Adhering to the Risk and Need Principles: Does It Matter for Supervision-based Programs?
The Dual Treatment Track Program:
A Descriptive Assessment of a New “In-House” Jail Diversion Program
Perception and Payment of Economic Sanctions: A Survey of Offenders
Sex Offenders on Campus: University-based Sex Offender Registries and the Collateral Consequences of Registration
Adhering to the Risk and Need Principles: Does It Matter for Supervision-based Programs?
1 Risk level was determined using a risk measure developed in previous research (Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2002) and includes 13 measures including measures of criminal history, current offense, substance abuse, alcohol abuse, marital status, employment, age, and educational attainment. Recidivism rates for the varying categories of risk, based on a two-year follow up, and using incarceration as the outcome measure were: Low risk—7 percent; Low-Moderate risk—22 percent; Moderate risk—38 percent; and High risk—53 percent. For more details and analysis using arrest as the outcome measure see Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2005.
2 Comparison cases were matched to the treatment cases on gender, county of supervision, and risk category.
3 Alternate analyses using regular felony probation cases were conducted and are reported in the original report by Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2005.
The Dual Treatment Track Program: A Descriptive Assessment of a New “In-House” Jail Diversion Program
1 The program began accepting clients in March 2003, however, IRB approval and obtainment of the Certificate of Confidentiality was not completed until December 2003. So, a number of potential research subjects were not a pproached to participate in the self-report interviews.
Perception and Payment of Economic Sanctions: A Survey of Offenders
1 After designing the survey instrument, we obtained from the local probation office the names of two offenders willing to participate in cognitive interviews. The cognitive interviews proceeded in two stages. First, the offenders completed the self-report survey. Second, we discussed each of the survey questions with the offenders. The purpose of the cognitive interviews was to help us identify questions that were difficult to understand or that did not accurately reflect what we intended. We then modified the survey to reflect any changes suggested by the offenders. The offenders were paid $25 for their participation in the cognitive interviews.
2 The two counties were chosen because we had worked with them on a previous study examining the imposition and payment of economic sanctions. In one county, our sample of 405 adult offenders sentenced in 2000 was 78% male, 90% white, with an average age of 31.5 (Mdn = 29.1), and with 11.7 years of education (Mdn = 12.0). The offenses they were convicted of were 27% property, 17% personal, 16% drugs, 24% traffic/DUI, and 16% other. In terms of sentence received, 4% were incarcerated in state prison, 21% were incarcerated in county jail, and 51% received probation. In the other county, our sample of 394 adult offenders sentenced in 2000 was 80% male, 88% white, with an average age of 33.2 (Mdn = 31.5), and with 12.0 years of education (Mdn = 12.0). The offenses they were convicted of were 21% property, 17% personal, 15% drug, 39% traffic/DUI, and 8% other. In terms of sentence received, 3% were incarcerated in state prison, 28% were incarcerated in county prison, and 51% received probation. Thus, our sample of respondents for calendar year 2003 is representative.
3 We received 78 completed surveys from one county and 44 completed surveys from the other county. We mailed 501 surveys to offenders in the first county, 64 of which were returned as undeliverable. We also received letters from family members that 2 additional offenders had died. Thus, the response rate was 18% (78/435). We mailed 508 surveys to offenders in the second county, 110 of which were returned as undeliverable. Thus, the response rate was 11% (44/398). Two surveys were returned because the inmates were in prison and prison rules prohibited them from completing the survey.
4 The respondents had been convicted of burglary (7%), theft (20%), robbery (2%), assault (8%), drug possession (20%), drug selling (12%), DUI (36%), traffic offenses (10%), and other (21%), most of which were property (8%) or drug offenses (4%). The percentages total more than 100 because individuals could be convicted of more than one offense (range = 1-4; M = 1.4; Mdn = 1, Mode = 1). When a respondent listed more than one conviction offense, we coded the most serious crime (e.g., personal more serious than property).
5 Incarceration could have contradictory effects. On the one hand, incarceration indicates that the offender had probably committed a more serious crime, had a longer prior record, or both. On the other hand, incarceration likely means that the offender would have more difficulty paying the economic sanctions.
Sex Offenders on Campus: University-based Sex Offender Registries and the Collateral Consequences of Registration
1 Four surveys were returned undelivered due to either insufficient, non-existent addresses, or the registrant no longer residing at the residence and having no forwarding address.
2 The largest proportion of respondents come from Florida (34.6 percent) as well as from Texas (19.2 percent), Ohio (11.5 percent), Illinois (11.5 percent), 3.8 percent from Connecticut, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Oklahoma and South Carolina.
3 Differences between mean responses to the questions about how life has been influenced by listing on the state-wide and university SOR is a statistically significant difference, for both the entire sample and the student-only subsample, using a t-test (p< .001).