Abstract
Growing empirical research finds that a correctional system devoted to punishment is ineffective and can produce criminogenic effects. As a result, justice organizations, including probation, are encouraging managers and staff to adopt evidence-based practices (EBPs), supported by scientific evidence, such as validated risk and needs assessments and cognitive-behavioral therapies. Implementation of EBPs falls heavily on street-level workers, such as probation officers (POs) as they implement policy, yet little attention examines whether and how EBPs align within the traditionally authoritarian justice environment. Using over 1,000 hr of observation and interview data with probation staff, the present study examines how probation staff understand and use EBPs. Findings indicate that probation staff continue to make discretionary decisions regarding whom they can use EBPs with and situations in which EBP use is appropriate. Findings have significant implications for the acceptability, feasibility, and transportability of EBPs in criminal justice environments.
Keywords
Approximately one in every 31 adults is under some form of correctional supervision in the United States (Pew Center on the States, 2009). Community corrections form the largest piece of the overall correctional system with approximately 5 million adults under community supervision (Glaze & Bonczar, 2010). With tight budgets and a push toward accountability, many justice organizations, including probation, are implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs), or practices supported by scientific evidence (Sherman, 1998). In corrections, common EBPs include practices such as validated risk and needs assessments, motivational interviewing (MI), and cognitive-behavioral therapies. Current research finds that when used appropriately, evidenced-based, rehabilitative interventions effectively reduce recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2010) and improve overall probation success (Taxman, 2008).
EBP implementation falls heavily on street-level workers, such as probation officers (POs), as they adopt, adapt, and implement policy and practice changes by incorporating them into work routines and decisions. Over several decades, a substantial body of research documents and analyzes the role of street-level bureaucrats within criminal justice organizations in policy implementation and decision-making processes. Beginning with Lipsky’s (1980) foundational work, street-level bureaucracy theory describes street-level workers as front-line policy interpreters primarily responsible for policy implementation. Following this framework, other scholars note the prevalence of discretionary decision making present in street-level work (e.g., Feldman, 1992; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2000) that affects the interpretation and implementation of new policies.
Examination of discretionary decision-making processes surrounding EBP implementation is critical given previous research documenting the challenge of changing practices within correctional environments (see, for example, Battalino, Beutler, & Shani, 1996; Ferguson, 2002; Rudes, 2012; Viglione, Rudes, & Taxman, 2015), and research suggesting street-level workers often interpret and implement policy in ways that misalign with organizational reforms (Lynch, 1998; Rudes, 2012). The decisions street-level workers make can have practical consequences as they may limit the fidelity to the evidence-based model and/or jeopardize the overall effectiveness of the practice (e.g., Viglione et al., 2015). These studies highlight the importance of examining reform beyond the organizational level, at the street-level where policy implementation actually occurs (Lipsky, 1980), yet most research examining implementation of EBPs focuses on outcomes rather than the processes. This leaves a critical gap in knowledge regarding how street-level workers make decisions while undergoing change as the beneficial effects of EBPs are dependent on street-level workers’ decisions when carrying out organizational policies and practices. Using over 1,000 hr of observation and interview data with probation staff, this study examines decision making in the EBP era in a correctional agency that has attempted to make these shifts for more than a decade. The goal of this research is to use a decision-making framework to better understand how street-level workers make decisions regarding EBPs within their organizational context.
Evidence-Based Practices
The term evidence-based practice is defined by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) as “the objective, balanced, and responsible use of current research and the best available data to guide policy and practice decisions, such that outcomes for consumers are improved” (Guevara & Solomon, 2009, p. ix). The designation of a practice as an EBP suggests “there is sufficient science to declare a particular practice or treatment is efficacious and can be implemented as part of routine practice” (Taxman & Belenko, 2011, p. 3). Thus, the term EBP is applied to individual practices (such as risk and needs assessments) when research indicates they achieve positive results (Taxman & Belenko, 2011). Within community corrections, emphasis on EBPs was promoted through the “what works” movement in the late 1980s (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990). Throughout this movement, a number of research studies, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews have identified a number of practices as evidence-based.
The NIC synthesized the resulting research on efficacious practices for community corrections agencies into eight principles (Bogue et al., 2004). These eight principles serve as a resource for many correctional agencies, including the agency in the present study, as effective practices to reduce offender recidivism. The eight evidence-based principles for effective interventions include the following: (a) assess actuarial risk/needs using a standardized instrument; (b) enhance intrinsic motivation; (c) target interventions through application of the risk, need, responsivity principles as well as adequate dosage of treatment; (d) skill train with directed practice and use of cognitive-behavioral techniques; (e) increase positive reinforcement; (f) engage ongoing support in natural communities; (g) measure relevant processes/practices, and (h) provide measurement feedback. Taken together, these principles suggest specific strategies correctional agencies can implement to become evidence-based including risk-assessment practices, individualizing services to target factors associated with criminal behavior, incorporating treatment planning, balancing rewards and sanctions, and providing an integrated approach for offenders with multiple needs (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996). Importantly, within this research on best practices in community supervision, much research demonstrates the link between risk level and program effectiveness. Several research studies and meta-analytic reviews conclude that intensive correctional programs are more effective when delivered to higher risk offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Andrews et al., 1990; Andrews & Dowden, 1999; Bonta, Wallace-Capretta, & Rooney, 2000; Dowden & Andrews, 1999a, 1999b, 2004; Hanley, 2006; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2002). On the other hand, inappropriate supervision and matching of treatment intensity with offender risk level can actually result in increased criminal behavior. For example, in a meta-analysis of 80 studies, Andrews and Bonta (2010) find that programs delivered to higher risk offenders are five times more effective in reducing recidivism than programs delivered to lower risk offenders.
Implementing Evidence-Based Practices
Effectively implementing best practices has significant implications, with a recent meta-analysis finding offenders who are supervised by POs trained in EBPs were less likely to reoffend, with approximately 13% lower recidivism rates compared with offenders supervised by untrained POs (Chadwick, Dewolf, & Serin, 2015). However, successfully implementing these principles in practice presents significant challenges for both correctional organizations and workers. For example, several studies identify the challenge of successfully implementing risk and needs assessments within correctional organizations (Ferguson, 2002; Miller & Maloney, 2013; Viglione et al., 2015). More specifically, a recent study finds POs rarely use a risk and needs assessment tool as designed, and instead continue to rely on previous experiences and risk-management strategies to guide decision making (Viglione et al., 2015). In a study of a rehabilitation-focused reform designed to discourage use of technical violations, Rudes (2012) finds POs resist the reforms, making decisions to ensure technical violations and parole revocations continue to occur. Such research highlights the challenge of altering correctional practice and decision making to align within an evidence-based framework.
