A Rapid Evidence Assessment of the impact of probation caseloads on reducing recidivism and other probation outcomes

Abstract

We undertook a Rapid Evidence Assessment to explore the existing empirical evidence relating to the impact of probation caseloads on recidivism. Over 3,000 potentially relevant papers were sifted from which five were deemed robust enough to be analysed in detail. All five were US studies which examined the impact of particular initiatives to reduce caseloads and were delivered by mainstream community-based probation officers. All recorded reductions in measured outcomes compared to comparators. Overall, although the number of robust studies remains quite small for such a key area of consideration, there appears to be a growing body of evidence that lower probation caseloads have a positive impact in terms of reducing reoffending in the USA. All five studies looked at a range of criminal justice outcomes including technical probation violations, violations for new arrests and reconvictions. Interestingly, although researchers were expecting to find a higher rate of probation violations among the cohorts supervised by probation officers with lower caseloads (due to the increased intensity of supervision), this did not turn out to be the case.

‘Patience, persistence and proportionality’: Probation officer's perspectives of desistance in practice

“…The impact of workload pressures on service delivery was referenced by all study participants. Comparable findings are offered by existing literature, Fox et al (2021), who identify lower probation caseloads results in positive outcomes for reducing offending and promoting desistance. Similarly, Cracknell (2022) cited detriments of mass supervision include inhibiting innovative practice and undermining practitioner autonomy.…”

Drivers of Probation Revocation in Pulaski County, Arkansas

“…We recommend that future research involve a more in-depth economic analysis, which was beyond the scope of the current project, to better identify pockets of money that could be reallocated or used more efficiently. Reducing the number of people on probation may also help to relieve some financial pressure from the agency and allow for smaller caseloads and more effective supervisory practices (Fox et al, 2021; Jalbert et al, 2011).…”

What works in promoting ‘What Works’? A comment on Sanders, Jones and Briggs

“…These include the Probation Institute, the charity CLINKS and the Probation Inspectorate itself; the latter seems currently to offer the most consistent combination of academic credibility and accessibility, mainly through the ‘Insights’ series of practitioner-friendly concise research summaries overseen by Robin Moore. In addition, there are significant new research units, notably the Policy Evaluation and Research Unit (PERU) at Manchester Metropolitan University and, again, the Probation Inspectorate, which has begun to use the information gathered in inspections to answer research questions (see, for example, the recent work on caseload sizes, on which the Inspectorate published new research [HMIP, 2021] and PERU contributed a research review [Fox et al, 2021]).…”