Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dvmhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T02:30:02.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Short-Term Effects of Sanctioning Reform on Parole Officers' Revocation Decisions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Benjamin Steiner ,
Lawrence F. Travis III ,
Matthew D. Makarios  and
Benjamin Meade
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Parole officials have traditionally been afforded considerable discretion when making sanctioning decisions to be able to tailor sanctions according to substantively rational concerns such as individuals' unique needs and situations. However, the application of substantive rationality in sanctioning can also generate unwanted disparities because sanctioning decisions may be based on extralegal factors that parole officials consider relevant. Concerns regarding disparate treatment of offender groups have prompted a number of states to consider adopting administrative violation response policies that emphasize formal rationality and uniformity by restricting parole officers' discretion and structuring sanctioning decisions according to legally relevant criteria. By emphasizing formal rationality in sanctioning, structured sanction policies present a dilemma for parole officers—uniformity versus individualized treatment. In 2005, the state of Ohio implemented an administrative violation response policy designed to reduce parole officers' reliance on revocation hearings and promote uniformity in sanctioning decisions. This study involved an examination of whether Ohio's shift to structured sanctioning coincided with differences in legal and extralegal effects on parole officers' decisions to pursue revocation hearings. Analyses of data collected before and after the implementation of the policy revealed a reduction in the number of revocation hearings officers pursued. Only modest increases in uniformity were observed, however, because there was little disparity resulting from officers' hearing decisions before the policy was put in place. These findings are discussed within perspectives on justice system actors' decision making.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 371 - 400
Copyright
© 2011 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The authors wish to thank Brian Martin of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction for his assistance with the data collection for this study. This study was indirectly supported by award number 2005–IJ–CX–0038 from the National Institute of Justice, Principal Investigators: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

References

References

Albonetti, Celesta (1991) “An Integration of Theories to Explain Judicial Discretion,” 38 Social Problems 247–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, James L., & Hoffman, Peter B. (1985) “Reliability in Guideline Application: Initial Hearings – 1982,” 49 Federal Probation 33–41.Google Scholar
Bonham, Gene, et al. (1986) “Predicting Parole Decisions in Kansas via Discriminant Analysis,” 14 J. of Criminal Justice 123–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brame, Robert, et al. (1998) “Testing for the Equality of Maximum-Likelihood Regression Coefficients Between Two Independent Equations,” 14 J. of Quantitative Criminology 245–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridges, George S., & Steen, Sara (1998) “Racial Disparities in Official Assessments of Juvenile Offenders: Attributional Stereotypes as Mediating Mechanisms,” 63 American Sociological Rev. 554–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumstein, Alfred, & Beck, Allen J. (2005) “Reentry as a Transient State Between Liberty and Recommitment,” in Travis, J. & Visher, C., eds., Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Burke, Peggy (1997) Policy-Driven Responses to Probation and Parole Violations. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy.Google Scholar
Cavender, Gray, & Knepper, Paul (1992) “Strange Interlude: An Analysis of Juvenile Parole Revocation Decision Making,” 39 Social Problems 387–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clogg, Clifford, et al. (1995) “Statistical Methods for Comparing Regression Coefficients Between Models,” 100 American J. of Sociology 1261–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Committee on Community Supervision and Desistance From Crime (2008) Parole, Desistance From Crime, and Community Integration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Conley, John A., & Zimmerman, Sherwood E. (1982) “Decision Making by a Part-Time Parole Board,” 9 Criminal Justice and Behavior 396–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erez, Edna (1992) “Dangerous Men, Evil Women: Gender and Parole Decision Making,” 9 Justice Q. 