One mechanism to promote and support change and increase adherence to best practices in correctional organizations, such as those outlined by the NIC, is through formal, specialized training curriculums for POs (Bonta et al., 2010; C. R. Robinson, VanBenschoten, Alexander, & Lowenkamp, 2011; Taxman, Henderson, Young, & Farrell, 2012). These curriculums (e.g., Strategic Initiative in Community Supervision [STICS], Effective Practices in Community Supervision [EPICS], and Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest [STARR]) attempt to translate effective principles by offering comprehensive skill development, and providing a framework for probation agencies and staff to align with changing roles and expectations as a result of research supporting new practices (Viglione & Taxman, 2014). Existing evaluations of STICS finds that post-training, POs were more likely to focus on criminogenic needs and provide a higher quality of evidence-based interventions (Bonta et al., 2010; Bonta, Rugge, Scott, Bourgon, & Annie, 2008; Bourgon, Bonta, Rugge, & Scott, 2010; Bourgon & Gutierrez, 2012). And, in an evaluation of STARR, trained POs were more likely to use cognitive-behavioral techniques and evidence-based skills more often compared with untrained POs. Importantly, offenders supervised by POs receiving curriculum training were more likely to have positive outcomes (Bonta et al., 2010). For example, PO use of cognitive-behavioral techniques was significantly related to lower rates of reoffending (Bonta et al., 2010; Bonta et al., 2008; Bourgon & Gutierrez, 2012), lower rates of reconviction (Bonta et al., 2010; Bonta et al., 2008), and reduced failure rates (C. R. Robinson et al., 2011). Despite positive effects found for both PO and probationer outcomes demonstrating the importance of adherence to best practices, these effects are dependent on PO use of trained skills. This presents a challenge with EBP implementation, as even though trained POs exhibited significantly greater use of best practices, use of trained skills occurred in fewer than 50% of PO interactions with clients (C. R. Robinson et al., 2011). To better understand the gap between research and practice, researchers often turn to organizational culture as a major barrier to effective EBP implementation (Rudes, Viglione, & Taxman, 2013; Taxman et al., 2012).
Culture and Discretionary Decision Making
Historically, the goals of the U.S. correctional system vacillated between rehabilitation and punishment, suggesting shifts in organizational culture. An organization’s culture combines ideals, practices, routines, goals, norms, and influences, and represents a combination of the formal and informal structures, and intra- and inter-organizational contingencies (King, Steiner, & Breach, 2008; Schein, 1990), creating a normative environment where organizational actors grow and conform to formal and informal cultural guidelines. Culture represents the way things get done (Deal & Kennedy, 2000), as well as the way things entrench within an organization (Rudes & Viglione, 2014). As such, culture is an important facilitator or barrier to organizational change (Gendreau, Goggin, & Smith, 1999; Haney, 2008).
Altering the existing organizational culture in ways that successfully support new practices and policies presents a considerable challenge. Given the tension between rehabilitation and punishment, which complicates the change process within correctional settings, it is critical to examine street-level workers’ perceived acceptability and feasibility associated with reform. The adoption of EBPs, aligned within a rehabilitation framework, is often challenging due to the degree to which risk management operates within the organizational culture of correctional agencies. As discussed in the seminal work, The New Penology, greater emphasis on risk management often results in a focus on the offense and a managing actuarial risk through preventive measures such as surveillance, control, and opportunity reduction (Feeley & Simon, 1992; J. Simon, 1993). While EBPs in community corrections include an actuarial approach, application of best practices suggests a need to focus on the individual, identify unique needs, and appropriately tailor treatment and interventions designed to change behavior. Within probation, organizational cues are embedded in both a rehabilitation and punishment framework; thus, POs have discretion in determining which strategies to align with. Given the fact that POs are situated within a risk-averse environment, successful EBP implementation is often hindered and inconsistent across agencies and officers (see, for example, Viglione et al., 2015). Potential disparities in decision making suggest it may be possible for differential experiences for probationers and variances in chances for success. The potential for disparate outcomes contradicts the core of the EBP movement, which attempts to structure decision making and limit inconsistencies in supervision and case management practices.
Over several decades, a substantial body of research documents and analyzes the role of street-level workers within criminal justice organizations in policy implementation and decision-making processes. In his seminal work, Lipsky (1980) defines street-level bureaucracies as institutions where organizational actors interact with citizens and exercise considerable discretion in exercising authority. Within those bureaucracies, it is the street-level worker who is primarily responsible for policy implementation (Lipsky, 1980). The prevalence of discretionary decision making at the street-level can have significant impacts on the implementation of new policies (Feldman, 1992; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2000). Watkins-Hayes (2009) argues that street-level bureaucrats have a great deal of flexibility in carrying out their professional roles as their professional identities and social identities interact with organizational directives and client issues, influencing the formation and use of discretion. Thus, street-level bureaucrats continuously evaluate and reevaluate their goals and motives to decide how to respond to each unique situation and client (Watkins-Hayes, 2009). In this light, discretion is a “continuation of policy-making by other means” (Lineberry, 1977, p. 71), suggesting implementation is not complete after an organization sets a new policy or practice in place. Rather, street-level workers use their discretion to interpret and make adaptations to policy long after it is envisioned and administratively implemented.
Given the fact that POs are situated within culturally complex bureaucracies, often heavily politically charged, examining the use of discretionary decision making throughout the process of EBP implementation is critical to better understand not only the reach of the EBP movement within corrections but also the potential effectiveness of such practices. This is key as the beneficial effects of EBPs are dependent on PO decisions when carrying out organizational policies and practices. Using a decision-making framework, this research examines two understudied components of the change process—the PO and the series of processes used to adapt EBPs to real-world settings. Street-level bureaucrats, such as POs, are often unheard throughout the change process, yet reform challenges street-level workers to “rethink, redefine, and represent a host of intertwining identities . . . that shape social and political action in important ways” (Watkins-Hayes, 2009, p. 12). This framework moves beyond whether an EBP is implemented correctly and consistently to examine how EBPs align with the existing correctional environment. Further, the present study seeks to understand how POs understand and use EBPs in their daily routine
Method
Study Sites
This study took place within one mid-Atlantic state in which probation offices are run by a central Department of Corrections (DOC) agency overseeing both state correctional institutions and 43 county probation offices. Qualitative data collection took place at 12 probation offices throughout the state. Maximum variation sampling was used to gain broader coverage of the research topic by identifying common themes evident across the range of possible contexts (i.e., year trained in EBP, region, and office size) that may be related to adaptations of EBPs (Patton, 1990). This sampling procedure resulted in 12 sites distributed equally across the EBP implementation timeframe (2006-2013), the three probation regions in the state (Eastern, Central, Western), and represented both small and large probation offices (10-42 staff; see Table 1). In addition, site selection was conducted in consultation with DOC executive staff to ensure sites selected were representative of probation offices across the state and included the range of potential probationer populations and adequate geographical coverage.
Study Site Characteristics and EBP Training Timeline
Note. EBP = evidence-based practices; ECMS = Effective Communication/Motivational Strategies; MI = motivational interviewing.
This training was not provided to this probation office.
Evidence-Based Practice Training
In 2006, the state identified a core set of EBPs and began a gradual implementation process with all probation offices fully trained by 2013. Across the state, all probation staff received “Introduction to EBPs in Community Corrections” training. This internal training defined EBPs as “practices that experience and research show works better for a particular outcome/purpose.” 1 The training outlined specific EBPs to be implemented throughout the state: MI, risk and needs assessment, case planning, and appropriate referrals to evidence-based treatment and services. The training, delivered in a few hours, was short and basic, providing a brief overview without linking EBPs to empirical evidence and explaining the purpose for this shift in practice. The agency designed this training to lay the foundation for more specific EBP training to follow.
