Decide Your Time

• Author: John J. Brent,Daniel J. O'Connell,Christy A. Visher
• Date: 01 November 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12246
• Published date: 01 November 2016

RESEARCH ARTICLE

RANDOMIZED TRIALS AND SANCTIONS

FOR PROBATIONERS

Decide Your Time

A Randomized Trial of a Drug Testing and Graduated

Sanctions Program for Probationers

Daniel J. O’Connell

University of Delaware

John J. Brent

Georgia Southern University

Christy A. Visher

University of Delaware

Research Summary

This study used a randomized controlled trial approach with a sample of 400 high-risk

probationers to test the hypothesis that a program incorporating principles of deterrence,

graduated sanctions, and coerced abstinence would reduce recidivism rates among

drug-using offenders. Bivariate and multilevel modeling strategies were implemented.

Findings revealed no discernable difference across multiple drug use, probationary,and

recidivism measures between those randomized into the treatment condition and those

receiving standard probation. In multivariate models, probationer age, employment

status, and treatment participation improved some recidivism outcomes. Programmatic

and sample characteristics are discussed regarding the lack of experimental effect.

Policy Implications

These findings suggest that in designing and implementing deterrence-informed com-

munity supervision approaches, policy makers and practitioners should consider offender

The study was funded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of

Justice, under Grant 2009-IJ-CX-0003. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed

in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice or the

Delaware Department of Correction. The authors would like to thank Daniel Nagin, the anonymous reviewers,

Karl Hines (former Deputy Director of the Delaware Department of Correction), Alan Grinstead (Bureau Chief

of Community Corrections, Delaware Department of Correction), the DYT Probation Staff at the Hares Corner

Delaware Probation Office, former Research Associate Grant Bacon, and Linda Truitt of the National Institute

of Justice. Direct correspondence to Daniel J. O’Connell, Center for Drug and Health Studies, University of

Delaware, 257 East Main Street, Suite 110, Newark, DE 19716 (e-mail: oconnell@udel.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12246 C2016 American Society of Criminology 1073

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 15 rIssue 4

Research Article Randomized Trials and Sanctions for Probationers

attributes, the addition of employment and treatment-based programs and supports,

and local justice system structures. The findings of this study fit well with other emerging

models of offender supervision, in particular, those that match services and programs

based on offender risks and needs and those that recognize and address the heterogeneity

of the offender population in developing supervision and service plans. Swift, certain,

and fair supervision approaches for individuals under community supervision do not

seem to be a “one-size-fits-all” strategy. Understandingfor whom they work and under

what conditions has not yet been determined. In the meantime, policy makers and

practitioners should endeavor to understand the risks and needs of their local offender

population and the community supports that are available to improve offender outcomes

and increase public safety.

Keywords

substance abuse, probation, deterrence, graduated sanctions, corrections,“swift, certain,

and fair”

The increasing popularity of probationary processes incorporating swift, certain,

and fair (SCF) approaches has resulted in a renewed focus on the mechanics

and implementation of the basic principles of deterrence. Deterrence theory has

a long history and stands as the first utilitarian approach to punishment to go beyond

historical retributive principles. Originating in legal philosophy during the Enlightenment

period (Beccaria, 1986 [1764]; Bentham, 1970 [1789]), the study and application of

deterrence has taken on many forms. Since its start, research has moved beyond assessing

the impact of the severity, certainty, and celerity of formal sanctions on criminal offending.

A considerable literature on deterrence now includes a deeper examination of topics such

as perceptual deterrence, risk perceptions, sanctioning regimens, experiential effects, and

situational factors (see Nagin, 2013, for an overview).

Discussions about effective criminal justice policy have recently taken note of a

resurgence in deterrence research. This awareness, in part, has been fueled by decades

of sentencing enhancements, penal sanctions, criminal justice backlog, decreasing state

budgets, and rising incarceration rates. In 2014, slightly less than 7 million people—or 1

in 36—were under the supervision of the U.S. correctional system (Glaze, Kaeble, Minton,

and Tsoutis, 2015). Of those, individuals on probation comprised an overwhelming

majority, with roughly 3.9 million offenders sentenced to probation and another 857,000

on parole (Glaze et al., 2015). A closer look at those on probation reveals that an increasing

number of them are serving a sentence for drug-related offenses (Kaeble, Maruschak, and

Bonczar, 2015), with many testing positive for illegal drugs while under supervision in

the community, which indicates that they are still using illicit substances despite orders to

abstain or risk incarceration.

1074 Criminology & Public Policy