Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest: Probation officer attitudes and experiences

Abstract

Community correction organisations have recognised the importance of implementing evidence-based practices to improve probation practice and reduce recidivism rates. Research finds when probation agencies implement evidence-based practices in line with the Risk, Need, Responsivity model with fidelity, reductions in recidivism are possible. However, challenges of implementation persist. To assist in the translation of evidence-based practices to real-world practice, researchers and practitioners developed community supervision officer training programmes. Using qualitative interview data of trained federal probation officers, this study examined the implementation of the Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest. This study explored (1) probation officer attitudes and perceptions of Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest, training and implementation process; (2) how users and coaches implement key components of Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest; and (3) the organisational facilitators and barriers associated with Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest implementation. Findings suggest positive attitudes towards Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest for improving supervision process and highlight key facilitators and barriers that can be addressed to support successful implementation efforts.

Keywords

Community corrections core correctional practices probation Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Recidivism training programme

At their inception, community corrections agencies were designed to encourage and support reform (Petersilia, 1997). However, during its expansion and development in US responses to crime, it became a system largely devoted to surveillance and crime-control techniques (Feeley and Simon, 1992; Garland, 2001; Taxman, 2002). Over the last few decades, growing empirical support regarding the ineffectiveness of control-oriented supervision for reducing crime (Bonta et al., 2008; Drake, 2011; Nagin et al., 2009) has led to a resurgence of rehabilitation as a viable correctional strategy (Cullen and Gilbert, 1982; Cullen and Jonson, 2011). Along with the movement towards its original goals of reform, there has been significant emphasis on the use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) or ‘best practices’ directly proven to reduce recidivism and improve outcomes (Sherman, 1998).

The emphasis on EBPs led researchers and community corrections agencies to work towards implementing EBPs and aim to change individual behaviour to promote positive supervision outcomes (Andrews et al., 1990; Gendreau, 1996; Gendreau et al., 1996). In particular, the Risk–Need–Responsivity (RNR) model emerged as a prominent framework to guide supervision and delivery of effective correctional interventions (Andrews et al., 1990). The RNR model consists of three principles – the risk, need and responsivity principles as a means to generate effective interventions for offender populations (Bonta and Andrews, 2017). Despite empirical support for the RNR framework (Andrews and Dowden, 2006; Andrews et al., 1990; Bonta and Andrews, 2007; Lipsey et al., 2007; Lowenkamp et al., 2006), research documents the challenge of implementing these best practices in the traditionally authoritarian environment of community supervision (Bonta et al., 2008; Miller and Maloney, 2013; Viglione, 2017, 2019; Viglione et al., 2015). As a means to address these implementation challenges, researchers and practitioners developed correctional training programmes designed to translate best practices and RNR principles into routine practice. These training programmes represent multifaceted education and skill-building tools developed specifically for supporting change and implementation of best practices in community supervision agencies. However, little is known regarding both the perception’s probation officers (POs) hold of these training programmes and how POs make decisions regarding use of skills learned through the training. Given the documented challenge of change in these settings, understanding the attitudes of the individuals being asked to implement the policies on the front line is critical to advancing knowledge on how to best support implementation and improve practice. The current study aimed to fill this gap in the literature through an exploration of attitudes and perceptions of POs towards the Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest (STARR) training programme, training experiences and implementation process; an examination of the conditions under which POs implement the key components of STARR; and identification of the facilitators and barriers associated with STARR implementation.

Principles of effective intervention

The current emphasis on EBPs in corrections shifted the goals of probation supervision from a focus on compliance and law enforcement to a more therapeutic approach addressing proactive behaviour change (Bonta et al., 2008; Bourgon et al., 2012). This shift in ideology and priorities had significant impacts on probation supervision, suggesting sometimes significant changes in the way POs do their jobs. The principles of effective intervention (PEI) is the main framework guiding correctional rehabilitation (Bonta and Andrews, 2017). The PEI contains 15 principles describing best practices in correctional treatment. Perhaps the most prominent component of the PEI guiding these changes in probation agencies is the RNR model, which integrates rehabilitative and actuarial approaches to supervision (Bonta and Andrews, 2017).

The RNR model has three key principles: (1) the risk principle, which states supervision and correctional treatment should match an individual’s level of risk with more intensive interventions provided to higher risk individuals; (2) the need principle, which states correctional interventions must target criminogenic needs or dynamic risk factors directly related to criminal offending; and, finally, (3) the responsivity principle, which states correctional interventions should employ cognitive-behavioural therapies that match service delivery to individual characteristics, motivations and learning styles (Bonta and Andrews, 2017; Andrews et al., 1990; Lipsey et al., 2007). Together, these principles emphasise the need for POs to engage in individualised treatment starting with the use of a validated risk assessment tool to guide supervision decisions, including who to target in interventions (risk), what to target in interventions (need) and how to target interventions (responsivity).

Implementation challenges

Since the development of the RNR model in the early 1990s, several meta-analyses indicated that adherence to the three principles of the RNR model can reduce recidivism (Andrews and Dowden, 2006; Andrews et al., 1990; Lipsey et al., 2007) with reductions in criminal offending by as much as 35% (Bonta and Andrews, 2007). To increase the effectiveness of correctional treatment, scholars developed core correctional practices (CCPs; Dowden and Andrews, 2004). The CCPs include a range of service delivery skills, including problem solving, cognitive restructuring, relationship skills, structured learning, anticriminal modelling and effective use of a variety of supervision skills (reinforcement, disapproval and authority; Gendreau et al., 2010). Research found use of these skills increases the likelihood of recidivism reduction (Farringer et al., 2019; Lowenkamp et al., 2006).

Despite the promise of the PEI, RNR and CCPs for improving probation supervision outcomes, research regularly documents the challenges correctional agencies and line staff, such as POs, experience in translating PEI into real-world settings (Bonta et al., 2008; Miller and Maloney, 2013 ; Viglione, 2017; Viglione et al., 2015). Prior research indicates organisational commitment (Astbury, 2008; Drapela and Lutze, 2009; Fixsen et al., 2005), culture (Rudes et al., 2013; Taxman et al., 2012) and staff perceptions and characteristics (Rudes, 2012; Viglione et al., 2015) represent significant barriers that can impede the successful implementation of effective principles in real-world settings. Documenting these challenges is critical as positive effects of EBPs and the RNR model in probation supervision are heavily dependent on POs actually using the practices and using them with fidelity.

Use of and fidelity to practices aligned with the RNR model represent a major obstacle for the implementation of best practices in probation work. For example, previous research found that despite the push to use risk assessments to classify and manage probationers, POs continued to make decisions that deviated from the results of the assessment, often imposing more restrictive options (Miller and Maloney, 2013). Additional studies found POs rarely used assessed risk level to determine frequency of contact (Bonta et al., 2008) and did not address criminogenic needs (Bonta et al., 2008). In addition, research found POs often distrusted risk assessment tools (Krysik and LeCroy, 2002; Schwalbe, 2004; Viglione, 2017; Viglione et al., 2015), which can undermine any further attempts at implementing the RNR model.

Further challenging the implementation of best practices in probation work, adherence to the responsivity principle requires POs to engage in highly clinical and technical skills such as cognitive-behavioural therapy, motivational interviewing, prosocial modelling and problem solving (Robinson et al., 2011; Trotter, 1996). This moves the POs even further from the traditional law enforcers to facilitators of behaviour change. Research to date finds limited success in POs implementing cognitive-behavioural techniques in their interactions. For example, when examining the content of communications between POs and probationers, researchers found POs rarely discussed more challenging criminogenic needs (e.g. criminal thinking and cognitions; Bourgon and Gutierrez, 2012) often focusing on employment, housing and fines (Viglione et al., 2015), and used cognitive-behavioural techniques in approximately 1% of interactions (Bonta et al., 2008). Additional research found POs often framed supervision decisions around considerations for risk and liability, limiting full implementation of practices aligned with RNR and CCPs (Viglione, 2017).