Throughout the implementation process, the agency provided a number of specific, comprehensive trainings addressing individual principles for effective intervention. These trainings, provided to all probation staff, were selected and developed around NIC’s effective practices for community corrections agencies (Bogue et al., 2004). As a means to address NIC’s principles of enhancing intrinsic motivation and increasing positive reinforcement, the agency provided training on Effective Communication/Motivational Strategies (ECMS) as well as MI. The agency also purchased a fourth-generation, validated risk and needs assessment tool and dedicated a number of trainings to educate staff in assessing actuarial risk/needs and targeting interventions, including trainings on risk and needs assessments, case planning, and appropriate treatment and service referrals. POs received refresher trainings on these topics, and all individual probation offices selected their own internal coaches among probation staff who helped their coworkers with specific EBPs (e.g., a risk and needs assessment coach, case-planning coach). In addition, in 2013, the agency began implementing a correctional curriculum designed to improve the transfer of research to practice, and build staff knowledge and skills regarding the principles for effective intervention in a more structured manner, including the provision of scripts to guide use of cognitive-behavioral therapy techniques to change criminal thinking patterns and build rapport, as opposed to focusing on compliance in their interactions.
The implementation of EBPs in 2006 within this agency presented significant shifts in the overall probation strategy and culture across the state. Prior to the reforms, probation staff were instructed to focus on enforcement responsibilities, such as an emphasis on conditions of supervision, frequent use of violations and revocations. Probation staff were trained to conduct “contract-driven supervision” by making a high number of face-to-face contacts with probationers to ensure compliance and adequate control over probationer behavior. In the shift to become evidence-based, the agency promoted a large change within the existing culture, training officers to instead use a “case-plan driven” supervision approach. The move to “case-plan driven” supervision required a shift away focusing on frequent contacts with probationers to focus on information gained from a validated risk and needs assessment to structure decisions regarding level of supervision, contact requirements, and creation of a case plan. Training specifically directed probation staff to focus resources on higher risk offenders with criminogenic needs. This shift altered the culture of probation supervision across the state to focus on an individualized approach, with officers directed to focus on individual probationer needs, couched within an evidence-based framework.
In summary, the DOC had been training their staff on EBPs for 8 years at the time this research took place. They were fully invested in the training and reform process, eventually creating an entire unit dedicated to EBP implementation and training across the state. In addition, the training strategies used aligned with best practices associated with promoting successful organizational change (e.g., multiday trainings, follow-up/booster training, and coaching; Baer et al., 2004; Fixsen, Naoom, Blasé, Freidman, & Wallace, 2002; Joyce & Showers, 2002). As part of this study, EBP trainings were observed by the researcher, and EBP training materials (PowerPoints, manuals, policies) were collected and analyzed as data.
Data Collection
Qualitative data collection for this project occurred from January 2012 until October 2014, including observations of the strategic planning process, EBP training, and daily probation work. During this time, observations and interviews were conducted with 200 probation staff (front-line officers and supervisory staff), 23 executive staff members, and 31 nonprobation staff (e.g., treatment providers, administrative staff). 2 Given the focus of the present article on PO decision making, analysis relied solely on data collected from probation staff. Total time spent collecting data in the field for the present study totals 1,085 hr.
Site visits occurred Monday through Friday, covering all operating hours, with each individual site visit lasting between 4 and 10 hr. The researcher accompanied staff throughout the course of all work activities (e.g., court, home visits, jails, treatment programs). Observations focused on the behaviors and interactions between POs, supervisors, and probationers with informal interviews occurring throughout. Time spent with each individual staff member ranged from 30 min to several hours, and often, the researcher observed multiple probation staff in one day as well as on more than one occasion. Participants were mostly female (60%), White (75%), and between 30 and 39 years old (36%; see Table 2 for more information regarding the sample). 3
Probation Officer Characteristics
Note. PO = probation officer.
During observations, informal, semistructured interviews with probation staff allowed for the introduction of new questions throughout the interview process and for full consideration of stories and experiences relevant to probation staff. This is consistent with an inductive approach, allowing additional themes and patterns to emerge from the data (Thomas, 2006). A deductive approach was used to guide observations and interviews, focusing specifically on EBP implementation processes. While conducting observations and semistructured interviews, fieldnotes were not recorded. Following established practice in ethnographic research (Emerson, 2001; Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995; Morrill, 1995), detailed fieldnotes were typed as soon as possible after leaving each probation office to provide the most accurate account of observations and interviews. This process ensured that participants felt comfortable and were as forthcoming as possible, while maintaining integrity of conversation (Emerson, 2001). In many of the study sites, fieldnotes were recorded during breaks in the day (e.g., lunch hour), and relying on the current cultural trend to use one’s cellphone regularly throughout the day, quick notes were recorded while in the field on a frequent basis. The combination of these methods resulted in valuable and accurate depictions of observations and interviews. All fieldnotes were typed and linked to Atlas.ti, a commonly used data-management program for coding and analysis of qualitative data (Muhr, 1991).
Coding and Analysis
The constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was used to guide qualitative data collection and analysis, reflecting on time spent in the field and knowledge of previous research to guide future observations, interviews, and coding. This allowed consideration of the full range of types and conditions under which something occurred and aided in theory development. Coding began immediately following the start of data collection and was ongoing throughout the duration of the fieldwork to examine and reevaluate research methods and study aims. First, the researcher used an inductive line-by-line coding strategy to link each line of fieldnotes to specific codes from a list that developed from initial and continual grounded theory reads of the data (Charmaz, 1995), which allowed for the development of subsequent theoretical analyses. After initial line-by-line coding, each set of fieldnotes were recoded using componential data analysis to code large portions of data for attitudinal and behavioral processes and patterns. Componential data analysis is an intense coding process that occurs in multiple phases (Charmaz, 1995; Emerson, 2001), and involved recoding data for behavioral and/or attitudinal processes and patterns to identify how study participants defined, experienced, and acted within their environment (Rudes & Portillo, 2012). Analyses alternated between the emergent readings of the data and time in the field, and knowledge of previous literature, allowing for a reflexive and iterative process. When the coding process was completed, the data were queried to examine emergent patterns. While many themes emerged in coding, the focus of this article is on how street-level workers make decisions regarding EBPs within a correctional setting, a major theme that emerged during the analysis process. To deepen this analysis, iterative thematic coding was used to identify specific factors used by POs in making decisions regarding use of EBPs throughout their daily work. As a means to enhance the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis, the data were also tested for alternative constructs, or negative cases. Analysis and presentation of alternative constructs identifies those cases that do not fit within the overarching patterns and assist in better understanding identified patterns (Patton, 1990). 4 The following section details these findings.
Results
Understanding, Defining, and Interpreting Evidence-Based Practices
The changes and shifts in probation work across the state permeated probation staff 5 conversations and conceptualizations of how the agency expected them to carry out their daily work. To gauge the most basic understanding of the transportability of best practices across the state, the researcher asked 108 POs to define EBPs throughout the course of observations to examine how POs understand and interpret the meaning of the reforms as a precursor to examining their attitudes toward implementing those reforms in practice. In response to this line of questioning, probation staff often provided simple, nondescriptive explanations. The most common definition included simply “motivational interviewing (MI),” while others defined EBPs using specific skills or pieces of various EBPs. For example, probation staff used definitions such as “communication,” “open-ended questions,” “the way you talk to people,” “rapport,” or “giving choices.” Two POs provided definitions more closely aligned with the definition provided in the introductory training, with PO Hardy 6 explaining EBPs involve “using practices proven to work” and PO Clarence’s explanation of “doing what works best.”
