D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 0 Federal PROBATION a j o u r n a l o f c o r r e c t i o n a l p h i l o s o p h y a n d p r a c t i c e I N T H I S I S S U E : Denial of Parole: An Inmate Perspective Overview of Federal Home Confinement Sober and Socially Responsible: Treating Federal Offenders Genetic Factors and Criminal Behavior Training Juvenile Probation Officers Who Lives in Super-Maximum Custody? Equal or Equitable: Educational and Vocational Programs for Male and Female Offenders Probation Department Sentencing Training the Substance Abuse Specialist “Up to Speed”—Juvenile Curfew Laws and Crime “The Cutting Edge”—Distance Learning “Looking at the Law”—Guide to Revocation Sentences Federal A D V I S O R Y C O M M I T T E E PROBATION s p e c i a l a d v i s o r s a j o u r n a l o f c o r r e c t i o n a l Richard A. Chappell Merrill A. Smith p h i l o s o p h y a n d p r a c t i c e m e m b e r s Dan Richard Beto Correctional Management Institute of Texas P U B L I S H E D B Y Huntsville, Texas The Administrative Office of the United States Courts Loren Buddress Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director Chief Probation Officer San Mateo County, California John M. Hughes, Chief John W. Byrd Federal Corrections and Supervision Division United States Pretrial Office San Antonio, Texas Honorable James G. Carr Federal Probation ISSN 0014-9128 is dedicated to informing its readers about current United States District Court thought, research, and practice in corrections and criminal justice. The journal welcomes Toledo, Ohio the contributions of persons who work with or study juvenile and adult offenders and Alvin W. Cohn invites authors to submit articles describing experience or significant findings regarding the Administration of Justice Services, Inc. prevention and control of delinquency and crime. A style sheet is available from the editor. Rockville, Maryland Federal Probation is published semiannually in June and December. Permission to quote is Ronald P. Corbett, Jr. Executive Director, Supreme Judicial Court granted on the condition that appropriate credit is given the author and Federal Probation. Boston, Massachusetts For information about reprinting articles, please contact the editor. Cecil E. Greek Florida State University Subscriptions to Federal Probation are available from the Superintendent of Documents at Tallahassee, Florida an annual rate of $10.00 ($12.50 foreign). Please see the subscription order form on the last page of this issue for more information. Thomas Henry United States Pretrial Office Newark, New Jersey Magdeline Jensen United States Probation Office E D I T O R I A L S T A F F Tucson, Arizona Jolanta Juszkiewicz Timothy P. Cadigan, Executive Editor Pretrial Services Resource Center Ellen Wilson Fielding, Editor Washington, DC Janice G. Barbour, Editorial Secretary Honorable David D. Noce United States District Court St. Louis, Missouri Federal Probation Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Joan Petersilia University of California, Irvine Washington, DC 20544 Irvine, California telephone: 202-502-1600 fax: 202-502-1677 Charles F. Wellford University of Maryland College Park, Maryland Postmaster: Please send address changes to the editor at the address above. December 2000 1 THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF Denial of Parole: An Inmate Perspective 3 The bulk of parole decision-making focuses almost exclusively on the discretion exercised by parole board members and the factors that affect their decisions to grant or deny parole. The present study seeks to advance the work on parole decision-making by considering the inmate’s perspective; specifically, the viewpoint of inmates whose release on parole has been denied. Based on letters written by inmates to the Colorado parole board, we explore the nature of the problems inmates experienced. Mary West-Smith, Mark R. Pogrebin, Eric D. Poole Overview of the Federal Home Confinement Program (1988–1996) 11 Over the past two decades, home confinement has gained acceptance as a credible noncustodial sanction and alternative to incarceration. This article reviews home confinement in the federal courts and presents an overview of the program based on data collected on over 17,000 program participants from 1988 through 1996. Darren Gowen Sober and Socially Responsible: A Two-Pronged Approach to Treating Federal Offenders 19 The author proposes the integration of characterological counseling/therapy with the substance abuse treatment that is mandated for federal offenders in the community. She describes the theory and practice of characterological work with offenders and suggests ways to implement this kind of programming in community agencies. Helen Lodge Glick Genetic Factors and Criminal Behavior 24 Criminal behavior results from a complex interplay of social and genetic factors. Until recently, the majority of criminological research focused solely on social contributors, either minimizing or negating the importance of genetics on criminal behavior. In the past 15 years, however, a large body of evidence has emerged suggesting that the etiology