Risk and Rehabilitation: Supporting the Work of Probation Officers in the Community Reentry of Extremist Offenders, United States, 1990-2022 (ICPSR 39247)

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

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

The purpose of this study was to (1) examine the risks for recidivism among individuals with links to extremism, (2) explore the challenges to successful reintegration, and (3) address the needs of pretrial services and probation officers and service providers who make sentencing and confinement recommendations, administer reintegration services, and manage post-confinement supervision.

Specifically, this project had three primary goals:

1. Build on existing NIJ-funded research to provide criminal justice professionals data on the characteristics of U.S. extremists, their risks for recidivism, and their needs for reintegration success.
2. Gather evidence from interviews of probation officers, service providers, and system-involved individuals to understand the keys to successful reintegration.
3. Identify the training and education needs of pretrial services and probation officers and related reintegration support providers.

The researchers identified the following primary research questions:

1. How often do individuals who have committed extremist crimes reoffend? How often do they transition to non-ideological criminality after committing extremist offenses?
2. What types of unique disengagement barriers do individuals with links to extremism face? What are the unique risk characteristics that should be considered when making pretrial, sentencing, and release decisions for individuals with ties to extremism?
3. What individual, network, and community-level variables are significantly linked with the following reintegration outcomes: recidivism; transitions to non-ideological crime; and reintegration success?
4. What pre-release and post-confinement characteristics of individuals with ties to extremism are associated with successful community reintegration and/or desistance?
5. What do system-involved individuals regard as the major barriers to successful reintegration? How do their views compare to the viewpoints of probation officers and service providers?
6. How familiar are probation officers and service providers with the nature of extremism in the United States? What do officers see as their main training and educational needs when it comes to supporting individuals with ties to extremism?
7. What existing post-release programs, support services, and interventions can be used address the needs of individuals disengaging from extremism? What is the range of monitoring activities and support services that need to be considered for the population individuals who committed extremist crimes?

Study Design View help for Study Design

Profiles of Individual Radicalization in the United States (PIRUS) Plots Dataset:

Starting in 2020, the research team started construction on an auxiliary event-level dataset, PIRUS-Plots, that included details about the crimes that were committed by the subjects in PIRUS. This dataset included information about the preparatory activities, target characteristics, and outcomes of violent and nonviolent attacks. For the purposes of this study, the PIRUS-Plots data were used to identify instances of ideological recidivism (i.e., committing a new extremist crime after release from custody) among the subjects in the PIRUS data. Researchers then reviewed every case in PIRUS from 1990-2022 to identify instances of non-ideological recidivism (i.e., committing a non-ideologically motivated crime after being incarcerated for an extremist offense). This process allowed the researchers to: (1) estimate the recidivism rate among individuals who have committed extremist crimes; and to (2) isolate factors in the PIRUS data (e.g., criminal history, substance use disorder, etc.) that could help explain why some individuals recidivated while others did not. Researchers also conducted a Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) on a subset of individuals in the PIRUS data.

Interviews with Officers, Service Providers, and System-involved Individuals Dataset:

Researchers conducted interviews with 28 federal pretrial services and probation officers, 14 service providers, and 8 system-involved individuals who were formerly involved in extremism. These interviews attempted to better understand the reintegration processes, barriers, and strategies for success with a specific focus on the training and education needs of officers. The interviews were semi-structured, allowing the respondents to speak freely and provide relevant details about topics related to reintegration, disengagement, and recidivism. When research participants consented, audio of the interviews were recorded and then transcribed by the research team. More than 57 hours of audio were recorded for this study. Once the transcriptions were complete, the audio files were deleted from an encrypted server. In the few cases where participants did not consent to audio recording, notes were taken by the researcher(s) conducing the interviews. Transcriptions were loaded into the NVivo qualitative data analysis program, which allowed researchers to annotate segments of text corresponding to key themes of the research. These themes and their corresponding codes were added in a codebook that was used by the members of the research team who were analyzing the interview data.

Federal pretrial services and probation officers were recruited using the researchers' existing networks and a snowball sampling technique, whereby officers would suggest additional research participants. The officers interviewed included 18 probation officers, nine pretrial services officers, and one officer who specializes in writing presentence investigation reports. Researchers made concerted efforts to identify participants from all major regions in the United States. Officers from 15 federal districts in all four census regions and seven census divisions of the United States were interviewed for this project. The officers who participated in the project had varying levels of experience supervising individuals with links to extremism, ranging from extensive (e.g., the officer specializes in working with this population for their district) to limited, including officers who had just begun supervising their first case. Officers were asked about their educational and professional backgrounds, their impressions of the key obstacles that make reintegration challenging for this population, their thoughts on the monitoring techniques and support services that increase the odds of reintegration success, and their training and education needs to better support the community reentry of individuals with ties to extremism.

The service providers who participated in this study fell into two categories: (1) traditional service providers, such as mental health experts and treatment providers, reentry program managers and specialists, social workers and case managers, and individuals who help administer peer support services; and (2) individuals who were formerly involved in extremism and now work as peer support providers helping others disengage from extremist groups and movements. The interview sample included seven providers who work in the field of mental health, four providers who work for mentorship and reintegration programs, and three providers who support jobs assistance and rehabilitative programs. Of the eight system-involved individuals with links to extremism who participated in this study, five have provided, or are currently providing, peer support services. Researchers identified service providers for this study through existing networks and through recommendations from colleagues for additional research participants. Support providers were asked about their professional backgrounds, their experiences working with this population and supporting their reintegration and/or disengagement processes, their hesitations or concerns working with individuals involved in extremism, and their training and education needs.

Researchers also interviewed eight system-involved individuals who were formerly involved in extremism. Four of these participants were involved in far-right movements, including white supremacy and anti-government groups; three were connected to Salafi jihadism; and one was involved in far-left extremism. Five of these participants have at some point provided peer support services to others attempting to disengage from extremism. The researchers' initial intention was to interview more system-involved individuals who have not acted as peer mentors or publicly identified themselves as "formers", but were unsuccessful due to three primary reasons. First, this population is notoriously difficult to access, as most do not maintain public profiles and can be difficult to contact. Second, some potential participants expressed hesitation to participating in government funded research. And finally, service providers were blocked from providing access to their clients due to confidentiality rules, and probation officers were similarly constrained in giving the research team access to the individuals they are supervising. While officers acknowledged that it is important to hear the perspectives of system-involved individuals, they noted that judges might need to agree to give researchers access to the individuals under their supervision, and that there was no process in place for making this type of request. In speaking with system-involved individuals with prior links to extremism, researchers asked how the period of incarceration impacted their reintegration processes, including whether correctional-based service programs were provided. Furthermore, researchers asked respondents about their post-release experiences with finding housing, securing employment, and reengaging with family, and what they experienced as the major obstacles to achieving their reintegration goals. Researchers asked questions related to negative labeling, post-confinement restrictions, and any other barriers that may have impacted their ability to achieve reintegration success. Finally, researchers asked respondents for their thoughts on the types of services that would have been most beneficial to them during their reintegration processes.

Time Method View help for Time Method

Universe View help for Universe

Currently incarcerated individuals involved in extremism, federal pretrial services and probation officers, service providers, and system-involved individuals who were formerly involved in extremism.

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

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2026-06-11

Version History View help for Version History