This paper addresses a simple question: what have researchers in the United States and other countries learned about probation performance generally and the effectiveness of specific probation practices in particular? While the ‘science’ derived from the evaluation studies is still weak, it has been argued that probation could be organized along three risk dimensions, targeting high-risk times, high-risk offenders and high-risk locations. Research examining these risk dimensions is presented here, and the implications for an emerging desistance-based probation paradigm are considered
AndrewsD.BontaJ.HogeR.1990. Classification for Effective Rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17: 19–52.
2.
American Probation and Parole Association, 2006. Caseload Standards for Probation and Parole.Lexington, KY: APPA. Retrieved from APPA website, October, 2007.
3.
AustinJames2001. “Prisoner reentry: Current trends, practices, and issues”. Crime and Delinquency47 (3):.
4.
BachmanR.SchuttR.2007. The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 3th Edition. Sage Publications, Inc.
5.
BarnesG.AhlmanL.GillC.ShermanL.W.KurtzE.MalvestutoR.2010. Low-intensity community supervision for low-risk offenders: A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6 (2), 159–189.
6.
BergmanG. R.1976. The evaluation of an experimental program designed to reduce recidivism among second felony criminal offenders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan.
7.
BonczarT.GlazeL.2009. Probation and Parole in the United States 2008. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics NCJ 228230.
8.
BooneH.FultonB.1996. Implementing Performance-Based Measures in Community Corrections. National Institute of Justice: Research in Brief.
9.
BurrellWilliam, 2005. Trends in Probation and Parole in the United States. Retrieved from APPA website, August, 2007.
10.
ByrneJamesRebovichDonald, Editors. 2007. The New Technology of Crime, Law and Social Control.Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
11.
ByrneJamesTaxmanFaye2006. “Crime Control Strategies and Community Change: Reframing the Surveillance vs. Treatment Debate”Federal Probation70 (1):3–12.
12.
ByrneJ.TaxmanF.2005. Crime control is a choice: Divergent perspectives on the role of treatment in the adult corrections system. Criminology and Public PolicyVol. 4 (2), 291–310.
13.
ByrneJ. M.2008. The Social Ecology of Community Corrections: Understanding the link between individual and community change. Criminology and Public Policy7 (2):263–274.
14.
ByrneJ. M., 2009. Maximum impact: Targeting supervision on higher risk people, places, and times. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts.
15.
ByrneJ.2009b. What Works in Prison Reentry: A Review of the EvidenceTestimony: Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies.
16.
MollohanAlan WVByrneChair J. M.PattavinaA.2006. Assessing the Role of Clinical and Actuarial Risk Assessment in an Evidence-Based Community Corrections System: Issues to Consider. Federal Probation, 70 (3): 64–66.
17.
ByrneJ.M.RobertsA.2007. New Directions in Offender Typology Design, Development, and Implementation: Can We Balance Risk, Treatment, and Control?Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12: 483–492.
18.
ByrneJ. M.LurigioA.BairdC.1989The Effectiveness of the “New” Intensive Supervision Program. (A monograph prepared for the “Research in Corrections” series, Volume 2, Issue 2, National Institute of Corrections, Washington, D.C.).
19.
ByrneJ.LurigioA.PetersiliaJ.1992. Smart Sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions.Newbury Park, Ca: Sage Publications.
20.
ByrneJ. M.LurigioA.2009. ” Separating Science from nonsense: Evidence-based research, policy, and practice in criminal and juvenile justice settings. Victims and OffendersVol. 4 (4), 303–310.
21.
ByrneJ. M.KellyL., 1989. Restructuring Probation as An Intermediate Sanction: An Evaluation of the Massachusetts Intensive Probation Supervision Program, final report to the Research Program on the Punishment and Control of Offenders, National Institute of Justice, February, 1989.
22.
ByrneJ.MiofskyK.2009From preentry to reentry: An examination of the effectiveness of institutional and community-based sanctions. Victims and OffendersVol. 4 (4): 348–356.
ChapmanT.HoughM.1998. Evidence Based Practice: A guide to effective practice.H.M. Inspectorate of Probation/Home Office.
25.
CheethamJ.FullerR.McIvorG.PetchA.1992. Evaluating Social Work Effectiveness.Buckingham: Open University Press.
26.
