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.
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.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence: Anderson/LexisNexis.
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.
Becker, S. O., & Caliendo, M. (2007). Mhbounds: sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2012). Correctional theory: context and consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
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.
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.
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.
Eisner, M. (2009). No effects in independent prevention trials: can we reject the cynical view? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5, 163–183.
Hansen, B. B., & Bowers, J. (2008). Covariate balance in simple, stratified and clustered comparative studies. Statistical Science, 23(2), 219–236.
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.
Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2009). CEM: software for coursened exact matching. Journal of Statistical Software, 30(9), 1–27.
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.
Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: a meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4, 124–147.
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.
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.
MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: identifying what works. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 457–471.
MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Miller, J. (2015). Contemporary modes of probation officer supervision: the triumph of the “synthetic” officer? Justice Quarterly, 32(2), 314–336.
Pratt, T. C. (2009). Addicted to incarceration: corrections policy and the politics of misinformation in the United States. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Rosenbaum, D. P. (2002). Observational studies (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Schaefer, L., Cullen, F. T., & Eck, J. E. (2016). Environmental corrections. A new paradigm for supervising offenders in the community. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
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.
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.
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.
Taxman, F. S. (1999). Unraveling “what works” for offenders in substance abuse treatment services. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2, 93–134.
Taxman, F., Yancey, C., & Bilanin, J. (2006). Proactive community supervision in Maryland: changing offender outcomes. Baltimore: University of Maryland.
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.
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.
Worrall, A., & Hoy, C. (2005). Punishment in the community: managing offenders, making choices (2nd ed.). Cullompton: Willan.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge all contributors to the project and data from the state corrections agency.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09373-2