RECIDIVISM IN PAROLEES RESEARCH PROPOSAL 1 Schaub

Recidivism in Parolees Research Proposal

Taylor Schaub

Arizona State University

Research Question 

Do rehabilitative parole programs reduce recidivism rates in individuals who commit burglary?

Proposal Background and Objective

Recidivism is the tendency of an individual to reengage in criminal behavior. Since the

inception of mass incarceration, people have been trying to solve this problem. How do we stop

recidivism in criminals? At every level, reducing the rates of recidivism is important for

America. Firstly, Mass incarceration is astronomically expensive, with the current amount

budgeted for our prison systems reaching heights of 7 billion dollars (DOJ, 2019). The United

States has a staggering 2.2 million inmates across the nation. In Arizona alone, there are

currently 62,000 inmates being held in federal, state, local, and juvenile facilities (Initiative,

2018). On average, Arizona inmates cost $71.13 a day (FAQs, 2019), meaning that the state

spends close to 4.5 million dollars annually. Recidivism comes into question when discussing

why we have such a large prison population, as most inmates are repeat offenders. If we can

successfully lower the rates of recidivism, not only are we actively saving money, but we are

also creating a safer community, as fewer criminals are recommitting crimes. Unfortunately, we

are still left with this same question: How do we stop recidivism in criminals? Criminologists

have debated back and forth as to what criminal theory is the most effective, and the two most

widely accepted are Retribution vs. Rehabilitation. Retribution is the system we mainly use; a

criminal commits a crime and is punished accordingly via incarceration. America adapted this

system in 1910 with the creation of Parole: a retributive type of sentencing that allows a criminal

to serve part of their sentence out of prison under a set of conditions and rules. This ‘alternative

sentencing’ helps to alleviate some of the pressures that prisons face and combats
RECIDIVISM IN PAROLEES RESEARCH PROPOSAL 3 Schaub

overpopulation, while simultaneously encouraging prisoners to reintegrate into society. I believe

that when additional measures are put into place with parole, it can work to solve the question

being discussed.

Currently, certain rehabilitative programs are being implemented to reduce the rates of

recidivism, such as parole and probation. Within these sentences, communities have taken it

upon themselves to set up programs to aid in the process. Intensive Supervision Program, or ISP

for short, was a program created by Georgia for those on probation that saw a significant

decrease in the rates of recidivism amongst probationers (Petersilia, 2011). The Risk-Need-

Responsivity, or RNR model, is another approach that has been studied as a form of alternative

sentencing that calls for higher levels of specialized treatment that allow an individual to be sent

to the appropriate program they need (Petersilia, 2011). However, throughout my research into

this topic, I saw a lack of reform on Parole, with much of the approach we currently take being

outdated. This is where I began to wonder what would happen if we created a Parole program

that was armed with other rehabilitative programs that have been proven to reduce recidivism.

To test this, I looked towards Arizona prisons and the highest committed crime in this state:

Burglary. I believe that inmates convicted of 1st and 2nd-degree burglary who are required to

attend rehabilitative programs as part of their parole are less likely to re-offend than those who

don’t.

Parole Requirements

As given by the Bureau of Justice Statistics as well as Prison Fellowship, these are

universally held parole requirements that will apply to the control group (BJS, 2020), (Prison

Fellowship, 2019):
RECIDIVISM IN PAROLEES RESEARCH PROPOSAL 4 Schaub

 Reporting in person to probation or parole offices

 Participating in intensive supervision programs

 Not leaving the designated city/state without permission

 Finding and maintaining regular employment

 Not changing residence or employment without permission

 Not using drugs or alcohol; not entering drinking establishments

 Not possessing firearms or other dangerous weapons

 Not associating with persons who have criminal records

 Submitting to urinalysis or blood testing when instructed

 Paying supervision fees

 Obeying all state and local laws (BJS, 2020), (Prison Fellowship, 2019)

 Answer a questionnaire survey provided by the study team

The requirements below are the additional conditions for the experimental group, and are to

be followed in conjunction with the rules listed above:

 Live in a halfway home for 9 weeks upon release of prison

 Maintaining a job working 20+ hours (The parole officer must help to facilitate

employment opportunities and interviews)

 Attend employment and interview preparation classes in designated halfway home

 Undergoing therapy and counseling sessions 1x a week for the duration of the halfway

home, and 1-2x a month upon exiting the home.

 Attend drug and mental health courses within the time of their stay at a halfway home
RECIDIVISM IN PAROLEES RESEARCH PROPOSAL 5 Schaub

 Attend a 6-week educational course within halfway home

 Answer a questionnaire survey provided by the study team

Budgeted Costs

The average cost of a halfway home per month for one individual is between $400-600.

