The current study examined whether supervision following release from a Dutch prison in 2012 or 2013 relates to reoffending both during and after the supervision period. A combination of matching by variable and Mahalanobis distance matching was used to match supervised persons to persons who were not supervised after release. Multi-state survival models and zero-truncated negative binomial regressions were used to study the risk and frequency of reoffending. The results suggest that being under supervision following release from prison in the Netherlands is not related to the risk and frequency of reoffending either during or after the supervision period. Possible explanations are discussed and directions for future research are explored.
AartenP. G. M.DenkersA.BorgersM. J.Van Der LaanP. H. (2015). Reconviction rates after suspended sentences: Comparison of the effects of different types of suspended sentences on reconviction in the Netherlands. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X13508929
2.
AebiM. F.DelgrandeN. (2014). Council of Europe annual penal statistics, space I – prison populations – survey 2012. Council of Europe.
3.
AebiM. F.HashimotoY. Z. (2019). Council of Europe annual penal statistics: Persons under the supervision of probation agencies. Council of Europe.
4.
AustinP. C.CafriG. (2020). Variance estimation when using propensity-score matching with replacement with survival or time-to-event outcomes. Statistics in Medicine, 39(11), 1623–1640. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.8502
BontaJ.AndrewsD. (2010). Viewing offender assessment and rehabilitation through the lens of the risk-need-responsivity model. In McNeillF.RaynorP.TrotterC. (Eds.), Offender supervision: New directions in theory, research and practice (pp. 19–40). Willan Publishers.
7.
BontaJ.RuggeT.ScottT. L.BourgonG.YessineA. K. (2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47(3), 248–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509670802134085
8.
BooneM. (2015). Community punishment in the Netherlands. A history of crises and incidents. In RobinsonG.McNeillF. (Eds.), Community punishment, European perspectives (pp. 95–113). Routledge.
9.
BooneM.BeckmannM. (2018). Revocation and recall in the Netherlands. In BooneM.MaguireN. (Eds.), The enforcement of offender supervision in Europe: Understanding breach processes (pp. 222–236). Routledge.
10.
BooneM.Van der KooijM.RapS. (2016). Current uses of electronic monitoring in the Netherlands. Utrecht University.
11.
BoskerJ.WittemanC. (2016). Finding the right focus: Improving the link between risk/needs assessment and case management in probation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(2), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000075
12.
BrandE.JornaA.Van OsR. (2020). Ontwikkeling van de leefsituatie van volwassen ex-justitiabelen [Development of the living situation of adult ex-offenders]. DJI.
13.
BrennanT.DieterichW.EhretB. (2009). Evaluating the predictive validity of the COMPAS risk and needs assessment system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808326545
14.
BushwayS. D.PiqueroA. R.BroidyL. M.CauffmanE.MazerolleP. (2001). An empirical framework for studying desistance as a process. Criminology, 39(2), 491–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00931.x
15.
ChadwickN.DewolfA.SerinR. C. (2015). Effectively training community supervisions: A meta-analytic review of the impact on community outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 977–989. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815595661
16.
ClarkC.BalesW. D.ScaggsS.EnsleyD.ColtharpP.BlombergT. G. (2015). Assessing the impact of post-release community supervision on post-release recidivism and employment. U.S. Department of Justice.
17.
De KokM.TiggesL.Van KalmthoutA. M. (2020). Probation in Europe: The Netherlands. Confederation of European Probation.
18.
De WreedeL. C.FioccoM.PutterH. (2011). Mstate: An r package for the analysis of competing risks and multi-state models. Journal of Statistical Software, 38(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v038.i07
19.
DoekhieJ.van GinnekenE.DirkzwagerA.NieuwbeertaP. (2018). Managing risk or supporting desistance? A longitudinal study on the nature and perceptions of parole supervision in the Netherlands. Journal of Developmental and Life-course Criminology, 4(4), 491–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-018-0097-6
20.
DrakeE.AosS.MillerM. G. (2009). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications in Washington state. Victims and Offenders, 4, 170–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880802612615
21.
DrakeE.BarnoskiR. P. (2006). The effects of parole on recidivism: Juvenile offenders released from Washington state institutions. Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
22.
GendreauP.GogginC.FultonB. (2001). Intensive supervision in probation and parole settings. In HollinC. R. (Ed.), Handbook of offender assessment and treatment (pp. 195–204). John Wiley & Sons.
23.
GlazermanS.LevyD. M.MyersD. (2003). Nonexperimental versus experimental estimates of earnings impacts. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589(1), 63–93.
