A Multi-Method Evaluation of Risk Responsive and Neighborhood-Oriented Probation Models in New York City, New York, 2010-2016 (ICPSR 37978)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Hide

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of two reforms, the introduction of risk need-responsivity principles (RNR) informed practices and a neighborhood-based probation model, on probation client experiences and criminal justice outcomes among probation clients in New York City.

Study Design View help for Study Design

For the purposes of the study, January 1, 2013 was established as the baseline implementation date for both Neighborhood Opportunity Network (NeON) and risk need-responsivity principles (RNR)-based supervision reforms. By this time, the Department of Probation had begun administering the Level of Services Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) citywide and implemented a restructured supervision model. At the same time, six of seven "full" NeON offices had become operational, including all NeON sites selected for the study. The research involves three specific study groups:

Pre-Reform (group 1): Probation clients who lived in all selected study zip codes and assigned to the moderate-high risk supervision track prior to January 1, 2013 (specifically from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012).

Centralized Probation (group 2): Probation clients in the moderate-high risk supervision track between January 1, 2013, and June 30, 2016, who lived in selected comparison site zip codes and reporting to central probation offices in Manhattan or Brooklyn.

NeON (group 3): Probation clients in the moderate-to high-risk supervision track between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2016, who were living in selected NeON site zip codes and reporting to a neighborhood-based NeON probation office.

To examine the impact of the reforms, the study involves two major components. First, through structured interviews, the research team compares the experiences of clients in the NeON to the contemporaneous comparison group (those under RNR-informed supervision in central probation offices). The second component examines the impact of probation reforms on criminal justice outcomes before and after these reforms were initiated. In this component, the research team isolate RNR-based supervision and the NeON initiative and ask whether either initiative--or the two combined--had a significant impact on recidivism among probation clients. Through the use of official criminal justice records obtained from the Department of Probation and the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, the research team tested how the two post reform groups differed in terms of criminal justice outcomes (rearrest, re-conviction, and revocation) compared to each other and to the pre-reform sample.

Sample View help for Sample

Recidivism Outcome Data (DS1): Official administrative data were obtained from the New York City Department of Probation and the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. The key outcome variables of interest were re-arrest, re-conviction, and supervision revocation within two years of the index probation sentence (i.e., the probation sentence that led to inclusion in the study). The research team examined all available subcategories of re-arrest and re-conviction, including by charge severity (misdemeanor v. felony) and type (e.g., violent, property, drug). The research team conducted ANOVA to compare the three groups across recidivism measures. The research team also examined differential impacts based on client sex, race, age, and risk level; for these analyses, where factorial ANOVA was utilized to look at the interaction between the variable of interest and study group. The research team examined differences by subgroup and study group, using chi-square tests as appropriate.

Interview Subsample Data (DS2): Interviewees were recruited from across the selected probation sites over an 18-month period (June 2015-November 2016). To be eligible to participate in the interviews, clients had to be at least 18 years old, sentenced to probation after 2013, and have been on probation for at least six months. Recruitment was conducted by trained research assistants with support from senior probation staff and individual probation officers in the selected sites. Recruitment flyers were used by probation officers to refer eligible clients to the study, but participation was voluntary. The flyer outlined eligibility requirements, the purpose of the interview, compensation, time requirements, instructions for scheduling, and information specifying that the research was being conducted by an external organization and would not impact their probation. Interviews took place in secure private rooms at each site. Interviews lasted approximately one hour and participants received a $25 cash stipend to compensate for their time.

While a total of 379 probation clients completed the interview, the final sample was reduced to 344 after administrative data was merged with interview results. Of the 344 interviews completed, 239 (69%) were recruited from Neighborhood Opportunity Network (NeON) sites and 105 (31%) were recruited from centralized probation offices in Brooklyn and Manhattan.

Time Method View help for Time Method

Universe View help for Universe

Adult probation population in New York City

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 Recidivism Outcome Data (DS1) contains the following variable descriptions:

Criminal history variables provided by New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS).

Misconduct, transfer, and risk assessment data provided by the New York City Department of Probation (DOP).

The Interview Subsample Data (DS2) contains the following variable descriptions:

Criminal history variables provided by New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS).

Data collected by the research team through structured interviews with probation clients across New York City over an 18-month period (June 2015- November 2016).

The interview instrument contained 374 items spanning the following domains:

1. Client Characteristics
2. Supervision
3. Engagement with Neighborhood Services
4. Probation Services
5. Perceptions of Fairness
6. Housing
7. Service Needs
8. Community Involvement
9. Substance Use
10. Mental Health
11. Criminal Behavior
12. Family Relationships
13. Family Crime
14. Criminal Thinking and Legal Cynicism
15. Readiness for Change
16. Leisure and Peers
17. Participant Goals

Recidivism variables (re-arrest, re-conviction, and revocation at two years) were calculated based on data provided by DCJS

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

Not Applicable

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

The Dual-Role Relationship Inventory (DRI-R; Skeem et al. 2007) is a 30-item scale that measures the relationship quality between probation officers (POs) and clients across three domains: caring-fairness, trust, and toughness

The Brief Symptom Inventory 18 (BSI-18; Derogatis 2001) is an 18- item measure of general psychological distress including somatization, depression, and anxiety.

Hide

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2024-03-27

Version History View help for Version History

Hide

Weight View help for Weight

The Recidivism Outcome Data (DS2) includes 3 weight variables: WEIGHTM1, WEIGHTM1R, and STDWEIGHTM1R. Please refer to the accompanying User Guide for the intended use of these weights.

Hide