Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 18, 2024 Thu
Time: 2:46 am
Time: 2:46 am
Results for decision-making
18 results foundAuthor: Ball, W. David Title: Tough on Crime on the State's Dime Summary: California’s prisons are dangerously and unconstitutionally overcrowded; as a result of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Plata v. Schwarzenegger, the state must act to reduce its prison population or face court-ordered prisoner releases. The state’s plans to reduce overcrowding are centered around what it calls criminal justice “realignment”, whereby California will send a portion of the state prison population to county facilities. The plan faces opposition from county officials, who see it as pushing the state’s problem on to the counties. But what if state prison overcrowding is really a county problem? I argue that state prison overcrowding is due in large part to county decisions about how to deal with crime. Using data from 2000-2009, I will show that California’s counties use state prison resources at dramatically different rates, and, moreover, that the counties which use state prisons the most have below-average crime rates. The contribution the Article makes, then, is twofold. First, it reinforces that incarceration in state prisons is one policy choice among many, not an inexorable reaction to violent crime. Counties can and do make different choices about how to respond to violent crime, including the extent to which they use prison. Second, the Article demonstrates why localities are crucial - and critically underexamined - contributors to state prison populations. Decisions are made at local levels about prosecution, investigation, plea bargaining, and sentencing, and these decisions are made by officials who are either elected locally (such as DA’s, judges, and sheriffs) or appointed locally (police and probation officers). Local policies and policymakers affect the state’s corrections budget, even though the state has no say in designing or implementing these policies. State officials must take these local differences into account, and create incentives for counties to behave differently. The problem is that it is difficult to distinguish between justifiable, crime-driven incarceration and optional, policy-driven incarceration. I propose a new metric for distinguishing between these two types of incarceration, one which defines justified incarceration in terms of violent crime. This would allow the state to manage local usage of state prison resources without either penalizing crime-ridden areas or rewarding prison-happy ones. This Article is the first of two articles dealing with the state/county prison relationship. While this Article quantifies the ways in which the extent of local prison admissions is not necessarily a function of the violent crime rate, a second Article will examine whether, given these differences, it makes sense for the state to subsidize county commitments to prison. Details: Unpublished Working Paper, 2011. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 10, 2011 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871427 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871427 Shelf Number: 122349 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyDecision-MakingPrison OvercrowdingPrisons (California)Violent Crime |
Author: Bowen, Kendra N. Title: An Analysis of Criminal Situations: Decision Making and Other Contextual Factors of Robbery and Assault Summary: Research concerning the situational context in which crime occurs has taken a back seat to the study of criminality in criminological research. The purpose of this study was to examine the situational context of robbery, attempted robbery, assault, and avoided violence situations. Offenders from four western Pennsylvania county jail facilities were surveyed June through October 2010 concerning the contextual information in these types of situations in which they had been participants. This study examined situations nested within each respondent and compared these situations across respondents. This type of analysis was used to fully examine the personal (criminality) and situational factors that influence the studied situations. The personal level factors examined in this study were offender demographics, criminal history, hostile attribution bias and anger. The situational factors included decision making, anger and hostile attribution bias (in each situation), motive, victim selection, substance use, intent to harm, weaponry, and injury. The results from this study indicate that the study of the situational context of crime can provide more opportunities for researchers to unveil the complexities of criminal behavior. Utilizing social information processing theory, this study found that there were statistically significant differences in decision making in the studied situations. Additionally, hostile attribution bias and anger did play an important role in these situations, and more attention should be devoted to them. Lastly, past research has focused too narrowly on certain aspects of the situation (e.g., motive or victim selection), giving an incomplete depiction of the criminal situation. This research found that, by focusing on the situation in its entirety, more accurate information can be obtained as to which situational variables have a statistically significant relationship with robbery, attempted robbery, assault, and avoided violence situations. Details: Indiana, PA: Indiana University of Pennsylvania, The School of Graduate Studies and Research, Department of Criminology, 2011. 283p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed August 17, 2011 at: http://dspace.lib.iup.edu:8080/dspace/bitstream/2069/344/1/Kendra+Bowen.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://dspace.lib.iup.edu:8080/dspace/bitstream/2069/344/1/Kendra+Bowen.pdf Shelf Number: 122422 Keywords: AssaultCriminal BehaviorDecision-MakingRobbery |