24.
GottfredsonM. R.Mitchel-HerzfeldS. D.FlanaganT. J. (1982). Another look at the effectiveness of parole supervision. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 19(2), 277–298.
25.
GreenD. P.WinikD. (2010). Using random judge assignments to estimate the effects of incarceration and probation on recidivism among drug offenders. Criminology, 48(2), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00189.x
HardingD. J.MorenoffJ. D.NguyenA. P.BushwayS. D. (2017). Short-and long-term effects of imprisonment on future felony convictions and prison admissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 114(42), 11103–11108. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1701544114
28.
HarteJ. M.MalschM.van DijkD.VergouwS. J. (2014). De voorwaardelijke straf: Stok achter de deur of vrijbrief voor de verdachte? [The suspended sentence: Incentive or free pass for the suspect?]. NSCR.
29.
HorneyJ.OsgoodD. W.MarshallI. H. (1995). Criminal careers in the short-term: Intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances. American Sociological Review, 60, 655–673. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096316
30.
HyattJ. M.BarnesG. C. (2017). An experimental evaluation of the impact of intensive supervision on the recidivism of high-risk probationers. Crime & Delinquency, 63(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128714555757
31.
JacksonP. C. (1983). Some effects of parole supervision on recidivism. British Journal of Criminology, 23, 17.
32.
JannB. (2017). Kmatch: Stata module module for multivariate-distance and propensity-score matching, including entropy balancing, inverse probability weighting, (coarsened) exact matching, and regression adjustment (Statistical Software Components, S458346). Boston College Department of Economics.
33.
JonesM.RogersJ. (2014). Recidivism after release from prison. State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections.
34.
KaebleD. (2021). Time served in state prison: 2018. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
35.
KaebleD.AlperM. (2020). Probation and parole in the United States, 2017-2018. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
36.
KennealyP. J.SkeemJ. L.ManchakS. M.Eno LoudenJ. (2012). Firm, fair, and caring officer-offender relationships protect against supervision failure. Law and Human Behavior, 36(6), 496. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093935
37.
KingG.NielsenR. (2019). Why propensity scores should not be used for matching. Political Analysis, 27(4), 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.11
38.
KlingeleC. (2014). What are we hoping for: Defining purpose in deterrence-based correctional programs. Minnesota Law Review, 99, 1631–1662.
39.
LabrecqueR. M.ViglioneJ.CaudyM. (2023). The impact of community supervision officer training programs on officer and client outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 40, 587–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2022.2120062
40.
LaiK. (2013). Does supervision after release from prison reduce re-offending?Ministry of Justice.
41.
LightM. T.WerminkH. (2021). The criminal case processing of foreign nationals in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review, 37, 104–120. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcaa039
42.
LloydC. D.HansonR. K.RichardsD. K.SerinR. C. (2020). Reassessment improves prediction of criminal recidivism: A prospective study of 3,421 individuals in New Zealand. Psychological Assessment, 32, 568. https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fpas0000813
43.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.004
44.
LowenkampC. T.PalerJ.SmithP.LatessaE. J. (2006). Adhering to the risk and need principles: Does it matter for supervision-based programs. Federal Probation Journal, 70, 3.
45.
MarunaS. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. American Psychological Association.
46.
MaxwellS. R.GrayM. K. (2000). Deterrence: Testing the effects of perceived sanction certainty on probation violations. Sociological Inquiry, 70(2), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2000.tb00901.x
MengerA.DonkerA.G. (2012). Bronnen van professionele effectiviteit: Over verantwoordelijkheid en ruimte van reclasseringswerkers [Sources of professional effectiviness: About responsibility and discretionary space of supervision officers]. Justitiele verkenningen, 38, 24–42.
49.
MillerA. D.JonesM. S.SchleiferC. (2019). The overall and gendered effects of postrelease supervision on recidivism: A propensity score analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(7), 1020–1043. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819847697
50.
OstermannM. (2013). Active supervision and its impact upon parolee recidivism rates. Crime & Delinquency, 59(4), 487–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128712470680
51.
OstermannM. (2015). How do former inmates perform in the community? A survival analysis of rearrests, reconvictions, and technical parole violations. Crime & Delinquency, 61(2), 163–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128710396425
52.
OstermannM.SalernoL. M.HyattJ. M. (2015). How different operationalizations of recidivism impact conclusions of effectiveness of parole supervision. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(6), 771–796. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427815580626
53.