While some explanations suggested POs understood components of effective practices (e.g., open-ended questions as part of MI), POs commonly did not articulate specifically what being “evidence-based” means. In addition, very rarely did POs differentiate between specific types of EBPs, rather using the term as if it were a singular practice or approach to supervision. At times, POs vocalized their understanding, interpretation, and definition of EBPs through an explanation of what is not considered “EBP.” POs often argued an evidence-based approach meant they should not use their power and authority to sanction offenders. They perceived the new initiatives as a shift away from punishment entirely, with control-oriented techniques in direct conflict with EBP-related expectations. For example, in reference to a lengthy violation report PO Garcia had just written, she explained, “EBP went out the window with this probationer.” She added that he had violated several conditions of his probation; thus, a probation violation was the only acceptable response, which she did not consider to be an EBP. PO Scarlette explained that POs are given bulletproof vests when they first start on the job, but they do not utilize them because, “it is not EBP to wear vests.”
In the majority of circumstances, POs talked about EBPs as a universal concept understood throughout probation. As a result, probation staff commonly used the term as a verb, interpreting EBPs to represent a singular policy or practice. The following fieldnote provides a representative example:
PO Kim said she has a guy who got charged with drunk driving recently who isn’t even 21. She said he has been going to treatment though, so they are keeping him out of jail since he is doing what he is supposed to be doing [going to treatment]. We are “EBP-ing him.”
In this example, PO Kim suggested her decision to forgo a probation violation was an example of her implementing EBPs. Other POs used phrases such as “I am EBP-ing them,” or as PO Cast put it, “I EBP’ed the shit out of that person.” In another example, in explaining the succession of new initiatives across the state, PO Gergins explained that MI came first and then EBPs.
As probation staff often talked about EBPs and their supervision strategies, several explained they were supposed to “meet offenders where they are.” PO Jessay explained what this phrase meant in probation work:
You can’t expect someone who has a certain background or certain functioning level to be up here with other people. Barbara [her probationer] comes from a good family, she is smart and can read, but her issue is different from someone who was raised in a crack house. If they aren’t ready, they aren’t ready [for EBP intervention].
This explanation of effective probation practice suggested probation staff must evaluate the “condition” of their probationers to determine the appropriate supervision strategy. This initial finding led to further analysis regarding how this interpretation of EBPs might influence probation supervision strategies, with findings presented in the following section.
EBPs and Discretionary Decision Making
While EBPs were a widespread concept across the state, and the agency provided formal training on EBPs for all probation staff, adoption and implementation varied. Although probation staff across the 12 probation offices completed a risk and needs assessment with all probationers supervised, probation staff developed strategies to adapt utilization of assessment information as well as use of MI skills, case planning, and the skills outlined by the NICs (Bogue et al., 2004). Extending upon the strategy to “meet probationers where they are,” probation staff engaged in discretionary decision making to determine whether or not EBPs would be effective with their probationers. Analysis revealed 90% of POs in the present study considered a range of factors in making decisions regarding both with whom they can use EBPs and the situations in which EBP use is appropriate. To better understand probation staff decision making regarding appropriate EBP use, the data were further recoded according to specific factors POs consider when making decisions regarding whether EBPs were appropriate. Coding revealed five major factors influencing PO decision making: risk, offender functioning and mental health, communication/relationships, job-related factors, and liability. POs relied on these factors to determine whether EBPs generally were an effective strategy for use with specific probationers or in certain situations, suggesting a fluid approach to EBP use. The following sections present data for each of these five factors.
Risk
With the implementation of a validated risk and needs assessment tool, the concept of risk permeated probation practice. Risk in this sense included not only assessed risk levels via an assessment tool but also additional informal perceptions of potential risks for reoffending and risky situations, becoming an overarching framework guiding much of PO decision making surrounding their work. In particular, an offender’s criminal history affected attitudes toward EBP use with POs believing offenders who have been in the system for a longer period of time were so engrained in the institutional culture that it was a waste of their time to use an evidence-based approach. These decisions tied into the perceived ease of interaction and supervision of probationers as PO Moyer stated, “offenders with less of a criminal history are easier to do EBPs with.” Many POs argued the demeanor and antisocial personality (not clinically assessed) of riskier probationers make them an inappropriate candidate for EBPs, despite agency training emphasizing the importance of appropriating resources to higher risk offenders. POs linked these decisions to perceptions that higher risk probationers were completely entrenched in a criminal lifestyle and/or had too many risk factors. And POs argued the prevalence of these conditions meant they must spend a disproportionate amount of their time ensuring probationers complied with their probation conditions as mandated by the court. The representative example from PO Shaine below highlights how POs linked these concerns to public safety:
With the challenging cases, like my guys with oppositional defiant disorder, you have to put safety first. You can’t always use MI or EBPs. The safety of the individual and the safety of the community comes first.
In this example, PO Shaine discussed prioritizing control-oriented techniques over use of EBPs as a means to promote safety for the individual probationer as well as larger community. Imbued within these decisions were PO beliefs that use of EBPs can potentially result in a reduction in public safety.
In addition, high-risk probationers often scored high in criminogenic needs such as criminal thinking or criminal personality, which POs believed were needs incapable of changing. As one PO put it, “I can’t do anything with a probationer with a criminal personality because there isn’t anything you can do about that. That is just who a person is.” POs couched these explanations in the belief that high-risk offenders and/or offenders with specific criminogenic needs cannot change.
While POs focused on the identification of appropriate risk levels utilizing the risk and need assessment tool, POs often tied decisions to informal, subjective perceptions of risk. Based on these perceptions of risk, POs believed they could not effectively utilize an evidence-based approach with probationers they perceived to be risky, regardless of formal assessment results. For example, POs argued certain types of offenders were too risky to use noncontrol/directive techniques. These offender populations included gang members, sex offenders, and substance users. Across these populations, POs often argued they needed to maintain a “shorter leash” to effectively control them and protect the safety of the community. The use of EBPs was perceived to be “too soft,” especially for offenders prone to violence, hostility, or victimization of vulnerable populations. For example, PO Jones described his strategy:
With sex offenders, I am very contact-driven. The case-plan driven strategy is for nonsex offender populations. I can only work with them so much because they are a risk to the community. Especially with sex offenders, changing the way they think is unlikely.
With special populations, it was common for POs to resist using evidence-based approaches and revert to contact-driven supervision. POs couched these decisions in a risk-averse framework, with public safety the ultimate goal. This decision-making framework not only influenced how POs supervised entire groups of offenders but also sometimes resulted in unequal treatment of probationers in similar situations. Supervisor PO Miranda explained this best:
An issue with EBPs is applying it evenly. One of the POs I supervise recently wrote a violation report for a pedophile who came in to the office and tested dirty. If this had been just a substance user, she would not have violated her. She would have been much more patient with a probationer who was just a substance user and not a sex offender also.