The average cost of a prison inmate per day is $100. Even factoring in an extra $300 a month for

therapy sessions, educational classes, transportation, and extra fees, it is still cheaper to provide

these rehabilitative services to an individual over keeping them in prison. Here is an example. If

we use the average cost for inmates in Arizona, we can calculate the costs associated with both

groups during the initial 60-90 day period. Assuming that every individual in the experimental

group completes the halfway home, and that every participant in the control group goes back to

prison during that roughly 60-day timeframe, the experimental group would average spending

$90,000 for all 50 participants, while the control group would spend $213,000 for the

participants to be back in prison. While these are extreme examples, it helps to illustrate the

significant difference between the costs of both programs. The numbers shown above were

calculated for 60 days, just under the length of the full 9 weeks required. Hypothetically, these

figures would only continue to grow apart in distance as time went on.

Methods 

To collect and report data, the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency (board of parole in

Arizona) must be directly involved to ensure that the rights of the inmates are being protected.

This study would be based on quantitative research, as the main way the data is being interpreted

is through the evaluation of numbers collected through our research and interpreting what those

numbers mean in relation to recidivism. This research would be comprised of 2 groups that
RECIDIVISM IN PAROLEES RESEARCH PROPOSAL 6 Schaub

would be monitored over 5 years, and the basis of this study revolves around a Randomized

Post-test Experimental Design. No post-test is needed in this instance to observe the relationship

between the intervention and the resulting outcome. We can assume that, without intervention,

the outcome would be similar as to what has been observed, as the protocol for parole has not

changed for many years.

Parolees are required to meet with their parole officers anywhere from 1-2x a month.

Every 3 months (January, April, July, October), a survey will be administered by the parole

officer and submitted by the end of that month. The study would check in with the parole officers

involved and see the progress of all individuals. They would check the surveys of all individuals,

but also check to see if any participants have been rearrested or reconvicted of ANY crime,

including burglary. The proposed survey can be seen in Appendix A. These surveys would be

administered to all individuals of both the control and experimental groups. All answers are kept

private from parole officers to ensure equal treatment. Upon completion of the survey, the

parolee will place their answers in a confidential envelope that is signed and sealed by that

individual. This helps to ensure that the envelope will not be tampered with or opened by anyone

outside of the study team. On top of this, all parolees must completely understand that their

answers and cooperation in this study will not impact sentencing and is all confidential.

Subjects for study 

There will be two groups: control and experimental. Both groups will be comprised of 50

individuals, with a total of 100 for the study. This study should start at the first of the upcoming

year, and the process of finding participants should begin in the months leading up. Upon finding

100 individuals to participate in this study, they will be randomly assigned to either group. All
RECIDIVISM IN PAROLEES RESEARCH PROPOSAL 7 Schaub

participants must have been convicted of 1st and 2nd-degree burglary; whose sentences vary

between 2-20 years. They will then be sorted into what time bracket they fall into and recorded

accordingly. There are 48 state prisons in Arizona, and subjects will be pulled from a random

combination of these facilities to ensure a large enough sample size. Once again, cooperation

from the Arizona Board of Clemency is needed to gather the information for these individuals

and to ensure the participants we receive will meet the criteria necessary for this study. In

Arizona, an inmate is eligible for parole after serving between ½ or 2/3 of their sentence. Again,

each randomly selected inmate will be classified within their group based on how long their

original sentence was, i.e. 2-5yrs, 5-8yrs, 8-11yrs, 11-14yrs, 14+yrs.

Measurement   

I have designed both a survey (refer to Appendix A) that will be administered and a data

collection spreadsheet (refer to Appendix C) to organize the information received from the

surveys. Every 3 months, this data will be collected and inputted into the spreadsheet, and at the

end of every year, this information will be organized into one larger spreadsheet to see potential

trends over the span of all 5 years.

This survey would help to provide insight into the experiences of the parolees. It would

be expected that the higher the number provided on questions 1-3, and the lower the number

provided on questions 4-5 would result in more success in the rehabilitation programs and lower

chance of recidivism. This data, in addition to the rates of recidivism among parolees, will

underscore whether these supplementary requirements help to reduce re-offending. On the

spreadsheet, I used hypothetical numbers to give an example as to how data would need to be

inputted (refer to Appendix C). I have listed 6 parolees for reference and organized each
RECIDIVISM IN PAROLEES RESEARCH PROPOSAL 8 Schaub

hypothetical parolee into the sentencing timeframe they would belong too, and if they are in

either the control or experimental group. After these classifications, the answers to the survey are

inputted next, as well as the number of rearrests or reconvictions.

