uery = SB932 & currpage = 1 & showstatus = on & press1 = docs ( last visited April 27 , 2007 ).
57 Howard Zehr , 2002 , 12 , supra .
The Predictive Validity of the LSI-R on a Sample of Offenders Drawn from the Records of the Iowa Department of Corrections Data Management System
1 The predictive validity of the LSI-R by race and ethnicity has been mixed and is still requiring
additional research . However , studies have reported modest predictive validity by ethnicity ( Holsinger , Lowenkamp & Latessa , 2006 ) and low predictive validity by race ( Schlager & Simourd , 2007 ).
2 A t-test , comparing the difference in means , or average LSI-R total scores , found that there was
a significant difference in the actual total scores between probation and parole . However , based on the MHS cutoffs , both supervision status types would still be categorized as a moderate risk level .
3 The average score on the Criminal History domain for the Parole Group was 6.70 and the
average score on the Criminal History domain for the Probation Group was 3.94 . A t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between these two risk scores ( p <. 001 ).
4 The smaller sample size of female parolees ( N = 26 ) and non-white parolees ( N = 53 ), may account for the lack of significance with these correlations .
Probation and Parole Officers Speak Out — Caseload and Workload Allocation
1 This lack of certainty of punishment is contrary to traditional conceptions of deterrence
theories , which are predicated on the notion of offenders perceiving that criminal behaviors and technical violations will be met with punishment . Many jurisdictions are finding it difficult to respond adequately to noncompliant probationer behaviors due to overcrowding and funding issues , with some courts actually informally requesting that only the most serious probation violators be brought back to court .
2 See Warchol ( 2000 ) and Bonta , Wallace- Capretta , and Rooney ( 2000 ) for a more complete
historical development of ISPs . On the effects of caseload size , see Worrall , Schram , Hays , and Newman ( 2004 )
Thacher , Augustus , and Hill — The Path to Statutory Probation in the United States and England
1 The author is grateful to Professors Andrew Karmen and John Kleinig of John Jay College of Criminal Justice for their helpful comments
Looking at the Law — Probation Officers ’ Authority to Require Drug Testing
1 In 1984 , Congress replaced the Federal Probation Act with provisions in the SRA that repealed
the chapter in Title 18 that contained the Federal Probation Act ( except for ‘ 3656 , which was renumbered ‘ 3672 ), effective November 1 , 1987 . While new ’ 3603 applied only to offenses committed after November 1 , 1987 , the following language in ’ 3655 , construed by courts to authorize officers to require drug tests , was carried over to new ’ 3603 : ’ 3655 . Duties of probation officers . The probation officer shall furnish to each probationer under his supervision a written statement of the conditions of probation and shall instruct him regarding the same . He shall keep informed concerning the conduct and condition of each probationer under his supervision and shall report thereon to the court placing such person on probation . He shall use all suitable methods , not inconsistent with the conditions imposed by the court , to aid probationers and to bring about improvements in their conduct and condition . 18 U . S . C . ’ 3655 ( 1984 ) ( repealed ).
2 See United States v . Stephens , 424 F . 3d 876 , 885 ( 9th Cir . 2005 ) ( Clifton , J ., concurring in