PO Miranda explained the probationer’s status as a sex offender changed her opinion about violations and intervening with an evidence-based approach because “the sex offender is at a higher risk level.” Also perceived as higher risk were gang members or potential gang members. Their differential treatment was based on a common assumption that “they have nothing to lose” due to their gang status. Due to this anticipated resistance, POs reverted to a contact-driven strategy to maintain control over the perceived riskier population. According to agency training, a major goal of EBPs was to reduce inconsistencies and biases in decision making. Despite this emphasis, POs, including supervisors, relied on perceived risk (rather than the risk and needs assessment) to inform decision making regarding EBPs resulting in more punitive treatment of certain types of offenders.
POs voiced similar concerns for specific types of drug use. This varied by region, as certain drugs were more of an issue in specific parts of the state. For example, in the western part of the state, heroin overdoses were a major issue over the past year. As a result, probationers who tested positive for heroin received a different response from POs as compared with probationers who tested positive for other types of drugs, with heroin users treated more punitively. This suggested perceptions of risk and decisions regarding appropriate EBP use and supervision strategies were fluid and influenced by variations in offending patterns and regional contexts.
Regardless of the specific type of special population, POs argued offenders perceived as riskier for recidivism are less amenable to change. As a result, POs resisted EBPs and retreated to the “way things used to be,” focusing on compliance and control. As PO Pines put it,
In the area of EBPs, sometimes you have to say I am concerned about public safety so it is just time you go to jail. You don’t back up and say let’s talk about this. We violate a lot of people. Certain situations you have to do that, because our motto is “no more victims.”
These perceptions regarding offending provided a rationale for POs to rely on a risk management strategy to do their job effectively and generate the better outcomes. In this light, POs in the present study often operated under the risk-management framework, resulting in decisions regarding appropriate supervision strategies linked toward controlling risk (based on a variety of factors) and protecting public safety.
Offender Functioning and Mental Health
A majority of the probation offices across the state have specialized caseloads, one being a mental health caseload. POs who carried this caseload supervised the most severe mental health cases, as assessed through a combination of formal and brief mental health screening, information provided by a treatment provider, and/or informal assessment of mental health status. Despite allocation of mental health cases to a specialized caseload, almost all POs admitted they too supervised individuals with mental health issues. Across study sites, POs complained about a lack of resources to address mental health issues, often feeling as though their hands were tied and that they were only able to do damage control. POs argued EBPs were ineffective for probationers with a range of mental health issues including anxiety, schizophrenia, low IQ, and low functioning individuals, arguing they had to use direct communication techniques because these individuals would be unable to follow concepts incorporated into the various EBPs. The following representative fieldnote highlights this:
PO Marks talked about how you can’t use EBPs or MI with mental health cases. They aren’t wired right. Their brain does not work that way. She will not use those skills with them. They might be effective with someone who just has ADHD, but she is not sure.
Beyond this example, POs viewed the status of having a mental health condition as detrimental and one that limited their ability to do their job. In a similar example, PO Barnes suggested using EBPs with probationers who have mental illnesses may actually result in negative consequences:
PO Barnes did not think it was fair that he had to use MI skills with a mentally ill, low IQ client because they can’t think globally and conceptually. If you use some of these techniques with them, you actually lose rapport and upset them.
This reasoning goes beyond effectiveness and suggested POs believed using EBPs with certain offenders can actually create harm. In this light, POs reverted back to contact-driven, directive strategies as a means to manage the perceived risks associated with offender functioning and/or mental health issues.
Communication/Relationships
A third factor influencing PO decision making regarding EBP use related to their perceived relationship and ability to communicate with a probationer. If POs believed probationers would challenge them or present any difficulties in their interactions, they argued EBPs were inappropriate. In this light, POs relied on a variety of offender characteristics to make EBP-related decisions including perceived probationer resistance, indifference, and dishonesty. Especially when POs believed an offender would be resistant to their supervision strategy, they regularly maintained a directive and authoritarian relationship as a means of control. A representative example from fieldnotes highlights this:
PO Gerald explained some probationers will respond to EBPs and talk to you, and others will just give you one word answers. With those people, you take a control approach. You cannot motivate them, so you just work to get them out of probation. These are people you can’t tell the difference between Day 1 and their last day with you on probation. Nothing is changing.
In addition to resistance, POs also argued they could not utilize EBPs with indifferent probationers. In these situations, POs reverted to a containment approach, which emphasized control and risk management. POs were increasingly aware of the importance of offender choice: thus, many believed if a probationer did not care, there was nothing they could do to change their behavior or thinking. Along the same lines, POs also believed they could not use EBPs with probationers who would not be honest with them. The following example highlights a situation in which PO Dawes decided she could not use EBPs with her probationer:
PO Dawes said many of her probationers do not take responsibility for their actions and are not truthful. One of her probationers was put on GPS, and she warned him they will know where he is at all times. Despite this, he still lied about where he was, even though they had proof. EBP and MI does not work for guys like this. There is only so much you can do if they are going to lie and aren’t going to take responsibility for their actions.
POs embedded the criteria for these decisions in the interest of limited time and resources. Subjectively, POs calculated the difficulty of interacting with individual probationers, determining use of EBPs and behavior change strategies with resistant, indifferent, or dishonest probationers would be too challenging and time-consuming. Engrained in these decision-making processes were the inherent beliefs that offender change was unlikely.
Job-Related Factors
POs made decisions regarding EBPs based on factors relating to workload and resources, which were often the first complaints staff had when told they must attend a training or try out a new practice. Paperwork, large caseloads, and other job requirements made POs hesitant to implement EBPs consistently. Further, POs expressed concerns that engaging in EBPs with probationers “opened the flood gates,” and they did not have time for that among their many responsibilities.
Most common, POs linked their decision to use EBPs to job functionality. For example, no PO who specialized in presentence investigations (PSI) believed they needed to use an evidence-based approach. Probation officer Melnick, a PSI supervisor, explained this finding:
PO Melnick said EBPs are not relevant for PSI writers. I don’t pay attention to EBPs. He rolled his eyes and said I am required to go to trainings “of course,” but rapport and relationships for a PSI writer is not important.
While PSI writers commonly interacted with probationers on a single occasion, in many situations, they were an individual’s first introduction to probation. A rather telling example was of a 20-year-old female who came in for her PSI. She was shaking with nerves and talked quickly. She indicated she had no idea what probation was or what was in store for her, admitting her nervousness. The PO did not acknowledge her concerns or explain to her what probation was, rather going right into the interview, which included a range of personal questions. Beyond PSI writers, other POs who knew they would only see a probationer one or two times also argued EBPs were unnecessary. For example, after conducting several interviews at the local jail with individuals soon to be released to probation, PO Fellow explained, she “could have used EBPs there,” but she did not because the probationer would likely be put on someone else’s caseload. POs also avoided using EBPs, including conducting any assessments, when probationers were transferring to another probation office in the state or another state altogether. Overall, these findings suggested POs viewed EBPs as effective and worthwhile only if they will have ongoing relationships with individuals.