Author: Murphy, Amy Title: Parole Violation Decision-Making Instrument (PVDMI) Process Evaluation Summary: California currently has the nation’s largest prison population (about 167,000 prisoners) (CDCR, 2009), and while some other state prison populations have declined in recent years, California’s continues to increase (Petersilia, 2008). Its prison expenditures are among the highest in the nation—per inmate, per staff, and as a share of the overall state budget. In spite of vast expenditures, California prisons remain dangerously overcrowded (now at 200 percent of inmate capacity), and a federal court has issued an Opinion and Order to reduce the number of inmates by over 40,000 (Grattet, et. al., 2008). Rehabilitation has also been scaled back, as classrooms have been converted to living space. California’s Expert Panel on Rehabilitation recently reported that nearly 50 percent of all prisoners released in 2006 sat idle—meaning they did not participate in any work assignment or rehabilitation program for their entire time in prison (California Expert Panel on Adult Offender Recidivism Reduction Programming, 2007). Two-thirds (66 percent) of all parolees return to prison within three years, nearly twice the average rate nationally (Grattet, et. al., 2008). Because of this high rate of failure, parolees comprise much of the prison admissions in California, accounting for nearly two-thirds (66 percent) of all persons admitted to California prisons in 2007 (Grattet, et. al., 2008). Over the last 20 years, the number of parole revocations has increased 30-fold in California, compared with a six-fold increase nationally (Travis, 2003). As an effort to address parolees’ high rates of recidivism and returns to custody, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) introduced and piloted the Parole Violations Decision-Making Instrument (PVDMI) in 2008-9, two years after the initial planning for the tool began. The PVDMI is a tool that uses parolee risk level and violation severity to make recommendations on addressing parole violations. This type of reform, using structured decision-making tools in parole practice, had been recommended by several public policy forums in California. The pilot took place over 90 days in four parole units, and the PVDMI was then implemented across the state. Details: Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections The University of California, Irvine, 2009 (Revised February 2010). 82p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed March 15, 2013 at: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/PVDMI.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/PVDMI.pdf Shelf Number: 118614 Keywords: Decision-MakingParole RevocationsParole ViolationsParolees (California)Risk Assessment |
Author: Olson, Jeremiah Carl Title: Social Construction and Political Decision Making in the American Prisons System(s) Summary: With over two million inmates, the United States’ prison population is the largest in the world. Nearly one in one hundred Americans are behind bars, either in prisons or pre-trial detention facilities. The rapid growth in incarceration is well-documented. However, social science explanations often stop at the prison gates, with little work on treatment inside prisons. This black box approach ignores important bureaucratic decisions, including the provision of rehabilitative services and the application of punishment. This dissertation offers a systematic analysis of treatment decisions inside the American prisons. I use a mixed methods approach, combining multiple quantitative datasets with environmental observation at four prisons, and original interviews of twenty-three correctional staff members. I offer the only large-n comparative analysis of American state prisons. Characteristics of the inmates as well as characteristics of staff are explored. I am able to analyze data at the state, facility and individual level. All of this is to answer a crucial and somewhat overlooked question; how do prison staff decide who should be punished and who should receive rehabilitative treatment? I find that theories of social construction offer insight into the treatment of American prison inmates. Specifically, I find that socially constructed racial categories offer explanatory value for inmate treatment. Black and Hispanic inmates are less likely to receive important rehabilitative programs, including access to mental health and medical care. Black and Hispanic inmates are also more likely to receive punishment including the use of solitary confinement in administrative segregation units. I find, consistent with theories of representative bureaucracy that staffing characteristics also impact treatment decisions, with black and Hispanic staff members expressing lower preferences for punishment and prisons with higher percentages of black staff members utilize administrative segregation less. I provide a historical overview of the changing social constructions of crime and prisons inside the United States, from colonial to present day America. I argue that the treatment of prisoners changes as our conception of crime changes. I discuss recent bipartisan attempts at prison reform and offer my own suggestions for reform of the American prison system. Details: Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, Political Science, 2013. 222p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed May 13, 2013 at: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=polysci_etds Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=polysci_etds Shelf Number: 128713 Keywords: Correctional ProgramsCriminal Justice PolicyDecision-MakingOffender RehabilitationPrisons (U.S.) |
Author: Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending Title: Parolable Lifers in Michigan: paying the Price of Unchecked Discretion Summary: Hundreds of Michigan prisoners sentenced to "parolable life" terms have been eligible for release for one, two or even three decades. As a group, they are aging, low-risk and guilty of offenses comparable to those for which thousands of other people have served a term of years and been paroled. Each parole board decision to incarcerate a lifer for another five years - often based on nothing more than a single board member's review of a file - costs taxpayers roughly $200,000. Americans have certain expectations of government. In times of tight budgets and soaring costs, the one most discussed is cost-effectiveness. We want to spend as few taxpayer dollars as possible to fulfill governmental functions. We also want transparency, so we know how decisions are being made; accountability, so that decisions are subject to review and, if necessary, correction; consistency, so that outcomes are predictable and similarly situated citizens are similarly treated; and objectivity, so that decisions are based on evidence, not emotions or unsupported assumptions. The parole decision-making process for lifers violates all these norms. It is one of the few areas where a group of unelected officials has virtually unlimited power over people's lives and the public purse. Over the last few decades, a series of policy changes with no proven impact on public safety has undermined the parole process for prisoners generally and for lifers in particular. The solutions are simple and straightforward: return to practices that protected both public safety and taxpayers' pocketbooks. Details: Lansing, MI: CAPPS, 2014. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2014 at: http://www.capps-mi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Parolable-Lifers-in-Michigan-Paying-the-price-of-unchecked-discretion.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.capps-mi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Parolable-Lifers-in-Michigan-Paying-the-price-of-unchecked-discretion.pdf Shelf Number: 131898 Keywords: Costs of ImprisonmentDecision-MakingJudgesLife ImprisonmentLife Sentence ParoleParole Board |
