Decide Your Time: A Randomized Trial of a Drug Testing and Graduated Sanctions Program for Probationers. Issue 4 (11th November 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: O'Connell, Daniel J.; Brent, John J.; Visher, Christy A.
• Is Part Of: Criminology & public policy. Volume 15:Issue 4(2016)
• Page Start: 1073
• Page End: 1102
• Publication Date: 2016-11-11
• Subjects: substance abuse -- probation -- deterrence -- graduated sanctions -- corrections -- "swift -- certain -- and fair"; Criminology -- Periodicals; Criminologie -- Périodiques; Web sites; Electronic journals; 364
• DOI: 10.1111/1745-9133.12246
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1538-6473

Abstract

Abstract : Research Summary: This study used a randomized controlled trial approach with a sample of 400 high‐risk probationers to test the hypothesis that a program incorporating principles of deterrence, graduated sanctions, and coerced abstinence would reduce recidivism rates among drug‐using offenders. Bivariate and multilevel modeling strategies were implemented. Findings revealed no discernable difference across multiple drug use, probationary, and recidivism measures between those randomized into the treatment condition and those receiving standard probation. In multivariate models, probationer age, employment status, and treatment participation improved some recidivism outcomes. Programmatic and sample characteristics are discussed regarding the lack of experimental effect. Policy Implications: These findings suggest that in designing and implementing deterrence‐informed community supervision approaches, policy makers and practitioners should consider offender attributes, the addition of employment and treatment‐based programs and supports, and local justice system structures. The findings of this study fit well with other emerging models of offender supervision, in particular, those that match services and programs based on offender risks and needs and those that recognize and address the heterogeneity of the offender population in developing supervision and service plans. Swift, certain, and fair supervision approaches for individuals under community supervision do not seem to be a "one‐size‐fits‐all" strategy. Understanding for whom they work and under what conditions has not yet been determined. In the meantime, policy makers and practitioners should endeavor to understand the risks and needs of their local offender population and the community supports that are available to improve offender outcomes and increase public safety.