Last, some POs expressed concerns about using an evidence-based strategy because they worried about potential fraternization. POs linked this concern to trainings provided at the training academy warning about the harms of fraternization, the ability of offenders to manipulate officers, or from stories passed down from friends who worked in the state prison system. In addition, the state police recently arrested a PO working in one of the probation offices for fraternizing with one of her probationers. As a result, POs were unclear on where boundaries should be set and would err on the side of caution. The following representative example from fieldnotes highlights this finding:
I [PO Hadley] try to build rapport with probationers, but I have to be careful. Correctional officers often get in a lot of trouble for fraternization because they have so much contact with offenders. I care about them, but I know they are manipulative.
POs expressed concerns that EBP-related trainings do not help them negotiate this struggle, leaving them unclear how they are supposed to maintain clear and appropriate boundaries while building relationships and rapport with probationers they supervise.
Liability
A major factor influencing PO decisions regarding EBP use related to perceived liability. Liability concerns were prominent throughout the probation offices. POs often worried if something went wrong (e.g., probationer committed a new offense), they would be left on their own to defend their decisions and corresponding actions, without agency support. In this regard, POs believed it was safest to exert control and authority, especially with those probationers most likely to take part in risky behavior. At one point during fieldwork, there was a situation in which a current probationer attacked local law enforcement and was on the run from authorities. This situation received much attention throughout the study sites and served as a reminder to officers that anything can happen and they needed to remain “on guard” at all times. POs perceived this necessity to protect themselves in conflict with the goals of EBPs, especially when it came to supervising offenders perceived to be higher risk.
Associated with continuous liability concerns, historical factors played a significant role in PO decision making regarding EBP use. Probation officer Lin explained these frustrations:
One of my probationers tried to adulterate their drug test yesterday. I had just spent 20 minutes doing EBP with her—we had gone over her goals and I had given her affirmations. I spend this time doing EBP with these people, and then this kind of stuff happens. Why spend all this time doing what they say is positive and evidence-based when probationers just turn around and be so manipulative and deceiving? Why spend my time with them when I have stacks and stacks of paperwork?
Unsuccessful or negative experiences associated with attempts to implement EBPs influenced future decisions to use newly learned skills. POs constructed their memories within the institutional culture, contributing to future institutional action (Zerubavel, 1996). Memories of perceived failures influenced PO decisions to engage in EBPs, making them more likely to revert to contact-driven supervision techniques, which were less time-consuming and felt more appropriate given the nature of probationer behavior. Thus, POs consider perceived failures and the associated liability with offender failure (e.g., reoffending) when making decisions regarding appropriate EBP use.
Negative Cases
As part of the rigorous analysis process, the data were analyzed for negative cases or those instances in which data contradict emergent patterns. Analysis revealed nine POs (out of 200) believed they could integrate EBPs into their supervision strategy, even with riskier and challenging offender populations. Three of these POs believed EBPs were best suited for high-risk and difficult probationers. These three POs all served as “EBP coaches” in their districts and received more training regarding evidence-based approaches. In the following quote, PO Samuels explained the benefit of using EBPs with riskier populations:
High-risk offenders or the most risky offenders are actually the best offenders to use EBPs with. Those are often the ones POs will say EBPs can’t work for though. Sex offender POs often work within the containment model, but they still need to address offender ways of thinking. This is where EBPs can really be useful because they have a lot of room to try different things and make a difference, but even with sex offenders, people believe EBPs don’t work.
PO Samuels explained resources and time should be expended on high-risk offenders first. In his coaching sessions with fellow POs, he provided an analogy to try to get this strategy across to other staff:
What happens when you get to the hospital triage or emergency room? They treat the riskiest patient first. They let the guy with the broken arm wait a little bit so they can help the guy with the heart attack. This is all we have to do as POs also.
While the remaining five POs stated they could use EBPs with all of the offenders on their caseload, they argued certain skills were inappropriate to use with certain offenders or in certain situations.
Discussion
Several decades into a renewed emphasis on rehabilitative correctional policies and practice, the current research highlights the pervasiveness of the risk-management model related to PO decision making. While the agency utilized in-depth trainings and strategies, including follow-up training, internal experts or coaches, and specialized curriculums to support adoption and implementation of best practices, POs considered a variety of factors when implementing EBPs throughout their everyday work. Findings suggest probation staff continue to operationalize risk-management supervision techniques based on discretionary determinations of whether an evidence-based approach is an effective strategy to utilize with their probationers, linked to perceptions of acceptability of feasibility of EBPs.
Although EBPs theoretically provide POs with skills and tools to standardize decision making and improve the overall likelihood of probation success (i.e., recidivism reduction, successful completion, violation reductions), the present study highlights many individual and organizational barriers preventing POs from implementing EBPs as intended. POs largely believed rather than working with probationers to generate change, they must “meet probationers where they are,” resulting in decision making based on perceived risk of both the probationer and PO liability associated with a case. This is not to say that punitive and authoritarian practices should not still be part of probation work, as many scholars suggest the importance of a hybrid approach (e.g., Klockars, 1972), but the integration of EBP techniques into existing supervision techniques was complicated by an overarching emphasis on risk and liability. As a result, POs considered multiple factors in making decisions regarding how to utilize EBPs within their existing organizational routine, highlighting the challenges and complexities associated with the acceptability and feasibility of best practices in real-world correctional settings.
Theoretical Implications
Findings from the present study suggest risk management (Feeley & Simon, 1992) continues to dominate probation practice evidenced through PO decision making surrounding use of EBPs. POs viewed certain types of offenders, offenders with specific characteristics, and certain situations as risky and creating a potential liability they must counteract or prevent by adopting a risk-management strategy. These beliefs allowed traditional, control-oriented thinking and supervision strategies associated with risk management (Feeley & Simon, 1992; J. Simon, 1993), to permeate modern probation practice.
POs in the present study organized their workload and decisions around considerations of risk (both formally assessed and perceived), with their decisions to utilize EBPs representing a people-processing approach in which they sorted and classified probationers based on risk, needs, and other individual characteristics. The prevalence of a risk-management approach in probation and parole settings is documented in previous research, which finds POs often quickly assess risk and then work within those initial risk scores (based on validated assessments and/or perceptions) continually throughout the probation process (Feeley & Simon, 1992; Feldman, 2003; Kemshall, Parton, Walsh, & Waterson, 1997; G. Robinson, 1999; Taxman, Shepardson, & Byrne, 2004). This actuarial or technocratic approach to supervision controls rather than empowers probationers (J. Simon, 1993) and ignores important dynamic risk factors or criminogenic needs. As seen in the present study and recent research reported by Viglione and colleagues (2015), POs avoided addressing criminogenic needs, particularly criminal thinking or criminal personality. This may be because needs are complicated in nature, and potential responses to high scores in these areas are not always clear-cut across various probation offices. As a result, POs argue (a) probationers are incapable of changing in these need areas, and (b) there is little they can do as a PO to address criminogenic needs or promote behavior change more generally. As highlighted throughout this study, the way in which street-level workers manage change to their ideologies, routines, and activities, and believe in their ability to effectively implement change, influences decisions and actions, and ultimately reflects what policy looks like in practice.
