Measuring the Effect of Probation and Parole Officers on Labor Market Outcomes and Recidivism

Lars H Andersen,Christopher Wildeman

doi:10.1007/s10940-014-9243-4

Abstract

Abstract Objectives Use a unique dataset to pair probation and parole officers and their clients in Denmark in 2002–2009 to identify causal effects of these officers on labor market outcomes and recidivism. Methods To identify these effects, we rely on data from all probationers and parolees in Copenhagen, where a rotational assignment process randomizes clients to officers. We apply OLS models to test whether the inclusion of probation and parole officer fixed effects improves model fit, and we show the impact of officer fixed effects by generating predicted values for one individual, varying only the officer. Results The first stage of the analysis shows that the assignment of a probation or parole officer is indeed random in Copenhagen—at least in regards to the vast majority of background characteristics—suggesting that we are able to identify causal effects of probationer and parolee assignment on labor market outcomes and recidivism. The second stage of our analysis shows that although to a lower degree than common sense might suggest, probation and parole officers do matter for their clients’ dependency on public benefit transfers (around 10 percentage points) and criminal recidivism (around 30 percentage points), whereas earnings are unaffected. Conclusion As no study has yet to identify causal effects of probation and parole officer assignment, this study makes a novel contribution to the literature on the effects of criminal justice contact on subsequent life-course outcomes. Although generalizability to the US context is uncertain because we rely on Danish data, our findings nonetheless point in interesting directions for future research.

Highlights

Most recent research on the effects of contact with the criminal justice system emphasizes the effects of incarceration for individuals (e.g., Lopoo and Western 2005; Massoglia 2008; Massoglia et al 2013; Pettit 2012; Schnittker and John 2007; Turney et al 2012; Western 2006) and those tied to them (e.g., Clear 2007; Wakefield and Wildeman 2013; Wildeman et al 2012)
We apply OLS models to test whether the inclusion of probation and parole officer fixed effects improves model fit, and we show the impact of officer fixed effects by generating predicted values for one individual, varying only the officer
The second stage of our analysis shows that to a lower degree than common sense might suggest, probation and parole officers do matter for their clients’ dependency on public benefit transfers and criminal recidivism, whereas earnings are unaffected

Summary

Introduction

Most recent research on the effects of contact with the criminal justice system emphasizes the effects of incarceration for individuals (e.g., Lopoo and Western 2005; Massoglia 2008; Massoglia et al 2013; Pettit 2012; Schnittker and John 2007; Turney et al 2012; Western 2006) and those tied to them (e.g., Clear 2007; Wakefield and Wildeman 2013; Wildeman et al 2012). Despite a tendency towards policies that favor noncustodial punishment over incarceration, we currently know much more about the effects of incarceration than the effects of noncustodial alternatives like community supervision (for thorough discussions of this imbalance, see Phelps 2013; Seiter and West 2003) This is notably true regarding the effect of probation or parole officers on their clients, a significant gap in the literature since this effect is likely to be of great importance for criminal justice outcomes, as well as broader labor market outcomes. This gap in our knowledge is especially stymying as literally millions of individuals are placed on probation or parole every year in the United States, as mentioned, and as the use of community supervision more than doubled over the past 25 years

Objectives

Results

Conclusion