This article aims to reexamine the development and scope of evidence-based practice (EBP) in community corrections by exploring three sets of issues. Firstly, we examine the relationships between the contested purposes of community supervision and their relationships to questions of evidence. Secondly, we explore the range of forms of evidence that might inform the pursuit of one purpose of supervision—the rehabilitation of offenders—making the case for a fuller engagement with “desistance” research in supporting this process. Thirdly, we examine who can and should be involved in conversations about EBP, arguing that both ex/offenders' and practitioners' voices need to be respected and heard in this debate.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BestA.TerpstraJ. L.MoorG.RileyB.NormanC. D., & GlasgowR. E. (2009). Building knowledge integration systems for evidence-informed decisions. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 23, 627–641.
2.
BottomsA.ShaplandJ.CostelloA.HolmesD., & MuirG. (2004). Towards desistance: Theoretical underpinnings for an empirical study. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(4), 368–389.
3.
BuckleyH., & WhelanS. (2009). Putting research evidence to work: Key issues for research utilisation in Irish children's services (Children Acts Advisory Board Research Report No.2). Dublin: Children Acts Advisory Board.
4.
BurnettR. (1992). The dynamics of recidivism. Oxford: University of Oxford Centre for Criminological Research.
5.
BurnettR. (2000). Understanding criminal careers through a series of in-depth interviews. Offender Programs Report, 4(1), 1–16.
6.
BurnettR. (2004). One-to-one ways of promoting desistance: In search of an evidence base. In BurnettR. & RobertsC. (Eds.), What works in probation and youth justice. Cullompton: Willan.
7.
BurnettR., & MarunaS. (2004). So “prison works” does it? The criminal careers of 130 men released from prison under Home Secretary, Michael Howard. Howard Journal, 43(4), 390–404.
8.
BurnettR., & McNeillF. (2005). The place of the officer-offender relationship in assisting offenders to desist from crime. Probation Journal, 52(3), 247–268.
9.
DurnescuI. (2008). An exploration of the purposes and outcomes of probation in European jurisdictions. Probation Journal, 55(3), 273–281.
10.
FarrallS. (2002). Rethinking what works with offenders. Cullompton: Willan.
11.
FarrallS. (2004). Social capital, probation supervision and desistance from crime. In MarunaS. & ImmarigeonR. (Eds.), After crime and punishment: Ex-offender reintegration and desistance from crime. Cullompton: Willan.
12.
FarrallS., & BowlingB. (1999). Structuration, human development and desistance from crime. British Journal of Criminology, 39(2), 252–267.
13.
FarrallS., & CalverleyA. (2005). Understanding desistance from crime. (Crime and Justice Series). London: Open University Press.
14.
GarlandD. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
HollinC. (2008). Evaluating offending behaviour programmes: Does only randomization glister?Criminology & Criminal Justice, 8(1), 89–106.
16.
LandryR.AmaraN., & LamariM. (2001). Utilisation of social science research knowledge in Canada. Research Policy, 30(2), 333–349.
17.
LaubJ. & SampsonR. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age seventy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
LoaderI., & SparksR. (2010). Public criminology?Routledge: London.
19.
MaguireM., & RaynorP. (2006). How the resettlement of prisoners supports desistance from crime: Or does it?Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6(1), 19–38.
20.
MarunaS. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington DC: American Psychological Association Books.
21.
MarunaS. (2011). Reentry as a rite of passage. Punishment and Society, 13(1), 3–8.
22.
MarunaS., & FarrallS. (2004). Desistance from crime: A theoretical reformulation. Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 43, 171–194.
23.
MarunaS., & LeBelT. (2003). Welcome home? Examining the “re-entry court” concept from a strengths-based perspective. Western Criminology Review, 4(2), 91–107.
24.
MarunaS., & LeBelT. (2009). Strengths-based approaches to reentry: Extra mileage toward reintegration and destigmatization. Japanese Journal of Sociological Criminology, 34, 58–80.
25.
McAraL., & McVieS. (2005). The usual suspects? Street life, young people and the police. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 5(1), 5–36.
26.
McCullochT. (2005). Probation, social context and desistance: Retracing the relationship. Probation Journal, 52(1), 8–22.
27.
McCullochP., & McNeillF. (2008). Desistance-focussed approaches. In GreenS.LancasterE., & FeaseyS. (Eds.), Addressing offending behaviour: Context, practice and values. Cullompton: Willan.
McNeillF. (2012). Four forms of offender rehabilitation: Towards an integrated perspective. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17(1), 18–36.
34.