Policy Implications
POs, situated within an environment characterized by risk management, do not mindlessly accept new reforms. Rather, they make decisions regarding how to adapt new practices and policies to align with their supervision strategies and conceptualization of probation work. These adaptations have significant implications in defining transported EBPs or how street-level workers actually implement and use best practices in everyday probation work. Transportability, an emerging area of implementation science, provides a framework to consider how an intervention aligns or fits within a real-world setting (Schoenwald & Hoagwood, 2001). Due to potential conflicts between the need to adapt interventions to local settings as well as practitioner preferences while maintaining fidelity, the transportabiltiy of an EBP is critical to examine (Taxman & Belenko, 2011). In case of the present study, POs working within a risk-management framework made decisions on how to implement EBPs that may significantly alter the intended design, related to both perceived acceptability and feasibility, which can then jeopardize the overall effectiveness of the practice.
As findings suggest, in making decisions regarding use of EBPs, POs considered different components of the practice as well as the situations in which they can effectively use an EBP. In particular, POs considered the feasibility of using EBPs based on the population and perceptions of risk—whether linked to assessed risk or perceived risk tied to offending patterns, type of offender, and potential failure to comply with conditions of probation. Despite the fact that agency training included research evidence documenting the importance of effectively treating and allocating resources to higher risk offenders and offenders with criminogenic needs, POs continued to view these populations as too risky. Given the extensive training protocols utilized in this state, this suggests more is needed beyond training for POs to experience firsthand success in utilizing EBPs with high-risk, high-needs populations. Even further, training and leadership should emphasize that while it may be more difficult to achieve high levels of success with high-risk, high-needs populations, utilization of an evidence-based approach can still improve performance and outcomes.
Implementing EBPs With High-Risk Probationers
POs in the present study were overwhelmed when probationers had high-risk levels, had more identified criminogenic needs (e.g., substance abuse), or were resistant in their communications. In these scenarios, they argued there was very little they could do for that individual. As a result, POs prioritized other tasks, such as paperwork or probationers who might be less challenging to supervise. This suggests POs did not have a thorough understanding of offender risk and needs, and also suggests they may not have expended their own resources (e.g., time and energy) as well as limited agency resources in the most effective ways. This is not necessarily surprising though, as many of the EBP initiatives are complicated and require clinical training and/or expertise, which the majority of POs in this study did not have. This finding is especially problematic given the research evidence suggesting the importance of delivering appropriate correctional interventions to high-risk probationers (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Andrews et al., 1990; Andrews & Dowden, 1999; Bonta et al., 2000; Dowden & Andrews, 1999a, 1999b, 2004; Hanley, 2006; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2002).
Research continues to recognize the challenge of integrating the concepts of risk and needs into correctional practice. Recent studies in probation settings find POs often do not integrate risk and needs assessment information into decisions (Bonta, Rugge, Scott, Bourgon, & Annie, 2008; Flores, Travis, & Latessa, 2004; Luong & Wormith, 2011; Miller & Maloney, 2013; Schwalbe, 2004; Viglione et al., 2015), over-classify offenders according to perceived risk (Oleson, VanBenschoten, Robinson, Lowenkamp, & Holsinger, 2012; Wormith, Hogg, & Guzzo, 2012), and focus on risks and pay little attention to identifying and addressing criminogenic needs (Flores et al., 2004; Oleson et al., 2012; Viglione et al., 2015). Given that the principles of risk, need, and responsivity underlie many of the EBPs for correctional practice (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Andrews et al., 1990; Gendreau, 1996), the repeated misalignment between theory and practice highlight issues related to acceptability and feasibility, which can potentially affect important outcomes (i.e., recidivism reduction). In an evaluation of a probation program based on best practices, Pearson, McDougall, Kanaan, Bowles, and Torgerson (2011) found positive effects with “low to medium” and “medium to high” risk offenders, but no effect with those in the highest risk category. The authors suggest the combination of complex needs and stronger official restrictions, and focus of POs on monitoring and restricting social interactions limited the implementation of this program. This research further highlights the conflict between balancing risk management and use of best practices within probation supervision, especially in the supervision and management of high-risk offenders.
Findings from the present study combined with the existing research highlighting both the challenges and importance of effectively implementing best practices suggest there is much to be done in translating the evidence on risk and needs to probation supervision. Rather than continuing to implement EBPs, such as risk and needs assessments, and identifying issues with alignment and fit afterward, researchers and criminal justice agencies should critically evaluate issues of transportability prior to designing implementation efforts (Schoenwald & Hoagwood, 2001). In justice settings, this includes assessing issues related to the setting, population, client and practitioner buy-in, organizational fit, fidelity, and core outcomes as means to understand how the criminal justice environment may affect how an intervention is delivered (Taxman & Belenko, 2011). As identified in the present study, probation agencies should consider the potential challenges they may face in implementing best practices with riskier populations and seek to develop proactive strategies to ease the implementation process. This strategy allows agencies to design and tailor their implementation strategies to address issues of alignment and fit before they might occur in practice. This may allow researchers and agencies to build a stronger foundation to implement EBPs and overcome recurrent challenges present with transporting EBPs to real-world practice.
Implementing EBPs With Special Populations
POs were more cautious and less willing to use EBPs with a wide range of special populations, including sex offenders, gang members, and those with mental health issues. This differential treatment of special populations is important to note, as it resulted in treating entire groups of probationers more punitively than others, contradicting the aims of EBPs to remove bias and structure decision making. However, it also raises important questions surrounding both the evidence-base surrounding best practices and the trainings designed to translate research to practice for probationers with mental health needs. As reported in the present study, POs argued EBPs were ineffective with probationers who had a range of mental health issues (e.g., low IQ, anxiety, schizophrenia) and argued that use of EBPs can actually create harm. This finding reflects a challenge with implementing the responsivity principle, which suggests noncriminogenic needs such as mental health issues can hinder treatment and, thus, may need to be considered in tailoring interventions to individual offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Again, this is a complex skill that was not addressed in the training provided to POs in this study. This suggests the need for additional education and training focused on the relative influence of various risk factors as a means to increase accuracy when both making assessments of risk, potential risk, and increasing PO ability to target risk factors known to affect recidivism (Eno Louden & Skeem, 2013). This requires significant work on the part of researchers and correctional agencies to develop more comprehensive and long-term knowledge and skill-building trainings centered specifically on addressing PO beliefs regarding special populations and empirically sound methods of implementing EBPs with more challenging cases (e.g., mental health).
Previous Experience With EBPs
POs were often discouraged by failure. They expected EBPs to work when they actively tried to implement them and equated continuous struggles with probationers as ineffectiveness, affecting future use of EBPs. This finding is in line with previous research reporting high rates of probation violations undermines confidence in the feasibility of probation as an effective response for offending (Langan & Cunniff, 1992). Similar to the work of Fine (1996) and Zerubavel (1996), POs accumulate knowledge based on their previous direct and indirect experiences with EBPs, which in turn shapes their current perceptions and behaviors. This suggests an important component associated with organizational change that typically goes unaddressed in research and implementation strategies. The historical influence of prior failures suggests a target for future trainings to build a clearer and stronger foundation for EBPs—that because a practice is “evidence-based” does not mean they are guaranteed to work every time, but that it increases the odds of the practice achieving the desired outcomes (Butts, 2012). As a means to address barriers related to historical factors, agencies should reconcile their history with policy and practice implementation with their present state to both identify common patterns and address perceived failures. Agencies should recognize and openly communicate regarding previous and existing challenges, and work with street-level staff to understand how new policies and practices fit within the existing organizational context given previous difficulties. Acknowledging and addressing historical factors that may delay or hinder change attempts is a relatively new and unexplored way of understanding issues related to organizational change and street-level responses to change. More work in this area is needed to develop a framework for understanding how street-level workers activate prior experience with EBPs and incorporate them into decision-making processes.
