While correctional scholarship emphasizes the importance of addressing dynamic risk factors in changing behavior, a debate continues on the role of gendered effects relating to such factors and supervision strategies. This study advances the debate and approach to violators by examining factors that reduce recidivism among technical violators. Using a large purposive sample of people on supervision, this study assesses differences between men and women in violating behavior, the sanctions used, and subsequent responses. To isolate effects of gender, we employ propensity score modeling coupled with a doubly robust design. Findings suggest that while some gendered differences exist, effect sizes are generally small and suggest responses to violators may be best focused on dynamic factors generally, rather than gender specific.
AndrewsD. A.DowdenC. (1999). A meta-analytic investigation into effective correctional intervention for female offenders. In Forum on corrections research (Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 18–21), Correctional Service of Canada.
2.
AndrewsD. A.GuzzoL.RaynorP.RoweR. C.RettingerL. J.BrewsA.WormithJ. S. (2012). Are the major risk/need factors predictive of both female and male reoffending? A test with the eight domains of the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56(1), 113–133.
3.
AustinP. C. (2011). An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(3), 399–424.
4.
BarkerV. (2011). Decarceration. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(2), 283–286.
5.
BarnesG. C.AhlmanL.GillC.ShermanL. W.KurtzE.MalvestutoR. (2010). Low-intensity community supervision for low-risk offenders: A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6(2), 159–189.
6.
BarnoskiR.DrakeE. K. (2007). Washington’s offender accountability act: Department of corrections’ static risk assessment. Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
7.
BeckerS. O.CaliendoM. (2007). Sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects. Stata Journal, 7(1), 71–83.
BloomB.OwenB.CovingtonS. (2004). Women offenders and the gendered effects of public policy. Review of Policy Research, 21(1), 31–48.
10.
BogueB.CampbellN.ClawsonE.FaustD.FlorioK.JoplinL.KeiserG.WassonB.WoodwardW. (2004). Implementing evidence-based practice in community corrections: The principles of effective intervention (No. 019342). National Institute of Corrections, Community Corrections Division; Crime and Justice Institute.
11.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.
12.
BontaJ.RuggeT.ScottT.BourgonG.YessineA. K. (2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47(3), 248–270.
13.
BrennanT.BreitenbachM.DieterichW.SalisburyE. J.Van VoorhisP. (2012). Women’s pathways to serious and habitual crime a person-centered analysis incorporating gender responsive factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(11), 1481–1508.
14.
BucklenK. B. (2014). The impact of returning technical parole violators to prison: A deterrent, null, or criminogenic effect (Dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park.
15.
CampbellC. M. (2014). It’s not technically a crime investigating the relationship between technical violations and new crime. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(7), 643–667.
16.
CampbellC. M. (2015). Dooming failure: The impact, utility, and practice of revoking conditional release (Dissertation). Washington State University.
17.
CampbellC. M.LabrecqueR. M. (2018). Panacea or poison: Can propensity score modeling (PSM) methods replicate the results from randomized control trials (RCTs)?” (Award Number: 2016-R2-CX-0030). Final report to the National Institute of Justice.
18.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.
19.
CookN. R. (2008). Statistical evaluation of prognostic versus diagnostic models: Beyond the ROC curve. Clinical Chemistry, 54(1), 17–23.
20.
CummingG.Calin-JagemanR. (2016). Introduction to the new statistics: Estimation, open science, and beyond (Reprint ed.). Routledge.
21.
DowdenC.AndrewsD. A. (2000). Effective correctional treatment and violent reoffending: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42(4), 449–467.
22.
DrakeE. K.AosS. (2012). Confinement for technical violations of community supervision: Is there an effect on felony recidivism? (No. 12-07-1201). Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
23.
DuroseM. R.CooperA. D.SnyderH. N. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005–2010 (Special Report No. NCJ 244205). Bureau of Justice Statistics.
24.
ErwinB. S. (1986). Final report of the georgia intensive probation supervision project. Department of Corrections.
25.
