DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03584
title: Evaluation of Adult Community Supervision Strategies in Multnomah County, Oregon, 1995, 1998, and 2000 Cohorts
title: Archival Version

description: This study was undertaken to determine whether a new form
 of community supervision in Multnomah County, Oregon, had been
 properly implemented and to determine its impact on public safety, as
 well as to assess recidivism rates in light of the revised
 supervision. A quasi-experimental design was employed using non-
 randomized comparison groups consisting of offenders admitted to
 community supervision in Multnomah County, Oregon, in 1995, 1998, and
 2000. Administrative records data were collected from the Oregon
 Department of Corrections, Multnomah County Department of Community
 Justice, Portland Police Departments, Multnomah County Sheriff, the
District Attorney's office, and court records.
description: Community justice departments across the nation
 are continually pressured to implement higher-intensity modes of
 supervision for serious offenders without the benefit of expanded
 resources. This study sought to examine one county's response to these
 pressures. In 1997, the Multnomah County Department of Community
 Justice in Oregon launched an ambitious effort to change the way in
 which adult community supervision services were provided by launching
 a new mode of supervision. The overall goal of the redesign was to
 refocus time and resources on high-risk offenders, while providing
 less restrictive modes of supervision to lower-risk offenders, without
 jeopardizing public safety. Specifically, the redesign required
 increased transfers of limited and low-risk probationers and parolees
 to a casebank caseload. Casebank provides minimal face-to-face
 supervision and compliance reviews, thereby conserving departmental
 resources for offenders who demonstrate a higher risk to
 re-offend. The redesign also provided differing service levels
 responding to the offenders' risks and needs, as well as a mechanism
 for the efficient transfer of offenders between caseloads, in response
 to their behavior. This study was undertaken to determine whether the
 new form of supervision had been properly implemented and to determine
 its impact on public safety, as well as to assess recidivism rates in
light of the revised supervision.
description: A quasi-experimental design was employed using
 non-randomized comparison groups consisting of offenders admitted to
 community supervision in 1995, 1998, and 2000. The 1995 cohort
 represents offenders processed through the traditional system of
 community supervision. The next two cohorts were exposed to a new
 form of supervision that relied on strategic decisions about
 supervision intensity and access to treatment resources, based on
 objective risk assessments. The 1998 cohort reflects offenders exposed
 to the first version of the new system of community supervision, while
 the 2000 cohort reflects the system of supervision as it had developed
 over time to become fully institutionalized within the department. At
 the outset of this research, the plan was to draw a sample of
 offenders from each admission cohort and to combine both automated
 data and manual data collection efforts to obtain the full scope of
 information needed for the study. However, researchers found that
 sufficient automated data were available to permit the inclusion of
 entire admission cohorts, which increased the external validity of the
 findings and eliminated sampling bias. First, a list of offenders
 admitted to community supervision during each of the target years
 (1995, 1998, or 2000) was requested from the Oregon Department of
 Corrections, which is the state's repository for all community
 supervision data. An admission was defined as an offender admitted to
 supervision (a) for a new crime for which he or she was given a
 sentence to probation, (b) after serving a prison sentence with
 additional time to serve on parole or post-prison supervision, (c)
 upon returning to active supervision after previously absconding, or
 (d) upon moving into Multnomah County from active supervision in
 another county or state. These conditions, in combination, captured
 the population of offenders "newly exposed" to community supervision
 during a given year. It excluded those who might have received
 supervision during a given year as the result of an admission from a
 previous year. Once the cohorts were identified, a variety of data
 were obtained from several criminal justice agencies. Data on
 demographics, current offense, legal status, and caseload assignments
 (Part 1 and 2) were obtained directly from the Multnomah County
 Department of Community Justice (DCJ). Part 2 also includes
 risk/supervision-level data collected from the Oregon Department of
 Corrections. Data in Part 3 were collected on a targeted sample from