Community supervision officer training programmes

In response to the documented implementation challenge, researchers developed specialised probation and parole officer training programmes to improve the delivery of EBPs in community corrections settings (Bonta et al., 2010; Robinson et al., 2011; Taxman et al., 2012). These training programmes aim to assist correctional authorities and line-level staff on how to translate PEI into practice (Smith et al., 2012). Three prominent programmes include the Strategic Training in Community Supervision (STICS), developed by researchers at the Canadian Department of Public Safety (Bourgon et al., 2010); Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS), created by researchers belonging to the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute (UCCI) (Smith et al., 2012); and STARR, developed by U.S. Federal Probation and Pretrial Services (Robinson et al., 2011).

These community supervision officer training programmes attempt to translate the principles of the RNR model via a structured programme to increase knowledge and understanding of the RNR principles as well as building officer skills in applying the principles into routine practice (Robinson et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2012). The STARR training programme promotes the use of core correctional skills by focusing on client–officer interactions (Robinson et al., 2012). STARR emphasises the use of cognitive-behavioural supervision strategies to address dynamic risk factors during interactions with probationers (Robinson et al., 2011, 2012). There are several key skills incorporated into STARR, which are consistent with both EPICS and STICS: (1) relationship skills, including active listening, giving feedback and role clarification; (2) bridging skills, including effective use of authority, disapproval, reinforcement and punishment; and (3) intervention skills, including problem solving, and teaching, applying and reviewing the cognitive model (Robinson et al., 2011). Across these skills, officers are taught to structure face-to-face interactions that prioritise blending care with control to develop quality relationships with the individuals they supervise (Skeem et al., 2007; Skeem and Manchak, 2008; Trotter, 1996).

Consistent with other community supervision officer training programmes, training for STARR involves a three and half day classroom style training session. Training incorporates information on the development and theory behind STARR, including the RNR model. Trainers demonstrate each of the key skills and officers participate in role-play and exercises to practice and receive feedback on their use of the skills (Robinson et al., 2011, 2012). In addition, officers receive skill cards that provide strategies and guidance on specific actions and activities they can engage in to deliver the skills with probationers. Officers are assigned a ‘coach’, a trained officer who has demonstrated proficiency and participated in specific coaching training. After the initial training session, officers record interactions with their probationers and submit tapes to their coaches for feedback on their understanding and use of skills. Coaches provide written and verbal feedback on key strengths and areas for improvement for each audiotape submitted. Finally, booster sessions (i.e. follow-up training) are provided throughout the year to provide opportunities for trained officers to develop and practice specific STARR skills (Robinson et al., 2011, 2012). These training protocols align with best practice for supporting change, which emphasises the use of multi-day trainings, coaches and follow-up training opportunities (Fixsen et al., 2005).

Several studies evaluating community supervision officer training programmes largely support their use for increasing officers’ adherence to PEI (Bonta et al., 2010; Bourgon and Gutierrez, 2012; Labrecque and Smith, 2017; Smith et al., 2012). Research on STICS found that trained officers were significantly more likely to discuss and address their client’s criminogenic needs and antisocial cognitions relative to untrained officers (Bonta et al., 2008, 2011, 2019; Bourgon et al., 2010; Bourgon and Gutierrez, 2012). Studies assessing EPICS found trained officers were more likely to use and model prosocial behaviour (Labrecque et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2012). Robinson and colleagues’ (2011) study of STARR confirmed that trained officers were much more likely to employ positive reinforcement strategies and engage in conversations about criminal peers and cognitions relative with their clients compared to untrained officers. More recently, Alarid and Jones (2018) examined the probationer experience and satisfaction with officers trained in STARR. Overall, probationers reported positive perceptions towards STARR trained officers. In addition, probationers reported that trained officers engaged in active listening and provided clear instructions, reinforced prosocial behaviours, assisted with problem-solving and case management, and were role models who they could trust to respond fairly to violations (Alarid and Jones, 2018).

In addition to enhancing use of practices aligned with the RNR model among trained officers, research finds mixed effects of community supervision officer training programmes on supervision outcomes (Bonta et al., 2011; Bourgon and Gutierrez, 2012; Robinson et al., 2012). In a 2-year follow-up study, Bonta and colleagues (2011) found probationers supervised by STICS’ trained officers reported a reconviction rate of 25% compared to 39.5% reconviction rate among probationers supervised by untrained officers. However, a follow-up study identified no statistically significant difference in reconvictions between clients supervised by trained and untrained officers (Bonta et al., 2019). An examination of EPICS identified similar non-significant effects of training on reincarceration, rearrest and technical violations (Latessa et al., 2013). Robinson and colleagues’ (2011) assessment of STARR found that trained officers had significantly lower failure rates among moderate-risk clients compared to officers who did not receive STARR training. In a follow-up study of STARR, Robinson and colleagues (2012) affirmed these research findings. Lowenkamp and colleagues (2014) extended the earlier work of Robinson and colleagues (2011, 2012) to examine the impact of STARR on probationer outcomes at 24 months. They found probationers supervised by trained officers reported reduced failure rates, with the impacts most prominent for moderate-risk probationers and least significant for high risk (Lowenkamp et al., 2014). However, when POs were trained in both STARR and motivational interviewing, failure rates for high-risk probationers were reduced (Lowenkamp et al., 2014). In a recent study of STARR, Hicks and colleagues (2020) found decreased revocations for new crimes or non-drug-related technical violations among clients supervised by trained officers, but increased revocations for positive drug tests. Chadwick and colleagues (2015) conducted a meta-analysis of the existing literature on officer training programmes, suggesting training resulted in a 14% reduction in recidivism.

Despite encouraging results of STARR and other similar training programmes for improving supervision outcomes (Bonta et al., 2011; Robinson et al., 2011, 2012), implementation challenges still complicate the change process. For example, in their study of STARR, Robinson and colleagues (2012) found that while trained POs exhibited significantly greater use of core correctional skills, they still used those skills in fewer than 50% of their interactions with clients. This suggests potential factors may be in place that prevent the potential beneficial effects of STARR from being fully realised within community supervision. The implementation of STARR requires intensive training and commitment of POs to employ skills that are not easy, clinical in nature and drastically different from the prevailing model of probation supervision over the last 30 years. As Lipsky (1980) described in his seminal work, implementation of policy falls heavily on street-level workers, such as POs, who must be able and willing to adapt and respond to policy changes by changing their daily operations and routines. Thus, it is critical to understand how POs understand, perceive and experience the implementation process, as these factors can either impede or facilitate successful change (Rudes, 2012; Viglione, 2017; Viglione et al., 2015).

Current study

The goal of the current study was to examine the attitudes of perceptions of POs trained in STARR to identify potential barriers and facilitators of STARR implementation. Identification of these factors can help shed light on the implementation mechanisms that might drive some officers or offices to more fully adhere to the STARR. Understanding of these factors from the front-line perspective can aid agencies in addressing challenges and/or further promoting facilitators to support change. To achieve these goals, the current study examined three primary aims: (1) an exploration of attitudes and perceptions of the STARR training programme, training experiences and implementation process; (2) an examination of how trained officers implement the key components of STARR; and (3) identification of organisational facilitators and barriers associated with STARR implementation.