Author: Chiba, Saori Title: Behavioral Economics of Crime Rates and Punishment Levels Summary: Empirical studies have shown, paradoxically, that increasing the probability of apprehension can correlate with an increase in the total number of criminal actions. To examine this phenomenon, this paper develops a theory of "personal rules" based on the tradeoff between one's self-image of criminal productivity and the temptation - salience of the present - of taking the easy way out by committing a crime. This theory analyzes transformation of lapses into precedents that undermine future self-restraint. The foundation for this transformation is imperfect recall of one's own criminal productivity within certain defined parameters, which leads people to draw inaccurate inferences from their past actions. Rationalization may lead to overestimation of the expected utility of committing a crime when the opportunity presents itself. Details: Universita Ca' Foscari Venezia - Department of Management, 2014. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Department of Management, Universit Ca' Foscari Venezia Working Paper No. 2014/21 : Accessed November 12, 2014 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2511322 Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2511322 Shelf Number: 134039 Keywords: Causes of Crime Decision-Making Economics of CrimeOpportunity Theory |
Author: Davis, Robin Title: Research on Videoconferencing at Post-Arraignment Release Hearings: Phase 1 Final Report Summary: As local governments continue to contend with growing budget constraints and expanding criminal justice costs, they are increasingly turning to technological solutions and alternatives in an effort to mitigate criminal justice expenditures, maintain efficiency, and promote public safety. The use of videoconferencing technology in criminal justice settings has served as a powerful asset to criminal justice stakeholders; however, there is still much to learn regarding the mechanics of these systems and their broader implications. Recognizing the complex challenges and nuances of implementing such technology, as well as the diverse interests at stake, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the Research on Videoconferencing at Post-Arraignment Release Hearings project (NIJ Videoconferencing Project). The project is jointly supported by NIJ's Office of Research and Evaluation and the Office of Science and Technology. NIJ seeks to identify protocols that improve practices and maximize return on investment using videoconferencing to expedite judicial decision-making concerning whether to release a defendant from custody and the appropriate conditions of release, including bail. NIJ anticipates three phases of study: - Phase I: Blueprint-Compile information on past and current videoconferencing applications via interviews and court/jail observation to identify key concerns and solutions (court rules) for protocol. - Phase II: Field Test-Conduct implementation and assessment studies in two pilot sites (one rural), and modify protocol per field experience over a relatively short period via qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. - Phase III: Evaluation-Submit final protocol to multiple new sites for self-implementation and support an objective cost-efficiency study over an extended period. Details: Fairfax, VA: ICF International, 2015. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 19, 2015 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248902.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248902.pdf Shelf Number: 136493 Keywords: Decision-MakingPretrial ReleaseVideo RecordingsVideoconferencing |
Author: Weber, Leanne Title: Deciding to Detain: How Decisions to Detain Asylum Seekers are Made at Ports of Entry Summary: This research report is based on interviews conducted with immigration officers stationed at international air, sea and train ports in the UK in the late 1990s. It contains extensive first person quotes from immigration officers describing the factors that influence their discretionary decisions to detain asylum seekers on arrival. Both legal and extra-legal factors were found to influence these decisions. Moreover, statements made by immigration officials called into question claims made by departmental management at the time that detention on arrival was being used only as a last resort. Details: Cambridge, UK: Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, 2014. 136p. Source: Internet Resource: Criminal Justice, Borders and Citizenship Research Paper: Accessed September 5, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2520382 Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2520382 Shelf Number: 136701 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder ControlDecision-MakingDiscretionImmigrant DetentionImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Weber, Leanne Title: Deciding to Detain: The Organisational Context for Decisions to Detain Asylum Seekers at UK Ports Summary: This follow-up report on decisions to detain asylum seekers at UK ports in the late 1990s investigates the systematic differences in decision-making and review practices reported by immigration officers. The dynamics of decision-making are analysed in terms of individual differences in orientations to authority and aspects of legal and organisational context. Although the research did not compile data on the numbers of detentions ordered by individual officers, it was apparent from the interviews that officers who identified strongly with their border protection role were likely to detain more often, followed by rule-orientated officers who failed to question local practices. Details: Colchester, UK: University of Essex, Human Rights Centre, 2002. 145p. Source: Internet Resource: Criminal Justice, Borders and Citizenship Research Paper : Accessed September 5, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2520379 Year: 2001 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2520379 Shelf Number: 136702 Keywords: Border Control Decision-MakingDiscretion Immigrant Detention |
