Bonds, suspended sentences and re-offending

1. Bonds, suspended sentences and re-offending Does the length of the order matter? Suzanne Poynton and Don Weatherburn

2. Background • 15% of all adult court penalties are good behaviour bonds (GBBs) or suspended sentences (SSs) • 2012: 77,940 offenders in Australia received either a GBB(n = 56,000) or a SS (n = 21,940) • Little difference between prison, SSs and GBBs in risk of re-offending • Weatherburn and Bartels 2009; Lulham, Weatherburn and Bartels (2009); Weatherburn & Trimboli (2008) • No research into whether the length of the SS or GBB matters

3. Why might it matter? • Short periods of conditional release provide • little reason to seek treatment • little time for treatment to have an effect • little deterrent effect (particularly for low frequency offenders) • Easy to postpone or temporarily stop offending • On the other hand: long periods of surveillance might actually increase the risk of arrest

4. Research questions • Are long bonds more effective than short bonds in reducing re-offending? • Does supervision make a difference to this effect? • Are long suspended sentences more effective than short suspended sentences in reducing re-offending? • Does supervision make a difference to this effect?

5. Research strategy (PSM) • Conventional regression methods do not deal properly with selection bias • We use propensity score matching (PSM) • Divide offenders into short GBB and long GBB • Model probability of receiving a long GBB • Match offenders who had the same probability of a long GBB but who went in different directions • Compare re-offending among matched pairs • Same process for SSs • Matching rule: • One to one nearest neighbour matching with no replacement and a caliper of 0.05

6. Data • Data Source: BOCSAR’s re-offending database (ROD) • Contains the criminal histories of everyone who appeared in a NSW court since 1994 (but no history prior to 1994) • Samples: • All 52,932 offenders given a GBB between 2006 and 2008 • All 15,129 offenders given a SS between 2006 and 2008 • One record per person • Cut off date for reoffending: 31st December, 2011

7. IVs and DVs • Independent variables • Long suspended sentence = A suspended sentence 12 mths or longer (n = 5,906) • Long good behaviour bond = A bond that is 24 mths or longer (n = 13,877) • Dependent variables • Whether or not reconvicted of a further offence within three years of index court appearance • Time to reconviction adjusted for time spent in custody

8. Controls • Age • Gender • SEIFA • ARIA • Finalisation year • Plea • # Concurrent offences • Legal representation • Offence seriousness • Bail status • Counts of principal off. • Offence type • # Prior convictions • Prior juvenile conviction • Prior penalty type • Prison, GBB, SS or PD • Prior offence type • Property, violent, drugs, PCA, Driving, Breach of order

9. Reoffending Long versus short bonds

10. Standardised Bias before matching

11. Standardised Bias after matching

12. Re-offending (overall) 1 Standard errors have been adjusted to account for matched nature of the data 2 Adjusted for demographic, offence and prior offending variables

13. Difference in reoffending risk

14. Re-offending (by order type) 1 Standard errors have been adjusted to account for matched nature of the data 2 Adjusted for demographic, offence and prior offending variables

15. Differences in reoffending risk

16. Reoffending: Long versus short suspended sentences

17. StandardisedBias before matching

18. StandardisedBias after matching

19. Re-offending (overall) 1 Standard errors have been adjusted to account for matched nature of the data 2 Adjusted for demographic, offence and prior offending variables

20. Differences in re-offending risk

21. Reoffending (by order type) 1 Standard errors have been adjusted to account for matched nature of the data 2 Adjusted for demographic, offence and prior offending variables

22. Conclusion • Lower re-offending on long GBBs and SSs • Effect present for both supervised and unsupervised GBBs • Not present for supervised and unsupervised SSs (considered separately) • Effect small but small differences in reconviction can signal large differences in re-offending (Blumstein & Larson 1971) • Effect is consistent with ‘successful’ treatment programs for adult offenders

23. Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2006‘Reducing Crime with Evidence Based Options: What works?’

24. Next Steps • Can’t rule out possibility of selection bias • Only three ways to conduct a stronger test • Randomised Control Trial • Find a variable that influences penalty selection but has no direct effect on reoffending • Change the law

25. The end Questions?????????