{"id":{"repo_id":"gmu","oai_identifier":"oai:MARS:1920/10968"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/gmu/oai:MARS:1920/10968","repository":{"repo_id":"gmu","name":"George Mason University","base_url":"https://mars.gmu.edu/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Minimum Supervision: Who Performs Better?","abstract":"Interventions that are better suited for high-risk offenders do damage to the low-risk population, leading to an increase in recidivism (Lowenkamp et al., 2006). This argument is made based on limited evidence that all low-risk offenders are better suited for administrative handling than higher risk offenders. Randomized controlled trials conducted by Barnes et al. (2010, 2012) found that administrative caseloads of 400+ lowrisk offenders had no significant impact on the rate of recidivism for this population. This suggests that the low-risk population can largely be left alone, an assumption agencies have embraced to reduce workload. However, the question remains: does this make sense? Can an agency responsible for supervising justice involved people in the community simply leave low-risk offenders alone? This thesis project attempts to answer this question by exploring the factors that influence supervision outcomes for the low-risk population supervised by the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency in Washington, D.C. Case and offender-level characteristics were analyzed to examine the supervision outcomes of this population. Logistic regression results found that low-risk offenders on parole or supervised release were over 11 times more likely to end supervision unsuccessfully than low-risk probationers. Results also show that low-risk offenders who incurred a rearrest during their supervision term were over 43 times more likely to be removed from low-risk supervision altogether, regardless of case type. Findings indicate that differences between low-risk offenders do exist and influence supervision outcomes. This encourages discussion as to whether or not administrative management of this population should be reconsidered.","abstract_html":"Interventions that are better suited for high-risk offenders do damage to the low-risk population, leading to an increase in recidivism (Lowenkamp et al., 2006). This argument is made based on limited evidence that all low-risk offenders are better suited for administrative handling than higher risk offenders. Randomized controlled trials conducted by Barnes et al. (2010, 2012) found that administrative caseloads of 400+ lowrisk offenders had no significant impact on the rate of recidivism for this population. This suggests that the low-risk population can largely be left alone, an assumption agencies have embraced to reduce workload. However, the question remains: does this make sense? Can an agency responsible for supervising justice involved people in the community simply leave low-risk offenders alone? This thesis project attempts to answer this question by exploring the factors that influence supervision outcomes for the low-risk population supervised by the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency in Washington, D.C. Case and offender-level characteristics were analyzed to examine the supervision outcomes of this population. Logistic regression results found that low-risk offenders on parole or supervised release were over 11 times more likely to end supervision unsuccessfully than low-risk probationers. Results also show that low-risk offenders who incurred a rearrest during their supervision term were over 43 times more likely to be removed from low-risk supervision altogether, regardless of case type. Findings indicate that differences between low-risk offenders do exist and influence supervision outcomes. This encourages discussion as to whether or not administrative management of this population should be reconsidered.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Cartagena, Reyna V"],"institution":null,"degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":null,"date_issued":"","date_published":null,"updated_at":"2026-07-27T19:51:50Z","subjects":["Low-risk","Community corrections","RNR","Re-entry","Probation","Parole"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["hdl:1920/10968"],"render_values":[{"text":"hdl:1920/10968","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":null,"outbound_label":null,"outbound_source":null},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Low-risk","Community corrections","RNR","Re-entry","Probation","Parole"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["hdl:1920/10968"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.other","label":"Dc Description Other","values":["Interventions that are better suited for high-risk offenders do damage to the low-risk population, leading to an increase in recidivism (Lowenkamp et al., 2006). This argument is made based on limited evidence that all low-risk offenders are better suited for administrative handling than higher risk offenders. Randomized controlled trials conducted by Barnes et al. (2010, 2012) found that administrative caseloads of 400+ lowrisk offenders had no significant impact on the rate of recidivism for this population. This suggests that the low-risk population can largely be left alone, an assumption agencies have embraced to reduce workload. However, the question remains: does this make sense? Can an agency responsible for supervising justice involved people in the community simply leave low-risk offenders alone? This thesis project attempts to answer this question by exploring the factors that influence supervision outcomes for the low-risk population supervised by the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency in Washington, D.C. Case and offender-level characteristics were analyzed to examine the supervision outcomes of this population. Logistic regression results found that low-risk offenders on parole or supervised release were over 11 times more likely to end supervision unsuccessfully than low-risk probationers. Results also show that low-risk offenders who incurred a rearrest during their supervision term were over 43 times more likely to be removed from low-risk supervision altogether, regardless of case type. Findings indicate that differences between low-risk offenders do exist and influence supervision outcomes. This encourages discussion as to whether or not administrative management of this population should be reconsidered."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Minimum Supervision: Who Performs Better?"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:description.other":["Interventions that are better suited for high-risk offenders do damage to the low-risk population, leading to an increase in recidivism (Lowenkamp et al., 2006). This argument is made based on limited evidence that all low-risk offenders are better suited for administrative handling than higher risk offenders. Randomized controlled trials conducted by Barnes et al. (2010, 2012) found that administrative caseloads of 400+ lowrisk offenders had no significant impact on the rate of recidivism for this population. This suggests that the low-risk population can largely be left alone, an assumption agencies have embraced to reduce workload. However, the question remains: does this make sense? Can an agency responsible for supervising justice involved people in the community simply leave low-risk offenders alone? This thesis project attempts to answer this question by exploring the factors that influence supervision outcomes for the low-risk population supervised by the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency in Washington, D.C. Case and offender-level characteristics were analyzed to examine the supervision outcomes of this population. Logistic regression results found that low-risk offenders on parole or supervised release were over 11 times more likely to end supervision unsuccessfully than low-risk probationers. Results also show that low-risk offenders who incurred a rearrest during their supervision term were over 43 times more likely to be removed from low-risk supervision altogether, regardless of case type. Findings indicate that differences between low-risk offenders do exist and influence supervision outcomes. This encourages discussion as to whether or not administrative management of this population should be reconsidered."],"dc:identifier":["hdl:1920/10968"],"dc:subject":["Low-risk","Community corrections","RNR","Re-entry","Probation","Parole"],"dc:title":["Minimum Supervision: Who Performs Better?"],"dc:type":["Thesis"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-27T19:51:50Z"}