Author: Serin, Ralph C. Title: Analysis of the Use of the Structured Decisionmaking Framework in Three States Summary: In recent years, interest in high-quality parole decisionmaking has grown significantly. Paroling authorities are under considerable pressure and subject to substantial public scrutiny as they strive to reach high-quality parole decisions that ensure public safety. In this context, the Legal Decision-Making Lab at Carleton University has been working for nearly a decade to develop and improve a decisionmaking tool for parole practitioners. This tool, the Structured Decisionmaking Framework, acts as a road map or guideline for professional decisionmakers to help them reach consistent, transparent, and defensible high-quality conditional release decisions. It acknowledges the professional expertise and extensive experience of parole decisionmakers by using a structured approach that guides paroling authorities through the process of making parole decisions by considering offender information demonstrated to be closely linked to post-release performance. Given this grounding, the Framework can help paroling authorities incorporate or enhance the use of evidence-based practice in their decisionmaking. Through its technical assistance program, the National Institute of Corrections facilitated opportunities for three states-Ohio, Connecticut, and Kansas-to examine the use of the Structured Decisionmaking Framework in their jurisdictions. The paroling authorities in these states all received training in the use of the Framework. Though the Framework has been extensively validated and its use supported via research in Canada, each state also participated in a small-scale exercise aiming to provide preliminary validation results specific to their jurisdiction. This document summarizes the results of these validation exercises. For all three states, analyses were conducted in two phases. The first phase addressed the applicability of the Framework to each jurisdiction, verified whether all information necessary to complete the Framework was available, and examined: - The distribution of Framework domain ratings in that jurisdiction - Case-specific and discordant information - Variability among coders in rating domains The second phase of analyses was focused on case outcomes and included: - A description of parole and post-release outcomes for the sample - An examination of overall Framework ratings and release recommendations for each case - A comparison of Framework results to actual parole outcomes (where possible) - A comparison of Framework results to parole decisions (where the previous analyses were not possible) Overall, applying the Structured Decisionmaking Framework to a sample of approximately 100 offender cases in each of three states (Ohio, Connecticut, and Kansas) revealed interesting patterns both with respect to the completion of the Framework itself and to its overall results as compared to actual post-release outcomes. With respect to the Framework, a number of findings are noted: 1. Sufficient information was generally available to complete the Framework. However, in one state, this was not the case at the time of data collection; the state has since changed its parole preparation approach to broaden the information available and address this concern. 2. Second, though the authors intend that the Framework be completed according to each board member's expertise, personal experience, and knowledge, there were some items noted under the case-specific factors domain that we believe should not have been included, or that should have been included in a different manner. For example, several items (e.g., behavior on this or a previous sentence) could and should more appropriately have been captured in other Framework domains. 3. Inter-coder variability was also noted. When the Framework is applied in practice, board members are expected to vary as a result of their backgrounds, experience, knowledge, and beliefs. However, an effort was made to obtain consistency among coders for the purposes of this validation exercise, but this did not appear to be wholly successful. If such variability is also noted in board members' completion of the Framework, there may be benefit in periodic ongoing training in the use of the Framework to ensure an accurate understanding of its intended use. This may be profitably achieved using a train-the-trainers approach. Turning to an examination of the how the Framework's overall results compare to actual post-release outcomes, it appears, promisingly, that in the state of Connecticut, the Framework appears to distinguish between offenders who reoffend after release and those who do not. Indeed, these findings suggest that the Framework is more able to do so than is the State's accepted risk instrument, though results in this area are preliminary. For Ohio and Kansas, unfortunately, the virtually non-existent variability in post-decision outcomes among coded cases prevented an examination of how the Framework's overall results compared to actual post-release outcomes. Instead, the association of the Framework with the parole decision was investigated. The identification of greater numbers of aggravating domains within the Framework tended to be associated with decisions to deny, and consideration of Framework ratings (either on their own or together with an actuarial risk estimate) led to (non-significantly) better prediction of parole decisions. Based on the results of these preliminary validation exercises, it appears that the Structured Decisionmaking Framework can contribute to high-quality, transparent, and consistent parole decisionmaking by the Ohio Parole Board, Connecticut Board of Pardons and Parole, and Kansas Prisoner Review Board. Though it must still be confirmed in Ohio and Kansas, the Framework does not appear to influence decisions negatively. Findings in Connecticut and Canada demonstrate that the Framework can increase the quality of parole decision-making. Given the high stakes involved in parole decision-making, even minimal improvements in predictive accuracy can result in fewer victims, better management of strained prison capacity, and cost savings. As such, continued investigation of the use of the Structured Decision-making Framework is warranted and is supported by preliminary promising results. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2014. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 5, 2015 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/028408.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/028408.pdf Shelf Number: 136961 Keywords: Decision-MakingEvidence-Based PracticeParoleParolees |
