Prendergast Michael L, Hall Elizabeth A, Grossman Jason, Veliz Robert, Gregorio Liliana, Warda Umme S, Van Unen Kory, Knight Chloe
University of California, Los Angeles.
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.
Crim Justice Behav. 2015 Oct;42(10):1008-1031. doi: 10.1177/0093854815592914. Epub 2015 Jul 10.
This study is a randomized effectiveness trial of the use of incentives to improve treatment utilization among parolees in community treatment. In prison, Admission phase parolees were randomized to Admission Incentive (N=31) or Education (N=29). Attendance phase parolees entering community treatment were randomized to Attendance Incentive (N=104) or Education (N=98). There was no main effect for incentives in either study phase. Neither admission to community treatment (Incentive 60%, Education 64%; =.74), nor intervention completion (Incentive 22%; Education 27%; =.46) appeared to be impacted. Time-in-treatment was predicted by age, first arrest age, and type of parole status (Cox regression p<.05), but not by treatment group. Providing incentives did not increase the likelihood that parolees enrolled in or stayed in community treatment. In light of this finding, criminal justice practitioners who are considering incentives to increase admission or retention should be aware that they may not produce the desired outcomes.
本研究是一项关于使用激励措施来提高社区治疗中假释人员治疗利用率的随机有效性试验。在监狱中，入监阶段的假释人员被随机分为入监激励组（N = 31）或教育组（N = 29）。进入社区治疗的出勤阶段假释人员被随机分为出勤激励组（N = 104）或教育组（N = 98）。在两个研究阶段中，激励措施均无主要效果。社区治疗的入院率（激励组60%，教育组64%；p = 0.74）和干预完成率（激励组22%；教育组27%；p = 0.46）似乎均未受到影响。治疗时长可由年龄、首次被捕年龄和假释状态类型预测（Cox回归p<0.05），但不受治疗组影响。提供激励措施并未增加假释人员参与或留在社区治疗的可能性。鉴于这一发现，考虑采用激励措施来增加入院率或留存率的刑事司法从业者应意识到，这些措施可能无法产生预期效果。
