Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

With over 4 million adults under community supervision and an average of 30% that do not fare well, an unanswered question is which strategies reduce the likelihood of technical, absconding, and new arrest violations during the early phase of supervision. Utilizing data on 32,335 moderate to high-supervised individuals on supervision in North Carolina, the study found that success during the first 6 months is due to probation officers’ use of incentives to promote positive behavior and swift community-based consequences to address negative behavior, prioritizing treatment services or cognitive programs, increasing monitoring requirements, and using skill-building worksheets to increase engagement and build rapport. Officer actions are more important than individual characteristics, and can promote success for those that are under the age of 31, have more complex needs, and are identified as at-risk for violating supervision. Future studies should explore these concepts more directly regarding their relationship with recidivism.

Keywords

probation community supervision positive incentives treatment services cognitive programs

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Benda

B. B.

(2005). Gender differences in life-course theory of recidivism: A survival analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49(3), 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X04271194

Benitez

C. T.

McNiel

D. E.

Binder

R. L.

(2010). Do protection orders protect? Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 38(3), 376–385.

Berg

M. T.

Huebner

B. M.

(2011). Reentry and the ties that bind: An examination of social ties, employment, and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 28(2), 382–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2010.498383

Blasko

B. L.

Viglione

Taylor

L. R.

Taxman

F. S.

(2021). Sorting through the evidence: A step toward prioritization of evidence-based community supervision practices. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49, 817–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211036474

Boman

J. H.

4th Mowen

T. J.

Wodahl

E. J.

Miller

B. L.

Miller

J. M.

(2019). Responding to substance-use-related probation and parole violations: Are enhanced treatment sanctions preferable to jail sanctions? Criminal Justice Studies, 32(4), 356–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601x.2019.1664506

Bushway

S. D.

Apel

(2012). A signaling perspective on employment-based reentry 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

Canales

D. D.

Campbell

M. A.

Wei

Totten

A. E.

(2014). Prediction of general and violent recidivism among mentally disordered adult offenders: Test of the Level of Service/Risk–Need–Responsivity (LS/RNR) instrument. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(8), 971–991. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814523003

Caudy

M. S.

Tang

Ainsworth

S. A.

Lerch

Taxman

F. S.

(2013). Reducing recidivism through correctional programming: Using meta-analysis to inform the RNR Simulation Tool. In Taxman

F. S.

Pattavina

(Eds.), Simulation strategies to reduce recidivism: Risk Need Responsivity (RNR) modeling for the Criminal Justice System (pp. 167–193). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6188-3_7.

Chadwick

Dewolf

Serin

(2015). Effectively training community supervision officers: A meta-analytic review of the impact on offender outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(10), 977–989. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815595661

10.

Cordier

Chung

Wilkes-Gillan

Speyer

(2021). The effectiveness of protection orders in reducing recidivism in domestic violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(4), 804–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019882361

11.

Courtright

K. E.

Berg

B. L.

Mutchnick

R. J

. (1997). The cost effectiveness of using house arrest with electronic monitoring for drunk drivers. Federal Probation, 61, 19–22.

12.

Cuddeback

G. S.

Lambert

M. C.

(2012). Factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Revised Offender Traits Inventory and selected needs measures on the Risk and Needs Assessment. North Carolina Department of Public Safety.

13.

Drake

E. K.

(2011). What works” in community supervision: Interim report. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. https://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1094/Wsipp_What-Works-in-Community-Supervision-Interim-Report_Full-Report.pdf

14.

Finn

M. A.

Muirhead-Steves

(2002). The effectiveness of electronic monitoring with violent male parolees. Justice Quarterly, 19(2), 293–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820200095251

15.

Fontaine

(2013). The role of supportive housing in successful reentry outcomes for disabled prisoners. Cityscape, 15(3), 53–76. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26326831

16.

Hall

L. L.

(2015). Correctional education and recidivism: Toward a tool for reduction. Journal of Correctional Education, 66(2), 4–29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26507655

17.

Hicks

W. D.

Holcomb

J. E.

Alexander

M. A.

Clodfelter

T. A

. (2020). Drug Testing and Community Supervision Outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(4), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819898219

18.

Henwood

K. S.

Chou

Browne

K. D.

(2015). A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of CBT informed anger management. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25, 280–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.09.011

19.

Hickert

A. O.

Worwood

E. B.

Butters

R. P.

Lizon

R. A.

(2011). Evaluation of Utah Juvenile Court’s implementation of the Carey Guides. Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice. https://socialwork.utah.edu/_resources/documents/CareyGuidesFinalReport_UCJCDec2011.pdf

20.

Jalbert

S. K.

Rhodes

(2012). Reduced caseloads improve probation outcomes. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(2), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2012.679875

21.

Jalbert

S. K.

Rhodes

Flygare

Kane

(2010). Testing probation outcomes in an evidence-based practice setting: Reduced caseload size and intensive supervision effectiveness. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49(4), 233–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509671003715987

22.

Jalbert

S. K.

Rhodes

Kane

Clawson

Bogue

Flygare

Kling

Guevara

(2011). A multi-site evaluation of reduced probation caseload size in an evidence-based practice setting. Abt Associates. https://biblioteca.cejamericas.org/bitstream/handle/2015/1301/NCJRS_Evaluation_of_Reduced_Probation_Caseload_Size.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

23.