Collaboration of Researchers for the Effective Development of Offender Supervision (CREDOS).2010. American Society of Criminology, Division of Corrections and Sentencing, Newsletter Fall 2010, pg. 2.
27.
ColledgeM.CollierP.BrandSam1996. Crime Reduction Programme and Constructive Regimes in Prison. Programmes for Offenders: Guidance for Evaluators.Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
28.
Home OfficeCullenF T2007Make rehabilitation corrections' guiding paradigm. Criminology and Public Policy6: 717–728.
29.
CullenF.T.SmithP.LowenkampC.LatessaE.2009Nothing works revisited: Deconstructing Farabee's Rethinking RehabilitationVictims and OffendersVol. 4 (4), 101–124.
30.
CunninghamA.2002. One Step Forward: Lessons Learned from a Randomised Study of Multi-Systemic Therapy in Canada. Ontario: Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System.
FarringtonDavidWelshBrandon (2005) “Randomized Experiments in Criminology: What Have We Learned in the Last Two Decades?Journal of Experimental Criminology1: 1–29.
33.
HarrisFitz T.L.1979. Proposition 13 — Its Impact on Probation in California.US Department of Justice, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, National Institute of Justice Publishing.
34.
GawandeA. (2007) Better: A Surgeon's notes on performance.New York: Picador, Metropolitan Books.
35.
GillC.2010. The effects of sanction severity on criminal conduct: A randomized low intensity probation experiment. Publically accessible Penn Dissertations. Paper 121. Available at: http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/121.
36.
GlazeL. E.BonczarT. P. (2009, December). Probation and parole in the United States, 2008 (Fact Sheet US Department of Justice No. NCJ 228230). Retrieved from Bureau of Justice Statistics website: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/.
37.
GottfredsonS.TaylorR.1986. Person-environment interactions in the prediction of recidivism pp. 133–155 in ByrneJ.SampsonR., editors, The Social Ecology of CrimeNew York: Springer-Verlag.
38.
GottfredsonM.1979. Treatment destruction techniques. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 16: 39–54.
39.
GottfredsonM.GottfredsonD., 1988. Decision-making in Criminal Justice: Toward the Rational Exercise of Discretion. New York: Plenum.
40.
HarrisPatriciaByrneJames, 2007. “Community corrections and hard technology” pp. 287326 in ByrneJamesRebovichDonald, Editors, 2007. The New Technology of Crime, Law and Social Control.Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
41.
HealyD.O'DonnellI., 2008. “Calling time on crime: Motivation, generativity and agency in Irish probationers.”Probation Journal, 55 (1):25–38.
42.
HealyD.O'DonnellI., 2005. Probation in the Republic of Ireland: Context and Challenges. The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice52 (2):56–68.
43.
HippJ.PetersiliaJ.TurnerS. (2010) Parolee Recidivism in California: The effect of neighborhood context and social service agency characteristicsCriminologyVol. 48 (4), 947–979.
44.
HolsingerA.LurigioA.LatessaE., 2001. Practitioners' Guide to Understanding the Basis of Assessing Offender Risk. Federal Probation65 (1):46.50.
45.
HoodR.SparksR.1970. Key Issues in criminologyNew York: World University Library.
46.
JacobsonMichael2005. Downsizing Prisons: How to Reduce Crime and End Mass Incarceration, New York: New York University Press.
47.
JacobsonJerry, 2006. “Do drug treatment facilities increase clients exposure to potential neighborhood-level triggers for relapse? A small area assessment of a large, public treatment system.”. Journal of Urban Health, pp1–13(published online, march 1, 2006.
48.
JonesM., 1995. Predictors of Success and Failure on Intensive Probation Supervision. American Journal of Criminal Justice19 (2).
49.
KilliasM.AebiM.RibeaudD.2000. Does community service rehabilitate better than shorter-term imprisonment? Results of a controlled experiment. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 39 (1):40–57.
50.
KleinM.1974. Labeling, Deterrence, and Recidivism: A Study of Police Dispositions of Juvenile Offenders. Social Problems22 (2):292–303. Koch Crime Institute, 2001, http://www.kci.org/forms/kccreach.htm.
51.
KubrinC. E.StewartE., 2006. Predicting who offends: The neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies. Criminology44: 165–197.
52.