Method

Study site

The current study took place in the United States Probation Office for the Middle District of Florida (MDFL) probation district. This district includes five divisional offices located in Tampa, Jacksonville, Ocala, Orlando and Fort Myers with two satellite offices in Cocoa and Sarasota. Across these seven offices, the district covers 35 counties. Prior to implementation of STARR, the district’s stated mission was to generate long-term positive change among the populations they serve, which aligned with STARR key goals. In 2017, the district began implementation of STARR across its offices by first sending a small group of supervisors and experienced POs to training. Ongoing training then progressed in a cohort model, with small groups of POs enrolled and sent to trainings over the next 2 years. Officers were given opportunities to volunteer for training and were also selected based on recommendations from supervisors or other agency staff.

As STARR is based on a peer-to-peer method, STARR users were assigned a coach, an officer who had received STARR training as well as more intensive coaching training. After completing an initial three and a half day training, STARR users were required to submit one audio recording of STARR skill use to their coach for review and feedback. In addition, trained officers were required to attend one booster session (i.e. follow-up, refresher training) every other month and participate in a feedback session with their coach within 2 weeks of submitting their audiotape. Coaches were required to review audiotapes and provide written and verbal feedback within 14 days of receipt as well as submit their own audio recordings of attempted skill use to a peer coach and of coaching sessions to their assigned lead coach (of which there were two across the entire district). Finally, coaches were responsible for facilitating, participating and/or coordinating one STARR booster session every other month.

Data collection

All probation staff trained in STARR were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews (N = 46). Of these, a total of 44 POs agreed to participate in the interview (96% response rate). However, the two POs who did not participate in this study were on leave at the time of data collection; thus, all available POs who were trained in STARR volunteered to participate in the interviews. Interviews were conducted via a combination of face-to-face and over the telephone from November 2018 to April 2019. To understand PO perceptions and experiences with STARR usage, probation staff were asked a series of questions pertaining to training and use of skills when interacting with clients on their caseloads. Questions focused on understanding the situations officers were most likely to use STARR skills, the type of client they were most likely to use STARR skills with, and the situations staff were least likely to use STARR practices. Probation staff were asked to discuss perceived strengths and weaknesses associated with STARR skill usage and the quality of interactions with their coaches and/or users. Interviews concluded by drawing on respondents’ perceived attitudes towards leadership support of STARR and organisational challenges to its implementation. In addition, STARR coaches were asked to report on their experiences interacting with and providing support to users. The average length of interviews was approximately 51 minutes. The final interview sample included 25 STARR users and 19 STARR coaches. Table 1 illustrates the breakdown for the interview sample.

Table 1.

Interview sample characteristics (n = 44).

Variable	% (n)
STARR role
User	56.8 (25)
Coach	43.2 (19)
Position
PO	72.7 (32)
Supervisor (Sr. PO)	27.3 (12)
Gender
Male	50 (22)
Female	50 (22)
Site^a
1	13.6 (6)
2	11.3 (5)
3	4.5 (2)
4	20.4 (9)
5	9.1 (4)
6	15.9 (7)
7	13.6 (6)
8	11.4 (5)
Tenure
0–5 years	22.7 (10)
5.1–10 years	29.5 (13)
10.1–15 years	22.7 (10)
15.1+ years	24.9 (11)
Year trained
2016	2.3 (1)
2017	34.1 (15)
2018	61.3 (27)
2019	2.3 (1)

STARR: Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest.

Sites were given a numerical identifier to protect the confidentiality of participants.

Coding and analysis

Researchers did not record interviews but rather used the ‘jotting’ method common in qualitative research to record key points during interviews (Emerson et al., 2001). Immediately following each interview, researchers completed full interview notes using their jottings as a guide. This process is commonly used in qualitative data collection as a means to enhance rapport during interviews and is a valid and trustworthy method of collecting qualitative data (Emerson et al., 2001). Once all interviews were typed in Word, they were linked to ATLAS.ti, a commonly used program for managing and analysing qualitative data (Muhr, 1991). Once in ATLAS.ti, the research team used a line-by-line coding strategy, where each line of text was linked to a code or codes that developed from grounded theory reads of the data as well as a ‘start list’ of codes (Charmaz, 2006; Miles and Huberman, 1994). This start list included codes such as perceptions of STARR, perceptions of training, perceptions of coaches, and STARR skills, challenges and benefits. As the interviews were designed to examine attitudes and perceptions of POs towards STARR and the implementation process, we then engaged in a deductive coding approach. However, we did not limit coding or analysis to focus solely on these goals and also allowed for a more broad, inductive approach to examine for all possible themes and patterns. Once this process was completed, the research team engaged in iterative thematic coding to more deeply examine interview data. When all coding was complete, the data were queried for themes and patterns, of which several developed surrounding PO attitudes and perceptions, the way they described using STARR, and organisational challenges which informed the development of the three primary aims for the current study. These themes are presented below. To illustrate identified themes, representative examples from fieldnotes are presented.

Results

Attitudes and perceptions of STARR

First, we examined PO attitudes and perceptions of STARR. Overall, staff held positive attitudes towards the use of STARR and believed the skills impacted their supervision strategy in positive ways. The most common theme identified via analysis was the ability of the STARR training programme to transform the role of the PO from reactive to that of a change agent.

POs as change agents

Participants were asked about their attitudes and perceptions of STARR. Overall, 84% (n = 37) of POs shared positive perceptions and were supportive of STARR in their district. Officers noted that the implementation of STARR led to an increased focus on instilling behavioural changes in clients. That is, rather than focusing largely on compliance and whether or not someone is doing what they are supposed to do, STARR reminded them that their purpose as supervision officers is also to support positive change. PO Beverly¹ discussed this shift clearly:

STARR has been a very positive change in the sense of helping shift the more law-enforcement oriented officers. Instead of focusing on violations and revocations, now we act as agents of change. Now it’s about getting people help by emphasising the underlying issues of why clients are struggling.

POs described that part of this ‘reminder’ came from the structured guidance provided in STARR. This guidance encouraged officers to have purposeful conversations. For example, PO Meuller described how ‘using STARR, we can now have conversations that are very specific and purposeful in encouraging continued change’. And, POs noted a side effect of focusing on behaviour change and purposeful conversations was the development of stronger rapport with the individuals they supervise. The representative excerpt below illustrates this finding:

Building rapport with probationers lets them know you actually care about what is going on with them. It lets them know we want to see a change with them. We view them more than just criminals. They do not have to keep going wrong, but they can actually make an impact and a change for themselves.

Thus, POs in this study perceived STARR as a tool to help shift the mind-set and role of officers from the more traditional, law enforcement role to that of a change agent. And, within STARR, the structured guidance served as a tool to provide specific examples for how to structure conversations in positive, meaningful ways to encourage behaviour change. Officers in this study discussed that use of STARR skills helped them to streamline interactions with individuals on their caseload by removing officer emotions. The following excerpt from fieldnotes highlights this finding:

STARR helps us interact better with our clients. When you use a STARR skill to address non-compliance, it removes the aggressive tone that conversation can have . . . it makes us focus on the fact that we are here to help people and we need to focus on effecting positive change. It takes away the over-emphasis of the law enforcement mentality.

This shift away from the law enforcement role was emphasised across the sample. And, often officers linked this to the fact that STARR provides a ‘navigational map’ to understand officer ‘responsibilities and purpose’. Officers noted this is particularly important for new officers or officers coming from a different line of work, particularly from law enforcement fields. The following representative fieldnote illustrates this:

The greatest strength of STARR is that it provides a guide for newer officers and gives hands-on practice in using the skills. It helps guide POs to get them to have more focused, meaningful interactions. It provokes introspection and structures the conversation in a way that brings out insight and helps the client to really think about their internal feelings and attitudes. Getting this introspection can get your clients to start considering how their attitudes/internal feelings might lead to a desire for positive change.