Karakurt

Koç

Çetinsaya

E. E.

Ayluçtarhan

Bolen

(2019). Meta-analysis and systematic review for the treatment of perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 105, 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.08.006

24.

Klein

A. R.

Crowe

(2008). Findings from an outcome examination of Rhode Island’s specialized domestic violence probation supervision program: Do specialized supervision programs of batterers reduce reabuse? Violence Against Women, 14(2), 226–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207312633

25.

Landenberger

N. A.

Lipsey

M. W.

(2005). The positive effects of cognitive–behavioral programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(4), 451–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-005-3541-7

26.

Lattimore

P. K.

MacKenzie

D. L.

Zajac

Dawes

Arsenault

Tueller

(2016). Outcome findings from the HOPE demonstration field experiment. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(4), 1103–1141. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12248

27.

Lee

Appleton

C. J.

Mackey

Skidmore

Barberi

Taxman

F. S.

(2021). Developing practice guidelines: Synthesizing research and expert knowledge [Unpublished report]. Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!), George Mason University.

28.

Lockwood

S. K.

Nally

J. M.

(2016). Race, education, employment, and recidivism among offenders in the United States: An exploration of complex issues in the Indianapolis Metropolitan Area. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 11(1), 57–74. https://ijcjs.com/menu-script/index.php/ijcjs/article/view/175

29.

Lutze

F. E.

Rosky

J. W.

Hamilton

Z. K.

(2014). Homelessness and reentry: A multisite outcome evaluation of Washington State’s reentry housing program for high risk offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(4), 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813510164

30.

Mackey

Appleton

C. J.

Skidmore

Lee

Taxman

F. S.

(2022). At the intersection of research and practice: Constructing guidelines for a hybrid model of community supervision. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 63, 101689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2021.101689

31.

Mowen

T. J.

Wodahl

Brent

J. J.

Garland

(2018). The role of sanctions and incentives in promoting successful reentry: Evidence from the SVORI data. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(8), 1288–1307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818770695

32.

Oudekerk

Kaeble

(2021). Probation and parole in the United States, 2019. Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/ppus19.pdf

33.

Paparozzi

M. A.

Gendreau

(2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85(4), 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885505281529

34.

Piquero

N. L.

(2003). A recidivism analysis of Maryland’s community probation program. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(4), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(03)00024-2

35.

Ramezani

Breno

A. J.

Mackey

B. J.

Viglione

Cuellar

A. E.

Johnson

J. E.

Taxman

F. S.

(2022). The relationship between community public health, behavioral health service accessibility, and mass incarceration. BMC Health Services Research, 22(1), Article 966. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08306-6

36.

Reichert

Weisner

Otto

H. D.

(2020). A study of drug testing practices in probation. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. https://icjia.illinois.gov/researchhub/articles/a-study-of-drug-testing-practices-in-probation

37.

Renzema

Mayo-Wilson

(2005). Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate to high-risk offenders? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(2), 215–237.

38.

Ruhland

E. L.

(2020). Social worker, law enforcer, and now bill collector: Probation officers’ collection of supervision fees. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 59(1), 44–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2019.1671571

39.

Ruhland

E. L.

Holmes

Petkus

(2020). The role of fines and fees on probation outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(10), 1244–1263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820918877

40.

Scott

K. J.

(2016). Corrections and education: The relationship between education and recidivism. Journal of Intercultural Disciplines, 15, 147. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1817092502/abstract/51565AACEE454FB3PQ/1

41.

Sims

Jones

(1997). Predicting success or failure on probation: Factors associated with felony probation outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 43(3), 314–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128797043003005

42.

Skeem

J. L.

Winter

Kennealy

P. J.

Louden

J. E.

Tatar

J. R

II . (2014). Offenders with mental illness have criminogenic needs, too: toward recidivism reduction. Law and human behavior, 38(3), 212. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000054

43.

Sloas

Murphy

Wooditch

Taxman

F. S.

(2019). Assessing the use and impact of points and rewards across four federal probation districts: A contingency management approach. Victims & Offenders, 14(7), 811–831. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2019.1656691

44.

Sugg

Moore

Howard

(2001). Electronic monitoring and offending behaviour: Reconviction results for the second year of trials of curfew orders. Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/electronic-monitoring-and-offending-behaviour-reconviction-results

45.

Taxman

F. S.

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

46.

Taxman

F. S.

(2008). No illusions: Offender and organizational change in Maryland’s proactive community supervision efforts. Criminology & Public Policy, 7(2), 275–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2008.00508.x

47.

Taxman

F. S.

Smith

(2021). Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) classification models: Still evolving. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 59, 101459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101459

48.

Taxman

F. S.

Smith

Rudes

D. S.

(2020). From mean to meaningful probation: The legacy of intensive supervision programs. In Lattimore

Huebner

Taxman

F. S.

(Eds.), Handbook on moving corrections and sentencing forward (pp. 61–78). Routledge.

49.

Tillyer

M. S.

Vose

(2011). Social ecology, individual risk, and recidivism: A multilevel examination of main and moderating influences. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(5), 452–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.08.003

50.

Urahn

S. K.

Thompson

Horowitz

Utada

Fuhrmann

(2018, September 25). Probation and parole systems marked by high stakes, missed opportunities. The Pew Charitable Trusts. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2018/09/probation-and-parole-systems-marked-by-high-stakes-missed-opportunities

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.03 MB

0.00 MB