of criminal behavior may be better understood when genetic factors are also taken into account. Jasmine A. Tehrani, Sarnoff A. Mednick Training Juvenile Probation Officers: National Trends and Practice 28 Juvenile probation caseloads include more offenders and more serious offenders. The authors surveyed the states and the District of Columbia about juvenile probation requirements in their state. The results show a wide range of practice regarding certification, training required, and the like. With increased responsibilities placed on juvenile probation officers, the authors ask whether the training of such officers is adequate for the jobs they are required to do. Frances P. Reddington, Betsy Wright Kreisel Who Lives in Super-Maximum Custody: A Washington State Study 33 The authors profile Intensive Management (also known as super-maximum custody) residents in Washington State prison in terms of criminal history, demographics, sentence characteristics, prison behavior, and mental health issues. They describe a variety of prison career patterns among IMU residents and consider the policy implications of their findings. David Lovell, Kristin Cloyes, David Allen, Lorna Rhodes Equal or Equitable: An Exploration of Educational and Vocational Program Availability for Male and Female Offenders 39 Existing research shows that the disparity between male and female inmates in terms of educational and vocational programming opportunities seems to be narrowing. After examining the available educational and vocational programs in over 400 United States institutions, the author finds that female inmates are being offered similar educational opportunities, though institutions for female inmates still predominantly offer training in lower-paying “women’s work.” Karen F. Lahm 2 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 64 Number 2 Probation Department Sentencing: Recommendations in Two Utah Counties 47 The authors analyze the sentencing recommendations in presentence investigation reports randomly selected from two counties in the State of Utah. They compare the recommended sentence with the actual judicial sentence, and also determine the degree to which the probation staff adhered to their own sentencing guideline system. Finally, they examine attitudes of judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and probation/parole officers toward issues related to sentencing. Michael D. Norman, Robert C. Wadman Training the Substance Abuse Specialist 52 The authors describe in detail the selection and training process developed for substance abuse specialists in the Los Angeles federal probation office. Training includes both an academic component (including such topics as substance abuse philosophy, assessment, dual diagnosis, and supervising the substance abuser) and an experiential component, in which each participant supervises (with support) such caseload for three months. Sam Torres, Robert M. Latta D E P A R T M E N T S Up to Speed 58 The Cutting Edge 64 Looking at the Law 67 Juvenile Focus 74 Your Bookshelf on Review 78 Reviews of Periodicals 82 Index of Articles and Book Reviews 85 The articles and reviews that appear in Federal Probation express the points of view of the persons who wrote them and not necessar- ily the points of view of the agencies and organizations with which these persons are affiliated. Moreover, Federal Probation’s publi- cation of the articles and review is not to be taken as an endorsement of the material by the editors, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, or the Federal Probation and Pretrial Services System. December 2000 3 Denial of Parole: An Inmate Perspective Mary West-Smith, University of Colorado Mark R. Pogrebin, University of Colorado Eric D. Poole, University of Colorado LIKE MANY OTHER discretionary de- only to hear the ultimate decision and a sum- preme Court held that, although there is no cisions made about inmates (e.g., classifica- mary of the reasons for it). This common constitutional right to parole, state statutes tion, housing, treatment, discipline, etc.), practice protects the confidentiality of indi- may create a protected liberty interest where those involving parole are rather complex. vidual board members’ actions; however, it a state’s parole system entitles inmates to pa- Parole board members typically review an precludes the inmate from hearing the dis- role if they meet certain conditions. Under extensive array of information sources in ar- cussions of the case, evaluations of strengths such circumstances, the state has created a riving at their decisions, and empirical re- and weaknesses, or prognosis for success or presumption that inmates who meet specific search has shown a wide variation in the de- failure. More importantly, this practice fails requirements will be granted parole. Although cision-making process. The bulk of research to provide guidance in terms of how to im- the existence of a parole system does not by on parole decision-making dates from the prove subsequent chances for successful pa- itself give rise to an expectation of parole, mid 1960s to the mid 1980s (e.g., Gottfredson role consideration.