NCJ Number
93620
Date Published
Unknown
Length
237 pages
Annotation
This research focuses on major issues related to measuring the performance of probation and parole agencies in the conduct of postsentencing activities for adult offenders.
Abstract
The issues addressed by the research are (1) the critical probation and parole operations which performance measure should target, (2) the measures upon which different constituent groups can agree as being adequate measures of performance, and (3) how the relative importance of different performance dimensions varies among constituent groups over time. To determine the operations upon which performance measures ought to focus, the study examined the activities performed by officers at five probation/parole agencies when supervising probationers and parolees. Five basic operations common to all agencies were intake, case assignment, supervision, violations, and terminations. Specific activities were classified as enforcement, rehabilitation, or administration. After examining the amount of time officers spent on 14 critical activities related to these orientations, it was found that 4 agencies most closely fit the control model of agency practice, and the fifth more closely fit the passive model. A national survey was conducted to determine the extent to which probation and parole administrators, criminal justice researchers, and oversight staff could agree on specific performance measures for probation/parole agencies having different orientations. Out of the 65 measures assessed, only four were judged appropriate for all three agency orientations by all constituent groups. Three of these measured benefit and the fourth measured quality of service. From a national sample of funders, researchers, and practitioners, the study elicited preferences about the relative importance of six dimensions related to the performance of probation and parole agencies: quantity of output, quality of output, efficiency, equity, benefit, and cost-effectiveness. Regardless of the type of group, benefit and quality were rated as being substantially more important than quantity and efficiency. These findings suggest that research priority should be given to developing benefit and quality measures. The greatest variation in importance ratings occurred for the equity and cost-effectiveness dimensions of performance. Tabular and graphic data are provided.