Development and Validation of a Parole Quality Assurance Inventory (PQAI)

Abstract

Focus on evidence-based practice in the area of parole has been increasing in recent years. The purpose of the current study was to examine aspects of paroling authorities and how they function in order to better define high quality paroling systems. In order to achieve this, the Parole Quality Assurance Inventory (PQAI) was developed to measure paroling authority quality. The psychometric properties of this scale were evaluated, as well as, efforts were made to validate this scale by examining its relationship with parole performance indicators. Thirteen paroling authorities completed the PQAI. Results found that the PQAI was unable to be validated. Although, with a large amount of removed items, the scale was able to achieve appropriate psychometric properties, there was no relationship between PQAI subscale and total scores with the proportion of offenders who failed in the community. Limitations and future directions are discussed. Patricia Smith for chairing my defence. I owe special thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Ralph Serin, for his guidance and contagious enthusiasm throughout this project -this endeavour could not have happened without your support! I am grateful for the advisory panel which assisted with the development of the Parole Quality Assurance Inventory. Jean Sutton, Robbye Braxton, Cathy Banks, and Nancy Campbell provided valuable feedback which made this project all the better. As well, I would like to thank Keith Hardison for the assistance recruiting paroling authorities. It was certainly challenging at times, but I appreciated all help I could get. I would also like to extend my appreciation to all the paroling authorities who participated in the current project.

Examining Post Sentence Parole Effectiveness in a Matched Sample

“…This provides a suitable environment within which CSOs can perform their duties in accordance with evidence-based practice. These criteria are similar to those that have been validated as important for ensuring quality in parole organizations (Wardrop, 2015;Serin et al, 2021). Furthermore, as noted above, the community supervision agency must have discretion in monitoring special conditions, with intermediate sanctions available to permit CSOs flexibility in their responses, depending on the needs and situation of each JIP.…”