Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 153–184

A survival model of pretrial failure

  • Christy A. Visher
  • Richard L. Linster
Article

Abstract

This paper examines the likelihood of rearrest during the pretrial period with a model that depends on both time elapsed since release and on individual and case characteristics. Using data on a sample of male arrestees released on recognizance in the District of Columbia in 1984, we apply a survival or hazard model to the problem of “predicting” pretrial rearrest. We are particularly interested in whether drug use, as measured by urinalysis at arrest, is predictive of pretrial rearrest and its timing. Results show, for example, that drug use or a charge for larceny is associated with high risk levels in the period immediately following release. In our data, the number of prior convictions exerts a strong effect on rearrest risk throughout the pretrial period, but the initial high risk associated with being on probation or parole or having pending charges decreases rapidly over the course of a year at risk.

Key words

survival model hazard rate pretrial failure recidivism drug use 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allison, P. D. (1984).Event History Analysis, Sage, Beverly Hills, CaliGoogle Scholar
  2. Box, G. E. P., and Jenkins, G. M. (1976).Time Series Analysis, Holden-Day, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  3. Copas, J. B. (1985). Prediction equations, statistical analysis and shrinkage. In Farrington, D., and Tarling, R. (eds.),Prediction in Criminology, State University of New York Press, Albany, pp. 232–257.Google Scholar
  4. Copas, J. B., and Tarling, R. (1986). Some methodological issues in making predictions. In Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. A., and Visher, C. A. (eds.),Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals”, Vol. II, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 291–313.Google Scholar
  5. Goldkamp, J., and Gottfredson, M. (1985).Guidelines for Bail: The Philadelphia Experiment, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  6. Gottfredson, M., and Gottfredson, D. (1988).Decision Making in Criminal Justice: Toward the Rational Exercise of Discretion, 2nd ed., Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Kalbfleisch, J. D., and Prentice, R. L. (1980).The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data, John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Larimore, W. E. (1983). Predictive inference, sufficiency, entropy and an asymptotic likelihood principle.Biometrika 70: 175–181.Google Scholar
  9. Larimore, W. E., and Mehra, R. K. (1985). The problem of overfitting data.Byte Oct.: 156–180.Google Scholar
  10. Maltz, M. D.. (1984).Recidivism, Academic Press, Orlando, Fla.Google Scholar
  11. Roth, J., and Wice, P. (1980).Pretrial Release and Misconduct in the District of Columbia. Promis Research Project, Publication 16, Institute for Law and Social Research, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  12. Schmidt, P., and Witte, A. (1988).Predicting Recidivism Using Survival Models, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Smith, D., Wish, E., and Jarjoura, R. (1989). Drug use and pretrial misconduct in New York City.J. Quant. Criminol. 5: 101–126.Google Scholar
  14. Toborg, M. A., Bellassai, J. P., Yezer, A. M. J., and Trost, R. M. (1989). Assessment of pretrial urine-testing in the District of Columbia: Summary report. Unpublished final report to the National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Forthcoming inIssues and Practices Series under revised title.)Google Scholar
  15. Visher, C. A. (1990). Using drug testing to identify high-risk defendants on release: A study in the District of Columbia.Journal of Criminal Justice, to appear.Google Scholar
  16. Williams, K. (1979).The Scope and Prediction of Recidivism, Institute for Law and Social Research, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  17. Wish, E. D. (1988). Drug abuse as a predictor of pretrial failure-to-appear in arrestees in Manhattan, Unpublished final report to the National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  18. Wish, E. D., Klumpp, K., Moorer, A., Brady, E., and Williams, K. (1981).An Analysis of Drugs and Crime Among Arrestees in the District of Columbia: Executive Summary, National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christy A. Visher
    • 1
  • Richard L. Linster
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute of JusticeU.S. Department of JusticeN.W., Washington, D.C.

Personalised recommendations