Home visits provide a space for officer–supervisee encounters. However, little is known about the dynamics of home visits and their association with supervision outcomes. This study examines the context, content, and role of home visits in parole. Home visits are described using systematic observation data of officer-initiated contacts (N = 383). The average visit included only those on parole, inside a single-family home, lasted 8 minutes, was conducive to discussions, and covered rules and needs topics. A separate agency records dataset (N = 26,878) was used to estimate Cox hazard models. Findings suggest that each visit is related to reduced risk of a new felony arrest or a revocation, controlling for criminogenic factors and supervision activities. Risk was further associated with a reduction if officers engaged in mixed-topic discussions (rules and needs). Home visits can enable officers to help people on parole successfully navigate the challenges of reentry.
AhlinE. M.AntunesM. J. L.Tubman-CarbonesH. (2013). A review of probation home visits: What do we know?Federal Probation, 77(3), 32–50.
2.
AlandL. F. (2015). Perceptions of probation and police officer home visits during intensive probation supervision. Federal Probation, 79(1), 11–16.
3.
AllisonP. D. (1984). Event history analysis: Regression for longitudinal event data. SAGE.
4.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.HogeR. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19–52.
5.
BakkeA.QuigleyP.PrestineR.KiockzeimB. (1990). Oregon Department of Corrections: Analysis of the 1990 Time Study. National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
6.
BederJ. (1998). The home visit revisited. Families in Society, 79(5), 514–522.
7.
BennettJ. V. (1938). Minimum standards for United States probation service. Federal Probation, 2(2), 2–6.
8.
BercovitzJ.BemusB. (1993). Probation case classification and workload measures system for Indiana. Indiana Judicial Center.
9.
BlaskoB. L.FriedmannP. D.RhodesA. G.TaxmanF. S. (2015). The parolee–parole officer relationship as a mediator of criminal justice outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(7), 722–740.
10.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, 6(1), 1–22.
11.
BontaJ.BourgonG.RuggeT.ScottT.YessineA.GutierrezL.LiJ. (2011). An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1127–1148.
12.
BontaJ.RuggeT.ScottT. L.BourgonG.YessineA. K. (2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47(3), 248–270.
13.
BourgonG.RuggeT.ChadwickN.BontaJ. (2018). The living laboratory studies: Providing insights into community supervision practices. Federal Probation, 82(1), 3–12.
14.
ByrneJ. M.LurigioA. J.BairdC. (1989). Effectiveness of the new intensive supervision programs. National Institute of Corrections.
15.
Center for Civic Innovation. (1999). “Broken windows” probation: The next step in fighting crime. Manhattan Institute.
16.
ChamberlainA. W.GriciusM.WallaceD. M.BorjasD.WareV. M. (2017). Parolee–parole officer rapport: Does it impact recidivism?International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(11), 3581–3602.
17.
ClearT. R.GallagherK. W. (1985). Probation and parole supervision: A review of current classification practices. Crime and Delinquency, 31(3), 423–443.
18.
ClearT. R.LatessaE. J. (1993). Probation officer roles in intensive supervision: Surveillance versus treatment. Justice Quarterly, 10, 441–462.
19.
CoxD. R.OaksD. (1984). Analyses of survival data. Chapman and Hall.
20.
DemboR. (1972). Orientation and activities of the parole officer. Criminology, 10, 193–215.
21.
DeMicheleM. T. (2007). Probation and parole’s growing caseloads and workload allocation: Strategies for managerial decision making. American Probation and Parole Association. https://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/SMDM.pdf
22.
DresslerD. (1941). Measuring parole officers’ work. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 32(4), 424–432.
23.
FeeleyM. M.SimonJ. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449–474.
24.
FinnM. A.PrevostJ. P.BrauchtG. S.HawkS.MeredithT.JohnsonS. (2017). Home visits in community supervision: A qualitative analysis of theme and tone. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(10), 1300–1316.
25.
GendreauP.LittleT.GogginC. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works!Criminology, 34(4), 575–608.
26.
GrattetR.LinJ. (2014). Supervision intensity and parole outcomes: A competing risks approach to criminal and technical parole violations. Justice Quarterly, 33, 4565–4583.
27.
GrattetR.LinJ.PetersiliaJ. (2011). Supervision regimes, risk, and officer reactions to parolee deviance. Criminology, 49(2), 371–399.
28.
HarcourtB. (2007). Against prediction: Profiling, policing, and punishing in an actuarial age. University of Chicago Press.
29.
HosmerD. W.Jr.LemeshowS. (2004). Applied logistic regression. John Wiley.
30.
HughesT. A.WilsonD. J.BeckA. J. (2001). Trends in state parole, 1990-2000. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
31.
HyattJ.BarnesG. (2017). An experimental evaluation of the impact of intensive supervision on the recidivism of high-risk probationers. Crime & Delinquency, 63(1), 3–38.
32.
KaebleD. (2018). Probation and parole in the United States, 2016. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
33.
