docaintresome 'co 012.9

404 Pages·2007·15.23 MB·English

,DOCAINTRESOME
ED 165 (Al
'CO 012.9*
AUTHOR
Gottfredson, Donald M.; And. Others
'TITLE
classification for Parole Decision Policy.:
'-
-SPONS:AGENOY
National Inst.. Of Law Enforceient and Criminal
Justice (Dept. of.Justice/LEAA)
, Washington, D.C.
PUB DATE
Jul 78
\
GRANT
75-NI-99-0004
!NOTE
421p.
AVAILkBp,:FROB.
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office
Washington, D.C., 20402 (Stock'no..
027-006-00688-4)
EDRS PRICE
MF-$0.83 HC-$22.09-Plus Postage.
-
DESCRIPTORS
*Criminal. Law; *Decision Making; *Guidelines;,
Justice; *Models; *Pirole Officers; Policy Formation;
Progtam Descriptions; Program Developient
ABSTRACT
The general purpose of this study was to devplop and
° implement, in close collaboration with parole authorities
in various
states, improved procedures for parole decisionsl.,A discussion of the
general nature of the paroling policy, or guideline ,models: sought 'is
presented, with emphasis on providinia means for repeated
assessment
,
and revision of policy. This is followed by the general methods used.
Two types of guiddline models were developed, called sequential and
matrix models. The specific guidelines produced with the
seven
*different jurisdictions are presented, utilizing the
two general
model types. Suggestions for guideline development based
op
experience in this study are presented, as is
a discussion of
differing models and of some moral issues that arise from the results
of the project.. The.report is-generally addressed to parole board
members and others in leadership positions in theciiminal justice
syitem. (KA)
,
.
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be !lade
*
*
from the original document.
*
1
'%
.
*******************************************************************i**
a
,
U.S DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH,
EDUCATION/. WELFARE
NATIONAL INSTITUTXOF
.
EDUCATION
,
IIHJI DOCUMENT H
BEEN REPRO-
DUCED EXACTLY A!. BECEIVElo FROM
THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN-
ATING IT POINTS QF VIEW OR CIPINIONS
STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REIRE-
SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF,
EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY.
National Institute of Law:Enforcement
and Criminal Justice
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
U.S. Departinent of Justice
O.
Classificatiorifor,
Parole
Decision Policy
DOnald M. Gotttredson
Colleeh A.:Cosgrove
Leslie T.Wilkins
Jane Wallerstein
Carol Rauh
ute of Law Enforcement and Criminal
Justice
tance Administration
t of Justice
National Instit
a of. Law. Enforcdrnent
and Cri
final. Justice,
Blair G. Ewing, sting Director
Law EnfOrcernent AsSistance Administration
James M. H. Gregg, Acting Administrator
:
i
.
9
,
This project was. sUpPOrted by Grant Number 75-NI-99-
Rutgpr.
.Uni-
/ ewer, edio the ,Sdhool of CriminAl Justice,
versij
Law Enforcem rit and
Institute .of
by the NMion6-1
,/
Criminal JUstice; Law Enforcement Assistance Ad naistra-
tion3U. S. Department orJugtice, under the Omn'bus Crime
Point of
ICOrlrdl and. Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amend.
.
vievii or opihions.gtated in this document ar" those of the
autfOrs and do hoYnecesserily represent-the official pOsi-
tioi1; or policies of,the U. S. Department of JUitice.
.
/
, .
For sale by the/Superintendent of Documents, U.S: Government Printing Office
.
i
Washington, D.C,(20-102
r.
i :-
Stock Number 027 o
I o I ::-4
I
'xvi
.
Chapter 1.
Parole Gui
lines an&the Evolution
of Piroli
Policy.
.
.
Don M.,GOttfredso
and Leslie T. Wilkins
Background
eeee 00000000
.
1
.
.
Equity and Fair
ess
.2.
....
Assumptions
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
3'
Individual vs
.