Officers described how STARR helped them shift from being reactive to thinking about how they can address probationer behaviour before it worsens or results in severe consequences. Officers viewed STARR as a tool to encourage their clients to think about change and present opportunities for them to intervene before a violation or revocation became necessary. And, that STARR encouraged them and gave them the toolkit to engage in individualised treatment with those on their caseloads.

Use of STARR

Next, we asked POs to describe how they used STARR as part of their regular routine. As seen in Table 2, the most common skill POs reported using was role clarification (75%), followed by effective use of reinforcement (64%). Officers discussed how role clarification could be used during any initial contact with a probationer (e.g. new to caseload). This skill allowed POs to ‘break down the roles and expectations of everyone involved in the supervision process’. Also, officers used role clarification as an opportunity to ask individuals to identify their goals. Officer Tripp describes this common use of role clarification:

I will use role clarification especially for those who have never been in the system before or those who have been incarcerated for an especially long period of time. It allows me to explain what my job is, what you’re expected to do, but also ask them what their goals are while on supervision.

Table 2.

Probation officer reported skill use.

STARR skill	Percentage of officers
Role clarification	75
Positive reinforcement	64
Effective use of disapproval	43
Teaching the cognitive model	30
Effective use of punishment	20
Effective use of authority	16
Problem solving	11

STARR: Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest.

However, POs also noted that role clarification was versatile and they could return to the skill in situations where probationers were displaying signs of non-compliance. In these situations, POs said they used role clarification as an opportunity to communicate and revisit the desired goals of the client. Officers also suggested role clarification could be used with existing clients who were never exposed to a STARR skill before. The following fieldnote highlights this finding:

You can use role clarification a lot because we have a lot of individuals on our caseloads who have been on supervision a while, but they have never heard of the STARR skills before. With really any new case I can review role clarification and even return to role clarification when talking about someone’s goals that they initially told me.

The least frequently used skill was problem solving (11%). The most frequent explanation given by officers was that it was time-consuming. For example, PO Bailey remarked, ‘Problem solving is a really long, long skill to use; it takes a lot of time and you have to really plan to use it ahead of time, so I avoid it’. Officer Fisk, a newly trained officer, explained why he avoided using problem solving:

I have never done the problem-solving skill because I am still learning and it takes a really long time. And I mean time consuming as in there are so many steps to go through, it is a very in-depth skill to use.

That is, officers perceived problem solving to be a complicated skill and for those less proficient in STARR skills, they were hesitant to attempt these skills with clients.

The majority of respondents maintained that using STARR skills was the most beneficial in addressing non-compliance. This was linked directly to the idea that POs saw their role as change agents after receiving STARR training. Officer Taylor described this finding:

I absolutely use STARR in situations when I have to punish or disapprove the behaviour. If I have a client that comes in and they have a positive test for drug use, I will use effective use of authority. I will not only acknowledge their behaviour but I will really get the individual to consider how his behaviour might be leading or contributing to more negative behaviours and consequences.

Thus, when non-compliance was detected, rather than focusing on doling out punishment, POs utilised cognitive-behavioural approaches to encourage probationers to think more deeply about their choices and resulting behaviour and consequences. However, POs discussed they could not engage in this type of interaction with all individuals on their caseload. In particular, POs across the sample maintained that the language and skills involved in STARR were not appropriate for use with individuals who demonstrated mental health and/or functioning issues, limited educational attainment or language barriers. POs reported a high level of concern for how to appropriately use STARR in these circumstances. And, some noted that they did not think it was worthwhile to engage in STARR skills until other issues were addressed first. The following excerpt highlights this finding:

Those with mental health or severe substance abuse disorders – I believe that I first must address these much larger issues before I am able to use the STARR skills with these offenders.

However, some officers felt STARR was not responsive enough to individual circumstances. For example, PO Carter explained,

I come from a mental health background so I am all about meeting people where they are at in terms of their mental state; but STARR is not conducive to that. STARR is almost like a cookie-cutter type, really just about checking the box that I used STARR.

This perspective on STARR highlights a critical potential barrier to implementation, as individuals on probation supervision often have multiple, complex needs, including mental health. Further uncertainty regarding use of STARR with individual with mental health issues went beyond whether use was appropriate, but how they could best implement the skills in these situations. Officer Holway described part of this concern was due to the fact that ‘it can be more difficult to anticipate where these individuals might be driving the conversation’. Thus, with these populations, which are often more challenging to supervise in general, POs often felt uncertain about both the appropriateness and their ability to implement STARR effectively and were hesitant due to potential unexpected outcomes.

Facilitators of implementation

In addition to interviewing POs about their perceptions and use of STARR, interviews also probed participants to discuss their experiences with the implementation process. Several facilitators of implementation emerged from coding and analysis, including relationships between users and coaches, booster sessions and overall agency support.

Coaches

One of the most prominent implementation facilitators discussed by POs was the importance of making thoughtful matches between users and coaches. Because STARR is considered a peer-to-peer programme, POs discussed it was critical that users and coaches could openly and honestly communicate with one another. Of note, POs suggested that the most beneficial aspect for leadership to consider in making coach assignments was whether there was a positive, pre-existing relationship between the two officers. Having a positive relationship prior to beginning to work together as users/coaches promoted open communication, trust and support that facilitated engagement in the training process. The representative excerpts below highlight the importance of positive relationships between users and coaches:

I already knew and had an established relationship with my coach prior to the implementation of STARR. We both communicate really well and are flexible, so our STARR working relationship is really positive.

The coach I have now, we had a good working relationship even before she became my coach. So really, this is a continuation of an already good working relationship.

And one coach noted the importance of a positive relationship:

These are all my peers – the people I work with on a daily basis. I have a pretty good and positive working relationship with my users. I have not had any negative experiences, maybe due in part to having already had working relationships with my users prior to the implementation of STARR.

Officers with positive working relationships with their coaches were more likely to feel supported. As PO Miller noted, ‘my coach wants to see me succeed and is really supportive . . . she has an overall investment in my success’. Officers described this form of relationship as critical since POs had to both trust and value the feedback their coaches gave them for them to become more advanced STARR users.

Users maintained that having open communication with their coaches was critical to the success of the programme. Across the sample, users shared largely positive perceptions regarding their communication with their coaches. Users believed that their coaches provided helpful suggestions about using STARR skills, were encouraging when they provided feedback on their audiotapes and offered constructive criticism, all of which they felt supported overall improvement of their understanding of STARR skills and how to implement them. Two representative examples from fieldnotes highlight this finding:

My coach is very positive and sends me emails with helpful hints, articles that talk about different ways to help with dealing with people under supervision, and emails with STARR information. My coach also helped me set up my account to organise my STARR recordings.

I really like that the coaches do not make me feel bad. It is really about trying to get better with using the skills and understanding what the skills are. They approach the feedback in a supportive role.

These examples highlight the key role coaches can play in the implementation of STARR. Given its peer-to-peer structure, coaches become the individuals responsible for ongoing training and skill development in routine supervision practice.

Several officers were less optimistic about their working relationship with their assigned user/coach. In these situations, users and coaches from different offices were paired together. Officers discussed that the spatial distance between them, which required them to hold all of their discussions remotely, made it difficult to coordinate schedules. And, even more so POs described this type of user–coach relationship as too impersonal and they were unable to build the rapport needed to support a positive working relationship.

Booster sessions

In addition to coaches, STARR implementation involves booster sessions. In this agency, trained officers attend booster sessions every other month. Each booster session focuses on a specific skill to allow POs to refine their understanding and use of each of the key STARR skills. As a whole, officers described booster sessions as a positive experience and contributed to improved understanding of situations in which they could use STARR skills and how to use STARR skills. The following representative excerpt highlights this finding:

The boosters are really helpful refreshers because it can be easy to forget some of the skills or to use them. Plus, with the boosters we have the opportunity to practice the skills and get feedback immediately. That is really helpful, because once a booster is over, you can get so caught up with other responsibilities, you might forget something about STARR.

