Revalidating the salient factor score: A research note

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.     

Screening for risk: A revised salient factor score (SFS 81)

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.     

Twenty years of operational use of a risk prediction instrument: The United States parole commission's salient factor score

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 decisionmaking 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 decisionmaking continuously for the past twenty years. It is axiomatic that a prediction instrument, particularly an instrument used in actual case decisionmaking, 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.     

Salient factor score validation—A 1972 release cohort

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.     

Parole: How it is working

This paper presents some relevant information on parole and on several determinate sentencing proposals. Guidelines formulated by the United States Parole Commission demonstrate that release decisions can be structured to (1) enhance equity, (2) facilitate the explanation for decision variance, and (3) expose decision policy to public evaluation and debate. Empirically, parolees have a higher success rate or lower proportion of new convictions than those released in other ways. In contrast, the determinate sentencing proposals merely displace discretion to other areas of the criminal justice system where it is less visible and, hence, less subject to control.     

Salient factor score and releasee behavior: Three validation samples

This paper provides an opportunity to observe the application of an actuarial device, used by the United States Parole Commission as an aid in parole selection, to three separate validation samples—each exceeding 1000 cases. Follow-up data for this study were provided through the cooperation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In addition, evidence is presented which may shed light on the conflict in the literature regarding whether or not the rate of unfavorable outcome of released prisoners at risk actually declines substantially after the first year (i.e., whether or not the first year after release is really the most critical).Adapted from Report Fifteen, United States Parole Commission Research Unit, August 1977.     

假释撤销条件比较研究

撤销假释是对假释犯不遵守假释条件的惩罚方式之一。罪犯在假释考验期内再犯新罪应当不分犯罪性质、罪过形式和刑罚轻重,一律撤销假释。在假释考验期内,发现罪犯尚有漏罪,不应撤销假释,而是应根据漏罪的具体情况,分别处理。对于假释期间违反应当遵守的假释条件一律撤销假释的规定是不合理的。只有对情节严重的违反假释条件的行为,才应当撤销假释。     

The Role of Supervising Judges in the Granting of Parole in France: A Critical Evaluation

Since World War II, France has sought to decentralize and individualize its correctional system. The major change in the process was the creation of a new judicial role, that of Supervising Judge, who would incorporate both judicial and correctional roles. Until 1972, paroles were granted solely by the Ministry of Justice in Paris. But following legislative reforms in 1970 and 1972, Supervising Judges were given increased responsibilities in these matters. As a result there has been an increase in the total number of paroles awarded since 1972.

The hoped-for reforms met with strong opposition from correctional authorities, who perceived Supervising Judges as usurping their authority. The reforms were also opposed by some trial judges who saw them as interfering with the traditional role of courts, particularly in the sentencing of offenders. The ambiguous nature of the role itself, neither clearly administrative nor clearly judicial, has contributed to the problem in the development of the institution.

A major weakness in the present system is the lack of a strong administrative infrastructure which prevents Supervising Judges from operating effectively. Few judges are assisted by counselors, parole officers, or even clerks, who are a necessary part of carrying out such broad responsibilities. Supervising Judges have been the target of public criticisms for “coddling” criminals. Since they have little independence within the judiciary, their ability to function without government pressure is limited. There is, therefore, a temptation on the part of many to play it “safe” in order not to displease the public and the judicial hierarchy. While the survival of the role itself does not appear in danger, it may be limited by further legislative restriction of its authority.     

Parole survival and legislated change: A before/after study of parole revocation decision making

Past studies of juveniles' attitudes toward the police suggest a single-cause model that implicates personal interactions with the police. We propose that attitudes toward authority and agents of social control develop in a larger, sociocultural context. Specifically we hypothesize that juveniles' attitudes develop as a function of socialization in their communities' social environment, of their deviant subcultural “preferences,” and of the prior effect of these sociocultural factors on juveniles' contacts with the police. We conducted analyses addressing these hypotheses with a population of males sampled within stratified populations of known delinquents. We found that social background variables, particularly minority status, and subcultural preferences, particularly commitment to delinquent norms, affected juveniles' attitudes toward the police both directly and indirectly (through police-juvenile interactions). We consider directions for improving police relations with juveniles in the context of apparent sociocultural and experiential contingencies to attitude development.     