105–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Ronald, & Holmes, Malcolm (1991) “The Social and Cognitive Structure of Legal Decision-Making,” 32 Sociological Q. 529–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeley, Malcolm, & Simon, Jonathan (1992) “The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and Its Implications,” 30 Criminology 449–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottfredson, Michael R. (1979) “Parole Board Decision Making: A Study of Disparity Reduction and the Impact of Institutional Behavior,” 70 J. of Criminal Law and Criminology 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottfredson, Michael R., & Gottfredson, Don M. (1988) Decision Making in Criminal Justice: Toward the Rational Exercise of Discretion. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grattet, Ryken, et al. (2009) “Parole Violations and Revocations in California: Analysis and Suggestions for Action,” 73 Federal Probation 2–11.Google Scholar
Griffin, Timothy, & Wooldredge, John (2001) “Judicial Reactions to Sentencing Reform in Ohio,” 47 Crime and Delinquency 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, Timothy, & Wooldredge, John (2006) “Sex-Based Disparities in Felony Dispositions Before Versus After Sentencing Reform in Ohio,” 44 Criminology 893–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Patricia M., et al. (2001) “Between Probation and Revocation: A Study of Intermediate Sanctions Decision-Making,” 29 J. of Criminal Justice 307–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Darnell (1987) “Beyond Anomalies: Rethinking the Conflict Perspective on Race and Criminal Punishment,” 65 Social Forces 719–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huebner, Beth M., & Bynum, Timothy S. (2006) “An Analysis of Parole Decision Making Using a Sample of Sex Offenders: A Focal Concerns Perspective,” 44 Criminology 961–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Brian (2006) “The Multilevel Context of Criminal Sentencing: Integrating Judge- and County-Level Influences,” 44 Criminology 259–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koons-Witt, Barbara (2002) “The Effect of Gender on the Decision to Incarcerate Before and After the Introduction of Sentencing Guidelines,” 40 Criminology 297–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Mona (1998) “Waste Managers? The New Penology, Crime Fighting, and Parole Agent Identity,” 32 Law & Society Rev. 839–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, Doris Layton, et al. (1999) “The Impact of Probation on the Criminal Activities of Offenders,” 36 J. of Research in Crime and Delinquency 423–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makarios, Matthew D., et al. (2010) “Restricting Discretion During Sanctioning: Parole Officers' Responses to the Implementation of a Progressive Sanctioning Grid in Ohio,” 34 Perspectives 46–54.Google Scholar
Martin, Brian, & Van Dine, Steve (2008) Examining the Impact of Ohio's Progressive Sanction Grid. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
Martin, Brian, et al. (2009) “Ohio's Progressive Sanctions Grid: Promising Findings on the Benefits of Structured Responses,” 33 Perspectives 32–9.Google Scholar
McCleary, Richard (1978) Dangerous Men: The Sociology of Parole. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Miethe, Terance (1987) “Charging and Plea Bargaining Practices Under Determinate Sentencing: An Investigation of the Hydraulic Displacement of Discretion,” 78 J. of Criminal Law and Criminology 155–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Charles, & Miethe, Terance (1986) “Regulated and Non-Regulated Sentencing Decisions: An Analysis of First-Year Practices Under Minnesota's Felony Sentencing Guidelines,” 20 Law & Society Rev. 253–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Kathryn D., & Smith, Brent (2008) “The Impact of Race on Parole Decision-Making,” 25 Justice Q. 411–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (2002) The Ohio Plan for Productive Offender Reentry and Recidivism Reduction. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.Google Scholar
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (2005) Sanctions for Violations of Conditions of Supervision (Policy Number: 100-APA-14). Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.Google Scholar
