DOI: 10.3886/icpsr37978
title: A Multi-Method Evaluation of Risk Responsive and Neighborhood-Oriented Probation Models in New York City, New York, 2010-2016
title: Archival Version

description: In late 2012, the New York City Department of Probation launched two large-scale reform initiatives: citywide adoption of a risk-needs assessment tool to support the integration of risk-need-responsivity principles into probation practice and the Neighborhood Opportunity Network (NeON), which established new offices and additional resources in neighborhoods with high numbers of probation clients.
Using a mixed-methods design, this study examines the impact of these probation
innovations during the first three years of implementation and considers the implications of these findings for community supervision agencies nationwide. This study involves a quasi-experimental design with two major components: an interview study of probation client experiences and short-term outcomes after the launch of the new initiatives, with a focus on the impact of NeON; and an outcome evaluation examining criminal justice outcomes among three study groups: clients assigned to probation prior to the new initiatives (2010-2013), clients assigned to probation who received risk and need informed services via centralized probation offices (2013-2016), and NeON clients (2013- 2016).
description: The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of two reforms, the introduction of risk need-responsivity principles (RNR) informed practices and a neighborhood-based probation model, on probation client experiences and criminal justice outcomes among probation clients in New York City.
description: For the purposes of the study, January 1, 2013 was established as the baseline implementation date for both Neighborhood Opportunity Network (NeON) and risk need-responsivity principles (RNR)-based supervision reforms. By this time, the Department of Probation had begun administering the Level of Services Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) citywide and implemented a restructured supervision model. At the same time, six of seven "full" NeON offices had become operational, including all NeON sites selected for the study. The research involves three specific study groups:

Pre-Reform (group 1): Probation clients who lived in all selected study zip codes and assigned to the moderate-high risk supervision track prior to January 1, 2013 (specifically from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012).
Centralized Probation (group 2): Probation clients in the moderate-high risk supervision track between January 1, 2013, and June 30, 2016, who lived in selected comparison site zip codes and reporting to central probation offices in Manhattan or Brooklyn.
NeON (group 3): Probation clients in the moderate-to high-risk supervision track between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2016, who were living in selected NeON site zip codes and reporting to a neighborhood-based NeON probation office.
To examine the impact of the reforms, the study involves two major components. First, through structured interviews, the research team compares the experiences of clients in the NeON to the contemporaneous comparison group (those under RNR-informed supervision in central probation offices). The second component examines the impact of probation reforms on criminal justice outcomes before and after these reforms were initiated. In this component, the research team isolate RNR-based supervision and the NeON initiative and ask whether either initiative--or the two combined--had a significant impact on recidivism among probation clients. Through the use of official criminal justice records obtained from the Department of Probation and the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, the research team tested how the two post reform groups differed in terms of criminal justice outcomes (rearrest, re-conviction, and revocation) compared to each other and to the pre-reform sample.
description: <b>The Recidivism Outcome Data (DS1) contains the following variable descriptions:</b>

Criminal history variables provided by New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS).
Misconduct, transfer, and risk assessment data provided by the New York City Department of Probation (DOP).
<b>The Interview Subsample Data (DS2) contains the following variable descriptions:</b>

Criminal history variables provided by New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS).
Data collected by the research team through structured interviews with probation clients across New York City over an 18-month period (June 2015- November 2016).
The interview instrument contained 374 items spanning the following domains:

Client Characteristics
Supervision
Engagement with Neighborhood Services
Probation Services
Perceptions of Fairness
Housing
Service Needs
Community Involvement
Substance Use
Mental Health
Criminal Behavior
Family Relationships
Family Crime
Criminal Thinking and Legal Cynicism
Readiness for Change
Leisure and Peers
Participant Goals
Recidivism variables (re-arrest, re-conviction, and revocation at two years) were calculated based on data provided by DCJS
description: The Recidivism Outcome Data (DS2) includes 3 weight variables: <b>WEIGHTM1</b>, <b>WEIGHTM1R</b>, and <b>STDWEIGHTM1R</b>. Please refer to the accompanying User Guide for the intended use of these weights.
description: Response Rates: Not Applicable
description: Presence of Common Scales: The Dual-Role Relationship Inventory (DRI-R; Skeem et al. 2007) is a 30-item scale that measures the relationship quality between probation officers (POs) and clients across three domains: caring-fairness, trust, and toughness
The Brief Symptom Inventory 18 (BSI-18; Derogatis 2001) is an 18- item measure of general psychological distress including somatization, depression, and anxiety.
description: <b>Recidivism Outcome Data (DS1)</b>: Official administrative data were obtained from the New York City Department of Probation and the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. The key outcome
variables of interest were re-arrest, re-conviction, and supervision revocation within two years of the index probation sentence (i.e., the probation sentence that led to inclusion in the study). The research team examined all available subcategories of re-arrest and re-conviction, including by charge severity (misdemeanor v. felony) and type (e.g., violent, property, drug). The research team conducted ANOVA to compare the three groups across recidivism measures. The research team also examined differential impacts based on client sex, race, age, and risk level; for these analyses, where factorial ANOVA was utilized to look at the interaction between the variable of interest and study group. The research team examined differences by subgroup and study group, using chi-square tests as appropriate.
<b>Interview Subsample Data (DS2):</b> Interviewees were recruited from across the selected probation sites over an 18-month period (June 2015-November 2016). To be eligible to participate in the interviews, clients had to be at least 18 years old, sentenced to probation after 2013, and have been on probation for at least six months. Recruitment was conducted by trained research assistants with support from senior probation staff and individual probation officers in the selected sites. Recruitment flyers were used by probation officers to refer eligible clients to the study, but participation was voluntary. The flyer outlined eligibility requirements, the purpose of the interview, compensation, time requirements, instructions for scheduling, and information specifying that the research was being conducted by an external organization and would not impact their probation. Interviews took place in secure private rooms at each site. Interviews lasted approximately one hour and participants received a $25 cash stipend to compensate for their time.
While a total of 379 probation clients completed the interview, the final sample was reduced to 344 after administrative data was merged with interview results. Of the 344 interviews completed, 239 (69%) were recruited from Neighborhood Opportunity Network (NeON) sites and 105 (31%) were recruited from centralized probation offices in Brooklyn and Manhattan.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Recidivism Outcome Data
DS2: Interview Subsample Data
description: Adult probation population in New York City. Smallest Geographic Unit: Neighborhood
description: record abstracts; face-to-face interview