Substance Involvement and Probation Outcomes: Evidence From a Cohort Study

• Author: Kimberly M. Davidson,Miranda A. Galvin,Matthew Kleiman
• DOI: 10.1177/00220426211062560
• Published date: 01 July 2022
• Date: 01 July 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Journal of Drug Issues

2022, Vol. 52(3) 329–348

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00220426211062560

journals.sagepub.com/home/jod

Substance Involvement and

Probation Outcomes: Evidence

From a Cohort Study

Miranda A. Galvin

1,2,3

, Kimberly M. Davidson

4

, and

Matthew Kleiman

1

Abstract

Substance use disorders are common among justice-involved populations, the majority of whom

are under community supervision in the form of probation. Substance involvement can amplify the

challenges of complying with requirements of probation supervision, violations of which can lead

to incarceration. In this study, we assess the role of substance involvement in violations of

probation conditions across 47 counties representing 70% of individuals sentenced to probation

in the state of Pennsylvania. We also consider the role of court-ordered treatment. We conclude

by estimating the consequences of resentencing for substance-involved individuals in Penn sylvania

(in incarceration and supervision days). Results suggest that individuals who are substance-

involved are at greater risk of technical violations. However, treatment may reduce some negative

outcomes for substance-involved individuals. Court-ordered treatment was associated wi th a

reduction in the likelihood of being resentenced for a new offense relative to individuals who were

substance-involved but not ordered to treatment.

Keywords

probation, community supervision, criminal justice, technical violations

Introduction

In 2019, there were approximately 6.3 million individuals under correctional supervision in the

United States—of these, over two-thirds were under community supervision in the form of

probation and, to a lesser extent, parole (Minton et al., 2020). While the probation population is

more demographically akin to the general population than the incarcerated population, men and

1

Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, University Park, PA, USA

2

Criminal Justice Research Center, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

3

Department of Sociology and Criminology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

4

College of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Miranda A. Galvin, Department of Sociology and Criminology, Pennsylvania State University, 211 Oswald Tower,

University Park, PA 16802, USA.

Email: mag483@psu.edu

Black individuals are still over-represented in probation (Bronson & Carson, 2019;Kaeble, 2018;

Phelps, 2018). Both research and the media tend to focus on mass incarceration exclusively, yet

community supervision populations have paralleled the growth in incarceration in a phenomenon

some scholars refer to as “mass probation”(Phelps, 2013). The astounding size of the probation

population, with over 4.3 million probationers in 2019 (Minton et al., 2020), ref‌lects not only the

growing reach of the correctional system but also the vast increase in exposure to potential

incarceration, especially among individuals who would formerly not have been exposed to

criminal justice supervision (Phelps, 2020).

While probation is formally a community-based sentence, individuals remain at risk for in-

carceration due to high levels of surveillance and social control throughout their supervision term.

The requirements of probation sanctions often mean that probation clients can be incarcerated

absent any criminal behavior through “technical violations”of their supervision. In most ju-

risdictions, any violation of probation conditions—such as failure to report to the probation

off‌icer, or failing to maintain certain living or employment conditions—can result in incarceration,

with community supervision-related incarceration accounting for up to 70% of prison admissions

in some states (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2018). Probation revocations for purely technical

violations (e.g., failure to report and positive drug test) can result in substantial periods of

incarceration—sometimes even longer than 6 months, depending on jurisdiction—according to

research by the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (Alper & Ruhland, 2016;

see also Cohen, 1995;Stickels, 2007) and may be responsible for up to 25% of prison admissions

(Council for State Governments, 2019).

Rates of substance use, misuse, and dependence are signif‌icantly higher among individuals

involved in the criminal justice system than among the general population (Bronson, Stroop,

Zimmer, & Berzofsky, 2017). While exact prevalence rates from criminal justice agencies are

unknown, data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health suggest that slightly less than

one-third of all individuals under probation supervision have a substance use disor der, compared

to the estimated 7% of the general population (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration, 2020). Older data suggest that alcohol and drug use at the time of the current

sanctioned offense are very common among adult probationers, especially those offenses resulting

in felonies (Mumola & Bonczar, 1998). High rates of substance involvement among probationers

are disconcerting given evidence that substance use, especially substance use without appropriate

treatment, may increase the likelihood of poor probation outcomes (Johnson & Jones, 1998;Olson

& Lurigio, 2000;Stevens-Martin, Oyewole, & Hipolito, 2014).

With over half of justice-involved individuals screening as having a substance use disorder

(Bronson et al., 2017), and similarly high rates among probationers (Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration, 2020), it is critical to assess how substance involvement impacts

probation outcomes. Substance involvement creates a unique challenge in community supervision

given the challenges accompanying recovery and the frequency of relapse amongst those with

substance use disorders (Dennis, Scott, Funk, & Foss, 2005;Hser, Evans, Grella, Ling, & Anglin,

2015;Nosyk, Anglin, Brecht, Lima, & Hser, 2013). While some research suggests that treatment

improves probation outcomes for substance-involved probationers (Albonetti & Hepburn, 1997;

Evans, Longshore, Prendergast, & Urada, 2006;Holloway, Bennett, & Farrington, 2006;Morash,

Kashy, Smith, & Cobbina, 2019), most studies use data from a limited number of probation off‌ices

or evaluate specif‌ic programs. One meta-analysis found support for treatment when included with

intensive supervision (Drake, 2011), though intensive supervision can create challenges for

probation success through technical violations (Hyatt & Barnes, 2014;Petersilia & Turner, 1993).

Given the sheer number of individuals on probation, and the consequent potential for in-

carceration due to technical violations (i.e., net widening), research on community supervision

outcomes is vital. However, prior literature is minimal and is often limited to studies of one or a

330 Journal of Drug Issues 52(3)