Probation, Parole, and Minimum Security (From Prediction of Criminal Violence, P 141-152, 1987, Fernand N Dutile and Cleon H Foust, eds. - See NCJ-104584)

• NCJ Number: 104591
• Author(s): T R Clear
• Date Published: 1987
• Length: 12 pages
• Sale Source: Charles C. Thomas
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.

Annotation

This article considers the programmatic emphasis of prediction methods and practice, practitioners' implementation of risk screening, and the applications of risk screening to supervision, custody, and release.

Abstract

Risk prediction in the areas of probation, parole, and minimum security does not involve 'pure' prediction. There is an assessment of available programs, followed by assignment of the offender to the program deemed most appropriate based on knowledge about past offenders and program assignments. The risk determination is based more on the programs available than the characteristics of the offenders being assigned. Other factors affecting probation, parole, and minimum-security decisions are offender and system needs, system policies, and resource limitations. In implementing risk screening, practitioners usually rely on the replication of risk-screening instruments with claimed success in other jurisdictions, such as the Wisconsin model. Even though the model may not fit the circumstances of other jurisdictions, practitioners use them anyway rather than take the time and resources to develop a new instrument. In the rush to use predictive instruments in probation, parole, and selection for minimum security, they have been misapplied and misunderstood, producing mismatches between offenders and type of supervision and custody. 18 notes.