FinnM. A.Muirhead-StevesS. (2002). The effectiveness of electronic monitoring with violent male parolees. Justice Quarterly, 19(2), 293–312.
26.
FranklinT. W. (2015). Race and ethnicity effects in federal sentencing: A propensity score analysis. Justice Quarterly, 32(4), 653–679.
27.
GendreauP.FrenchS.GionetA. (2004). What works (what doesn’t): The principles of effective correctional treatment. Journal of Community Corrections, 13(3), 4–6.
28.
GobeilR.BlanchetteK.StewartL. (2016). A meta-analytic review of correctional interventions for women offenders: Gender-neutral versus gender-informed approaches. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(3), 301–322.
29.
GrattetR.LinJ. (2016). Supervision intensity and parole outcomes: A competing risks approach to criminal and technical parole violations. Justice Quarterly, 33(4), 565–583.
30.
GrattetR.PetersiliaJ.LinJ.BeckmanM. (2009). Parole violations and revocations in California: Analysis and suggestions for action. Federal Probation, 73(1), 2.
31.
GreinerL. E.LawM. A.BrownS. L. (2015). Using dynamic factors to predict recidivism among women: A four-wave prospective study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(5), 457–480.
32.
GuoS.FraserM. W. (2014). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
33.
HamiltonZ. K. (2011). Adapting to bad news: Lessons from the Harlem Parole Reentry Court. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50(7), 385–410.
34.
HamiltonZ. K.CampbellC. M. (2013). A dark figure of corrections failure by way of participation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(2), 180–202.
35.
HamiltonZ. K.CampbellC. M. (2014). Uncommonly observed the impact of New Jersey’s halfway house system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(11), 1354–1375.
36.
HamiltonZ. K.CampbellC. M.van WormerJ.KigerlA.PoseyB. (2016). The impact of swift and certain sanctions: An evaluation of Washington State’s policy for offenders on community supervision. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(4), 1009–1072.
37.
HamiltonZ.KigerlA.CampagnaM.BarnoskiR.LeeS.van WormerJ.BlockL. (2016). Designed to fit: The development and validation of the STRONG-R ecidivism risk assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(2), 230–263.
38.
HamiltonZ.KigerlA.HaysZ. (2015). Removing release impediments and reducing correctional costs: Evaluation of Washington State’s Housing Voucher Program. Justice Quarterly, 32(2), 255–287.
39.
HarrellA.RomanJ. (2001). Reducing drug use and crime among offenders: The impact of graduated sanctions. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1), 207–231.
40.
HarrisonP. (2017). Phone interview and review of this manuscript with Paige Harrison, former Director of Research at Washington State Department of Corrections.
41.
HawkenA. (2010). Behavioral triage: A new model for identifying and treating substance-abusing offenders. Journal of Drug Policy Analysis, 3(1), 1–86.
42.
HawkenA.KulickJ.SmithK.MeiJ.ZhangY.JarmanS.YuT.CarsonC.VialT. (2016). HOPE II: A follow-up to Hawai’i’s HOPE evaluation (No. NIJ 249912). School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University.
43.
HoltfreterK.WattanapornK.A. (2014). The transition from prison to community initiative: An examination of gender responsiveness for female offender reentry. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(1), 41–57.
JolliffeD.HeddermanC. (2015). Investigating the impact of custody on reoffending using propensity score matching. Crime & Delinquency, 61(8), 1051–1077.
46.
KleimanM. A. R.KilmerB.FisherD. T. (2014). Theory and evidence on the swift-certain-fair approach to enforcing conditions of community supervision. Federal Probation, 78, 71.
47.
KubrinC. E.StewartE. A. (2006). Predicting who reoffends: The neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies. Criminology, 44(1), 165–197.
48.
KurthT.WalkerA. M.GlynnR. J.ChanK. A.GazianoJ. M.BergerK.RobinsJ. M. (2006). Results of multivariable logistic regression, propensity matching, propensity adjustment, and propensity-based weighting under conditions of nonuniform effect. American Journal of Epidemiology, 163(3), 262–270.
