NCJ Number
80458
Date Published
1978
Length
114 pages
Annotation
This study assesses the impact of parole guidelines on inmate perceptions of parole by comparing the Federal system to the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole system. The Federal system is oriented toward incapacitation while the Pennsylvania system is oriented toward treatment.
Abstract
For each system, the study included 100 male adult prisoners appearing for their first parole hearing in 1976. Prisoners were incarcerated in the correctional facilities at Graterford, Pittsburgh, Rockview, and Dallas, Pennsylvania. The interview questionnaire used to survey prisoners assesses the social environment of the parole systems according to the dimensions of clarity, certainty, control, and communication. A striking finding is that parole guidelines based on offense severity and prior criminal record tend to diminish the perceived control of inmates over the parole decision. Federal subjects appear to have a better understanding of how parole is actually decided; State subjects tend to overestimate the importance of offense and prior record and to underestimate institutional factors. Still, inmates' response to the two environments favors the State system, which promotes the greatest degree of inmate control. Inmates are obviously hostile to parole guidelines. It is concluded that personal control made possible by the treatment model of parole is essential if some degree of inmate satisfaction with the decision process is to be achieved. Offenders clearly prefer parole based on institutional factors. However, parole board espousal of a rehabilitation model will only increase inmate satisfaction with the justice system if the decision process is predictable. Tables, figures, notes, and appendixes with sample instruments are supplied.