KennealyP. J.SkeemJ. L.ManchakS. M.LoudenJ. E. (2012). Fair, firm, and caring officer-offender relationships protect against supervision failure. Law and Human Behavior, 36(6), 496–505.
34.
KubrinC. E.StewartE. A. (2006). Predicting who reoffends: The neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies. Criminology, 44(1), 165–197.
35.
LanganP. A.LevinD. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994 (Special report—NCJ 193427). U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
36.
LatessaE. J.AllenH. E. (1999). Corrections in the community. Anderson Publishing.
37.
LindnerC. (1992). The probation field visit and office report in New York State: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Criminal Justice Review, 17(1), 44–60.
38.
LowenkampC. T.FloresA. W.HolsingerA. M.MakariosM. D.LatessaE. J. (2010). Intensive supervision programs: Does program philosophy and the principles of effective intervention matter?Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 368–375.
39.
LuallenJ.AstionM.FlygareC. (2013). Supervision violations: Patterns and outcomes. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 52, 565–590.
40.
MartinsonR. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–25.
41.
McNeillF.FarrallS.LightowlerC.MarunaS. (2013). Re-examining “evidence-based practice” in community corrections: Beyond “a confined view” of what works. Justice Research and Policy, 14(1), 35–60.
42.
MeredithT.PrevostJ. P. (2009). Developing data driven supervision protocols for positive parole outcomes. National Institute of Justice.
43.
MeredithT.SpeirJ.JohnsonS. (2007). Developing and implementing automated risk assessments in parole. Justice Research and Policy, 9(1), 1–24.
44.
OlsonD. E.LurigioA. J. (2000). Predicting probation outcomes: Factors associated with probation rearrest, revocations, and technical violations during supervision. Justice Research and Policy, 2(1), 73–86.
45.
PaparozziM. A.GendreauP. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85(4), 445–466.
46.
ParmarM. K. B.MachinD. (1995). Survival analysis: A practical approach. John Wiley.
47.
ParsonageW. H. (1990). Worker safety in probation and parole. National Institute of Corrections.
48.
PetersiliaJ. (1985). Probation and felony offenders. Federal Probation, 49, 4–9.
49.
PetersiliaJ. (2009). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press.
50.
PetersiliaJ. (2011). Community corrections: Probation, parole and prisoner reentry. In WilsonJ. Q.PetersiliaJ. (Eds.), Crime and public policy (pp. 499–531). Oxford University Press.
51.
PetersiliaJ.TurnerS. (1993a). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole: Results of a nationwide experiment. National Institute of Justice.
52.
PetersiliaJ.TurnerS. (1993b). Intensive probation and parole. Crime and Justice, 17, 281–335.
53.
ReissA. J. (1971). Systematic observation of natural social phenomena. In CostnerH. L. (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 3–33). Jossey-Bass.
54.
RossR. R.FabianoE. A. (1985). Time to think: A cognitive model of delinquency prevention and offender rehabilitation. Inst of Social Sc & Arts Incorporated.
55.
RothmanD. L. (1980). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its alternatives in progressive America. Brown, Little.
56.
RudesD. (2012). Getting technical: Parole officers continued use of technical violations under California’s parole reform agenda. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(2), 249–268.
57.
SchmidtP.WitteA. D. (1988). Predicting recidivism using survival models. Springer-Verlag.
58.
SerinR. C.LloydC. D. (2009). Examining the process of offender change: The transition to crime desistance. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 15(4), 347–374.
59.
SiehE. W. (2006). Community corrections and human dignity. Jones and Bartlett.
60.
SmithP.SchweitzerM.LabrecqueR. M.LatessaE. J. (2012). Improving probation officer’s supervision skills: An evaluation of the EPICS model. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(2), 189–199.
61.
SteenS.OpsalT. (2007). “Punishment on the installment plan”: Individual-level predictors of parole revocation in four states. The Prison Journal, 87(3), 344–366.
62.
SteinerB.TravisL. F.MakariosM. D.BrickleyT. (2011). The influence of parole officers’ attitudes on supervision practices. Justice Quarterly, 28(6), 903–927.
63.
TaxmanF. S. (2008). No illusions: Offender and organizational change in Maryland’s proactive community supervision efforts. Criminology and Public Policy, 7(2), 275–302.
64.
ViglioneJ. (2017). Acceptability, feasibility, and the use of evidence-based practices in adult probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(10), 1356–1381.
65.
ViglioneJ.BlaskoB. L.TaxmanF. S. (2017). Organizational factors and probation officer use of evidence-based practices: A multilevel examination. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(6), 1648–1667.
66.
ViglioneJ.RudesD. S.TaxmanF. S. (2015a). The myriad of challenges with correctional change: From goals to culture. European Journal of Probation, 7(2), 103–123.
67.
ViglioneJ.RudesD. S.TaxmanF. S. (2015b). Misalignment in supervision: Implementing risk/needs assessment in probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(2), 263–285.
68.
ViglioneJ.RudesD. S.TaxmanF. S. (2017). Probation officer use of client-centered communication strategies in adult probation settings. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 56(1), 38–60.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
