The presentence investigation completed by an agent of the court provides considerable information concerning the felony offender. The present work analyzes the relationship between factors identified in the presentence investigation and success or failure of first-time offenders while under probation supervision. An attempt was made to isolate the factors with the strongest relationship to success or failure. After the factors were isolated, those showing the strongest relationship to supervision were organized into a rating scale to be used by probation officers when making sentencing recommendations related to first-time felony offenders.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Attorney General's Survey of Release Procedures . (1974). Probation (Vol. 2). New York: Arno Press. (Original work published 1939)
2.
Bruce, A. A. , Herno, A. J., Burgess, E. W., & Landesco, J. (1968). The working of the indeterminate-sentencing law and the parole system in Illinois. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith.
3.
Caldwell, M. G. (1951). A review of a new type of probation study made in Alabama. Federal Probation, 15(2), 3-10.
4.
Carter, R. M. (1967). The presentence report and the decision making process. Journal of Research of Crime and Delinquency, 203-211.
5.
Carter, R. M. , & Wilkins, L. T. (1967). Some factors in sentencing policy. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Political Science. 58, 503-514.
6.
Clear, T. R. , & Gallagher, K. W. (1985). Probation and parole supervision: A review of current classification practices. Crime & Delinquency, 31, 423-443.
7.
Cockerhill, R. W. (1975). Probation effectiveness in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Corrections, 17(4), 285-291.
8.
Davis, G. F. (1964). A study in adult probation violation rate by means of a cohort approach. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Political Science, 55(1), 70-85.
9.
Eaglin, J. B. , & Lombard, P. A. (1981). Statistical risk prediction as an aid to probation caseload classification. Federal Probation, 45(3), 25-32.
10.
England, R. W. (1955). A study of post probation recidivism among 500 federal offenders. Federal Probation, 19(3), 10-16.
11.
Gillin, J. , & Hill, R. L. (1940). Success and failure of adult probationers in Wisconsin. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. 30, 807-829.
12.
Glaser, D. (1985). Who gets probation and parole: Case study versus actual decision making. Crime & Delinquency, 31, 367-378.
13.
Hemple, W. E. , Webb, W. H., & Reynolds, S. W. (1976). Researching prediction scales of probation. Federal Probation, 40(2), 33-37.
14.
Hoffman, P. B. , & Adelberg, S. (1980). The salient factor score: A non technical view. Federal Probation, 44(1), 58-64.
15.
Hoffman, P. B. , & Beck, J. L. (1980). Reevaluating the Salient Factor Score: A research note. Journal of Criminal Justice, 8(3), 185-188.
16.
Hof fman, P. B. & Beck, J. L. (1985). Recidivism among released federal prisoners: Salient Factor Score and five year follow-up. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 501-507.
17.
Irish, J. F. (1976). Assessment of adult division of supervision program effectiveness. Mineola, NY: Adult Probation Department.
18.
Kusuda, P. H. (1966). Relationship of adult probation and parole experiences to successful termination of supervision. Madison, WI: State Department of Public Welfare, Bureau of Research.
19.
Landis, J. R. , Mercer, J. D., & Wolff, C. (1969). Success and failure of adult probationers in California. Journal of Research of Crime and Delinquency, 6(1), 34-40.
20.
Martin, R. L. , Cloninger, C. R., & Guz, S. B. (1978). Female criminology and prediction of recidivism. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35(2), 207-214.
21.
Monahan, J. (1981). Predicting violent behavior: An assessment of clinical techniques. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
22.
Nicholson, R. C. (1968). Use of prediction in case load management. Federal Probation, 32(4), 54-58.
23.
O'Leary, V. (1985). Reshaping community corrections. Crime & Delinquency, 31, 349-366.
24.
Petersilia, J. , Turner, S., Kahan, J., & Peterson, J. (1985). Granting felons probation: Public risk and alternatives (Rand Study No. R-3186-NIJ). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
25.
Reed, J. P. , & King C. E. (1966). Factors and decision making of North Carolina probation officers. Journal of Research of Crime and Delinquency, 3, 120-128.
26.
Rosencrance, J. (1985). The probation officer's search for credibility; Ball-park recommendations. Crime & Delinquency, 31, 539-554.
27.
Rumney, J. , & Murphy, P. J. (1952). Probation and social adjustment. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
28.
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census . (1984). Census of Population, 1980-Characteristics of the Population (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
29.
Vito, G. F. (1976). Federal probation recidivism: Replication and response. Federal Probation, 50(4), 17-25.
30.
Wood, Y. R. , & O'Donnell, C. R. (1980). Adult probation adjustment: A twelve month follow-up. Journal of Community Psychology, 9(1), 86-92.
31.
Wright, K. W. , Clear, T. R., & Dickson, P. (1984). Universal applicability of Probation Risk Assessment instruments. Criminology, 22(1), 113-134.
