Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Community-based supervision is a key feature of contemporary correctional practice, and while it is often assumed that the supervising officer is the agent of change, few previous studies have considered the relative importance of the characteristics of either those under supervision or the supervising office. Hence, this study employed a three-level hierarchical linear model to determine how much of the variation in parole outcomes can be explained by the supervising officer, the organizational context in which supervision takes place, and the characteristics of those being supervised. The results showed that the context of supervision and the supervising officer is only associated with differences in parole outcomes for non-Indigenous people. Further research and consultation are required to understand the reasons the officer may be less influential in supervision outcomes for Indigenous people and to identify the ways in which service delivery may be adapted to improve the outcomes for this group.

Keywords

community supervision parole supervision outcomes

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andrews

Dowden

(2006). Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment: A meta-analytic investigation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(1), 88–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X05282556

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011a). Australian and New Zealand Standard Offence Classification (ANZSOC) (3rd ed., Cat. no. 2033.0.55.001). https://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/5CE97E870F7A29EDCA2578A200143125/$File/12340_2011.pdf

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011b). Census of population and housing: Socio-economic indexes for areas (SEIFA), Australia (Cat. no. 1234.0). http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/2033.0.55.001

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2019). Corrective Services, Australia September quarter 2019 (Cat. no. 4512.0). https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4512.0September%20Quarter%202019?OpenDocument

Blagg

(2016). Crime, aboriginality and the decolonisation of justice (2nd ed.). The Federation Press.

Bonta

Andrews

(2010). Viewing offender assessment and rehabilitation through the lens of the risk-need-responsivity model. In McNeill

Raynor

Trotter

(Eds.), Offender supervision: New directions in theory research and practice (pp. 19–40). Willan

Bourgon

(2013). The demands on probation officers in the evolution of evidence-based practice: The forgotten foot soldier of community corrections. Federal Probation, 77(2), 30–35.

Bourgon

Bonta

Rugge

Scott

T. L.

Yessine

A. K.

(2010). The role of program design, implementation and evaluation in evidence-based “real world” community supervision. Federal Probation, 74(1), 2–15.

Bourgon

Gutierrez

(2012). The general responsivity principle in community supervision: The importance of probation officers using cognitive intervention techniques and its influence on recidivism. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(2), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2012.674816

10.

Bryk

A. S.

Raudenbusch

S. W.

(1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. SAGE.

11.

Bushway

Apel

(2012). A signalling perspective on employment-based re-entry programming: Training completion as a desistance signal. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(1), 21–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00786.x

12.

Butcher

Day

Miles

Kidd

(2019). A comparative analysis of the risk profiles of Australian young offenders from rural and urban communities. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(14), 2483–2500. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00786.x

13.

Callinan

(2013). Review of the parole system in Victoria. Department of Justice, Corrections Victoria.

14.

Chamberlain

A. W.

Gricius

Wallace

D. M.

Borjas

Ware

V. M.

(2018). Parolee-Parole officer rapport: Does it impact recidivism? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(11), 3581–3602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17741593

15.

Clear

Gallagher

(1985). Probation and parole supervision: A review of current classification practice. Crime & Delinquency, 31(3), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128785031003007

16.

Corrective Services New South Wales. (2015). Community corrections officer handbook. http://csa.intersearch.com.au/csajspui/bitstream/10627/897/1/community-corrections-officer-handbook.pdf

17.

Cullen

F. T.

Eck

J. E.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

(2002). Environmental corrections: A new paradigm for effective probation and parole supervision. Federal Probation, 66(2), 28–37.

18.

Day

(2003). Reducing the risk of reoffending in Australian Indigenous offenders: What works for whom? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 37(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v37n02_01

19.

Day

Hardcastle

Birgden

(2012). Case management in community corrections: Current status and future directions. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 51, 484–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2012.706245

20.

Day

Tamatea

Casey

Geia

(2018). Assessing violence risk with aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders: Considerations for forensic practice. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 25(3), 452–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1467804

21.

Dowden

Andrews

(2004). The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X03257765

22.

Georgiou

(2014). Does increased post-release supervision of criminal offenders reduce recidivism? Evidence from a statewide quasi-experiment. International Review of Law and Economics, 37, 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2013.12.001

23.

Healing Foundation, Adams

Bani

Blagg

Bullman

Higgins

Hodges

Hovane

Martin-Pederson

Porter

Sarra

Thorpe

Wenitong

(2017). Towards an aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander violence prevention framework for men and boys. The Healing Foundation and White Ribbon Australia. https://nacchocommunique.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/hf_violence_prevention_framework_report_oct2017_v9_web.pdf

24.