49.
LabrecqueR. M.SmithP.LovinsB.LatessaE. J. (2014). The importance of reassessment: How changes in the LSI-R risk score can improve the prediction of recidivism. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(2), 116–128.
50.
LatimoreP. K.MacKenzieD. L.DawesD.TuellerS. (2016). Outcome findings from the HOPE demonstration field experiment: Is swift, certain, and fair an effective supervision strategy?Criminology & Public Policy, 15(4), 1103–1141.
51.
LeeW.-S. (2011). Propensity score matching and variations on the balancing test. Empirical Economics, 44(1), 47–80.
52.
LeiteW. (2017). Practical propensity score methods using R. SAGE Publications.
53.
LipseyM.LandenbergerN. A.WilsonS. J.LipseyM.LandenbergerN. A.WilsonS. J. (2007). Effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for criminal offenders: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 3(6), 1–27.
54.
LowenkampC. T.FloresA. W.HolsingerA. M.MakariosM. D.LatessaE. J. (2010). Intensive supervision programs: Does program philosophy and the principles of effective intervention matter?Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 368–375.
55.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2005). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement. Criminology & Public Policy, 4(2), 263–290.
56.
LutzeF. E.RoskyJ. W.HamiltonZ. K. (2014). Homelessness and reentry a multisite outcome evaluation of Washington State’s reentry housing program for high risk offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(4), 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813510164
57.
MessinaN.CalhounS.WardaU. (2012). Gender-responsive drug court treatment: A randomized controlled trial. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(12), 1539–1558.
58.
MorashM.KashyD. A.SmithS. W.CobbinaJ. E. (2015). The effect of probation or parole agent relationship style and women offenders’ criminogenic need on offenders’ responses to supervision interactions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(4), 412–434.
59.
MorashM.KashyD. A.SmithS. W.CobbinaJ. E. (2016). The connection of probation/parole officer actions to women offenders’ recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(4), 506–524.
60.
MorashM.KashyD. A.SmithS. W.CobbinaJ. E. (2019). Technical violations, treatment and punishment responses, and recidivism of women on probation and parole. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(5), 788–810.
61.
O’ConnellD. J.BrentJ. J.VisherC. A. (2016). Decide your time: A randomized trial of a drug testing and graduated sanctions program for probationers. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(4), 1073–1102.
62.
OnifadeE.WilkinsJ.DavidsonW.CampbellC.PetersenJ. (2011). A comparative analysis of recidivism with propensity score matching of informal and formal juvenile probationers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50(8), 531–546.
63.
OstermannM. (2009). An analysis of New Jersey’s day reporting center and halfway back programs: Embracing the rehabilitative ideal through evidence based practices. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(2), 139–153.
64.
OstermannM.SalernoL. M. (2016). The validity of the level of service inventory – Revised at the intersection of race and gender. The Prison Journal, 96(4), 554–575.
65.
PadgettK. G.BalesW. D.BlombergT. G. (2006). Under surveillance: An empirical test of the effectiveness and consequences of electronic monitoring. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(1), 61–91.
66.
PetersiliaJ.TurnerS. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. Crime and Justice, 17, 281–335.
67.
PrendergastM. L.PearsonF. S.PodusD.HamiltonZ. K.GreenwellL. (2013). The Andrews’ principles of risk, needs, and responsivity as applied in drug treatment programs: meta-analysis of crime and drug use outcomes. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(3), 275–300.
68.
RiceM. E.HarrisG. T. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29(5), 615–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7
69.
RettingerL. J.AndrewsD. A. (2010). General risk and need, gender specificity, and the recidivism of female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(1), 29–46.
70.
RosenbaumP. R. (2002). Observational studies. Springer.
71.
RosenbaumP. R. (2005). Sensitivity analysis in observational studies. In Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science (Vol. 4, pp. 1809–1814). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
72.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.
73.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39(1), 33–38.