Balancing Expectations and Requirements
Throughout this study, it was very challenging for POs to balance mandates from the judiciary and legislature (operationalized as probation conditions of supervision) and what agency policy dictates (newly implemented EBPs). With the EBP movement, PO legal responsibilities are unchanged, and they are aware they are accountable for upholding the law. While the judiciary and legislature dictates POs are responsible for ensuring probationers abide by their probation conditions, which supports a compliance-driven strategy, the changing nature of the agency and associated policies emphasize a case-plan-driven strategy. Thus, while trying to make sense of changes associated with reform, POs perceived a misalignment between the agency and judiciary/legislature. As a result, POs struggled with alignment of new practices to existing processes, ultimately affecting their perceptions regarding the appropriateness or acceptability of EBPs given external pressures.
Adding to the confusion, agency policies varied both between probation offices in the state and within them, depending on the views and philosophies of each individual supervisor. Thus, it was confusing for POs to know who will hold them accountable for what actions and/or decisions. This left POs uncertain and fearful of liability, which underlined many decisions made and supported the tendency to revert to risk-management approaches. This concern for liability provides a potential explanation for the challenges associated with effective implementation of risk and needs assessments, specifically related to the reliance on perceived risk (rather than assessed risk) to over-classify risk level and hesitation to stray from control-oriented supervision techniques.
While little research examines liability within probation agencies, Drapela and Lutze (2009) find community corrections officers commonly worry they will be held accountable if they do not respond to offender noncompliance or minor criminal behavior. Therefore, officers must balance and negotiate external pressures to immediately respond to noncompliance punitively with the knowledge presented by EBP—“that offender change is complex and may be better served by non-punitive remedies that tend to take more time” (Lutze, Johnson, Clear, Latessa, & Slate, 2012, p. 51). Tensions between pressure to hold offenders accountable and to implement effective practices can result in negative consequences such as role conflict, job stress, and concerns over legal liabilities, which may hinder EBP implementation efforts (Drapela & Lutze, 2009; Slate, Vogel, & Johnson, 2002; Slate, Wells, & Johnson, 2003). As a means to address these tensions, a shift in the conceptualization of community corrections agencies from a criminal justice profession to a human service one would allow for greater understanding that officers and offenders are human, and mistakes as well as negative outcomes are inevitable (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Lutze et al., 2012). This reconceptualization suggests system-wide change including judiciaries, legislatures, politicians, and community members to recognize the changing nature of probation work, and expectations for POs and supervision strategies.
Organizational Reinforcements
Findings demonstrate the challenges associated with failing to formally support the use of new practice in organizational policies and procedures. At the time of this study, performance reviews and raises were not formally tied to the use of EBPs. While supervisors conducted case reviews, reviewing each offender file to ensure POs completed the necessary paperwork, this is not an indication that the PO has fully implemented the desired practice, as this study suggests. This strategy encouraged POs to concentrate on paperwork and data entry rather than effective use of the trained skills. Further, many of the EBPs require more than evaluating whether or not a box has been checked. They require actual observations of the interactions between the PO and probationers. In addition to linking performance review processes to use of best practices, less formal incentives and rewards can assist with EBP implementation. Agencies can incentivize POs for achieving a range of positive outcomes with their probationers, such as treatment enrollment and completion (Lutze et al., 2012) as a means to encourage behavior change among staff.
Conclusion
Changing organizational routines is difficult, especially when the existing organizational culture supports old routines, which infiltrate the way people think about and carry out their jobs. The organization in the present study was not expecting a one-time training to work. Rather, they implemented a variety of training methods and implementation strategies (e.g., coaches) to support EBP adoption, implementation, and sustainability throughout the state. Regardless, the approach is an example of a top–down change strategy. Considering the work of Feldman (2003) on the performative perspective, street-level workers are not mindless. Instead, they are mindful and present. If the agency can convince them or teach them a new routine, then change is infinitely possible (Feldman, 2003). A more holistic approach to change occurs from the bottom–up, where the street-level workers at the bottom create change by changing their own routines. These new routines then become the existing normative culture. Agencies can routinize this change by providing rewards through promotions and raises, but only need to do so for a short period of time until the changes become routine and staff do not remember the old way of doing business. In the present study, the agency and POs at the street level put forth great effort into EBP implementation. POs across all study sites volunteered for extra responsibilities and took on additional roles (e.g., coaches). The agency had an engaged, captive workforce, but POs did not know how to fully integrate EBPs into the existing organizational environment. While the organizational change strategy utilized in the current state was multifaceted and progressive, the agency paid little attention toward issues related to the transportability of EBPs. That is, throughout implementation, the agency did not adequately assess the degree to which EBPs might align within the agency, what aspects of the environment might act as a facilitator or barrier toward implementation, and street-level perceptions of the acceptability and feasibility of new practices.
While in theory, implementing practices based on scientific research is sound, researchers must examine the process of implementation and the way in which effective practices function within the real-world environment and context. The ways in which new practices and policies are modified have significant implications for the ultimate effectiveness of EBPs as well as the feasibility for widespread implementation and sustainability. As research on the significance of EBPs for improving correctional practice grows, more attention must be given to transportability and the processes associated with implementation. Full integration of EBPs within a risk-management environment is complex. As POs make sense of changing policies and practices, they continue to rely on a variety of factors tied to managing risk (e.g., perceived and actual risk levels, offender characteristics, communication and relationship issues, job-related factors, and liability). Probation staff question the appropriateness and suitability of EBPs for use with certain offenders or in certain situations. As a result, an overarching concern regarding risk and appropriate management of risk influences both the perceived acceptability and feasibility of EBPs as well as PO decisions to utilize EBPs. Remaining questions surround whether movement away from a risk-management approach is possible or how EBPs can be adapted to fit within the existing correctional framework, while maintaining integrity to the original design and intent. Further, future research must acknowledge and address whether it is possible in a criminal justice environment, where no matter how many EBPs, rehabilitative strategies, or treatment programs are implemented, POs still have to exert authority and control measures to uphold the law and protect public safety. While previous research suggests a hybrid approach for probation is most effective (rather than a sole focus on law enforcement or rehabilitation; Klockars, 1972), the challenge is ensuring that the rehabilitation aspect of this hybrid approach applies the principles of effective intervention and targets criminogenic needs to improve criminal justice outcomes (Skeem & Manchak, 2008). This shifts the challenge away from identifying the theoretical role POs should fulfil to focusing on strategies to encourage use of a hybrid surveillance-EBP approach within probation work that has been traditionally imbued with risk-aversion and concerns for liability.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Lauren Duhaime for her efforts on this study as well as Danielle S. Rudes, Faye S. Taxman, Stephen D. Mastrofski, and Steven Belenko for their comments on earlier versions of this article.
This study was funded by the National Institute of Justice, 2014-IJ-CX-2004, and National Science Foundation, SES-1420311. All opinions are those of the authors and do not represent the opinions of the National Institute of Justice or National Science Foundation or any governmental agency.