Probation EffectivenessProbation Effectiveness

Define “effective”Define “effective”

The “RAND Study”The “RAND Study”

ReplicationsReplications

Defining “Success” and Failure Defining “Success” and Failure in Probationin Probation

• Typically “Recidivism”Typically “Recidivism”– But, recent authors argue for other But, recent authors argue for other

definitionsdefinitions•Danger here?Danger here?

– What is “Recidivism?” What is “Recidivism?” •New ArrestNew Arrest

•New Conviction New Conviction

•Re-Incarceration (May include technical Re-Incarceration (May include technical violations)violations)

Other Research IssuesOther Research Issues

• Follow-up PeriodFollow-up Period– Typically 3 yearsTypically 3 years

• Sample Composition Sample Composition – What type of probationers? What type of probationers?

(representative?) (representative?)

• Probation department Probation department – Funding (“Program Integrity”)Funding (“Program Integrity”)

• Social Context of StudySocial Context of Study– Anything going on in state/county?Anything going on in state/county?

Prior to RAND ResearchPrior to RAND Research

• Allen et al. (1985)Allen et al. (1985)

– ““Prior research on probation found Prior research on probation found failure rates ranging from 16 to 55 failure rates ranging from 16 to 55 percent, depending upon the type percent, depending upon the type of offenders, follow up period, and of offenders, follow up period, and definitions of recidivism”definitions of recidivism”

The RAND Study (Funded by The RAND Study (Funded by NIJ)NIJ)

• SampleSample– 1,672 Male “Felony” Probationers 1,672 Male “Felony” Probationers

•Drug sales/possession, receiving stolen Drug sales/possession, receiving stolen property, auto theft, robbery, assaultproperty, auto theft, robbery, assault

•From Alameda and Los Angeles Counties From Alameda and Los Angeles Counties

– Tracked an average of 31 monthsTracked an average of 31 months

Results (Disseminated in NIJ Results (Disseminated in NIJ Brief)Brief)

• Rearrested Rearrested – 65%65%

• ConvictedConvicted– 51%51%

• IncarceratedIncarcerated– 34%34%

• Startling: 18% convicted of homicide, Startling: 18% convicted of homicide, rape, aggravated assault, robbery or rape, aggravated assault, robbery or weapons offensesweapons offenses

Conclusions of AuthorsConclusions of Authors

• Probation, designed for less serious Probation, designed for less serious offenders, is “inappropriate for most offenders, is “inappropriate for most felons”felons”

• Probation needs to be “redefined”Probation needs to be “redefined”– Quasi-policing strategies Quasi-policing strategies – Development of “Intermediate Sanctions”Development of “Intermediate Sanctions”

• Especially the “Promising” ISPs Especially the “Promising” ISPs

• NIJ: Prison is expensive, but you see what NIJ: Prison is expensive, but you see what happens when we use probation…happens when we use probation…

Follow-Up Studies Follow-Up Studies Attempts to ReplicateAttempts to Replicate

• Vito (1986) Vito (1986) – Representative sample in KYRepresentative sample in KY

• 22% arrest, 18% convicted, 14% incarcerated22% arrest, 18% convicted, 14% incarcerated

• McGaha (1986)McGaha (1986)– All MO felony probationers in 1980All MO felony probationers in 1980

• 22% arrest, 12% conviction22% arrest, 12% conviction

• Whitehead (1991)Whitehead (1991)– All NJ convicted of drug, robbery, burglary in All NJ convicted of drug, robbery, burglary in

1976-771976-77• 36% arrest, 31% conviction, 15% incarceration36% arrest, 31% conviction, 15% incarceration

Follow-ups ContFollow-ups Cont

• Langan and Cunniff (1992)Langan and Cunniff (1992)– 32 Counties across 17 states32 Counties across 17 states

•43% arrested, 36% incarcerated43% arrested, 36% incarcerated

• Fabelo (1996)Fabelo (1996)– Seven most populous counties in TXSeven most populous counties in TX

•31% incarcerated 31% incarcerated

So Ya See Timmy….So Ya See Timmy….

• ““Representative Samples” Representative Samples” – Much lower recidivism ratesMuch lower recidivism rates

• Closer to the Rand Study?Closer to the Rand Study?– Most populous counties in TXMost populous counties in TX– ““Urban” Counties in U.S.Urban” Counties in U.S.

Revisiting the Original StudyRevisiting the Original Study• Petersilia et al. (1986)Petersilia et al. (1986)

– Matched (priors, seriousness, other risk Matched (priors, seriousness, other risk factors) a group of felons to the original factors) a group of felons to the original RAND probation sampleRAND probation sample

– Difference? The Matched Sample went Difference? The Matched Sample went to prisonto prison

– Findings?Findings?•Matched sample that went to prison = Matched sample that went to prison =

78% arrest78% arrest

– NIJ refuses to publish brief on this studyNIJ refuses to publish brief on this study•Similar to “Martinson Recant” Similar to “Martinson Recant”

CA and TX in the mid CA and TX in the mid 1980s?1980s?• Funding for Probation in CA counties Funding for Probation in CA counties

cut 10%, personnel down 30%, while cut 10%, personnel down 30%, while population doubledpopulation doubled– Severe prison and jail crowdingSevere prison and jail crowding

• Follow up studies contained “less serious” offendersFollow up studies contained “less serious” offenders

– TX had similar conditionsTX had similar conditions

• Original “full” RAND reportOriginal “full” RAND report– ““Our sample is probably not representative of Our sample is probably not representative of

California, much less probation in general”California, much less probation in general”

Lessons from “Felony Lessons from “Felony Probation” StudiesProbation” Studies

• ““Felony status” not an important Felony status” not an important predictor of recidivism predictor of recidivism – Offender characteristics (prior record, age, Offender characteristics (prior record, age,

employment, drug use) more importantemployment, drug use) more important

• There is wide variation in the success There is wide variation in the success of probationof probation– Like rehabilitation, much depends on Like rehabilitation, much depends on

“program integrity” “program integrity”

In other words…In other words…

• It is probably unwise to take the It is probably unwise to take the most serious offendersmost serious offenders from counties from counties with with severe jail/prison crowdingsevere jail/prison crowding, , where where probation services have been probation services have been cutcut, and use them to represent , and use them to represent “PROBATION” “PROBATION”