Determining Alignment of Probation Conditions

By Erin Harbinson, Kelly Lyn Mitchell, Courtney Hougham, and Danette Buskovick

This report details a collaboration between the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (the Robina Institute) and Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation (DOCCR) to examine whether probation conditions are aligned with evidence-based practices in corrections, specifically the risk-needs-responsivity (RNR) principles (i.e., Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990) for community supervision, and to explore the effect of alignment on supervision outcomes. This project was conceived in order to test whether there is a need to bridge the sentencing process with the RNR principles followed by DOCCR. Research suggests that in order to reduce re-offending, probation conditions should reflect RNR principles and that over-supervising low risk individuals can increase recidivism (Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Holsinger, 2006). But because sentencing often occurs before the risk assessment has been completed, the probation conditions imposed at sentencing may not relate to the probationer’s risk and needs, or may require a higher degree of contact and intervention by the corrections department than suggested by the probationer’s risk to reoffend. Since Hennepin prepares a presentence investigation (PSI) for some cases and administers a pre-screener for others, this practice provides a natural “experiment” to explore how assessment might influence conditions. The project explored the relationship between the sentencing process and RNR principles by asking the following three questions: 1. How well do the risk/needs of offenders align with probation conditions? 2. Does the timing of assessment impact this alignment? 3. Are supervision outcomes improved when conditions are aligned with risk/needs? Key Findings The key findings from this study were as follows: • Most people on probation were assigned a similar number of conditions and similar types of conditions; there was not much variation. • The average number of probation conditions assigned to people on probation increases with risk, but only slightly. This increase ranged from less than one condition to one condition per increase in risk level. • People who received a PSI have on average approximately 5 more conditions assigned at each risk level when compared to people who did not receive a PSI. • A majority of the supervision conditions people were assigned did not target their criminogenic needs. Ø However, most people who had identified needs in the drugs and alcohol domain were assigned probation conditions that aligned with that need, though alignment was better when a PSI was conducted before sentencing Ø The majority of people who had identified needs in the family/marital, leisure and recreation, companions (criminal vs. anticriminal), and antisocial pattern were not assigned probation conditions that align with those needs. Ø When a PSI was not administered, the majority of people who had identified needs in pro-criminal attitudes and orientation were not assigned probation conditions that align with that need; when a PSI was administered, a more substantial proportion of individuals with this need were assigned such a condition. Ø When there is better alignment between needs and supervision conditions, it appears to be associated with the administration of a PSI, and to be driven by the assignment of conditions to address the domains for alcohol and drugs, education and employment, and pro-criminal attitude and orientation. • Improved alignment of supervision conditions with risk and needs did not significantly reduce the likelihood of reconviction one year out, however, more research is needed on measuring alignment since this non-significant finding might be due to the small variation in the number of conditions by risk level.

Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice University of Minnesota Law School 2020. 36p.