KubrinC.E.SquiresG.StewartE., 2007Neighborhoods, race, and recidivism: The community-reoffending nexus and its implications for African Americans. Race Relations Abstracts32 (1):7–37.
53.
LipseyM.1995. ‘What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquents?’ In McGuireJ. (ed.) What Works: Reducing Re-offending. Guidelines from Research and Practice. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
54.
LiptonD.MartinsonR.WilksJ.1975. The effectiveness of correctional treatment: A survey of treatment evaluation studies. New York: Praeger.
55.
LowenkampChristopherLatessaEdward, 2005“Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement”. Criminology and Public Policy4 (2): 263–290.
56.
MacKenzieD.2006. What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57.
MacKenzieD.HickmanL., 1998. What Works in Corrections? An Examination of the Effectiveness of the Type of Rehabilitation ProgramsOffered by Washington State Department of Corrections. Downloaded January 4, 2010 from www.webarchive.org.
58.
MaltzM. D.1984. Recidivism. U.S. Department of Justice: National Institute of Justice. Academic Press, Inc.
59.
MartinsonR. (1974). What works?–Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 34, 22–54.
60.
MartinsonR.PalmerT.AdamsS.1976. Rehabilitation, recidivism, and research. Hackensack, NJ: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
McGuireJ.1995. (ed) What Works: Reducing Reoffending.Chichester: Wiley.
63.
McNeilllF.FarrallS.LightowlerC.MarunaS., 2012. How and why people stop offending: discovering desistance.(Insights: Evidence summaries to support social services in Scotland. Glasgow, Scotland: Institute for Research and Innovation in Social Services).
64.
MeadB.2005. Is There a Measure of Probation Success?Federal Probation: A Journal of Correctional Philosophy and Practice. 69 (2). Originally published in the May-June 1937 issue of Federal Probation.
65.
MearsD. P.TravisJ., 2004. Youth Development and Reentry. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice2 (1):3–20.
66.
MorenoffJ.HardingD., 2011. Neighborhoods, Recidivism, and Employment Among Returning Prisoners (Final technical report, National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Grant No. 2008-IJ-CX-0018.
67.
MerringtonS.StanleyS.2004. ‘What Works?’: Revisiting the Evidence in England and Wales. The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice51 (1):7–20.
68.
MiofskyK.ByrneJ., 2012“Evaluation research and probation: How to distinguish high performance from low performance programmes” pp. 336–357, in GaddKarstedtMessner, editors, The Sage Handbook of Criminological Research Methods (London, U.K.: SAGE).
69.
National Research Council.2007. Parole, desistance from crime and community reintegration.Washington DC: National Academy Press.
70.
NayJ.KayP.1982. Government Oversight and Evaluability Assessment. Toronto: Lexington Books.
71.
PalmerT.1975. “Martinson Revisited.”Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency12 (2):230.
72.
PalmerT.1978. Correctional Intervention and Research: Current Issues and Future Prospects. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
73.
PaparozziM.2006. Responding to “nothing works” in correctional treatment. Journal of Community Corrections.
74.
Pattavina, April ByrneJames M.GarciaLuis. 2006. “An Examination of Citizen Involvement in Crime Prevention in High-Risk Versus Low-to-Moderate-Risk Neighborhoods.”Crime and Delinquency52: 203–231.
75.
PetersiliaJ.1985. Probation and Felony Offenders. Federal Probation. 49 (4).
76.
PetersiliaJ.TurnerS.KahanJ.PetersonJ.1985. Granting Felons Probation: Public Risks and Alternatives. R-3186-NIJ, The RAND Corporation. Available at www.rand.org.
PetersiliaJ.TurnerS.1990. Intensive supervision for high-Risk probationers: Findings from three California experiments.Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
79.
PetersiliaJ.TurnerS, 1993. Intensive Probation and Parole. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research.Vol. 17, pp. 281–335.
80.
PetersiliaJ.1992. Probation and Felony Offenders. In TravisL.F.SchwartzM.D.IIIClearT.R. (ed), Corrections: An issues approach. Cincinnati: Anderson.
81.
PetersiliaJ.2003. When Prisoners come Home: Parole and Offender Reentry.New York: Oxford University Press.
82.
PetersiliaJ.2007. Employing behavioral contracting for earned discharged parole, Criminology and Public Policy.6 (4):807–814.
