In response to the lack of universal agreement about ‘What Works’ in probation supervision (Trotter, 2013) we undertook a Rapid Evidence Assessment of the empirical literature. Our analysis of research into the effect of probation supervision reducing reoffending included 13 studies, all of which employed robust research designs, originating in the USA, UK, Canada and Australia, published between 2006 and 2016. We describe the papers included in our review, and the meta-analyses of their findings. Overall, we found that the likelihood of reoffending was shown to be lower for offenders who had been exposed to some type of supervision. This finding should be interpreted cautiously however, given the heterogeneity of the studies. We suggest future research and methodological considerations to develop the evidence base concerning the effectiveness of probation supervision.
AndrewsDABontaJ (2006) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Newark, NJ: Lexis/Nexis.
2.
AndrewsDABontaJWormithJS (2011) The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model: Does adding the Good Lives Model contribute to effective crime prevention?Criminal Justice and Behavior38(7): 735–755.
3.
AosSMillerMDrakeE (2006) Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Does Not. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
4.
**BarnesGCHyattJMAhlmanLCKentDT (2012) The effects of low-intensity supervision for lower-risk probationers: Updated results from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Crime and Justice35(2): 200–220.
5.
BeyensKMcNeillF (2013) Introduction: Studying mass supervision. In: BeyensKMcNeillF (eds) Offender Supervision in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
6.
BontaJRuggeTScottTLBourgonGYessineA (2008) Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation47(3): 248–270.
7.
BottomsAGelsthorpeL and RexS (eds) (2001) Community Penalties: Change and Challenges. Cullompton: Willan.
8.
**BouffardJABergeronLE (2006) Reentry works: The implementation and effectiveness of a serious and violent offender reentry initiative. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation44(2-3): 1–29.
9.
**BourgonGGutierrezL (2012) The general responsivity principle in community supervision: The importance of probation officers using cognitive intervention techniques and its influence on recidivism. Journal of Crime and Justice35(2): 149–166.
10.
Bureau of Justice (2015) Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) – Correctional Populations in the United States, 2015. Available at: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5870(accessed 27 March 2018).
11.
CarrN (2016) Contingent legitimacy: Community sanctions in Northern Ireland. In: RobinsonGMcNeillF (eds) Community Punishment: European Perspectives. London: Routledge, 114–135.
12.
Council of Europe (2017) Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the European Rules on Community Sanctions and Measures. Brussels: Council of Europe.
13.
DeeringJ (2010) The purposes of supervision: Practitioner and policy perspectives in England and Wales. In: McNeillFRaynorPTrotterC (eds) Offender Supervision: New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
14.
DowdenCAndrewsDA (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 Criminology48(2): 203–214.
15.
DurnescuIEnenglCGraflC (2013) Experiencing supervision. In: McNeillFBeyensK (eds) Offender Supervision in Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
DurrancePHoskingNThroburnN (2010) Can structured programmes improve one-to-one supervision? In: McNeillFRaynorPTrotterC (eds) Offender Supervision: New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
17.
**DuweG (2012) Evaluating the Minnesota Comprehensive Offender Reentry Plan (MCORP): Results from a randomized experiment. Justice Quarterly29(3): 347–383.
18.
**DuweG (2014) A randomized experiment of a prisoner reentry programme: Updated results from an evaluation of the Minnesota Comprehensive Offender Reentry Plan (MCORP). Criminal Justice Studies27(2): 172–190.
19.
FoxCMarshC (2016) ‘Personalisation’: Is social innovation possible under transforming rehabilitation?Probation Journal63(2): 169–181.
20.
FriendshipCStreetRCannJHarperG (2005) Introduction: The policy context and assessing the evidence. In: HarperGChittyC (eds) Home Office Research Study No. 291: The Impact of Corrections on Re-offending: A Review of ‘What Works’. London: Home Office.
21.
GillCShermanLW (2010) Probation intensity effects on probationers’ criminal conduct. Campbell Systematic Reviews. Available at: http://campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/140/(accessed 27 March 2018).
22.
Government Social Research Unit (2007) Background Paper 2 – What Do We Already Know? Harnessing Existing Research. London: Cabinet Office.
23.
GursanskyDHarveyJKennedyR (2003) Case Management Policy and Practice and Professional Business. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin.
24.
HealeyKM (1999) Case Management in the Criminal Justice System. Research in Action. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
25.
Her Majesty’s Probation Inspectorate (2017) HM Inspectorate of Probation for England and Wales Annual Report 2017. London: HMIP.
26.
Hesse-BiberS (2012) Weaving a multimethodology and mixed methods praxis into randomized control trials to enhance credibility. Qualitative Inquiry18(10): 876–889.
27.
HigginsJPAltmanDG (2008) Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 187–241.
28.
HudsonB (2003) Understanding Justice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
29.
**JalbertSKRhodesW (2012) Reduced caseloads improve probation outcomes. Journal of Crime and Justice35(2): 221–238.
30.
LipseyMWCullenFT (2007) The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science3: 297–320.
31.
**LowenkampCTHolsingerARobinsonCRAlexanderM (2014) Diminishing or durable treatment effects of STARR? A research note on 24-month re-arrest rates. Journal of Crime and Justice37(2): 275–283.