As seen in this example, officer’s discussion of the booster sessions highlights the need for having ongoing, refresher training for staff as they learn new skills. And, POs reported the additionally opportunity to role-play, sometimes with probationers present, was extremely beneficial in allowing them to gain a ‘diversity’ of perspectives of how skills could be used. Furthermore, officers noted these role-playing examples in training gave them the opportunity to see how other officers implement STARR, which helped them to think about the ways they used it. For example, POs found it helpful to see the language and phrasing other officers used for ideas of how to make a greater impact with the individuals on their caseload. PO Reddick discussed this finding:

The booster trainings are a great opportunity to discuss with all the other users about what is going well, what is going wrong, and how we might change our approach or perspective to improve our use of skills. I like that it is interactive and we get to work out any problems and that we really get to see other people’s perspectives about how you might approach a certain situation or skill.

Staff often reported feeling motivated after booster trainings as they felt more confident in their ability to use STARR skills. While across the sample, trained officers shared positive perceptions of the booster sessions, several POs were frustrated about perceived geographical obstacles for attending the trainings and the overall length of the training sessions. The representative excerpts from fieldnotes below illustrate this finding:

We do three-hour booster sessions and sometimes they are not in our office. Say the training starts at 10 a.m., so I get in at 7 a.m. and work until 9 a.m., then have to drive maybe one or two hours to the booster training. By that point, it basically takes up most of your day.

Boosters are way too long. They are more than three hours for a full booster session and that might not include travel time because we might have to drive to a different office. This makes it really difficult to balance all of our other duties.

As highlighted, the issue of length and travel came hand-in-hand. Officers who had to travel more frequently for boosters were frustrated that they would lose an entire day of work every other month for training.

Agency support

Overall, officers in this study perceived agency leadership to be supportive of STARR implementation. They felt leadership devoted the necessary amount of resources for training. And, officers discussed additional monetary supports leadership put in place to support training. First, leadership developed and hosted a STARR conference that provided officers the opportunity to devote several days to learning more in depth about STARR and practice their skills. The excerpt from PO Hawks describes this:

We had a STARR conference last year. It was actually kind of a get-away. It was good because we were able to go as a district and just work on our skills. They even ordered bags with STARR on it. This made me feel like they are in support of STARR overall.

In addition to the STARR conference, officers discussed how leadership provided monetary incentives during the first year of implementation to encourage staff with initial STARR training and acknowledge the additional responsibilities taken on by trained staff. Overall, officers felt the added praise and devotion of a significant amount of money and time on the rigorous training process, including ongoing booster training, signified their buy-in and support of STARR. The following example highlights this finding:

Personally, I know the leadership is 100% in support of STARR. They have thrown so much money into training and continually making sure that people are trained and have the option to attend boosters.

Beyond monetary support, officers noted the strong, verbal messages sent by agency leadership that demonstrated their support. For example,

Leadership supports STARR pretty heavily. They encourage users and coaches to continue using STARR skills and they encourage non-STARR users to get trained. Management is always encouraging and thanking everyone for using STARR.

Leadership has been clear they are supportive. They have been very involved with the meetings about implementation and have communicated a vision about implementation by constantly sending out e-mails. They recognize coaches and praise coaches who are going to trainings and using the skills.

In addition, the leadership team formed an implementation team prior to implementing STARR to assist with designing the policies and procedures surrounding the use of STARR in the district. At the time of this study, the implementation team consisted of approximately 12 agency supervisors across the offices in the district. Since its inception, the implementation team met quarterly to discuss progress, develop new policies/procedures and problem solve. Officers believed the establishment of this team demonstrated leadership’s investment in STARR.

Barriers to implementation

Approximately 66% (n = 29) of the sample reported at least one challenge associated with STARR implementation in the district. The most prominent barrier to STARR implementation was the perceived disconnect between leadership and front-line staff. More specifically, coaches felt there was a lack of accountability placed on trained users for submitting their recorded audiotapes. This was distressing to coaches, as they felt responsible for the users assigned to them and they were not able to provide feedback without an audiotape. Coaches described how they were not able to meet their own requirements of reviewing one tape per month per user, because the tapes were not submitted or were not submitted on time. Coaches believed that it was not their responsibility to ensure users recorded their required number of interactions and submitted them by the due date. However, there was no specified procedure for who was responsible for holding users accountable. Coaches did not feel comfortable discussing late or missing tapes with users as this was not their role – they wanted to maintain a positive working relationship with their assigned users and worried this would change the dynamics of relationship. Instead, coaches believed supervisors needed to hold users accountable. This finding is illustrated in the representative examples below:

There is a major issue with accountability. People on the implementation team are saying we [coaches] should be handling the lack of accountability, but that is not our role. How much time do they think we have? You do not want coaches involved in accountability. It breaks the peer relationships down. We have a data system so supervisors can log on and see who is doing what they are supposed to be doing, but they aren’t doing that.

In this example, PO Lewis identified the disconnect between the implementation team and coaches. Coaches also felt they were already heavily burdened between doing their own recordings and skill building, reviewing audiotapes and providing feedback to the multiple users they were assigned to. In addition, POs discussed how there were no consequences in place for not adhering to STARR policies or using STARR skills. PO James explained this challenge:

There is a lot of ambiguity in the standards and new expectations in terms of using the STARR skills. It doesn’t seem that there are any real consequences for not using the skills. We won’t know how this is going to affect promotional or job opportunities or even evaluations, especially if my supervision isn’t trained in STARR.

PO Ruhmel also addressed the lack of consequences:

We have a STARR policy with user and coach roles clarified. But there is no consequence outlined if you do not follow the policy . . . if you do not do it, it is just like okay. Everyone was trained because they signed up. No one was forced by their supervisor, so you know what you are getting into. There are just no consequences and they do not differentiate between those who do what they are supposed to, and those who do not. For example, coaches get financial bonuses. It is not fair that some coaches who do not do their feedback recordings still get the bonus.

Officers suggested part of the challenge was that supervisors were not trained in STARR themselves. As a result, they doubted supervisor’s ability to ensure accountability as they were unfamiliar with the specifics of STARR, as illustrated below:

There is a lot of ambiguity in the standards and new expectations in terms of using the STARR skills. It also doesn’t really seem to be that there are any real consequences for not using the skills. We won’t know how this is going to affect promotional or job opportunities or even evaluations, especially if my supervising officer is not trained in STARR.

And officers were unclear of the extent to which supervisors could even go to hold individuals accountable (e.g. to the extreme of demotion or firing) and how it could impact promotions or performance evaluations if they were unfamiliar with the skills themselves. The following examples highlight this finding:

Accountability might actually not be there. For example, if a user is not using the skills then it becomes a question for management of what they are willing to do. How far are they willing to go? Fire them? Demote them? How are they going to hold people accountable when they are not doing what they should be doing?

Beyond lack of supervisor involvement and training in STARR, officers discussed that the individuals who served on the implementation team, and who were responsible for developing policy, were also not trained. The following example illustrates this challenge:

The biggest hurdle to overcome is that the people who are overseeing STARR are not actually STARR trained. Why are they the ones telling us what to do when they don’t know how to do it themselves? Management should have people who are familiar with the program be the ones who are laying out the rules or expectations. In our agency, it seems because they don’t understand STARR, they set unrealistic expectations.

