How Different Operationalizations of Recidivism Impact Conclusions of Effectiveness of Parole Supervision

Abstract

Objectives: Recidivism reduction is the primary goal of many correctional programs, and “recidivism” is the most prevalent outcome measure in related program evaluation research. Many different operationalizations of recidivism are used without a clear delineation of how these variations may impact conclusions. This study explores how the definitions of recidivism may impact research findings and resultant policy recommendations regarding the efficacy of parole. Methods: Data from prisoners released in 2008 (n = 12,132) to parole or unconditional release are analyzed according to 10 different operationalizations of recidivism. We compare recidivism rates, time to failure, and hazard rates between groups through the presentation of descriptive statistics and the use of multivariate Cox proportional hazards survival models. Results: Our findings indicate that parole supervision could be deemed either effective or ineffective depending on which definition of recidivism is employed. These findings are largely driven by whether technical parole violations are included into more traditional criminal outcome measures, such as rearrests, reconvictions, or reincarcerations for new crimes, and if court processing times are factored into measures of time to failure. Conclusions: Our results raise questions about the consistency of findings within the corrections literature. These conclusions, given the role that technical violations and court processing times can play, suggest a need for increased specificity when using recidivism as an outcome measure.

The Effect of Housing Circumstances on Recidivism: Evidence From a Sample of People on Probation in San Francisco

“…We measured time as weeks under probation supervision, beginning with probation start date and ending with a recidivism or censor date. We define recidivism as rearrest for either a new crime or a revocation, as have other studies measuring criminal justice failure (Ostermann et al, 2015). We adopted this liberal definition of recidivism because residential instability and status could compromise the ability to avoid criminal behavior and to abide by the terms of supervision.…”

“…We adopted this liberal definition of recidivism because residential instability and status could compromise the ability to avoid criminal behavior and to abide by the terms of supervision. Although rearrests may capture offenses for which people are not convicted and revocations may capture petitions that do not result in probation termination, this definition of recidivism avoids overestimation of postrelease “successes” (e.g., counting as successes those who violate community supervision; Ostermann et al, 2015). To test for variation in housing effects by offense type, we also constructed offense-specific outcomes.…”

A Year Without a Conviction: An Integrated Examination of Potential Mechanisms for Successful Reentry in High-Risk Violent Prisoners

“…Relatedly, in jurisdictions where brief periods in custody prevail in managing high rates of parole violation, examination of other types of recidivism outcome requires statistical controls for the amount of time in custody for violations, since this is time that takes away from the opportunity to commit new, community-based offenses. In other words, parole policies create methodological challenges even with regard to the consistent measurement of outcomes (Ostermann, Salerno, & Hyatt, 2015).…”

Effect of continuing care for people with cocaine dependence on criminal justice sentences

“…Additionally, while a variable temporal lag between arrest and sentencing for a crime is possible, the relatively long follow‐up period employed uniformly here permits the use of these data. Alternate measure of recidivism (e.g., re‐arrest, re‐incarceration, technical violations) may provide different times to failure and prevalence, although all are commonly used in criminological research (Andersen & Skardhamar, ; Ostermann, Salerno, & Hyatt, ).…”