The Long Road to Probation Completion: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Effect of Life Events on Re-Arrest among Probationers

ABSTRACT

Although much effort has been taken to investigate probation failure and associated factors, less attention has been given to the stability and change in life events during the probation period that could influence probation violations, including re-arrest. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 and survival analyses, the current study aimed to explore the likelihood of probation failure by re-arrest and survival time to re-arrest among those with stable and changing statuses of various social bonds, including marriage/cohabitation and employment. The results suggested that those experiencing stability in these life domains when entering probation initially did not seem to have the best chance of survival. Rather, it was change in these statuses that made a difference. Based on postestimation survival curves, those divorced/separated and unemployed experienced the quickest time to failure.

Conflicts of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Notes

¹ There were 7 respondents who reported probation periods at different waves of data collection that overlapped with one another in terms of the timing. In all but one of these circumstances, the dates provided in the earliest recall period were used to designate the probation period. It was assumed that memory recall was more accurate at the earlier wave of data collection. In one circumstance, though, the arrest date reported that presumably led to the probation period lined up more closely with the dates noted by the respondent in the later wave. As a result, the later reporting of the probation period was retained for this respondent.

² There were 53 respondents that had more than one probation period. Specifically, there were 35 respondents with 2 probation periods, 12 with 3 probation periods, 3 with 4 probation periods, 1 with 5 probation periods, 1 with 6 probation periods, and 1 with 7 probation periods.

³ In situations where multiple arrests occurred during a reported probation time frame, resulting in multiple probation periods for the same respondent, Prior Arrest and Prior Probation were coded as 1 following the first arrest. To demonstrate, we can use the example provided earlier. In this example, the respondent reported a total probation time frame of 86 months but experienced 2 arrests. The first arrest occurred at 70 months, marking the first probation period for this respondent. At this point, the respondent did not have a record of a prior arrest or prior probation (thus, these two variables were coded as 0). The second probation period was designated as the month of the first arrest and then ended 14 months later with another arrest. For this probation period, Prior Arrest and Prior Probation were coded as 1. In this way, these variables captured the potential effects of the first probation period and arrest on social bond formation in the next probation period.

Additional information

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes on contributors

Siying Guo

Siying Guo, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at the Department of History, Philosophy, and Social Sciences, Pittsburg State University. Her research interests include bullying, juvenile delinquency and justice, youth development, religion and crime, life-course criminology, and quantitative methodology.

Christi Metcalfe

Christi Metcalfe, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina. Her research interests include criminal courts, developmental/life course criminology, attitudes about crime and the criminal justice system, and quantitative methods.