83.
PetersiliaJLinG.BeckmanM.2009, “Parole Violations and Revocations in California: Analysis and Suggestions for Action,”Federal Probation, July, pp. 2–13.
84.
RaynorP.2004. ‘The Probation Service “Pathfinders”: Finding the Path and Losing the Way?’, Criminal Justice, 4 (3):309–325.
85.
RaynorP.2008. Community Penalties and Home Office Research: One the way back to ‘nothing works’?Criminology & Criminal Justice8 (1):73–87.
86.
Reinventing Probation Council (2000) Transforming Probation Through Leadership: The ‘Broken Windows’ ModelNew York: Manhattan Institute, Center for Civic Innovation.
87.
RempelM.2005. Action Research: Using Information to Improve Your Drug Court.Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
88.
RhineEdwardMawhorrTinaParksEvalyn (2006). Implementation: The Bane of Effective Correctional Programs”Criminology and Public Policy, Vol. 5 (2): 347–358.
89.
RhineEdward (2002) “Why ‘What Works’ Matters Under the Broken Windows Model of Supervision”Federal Probation39–42.
90.
RhineEdwardHinzmanGaryCorbettRonaldBetoDanPaparozziMario (2001) “The ‘Broken Windows’ Model of Probation: A Call for Transforming Community Supervision”Perspectives25 (2): 30–33.
91.
RosenfeldR.2008. Recidivism and its discontents. Criminology and Public Policy.Vol. 7 (2):b 311–318.
92.
RossiP.LipseyM.FreemanH.2004. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach.Sage Publications.
93.
SampleLisa L.BrayTimothy M. (2003) “Are Sex Offenders Dangerous”?Criminology and Public Policy3 (1):59–82.
94.
ShadishW.CookT.CampbellD.2002. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inferences.Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
95.
SnyderH. N.SickmanM.2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
96.
StemenD.2007. Reconsidering incarceration: New directions for reducing crime.New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
97.
TaxmanF.ByrneJ.PattavinaA.AinsworthS.2010Risk, Need, Responsivity(RNR) Simulation Tool. Working paper prepared for the Bureau of Justice assistance and presented for review at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, Ca. Nov. 17, 2010.
98.
TaxmanF.S.PerdoniM.HarrisonL.2007. Treatment for adult offenders: A Review of the state of the state. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32 (3): 239–254.
99.
Taxman, 2008. No Illusions: Offender and Organizational change in Maryland's proactive community supervision efforts. Criminology and Public PolicyVol. 7 (2), 275–302.
100.
TaxmanF.2009. Effective community punishments in the United States: Probation. Criminal Justice Matters, 75, 42–44.
101.
TaxmanFayeShepardsonEricByrneJames, 2004. Tools of the Trade: A Guide for Incorporating Science into Practice. Washington, D.C.: Community Corrections Division, National Institute of Corrections.
102.
TaxmanFaye, 2006. ” Assessment with a flair: Offender accountability in supervision plans”. Federal Probation70 (2): 2–7.
103.
TaxmanFayeThannerMerideth, 2006. “Risk, Need, and Responsivity(RNR): It all depends”Crime and Delinquency, 52 (1): 28–51.
104.
TaxmanF.YoungD.ByrneJ.2004. “Transforming Offender Reentry Into Public Safety: Lessons from OJP's Reentry Partnership Initiative.”Justice Research and Policy, Vol. 5, No. 2, Fall, 2003:101–128.
105.
TravisJ.2005. But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. Urban Institute Press.
106.
TravisJ.VisherC., editors 2005. Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America.New York: Cambridge University Press.
107.
Van der WerffC.1979. Speciale preventie. Den Haag, NL: WODC.
VitoG. F.1987. Felony probation and recidivism: Replication and response. Federal Probation, 50, 17–25.
111.
von HirschA., (1992) Proportionality in the Philosophy of Punishment. Crime and Justice, 16, pp. 55–98.
112.
WebbV. J.HoffmanD.E.WakefieldW.O.SnellJ.1976. Recidivism: In Search of a More Comprehensive Definition. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 20: 144–147.
113.
WeisburdD.2010. Justifying the use of non-experimental methods and disqualifying the use of randomized controlled trials: Challenging folklore in evaluation research in crime and justice. Journal of Experimental Criminology6: 209–227.