Author: Curtis, Irene Title: The use of targets in policing Summary: Policing needs to change to respond to the challenges of the future, including the changing nature of crime, the increasing range and complexity of demand, continued financial constraints and the rapid pace of technological change. As forces adapt to changing circumstances, performance frameworks will also need to adapt to help the police make decisions to meet these challenges - and to understand whether or not they are succeeding. Numeric targets have seen extensive use in policing for many years, as part of both local and national police performance frameworks. The Public Service Agreements (PSAs) of the 1990s in particular created a slew of national targets in policing and across the public sector more widely. Since then, problems associated with targets such as 'gaming' and 'perverse incentives' have been well documented and targets have gradually been dropped by many forces. The last of the national targets in policing (for increasing public confidence and targets for response times, included in the policing pledge) were removed by the Home Secretary in 2010. This review aims in the first instance to understand the extent to which targets - and their associated behaviours - persist and has involved desk research, interviews, force visits and a survey of police officers and staff. Over 6,000 people completed the survey and, while methodological limitations mean the results needs to be interpreted with caution, the fact that so many officers and staff took the time to respond is telling of how strongly many feel about this subject. Details: London: Home Office, 2015. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2016 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/466058/Review_Targets_2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/466058/Review_Targets_2015.pdf Shelf Number: 137802 Keywords: Crime StatisticsDecision-MakingEvidence-Based PracticesPolice LegitimacyPolice PerformancePolice Problem-SolvingPolice ReformPolicing |
Author: Siegel, Jonah Aaron Title: Prisoner Reentry, Parole Violations, and the Persistence of the Surveillance State Summary: The revolving door of the state and federal prison system may be the most persistent challenge faced by criminological practitioners and scholars. Following release from custody, the majority of former prisoners end up back in the system within three years, suggesting that correctional involvement is not an isolated incident for most offenders. Through its analysis of parole violations and sanctions, the current dissertation project offers important new insights on this "revolving door" between prisons and high-risk communities. To do so, each of three empirical chapters looks at a different phase in the cycle of recidivism: offending behavior, institutional responses to offending behavior, and the consequences of institutional sanctions for offenders' well-being. The first analytic chapter examines how geographical proximity to social service providers is related to the risk of recidivism. The findings suggest that the observed impact of contextual conditions on recidivism depends on how expansively one defines the "community" in which parolees are embedded and further demonstrates the importance of capturing the effect of service accessibility on offending behavior within the larger ecological context of where parolees live. The second analytic chapter explores how "supervision regimes," the legal, political, and cultural factors that shape the way supervision is practiced across jurisdictions, influence the risk of recidivism. The analysis demonstrates that regional and county-level attributes shape local templates for decision-making among parole officers in ways that affect not only whether parolees are revoked to prison, but also the use of alternative sanctions, such as stricter community supervision and incarceration in short-term correctional facilities such as jails or detention centers. The final analytic chapter offers a rigorous assessment of the causal impact of incarceration on labor market outcomes through an examination of whether return to short-term custody interferes with the ability of parolees to find and maintain work. Findings indicate that the experience of short-term re-incarceration dramatically increases the risk of unemployment among parolees in the months during and following their incarceration. Taken as a whole, the analyses shed light on how offending behavior, institutional decision-making, and the experience of incarceration combine to perpetuate the cycle of recidivism. Details: Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 2014. 147p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed February 9, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248412.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248412.pdf Shelf Number: 137815 Keywords: Decision-MakingEx-Offender EmploymentOffender SupervisionParole OfficersParole ViolationsParoleePrisoner ReentryRecidivism |
