Changes in Arrest Rate as a Function of Probation and Participant Criminal History Risk: Does Probation Work Best With Lower Risk Probationers?

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether criminal history risk moderates the effect of probation on future reoffending. A sample of 327 participants from the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY97) who had been on probation were compared with 327 propensity score matched members of the NLSY97 who had been arrested but not placed on probation. Probation and arrest data analyzed between 1999 and 2008 failed to support the presence of an overall effect for probation. When the sample was divided into higher criminal history risk (one or more prior arrests) and lower criminal history risk (no prior arrests), however, probation was found to reduce recidivism in the lower criminal history risk group but not in the higher criminal history risk group. Accordingly, probation appeared to have a small but significant ameliorative effect on future offending in lower criminal history risk offenders.

Keywords

criminal history risk evidence-based probation propensity matching recidivism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: Matthew Bender.

Andrews

D. A.

Dowden

(2006). Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 88-100.

Barnes

G. C.

Ahlman

Gill

Sherman

L. W.

Kurtz

Malvestuto

(2010). Low-intensity community supervision for low-risk offenders: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 159-189.

Benedict

W. R.

Huff-Corzine

(1997). Return to the scene of the punishment: Recidivism of adult male property offenders on felony probation, 1986-1989. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 34, 237-252.

Bishara

A. J.

Hittner

J. B.

(2012). Testing the significance of a correlation with non-normal data: Comparison of Pearson, Spearman, transformation, and resampling approaches. Psychological Methods, 17, 399-417.

Bonta

Wallace-Capretta

Rooney

(2000). A quasi-experimental evaluation of an intensive rehabilitation supervision program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 312-329.

Center for Human Resource Research. (2009). NLSY79 user’s guide. Columbus: The Ohio State University.

Clear

T. R.

Braga

(1995). Community corrections. In Wilson

J. Q.

Petersilia

(Eds.), Crime (pp. 421-444). Washington, DC: Institute for Contemporary Studies.

Cochran

J. C.

Mears

D. P.

Bales

W. D.

(2014). Assessing the effectiveness of correctional sanctions. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30, 317-347.

10.

DeLisi

Conis

P. J.

(2011). American corrections: Theory, research, policy, and practice (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.

11.

Glaze

L. E.

Bonczar

T. P.

(2011). Probation and parole in the United States, 2010. BJS Bulletin (NCJ 236019). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

12.

Gray

M. K.

Fields

Maxwell

S. R.

(2001). Examining probation violations: Who, what, and when. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 537-557.

13.

Haqanee

Peterson-Badali

Skilling

(2015). Making “what works” work: Examining probation officers’ experiences addressing the criminogenic needs of juvenile offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 54, 37-59.

14.

Hart

Collins

(2014). A “back to basics” approach to offender supervision: Does working alliance contribute toward success on probation? European Journal of Probation, 6, 112-125.

15.

Kaeble

Bonczar

T. P.

(2016, December). Probation and parole in the United States, 2015. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

16.

Langan

P. A.

Cunniff

M. A.

(1992). Recidivism of felons on probation, 1986-89 (NCJ-134177). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

17.

Lehmann

E. L.

(1975). Nonparametrics: Statistical methods based on ranks. San Francisco, CA: Holden-day.

18.

Lloyd

C. D.

Hanby

L. J.

Serin

R. C.

(2014). Rehabilitation group co-participants’ risk levels are associated with offenders’ treatment performance, treatment change, and recidivism. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82, 298-311.

19.

Lowenkamp

Latessa

Holsinger

(2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime & Delinquency, 52, 77-93.

20.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Latessa

E. J.

(2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional interventions can harm low-risk offenders. In Topics in community corrections (pp. 3-8). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice.

21.

MacKenzie

D. L.

Browning

Skroban

S. B.

Smith

D. A.

(1999). The impact of probation on the criminal activities of offenders. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 36, 423-453.

22.

Paparozzi

M. A.

Gendreau

(2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85, 445-466.

23.

Petersilia

(1998, Summer). Probation in the United States: Part II. Perspectives, 42-49.

24.

Petersilia

(2002). Community corrections. In Wilson

J. Q.

Petersilia

(Eds.), Crime: Public polices for crime control (pp. 483-508). Oakland, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press.

25.

Petersilia

Turner

Kahan

Peterson

(1985). Granting felons probation: Public risk and alternatives. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

26.

Ricks

E. P.

Eno Louden

Kennealy

P. J.

(2016). Probation officer role emphases and use of risk assessment information before and after training. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 34, 337-351.

27.

Sorsby

Shapland

Robinson

(2017). Using compliance with probation supervision as an interim outcome measure in evaluating a probation initiative. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 17, 40-61.

28.

Taxman

F. S.

Caudy

M. S.

(2015). Risk tells us who, but not what or how: Empirical assessment of the complexity of criminogenic needs to inform correctional programming. Criminology & Public Policy, 14, 71-103.

29.

Walters

G. D.

(2016). Working alliance between substance abusing offenders and their parole officers and counselors: Its impact on outcome and role as a mediator. Journal of Crime & Justice, 39, 421-437.

30.

Whitehead

(1991). The effectiveness of felony probation: Results from an eastern state. Justice Quarterly, 8, 525-543.

31.

Wilks

Nash

(2010, October). Pre-release termination and post-release recidivism rates of Colorado’s Probationers: FY releases, 2009. Denver: Division of Probation Services, State Court Administrator’s Office, Colorado Judicial Branch.