At the intersection of research and practice: Constructing guidelines for a hybrid model of community supervision

Mackey, Benjamin J.; Appleton, CJ; Lee, Jo Ann; Skidmore, Sarah; Taxman, Faye S.

doi:10.1016/j.avb.2021.101689

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More importantly, recent reviews of contemporary supervision question its overall effectiveness and highlight that the "less is more" philosophy may be misguided given the current state of empirical evidence (Doleac & LaForest, 2022;Lopoo et al, 2023). As shown here, it is clear that there is limited empirical evidence in support of SCF/HOPE, and for the field of supervision more generally (Mackey et al, 2022). A consistent observation in the current body of literature is that studies often fail to disentangle the active ingredients and mechanism of action that define effective supervision practices, and the tendency is to dismiss the value associated with effective strategies involving incentives, cognitive restructuring, and identity transformation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Revisiting the effectiveness of HOPE/swift‐certain‐fair supervision programs: A meta‐analytic review

Pattavina

Long

Petrich

et al. 2023

Criminology & Public Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research SummaryOriginated nearly two decades ago in Hawaii by Judge Steven Alm, a community supervision‐court model known as “Project HOPE” proposed to reduce probation failure by responding to violations with immediate but short jail terms. Despite negative evidence from Lattimore and colleagues’ 2016 Demonstration Field Experiment (DFE) across four locations, advocates continued to trumpet programs based on Project HOPE's core principles of swift, certain, and fair (SCF) sanctions, arguing that these deterrence‐oriented interventions—now known under the acronym SCF programs–reduce recidivism. To assess this claim, a meta‐analysis was conducted of 18 studies reporting on 24 separate evaluations of programs falling under the Project HOPE/SCF umbrella. The analysis revealed that the intervention had a statistically significant but substantively small impact on recidivism (the main overall effect = −.058). Moderator analyses revealed weak to null findings across variations in methodological and HOPE/SCF program characteristics.Policy ImplicationsAt present, evaluation evidence is weak and not robust enough to support the continued government funding and implementation of SCF programs in their current form on grounds of recidivism reduction. Such deterrence‐oriented programs may be based on a flawed theory of recidivism that fails to identify criminogenic risk factors for change. SCF programs might prove more effective if integrated with treatment modalities, though this remains to be demonstrated. More broadly, a range of community supervision approaches now exist that emphasize building relationships with individuals under supervision and guiding their prosocial development. These alternatives might offer a more promising avenue for reform than current programs based on SCF principles.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Revisiting the effectiveness of HOPE/swift‐certain‐fair supervision programs: A meta‐analytic review

Pattavina

Long

Petrich

et al. 2023

Criminology & Public Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Programs that follow some but not all of the RNR principles are also effective in reducing recidivism rates. In response to changing social needs, RNR principles are being refined (Taxman & Smith, 2021 ), and other framework guidelines for intervention programs for community corrections offenders are likewise being developed (Mackey et al, 2022 ; Strauss-Hughes et al, 2022 ). However, the effectiveness of these new frameworks remains to be tested in practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are risk-need-responsivity principles golden? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of community correction programs

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Using meta-analysis to determine the effect size of the recidivism rate of participants in community correction programs that are conducted entirely in community settings. Methods Following the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), 25 qualified studies contributed 35 independent effect sizes. Results Full participation in a program significantly reduced the recidivism rate. Participant age was a significant moderator of heterogeneity. Those aged over 18 have lower recidivism rates. Interventions that fully follow the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) design principles achieved similar results to those that did not. Recidivism rates increase more than 12 months after the program ends. Conclusions The effectiveness of community correctional programs varies depending on the participant’s age. The RNR principles are not golden. The above factors should be carefully considered when conducting intervention design in the future. Results should be interpreted with caution due to the literature’s high heterogeneity and low quality. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11292-022-09550-w.

show abstract

“…In light of arguments supporting the expanded use of community health workers to reduce mass incarceration (Reinhart, 2023), it is timely to ask the question: Are we simply asking too much of probation officers? Several studies of supervising officers allude to this being the case (see Blasko et al, 2022): Officers appear to inconsistently integrate risk/needs assessment instruments for case management purposes, if they use them at all (Bonta et al, 2011; Viglione et al, 2015), misunderstand how to use (or simply do not use) evidence-based practices (Blasko et al, 2016; Ingel et al, 2022), and are embedded in organizational systems that prioritize consistency and hierarchy over innovation and adaptation (Mackey et al, 2022). It has become increasingly clear that community corrections organizations largely understand the need for evidence-based correctional interventions but struggle to implement and sustain them (Blasko et al, 2022; Rudes et al, 2021; Salisbury et al, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Community Health Specialists Within Gender-Responsive Probation Supervision

Salisbury

Belisle

Mercier

et al. 2023

Feminist Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A randomized controlled trial was conducted to assess the experiences of women probationers engaged in gender-responsive supervision with community health supports versus ‘gender-responsive supervision as usual.’ Treatment group participants engaged in a new supervision model in a large metropolitan county in a Western state which was created to improve their specific responsivity needs and public health supports. The Women’s Reentry Assessment, Programming, and Services (WRAPS) model included enhanced wraparound, gender-responsive, and trauma-informed supervision that incorporated Community Health Specialists (CHSs) working alongside probation officers. Although the WRAPS intervention did not reduce recidivism relative to the control group, there is evidence that gender-responsive probation supervision does reduce recidivism overall when compared to baseline. Findings from interview data indicate strong support for gender-responsive probation in general and the WRAPS model in particular. Clients and staff viewed the CHS role as highly impactful in addressing women’s specific responsivity needs and supporting women’s success. Recommendations surrounding gender-responsive probation and integration of public health staff are discussed.

show abstract

At the intersection of research and practice: Constructing guidelines for a hybrid model of community supervision

Cited by 9 publications

References 50 publications

Revisiting the effectiveness of HOPE/swift‐certain‐fair supervision programs: A meta‐analytic review

Revisiting the effectiveness of HOPE/swift‐certain‐fair supervision programs: A meta‐analytic review

Are risk-need-responsivity principles golden? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of community correction programs

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Community Health Specialists Within Gender-Responsive Probation Supervision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About