regarding evidence of effective rehabilitation pro-
grams emerged, paralleling an increase in interest in
retribution as a means of addressing criminal justice
concerns. This just-deserts model focused on determi-
nancy and consistency in sentencing, clearly at odds
with the earlier discretionary model. This justice
model also advocated using incarceration sparingly. In
the 1980s and 1990s, however, theories of deterrence
came to the fore and with them an appetite for harsher
punishments. This quickly led to increased incarcera-
tion rates and, subsequently, increased costs of pris-
ons.Public policy in this era generally disputed evidence
regarding interventions to reduce re-offending and
ignored parole as a viable strategy to address increased
prison populations. Only since the late 1990s has an
abundance of evidence regarding risk assessment and
correctional programming been accumulated and
more widely disseminated to criminal justice officials,
suggesting that a new model for parole might be prof-
itably integrated into the criminal justice system.
Nonetheless, these data are still often hotly debated on
ideological grounds. Encouragingly, in 2005, the U.S.
Congress introduced legislation to allocate $300 mil-
lion over 4 years in an effort to more successfully
transition prisoners to the community. These reentry
initiatives highlight how parole might be well situated
to complement existing sentencing and correctional
strategies, thereby enhancing public safety through
attention to evidence-based practice.
Importantly, government publications describing
parole policy, parole board member training, and con-
temporary roles of parole abound. Surprisingly, few of
these publications overtly address the issue of parole
decision making as a process, although the training
handbook referenced above illustrates several different
methods employed. Moreover, with the notable excep-
tion of the flurry of research on standardized risk assess-
ment instruments in the 1970s and 1980s, academia
has generally ignored parole decision making as a
research topic. Considering parole research in terms of
content (risk assessment, decision frameworks),
process (decision strategies), and outcome (recidivism,
effective correctional programs) highlights areas war-
ranting further systematic investigation.Content
Initially, in the mid-1970s, given the reliance on clin-
ical opinion, researchers sought to improve accuracy
through the development of statistical instruments thatdistinguished between successful releases and parole
failures. Many parole boards continue to use such
instruments to distinguish risk levels among prisoners,
and risk is routinely considered in parole decision
trees and matrices. Such instruments have consistently
been found to be more predictive of outcome than sub-
jective professional judgments. Moreover, they assist in
diminishing the frequency with which offenders who
are poor parole risks are inappropriately released,
increasing the speed with which offenders who are
good parole risks are released, and diminishing
unnecessary incarceration expenditures. For man-
dated parole, assessment of risk appears to be used to
inform the type and number of conditions imposed by
the board.
Risk assessment tools, however, expressly elimi-
nate from consideration any factors unique to the
offender or to his or her context. As such, it is impor-
tant that they not be used without consideration of
additional information. Indeed, empirical research
demonstrates that estimates of risk derived from sta-
tistical tools are not the only factors considered by
decision makers in reaching release decisions. For
example, offenders’ criminal and institutional history
and previous release recommendations have been
found to affect parole decisions. Interestingly, the use
of interviews appears not to improve accuracy in pre-
dicting parole success.
In Canada, a framework to guide parole decision
makers in integrating statistical and additional infor-
mation has been developed. Using a statistical risk
assessment instrument as its anchor, the framework
outlines specific additional areas for consideration (crim-
inalhistory, risk management, disinhibitors, case-spe-
cific factors, institutional adjustment, offender change,
and release plan). Preliminary results demonstrate that
the use of this framework leads to reductions in deci-
sion errors and high rates of predictive accuracy regard-
ing parole outcome. Moreover, feedback suggests that
the framework assists in the provision of a decision
rationale and is useful in the training of new parole
board members.Process
Parole release obviously involves making judgments;
hence, discretion is required. Research, however, is
required to demonstrate that parole decisions are con-
sistent and discriminating—that is, board members
would arrive at similar decisions for the same case, andParole Decisions——— 543P-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 543