This finding highlights that while POs felt the formation of the implementation team demonstrated management support of STARR, the actual organisation of the team was a major barrier. Both users and coaches reported a desire to have more front-line users represented on the implementation team. Given the peer-to-peer nature of STARR, officers felt this was a critical component to supporting the success of STARR moving forward in the district. In addition, POs expressed a strong desire for improved communication and transparency from leadership and the implementation team. In particular, users and coaches wanted to know the reasons why and how specific decisions regarding STARR were made, rather than being informed of a change after it was set in place.

The final major challenge reported by participating POs was a lack of buy-in from officers holding a longer tenure in the district. Officers reported that the cultural differences in perceived ideology and role orientations were more distinct between more tenured officers and those newer to the profession. Tenured officers were perceived to hold an approach that ran counter to STARR, which often results in their resistance to the implementation efforts. These perceptions often were related to uncertainty regarding the underlying purpose of STARR, as illustrated below:

I think the real problem we have is at the lower level and trying to get those individuals to buy-in. If people knew about what STARR was going to be, I don’t think that many people would have volunteered. That is the biggest challenge of getting people to buy-in. This is a cultural disconnect between the more seasoned officers who are somewhat used to a certain way of doing things.

However, the majority of officers felt resistance was attributable to a mismatch between ‘the way things have always been done’ and the new approach to supervision presented by STARR. Officer Ciocco explained this finding:

The approach of the older generation of officers is different from STARR. It is difficult to get them on board. I have seen the resistance to STARR from these officers.

Officer Hutzell not only echoed this finding but also discussed her belief that older officers were more likely to be cynical that the changes associated with STARR would be long-lasting. An excerpt from this interview is below:

The mindset of some of the officers is a challenge. It seems that not everyone is sold on STARR or has bought in, especially the more senior officers. While some of the younger officers are excited about new things, about evidence-based things in particular, you hear from some of the older ones that say this is not going to stick.

And, officers perceived these negative attitudes were present in supervisors, who then influenced the line-level staff who reported to them. PO Lavelle discussed this challenge below:

There are some young supervisors that are on fire for the program and really all about it. But on other hand, these salty officers already see that the sun is setting and think it doesn’t matter about STARR or changing my ways, I’m going to be out of here soon. This is a major challenge because that perception or mentality trickles down to line level. So how can you be trying motivating people to use STARR when have certain people who still haven’t bought into it?

This finding highlights how resistance and cynicism within more tenured officers, who often fulfil supervisory roles, can undermine the implementation process.

Discussion

The current study is one of the first to specifically examine the perceptions and attitudes of community supervision staff while undergoing implementation of a community supervision officer training programme. Overall, findings suggested the majority of POs held positive perceptions towards STARR. Officers in this study perceived STARR was helpful in supporting a shift away from a law enforcement and compliance mentality to one that emphasised behaviour change. This suggests a strong benefit of STARR, given the previous research that has identified the challenge misalignments between ideologies and role orientations can create for implementation efforts in correctional settings (Clear and Latessa, 1993; Farrell et al., 2011; Rudes, 2012).

Officers found the guidance and structured nature of STARR helpful in guiding them in both their interactions but also how they framed their own role in the supervision process. Of note, POs in this study believed the most opportune time to train an officer in STARR was at the beginning of their tenure with the agency. Doing so would immediately immerse them in the expectations associated with use of STARR and provide them with a toolkit immediately to guide their supervision strategy. This could then help to possibly prevent the culture issues prevalent among the more tenured officers in the agency.

When examining the reported use of STARR skills (see Table 2), the majority of the sample reported using role clarification the most frequently, following by effective use of reinforcement. However, the more complicated skills – such as Teaching the Cognitive Model and Problem Solving – were reportedly used by a much smaller percentage of trained officers. And, no officer reported using Applying or Reviewing the Cognitive Model. This highlights the challenge of implementing complex interventions in correctional settings, with previous research also finding POs rarely address more challenging criminogenic needs (Bourgon and Gutierrez, 2012; Viglione et al., 2015) and rarely use cognitive-behavioural techniques (Bonta et al., 2008). This does not mean POs do not have the ability to implement the more challenging skills, but it does suggest that the proper supports are not currently in place to encourage this to happen in routine practice. It could be that officers, both users and coaches, need more in-depth training on the more complicated STARR skills or more opportunities to role-play and receive feedback. It is possible that POs do not have the confidence to implement these in practice, so they avoid them while focusing on the skills they feel comfortable with. Or, as identified in this study, perhaps line-level officers would benefit from supervisors who can provide hands-on guidance and feedback on a more regular basis surrounding the use of these more complicated skills. Future research should seek to specifically unpack the mechanisms driving the decisions to emphasise specific skills, while avoiding others.

While POs reported limited use of the more complicated techniques grounded in social learning and cognitive-behavioural strategies, they suggested STARR did help them shift from a directive style of interaction to a motivational, problem-solving style of communications. This is a positive finding, given previous research that documents the prevalence of authoritarian focused communications between POs and probationers (Latessa, 2012; Taxman, 2012; Viglione, 2017) and the benefits of shifting to a client-centred, motivational communication technique (Harper and Hardy, 2000; Walters et al., 2010). In this district, officers were able to use STARR to focus on the factors that may be driving an individual’s behaviour rather than on compliance. This suggests elements of a culture supportive of the basic tenets of the RNR model.

An additional challenge identified in this study was the implementation of STARR with specific populations. Trained officers said they often had difficultly using STARR with individuals with mental health and/or functioning issues, low educational attainment and in situations with language barriers. In fact, officers said they were likely to avoid using STARR with individuals with mental illness. This finding suggests a need for additional guidance and training for staff on how and when to appropriately implement STARR with more challenging populations. Providing additional training to support staff supervision of individuals with mental health issues is especially important given that prior research suggests those with serious mental illness (SMI) are more likely to possess a greater number of criminogenic needs than those without SMI (Osher et al., 2012). This research also suggests those with SMI can still benefit from cognitive-behavioural programming, especially once their mental illness is addressed as a responsivity factor (Osher et al., 2012). Because mental health issues may cause challenges that impact an individual’s responsivity to interventions such as STARR, officers may need guidance in identifying which specific responsivity issues must be addressed first before expecting an individual to respond to STARR skills.

As a whole, trained officers perceived leadership to be supportive of STARR implementation across the district. However, there were several barriers identified that complicated implementation. While the formation of the implementation team was a purposeful strategy to support change within the agency, this team did not include staff from all levels of the organisation. This left the probation staff who were receiving the training and expected to use STARR on a routine basis feeling like their experiences and voices were not heard. Best practices on organisational change suggest the importance of including a vertical slice of the organisation, with representation from each level of agency (Belenko et al., 2008). Including staff from all levels of the organisation can increase motivation, create a system of champions who support the change at the front line, and generate buy-in among staff (Fixsen et al., 2005; Taxman and Belenko, 2012). Importantly, when the preliminary findings from this study were presented to MDFL, they immediately recognised this as an issue and rethought the organisation of the implementation team. As a result, they sought feedback from the entire implementation team on this issue and then distributed a solicitation to all users and coaches within the district for new members to integrate within the team. Through this process, they were able to select a more diverse and balanced implementation team, with representation across positions in the agency.

In addition, a major challenge was the perception that supervisors were not capable of providing support to trained staff because they had not been trained themselves. The failure of agencies to train mid-level managers is cited in previous research (Kras et al., 2017) and can cause significant challenges during implementation processes. While the reasons for leaving mid-level managers out of training are often quite practical (e.g. they wear many hats and often do not have the same flexibility to take part in in-depth trainings, the ability to train only a few officers at a time), this does create challenges with supporting and evaluating use of the innovation. It is critical for agencies to try to incorporate mid-level managers in the training processes so they may provide guidance and feedback, and appropriately evaluate the performance of staff reporting directly to them. In addition, ensuring mid-level managers are trained can also work towards improving their buy-in and reduce mixed messaging that may hinder the ultimate success of change efforts. Training and immersing supervision staff in STARR is vastly important given the critical role leadership plays in supporting implementation processes (Schein, 2010).

