the commission incorporated the expedited revocation procedure developed in the pilot project into its permanent regulations. By FY 2003, expedited revocation determinations accounted for 40 percent of all commission revocation actions. The savings generated by the expedited revocation procedure allowed the commission to devote more resources to conducting revocation hearings involving more serious and/or contested charges.

Do female police officers use force at the same rate as male police officers? This research examined the use of force by officers in a large, suburban police department during a seven-year period (1993–1999). Use of force reports completed by departmental policy for each use-of-force incident (n = 1,863) and data on arrests (n = 31,778) were examined. A rate of force, defined as the number of use-of-force incidents per one hundred arrests, was computed for male and female officers for each type of force used. A suspect-injury rate, defined as the number of suspects injured per one hundred arrests, also was computed. Force was used in only a small percentage (5.9 percent) of the arrests made. Injury to the suspect (not including the effects of OC spray) occurred in an even smaller percentage (1.6 percent) of arrests, and injury to the suspect resulting in treatment at a hospital (generally, emergency room treatment) occurred in a still smaller percentage (0.7 percent) of arrests. No statistically significant difference between female and male officers was found in the overall rate of force or in the rate of unarmed physical force. Female officers had a lower rate of weapon use when all types of weapons were considered together (p.

There is a dearth of empirical research on the use of police canines. This article examines the use of canines in a large, suburban police department over a six-year period (1993–1998). Use of force reports, canine-apprehension reports, arrest data, and the canine unit's monthly activity reports were reviewed. Five rates were calculated: (1) canine-apprehension rate, (2) canine bite rate, (3) rate of bites resulting in any medical treatment, (4) rate of bites resulting in medical treatment at a hospital, and (5) officer injury rate. Of the suspects apprehended by canines, 14.1 percent were bitten, 9.1 percent received medical attention (on the scene or at a hospital), and 4.8 percent received medical attention at a hospital. The canine bite rate was significantly lower for non-White suspects than for White suspects. The use of rate-based information for the evaluation of policy and procedure concerning the use of police canines is discussed.

Although empirically-based recidivism prediction instruments were developed as far back as the 1920s, the adoption of the Salient Factor Score by the federal parole board in 1972–as part of a system of explicit parole decision-making guidelines–marked the first time that such an instrument was used in a way that had a definite, measurable impact on paroling decisions. The Salient Factor Score has been used in federal parole decision-making continuously for the past twenty years. It is axiomatic that a prediction instrument, particularly an instrument used in actual case decision-making, be revalidated periodically to ensure that it has retained predictive accuracy. In this article, the predictive accuracy of the Salient Factor Score over time is examined using data on three, large random samples of federal prisoners released in 1970-1972, 1978, and 1987. In addition, the relationship of the Salient Factor Score to the Criminal History Score of the new federal sentencing guidelines–which apply to defendants convicted of federal offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987–is discussed.

The purpose of this note is to show that the Mean Cost Rating (MCR), a particularly useful statistic for measuring the accuracy of instruments used to predict recidivism, actually is a special case of Somers' D. This latter statistic, normally used to measure concordance in a contingency table, is reported on the output of commonly used statistical packages. Consequently, researchers who wish to use the MCR can obtain this statistic without any special programming or toilsome hand calculation. However, some caution must be exercised in obtaining the MCR from a statistical package because Somers' D has two forms, one with the rows as the independent variable and the other with the columns as the independent variable. The MCR is the form of Somers' D that is opposite to what might be expected.

In October 1973, the United States Board of Parole adopted an actuarial device, termed a “salient factor score”, as a risk assesment aid. This device was constructed and initially validated on a sample of 1970 releases utilizing a two year follow-up period for each case. However, as the utility of a predictive device depends upon its a ability to predict to prospective samples, periodic validation is required. This paper describes the application of the salient factor score to a subsequent validation sample of prisoners released during 1972 and discusses the effects of using various outcome measures.