74.
SalisburyE. J.Van VoorhisP. (2009). Gendered pathways: A quantitative investigation of women probationers’ paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(6), 541–566.
75.
SalisburyE. J.Van VoorhisP.SpiropoulosG. V. (2009). The predictive validity of a gender-responsive needs assessment: An exploratory study. Crime & Delinquency, 55(4), 550–585.
76.
SaxenaP.MessinaN. P.GrellaC. E. (2014). Who benefits from gender-responsive treatment? Accounting for abuse history on longitudinal outcomes for women in prison. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(4), 417–432.
77.
SkeemJ.MonahanJ.LowenkampC. (2016). Gender, risk assessment, and sanctioning: The cost of treating women like men. Law and Human Behavior, 40(5), 580–593.
78.
ShafferD. K. (2011). Looking inside the black box of drug courts: A meta-analytic review. Justice Quarterly, 28(3), 493–521.
79.
SmithP.CullenF. T.LatessaE. J. (2009). Can 14,737 women be wrong? A meta-analysis of the LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 8(1), 183–208.
80.
SpenceD. H.HaasS. M. (2015). Predicting client success in day report centers: The importance of risk and needs assessment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 54(7), 502–519.
81.
StuartE. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science: A Review Journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 25(1), 1–21.
82.
TaxmanF. S. (1999). Unraveling “what works” for offenders in substance abuse treatment services. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2(2), 93.
83.
TaxmanF. S. (2012). Crime control in the twenty-first century: Science-Based Supervision (SBS). Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(2), 135–144.
84.
TaxmanF. S.BelenkoS. (2012). Current state of EBP in community corrections field. In Implementing evidence-based practices in community corrections and addiction treatment (pp. 151–188). Springer.
85.
TaxmanF. S.ByrneJ. M.YoungD. W. (2002). Targeting for reentry: Matching needs and services to maximize public safety. Bureau of Governmental Research, University of Maryland.
86.
TaxmanF. S.SouleD.GelbA. (1999). Graduated sanctions: Stepping into accountable systems and offenders. The Prison Journal, 79(2), 182–204.
87.
van WormerK.KaplanL. E. (2006). Results of a national survey of wardens in women’s prisons: The case for gender specific treatment. Women & Therapy, 29(1/2), 133–151.
88.
Van VoorhisP.WrightE. M.SalisburyE.BaumanA. (2010). Women’s risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment the current status of a gender-responsive supplement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(3), 261–288.
89.
VitoG. F.HigginsG. E.TewksburyR. (2015). The effectiveness of parole supervision use of propensity score matching to analyze reincarceration rates in Kentucky. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 28(7), 627–640.
WattanapornK. A.HoltfreterK. (2014). The impact of feminist pathways research on gender-responsive policy and practice. Feminist Criminology, 9(3), 191–207.
92.
WhiteM. D.MellowJ.EnglanderK.RuffinengoM. (2011). Halfway back: An alternative to revocation for technical parole violators. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22(2), 140–166.
93.
WodahlE. J.BomanJ. H.IVGarlandB. E. (2015). Responding to probation and parole violations: Are jail sanctions more effective than community-based graduated sanctions?Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(3), 242–250.
WojtowiczJ. P.TongyinL. (2006). A seven-year analysis of walk-away rates of the New Jersey Halfway House Program. Corrections Compendium, 31(6), 6–23.
96.
WooldridgeJ. M. (2005). Violating ignorability of treatment by controlling for too many factors. Econometric Theory, 21(05), 1026–1028.
97.
YesbergJ. A.ScanlanJ. M.HanbyL. J.SerinR. C.PolaschekD. L. L. (2015). Predicting women’s recidivism: Validating a dynamic community-based ‘gender-neutral’ tool. Probation Journal, 62(1), 33–48.
98.
ZhangS. X.RobertsR. E. L.CallananV. J. (2006). The cost benefits of providing community-based correctional services: An evaluation of a statewide parole program in California. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(4), 341–350.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
