A growing body of research indicates officer training in correctional supervision programs is associated with improved use of evidence-based practices and lower rates of client recidivism. This scholarship also suggests larger reductions in recidivism can be achieved when officers implement program skills with higher quality. Despite their potential, research has shown standard training regiments alone are not sufficient in making all participants proficient users of skills. There is a need to determine what intensity of training produces the best results. In response, this study assessed the impact of federal probation officer training dosage in the Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Re-arrest (STARR) program on the outcomes of their clients. The results indicated clients of STARR-trained officers had fewer probation revocations and new arrests but more technical violations and positive drug tests. We also found clients supervised by officers with more versus less exposure to the STARR model had better outcomes.
AndrewsD. A.ZingerI.HogeR. D.BontaJ.GendreauP.CullenF. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369–404.
2.
AustinP. C. (2011). An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(3), 399–424.
3.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.
4.
BontaJ.BourgonG.RuggeT.ScottT.YessineA. K.GutierrezL.LiJ. (2010). The strategic training initiative in community supervision: Risk-need-responsivity in the real world (User Report 2010-01). Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.
5.
BontaJ.BourgonG.RuggeT.ScottT.YessineA. K.GutierrezL.LiJ. (2011). An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(11), 1127–1148.
6.
BontaJ.RuggeT.BourgonG.WanamakerK. A. (2019). A conceptual replication of the Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15, 397–419.
7.
BontaJ.RuggeT.ScottT.BourgonG.YessineA. K. (2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47(3), 248–270.
8.
BourgonG.ArmstrongB. (2005). Transferring the principles of effective treatment into a “real world” prison setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(1), 3–25.
9.
BourgonG.GutierrezL.AshtonJ. (2012). The evolution of community supervision practice: The transformation from case manager to change agent. Federal Probation, 76(2), 27–35.
10.
CampbellC. M.LabrecqueR. M. (2018). Panacea or poison: Can propensity score modeling (PSM) methods replicate the results from randomized control trials (RCTs)?National Institute of Justice.
11.
ChadwickN.DewolfA.SerinR. (2015). Effectively training community supervision officers: A meta-analytic review of the impact on offender outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(10), 977–989.
12.
ClodfelterT. A.HolcombJ. E.AlexanderM. A.MarcumC. D.RichardsT. N. (2016). A case study of the implementation of Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest (STARR). Federal Probation, 80(1), 30–38.
13.
CullenF. T.GendreauP. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. In HorneyJ. (Ed.), Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system (Vol. 3, pp. 109–176). National Institute of Justice.
14.
DowdenC.AndrewsD. A. (2004). The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(2), 203–214.
15.
DyckH. L.CampbellM. A.WershlerJ. L. (2018). Real-world use of the risk-need-responsivity model and the level of service/case management inventory with community-supervised offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 42(3), 258–268.
16.
FarringerA. J.DuriezS. A.ManchakS. M.SullivanC. C. (2019). Adherence to “what works”: Examining trends across 14 years of correctional program assessment. Corrections: Policy, Research and Practice. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2019.1659193
17.
GendreauP. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In HarlandA. (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117–130). SAGE.
18.
GendreauP.AndrewsD. A.TheriaultY. (2010). Correctional Program Assessment Inventory—2010 (CPAI-2100). University of New Brunswick.
19.
GleicherL.ManchakS. M.CullenF. T. (2013). Creating a supervision kit: How to improve probation and parole. Federal Probation, 77(1), 22–27.
20.
HicksW. D.HolcombJ. E.AlexanderM. A.ClodfelterT. A. (2020). Drug testing and community supervision outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(4), 410–436.
21.
HyattJ. M.BarnesG. C. (2017). An experimental evaluation of the impact of intensive supervision on the recidivism of high-risk probationers. Crime and Delinquency, 63(1), 3–38.
22.
JonesM.KerbsJ. J. (2007). Probation and parole officers and discretionary decision-making: Responses to technical and criminal violations. Federal Probation, 71(1), 9–15.
23.
KaebleD.AlperM. (2020). Probation and parole in the United States, 2017-2018. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
24.
LabrecqueR. M.SchweitzerM.SmithP. (2013). Probation and parole officer adherence to the core correctional practices: An evaluation of 755 offender-officer interactions. Advancing Practices, 3, 20–23.
25.
LabrecqueR. M.SmithP. (2017). Does training and coaching matter? An 18-month evaluation of a community supervision model. Victims and Offenders, 12(2), 233–252.
26.
LabrecqueR. M.SmithP.LutherJ. D. (2015). A quasi-experimental evaluation of a model of community supervision. Federal Probation, 79(3), 14–19.
27.
LatessaE. J.SmithP.SchweitzerM.LabrecqueR. M. (2013). Evaluation of the effective practices in community supervision model (EPICS) in Ohio. University of Cincinnati.