Discretionary Justice: Decision Making in a State Juvenile Parole Board

The literature in Criminal Justice is replete with commentary on both the virtues and injustices associated with adult parole board decision-making. There has been far less attention paid to juvenile parole boards in part because so few of them exist. Institutional release decisions in most states still remain the purview of juvenile institutional staff members. This paper examines parole Authority decision-making in a citizen-dominated state juvenile parole board. The paper focuses on the conduct of hearings, dispositional guidelines, criteria used by board members in decision-making and the advocacy role of parole officers and institutional staff. The influence of deinstitutionalization and least restrictive policies on parole Authority decision making is also discussed. During recent years, the literature in criminal justice has become replete with commentary on the virtues and injustices associated with parole board decision-making. Consequently, many questions have been raised about disparate sentences, the criteria used by parole boards in making decisions, unstructured discretion, and the pressing need for guidelines and statistically accurate parole prediction instruments. The intent of this paper is to examine parole decision-making in a state juvenile parole board where individualized treatment and rehabilitation have been long standing goals. The paper focuses upon the criteria used by board members in decision-making, the conduct of hearings, the guideline system used to determine a recommended length of confinement and the advocacy role of parole officers and institutional staff. The influence of deinstitutionalization and least restrictive policies on parole board decision-making is also discussed. The author is presently completing the second year of a two-year appointment as a member of the Parole Authority under discussion. Since December, 1983, the author has continuously observed and participated in approximately 300 individual parole hearings over thirty-seven hearing days.     

Integrated management decision-making: A futuristic model for police organizations

This study examines the theoretical issues concerning decision-making and advances a new and innovative model emphasizing the integration of the organization and environment. Political, economic, social, cultural, and other community factors are highlighted as major influences affecting the police arena. Finally, the model is discussed as a catalyst for change in current police management thinking. Futuristic concepts of organization-environmental learning, long-range planning, and strategic modeling are suggested as necessary improvements in police decision-making.     

Revocation by consent: The United States Parole Commission's expedited revocation procedure

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.     

教育刑理念的彰显与背离：近代中国假释制度考论

刑罚执行是刑事司法的最后环节,行刑法律的运作直接关涉刑罚功能与目的能否实现。假释作为行刑制度之一,其运作效果是刑罚观念的集中体现。近代以来假释制度完成了由恩典到权利的制度转化,因于诸多因素的制约,假释制度在清末刑事立法中虽然得以确立,却未能实践。其后的立法与司法虽对于假释制度有着较多的践行,但民众的法律情结却仍停留于报复惩戒,教育刑理念仍然未能深入人心,法律观念、法律文化的转型任重而道远。     

Medical decision-making for incapacitated elders: A "therapeutic interests" standard

Some older individuals lack sufficient present cognitive and/or emotional ability to make and express autonomous decisions personally. In those situations, health-care providers routinely turn to available formal or informal surrogates who often must apply the best interests standard in making decisions for the incapacitated person. This article contends that defining the best interests standard of surrogate decision-making for older adults in terms of optimal or ideal choices (truly the patient's "best" interests) frequently sets out an unrealizable goal for surrogates to satisfy. Instead, a decision-making standard based on the incapacitated person's "therapeutic" interests is more realistic and hence more honest to adopt and apply from legal, ethical, and medical perspectives.     

Parole release decisions: Impact of victim input on a representative sample of inmates

Positive and negative input, in both verbal and written forms, was studied for a representative sample of 820 parole-eligible adult inmates in New Jersey to determine the extent to which victim participation and the provisions of victim input policies affect contemporary parole release practices. Victim input was not found to be a significant predictor of parole release. Measures of institutional behavior, crime severity, and criminal history were significant. Verbal input had a greater affect than written input. In the short-term, parole administrators should develop guidelines to clarify procedures and create a more uniform and transparent application of victim input. In the long-term, the receipt of victim input should be used to identify victims who have not yet found closure so that appropriate support services can be provided prior to most inmates’ eventual releases from prison.     

The Network of Neighborhoods and Geographic Space: Implications for Joblessness While on Parole

Journal of Quantitative Criminology - Few studies have examined the consequences of neighborhoods for job prospects for people on parole. Specifically, networks between neighborhoods in where...     

扩张非监禁刑视野下的假释政策宽缓化初探

促进刑罚政策由重刑化向轻刑化转变,推动假释政策由严格化向宽缓化让渡,这是我国全面深化司法体制工作机制改革面临的一个刑罚理论和刑罚实践问题.其中,扩张非监禁刑与假释政策宽缓化具有天然的联系,直接关系到假释目的调整和假释政策优化,其理论基础是要重塑综合刑理念,其实现路径是要对假释政策宽缓化进行制度设置方面的法律重构.