Author: Hassan, Sabrina Title: Behavioral Economics in Criminal Justice Messaging Summary: Oftentimes despite the availability of certain information, we rely on our split-second intuition to make decisions. We are humans. We are biased. Sometimes we are lazy or inattentive. Instead of computing all of the stimuli available to us, we often act on impulse instead of considering all of our options. Behavioral economics (BE) allows us to predict what people actually do in decision-making contexts instead of depending on people to behave like rational, controlled, forward-thinking computers. By understanding what influences real choices, we can design choice settings that guide people to choose in a certain way. We can fix the inside of an outward-swinging door with a flat metal plate instead of asking, "Can't they read?" Behavioral economists have developed ways to "nudge people into better choices, which is to encourage selection of certain options without eliminating or taxing alternatives. For example, putting healthy food at eye level in a school cafeteria encourages students to eat more nutritious meals; choosing junk requires reaching for a different shelf. A state can increase its number of organ donors by instituting a default rule of presumed consent to donate; opting out of donation requires unchecking a box. This paper introduces behavioral economics as a way to improve criminal justice messaging. Specifically, Part I of the paper introduces a few key concepts of behavioral economics to consider when designing messages. Part II suggests specific ways to apply those concepts in messages dealing with each registry regarding sex-related offenses, drug policy, and racial profiling. Details: New York: The Opportunity Agenda, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 24, 2016 at: http://opportunityagenda.org/files/field_file/2015%2011%2030%20-%20Behavioral%20Economics%20Paper%20-%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://opportunityagenda.org/files/field_file/2015%2011%2030%20-%20Behavioral%20Economics%20Paper%20-%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 137951 Keywords: Behavioral EconomicsCommunicationsDecision-MakingHuman BehaviorMedia |
Author: Bechtel, Kristin Title: A Meta-Analytic Review of Pretrial Research: Risk Assessment, Bond Type, and Interventions Summary: This study makes an attempt to aggregate, via meta-analysis, what we currently know about pretrial decision making and jurisdictions' responses to the pretrial population. This meta-analysis began with an exhaustive search for pretrial research which may have revealed the most prominent finding - that being a distinct lack of research that utilizes any amount of methodological rigor. We identified a large number of studies that met our most general criteria (i.e., research about pretrial decision making) but mainly dealt with legal and/or philosophical issues regarding pretrial detention and due process. Studies that utilized empirical data and strong methodological designs were distinctly lacking. Of the studies that could be included, effect sizes were generated that may show some promise for court notification programs, pretrial supervision practices, and the potential effect of restrictive bond schedules. However, strong conclusions cannot be made as the quality of the pretrial research, overall, is weak at best. The findings of this study hold several policy implications for the field of pretrial research and practice. First, future research studies in the field of pretrial need to focus on methodological quality and rigor. Second, it appears that some conditions of release may be related to a defendant's likelihood of failure to appear. Third, it appears that none of the conditions of release reviewed in this study are related to a defendant's likelihood of re-arrest while on pretrial release. Finally, it is recommended that the field of pretrial develop a sound research agenda and execute that plan with rigor, transparency, and an approach that favors the continued cumulation of knowledge. Details: Unpublished Paper, 2016. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2741635 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2741635 Shelf Number: 134249 Keywords: BailDecision-MakingPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Utah. Legislative Auditor General Title: A Performance Audit of the Board of Pardons and Parole Summary: Utah's Board of Pardons and Parole (BOP or board) plays a critical and unique role in the state's criminal justice system. For example, last year, they made nearly 18,000 decisions, including releasing offenders from prison, setting the conditions of release and supervision, and responding to over 1,000 parole violations. Consequently, they wield significant influence on public safety and the use of public resources. Utah's parole board has considerable discretion because of wide sentencing time-frames coupled with an indeterminate system. The level of discretion appears to be greater than is found in other states. This report examines opportunities for the board to better deploy such broad discretion and recommends improvements to the BOP's oversight, structure, decision making, data collection, and business operations. These recommendations come at a time when criminal justice reform (both nationally and locally) is working toward improved outcomes and lowered costs. BOP Can Benefit from Improved Planning, Oversight, and Structure Improved Planning, Performance Measures, and Transparency of Information Is Needed. The BOP has always been a crucial player in Utah's criminal justice system. The board has been especially involved in justice reinvestment efforts since the Legislature passed H.B. 348 in the 2015 General Session. We are encouraged by the board's actions, but more can be done. We believe the BOP should: develop a strategic plan, track and monitor key data elements, measure its impact on the criminal justice system through targeted performance measures, and improve its transparency. BOP's Internal Organizational Structure Should Be Reviewed. As discussed in the previous section, several operational improvements are needed at the BOP. To help ensure these improvements are made and effective, the board should review its organizational structure. We do not question the dedication of BOP employees, but the board needs to ensure it has adequately defined its roles and the roles of its staff to maximize the needed operational improvements. BOP Should Adopt More Proven Practices Structured Decision Making Will Increase Consistency of Decisions. The BOP can do more to ensure its decisions are consistent, fair, and properly structured for the best outcomes. Nationally recognized research organizations that study paroling authorities recommend that parole boards adopt a structured decision-making (SDM) model. SDM is an evidence-based, policy-driven approach to decision making that uses established risk and needs factors to make quality release decisions. Paroling authorities that use SDM are better at setting goals and report better outcomes. Currently, BOP parole release decisions are based mainly on individual professional judgement and experience. BOP decision makers have