32.
MarunaS (2001) Making Good. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
33.
MarunaS (2007) Making Good: How Ex-convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
34.
MawbyRCWorrallA (2014) Probation worker cultures and relationships with offenders. Probation Journal61(4): 346–357.
35.
McGuireJ (ed.) (1995) What Works: Reducing Reoffending: Guidelines from Research and Practice. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.
36.
McNeillF (2006) A desistance paradigm for offender management. Criminology and Criminal Justice6(1): 39–62.
37.
McNeillF (2016) Reductionism, rehabilitation and reparation: Community punishment in Scotland. In: RobinsonGMcNeillF (eds) Community Punishment: European Perspectives. London: Routledge.
38.
Ministry of Justice (2013) Transforming Rehabilitation: A Strategy for Reform. London: Ministry of Justice.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanDG (2009) The PRISMA Group Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med6(7): e1000097. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
**OstermannMHyattJM (2016) Is something better than nothing? The effect of short terms of mandatory parole supervision. Justice Quarterly33(5): 785–810.
46.
**PearsonDAMcDougallCKanaanMBowlesRATorgersonDJ (2011) Reducing criminal recidivism: Evaluation of ‘Citizenship’, an evidence-based probation supervision process. Journal of Experimental Criminology7(1): 73–102.
47.
**PearsonDAMcDougallCKanaanMTorgersonDJBowlesRA (2016) Evaluation of the ‘Citizenship’ evidence-based probation supervision programme using a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial. Crime and Delinquency62(7): 899–924.
48.
PoporinoF (2010) Introduction: What’s new and exciting? In: McNeillFRaynorPTrotterC (eds) Offender Supervision: New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
49.
RaynorPUgwudikePVanstoneMHeathB (2012) The Jersey Supervision Skills Study. EuroVista2(1): 20–22.
50.
RobertsHPetticrewMLiaboKMacintyreS (2012) ‘The Anglo-Saxon disease’: A pilot study of the barriers to and facilitators of the use of randomised controlled trials of social programmes in an international context. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health66(11): 1025–1029.
51.
**RobinsonCRLowenkampCTHolsingerAMVanBenschotenSAlexanderMOlesonJC (2012) A random study of Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Re-arrest (STARR): Using core correctional practices in probation interactions. Journal of Crime and Justice35(2): 167–188.
52.
RobinsonGMcNeillFMarunaS (2013) Punishment in society: The improbable persistence of community sanctions. In: SimonJSparksR (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Punishment and Society. London: SAGE, 321–340.
53.
SampsonRJLaubJH (1995) Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54.
SavovićJWeeksLSterneJATurnerLAltmanDGMoherDHigginsJP (2014) Evaluation of the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials: Focus groups, online survey, proposed recommendations and their implementation. Systematic Reviews3(1): 37.
55.
SeiterRPWestAD (2003) Supervision styles in probation and parole: An analysis of activities. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation38(2): 57–75.
56.
ShadishWRCookTDCampbellDT (2002) Experimental and Quasi-experimental Design for Generalized Causal Inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin and Company.
ShermanLWGottfredsonDCMacKenzieDLEckJReuterPBushwaySD (1997) Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, and What’s Promising. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice.
59.
SterneJAHernánMAReevesBCSavovićJBerkmanND. (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. British Medical Journal355: i4919.
60.
**TaxmanFS (2008) No illusions: Offender and organizational change in Maryland’s proactive community supervision efforts. Criminology and Public Policy7(2): 275–302.
61.
TaxmanFSMarloweD (2006) Risk, needs, responsivity: In action or inaction?Crime and Delinquency51(1): 3–6.
62.
TrotterC (1990) ‘Probation Can Work’: A research study using volunteers. Australian Social Work43(2): 13–18.
63.
TrotterC (1996) The impact of different supervision practices in community corrections: Cause for optimism. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology29(1): 1–19.
64.
TrotterC (2013) Reducing recidivism through probation supervision: What we know and don’t know from four decades of research. Federal Probation77(2): 43–48.
65.
TurnerS (2010) Case management in corrections: Evidence, issues and challenges. In: McNeillFRaynorPTrotterC (eds) Offender Supervision: New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
66.
UgwudikeP (2010) Compliance with community penalties: The importance of interactional dynamics. In: McNeilFRaynorPTrotterC (eds) Offender Supervision: New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
**WanWYPoyntonSWeatherburnD (2016) Does parole supervision reduce the risk of re-offending?Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology49(4): 497–511.
69.
WardD (2008) BJSW critical commentary: What works in probation offender management: Evidence for a new direction?The British Journal of Social Work38(2): 395–405.
70.
WardTMarunaS (2007) Rehabilitation: Beyond the Risk Paradigm. London: Routledge.
71.
WardTYatesPWillisG (2012) The Good Lives Model and the Risk Need Responsivity Model: A critical response to Andrews, Bonta, and Wormith (2011). Criminal Justice and Behaviour39(1): 94–110.
72.
WoodMCattellJHalesGLordCKennyTCapesT (2015) Re-offending by Offenders on Community Orders: Results from the Offender Management Community Cohort Study. London: Ministry of Justice.
