Factors influencing parole decision making: demographic characteristics, cognitive style, and offender type

Gobeil, Renée

doi:10.22215/etd/2006-08253

Cited by 4 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To further complicate matters, some of the listed factors (e.g., the offender's attitude during incarceration, the offender's social history) are quite broad and vulnerable to subjective interpretation. Given these difficulties, it is not surprising that research demonstrates considerable inter-individual variability in both parole decisions reached (Conley & Zimmerman, 1982;Gobeil, 2006;) and in the extent to which adequate explanations for these decisions are provided by board members (Hannah-Moffat, 2005). Such variability is consistent with findings from other forensic decision making research.…”

Section: Operational Realitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this reason, the first study in this program of research was largely exploratory in nature and aimed to better understand the factors which influence parole officers' release recommendations. Research on the factors found to be associated with parole decision making amongst parole board members and other forensic decision making was incorporated in the development of the study, which was modeled on a similar study previously conducted with PBC and New Zealand Parole Board members (Gobeil, 2006).…”

Section: Study 1: Exploratory Examination Of Parole Officers' Parole mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding parole recommendations : the contribution of parole officers

Gobeil¹

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Operational Realitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study 1: Exploratory Examination Of Parole Officers' Parole mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding parole recommendations : the contribution of parole officers

Gobeil¹

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Paroling authorities have answered criticisms by introducing more empiricallyinformed practices into their decisions. Parole research has been examining what paroling authorities can do to reduce recidivism rates for the approximately 95% of offenders who will inevitably be released into the community (Burke, 2011;Caplan, 2007;Hughes & Wilson, 2003;PEW Charitable Trusts, 2013), but this research has mainly focused on the factors that paroling authorities report taking into account when making release decisions (Caplan, 2007;Gobeil, 2006;Gobeil & Serin, 2009). Increasingly, however, paroling authorities are looking for further ways to improve their decisions, beyond merely listing the factors they are taking into account.…”

Section: Public Opinionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given the high rates of unsuccessful parole completions (Herberman & Bonczar, 2015), it is essential that paroling authorities increase the accuracy of their parole decisions. It is encouraging that a large area of programming research has demonstrated between a 10 and 30% reduction in recidivism if evidence-based knowledge is harnessed in the criminal justice system with precision (Andrews & Bonta, 1998, 2006Andrews et al, 1990;Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006;Gendreau & Goggin, 1996;Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005). Corrections research has increased our understanding of what works for correctional programming, but the current issue is how to implement what works in regards to an individual offender's rehabilitation.…”

Section: The Rationale For Embracing Evidence-based Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Parole research to date has mainly examined the factors that paroling authorities report taking into account when making parole decisions (Caplan, 2007;Gobeil, 2006;Gobeil & Serin, 2009). Increasingly, however, paroling authorities are looking for ways to improve their decisions by introducing more evidence-based policy and practices.…”

Section: Measuring Efficient and Effective Parole Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Wardrop¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Developing a Competency Model for Parole Board Members

Gamwell¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This project sought to identify competencies important for making quality parole decisions and to develop and validate tools to assess these competencies. In the first phase, a blended approach of competency modelling and job-analysis was used to identify six competencies for Parole Board Members (PBMs): Ethical Competence, Adherence to System Factors, Evidence-Based Risk Assessment (EBRA), Evidence-Based Decision-Making (EBDM), Effective Communication and Self-Improvement. Measures were subsequently developed to assess these competencies and administered to a group of volunteer PBMs (n = 38) through the Association of Paroling Authorities International. PBMs demonstrated fair levels of overall competence across all measures. Room for improvement was noted for both EBRA and EBDM. An evaluation of Cronbach's alpha and item-total correlations by subscale for each measure informed revisions to the original measures, thereby improving the reliability of the tools. Suggestions for training are discussed as are possible modifications to the tools.

show abstract

Factors influencing parole decision making: demographic characteristics, cognitive style, and offender type

Cited by 4 publications

References 12 publications

Understanding parole recommendations : the contribution of parole officers

Understanding parole recommendations : the contribution of parole officers

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

Developing a Competency Model for Parole Board Members

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About