Since 1972, the United States Parole Commission has used an actuarial device as an aid in assessing parole prognosis in conjunction with explicit decision guildelines. This article describes the most recent revision of the actuarial device used by the commission. This device (SFS 81) is examined and compared with the device previously used (SFS 76) on five dimensions: validity, stability, reliability, simplicity, and ethical concerns.

In conjunction with a system of explicit decision-guidelines, the United States Parole Commission uses an actuarial instrument as an aid in assessing risk of recidivism. Known as a “salient factor score,” the instrument currently employed by the Parole Commission was constructed on a sample of federal prisoners released in 1970, and initially validated on two samples of federal prisoners released in 1971 and 1972. Since the power of any predictive instrument may change over time, periodic revalidation is essential. In this note, revalidation of the salient factor score, using a sample of federal prisoners released in 1976 ( N = 1260), is described.

Although considerable effort during the past thirty years has been devoted to the attempted construction of actuarial aids for parole selection, such devices have not generally been adopted by paroling agencies for operational use. One recent exception is the United States Board of Parole which has commenced usage of an actuarial device, termed a “salient factor score,” as a risk assessment aid in conjunction with explicit parole decision-making guidelines. This paper describes the construction, validation, and operational usage of this device.

The likelihood of further criminal conduct is important in allocation decisions for parole supervision resources. In this article, the relationship between arrest-free time after release (alone and in combination with other variables) and the probability of subsequent arrest is examined for a relatively large random sample of released federal prisoners (N=1,806). A six-year follow-up period is made possible by the use of “rap sheet” records provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Knowledge of this relationship may be used to provide empirical guidance for decisions about the intensity and/or duration of supervision; and a method for the practical application of this knowledge in case decision-making is illustrated.

This article reports research conducted by the United States Parole Commission to examine whether the provision of greater determinacy in the setting of prison release dates, known as “presumptive parole,” affects the frequency or nature of prison disciplinary infractions or program participation. An experimental design was used in which prisoners in an eligible pool of cases were randomly allocated to experimental (early notification of a “firm” parole date) and control (traditional procedure) groups.

Despite considerable attention, unwarranted disparity in sentencing remains a major and pervasive criminal justice problem. In this paper the argument is made that the most appropriate remedy lies not in an attempt to eliminate judicial sentencing discretion, but rather through the development and articulation of explicit sentencing standards or guidelines. Building upon the experience gained in a recent study with the United States Board of Parole, a model is put forth for the development and articulation of sentencing policy on a district or circuit basis that could be applied to structure and control discretion without removing individual case consideration.

Although the topic of recidivism invariably elicits much interest, there appears to be considerable conflict and uncertainty as to even crude estimates of the recidivism rate for persons released from prison. The purpose of this research was to examine the extent to which this apparent confusion may be explained by different methodological choices of criterion measure or length of follow-up. Through the cooperation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, rap sheet follow-up information for a six-year period was obtained for a relatively large random sample of federal prisoners released in 1970. This data enabled calculation of recidivism rates using various criterion measures and follow-up periods applied to the same sample. The effect of varying these definitions on the recidivism rate obtained can then be directly observed.

Findings from the National Survey of Crime Severity, the largest survey ever conducted of how the general public in the United States ranks the seriousness of a variety of offenses, are compared with the offense severity index used by the U.S. Parole Commission as one component of its decisionmaking guidelines. This comparison illustrates a practical method for using survey research to provide feedback to criminal justice policymakers. The necessity of distinguishing between harm and culpability, when examining the concept of “offense seriousness” in the context of sentencing policy, is then discussed.

Empirical studies frequently have reported an association between age at release from prison and recidivism. For criminal justice decision-makers who wish to consider this knowledge in making prosecutorial, sentencing, or parole decisions, the magnitude of that association must be established while controlling for the effects of other variables known to be associated with recidivism (e.g., prior criminal record). This research addresses this issue using data from a large sample of federal prison releasees. The results indicate that recidivism rates do decline with increased age, and that the association is not diminished when statistical control is exercised for the effect of prior criminal record.