The Monetary Benefits and Costs of Community Supervision

• Author: Elizabeth K. Drake
• Published date: 01 February 2018
• Date: 01 February 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1043986217750425
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986217750425

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2018, Vol. 34(1) 47 –68

© The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1043986217750425

journals.sagepub.com/home/ccj

Article

The Monetary Benefits

and Costs of Community

Supervision

Elizabeth K. Drake1

Abstract

In 2014, nearly 5 million people were supervised in the community on probation or

parole; yet, little research evidence exists indicating whether supervision is a cost-

effective strategy to reduce recidivism. Using a meta-analytic framework, this article

presents findings from the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) on

the cost-effectiveness of four community supervision strategies including intensive

supervision programs both with and without a focus on treatment, supervision with

risk–need–responsivity training for officers, and swift, certain, and fair supervision

policies to address violation behavior. Results from the systematic review of the

rigorous research evidence indicates that three of the four supervision strategies

are effective at reducing recidivism and produce long-term financial benefits that

outweigh the costs with a high degree of certainty. The implications of these findings

are discussed as well as suggestions for future research.

Keywords

benefit-cost analysis, community supervision, recidivism

Introduction

After experiencing the highest incarceration rates in United States history, the use of prison

and jail has begun to decline slowly since its peak in 2009 (Carson, 2015) and policymak-

ers have indicated the need for bi-partisan criminal justice reform (Sentencing Reform Act

of 2015, H.R. 3713, 114th Cong, 2015; Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015,

S.2123, 114th Cong, 2015). The reasons for this fundamental shift in policy are multifac-

eted (Currie, 2013; Tonry, 2015), but from a correctional effectiveness perspective, the

1Washington State University, Olympia, WA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Elizabeth K. Drake, Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Washington State University, Olympia,

WA 98504, USA.

Email: elizabeth.drake@wsipp.wa.gov

750425CCJXXX10.1177/1043986217750425Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeDrake

research-article2017

48 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 34(1)

shift can be attributed in part to a vast body of empirical research literature produced in the

decades since Martinson’s (1974) “nothing works.” This empirical research evidence dem-

onstrates, unequivocally, that many correctional interventions are effective at reducing

recidivism (Lipsey & Cullen, 2007; Mackenzie, 2000; Sherman, Gottfredson, &

MacKenzie, 1997). While some interventions are better than others, it is evident that many

programs can produce favorable long-term financial benefits to both taxpayers and to

crime victims (Drake, Aos, & Miller, 2009). This extraordinary knowledge base has

informed correctional public policies across the U.S. Not only do most states and correc-

tional agencies promote the use of evidence-based programs today (Greenwood & Welsh,

2012); many have partnered with research institutions or non-profit organizations to make

steps toward “justice reinvestment” (La Vigne et al., 2014; Pew-MacArthur Results First

Initiative, n.d.). These reinvestments use research-driven approaches focused on reserving

incarceration, the most expensive correctional resource, for the highest risk offenders,

while strategically reinvesting limited taxpayer resources into programs proven effective at

reducing crime. This ideological and empirical departure from current policy could poten-

tially place a greater reliance on community supervision (Council of State Governments

Justice Center, 2015), which has often been an afterthought within the correctional system

(Taxman, 2008b). While research shows that supervision of offenders in the community is

an effective policy for reducing recidivism compared to no supervision (Lipsey & Cullen,

2007; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998), current examinations of supervision focus typically on

whether different strategies of supervision are more effective compared to “supervision as

usual.” Using a meta-analytic framework, this article presents findings from the Washington

State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) on the cost-effectiveness of four community

supervision strategies.1

To undertake this type of research, WSIPP has implemented a systematic research

approach to determine what policies and programs are cost-effective at reducing crime

if implemented in Washington.2 This internally consistent set of procedures allows for

the relative comparison of programs and policies. As part of its ongoing legislative

assignments, WSIPP has meta-analyzed more than 100 correctional interventions for

adult and juvenile offenders since 2007. The purpose of this article is to review

WSIPP’s most recent findings on community supervision strategies for adult offenders

to determine (a) whether certain types of community supervision strategies are effec-

tive at reducing recidivism and, if so, (b) which strategies are more effective relative

to one another, and lastly, (c) whether these community supervision strategies are cost

beneficial to taxpayers and to victims of crime. This article begins by providing a brief

background on community supervision as well as a description of the four supervision

strategies presented in this article.

Community Supervision

In 2014, 4.7 million people were supervised in communities across the United States,

representing an 8% decrease compared with the population at its peak in 2007 (Kaeble,

Maruschak, & Bonczar, 2015). Community supervision, referred to more broadly

throughout this article, can be used as a sentence for a crime in and of itself (probation),