Odds Of Rearrest Research Articles

Electronic monitoring devices during substance use treatment are associated with increased arrests among women in specialty courts

ABSTRACT Background: Electronic monitors (EMs) are commonly used as a sanction and to improve compliance with substance use treatment and reduce re-arrest in criminal justice settings. However, there is minimal evidence for their effectiveness, especially among women. Objectives: We examined whether the use of EMs (i.e., devices placed on one’s body to encourage treatment compliance) increased rates of substance use treatment completion, and as a result, reduced re-arrest and substance use among women offenders. Methods: We sampled 114 women referred to residential substance use treatment and a subsample of 102 women charged with felonies. Logistic regression models accounting for clustering of time within person were fit. Results: Overall, EMs were associated with 3.13 greater odds of re-arrest after accounting for criminogenic risk indicators; however, no association was detected among women charged with felonies only. Women who were assigned to EMs were significantly less likely to report illicit drug use in the past 30 days, and women charged with felonies were less likely to report both alcohol and illicit drug use in the past 30 days. There was no association between EM assignment and treatment completion or positive urinalysis result. Conclusion: EM provision did not enhance the retention of women in residential treatment and the presence of an EM was associated with a more than tripling in the odds of re-arrest. Results also suggest that EM use for women in Specialty Courts may have some limited utility in reducing substance use; however, the mechanism driving this effect remains unclear.

The Effect of Treatment Completion on Recidivism Among TASC Program Clients.

Despite the enormous resources spent by states in the United States on bridging the gap between criminal justice and behavioral health services, there have been relatively few statewide evaluations of drug treatment client recidivism. We present the results of an evaluation of recidivism outcomes for a sample of individuals ( n = 1,274) referred to the Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities (TASC) program in North Carolina from 2007 to 2008. The methodology accounted for both client and offense characteristics drawn from TASC, court, and corrections records. Multivariate analyses indicated that program completion is the most important predictor of re-arrest in the 3-year follow-up period, followed by a number of protective and risk factors. More specifically, being female, older at the time of program entry, as well as higher levels of educational attainment decreased the odds of re-arrest, whereas using crack/cocaine increased the odds of re-arrest. Suggestions for future research and policy implications are provided.

A three-year recidivism analysis of state correctional releases

The present study undertakes a three-year follow-up time frame of approximately 10,000 inmates released from New Jersey prisons in 2012. Consistent with the methodology set forth in federal analyses, various definitions of recidivism were utilized. Recidivism rates were consistent, and in some counts below, federal findings as well. Rearrest post-release rates were 53%, reconviction rates were 40.1% and reincarceration rates were 31.3%. Offenders released to supervision had higher rates of reincarceration, while unsupervised offenders (i.e. max-outs) had higher rates of rearrest and reconviction. Males were more likely to be rearrested than females, while younger offenders were more likely to be rearrested than older offenders. Released inmates with prior arrests, convictions, and reincarcerations maintained substantially higher odds of rearrest, as did those with a higher number of prison discipline allegations. Released inmates with a violent admission offense were rearrested the least, while those serving time on a previous community supervision violation were rearrested the most. These findings are discussed within the context the criminal justice system and the existing literature.

Comparing Public Safety Outcomes for Traditional Probation vs Specialty Mental Health Probation

ImportanceProbation is a cornerstone of efforts to reduce mass incarceration. Although it is understudied, specialty probation could improve outcomes for the overrepresented group of people with mental illness.ObjectiveTo test whether specialty probation yields better public safety outcomes than traditional probation.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA longitudinal observational study with group matching on age, sex, race/ethnicity, probation time, and offense at 2 urban agencies that exemplify specialty and traditional probation. Enrollment began October 19, 2005; follow-up data were complete January 26, 2013. Participants were 359 diverse probationers with serious mental health problems and functional impairment. Probationers and officers were assessed 3 times (for probationers, 6-month retention, 315 of 359 [88%]; 12-month retention 304 of 359 [85%]) and follow-up records were obtained. Machine learning algorithms were combined with a targeted maximum likelihood estimation, a double robust estimator that accounts for associations between confounders and both treatment assignment and outcomes. Statistical analysis was conducted from January 1, 2016 to May 5, 2017.InterventionsSpecialty probationers were assigned to small, homogeneous caseloads supervised by experts. Prior data indicate that specialty officers had better relationships with probationers, participated more in probationers’ treatment, and relied more on positive compliance strategies than traditional officers.Main Outcomes and MeasuresViolence during 1 year, determined by probationer report, officer report, and records, and rearrest during a period of 2 to 5 years, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation records.ResultsParticipants were 183 specialty (73.8% of 248 eligible) and 176 traditional (56.6% of 311 eligible) probationers (205 men and 154 women; mean [SD] age, 36.9 [10.6]). Although specialty probation had no significant effect on violence (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.69-1.36), the odds of rearrest were 2.68 times higher for traditional probationers than for specialty probationers (95% CI, 1.86-3.84; P < .001). At 2 years, estimated probabilities of rearrest were 28.6% for specialty probationers and 51.8% for traditional probationers. Survival analyses indicate that arrest effects endured up to 5 years.Conclusions and RelevanceAlthough it did not specifically reduce violence, well-implemented specialty probation appears to be effective in reducing general recidivism. Reform efforts for people with mental illness could leverage probation—a ubiquitous and revitalized node of the justice system.

Drawing the Line

Every state maintains some mechanism by which youths can be tried as adults in criminal courts. While scholars have long debated the inherent benefits or detriments of prosecuting youths as adults, empirical studies of actual outcomes have provided mixed findings and have been limited by problems of selection bias and jurisdictional differences in processing. The current research aims to further inform this literature by capitalizing on a policy change in Connecticut that raised the age of criminal responsibility from 16 to 17 on January 1, 2010, creating a natural experiment to assess the recidivism differences for youths based upon the system of processing: juvenile versus adult court. Findings from a 2-year follow-up reveal that 16-year-olds processed in juvenile courts had substantially reduced rates of recidivism with odds of rearrest that were between .462 and .630 less than for 16-year-olds processed in adult courts dependent on model specification.

Victim impact panels: do they impact drunk drivers? A follow-up of female and male, first-time and repeat offenders.

To examine gender differences and re-arrest rates of first-time and repeat offenders following referral to Victim Impact Panels (VIPs). Study participants (N = 6,702; 79% men) were first-time and repeat driving-while-impaired offenders who were referred to and completed a screening program in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, from 1989 to 1994. Whether subjects were mandated to attend a VIP was self-reported in a personal interview. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to test the effects of VIP referral and other predictors of recidivism. Separate models were developed for female and male first-time and repeat offenders. After controlling for multiple risk factors, VIP referral was not statistically associated with recidivism for female or male first offenders. However, female repeat offenders referred to VIPs were significantly more likely to be re-arrested compared with those not referred, with an odds of rearrest more than twice that of females not referred. Although many factors influence recidivism, this study raises the possibility that VIPs may have a negative impact on female repeat offenders.