 four sources: (1) The Oregon Department of Corrections sent the
 DCJ a monthly snapshot which included information on every offender on
 community supervision that month. Monthly snapshots were obtained
 from January 1995 through June 2001. Offenders who were not part of
 the cohort were deleted from the files. These data were used both to
 describe the different cohorts and to examine differences across
 caseload types and supervision levels on various outcome measures. (2)
 Information on arrests and convictions was obtained from the data
 warehouse, Decision Support System-Justice (DSS-Justice), which
 contained integrated, individual-level data from law enforcement
 (Portland Police Departments and the Multnomah County Sheriff), the
 District Attorney, and the Courts. DSS-Justice provided arrest and
 conviction data for each offender in the sample. For the 1995 and 1998
 cohorts, data covered two years subsequent to the admission date
 (follow-up data) and two years prior to the admission date (prior
 history data). For the 2000 cohort, the follow-up period was limited
 to one year in order to complete the research during the grant
 period. These data were used to describe the offenders' criminal
 justice histories and also included data for the key outcome
 measure--re-arrest. (3) Data describing the intensity of supervision
 of offenders in the sample were obtained from the Oregon Department of
 Corrections, which is the repository of the County's community
 supervision data. To this end, for each offender, chronological
 records of all supervision contacts were provided, including the type
 of contact (e.g., person-to-person, telephone, mail, etc.) and the
 person contacted (e.g., offender, employer, etc.), for the entire
 period of supervision. These data permitted an assessment of whether
 the type and intensity of supervision varied across caseload
 types. (4) Finally, data on the use of sanctions were extracted for
 the DCJ's Sanctions Tracking Data Base. This database, created in
 1997, contained information on the non- complaint behavior triggering
 the sanction (i.e., the conditions violated) and the specific type and
 duration of the sanction imposed. These data were obtained for the
 1998 and 2000 cohorts, covering the entire period of supervision for
 each offender. Data of this kind were not available to assess the use
 of sanctions for the 1995 cohort. For Part 1, DCJ data were collected
 for the full study cohort (10,094 in 1995, 12,565 in 1998, and 13,632
 in 2000). In order to complete the study during the required time
 frame, the 2000 cohort used in Parts 2 and 3 was limited to offenders
admitted between January 1 and June 30, 2000 (N = 9,604).
description: Data for Part 1 include date offender entered their
 first and second caseload, caseload type, caseload category,
 conviction charge description, category, subcategory, level and class,
 offense severity score, and admittance date. Demographic variables
 included are race, sex, and age. Variables for Part 2 include actual
 and calculated supervision levels for prior history and follow-up
 periods of observation. Data unique to Part 3 include the most serious
 prior arrest and conviction, number of contacts with offender,
 administration, legal, or supervisory treatment, most serious rearrest
 and reconviction, dates of rearrest and reconviction, recommended
sanction, imposed sanction, and sanction supervision type.
description: Response Rates: inap.
description: Presence of Common Scales: None.
description: Any offender in Multnomah County, Oregon, admitted to
 community supervision during 1995 (N = 10,094), 1998 (N = 12,565), and
 2000 (N = 13,632) was targeted for inclusion in the study. In order to
 complete the study during the required time frame, the 2000 cohort was
 limited to offenders admitted between January 1 and June 30, 2000 (N =
 9,604). For Parts 2 and 3, certain groups of offenders were excluded
 from the research because they were not actually subjected to
 community supervision. The final targeted sample of cohorts used in
 Part 3 included 8,506 offenders from the 1995 cohort, 10,794 from
1998, and 8,353 from the 2000 cohort.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Caseload and Offense Data for 1995, 1998, and 2000 Cohorts (Full Calendar Years)
DS2: Caseload, Offense, and Supervision Data for 1995 and 1998 Cohorts (Full Calendar Years), and 2000 Cohort (Half Calendar Year)
DS3: Targeted Sample Data
description: Offenders in Multnomah County, Oregon, admitted to
community supervision during 1995, 1998, and 2000. Smallest Geographic Unit: None.
description: The user guide and codebook are provided by ICPSR as
 Portable Document Format (PDF) files. The PDF file format was
 developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF
 reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how
 to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web
site.