,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