Policy Decisions
4
The Action ,R s arch Apprbach
. ... .
13
.
.
.
Action- Rese
.
ch Collaboration
:
15
.
.
Levels of
nsideratioh and
Control
16
Diversity f Models
.
.
.18
.
.
Challenge
.
to Parole Boards
20
.
'a
Chiapter2
Strategies
for Guideline Development
.
21
.
1Don M.
Gottfredson,
Leslie T. Wilkins,
'
;Cone
n A. CoSgrove
and'Jane Wallerstein
r
l
Sele tion of States
1
2.
,
Real arch Planning
. .
.
.
22
.,
.
.
Da sa Collection
.
.
.
:
27
An= lyses
. ..... .
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
.
.
.
.
.
.
trix Models
29
equential Models
,
.
31
.
.
.,
.
..
!
..
olicy D e v e l o
p m e n t .
.
35
. .
.
.
.
.
C apter 3.
North Carolina
37
Coleen A. Cosgrove and
Jane Wallerstein
Commission Structure
and
rocedure
.
37
= .
Data Collection
38
. ... . ... .
Analysis
.
.
.
41
.
Salient 'actors
48
.
Model Devolopment:
The Evo ution of
the Screening
, .....
Model
. ..... ..
.
.
,
.
.
5.0
Guideline. Formulation
.
53
a.
Implementation of Prelimin
ry Guide
lines: Phase II
55
P'
60
Data Analysis
Phase II:
62
Operational Definitions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
64
Revision of the Preliminary Guideline
Phase III:
Implementation of the Guidelines
Phase IV:
.
68
Conclusion
Virginia
Chapter 4.
71
Wallerstein
Colleen A..Cosgrove and Jane
71 '.-
Board Structure and Procedure
/
71.,
Data Collection
....
...
/
74-.'
Analysis.
.
.
.,/
83
Form:
.Pila'se-II ./
Formulation of Case
.
.
"i
85
/
Second Data collection
Phase II:
Further Guideline
Analysis of Phase II Datac
L_____
. .......
86
.,_....----:
Development
. .
.
.
-
88
Phase III Data Collection dnd Analys1s:
-.
.
89
Operational Definitions
89
..
.Phase IV
i
93
Implementation of the Guidelines
3
Louisiana
Chapter 5.
l
Cosgrove .and Jane Wallerstein
Colleen A
/
. ... .
%
,
3
Board Structure and Procedure
.
.
.
.
103
Data CollectiOn
'106
Analysis
i.3
Phase II ,
Guidelines:
Development of Preliminary
..
1
Phase II Data Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
..... .
.
.
.
..
. .
.
..
7
124.
Operatioilals Definitions
.
'
.
.
124
Phase III Data Analysis
126'
Conclusions
131
Missouri
Chapter 6.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Walierstein
Colleen A. Cosgrove and Jane
131
Board Structure.and Procedure
't-,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.,
. .... .
131
..
Eligibility Scale
.
.
.
.
.
132
Data. Collection
-132
..
..
'Analysis
.
.
.
..,
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
146
Phase II
.
Operational Definitions e 148
'Preliminary Guidelines and
151
-
Phase III Guideline-Valiaation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
156
Pilot Study
,
156
... ,. ...... ..
Conclusion
.
.
.
.
.
ii
Chapter 7.
CaliforniafYOlith
AUthority
161
Don M. Gottfredson,
.
.
.
Carol-Rauh, and
Leslie T. Wilkins
Present Procedures
161
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Research Planning .in
Collaboration with the
Board
163'
Data Collection
.
163
.
.
.
Methods and. Results
. ...
..
164
.
.
. .......... ,
.
.
.
.
Model Revisions
188
.
.
.
.
.
Test'ing' the Models
....... 200
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Status of Implementation
206
Directions for Further
.
.
.
.
.
.
Development
206
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
Gt
.
.
)
,
,
.
Chapter 8
..... -.
Washington
.