differing philosophies and may weigh factors in the same case differently. The lack of a common paroling philosophy may be the cause for the large number of inmates and inmate advocacy groups expressing concerns about the inconsistency of paroling decisions. The board has taken steps to implement SDM but as a prerequisite, the BOP should establish a common paroling philosophy to facilitate consistency in parole decisions. BOP Should Improve Rationale for Its Decisions. A second area to aid the BOP in decision making is an improved rationale sheet. The only information an inmate receives about the content of the board's decision is a rationale sheet that lists some aggravating and mitigating factors. Several individuals at the BOP told us that this sheet does not capture the important factors the board uses in weighing their decisions. Further, inmates, families, and advocates list the rationale sheet as one of their primary concerns because they find it confusing, vague, and unclear. Best practices discuss communication with inmates as an important factor. We also found that other states' releasing authorities have more informative rationale sheets that focus on specific areas of improvement and/or risk to the community. The board agrees that it needs to improve its rationale sheet and is currently working on a new version of the form. Use of Research-Based Practices Can Help BOP Improve Its Outcomes. In addition to the two best practices just discussed, we recommend that the BOP adopt and integrate the nationally recognized ten practice targets that incorporate evidence-based practices in parole decisions. The board agrees and is already working toward implementation of some of these practice targets. BOP Should Adopt an Electronic File Management System The BOP's Current Paper Process Is Vulnerable to Errors. Our review of the BOP's business process revealed two areas that are vulnerable to errors. One vulnerability is the way the board documents and enters decisions. The BOP's current decision-making process relies on board members' handwritten notes, which are unclear and subject to misinterpretation. In most cases, we could not decipher the handwritten notes to validate that clerical staff entered decisions correctly. Second, calculations for time served made in case files are also vulnerable to inaccuracies. Paper-Based System Limits Data Tracking and Transparency. The BOP's paper-based system limits the ability to track key performance metrics and data critical to board operations. Paper files also limit transparency and availability of information to external entities. Adopting an electronic file management system will help the board begin collecting and analyzing data on how its actions affect the larger criminal justice system. This will also promote more informed decision making. Paper-Based System Creates Operational Inefficiencies. In addition to the data limitations, there are also operational inefficiencies that result from a paper-based file management system. These include limitations on information sharing with surrounding agencies as well as BOP workflow, since only one activity can be performed on an offender's file at a time. Board staff devote significant amounts of time to the paper process. Staff time spent printing, copying, filing, and locating paper files is costly and time intensive. Electronic BOP System Will Promote Alignment with Other Criminal Justice Agencies. With other Utah criminal justice agencies as well as other state parole boards adopting electronic file management systems, it is increasingly clear that it is time for the board to convert to a paperless record-keeping system. The current board supports transition from a paper-based to electronically based record-keeping system. To do this, the board will need to determine if it is in their best interest to develop an electronic system that piggybacks on the UDC's database or purchase a system from a private vendor. Funding the new system will likely require funding from several sources, including federal funds, nonlapsing funds, and other state resources. BOP Should Consider Implementing Process Efficiencies A Streamlined Decision Process Is Needed for Less Serious Offenders. As the state's population grows, BOP's workload will continue to increase. The PEW Charitable Trusts group studied Utah's criminal justice system in 2014. They estimate that Utah's prison population will grow 37 percent in the next 20 years. To deal with this growth, we believe the board should consider process efficiencies before adding more hearing officers. Other states have achieved efficiencies in streamlining the parole processing of low-risk, less severe offenders and maintained quality of decisions. In this section, we recommend a continuum of options the board could pursue to achieve efficiencies in processing low-level offenders, such as limiting case preparation requirements, reducing the number of board member votes for release decisions, and in limited circumstances allowing hearing officers a vote. BOP Should Review Expungement Process and Recommend Statutory Changes. The BOP has received an increase in the number of pardon requests over the last year and a half. This increase is due partially to more people seeking pardons because the Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI) rejected their expungement requests for relatively minor offenses. Some applicants rejected by BCI are turning to the board, which has greater authority to pardon and, by extension, expunge criminal records. The board's pardon process involves significant staff time and resources. Therefore, we recommend that the BOP and BCI review the expungement process and recommend to the Legislature statutory changes that reduce pardon workloads. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Legislative Auditor General, 2016. 100p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 28, 2016 at: http://le.utah.gov/audit/16_01rpt.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://le.utah.gov/audit/16_01rpt.pdf Shelf Number: 146164 Keywords: Decision-MakingPardonsParoleParole BoardsProbation |
