Models Of Parole Release Decisions

Statutes have typically directed parole boards to base their decisions on one or more of these criteria's, the probability of recidivism, the welfare of society, the conduct of the offender while in the correctional institution, and lastly the effectiveness of the parole plan. Three models that guide the parole decision making have existed over time are, the surveillance model, the procedural justice model, and lastly the risk prediction model.

Early parole decisions were based not on formal policies, but on subjective intuition of individual decision makers. Parole decision making encountered a surveillance perspective, which was determined to be an attempt to control the dangerous classes. The surveillance approach was based on the theory that informal social controls, including positive family relations, coworkers, and friends, would help the offender by providing structure and enforcement of the rules. Parole boards considered primarily the seriousness of the crime in determining whether to release an inmate on parole. However, no consensus was reached on what constituted a serious crime. Instead, each member made their own decisions. The judgments were personal and therefore not subject to debate or reconsiderations. The courts agreed with the contentions of paroling authorities that to impose even minimal due process constraints on the decision process would interfere with their duty to engage in diagnosis and prognosis.

In the 1970's, given the concerns about discrepant decision making, there was a movement toward the use of objective guidelines in the release decision. Parole decisions were made more visible and parole authorities were accountable for their decisions through the use of explicit parole selection requirements. Known as the procedural justice or due process model, this perspective focused on fairness and emphasized on legal factors. Parole guidelines where established to make parole selection decisions more fair and consecutive.

The risk prediction model was a natural outgrowth of the procedural justice perspective in that parole release decisions focused on community protection rather than due process and any potential progress the offender made while incarcerated. (Source 1)

Researchers found that parole decisions could be predicted by using offense seriousness and the risk of recidivism, defined by prior criminal history. The Salient Factor Score (SFS) was developed to provide extreme guidelines for release decisions based on a determination of the potential risk of parole violation. The SFS measures six offender characteristics based on age and prior institutional commitments and assign a score to each. The first characteristic considered in a SFS calculation is prior convictions/adjudications. This offender characteristic has a score range of 0 to 3. Offenders with no prior convictions are assigned a score of 3; one prior conviction results in a score of 2; two to three prior convictions gives a score of 1; and so on. Each offender characteristic is scored in a similar way, and the sum of the six items yields to the predictive score. The higher the score (maximum of 10), the less likely is the probability of recidivism. The other characteristics are prior commitments, age at current offense, recent commitment free period, probation/parole/confinement/escape status violator, older offenders. All have their own specifications to each.

Decision makers then use guidelines to determine the usual time to be served for a range of offenses based on the severity of the offense. Severity is based on eight categories, ranging from the least to the most sever. For example, an adult offender whose SFS/98 score was 5 and