Program Profile: Three Data Driven Supervision Protocols for Parole Violations (Georgia)

In this program, new supervision protocols for substance abuse, joblessness, and chronic violators were created based on data gathered on the behavior of the paroled person and parole officer responses. The program is rated No Effects. There was no significant impact on overall arrests or measures of recidivism. In fact, the treatment group had significantly more arrests for a new misdemeanor offense than the comparison group.

A No Effects rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s) and may result in a negative outcome(s).

Program Goals

Data Driven Supervision Protocols was a project that aimed to identify and evaluate case management and supervision strategies that are the most effective at achieving successful parole outcomes. Given the number of individuals released from prison each year who fail to complete their parole terms, there was interest in developing more effective strategies to promote and improve success. Using the Georgia Parole Board’s computer case management system, researchers gathered data on the paroled person's behavior and parole officer response that led to improved supervision outcomes, and developed new supervision protocols with the overall goal of reducing recidivism.

Program Components

Research was gathered from two Georgia criminal justice agencies: the Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) and the Parole Field Log of Interaction Data (FLOID). By analyzing all 39,000 paroled person outcomes, researchers were able to determine if there was a relationship between their behavior and the parole officer’s response to that behavior, which affected their parole experience outcomes.

This data provided information on the behavior of those convicted of an offense and officer response that was associated with both negative and positive supervision results; this, in turn, guided the creation of new protocols. These new protocols, which were used in the supervision of the paroled person, addressed their risk of committing a new crime, the time period when the violation occurred after release, and the officer response most likely to achieve a positive result. The three protocols focused on substance abuse, job loss, and chronic violators.

1. Substance Abuse Protocol. In order for a parole officer to use the Substance Abuse Protocol, paroled persons had to have a supervision risk score of 7–10, documented history of substance abuse (prison classification or parole supervision), and their first positive drug test conducted through urinalysis. If a paroled persons met the three eligibility criteria, the parole officer’s response was to 1) place the paroled persons on a substance abuse track, 2) provide a referral for substance abuse assessment and follow assessment recommendations, and 3) start a drug test regimen of one test per month for the next 6 months. This protocol was developed based on the data from the 39,000 paroled persons whose records indicated that, in addition to being classified as high risk, they were frequently testing positive for drugs at least twice before parole officers recommended them for treatment. It was believed that referring these individuals to treatment faster would produce better supervision outcomes.
2. Job Loss Protocol. In order for a parole officer to use the Job Loss Protocol, paroled persons had to have a supervision risk score of 7–10, loss of a job as a result of being fired or quitting, or no job within 30 days of supervision (and the paroled persons were not exempt from employment). If a paroled person met the three eligibility criteria for the Job Loss Protocol, the parole officer’s response was to 1) request an administrative hearing with the Parole Chief, 2) place the paroled persons on an employment track, 3) provide a referral to the Labor Department or other employment service, and 4) instruct the paroled persons to contact the officer once per week to describe their efforts to actively seek a job. This protocol was developed based on data that indicated a strong relationship between working and the likelihood of committing a new crime. Additionally, data revealed that leaving a job by quitting or being fired was predictive of supervision failure. As a result, this protocol focused a parole officer’s attention on employment.
3. Chronic Violators Protocol. In order for a parole officer to use the Chronic Violators Protocol, a paroled persons had to have a supervision risk score of 7–10, have at least one prior administrative hearing, and commit any one of the following four violations: electronic monitoring, not following instructions, not attending a program, and changing residences without permission. If a paroled persons met the eligibility criteria for the Chronic Violators Protocol, the parole officer’s response was to refer the paroled person for cognitive programming, regardless of prior attendance (specifically, Moral Reconation Therapy [MRT] program, if available). This protocol was developed as a result of data revealing that paroled persons who attended a cognitive skills program had low re-arrest rates. Therefore, this protocol required paroled persons to attend MRT, which was led by parole staff in local offices.

Additional Information: Negative Program Effects

An outcome evaluation (described in Evaluation Methodology and Evaluation Outcomes) conducted by Meredith and Prevost (2009) found negative effects with regard to arrests for new misdemeanor offenses. The treatment group had significantly more arrests for a new misdemeanor offense than the comparison group.

Study 1

To determine the impact of the new protocols on parolee recidivism, Meredith and Prevost (2009) used a stratified sampling design, whereby parole field offices were selected for participation. New parolees who entered supervision were assigned to either the experimental or comparison group. The treatment group was supervised using the new protocols, while the comparison group was supervised using the old protocols, respectively. Field offices were selected based on three criteria: 1) the ability to supply sufficient cases for evaluation, 2) the ability to provide both required treatment programming options to parolees assigned to treatment, and 3) their geographic locations. Twelve offices were selected as treatment offices, which represented urban, rural, and suburban settings in the given geographic regions of the state. All parolees in the 12 treatment offices who were placed on parole beginning March 1, 2007, and who also met the new protocol criteria, were supervised under the new practice protocols (described in the Program Description section). The comparison group included all parolees beginning supervision during the same time period in the remaining eligible offices who also met the new protocol criteria. Parolees who transferred in or out of the offices were eliminated from the study.  

A total of 629 parolees were eligible for inclusion in the treatment group, and a total of 1,335 parolees were eligible for inclusion in the comparison group. Parolees in both groups were followed for up to 12 months, or until their parole supervision terminated. All interactions in the Parole Field Log of Interaction Data were monitored daily for identification of patterns that were included in the new supervision protocol. A monitoring system tracked email transmissions, receipt, and acknowledgement to ensure the protocol system was being implemented as intended.

The treatment and comparison groups were similar in terms of demographics, offense type, and prior criminal history. The treatment group was 89 percent male and 11 percent female; the comparison group was 91 percent male and 9 percent female. Both the treatment and comparison groups were 30 percent white and 70 percent nonwhite. The offense type for both groups was similar in terms of violent personal offenses, nonviolent personal offenses, property offenses, drug offenses, and other offenses. Additionally, the percentage of arrests prior to parole supervision and prior prison incarcerations was the same for both the treatment and comparison groups. However, it is important to note that the two groups differed on parole status; the treatment group was more likely to have their parole revoked than the comparison group. 

Data was analyzed at 6- and 12-month time points to determine if there were any significant differences between the treatment and comparison groups that could be due to the protocol changes. Statistical significance was assessed with t tests and the Pearson Chi-square test for bivariate analyses, and through linear and nonlinear regression-based techniques for multivariate analyses. The outcomes of interest included arrest for new misdemeanor offense, arrest for a new felony offense, revocation of parole, unemployment throughout parole, a positive drug test, and arrest for a technical violation.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile: