Abstract
First and foremost, I had the pleasure to work with the European Journal of Probation’s Editorial Board and staff and want to thank them for their hard work and this opportunity. This Special Issue of the European Journal of Probation delves into American probation and parole models, practices, and policies, stemming from an American Society of Criminology panel from 2019. The articles in this issue revolve around different types of models, practices, and policies, but also specifically on their implementation and sustainability. This Special Issue offers timely insight regarding “what works” and “how” in community corrections as the field continues to grow, with approximately 4.4 million individuals supervised on probation or parole at year-end 2018 in the United States (Maruschak and Minton, 2020). However, understanding how these models, practices, and policies implement in real-world settings is of utmost importance—an effective program or practice implemented poorly is unlikely to result in desired outcomes (Fixsen et al., 2009). Implementation, adaptation or modification, and sustainability of evidence-based practices (EBPs) also has received very little, albeit growing, attention in the field of corrections. I hope that this issue provides interesting and useful information and considerations for correctional agencies regarding implementation and sustainability of models, practices, and policies from the clients, to staff, to the organization as a whole. This Special Issue should allow us to think critically about how correctional research can best be translated into working with effectively and efficiently with correctional agencies, staff, and their clients, create collaborative working relationships between researchers and those that work in the field, and identify areas of success and areas for improvement.
In this issue, models, practices, and policies discussed include the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model of offender assessment and rehabilitation, core correctional practices (CCPs), as well as Swift, Certain, and Fair (SCF) community supervision practices (also referred to as the HOPE model or Swift and Certain (SAC) models). The RNR model of assessment and rehabilitation identifies principles that can effectively reduce recidivism—matching level of service to level of risk for recidivism, matching services and programming that target risk factors that are amenable to change (criminogenic needs), and matching the style and mode of learning to individuals while also using treatment models most effective among justice-involved populations (e.g. cognitive-behavioral techniques, social learning-based practices, etc.) (Bonta and Andrews, 2017). In addition, another article discusses the integration of social capital as part of the RNR model of offender assessment and rehabilitation. Further, this Special Issue also includes information on paroling authorities and their support and incorporation of evidence-based practices (EBPs). Among the articles, the focus tends to provide information on implementation, sustainability, and consideration of community supervision and paroling practices.
The first and third articles in the issue focus on the implementation and use of the Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS) model, which is an RNR- and CCP-based community supervision model. This model generally includes a semi-structured format for a one-on-one contact session between probation and/or parole officers and the clients they supervise. Further, the model includes a check-in, review, intervention, and behavioral rehearsal (behaviorally-based homework), incorporating the RNR model and CCPs (more specific information on EPICS components can be found in their respective articles). The first article authored by Gleicher uses qualitative feedback from a larger survey on the EPICS model to analyze, qualitatively, factors that may facilitate or hinder the implementation of EBPs, including the EPICS model. Key themes that impact implementation, gleaned from the qualitative analysis, including individual attitudes and beliefs of community supervision officers, organizational elements, and perception and commitment of leadership within the organization.
Bernard and colleagues’ article provides an overview of a specialized, young adult community supervision caseload (probation and parole) in which community supervision staff are trained in trauma-informed care, the science behind brain development, equity and empowerment with a focus on racial justice, and the EPICS model of case management. This program was developed for young adults (ages 15–25), who have some of the highest recidivism rates (Durose et al., 2014) and a disproportionate number of justice-involved young adults of color compared to their proportion in the general population. This specialized pilot program demonstrated promising results in ways to revamp community corrections for a special population with unique developmental and supervision needs as well as tracking those needs and behavior changes as well as the development and continuous quality assurance processes for such a program.
The second article in the issue authored by Ruhland and Harbinson’s article looks at a different aspect of adherence and fidelity to EBPs by using survey information to ascertain whether transformation in embracing EBPs exists among paroling authorities in the United States. Paroling authorities, most typically, are responsible for the release of individuals after serving an indeterminate state prison sentence; however, and in addition, they may also be responsible for setting conditions of parole supervision and revocations of that parole supervision (Ruhland et al., 2016). This article provides insight into the ways paroling authorities are (or are not) using or adhering to EBPs and what EBPs look like in relation to paroling authorities and the decisions they must make.
The fourth article in the issue, authored by Koetzle and Matthews, explores social capital in relation to the RNR model and its integration as a responsivity factor, speaking to critiques from desistance-focused scholars of the RNR model on its lack of recognition of social capital on affecting behavior change. The authors identify how individual-level social capital can be incorporated as a specific responsivity factor within the RNR model (also touching upon community social capital); responsivity factors are largely forgotten or overlooked within application of the RNR model. These personal ties and social networks, supports, and relationships can be targeted through intervention as part of the desistance process (Farrall, 2004; Sampson and Laub, 1993). This article lays out the need to assess social capital and responsivity factors more generally, but also the potential role it may play in programming and practice for justice-involved individuals to increase potential for behavior change.
The fifth article authored by Viglione and colleagues analyzed probation officer attitudes and experiences with the STARR model—the federal supervision model like that of the EPICS model (more specific information on STARR components can be found in their article). The authors emphasize the challenges of implementing the RNR model with fidelity, analyzing qualitative interview data from federal probation officers on attitudes and perceptions, organizational factors that impact implementation, and staff-level implementation of key components of STARR. Overall, the authors identify STARR facilitators and barriers to address to enhance the implementation of STARR, suggesting the qualitative data shows generally positive perceptions of STARR among community supervision staff.
The last article in this issue, authored by Frailing and colleagues’, focuses on an SCF model, the HOPE model, a probation program based on deterrence that includes swift, certain, and proportionate responses by the criminal legal system to individuals who violate conditions of probation supervision. Research suggests that SCF models produce mixed results on the desired outcomes of its participants (e.g. recidivism reduction), though less attention is paid to the implementation of those programs. Their article focuses on the disparate findings of SCF models and analyze the fidelity to the HOPE model in the Jefferson Parish, Louisiana probation department using a fidelity assessment methodology based on Lattimore et al. (2016). When observing Jefferson Parish’s HOPE model program, Frailing and colleagues found some adherence to fidelity, but also identify issues in evaluating these types of models and issues with implementation and fidelity for future consideration.
All of the articles in this Special Issue provide insight and further exploration on how researchers and practitioners can work together to efficiently and effectively develop and implement EBPs that are successful—not just for the clients being served, but the organization and its staff at large. In addition, this Special Issue, I hope, encourages correctional supervision agencies (state and local) in the United States (and beyond), its leaders, and policymakers to identify how an agency’s policies, procedures, and practices may support (or not) the ability to successfully implement and sustain EBPs that result in desired outcomes (e.g. reducing recidivism, increasing efficiency of staff time and resources, restoring offenders and victims). This includes the use of process and outcome evaluations, staff feedback, and policy revisions as an important part of implementing and sustaining EBPs, understanding what is and what is not working and how to make the necessary and appropriate individual, organizational, and environmental changes.
Given local, state, and federal government are largely responsible for community supervision functions in the United States, it is the hope that this issue also raises questions and future considerations regarding: (1) increasing importance of how to improve resource allocation and funding streams (e.g. taxpayer money, grants) to support the efficacy of the EBP within government agencies overseeing corrections functions, and (2) emphasizing the utility of researchers as partners (and agencies as partners to researchers), but also the necessity of process, implementation, and outcome/impact evaluations. Most importantly, these articles provide information and future consideration as to whether American correctional agencies need to consider revising of their current policies and procedures to reset, align, and modify—as necessary—with EBPs that result in desired outcomes set forth by the agency’s mission.