Finally, a noted challenge in the current study was the lack of established procedures for accountability. Training officers as users and coaches without any formal system to ensure they later attempted to use trained skills, submitted audiotapes, and engaged in feedback sessions can undermine the success of the programme. However, this is not an easy challenge to address. In MDFL, several policy changes were implemented to address this identified challenge. First, a policy was put in place to require trained users to use a minimum of eight STARR skills per month and coaches a minimum of 12 skills per month. In addition, leadership developed several specific communication strategies, including reinforcing the importance of submitting audiotapes and engaging in feedback sessions, encouraging supervisors to communicate with users and coaches more frequently and encouraging supervisors to review officer use of STARR and discuss usage, audio submissions and feedback during their monthly case planning sessions. Supervisors received training from STARR coaches on key concepts, including missed opportunities for STARR skill usage. Finally, the implementation team encouraged leadership to follow up with supervisors on these key areas and provide support and guidance to supervisors, coaches and users more frequently.

Policy implications

When implementing large change protocols, like STARR, agencies need to be able to encourage officers to take risks and try skills that are complex and quite different than what they may have done in the past. And especially at the start or even midway through of the implementation process, it is not appropriate to link demotions, firings or even performance evaluations to use of new skills right away. This means that agencies must develop long-term plans for monitoring fidelity to the training protocol – a plan that must change over time and as expectations for trained staff increase. Use of informal incentives or rewards may be beneficial to implement in the early stages of the change process (Feldman, 1992). For example, strategies can include recognition of desired behaviour and praise by supervisors. This could assist with supporting user submission of recordings, provision of coaching feedback and engagement in coaching sessions. In addition, recognition by supervisors for engagement in STARR-related activities could encourage staff to value the time spent on such activities, especially when tasked with a number of additional responsibilities. After reviewing the results of this article, the agency decided to focus on positive reinforcement on a monthly basis – encouraging those who had excelled in skill use, submitting records and providing feedback. In the long term, agencies should consider developing a formal structure to assess and monitor probation staff performance tied to use of STARR. In doing so, line-level staff should be included in the development of policy to increase buy-in, ownership and support of the policy change. While the policy may not go into effect until all staff are trained, it would be beneficial for staff to clearly see, early on in the process, how expectations associated with STARR will be used to evaluate their overall job performance.

Limitations

While the current study presents several key issues that should be considered in the implementation of community supervision officer training programmes, it is not without limitations. For one, this is a qualitative study of just one probation district in one state. It is possible that results may not generalise to jurisdictions of different sizes or structure or in different geographic regions. However, the issues identified here align with previous research on organisational change and implementation of best practices in correctional settings. Second, this study did not involve observations but rather assesses solely the perceptions and attitudes of probation staff. Future research should extend this analysis to examine how POs make decisions about when to use STARR in routine practice. And it is imperative for future research to consider whether POs use skills with fidelity and whether officers with most positive attitudes towards STARR are more likely to maintain fidelity. In addition, understanding the relationship between attitudes towards one’s coach and experiences with STARR and fidelity and improvement in the use of skills could further our understanding of how to improve implementation and quality skill use.

Conclusion

Successful implementation and the sustainability of skills require the development and examination of strategies designed to maintain fidelity to an intervention, such as training, evaluation and use of feedback (Wiltsey Stirman et al., 2012). The current study suggests it is possible for agencies to engage in such processes in the midst of change. The MDFL was, and remains, dedicated to supporting its probation staff throughout the change process. They were proactive in seeking outside researchers to evaluate their progress. Importantly, as they received research results, they were responsive and worked collaboratively to identify strategies such as changing the make-up of the implementation team to further support implementation. This highlights the importance of conducting process evaluations during organisational change. Identifying the facilitators that can promote change can assist agencies to develop strategies most likely to succeed in their agency and support sustainability of change beyond the implementation stage. Identifying barriers is critical in removing roadblocks to success. It should not be surprising that probation staff will experience challenges when implementing a complex training programme designed to translate the PEI into the real world. It is important to understand the experience of implementation from the front line to set the foundation for evaluating impacts on outcomes, such as recidivism, and also to develop strategies to support change in eventually becoming part of organisational routine.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This research would not be possible without the assistance of the dedicated and hard-working staff of the Middle District of Florida.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the United States Probation Office Middle District of Florida.

ORCID iD

Jill Viglione

Notes

Author biographies

Jill Viglione is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Central Florida. Her research focuses on the implementation of evidence-based practices, individual and organizaitonal responses to policy reform, and decision making within correctional agencies. [jill.viglione@ucf.edu]

Lucas M Alward is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Central Florida. His primary research interests include procedural justice and legitimacy, reentry and desistance, and the implementation of effective correctional intervention. [luke.alward@ucf.edu]

DeCarlos L Sheppard is the Type II Deputy Chief United States Probation Officer in the Middle District of Florida and has been a major contributor to the Middle District of Florida for more than 20 years. He served on the Violation Committee, Mentoring Policy revision group, Case Law Committee, he recently developed and facilitated the district’s first Local Leadership Development Program and is also an adjunct instructor for FJC’s Advanced Leadership Institute and Dealing with Difficult Situations. Nationally, he served on various supervision related projects, including serving as a member of the Ad Hoc Group on Standard and Special Conditions, Sex Trafficking Focus Group, and assisted the AO with training new officers on testifying skills. DeCarlos earned a Juris Doctor, a Master of Arts in Administrative Leadership, and dual undergraduate degrees in Legal Studies and Criminal Justice. [DeCarlos_Sheppard@flmp.uscourts.gov]

References

Alarid

Jones

(2018) Perceptions of offender satisfaction on probation and supervised release with STARR skill sets. Federal Probation 82: 37–41.

Andrews

Bonta

Hoge

(1990) Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior 17(1): 19–52.

Astbury

(2008) Problems of implementing offender programs in the community. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 46(3–4): 31–47.

Belenko

Wexler

Taxman

(2008) Technology Transfer of Evidence Based Practice (EBP) in Substance Abuse Treatment in Community Corrections Settings. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

Bonta

Andrews

(2007) Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation (Corrections Research User Report No. 2007–06). Ottawa, ON, Canada: Public Safety Canada.

Bonta

Andrews

(2017) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bonta

Bourgon

Rugge

, et al. (2011) An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior 38(11): 1127–1148.

Bonta

Rugge

Bourgon

, et al. (2019) A conceptual replication of the Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS). Journal of Experimental Criminology 15(3): 397–419.

Bonta

Bourgon

Rugge

, et al. (2010) The Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision: Risk-Need-Responsivity in the Real World 2010-01. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.

10.

Bonta

Rugge

Scott

, et al. (2008) Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 47(3): 248–270.

11.

Bourgon

Bonta

Rugge

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

12.

Bourgon

Gutierrez

(2012) The general responsivity principle in community supervision: The importance of probation officers using cognitive intervention techniques and its influence on recidivism. Journal of Crime and Justice 35(2): 149–166.

13.

Bourgon

Gutierrez

Ashton

(2012) From Case Management to Change Agent: The Evolution of ‘What Works’ Community Supervision. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Public Safety Canada.

14.

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.

15.

Charmaz

(2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: SAGE.

16.

Clear

Latessa

(1993) Probation officers’ roles in intensive supervision: Surveillance versus treatment. Justice Quarterly 10(3): 441–462.

17.

