NCJ Number
88428
Date Published
1983
Length
21 pages
Annotation
Funders, researchers, and practitioners hold generally similar views regarding the ranking of six dimensions for rating the performance of probation and parole agencies, but the differences among their weightings of the dimensions would lead to different funding decisions.
Abstract
The study sample consisted of 100 practitioners listed in the 1981 Directory of Probation and Parole Agencies, 100 researchers from the membership of the American Society of Criminology, and 50 State executive or legislative budget offices. Forty-one funders, 43 practitioners, and 48 researchers responded to the mailed survey. They rated the relative importance of six performance dimensions: quantity, as shown by the number of offenders supervised; quality, as shown by the percentage of referrals followed up; equity, as shown by the percentage of identified problems that resulted in referrals to obtain help; efficiency, as shown by the annual cost per offender supervised; benefit, as shown by the number of early and regular terminations as a percentage of total terminations; and cost-effectiveness, as shown by the cost per successful termination. The respondents generally rated benefit and quality as being substantially more important than quantity or efficiency. The ratings showed the most variations for the equity and cost-effectiveness dimensions. The three groups' ratings produced similar overall rankings for five agencies, but produced variations in rankings for 80 hypothetical agencies. Even for the five agencies, the differences in the weightings assigned by the three groups would produce substantial effects on funding decisions. Further research should focus on determining who should establish the weights of overall performance measurement is used in funding decisions. Figures, tables, and a list of five references are supplied.