Petersilia, Joan (2003) When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Pogrebin, Mark R., et al. (1986) “Parole Decision Making in Colorado,” 14 J. of Criminal Justice 147–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raudenbush, Stephen, & Bryk, Anthony (2002) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Rothman, David (1980) Conscience and Convenience: The Asylum and Its Alternatives in Progressive America. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Savelsberg, Joachim (1992) “Law That Does Not Fit Society: Sentencing Guidelines as a Neoclassical Reaction to the Dilemmas of Substantivized Law,” 97 American J. of Sociology 1346–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silver, Eric, & Miller, Lisa (2002) “A Cautionary Note on the Use of Actuarial Risk Assessment Tools for Social Control,” 48 Crime and Delinquency 138–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Jonathan (1993) Poor Discipline: Parole and the Social Control of the Underclass, 1890–1990. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Douglas, et al. (1984) “Equity and Discretionary Justice: The Influence of Race on Police Arrest Decisions,” 75 J. of Criminal Law and Criminology 234–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snijders, Tom, & Bosker, Roel (1999) Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Solomon, Amy, et al. (2005) Does Parole Work? Analyzing the Impact of Postprison Supervision on Rearrest Outcomes. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spohn, Cassia (2000) “Thirty Years of Sentencing Reform: The Quest for a Racially Neutral Sentencing Process,” in National Institute of Justice, ed., Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System: Criminal Justice 2000, Vol. 3. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
Spohn, Cassia, & Holleran, David (2000) “The Imprisonment Penalty Paid by Younger, Unemployed Black and Hispanic Male Offenders,” 38 Criminology 281–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffensmeier, Darrell, & Demuth, Stephen (2001) “Ethnicity and Judges' Sentencing Decisions: Hispanic-Black-White Comparisons,” 39 Criminology 145–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffensmeier, Darrell, et al. (1998) “The Interaction of Race, Gender and Age in Criminal Sentencing: The Punishment Cost of Being Young, Black, and Male,” 36 Criminology 763–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, Benjamin, et al. (in press) “Understanding Parole Officers' Responses to Sanctioning Reform,” 57 Crime and Delinquency 222–46.Google Scholar
Taxman, Faye, et al. (1999) “Graduated Sanctions: Stepping into Accountable Systems and Offenders,” 79 The Prison J. 182–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, Jeremy, & Lawrence, Sharon (2002) Beyond the Prison Gates: The State of Parole in America. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
Travis, Jeremy, & Petersilia, Joan (2001) “Reentry Reconsidered: A New Look at an Old Question,” 47 Crime and Delinquency 291–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, Jeremy, & Visher, Christy A. (2005) “Introduction: Viewing Public Safety Through the Reentry Lens,” in Travis, J. & Visher, C., eds., Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, Jeffery, & Johnson, Brian (2004) “Sentencing in Context: A Multilevel Analysis,” 42 Criminology 137–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, Jeffery, & Kramer, John (1996) “Court Communities Under Sentencing Guidelines: Dilemmas of Formal Rationality and Sentencing Disparity,” 34 Criminology 383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Samuel (1993) Taming the System: The Control of Discretion in Criminal Justice, 1950–1990. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winfree, L. Thomas, Sellers, Christine S., et al. (1990) “Responding to a Legislated Change in Correctional Practices: A Quasi-Experimental Study of Revocation Hearings and Parole Board Actions,” 18 J. of Criminal Justice 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winfree, L. Thomas, Wooldredge, John, et al. (1990) “Parole Survival and Legislated Change: A Before/After Study of Parole Revocation Decision Making,” 7 Justice Q. 151–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Kevin, et al. (1984) “Universal Application of Probation Risk-Assessment Instruments: A Critique,” 22 Criminology 113–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooldredge, John, et al. (2005) “(Un)anticipated Effects of Sentencing Reform on the Disparate Treatment of Defendants,” 40 Law & Society Rev. 835–74.Google Scholar
Wooldredge, John (2009) “Short- Versus Long-Term Effects of Ohio's Switch to More Structured Sentencing on Extralegal Disparities in Prison Sentences in an Urban Court,” 8 Criminology and Public Policy 285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zatz, Marjorie (2000) “The Convergence of Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Class on Court Decision Making: Looking Toward the 21st Century,” in National Institute of Justice, ed., Criminal Justice 2000: Politics, Processes, and Decision of the Criminal Justice System, Vol. 3. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice: 503–52.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).Google Scholar
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, Ohio 856 (2006).Google Scholar