..
..... 209
.
DOn M. Gottfredson
.
.
..'
and Carol Rauh
'
.
Data Collection
-
,
211
Methods and. Results
4
211
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Predi6tion of
Minimum Sentence
..
Setting
221
more.. .221
Prediction of Time
.
.
.
Setved
.
__- Tentative Models
225
.
.
.
Chapter 9.
New Jersey
235
Carol Rauh and DOn
M. Gottfredson
Data Collection
..
236
....... .
Preliminary Analyses
.. .
..237
Fiprmulation of. Tentative
.
Guidelines
245'
.
Adaptation of the
Regression Equations
to
the Tentative Guideline
Model
247
..... .
.
....
.
.
.
Review with the Board-
.
..
..
254
.
.
.
Further. Directions
.
Toward an Operational
Guideline System in
New Jert4ey
254
."-.
.
.
.
Chapter 10.
Guidelines for Guideline
Development
259
Don M. Gottfredson
.
and Leslie T. Wilkins
Goals
/ ...... ,
.
.
.
259
.
.
Sequence of Steps in
Guideline Development
259
Analysis of the Decision
Problem
260
.
.
Fact Finding
.
.
.
.
.
.1
.
261
Developing a Data
... ...... .
Base
262
.
.
.
.
Essential Elements
264
Important Elements-
269
!-
Identifying Information
..
275
.
.
Linear Models
.
.
276
.
.;
Classification. Models...-,
276
Conceptualization
W5.
277
Execution
.. ... .
..
:
279
.
.
.
.
co-
iii
More'Fact Finding
27,9'
280
EvaluattOn
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
284'
Research .Needed for 'Guideline IMprovement'
,285
Major Guides for, G3.1ideline Developoinent
.
MultidimensiQl
A
Parole Outcome:
Appendix A.
:L.
Contingency Table Analysis
. .
Herbert Solomon
:
-
08
Summary
3 08
Exposition of Methodology
.
.
Parole Data Analysis
........
1
'e.' 1221
:
....
........
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
..
310
Model
,.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
.
.... .
. .... .
..
References
334400,,
,,
TThhee DDeevveellooppmmeenntt aanndd OOppeerraattiioonn--ooff ppaarroollee
AAppppeennddiixx--BB..
DDeecciissiiddnn MMaakkiinngg GGuuiiddeelliinneess iinn''MMiinnnneessoottaa
3344
,,
ppllee°°GG.. PPaarreenntt aanndd RRiicchhaarrdd TT.. MMuullccrroonnee
%%
.. ..
3344II
OOrriiggiinn ooff ''tthhee GGuuiiddeelliinneess
..
..
.. ..
..
..
AAnnaallyyssiiss ooff MMCCBB DDeecciissiioonn MMaakkiinngg
``334422
....**
OOrr
334444
DDeevveellooppmmeenntt ooff GGuuiiddeelliinneess
..
..
..
..
335511
..IImmpplleemmeennttaattiioonn ooff tthhee GGuuiiccyylliinneess
''
..
..
..
..
..
335522
SSaammppllee AApppplliibbaattiioonn ooff tthhee//GGuuiiddeelliinneeii
..
..
..''
,,
335533
BBeenneeffiittss ooff tthhee GGuuiiddeelliinneess
..
,,..
..
..
..
EExxppeerriieennccee WWiitthh tthhee GGuuiiddeelliinneess ttoo DDaattee
335555..
..
.............. ....
335599
QQuuoo ffaaddiiss??
..((77
..
::11--11,,..
..
CCaassee EEvvaa11uuaattiioonn FFoorrmmss
336633//,,
AAppppeennddiixx CC..
4466""
,
,
Average Toptal:.Tirne
erVed./.
Release'
Before
.
Favorable Outcome
by ScOr:-.
