Parolee Recidivism and Successful Treatment Completion: Comparing Hazard Models Across Propensity Methods
- 646 Downloads
Ascertaining the effect of treatment on recidivism is a core area of investigation in criminology and corrections research. The two objectives of the current analysis are: (1) to determine the true effect of treatment regimen completion on time to recidivism controlling for propensity to complete treatment; and (2) to examine the sensitivity of results under various propensity score methods.
Drawing on the population (n = 1,270) of parolees residing in a Midwestern state, we examine the effect of completing a treatment regimen on days to recidivism (using two failure outcomes) over a 2-year period using proportional hazard models. We adjust for the propensity to complete a treatment regimen using the covariate adjustment, inverse weighting, case matching, and strata methods.
Completing a treatment regimen has a sizable effect at reducing recidivism risk, which grows stronger the longer offenders are on parole. This effect is consistent across treatment propensity methods. It is driven mainly by completion of alcohol and drug treatment regimens. Treatment effects are stable across two measures of recidivism (arrest/prison-return and prison-return only).
Discussion centers on the implications for assessing treatment success in the parole population as well as on methodological implications for researchers conducting similar research. In the current analysis propensity scores produce stable results regardless of propensity method. Guidance is provided on selecting propensity methods based on data distortion, technical expertise, and presentation of results. We conclude that the covariate adjustment method is best suited for novice researchers, and the case matching method for expert researchers. The strata method is recommended for supplemental analyses. Future research should examine treatment effects reporting at least two propensity methods.
KeywordsRecidivism Treatment Corrections Propensity score Parole Hazard models
- Anderson J (2002) Overview of the Illinois DOC high-risk parolee reentry program and 3-year recidivism outcome of program participation. Cogn Behav Treat Rev 11:4–6Google Scholar
- Andrews DA, Bonta J (1999) The psychology of criminal conduct. Anderson, Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
- Arbogast PG, Seeger JD (2012) Summary variables in observational research: propensity scores and disease risk scores. Agency for healthcare research and quality, publication no. 11. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MDGoogle Scholar
- Cullen FT, Gendreau P (2000) Assessing correctional rehabilitation policy: practice and prospects. Policies, processes and decisions of the criminal justice system. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pp 109–174Google Scholar
- Dowden C, Andrews DA (2000) Effective correctional treatment and violent reoffending: a meta-analysis. Can J Criminol 42:449–476Google Scholar
- Gu XS, Rosenbaum PR (1993) Comparison of multivariate matching methods: structures, distances, and algorithms. J Comput Graph Stat 2:405–420Google Scholar
- Hamilton Z (2010) Do reentry courts effect recidivism? Results from the Harlem Parole Reentry Court. Center for Court Innovation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Illesca SR, Sanchez-Meca J, Genoves VG (2001) Treatment of offenders and recidivism: assessment of the effectiveness of programs applied in Europe. Psychol Spain 5:47–62Google Scholar
- Langan PA, Levin DJ (2002) Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Lattimore PK, Steffey DM (2010) The multi-site evaluation of SVORI: methodology and analytic approach. Department of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Losel F (1995) The efficacy of correctional treatment: a review and synthesis of meta evaluations. In McGuire J (ed) What works: reducing offending. Wiley, West, Sussex, England, pp 79–111Google Scholar
- Martinson R (1974) What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The public interest. Spring, pp 22–54Google Scholar
- Mitchell-Herzfeld S, Shady TA, Mayo J, Han Kim D, Marsh K, Dorabawila V, Rees F (2008) Effects of multisystemic therapy on recidivism among juvenile delinquents in the state of New York. Office of Children and Family Services, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Morenoff, JD, Harding DJ (2011) Final technicanl report: neighborhoods, recidivism, and employment among returning prisoners. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Morgan SL, Todd JL (2008) A diagnostic routine for the detection of consequential heterogeneity of causal effects. Sociol Methodol 38:231–281Google Scholar
- Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1984) Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc 79:515–524Google Scholar
- Sampson, RJ, Laub JH, Wimer C. (2006) Does marriage reduce crime? A counterfactual approach to within-individual causal effects. Criminology 44:465–508Google Scholar
- Shover N, Einstadter WJ (1988) Analyzing American corrections. Wadsworth, Belmont, CAGoogle Scholar
- Wermink H, Blokland A, Nieubeerta P, Tollenaar N (2010) Comparing the effects of community service and short-term imprisonment on recidivism: a matched samples approach. J Exp Criminol 8:71–101Google Scholar
- Wimer C, Sampson RJ, Laub JH (2008) Estimating time-varying outcomes with application to incarceration and crime. In: Cohen P (ed) Applied data analytic techniques for turning points research. Routledge-Taylor and Francis, New York, pp 38–58Google Scholar