28.
LipseyM. W.CullenF. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3(1), 297–320.
29.
LopezM. H.LightM. T. (2009). A rising share: Hispanics and federal crime. Pew Research Center.
30.
LowenkampC. T.AlexanderM.RobinsonC. R. (2014). Using 20 minutes wisely: Community supervision officers as agents of change. In CrowM. S.SmyklaJ. O. (Eds.), Offender reentry: Rethinking criminology and criminal justice (pp. 181–202). Jones & Bartlett Publishing.
31.
LowenkampC. T.HolsingerA. M.RobinsonC. R.AlexanderM. (2014). Diminishing or durable treatment effects of STARR? A research note on 24-month re-arrest rates. Journal of Crime and Justice, 37(2), 275–283.
32.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J.SmithP. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology and Public Policy, 5(3), 575–594.
33.
MacKenzieD. L. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. Cambridge University Press.
34.
MakariosM. D.SperberK. G.LatessaE. J. (2014). Treatment dosage and the risk principle: A refinement and extension. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(5), 334–350.
35.
MatthewsB.HubbardD. J.LatessaE. J. (2001). Making the next step: Using evaluability assessment to improve correctional programming. The Prison Journal, 18(4), 454–472.
36.
McGuireJ. (2013). “What works” to reduce re-offending: 18 years on. In CraigL. A.DixonL.GannonT. A. (Eds.), What works in offender rehabilitation: An evidence-based approach to assessment and treatment (pp. 20–49). Wiley-Blackwell.
37.
MillerJ.MaloneyC. (2013). Practitioner compliance with risk/needs assessment tools: A theoretical and empirical assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(7), 716–736.
38.
PaparozziM. A.GendreauP. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85(4), 445–466.
39.
PetersiliaJ.TurnerS. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. Crime and Justice, 17, 281–335.
40.
RobinsonC. R.LowenkampC. T.HolsingerA. M.VanBenschotenS. W.AlexanderM.OlesonJ. C. (2012). A random study of Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest (STARR): Using core correctional practices in probation interactions. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(2), 167–188.
41.
RobinsonC. R.VanBenschotenS.AlexanderM.LowenkampC. T. (2011). A random (almost) study of staff training aimed at reducing re-arrest (STARR): Reducing recidivism through intentional design. Federal Probation, 75(2), 57–63.
42.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.
43.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39(1), 33–38.
44.
RuggeT.BontaJ. (2014). Training community corrections officers in cognitive-behavioral intervention strategies. In TafrateR. C.MitchellD. (Eds.), Forensic CBT: A handbook for clinical practice (pp. 122–136). John Wiley.
45.
SmithP.GendreauP.SwartzK. (2009). Validating the principles of effective intervention: A systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Victims and Offenders, 4(2), 148–169.
46.
SmithP.SchweitzerM.LabrecqueR. M.LatessaE. J. (2012). Improving probation officers’ supervision skills: An evaluation of the EPICS model. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(2), 189–199.
47.
SolomonA. L. (2006). Does parole supervision work? Research findings and policy opportunities. Perspectives, 30(2), 26–37.
48.
TaxmanF. S. (2002). Supervision: Exploring the dimensions of effectiveness. Federal Probation, 66(2), 14–27.
49.
TaxmanF. S. (2008). No illusions: Offender and organizational change in Maryland’s proactive community supervision efforts. Criminology and Public Policy, 7(2), 275–302.
50.
TaxmanF. S.CaudyM. S. (2015). Risk tells us who, but not what or how: Empirical assessment of the complexity of criminogenic needs to inform correctional programming. Criminology and Public Policy, 14(1), 71–103.
51.
ToronjoH.TaxmanF. S. (2018). Supervision face-to-face contacts: The emergence of an intervention. In UgwudikeP.RaynorP.AnnisonJ. (Eds.), Evidence-based skills in criminal justice: International research on supporting rehabilitation and desistance (pp. 217–242). Policy Press.
52.
TrotterC. (2013). Reducing recidivism through probation supervision: What we know and don’t know from four decades of research. Federal Probation, 77(2), 43–48.
53.
ViglioneJ. (2017). Street-level decision making: Acceptability, feasibility, and use of evidence-based practices in adult probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(10), 1356–1381.
54.
ViglioneJ.LabrecqueR. M. (in press). Core correctional practices in community supervision: An evaluation of a policy mandate to increase probation officer use of skills. Internantional Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology.
55.
ViglioneJ.RudesD. S.TaxmanF. S. (2015). Misalignment in supervision: Implementing risk/needs assessment instruments in probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(3), 263–285.
56.
WooditchA.DuhaimeL.MeyerK. (2016). Street-level discretion and organizational effectiveness in probation services. Federal Probation, 80(1), 39–44.