McNeillF.BrackenD., & ClarkeA. (2010). Social work and criminal justice. In ShawI.Briar-LawsonK.OrmeJ., & RuckdeschelR. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social work research. London and New York: Sage.
McNeillF., & MarunaS. (2007). Giving up and giving back: Desistance, generativity and social work with offenders. In McIvorG. & RaynorP. (Eds.), Developments in social work with offenders. Research highlights in social work 48 (pp. 224–239). London: Jessica Kingsley.
McNeillF., & WhyteB. (2007). Reducing reoffending: Social work and community justice in Scotland. Cullompton: Willan.
39.
NutleyS. (2003). Increasing research impact: Early reflections from the ESRC Evidence Network (Working Paper 16). London: ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice, Queen Mary, University of London. Retrieved from www.EvidenceNetwork.org
40.
NutleyS.WalterI., & DaviesH. (2007). Using evidence: How research can improve public services, Bristol: The Policy Press.
41.
NutleyS.MortonS.JungT., & BoazA. (2010). Evidence and policy in six countries: Diverse approaches and common challenges. Evidence and Policy, 6(2), 131–144.
42.
PolaschekD. (2012). An appraisal of the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation and its application in correctional treatment. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17(1), 1–17.
43.
PorporinoF. (2010). Bringing sense and sensitivity to corrections: From programmes to ‘fix’ offenders to services to support desistance. In BrayfordJ.CoweF., & DeeringJ. (Eds.), What else works? Creative work with offenders. Cullompton: Willan.
44.
PriestleyP., & VanstoneM. (2010). Offenders or citizens? Readings in rehabilitation. Cullopmton: Willan.
45.
PutnamR. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
46.
RaynorP. (2004a). Rehabilitative and reintegrative approaches. In BottomsA.RexS., & RobinsonG. (Eds.), Alternatives to prison: Options for an insecure society. Cullompton: Willan.
47.
RaynorP. (2004b). Opportunity, motivation and change: Some findings from research on resettlement. In BurnettR. & RobertsC. (Eds.), What works in probation and youth justice. Cullompton: Willan.
48.
RaynorP. (2008). Community penalties and Home Office research: On the way back to ‘nothing works’?Criminology and Criminal Justice, 8, 73–87.
49.
RippleL.AlexanderE. & PolemisB. W. (1964). Motivation, capacity and opportunity: Studies in casework theory and practice. Chicago: School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago.
50.
RobinsonG. (2008). Late-modern rehabilitation: The evolution of a penal strategy. Punishment and Society, 10(4), 429–445.
51.
RobinsonG., & McNeillF. (2004). Purposes matters: The ends of probation. In MairG. (Ed.), What matters in probation work. Cullompton: Willan.
52.
SchwandtT. A. (2005). The centrality of practice to evaluation. The American Journal of Evaluation, 26(1), 95–105.
53.
SellinT. (1931). The basis of a crime index. American Institute of Criminal law and Criminology, 22, 335–356.
54.
ShonkoffJ. (2000). Science, policy and practice: Three cultures in search of a shared mission. Child Development, 71(1), 181–187.
55.
TaxmanF.HendersonC., & LerchJ. (2010). The socio-political context of reforms in probation agencies: Impact on adoption of evidence-based practices. In McNeillF.RaynorP., & TrotterC. (Eds.), Offender supervision: New directions in theory, research and practice. Cullompton: Willan.
56.
Van KalmthoutA., & DurnescuI. (2008). European probation service systems: A comparative overview. In van KalmthoutA.M. & DurnescuI. (Eds.), Probation in Europe (pp. 1–42). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.
57.
WardT., & BrownM. (2004). The good lives model and conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10(3), 243–257.
58.
WardT., & GannonT. A. (2006). Rehabilitation, etiology, and self-regulation: The comprehensive good lives model of treatment for sexual offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 11, 77–94.
59.
WardT.MannR. E., & GannonT. A. (2007). The comprehensive good lives model of treatment for sexual offenders: Clinical implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 12, 87–107.
60.
WardT., & MarshallW. (2004). Good lives, aetiology and the rehabilitation of sex offenders: A bridging theory. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 10(2), 153–169.
WeaverB. (2011). Co-producing community justice: The transformative potential of personalisation for penal sanctions. British Journal of Social Work, 41(6), 1038–1057.
63.
WeaverB., & McNeillF. (2010). Travelling hopefully: Desistance research and probation practice. In BrayfordJ.CoweF., & DeeringJ. (Eds.), What else works? Creative work with offenders. Cullompton: Willan.
