You can find these and other good Justice Research and Policy articles, as well as the JRSA Forum and Statistical Analysis Center reports, among lots of other good stuff, at http://www.jrsa.org/.
From Volume 9, No. 1.
Tammy Meredith, John C. Spier, and Sharon Johnson
Developing and Implementing Automated Risk Assessments in Parole
This article describes the efforts undertaken during the past five years for the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles to develop a method for assessing parolee risk to inform the supervision level assignments of Georgian's 23,000 active parolees. The project resulted in an actuarial risk assessment method based on the analysis of over 6,000 parolees. Historically, officers conducted pencil-and-paper assessments on all new parolees entering supervision and reassessments every six months thereafter. The new instruments are automated--offender risk is derived through the execution of computerized programs that access both prison and parole data systems. Parolee risk scores are updated daily, incorporating the dynamics of daily correctional supervision progress or failure, and are provided to parole officers through web-based reports and e-mail.
Jennifer L. Schulenberg
Predicting Noncompliant Behavior Disparities in the Social Locations of Male and Female Probationers
Researchers have examined post-probation recidivism, characteristics of typical probationers, and factors affecting recidivism while under probation supervision, but little has been done to explore the linkage between gender, risk factors, and noncompliant behavior while under probation supervision, despite the fact that almost a quarter of the probation population is female. Using chi-square and logistic regression to analyze nationally representative data of active probationers, this study found predictive factors for noncompliant behavior differed by sex and that there were fewer predictive variables for women. Age, race, education level, job stability, employment status, residential instability, and familial criminality were common predictors for missing a payment, being reprimanded for rule violations, and having a disciplinary hearing. Men and women faced multiple inequalities but did so from different social locations. Nonwhite women and those with little stability were at higher odds for noncompliant behavior, whereas offense and prior history factors were predictive of some but not all noncompliant behavior by men.
Jill S. Levenson and Andrea L. Hern
Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: Unintended Consequences and Community Reentry
Many states and hundreds of local municipalities have passed zoning laws prohibiting sex offenders from living within close proximity to schools, parks, playgrounds, day care centers, and other places where children congregate. The purpose of this study was to investigate the positive and negative, intended and unintended consequences of residence restrictions on sex offenders. Results indicate that residence restrictions create housing instability for many offenders and limited accessibility to employment opportunities, social services, and social support. Young adult offenders were especially impacted because residence restrictions limited affordable housing options and often prevented them from living with family members. Implications for policy development and implementation are discussed.
Connie Hassett-Walker and Douglas J. Boyle
Conducting Criminological Research in a Hospital: The Results of Two Exploratory Studies and Implications for Prevention
This article discusses the results of two exploratory studies using hospital data on intentional assault injury. Study #1 was a two-year gunshot wound (GSW) surveillance effort (N=920). A map of the EMS dispatch addresses revealed that certain neighborhoods were "hotspots" for gun violence. Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that poverty, vacant housing and rental housing were significant predictors of a neighborhood's GSW rate. Study #2 involved interviews with assaulted patients (N=30). More than half of the sample had been incarcerated, which is striking considering their young age (i.e., 21 years old and younger). Prevention implications of both studies are discussed.