Evaluation of Adult Community Supervision Strategies in Multnomah County, Oregon, 1995, 1998, and 2000 Cohorts (ICPSR 3584)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes

Hide

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

Community justice departments across the nation are continually pressured to implement higher-intensity modes of supervision for serious offenders without the benefit of expanded resources. This study sought to examine one county's response to these pressures. In 1997, the Multnomah County Department of Community Justice in Oregon launched an ambitious effort to change the way in which adult community supervision services were provided by launching a new mode of supervision. The overall goal of the redesign was to refocus time and resources on high-risk offenders, while providing less restrictive modes of supervision to lower-risk offenders, without jeopardizing public safety. Specifically, the redesign required increased transfers of limited and low-risk probationers and parolees to a casebank caseload. Casebank provides minimal face-to-face supervision and compliance reviews, thereby conserving departmental resources for offenders who demonstrate a higher risk to re-offend. The redesign also provided differing service levels responding to the offenders' risks and needs, as well as a mechanism for the efficient transfer of offenders between caseloads, in response to their behavior. This study was undertaken to determine whether the new form of supervision had been properly implemented and to determine its impact on public safety, as well as to assess recidivism rates in light of the revised supervision.

Study Design View help for Study Design

A quasi-experimental design was employed using non-randomized comparison groups consisting of offenders admitted to community supervision in 1995, 1998, and 2000. The 1995 cohort represents offenders processed through the traditional system of community supervision. The next two cohorts were exposed to a new form of supervision that relied on strategic decisions about supervision intensity and access to treatment resources, based on objective risk assessments. The 1998 cohort reflects offenders exposed to the first version of the new system of community supervision, while the 2000 cohort reflects the system of supervision as it had developed over time to become fully institutionalized within the department. At the outset of this research, the plan was to draw a sample of offenders from each admission cohort and to combine both automated data and manual data collection efforts to obtain the full scope of information needed for the study. However, researchers found that sufficient automated data were available to permit the inclusion of entire admission cohorts, which increased the external validity of the findings and eliminated sampling bias. First, a list of offenders admitted to community supervision during each of the target years (1995, 1998, or 2000) was requested from the Oregon Department of Corrections, which is the state's repository for all community supervision data. An admission was defined as an offender admitted to supervision (a) for a new crime for which he or she was given a sentence to probation, (b) after serving a prison sentence with additional time to serve on parole or post-prison supervision, (c) upon returning to active supervision after previously absconding, or (d) upon moving into Multnomah County from active supervision in another county or state. These conditions, in combination, captured the population of offenders "newly exposed" to community supervision during a given year. It excluded those who might have received supervision during a given year as the result of an admission from a previous year. Once the cohorts were identified, a variety of data were obtained from several criminal justice agencies. Data on demographics, current offense, legal status, and caseload assignments (Part 1 and 2) were obtained directly from the Multnomah County Department of Community Justice (DCJ). Part 2 also includes risk/supervision-level data collected from the Oregon Department of Corrections. Data in Part 3 were collected on a targeted sample from four sources: (1) The Oregon Department of Corrections sent the DCJ a monthly snapshot which included information on every offender on community supervision that month. Monthly snapshots were obtained from January 1995 through June 2001. Offenders who were not part of the cohort were deleted from the files. These data were used both to describe the different cohorts and to examine differences across caseload types and supervision levels on various outcome measures. (2) Information on arrests and convictions was obtained from the data warehouse, Decision Support System-Justice (DSS-Justice), which contained integrated, individual-level data from law enforcement (Portland Police Departments and the Multnomah County Sheriff), the District Attorney, and the Courts. DSS-Justice provided arrest and conviction data for each offender in the sample. For the 1995 and 1998 cohorts, data covered two years subsequent to the admission date (follow-up data) and two years prior to the admission date (prior history data). For the 2000 cohort, the follow-up period was limited to one year in order to complete the research during the grant period. These data were used to describe the offenders' criminal justice histories and also included data for the key outcome measure--re-arrest. (3) Data describing the intensity of supervision of offenders in the sample were obtained from the Oregon Department of Corrections, which is the repository of the County's community supervision data. To this end, for each offender, chronological records of all supervision contacts were provided, including the type of contact (e.g., person-to-person, telephone, mail, etc.) and the person contacted (e.g., offender, employer, etc.), for the entire period of supervision. These data permitted an assessment of whether the type and intensity of supervision varied across caseload types. (4) Finally, data on the use of sanctions were extracted for the DCJ's Sanctions Tracking Data Base. This database, created in 1997, contained information on the non- complaint behavior triggering the sanction (i.e., the conditions violated) and the specific type and duration of the sanction imposed. These data were obtained for the 1998 and 2000 cohorts, covering the entire period of supervision for each offender. Data of this kind were not available to assess the use of sanctions for the 1995 cohort. For Part 1, DCJ data were collected for the full study cohort (10,094 in 1995, 12,565 in 1998, and 13,632 in 2000). In order to complete the study during the required time frame, the 2000 cohort used in Parts 2 and 3 was limited to offenders admitted between January 1 and June 30, 2000 (N = 9,604).

Sample View help for Sample

Any offender in Multnomah County, Oregon, admitted to community supervision during 1995 (N = 10,094), 1998 (N = 12,565), and 2000 (N = 13,632) was targeted for inclusion in the study. In order to complete the study during the required time frame, the 2000 cohort was limited to offenders admitted between January 1 and June 30, 2000 (N = 9,604). For Parts 2 and 3, certain groups of offenders were excluded from the research because they were not actually subjected to community supervision. The final targeted sample of cohorts used in Part 3 included 8,506 offenders from the 1995 cohort, 10,794 from 1998, and 8,353 from the 2000 cohort.

Universe View help for Universe

Offenders in Multnomah County, Oregon, admitted to community supervision during 1995, 1998, and 2000.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Source View help for Data Source

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

Data for Part 1 include date offender entered their first and second caseload, caseload type, caseload category, conviction charge description, category, subcategory, level and class, offense severity score, and admittance date. Demographic variables included are race, sex, and age. Variables for Part 2 include actual and calculated supervision levels for prior history and follow-up periods of observation. Data unique to Part 3 include the most serious prior arrest and conviction, number of contacts with offender, administration, legal, or supervisory treatment, most serious rearrest and reconviction, dates of rearrest and reconviction, recommended sanction, imposed sanction, and sanction supervision type.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

inap.

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

None.

Hide

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2003-10-30

Version History View help for Version History

Hide