Skip to main content
Log in

A quasi-experimental evaluation of the “environmental corrections” model of probation and parole

  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The current study reports the results of a pilot test of the Environmental Corrections model of probation and parole, a framework for supervising offenders in the community that focuses on opportunity-reduction strategies.

Methods

A pilot test of Environmental Corrections was performed in one probation and parole office in a large metropolitan area of Australia. All staff in the office (n = 13) implemented the new model following training, and all offenders supervised at this office were subjected to the model (average daily caseload size, n = 450; total supervisees that took part in trial, n = 993). Trends and rates in official recidivism (new offences recorded by police) and breaches (technical violations of supervision conditions) were analysed at 6 months post-intervention using a statistically equivalent comparison group created through propensity score matching across 19 covariates associated with recidivism risk.

Results

Using the propensity score-matched control group, at 6 months post-intervention, 34.81% of the offenders in the control group had reoffended compared with 25.00% of the offenders in the matched treatment group (χ2 = 3.929, p < .05), for a reduction in the rate of reoffending of 28.18%. There were no statistically significant differences in rates of contravention between the two groups.

Conclusions

The pilot test demonstrates that opportunity-reduction strategies hold promise for reducing recidivism among community-supervised offenders through the Environmental Corrections model, which incorporates case plan stipulations which knife-off crime opportunities, redesigns offenders’ routine activities, and utilises brief interventions focused on reducing situational propensity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aavik, A. (2001). Bounding a matching estimator: the case of a Norwegian training program. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 63(1), 115–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence: Anderson/LexisNexis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, P. C. (2011). Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10(2), 150–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, S. O., & Caliendo, M. (2007). Mhbounds: sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Scott, T.-L., Bourgon, C., & Yessine, A. K. (2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 248–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgon, G., Gutierrez, L., & Ashton, J. (2011). The evolution of community supervision practice: the transformation from case manager to change agent. Irish Probation Journal, 8, 28–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, J., Fredrickson, M., & Hansen, B. B. (2010). RItools: randomization inference tools. R package version 0.1–11. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/RItools/RItools.pdf. Accesed 1 March 2017

  • Clear, T. R., & Frost, N. A. (2014). The punishment imperative: the rise and failure of mass incarceration in America. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T. (2002). Rehabilitation and treatment programs. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime: public policies for crime control (2nd ed., pp. 253–289). San Francisco: ICS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2012). Correctional theory: context and consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., Eck, J. E., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2002). Environmental corrections: a new paradigm for effective probation and parole supervision. Federal Probation, 66(2), 28–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., Myer, A. J., & Latessa, E. J. (2009). Eight lessons from Moneyball: the high cost of ignoring evidence-based corrections. Victims & Offenders, 4, 197–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, A., Hardcastle, L., & Birgden, A. (2012). Case management in community corrections: current status and future directions. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 51(7), 484–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, M. (2009). No effects in independent prevention trials: can we reject the cynical view? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5, 163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, B. B., & Bowers, J. (2008). Covariate balance in simple, stratified and clustered comparative studies. Statistical Science, 23(2), 219–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2007). MatchIt: nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(i08), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2009). CEM: software for coursened exact matching. Journal of Statistical Software, 30(9), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2011). Multivariate matching methods that are monotonic imbalance bounding. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106(493), 345–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: a meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4, 124–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughran, T. A., Wilson, T., Nagin, D. S., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). Evolutionary regression? Assessing the problem of hidden biases in criminal justice applications using propensity scores. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(4), 631–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 575–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: identifying what works. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 457–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22(4), 719–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, B., Jones Hubbard, D., & Latessa, E. (2001). Making the next step: using evaluability assessment to improve correctional programming. The Prison Journal, 81, 454–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. (2015). Contemporary modes of probation officer supervision: the triumph of the “synthetic” officer? Justice Quarterly, 32(2), 314–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, T. C. (2009). Addicted to incarceration: corrections policy and the politics of misinformation in the United States. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, D. P. (2002). Observational studies (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer, L., Cullen, F. T., & Eck, J. E. (2016). Environmental corrections. A new paradigm for supervising offenders in the community. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, A., Waul, M., Van Ness, A., & Travis, J. (2004). Outside the walls: a national snapshot of community-based prisoner reentry programs. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, A. L., Kachnowski, V., & Bhati, A. (2005). Does parole work? Analyzing the impact of postprison supervision on rearrest outcomes. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, A., Osborne, J., Winterfield, L., Elderbroom, B., Burke, P., Stroker, R., Rhine, E., & Burrell, W. (2008). Putting public safety first: 13 parole supervision strategies to enhance reentry outcomes. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F. S. (1999). Unraveling “what works” for offenders in substance abuse treatment services. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2, 93–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F., Yancey, C., & Bilanin, J. (2006). Proactive community supervision in Maryland: changing offender outcomes. Baltimore: University of Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thoemmes, F. (2012). Propensity score matching in SPSS. https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.6385. Accesed 1 March 2017

  • Turner, S. (2010). Case management in corrections: evidence, issues and challenges. In F. McNeill, P. Raynor, & C. Trotter (Eds.), Offender supervision: new directions in theory, research and practice (pp. 344–366). New York: Willan, Devon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whetzel, J., Paparozzi, M., Alexander, M., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2011). Goodbye to a worn-out dichotomy: law enforcement, social work, and a balanced approach. Federal Probation, 75(2), 7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worrall, A., & Hoy, C. (2005). Punishment in the community: managing offenders, making choices (2nd ed.). Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge all contributors to the project and data from the state corrections agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lacey Schaefer.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schaefer, L., Little, S. A quasi-experimental evaluation of the “environmental corrections” model of probation and parole. J Exp Criminol 16, 535–553 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09373-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09373-2

Keywords

Navigation