PaparozziM. A.GendreauP. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85(4), 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885505281529
54.
PayneE. H.HardinJ. W.EgedeL. E.RamakrishnanV.SelassieA.GebregziabherM. (2017). Approaches for dealing with various sources of overdispersion in modeling count data: Scale adjustment versus modeling. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 26(4), 1802–1823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280215588569
55.
The PEW Charitable Trusts. (2013). The impact of parole in New Jersey. The PEW Charitable Trusts.
56.
PhelpsM. S. (2013). The paradox of probation: Community supervision in the age of mass incarceration. Law & Policy, 35(1–2), 51–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12002
57.
PlaisierJ.PennekampS. (2009). Plan evaluation of the new method for supervision of offenders. Impact R&D.
58.
RhodesW.DyousC.KlingR.HuntD.LuallenJ. (2013). Recidivism of offenders on federal community supervision. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
59.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1985.10479383
60.
RubinD. B. (2001). Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: Application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2(3), 169–188.
61.
RubinD. B.ThomasN. (1996). Matching using estimated propensity scores: Relating theory to practice. Biometrics, 52, 249–264. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533160
62.
SacksH. R.LoganC. H. (1980). Parole: Crime prevention or crime postponement?U.S. Department of Justice.
63.
SchlagerM. D.RobbinsK. (2008). Does parole work? Revisited: Reframing the discussion of the impact of postprison supervision on offender outcome. The Prison Journal, 88(2), 234–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885508319164
64.
SolomonA. L.KachnowskiV.BhatiA. (2005). Does parole work: Analyzing the impact of post-release supervision on rearrest outcomes. The Urban Institute.
65.
SpivakA. L.DamphousseK. R. (2006). Who returns to prison? A survival analysis of recidivism among adult offenders released in Oklahoma, 1985–2004. Justice Research and Policy, 8(2), 57–88. https://doi.org/10.3818/JRP.8.2.2006.57
66.
StamM.WerminkH.BloklandA.BeenJ. (2023). The effects of imprisonment length on recidivism: A judge stringency instrumental variable approach. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 19, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09566-w
67.
SturmA. (2022). To be trusted: The role of the working alliance in probation supervision. Ipskamp Printing.
Uit BeijerseJ.StruijkS.BleichrodtF. W.BakkerS. R.SalverdaB. A.MelvisP. A. M. (2018). De praktijk van de voorwaardelijke invrijheidstelling in relatie tot speciale preventie en re-integratie [Correlation between the suspended sentence in practice and special prevention and re-integration]. Erasmus Universiteit.
Van WingerdenS.MoeringsM.WilsemJ. V. (2013). ‘Krijgt hij nog een kans, of rekenen we af?’ Rechters over de rol van het recidiverisico bij de straftoemeting [‘Does he get another chance?’ Judges about recidivism risk in sentencing decisions]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 34, 2315–2320.
73.
VerweijS.TollenaarN.TeerlinkM.WeijtersG. (2021). Recidivism among offenders in the Netherlands: Report on the period 2008-2020. WODC.
74.
VerweijS.WeijtersG. (2020). Recidivism during and after supervision by the probation and parole service: An investigation into the execution and the relationship with recidivism. WODC.
75.
VinkM.DiephuisB. J. (2021). Berechting [trial]. In MeijerR. F.MoolenaarD. E. G.ChoenniR.Van den BraakS. W. (Eds.), Criminaliteit en rechtshandhaving 2020: Ontwikkelingen en samenhangen [Crime and law enforcement 2020: Trends and correlations] (pp. 69–77). WODC.
76.
VitoG. F.HigginsG. E.TewksburyR. (2017). The effectiveness of parole supervision: Use of propensity score matching to analyze reincarceration rates in Kentucky. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 28(7), 627–640. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403415609717
77.
WanW. Y.PoyntonS.WeatherburnD. (2016). Does parole supervision reduce the risk of re-offending?Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49(4), 497–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865815585393
78.
WardT.BrownM. (2004). The good lives model and conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(3), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160410001662744
79.
WartnaB. S. J.BlomM.TollenaarN. (2011). The Dutch recidivism monitor. WODC.
80.
WeijtersG.MoreA.AlmaS. M. (2010). Nazorgproblematiek en recidive van kortgestrafte gedetineerden [Aftercare problems and recidivism of short-term prisoners]. WODC.
81.
ZivR. (2017). The future of correctional rehabilitation: Moving beyond the RNR model and good lives model debate. Routledge.
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.
