Evaluating the Impact of Probation and Parole Home Visits, United States, 2016 and 2018 (ICPSR 37172)
Version Date: Sep 29, 2020 View help for published
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
Sarah Jalbert, Abt Associates
https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37172.v1
Version V1
Summary View help for Summary
In 2014, the researchers began work on a grant from the National Institute of Justice to evaluate the effectiveness of home and field contacts in community supervision. The study was designed to describe the varying practices of home and other field contacts in community supervision, to document their use nationwide, and to evaluate their effectiveness in maintaining public safety and promoting compliance with supervision requirements. The research is designed to address the gap in the understanding of home and field contacts as part of community supervision.
While home and field contacts with clients are common practice within many probation and parole agencies, little is known about how they are conducted, the goals of their use, and whether they impact client outcomes. Researchers conducted a mixed methods study of home and field contact practices within multiple agencies. A nationwide survey of community supervision agencies at the federal, state, and local levels was conducted to understand common policies and practices for home and field contacts. To analyze the effectiveness of home and field contacts, quasi-experimental designs were employed using administrative data. To understand the activities that make up home and field contacts and the goals behind them within each agency, officers were asked to complete a qualitative home and field contact checklist and participate in focus groups.
Citation View help for Citation
Export Citation:
Funding View help for Funding
Subject Terms View help for Subject Terms
Geographic Coverage View help for Geographic Coverage
Smallest Geographic Unit View help for Smallest Geographic Unit
County
Restrictions View help for Restrictions
Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.
Distributor(s) View help for Distributor(s)
Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)
Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection
Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes
-
The qualitative data for the Minnesota and Ohio director interviews and officer focus groups are not included in this release.
- More information on this collection can be found on the Evaluating the Impact of Probation and Parole Home Visits Website.
Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose
Given what is known as well as the gaps in the extant literature, the primary research questions for this study are:
- What are the varying practices of home and other field visits in community supervision?
- What is their effectiveness in maintaining public safety and promoting compliance with supervision requirements?
To answer these primary questions, additional research questions were explored using a variety of methods, described in the following sections: (1) What is the effect of one or more field contacts on recidivism for all offenders?, (2) How does the effect of one or more field contacts vary by initial risk level?, (3) What is the effect of two or more field contacts per year on recidivism for all offenders?, (4) How does the effect of two or more field contacts vary by initial risk level?, (5) Who receives field contacts and how often do they receive them?, (6) Where do field contacts occur?, (7) What occurs during a field contact?, (8) What are the goals or purpose of field contacts?, (9) What is the perceived effectiveness of field contacts?, (10) Do different forms of contact impact recidivism?, (11) Does the specific type of collateral contact affect recidivism?, (12) Do the actions conducted during a client contact affect recidivism?, and (13) For both collateral and client contacts, are actions by officers linked to recidivism across all their clients?
Study Design View help for Study Design
To accomplish the research objectives, Abt Associates partnered with the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) to conduct a nationwide survey of community supervision agencies at the federal, state, and local levels to better understand common practices in the execution of home visits. Abt Associates also partnered with two sites, the Adult Parole Authority (APA) of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (ODRC) and four counties representing the three types of community supervision service delivery agencies in Minnesota (Department of Corrections (DOC), Community Corrections Act (CCA), and County Probation Officer (CPO) to implement three study components designed to understand and document home and field contact policies and practices:
- A quantitative historical analysis of how supervision outcomes (e.g., successful completion of supervision; returns to prison) vary according to home and field contact practices within each agency.
- A brief checklist officers completed after conducting a home/field contact to document the circumstances surrounding a contact and the activities conducted during that contact.
- A qualitative examination of how agency staff use home and field visits in the course of supervision, including interviews with agency directors and focus groups with officers.
Sample View help for Sample
Nationwide Survey: An online survey of all 50 state departments of community correction, parole authorities, or parallel probation agencies.
Ohio Historical Administrative Data: The analysis is limited adults on parole or post release control (PRC) who were released from prison in 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014, for an initial sample of 25,924 supervisees. Each individual was followed for a period of two years following their release.
Minnesota Historical Administrative Data: Data for these analyses were provided by four counties representing each of the service delivery systems: Ramsey County Community Corrections, Benton County Department of Correction, Anoka County Community Corrections, Chisago County Probation Officer/Department of Corrections. While the supervision population varies by agency, the researchers generally investigated both probation and supervised release cases in each agency because individuals within Minnesota maybe and often are simultaneously being supervised for both probation and supervised release cases. The researchers limited the sample to only those supervision types eligible for field contacts, and eliminate all cases transferred in from other locations (states or counties) as the researchers were unable to account for supervision standards in the previous location. The researchers also eliminated all cases on a few types of more intensive supervision programs.
Home and Field Contact Checklists Data: In each site (i.e., Ohio and Minnesota), officers completed a one-page checklist after each actual or attempted home or field contact with offenders that they supervise over a two month period.
Time Method View help for Time Method
Universe View help for Universe
Officers that have community supervision.
Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation
Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)
Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection
Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables
The data contains demographic information, officer procedures, supervision procedures, agency operations, supervision, criminal record, probation, parole, field visits, current offense and recidivism.
Response Rates View help for Response Rates
Not applicable
HideNotes
The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.
One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions. Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.