Validity Concerns

A subject can get rearrested while still maintaining status in the study; however, if a

subject is reconvicted and goes back to prison, while this will be noted in the study, they would

no longer be monitored going forward, as we would know that they reoffended within a certain

timeframe and could note that for results. If they committed a crime and were reconvicted, we

would definitively know for that individual the steps that were being taken did not result in a

lower chance of recidivism. In the event that a participant was to return to prison, it is important

to differentiate between whether they recommitted a crime or simply violated the terms of their

parole. The latter is referred to as a 'technical violation or conviction.’ While that must be noted,

their data will not be used in ultimately determining the relationship between recidivism and

parole. The point of this study is not to see if access to rehabilitative programs lowers the rates of

a parolee violating certain terms of their parole conditions, but rather to see if access to

rehabilitative programs lowers the chances of recidivism.

Analysis   

The relationship this study hopes to examine is that between parolees and their likelihood

to re-offend based on the programs they are required to attend. As given above, data will be

collected and inputted into a spreadsheet to ease the process of analyzing the research. For

questions 1-3, a higher number response equates to the parolees feeling more supported, better

equipped to live in society, and that overall, their experience has been more positive than
RECIDIVISM IN PAROLEES RESEARCH PROPOSAL 9 Schaub

negative. This is hypothesized to correlate with lower levels of recidivism. Questions 4 & 5

should have a lower number response as they are questions that discuss dependency issues, and a

lower number response would indicate less dependency, which is positive. A lower number

answer should hypothetically result in lower rates of recidivism. For questions 1-5, if a parolee

gives the 'best response' we would expect that individual to be less likely to re-offend. For

questions 1-5, if a parolee gives a ' neutral response', meaning the number falls in the middle

rather than more positive or negative, then we would expect that individual to be neither more or

less likely to re-offend. For questions 1-5, if a parolee gives the 'worst response' we would expect

that individual to be more likely to re-offend. If our hypothesis is correct and the individuals who

are in the experimental group give more positive numbers, and recommit fewer crimes, then it

can be assumed that, across the board, these programs are working to reduce recidivism. If we

see individuals in the experimental group scoring poorly in comparison to the control group, or

even scoring well, but still reoffending, then it can be determined that these programs are not

working to reduce recidivism like it was first hypothesized they would.

Conclusion

The importance of this study is measured in the extreme benefits that could be gained.

Financially, if the programs being proposed are as successful as we would initially hope them to

be, it would quickly become a more cost-effective alternative to traditional parole. Furthermore,

these programs could work to significantly improve the quality of life for not only the

participants involved but more so the community as a whole. While we may never truly agree on

what causes people to commit crimes, being able to create programs that help to mitigate the

consequences of deviant behavior is a step towards a healthier society. Programs like these

possess the potential to help change the traditional mindset our current criminal justice system
RECIDIVISM IN PAROLEES RESEARCH PROPOSAL 10 Schaub

uses and work to shift the focus towards recovering and becoming a more productive person.

These tactics in combination with modern technology and legislation could pave the path

towards a safer society; one that equips individuals with the toolset needed to start on another

path, rather than feeding into the ever-revolving door of recidivism.

Appendix A

Survey Questions

Scale-

5= strongly agree, 4= agree, 3= neutral, 2= disagree, 1= strongly disagree

5= extremely positive, 4= positive, 3= neutral, 2= negative, 1= extremely negative

1.) How has your experience been since going on parole?

2.) Do you feel well supported by your parole officer and additional services offered to you?

3.) Do you feel prepared to live in society? (Ex. Get a job, get a place to live, start schooling,

manage healthy relationships with family and friends, maintain mental and emotional

health, etc.)

4.) Do you feel you have a dependency on drugs, alcohol, or any other illegal or legal

substance?

5.) Do you ever feel you must resort back to criminal behavior?
RECIDIVISM IN PAROLEES RESEARCH PROPOSAL 12 Schaub

Appendix B (To access graph click on the image, and click out)

This is a hypothetical chart displaying the data inputted on the Appendix C. Each colored

bar represents the numbered response to questions 1-5 on the survey, and the number of

reconvictions and rearrests. This is a small example of only 6 parolees per group, whereas the

full study would be sampling 50 participants per group.

Hypothetical Question Response Chart

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4

Appendix C

Below is the drafted analysis spreadsheet that is to be filled out every 4 months, for 5

years. The example data that is inputted into this spreadsheet and used for the graph in Appendix

B is all hypothetical. This example spreadsheet is comprised of 12 parolees, split equally

amongst the control and experimental group. They are then further divided based on what

sentencing timeframe they belong to.

Data Analysis
Spreadsheet PAF302-Taylor Schaub.xlsx
 RECIDIVISM IN PAROLEES RESEARCH PROPOSAL 14 Schaub

References

FAQs. (2019, April 23). Retrieved from https://corrections.az.gov/faqs

FY 2019 PERFORMANCE BUDGET Congressional Submission Salaries and Expenses. (2019).

Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/jmd/page/file/1034421/download

Initiative, P. P. (2018). Arizona profile. Retrieved from

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/AZ.html

Petersilia, J. (2011). Beyond the Prison Bubble. Retrieved from

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/beyond-prison-bubble