The Effects of Intensive Postrelease Correctional Supervision on Recidivism: A Natural Experiment

• Author: Grant Duwe,Susan McNeeley
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403421998430
• Published date: 01 August 2021
• Date: 01 August 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403421998430

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2021, Vol. 32(7) 740 –763

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403421998430

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

The Effects of Intensive

Postrelease Correctional

Supervision on Recidivism:

A Natural Experiment

Grant Duwe1 and Susan McNeeley1

Abstract

In July 2018, the Minnesota Department of Corrections revised the criteria it uses

to place soon-to-be-released prisoners on intensive supervision by shifting from

mostly offense-based conditions to those based exclusively on risk. In doing so,

this policy change provided a unique opportunity to evaluate not only the impact

of intensive supervision on recidivism but also whether risk-based policies lead to

better outcomes. Using Cox regression and negative binomial regression on a sample

of 1,818 persons released in 2018, we found that intensive supervised release (ISR)

significantly reduced the hazard for general, felony, and violent reoffending. We

also found, however, that ISR significantly increased the risk of a technical violation

revocation. The findings from our cost–benefit analysis showed that, despite the

relatively high costs it incurred, ISR was a cost-effective intervention because it

reduced reoffending for those with a higher risk of committing serious, violent crimes.

Keywords

intensive supervision, recidivism, parole, risk

Introduction

Since the 1980s, intensive supervision programs have become popular, as they are

believed to reduce prison populations while, at the same time, meting out punishment

and ensuring public safety. Only a handful of studies have evaluated intensive super-

vision programs, and even fewer have specifically examined intensive supervised

release (ISR) designed for persons leaving prison. While a few studies suggest

1Minnesota Department of Corrections, St. Paul, USA

Corresponding Author:

Grant Duwe, Research Director, Minnesota Department of Corrections, 1450 Energy Park Drive,

Suite 200, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.

Email: grant.duwe@state.mn.us

998430CJPXXX10.1177/0887403421998430Criminal Justice Policy ReviewDuwe and McNeeley

research-article2021

Duwe and McNeeley 741

intensive supervision can be more effective than standard supervision (DeVall et al.,

2017; Jalbert et al., 2010; Lowenkamp et al., 2010; Veysey et al., 2014), most find no

difference in reoffending based on supervision type (Deschenes et al., 1995; Erwin,

1986; Gendreau et al., 2000; Hyatt & Barnes, 2017; Nath et al., 1976; Petersilia &

Turner, 1990; Turner et al., 1992).

The Minnesota Department of Corrections (MnDOC) began offering ISR in 1990

as directed by the Minnesota Legislature. The statute identifies four goals of intensive

supervision in Minnesota: to punish those released from prison, to protect the safety

of the public, to facilitate the employment of the released prisoner, and to require the

payment of restitution to the victim(s) of the released prisoner’s crime. Prior to July

2018, ISR placement was based primarily on factors relating to offense type and risk

level. In July 2018, the MnDOC adopted criteria for ISR assignment that are based

entirely on recidivism risk. Since that time, ISR placement has been reserved for

persons whose risk for violent recidivism places them in the top 15%. In particular,

ISR assignment is based on the Minnesota Screening Tool Assessing Recidivism Risk

2.0 (MnSTARR 2.0), which predicts recidivism within a 3-year follow-up period, and

the Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-4 (MnSOST-4), which predicts sex

offense recidivism within a 4-year follow-up period—both of which have been devel-

oped and validated on samples of Minnesota prisoners (Duwe, 2014a, 2019a; Duwe

& Rocque, 2017).

The change in ISR policy represents a natural experiment that provides a unique

opportunity to examine the effects of ISR relative to standard supervision. Since July

2018, there have been Minnesota prisoners released to standard supervision who, prior

to July 2018, would have been placed on ISR. Likewise, there are also prisoners released

to ISR since July 2018 who would have been placed on standard supervision before

July 2018. This policy change thus provides a compelling counterfactual that we use to

estimate what would likely happen to released prisoners in the absence of ISR.

To evaluate the effectiveness of intensive supervision, we examine 12-month recid-

ivism outcomes for those released from Minnesota prisons in 2018—6 months before

and after the policy change. Of the 7,857 prisoners released in 2018, there were 1,818

releases who met either the pre-July 2018 ISR criteria or the post-July 2018 criteria.

Using Cox regression and negative binomial regression on the 1,818 releases, we iso-

lated the impact of ISR on recidivism by controlling for known risk factors of reoff-

ending. Furthermore, to determine whether ISR is a cost-effective intervention, we

carried out a cost–benefit analysis. By evaluating the effects of ISR, the results add to

the scant literature on the effectiveness of intensive supervision programs, especially

those designed for people re-entering the community. Moreover, the findings further

inform policy and practice related to ISR and intensive supervision more broadly.

Prior Research on Community Supervision

Effectiveness of Intensive Community Supervision

Much of the research on intensive supervision has focused on probation, or has com-

bined probation and parole. Studies evaluating intensive supervision as an alternative