Ireland

Berg

(2008). Women in parole: Respect and rapport. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52(4), 474–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X07307782

25.

Kennealy

Skeem

Manchak

Louden

(2012). Firm, fair and caring officer-offender relationships protect against supervision failure. Law and Human Behavior, 36(6), 496–505. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093935

26.

Labrecque

R. M.

Smith

Luther

J. D.

(2015). A quasi-experimental evaluation of a model of community supervision. Federal Probation, 79(3), 14–19.

27.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Holsinger

Robinson

C. R.

Alexander

(2014). Diminishing or durable treatment effects of STARR? A research note on 24-month re-arrest rates. Journal of Crime and Justice, 37(2), 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2012.674816

28.

Lowenkamp

Robinson

Koutsenok

Lowenkamp

Pearl

(2012). The importance of coaching: A brief survey of probation officers. Federal Probation, 76(2), 36–39.

29.

Maloney

Bazemore

Hudson

(2001). The end of probation and the beginning of community corrections. Perspectives, 25(3), 22–30.

30.

Mals

Howells

Hall

Day

(2000). Adapting violence programs for difference cultural groups: The Australian Indigenous offender. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 30(1–2), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v30n01_08

31.

Maruna

Immarigeon

LeVel

(2004). Ex-offender reintegration: Theory and practice. In Maruna

Immarigeon

(Eds.), After crime and punishment: Pathways to offender reintegration (pp. 3–26). Routledge.

32.

McNeill

Beyens

(2013). Introduction: Studying mass supervision. In McNeill

Beyens

(Eds.), Offender supervision in Europe (pp. 1–18). Palgrave Macmillan.

33.

McNeill

Dawson

(2014). Social solidarity, penal evolution and probation. The British Journal of Criminology, 54(5), 892–907. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azu042

34.

Neithercutt

Gottfredson

(1975). Caseload size variation and differences in probation and parole performance. In Amos

Newman

(Eds.), Parole (pp. 279–306). Federal Legal.

35.

Olver

M. E.

Stockdale

K. C.

Wormith

J. S.

(2014). Thirty years of research on the Level of Service Scales: A meta-analytic examination of predictive accuracy and sources of variability. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 156–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035080

36.

Petersilia

(2000). Challenges of prisoner reentry and parole in California. California Policy Research Centre.

37.

Sachwald

Eley

Taxman

(2006). An ounce of prevention: Proactive community supervision reduces violation behavior. Topics in Community Corrections. https://www.scstatehouse.gov/Archives/CitizensInterestPage/SentencingReformCommission/RetreatPresentations/AnOunceofPreventionNIC2006.pdf

38.

Schlager

Robbins

(2008). Does parole work? Revisited: Reframing the discussion of the impact of postprison supervision on offender outcomes. The Prison Journal, 88(2), 234–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885508319164

39.

Skeem

Louden

J. E.

Polascheck

Camp

(2007). Assessing relationship quality in mandated community treatment: Blending care with control. Psychological Assessment, 19(4), 391–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.19.4.397

40.

Snijders

T. A. B.

Bosker

R. J.

(2003). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. SAGE.

41.

Spivakovsky

(2008). Approaching responsivity: The Victorian Department of Justice and Indigenous Offenders. Flinders Journal of Law Reform, 10(3), 649–662.

42.

Taxman

(2002). Supervision: Exploring the dimensions of effectiveness. Federal Probation, 66(2), 14–27.

43.

Taylor

Putt

(2007). Adult sexual violence in Indigenous and culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Australia (Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 345). Australian Institute of Criminology. https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi345

44.

Trotter

(2012). Effective community-based supervision of young offenders (Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No.448). Australian Institute of Criminology. https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi448

45.

Vito

Higgins

Tewksbury

(2017). The effectiveness of parole supervision: Use of propensity score matching to analyze reincarceration rates in Kentucky. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 28(7), 627–640. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403415609717

46.

Wan

W. Y.

Poynton

van Doorn

Weatherburn

(2014). Parole supervision and re-offending: A propensity score matching analysis. Report to the Criminology Research Advisory Council. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/30673809.pdf

47.

Worrall

(2000). What works at one arm point? A study in the transportation of a penal concept. Probation Journal, 47(4), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/026455050004700403

Associations Between Parole Outcomes and Characteristics of People Under Supervision,Supervising Officer,and Supervising Office

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References