Author: Kleinberg, Jon Title: Human Decisions and Machine Predictions Summary: We examine how machine learning can be used to improve and understand human decision-making. In particular, we focus on a decision that has important policy consequences. Millions of times each year, judges must decide where defendants will await trial - at home or in jail. By law, this decision hinges on the judge's prediction of what the defendant would do if released. This is a promising machine learning application because it is a concrete prediction task for which there is a large volume of data available. Yet comparing the algorithm to the judge proves complicated. First, the data are themselves generated by prior judge decisions. We only observe crime outcomes for released defendants, not for those judges detained. This makes it hard to evaluate counterfactual decision rules based on algorithmic predictions. Second, judges may have a broader set of preferences than the single variable that the algorithm focuses on; for instance, judges may care about racial inequities or about specific crimes (such as violent crimes) rather than just overall crime risk. We deal with these problems using different econometric strategies, such as quasi-random assignment of cases to judges. Even accounting for these concerns, our results suggest potentially large welfare gains: a policy simulation shows crime can be reduced by up to 24.8% with no change in jailing rates, or jail populations can be reduced by 42.0% with no increase in crime rates. Moreover, we see reductions in all categories of crime, including violent ones. Importantly, such gains can be had while also significantly reducing the percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics in jail. We find similar results in a national dataset as well. In addition, by focusing the algorithm on predicting judges' decisions, rather than defendant behavior, we gain some insight into decision-making: a key problem appears to be that judges to respond to 'noise' as if it were signal. These results suggest that while machine learning can be valuable, realizing this value requires integrating these tools into an economic framework: being clear about the link between predictions and decisions; specifying the scope of payoff functions; and constructing unbiased decision counterfactuals. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper no. 23180: Accessed February 20, 2017 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23180.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23180.pdf Shelf Number: 146686 Keywords: Decision-MakingJudgesJudicial Decision-MakingJudicial DiscretionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Blomberg, Thomas Title: Validation of the COMPAS Risk Assessment Classification Instrument Summary: Risk assessments of offenders and offender classifications are important tools for judges, jail and prison administrators, and pretrial service departments. Within the field of criminal justice, risk assessments and offender classifications are utilized in a number of ways, including pretrial decision-making regarding detention/release and bail setting, determining the conditions of community supervision for individuals on probation and parole, and the proper placement of offenders in state and federal prisons with appropriate levels of security. With the advent of the information age and computer technology, risk assessment has undergone a significant transformation from a process that was based on subjective evaluations made by judicial officers to one that is largely objective in nature, based on theoretically informed, standardized statistical methods. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the use and evolution of risk assessment tools in the field of criminal justice, with particular attention given to risk assessment in the context of pretrial decision-making. It begins by providing an account of the recent history of risk assessment within the field of criminal justice, tracing its development from the middle of the twentieth century to its current state at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Next, attention is given to the use of risk assessment tools in the context of pretrial decision-making. Following this, an overview of the research pertaining to the predictive validity of risk assessment tools will be presented, including previous assessments of the COMPAS instrument. Details: Tallahassee: Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University , 2010. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2017 at: http://criminology.fsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/Validation-of-the-COMPAS-Risk-Assessment-Classification-Instrument.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://criminology.fsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/Validation-of-the-COMPAS-Risk-Assessment-Classification-Instrument.pdf Shelf Number: 131207 Keywords: Decision-MakingOffender Classification Pretrial Release Risk Assessment |
Author: Gollwitzer, Anton Title: The Role of Age in Plea Bargain Decision Making Summary: Research has elucidated that defendants in criminal cases behave differently depending on their age. How age specifically affects plea bargain behavior, however, has only been sparsely investigated. In four studies, we observed that age influences whether lay individuals' plea bargain decision making is concordant (i.e., accept plea bargains if guilty and opt for trial if innocent) or discordant (i.e., accept a plea bargain if innocent and opt for a trial if guilty) in 'mock' criminal scenarios. In line with emerging adults' (18-28 years old) increased just-world beliefs and illusions of transparency, Study 1 provided indirect evidence that emerging adults' plea bargain decision making is more concordant than mature adults (29-40). Study 2, however, found that this effect is dependent on the defendant's likelihood of conviction. Studies 3 and 4 emulated Studies 1 and 2, however, they examined how parents of differently aged children advise their children regarding plea bargains decision making. Parents of younger children (8-11 years old) advised their child similarly to how they themselves would act. Parents of adolescents (12-18), on the other hand, adopted an entirely concordant approach, advising their adolescent child to behave according to their child's culpability. Overall, we find that individuals' approach to plea bargain decision making depends on their age group (or the age group of their children), culpability, and probability of conviction. Details: New haven, CT: Yale University, School of Law, 2018. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3149960 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3149960 Shelf Number: 150111 Keywords: Criminal CourtCriminal TrialsDecision-MakingPlea Bargaining |