Percent:
1972 ,and 19 7 a.
of -the
Samples
3.1
RAtinils
Correlation of
the
and ,13Pql-s2,91114 by
'Parole CommiksiOnf
North icarolina
176)
,
{ICI`
3.2
Regression, of Inmate S-Eatus
ar
,Variables
natings
Commiszioner
on 'parole Decision'.
(Grant/Deiiy),.(N
= 2,384) ,
Parole becision's
Distributed
ACcOrd.ing,, to
Institutional Disci.pline
Ratings'
.L .`
,Distributed Accoiding
to
arole Decisions`
Prier
Criminal
Reiodord
Ratings,
.
.
Percentage of :Inmateq-,,Granted Paro_1,0
,,Dis-
tributed According
to InstitUtional Disci-
and
pline Ratings
Prior. Criminal Record-
...
Efatings
49
Di'stribution of DeCisions
in Phase I Sampl,e,
According' to Preliminary
Guidelines
.
4.1
Correlation of Ratings
.
and becigions by the
Virginia Parole Board (N
= 1,707)
75
.
4.2
.ci
Regression of Inmate/ Status
Variables
And
Baard
Member Ratings.
on Parole Decision (N'
76
.4.3
Parole Decisions Distributed
According to
Disciline
Institutional
Ratings
78
.
Decisions
4.4
Parole
Distributed AcCording
to.
Prior Criminal. Record
Ratings
79
,
.
.
0
,
4.5
Percentage of Inmates Granted
g
Parole, Dis-
tributed' According
.
to Institutional Disci-
plinp Ratings and Prior
Criminal Record
..
_Ratings
4
.
.
.
.
0
.
.
.
P
1.
4.6
Percentage of Inmates
et
Granted Parole, Dis-
ir
_
tributed According to Categories
and
Heari1t4",k,
'8
.
t,,,.
Percentage :of Inmates Geanted Parblei.
tributed According to Board' Member
Before'
and' After IMplementation/ of GUidelines-,
.
Distribution Of'Decisi,n§ Inside
Otit-
and
iidd the Gu,idelines in /the Phase,, ;11/ SaMple
(N,= 573)
a
by the
--
Correlation
.
.of 'Rating
Decisions
and.
s'
Louisiana Board of Parole (N'= -1;381)1.-.6.
,
.
Regression:of Inmate. Status VariaiDle's and
Board..Member 4tatings on Pardle Deciston"'K.
1,,..
--'''.'
(Giant/Deny)°. (N
887)
.
,
,
.
-,-
.
-.
'.' -.04----
;---
'--
..
,
Percentage. of Louisiana*Case Evaluation Forms.,,
5.3
Marked Granted, Distributed "According!'to
Prior .Criminal Record and Institutional
Discipline Ratjngs
.
,sf,;
:
. .
Percentage'of Board Decisions'to Gra:tit Parole
Distributed According to Prior CriMi-nal Re-
cord and Institutional Discipline Ratings
CbrrelatiOn of Ratings and Decisions by till-
..
Missouri Bbard' of Probation and Parole
,
050)'
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
91,
Regression of Inmate Status Varia.bles.;and-''''
Board Member, Ratings on ParoleDeciag.ion
.
136
(N = 2,042)
(Grant /Not Grant.)
.
.
Percentage of Inmates Paroled, Dis;Ertputed
-I-.
According to Prior Criminal Record.4ii07
ri
stitutional Adjustment Ratings, ,
.
.
.,,,...
-.;
.
.
.
De isions .Distiibuted According to'.2kv*raget1
Institutional Adjustment Rating*
1.40
';---.--
.
-.--. .
,.
.
,
'.=..
.
,
Decisions Distributed According: to Averaged
Prior CriMinal Record Ratings
141
.
.
*d
Decilions DistributedAccordin
Len
6..6
of Maximum Sentence
142 2
.
.
a
Regres-s'ion of Inmate Status Variables -and
6.7
Board, Member Ratings on parole Decision
,(Grant/Dlot.Grant) for Hearings 'Cases
1,462)"
.
..
(N
vi