Cullen

Gilbert

(1982) Reaffirming Rehabilitation. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

18.

Cullen

Jonson

(2011) Rehabilitation and treatment programs. In: Wilson

Petersilia

(eds) Crime and Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 293–344.

19.

Dowden

Andrews

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

20.

Drake

(2011) ‘What Works’ in Community Supervision: Interim Report. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

21.

Drapela

Lutze

(2009) Innovation in community corrections and probation officers’ fears of being sued: Implementing neighborhood-based supervision in Spokane, Washington. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 25(4): 364–383.

22.

Emerson

Fretz

Shaw

(2001) Participant observation and fieldnotes. In: Atkinson

Coffey

Delamont

Lofland

(eds) Handbook of Ethnography. London: SAGE, pp. 352–368.

23.

Farrell

Young

Taxman

(2011) Effects of organizational factors on use of juvenile supervision practices. Criminal Justice and Behavior 38(6): 565–583.

24.

Farringer

Duriez

Manchak

, et al. (2019) Adherence to “what works”: Examining trends across 14 years of correctional program assessment. Corrections: Policy, Research, and Practice: 1–19.

25.

Feeley

Simon

(1992) The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology 30(4): 449–474.

26.

Feldman

(1992) Social limits to discretion. In: Hawkins

(ed.) The Uses of Discretion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 11–46.

27.

Fixsen

Naoom

Blasé

, et al. (2005) Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature Tampa FL University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute. The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231) 11: 247–266.

28.

Garland

(2001) The Culture of Control. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

29.

Gendreau

(1996) The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In: Harland

(ed.) Choosing Correctional Options That Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 117–130.

30.

Gendreau

Andrews

Theriault

(2010) Correctional Program Asssessment Inventory-2010 (CPAI-2100). Saint John, Canada: University of New Brunswick.

31.

Gendreau

Little

Goggin

(1996) A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology 34: 575–607.

32.

Harper

Hardy

(2000) Research note. An evaluation of motivational interviewing as a method of intervention with clients in a probation setting. British Journal of Social Work 30(3): 393–400.

33.

Hicks

Holcomb

Alexander

, et al. (2020) Drug testing and community supervision outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior 47(4): 410–436.

34.

Kras

Rudes

Taxman

(2017) Managing up and down: Community corrections middle managers’ role conflict and ambiguity during organizational change. Journal of Crime and Justice 40(2): 173–187.

35.

Krysik

LeCroy

(2002) The empirical validation of an instrument to predict risk of recidivism among juvenile offenders. Research on Social Work Practice 12(1): 71–81.

36.

Labrecque

Smith

(2017) Does training and coaching matter? An 18-month evaluation of a community supervision model. Victims and Offender: An International Journal of Evidence-Based Research, Policy, and Practice 12(2): 233–252.

37.

Labrecque

Schweitzer

Smith

(2013) Probation and parole officer adherence to the core correctional practices: An evaluation of 755 offender-officer interactions. Advancing Practices 3: 20–23.

38.

Latessa

(2012) Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS). Presentation for the Colorado Alliance for Drug Endangered Children. Available at: https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/corrections/docs/Training%20Overviews/EPICS.pdf

39.

Latessa

Smith

Schweitzer

, et al. (2013) Evaluation of the Effective Practices in Community Supervision Model (EPICS) in Ohio. OH: Prepared for the Office of Criminal Justice Services in Columbus.

40.

Lipsey

Landenberger

Wilson

(2007) Effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for criminal offenders. Campbell Systematic Reviews 6(1): 27.

41.

Lipsky

(1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell SAGE Foundation.

42.

Lowenkamp

Holsinger

Robinson

, et al. (2014) Diminishing or durable treatment effects of STARR? A research note on 24-month re-arrest rates. Journal of Crime and Justice 37(2): 275–283.

43.

Lowenkamp

Latessa

Smith

(2006) Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy 5(3): 575–594.

44.

Miles

Huberman

(1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

45.

Miller

Maloney

(2013) Practitioner compliance with risk/needs assessment tools: A theoretical and empirical assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior 40(7): 716–736.

46.

Muhr

(1991) ATLAS.ti – A prototype for the support of text interpretation. Qualitative Sociology 14(4): 349–371.

47.

Nagin

Cullen

Jonson

(2009) Imprisonment and reoffending. Crime & Justice 38(1): 115–413.

48.

Osher

D’Amora

Plotkin

, et al. (2012) Adults with Behavioral Health Needs Under Correctional Supervision: A Shared Framework for Reducing Recidivism and Promoting Recovery. Washington, DC: Council of State Governments Justice Center.

49.

Petersilia

(1997) Probation in the United States. Crime and Justice 22: 149–200.

50.

Robinson

Lowenkamp

Holsinger

, et al. (2012) A random study of Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Re-arrest (STARR): Using core correctional practices in probation interactions. Journal of Crime and Justice 35(2): 167–188.

51.

Robinson

VanBenschoten

Alexander

, et al. (2011) A random (almost) study of Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Re-arrest (STARR): Reducing recidivism through intentional design. Federal Probation 75(2): 57–63.

52.

Rudes

(2012) Getting technical: Parole officers’ continued use of technical violations under California’s parole reform agenda. Journal of Crime & Justice 35(2): 249–268.

53.

Rudes

Viglione

Taxman

(2013) Professional ideologies in United States probation and parole. In: McNeil

Durnescu

(eds) Understanding Penal Practices. New York: Routledge, pp. 11–29.

54.

Schein

(2010) Organizational Culture and Leadership, vol. 2. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

55.

Schwalbe

(2004) Re-visioning risk assessment for human service decision making. Children and Youth Services Review 26(6): 561–576.

56.

Sherman

(1998) Evidence-Based Policing Ideas in American Policing. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

57.

Skeem

Eno Louden

Polaschek

, et al. (2007) Assessing relationship quality in mandated community treatment: Blending care with control. Psychological Assessment 19(4): 397–410.

58.

Skeem

Manchak

(2008) Back to the future: From Klockars’ model of effective supervision to evidence-based practice in probation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 47(3): 220–247.

59.

Smith

Schweitzer

Labrecque

, et al. (2012) Improving probation officers’ supervision skills: An evaluation of the EPICS model. Journal of Crime and Justice 35(2): 189–199.

60.

Taxman

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

61.

Taxman

(2012) Crime control in the twenty-first century: Science-based supervision (SBS). Journal of Crime and Justice 35(2): 135–144.

62.

Taxman

Belenko

(2012) Implementing Evidence-based Practices in Community Corrections and Addiction Treatment. Boulder, CO: Springer.

63.

Taxman

Henderson

Young

, et al. (2012) The impact of training interventions on organizational readiness to support innovations in juvenile justice offices. Administration of Mental Health Policy and Mental Health Services Research 41: 177–188.

64.

Trotter

(1996) The impact of different supervision practices in community corrections. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 29: 1–18.

65.

Viglione

(2017) Street-level decision making: Acceptability, feasibility, and use of evidence-based practices in adult probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior 44(10): 1356–1381.

66.

Viglione

(2019) The risk-need-responsivity model: How do probation officers implement the principles of effective intervention? Criminal Justice and Behavior 46(5): 655–673.

67.

Viglione

Rudes

Taxman

(2015) Misalignment in supervision implementing risk/needs assessment instruments in probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior 42(3): 263–285.

68.

Walters

Vader

Nguyen

, et al. (2010) Motivational interviewing as a supervision strategy in probation: A randomized effectiveness trial. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 49(5): 309–323.

69.

Wiltsey Stirman

Kimberly

Cook

, et al. (2012) The sustainability of new programs and innovations: A review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research. Implementation Science 7(17): 1–19.