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.

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.

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 opening section of this article discusses the need for more explicit definition of elements governing parole selection and the problem of determining the weight that should be given to each. The study then demonstrates a method by which analysis of parole board decisions may make present paroling policy more explicit. Decision guidelines developed from this method provide an aid in actual case decision-making. By structuring discretion without re moving it, these guidelines permit it to be exercised fairly and ra tionally. A United States Board of Parole pilot project which in cludes guideline usage and a procedure for regular evaluation and modification of guidelines is then described.

One objective of the Parole Decision-Making project was the develop ment of experience tables for operational use by the U.S. Board of Parole to aid in individual case deckion-making. This report describes the interaction of parole board members and project staff in the development of an experience table acceptablc to the parole board for operational use. In addition, it describes the development of a research design to test the impact of the presentation of the experience table upon paroling decisions, the implementation of this design, and the initiol evaluation of results.

Parole board members make two types of decisions about parole: individual case decisions and paroling policy decisions. The latter set the framework within which the former are made. Paroling policy decisions generally are not explicitly stated. The lack of clearly articulated policy guidelines has resulted in considerable criticism of parole board decision-making practices. This report describes a study being conducted in collaboration with the parole board members of the Youth Correction Division of the United States Board of Parole. The aim is to provide a feed back device capable of making more explicit the presently implicit policies used in making case decisions. A feedback device of this type may enable parole board members to: compare actual poli cies with those desired and take corrective action if indicated, reduce disparity in individual case decision-making by noting deci sions which appear to vary substantially from usual practice, and reduce the criticism leveled against the parole board as having unfettered discretion. The relationships between decision-makers' evaluations of four specific case factors (severity of the offense, institutional program participation, institutional discipline, and chances of favorable parole outcome) and paroling decisions are studied. From these relationships, a method of describing and articulating implicit paroling policy is demonstrated; and preliminary results concerning the relative weights given to the above factors in practice are described.