The body of research and literature referred to as “evidence-based practice” (EBP) holds enormous potential for improving the outcomes of probation and parole. The commitment to EBP must not only reflect the principles that drive effective correctional intervention, but also incorporate the growing body of knowledge that speaks to the “science of implementation.” Efforts to date to adopt EBP reflect five important lessons for agencies to consider: the investment of time is a critical issue to successful implementation; training alone is not sufficient; the assessment of risk and need is the foundation of EBP; measurement is essential; and collaboration is a core strategy for successful implementation. If the retooling of community corrections towards EBP remains largely unfinished business, the obstacles to doing so are not insurmountable as substantial resources and significant experiences are available to draw upon.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrewsD. A. (2012). The risk/need/responsivity (RNR) model of correctional assessment and treatment. In DwoskinJ. A.SkeemJ. L.NovacoR. W., & DouglasK. S. (Eds.), Using social science to reduce violent offending (pp. 127–156). New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
AndrewsD. A., & BontaJ. (2010a). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: Matthew Bender.
3.
AndrewsD. A., & BontaJ. (2010b). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39–55.
4.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ., & HogeR. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior17 (1), 19–52.
5.
AndrewsD. A.ZingerI.HogeR. D.BontaJ.GendreauP., & CullenF. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369–404.
6.
AosS.MillerM., & DrakeE. (2006). Evidence-based adult corrections programs: What works and what does not. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Available at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfles/06-01-1201.pdf
7.
BogueB.CampbellN.CareyM.ClawsonE.FaustD.FlorioK.JoplinL.KeiserG.WassonB., & WoodwardW. (2004a). Implementing evidence-based practice in community corrections: The principles of effective intervention. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
8.
BogueB.CampbellN.CareyM.ClawsonE.FaustD.FlorioK.JoplinL.KeiserG.WassonB., & WoodwardW. (2004b). Implementing evidence-based principles in community corrections: Collaboration for systemic change in the criminal justice system. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
9.
BogueB.CampbellN.CareyM.ClawsonE.FaustD.FlorioK.JoplinL.KeiserG.WassonB., & WoodwardW. (2004c). Implementing evidence-based principles in community corrections: Leading organizational change and development. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
10.
BontaJ.BourgonG.RuggeT.ScottT-L.YessineA. K.GutierrezL., & LiJ. (2011). An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 38(11), 1127–1148.
11.
BontaJ.RuggeT.ScottT-L.BourgonG., & YessineA. K. (2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47(3), 248–270.
12.
BurrellW. D. (2005). Trends in probation and parole in the states. In ChiK. S. (Ed.), The book of the states (Vol. 37, pp. 595–600). Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments.
13.
BurrellW. D. (2010). Probation in the United States. In Herzog-EvansM. (Ed.), Transnational criminology (Vol. 3, pp. 721–739). Oisterwijk, The Netherlands: Wolff Legal Publishers.
14.
Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse. (2012). Addiction medicine: Closing the gap between science and practice. New York: The National Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
15.
Center for Effective Public Policy, Pretrial Justice Institute, Justice Management Institute, and the Carey Group. (2010). A framework for evidence-based decision making in local criminal justice systems. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
16.
DrakeE. K.AosS., & MillerM. G. (2009). Evidence-based policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications for Washington State. Victims and Offenders, 4(2), 170–196.
GarlandD. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
GendreauP., & RossR. (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s. Justice Quarterly, 4(3), 349–407.
21.
GuevaraM., & SachwaldJ. (2010). On the shoulders of giants: A vision of evidence-based organizations. Perspectives, 34(4), 52–63.
22.
JalbertS. K.RhodesW.KaneM.ClawsonE.BogueB.FlygareC.KingR., & GueveraM. (2011). A multi-site evaluation of reduced probation caseload size in an evidence-based practice setting. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
23.
JannettaJ.ElderbroomB.SolomonA.CahillM.ParthasarathyB., & BurrellW. D. (2009). An evolving field: Findings from the 2008 Parole Practices Survey. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
24.
KotterJ., & CohenD. S. (2002). The heart of change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
25.
LiptonD. S.MartinsonR., & WilksJ. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment. New York: Praeger Publishers.
26.
MartinsonR. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–45.
27.
MilkmanH., & WanbergK. (2007) Cognitive-behavioral treatment: A review and discussion for corrections professionals. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
28.
RhineE. E. (1997). Probation and parole supervision: In need of a new narrative. Corrections Management Quarterly, 1(2), 71–75.
29.
RhineE. E.MawhorrT. L., & ParksE. C. (2006). Implementation: The bane of effective correctional programs. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(2), 347–357.
30.
RobinsonC. R.LowenkampC. T.HolsingerA. M.VanBreschotenS.AlexanderM., & OlesonJ. C. (2012). A random study of Staff Training Aimed at Recidivism Reduction (STARR) using core correctional practices in probation interactions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(2), 167–188.
31.
SolomonA. L.OsborneJ. W. L.WinterfieldL.ElderbroomB.BurkeP.StrokerR. P.RhineR. E., & BurrellW. D. (2008). Putting public safety first: 13 parole supervision strategies to enhance reentry outcomes. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
32.
StuntzW. (2011). The collapse of American criminal justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
33.
SubramanianR., & TublitzR. (2012). Realigning justice resources: A review of population and spending shifts in prison and community corrections. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
34.
TaxmanF. S. (2008). No illusions: Offender and organizational change in Maryland's proactive community supervision efforts. Criminology & Public Policy, 7(2), 275–302.
35.
TaxmanF. S., & BelenkoS. (2012). Implementing evidence-based practices in community corrections and addiction treatment. New York: Springer.
36.
TaxmanF. S.YanceyC., & BilaninJ. E. (2006). Proactive community supervision in Maryland: Changing offender outcomes. Baltimore, MD: Division of Parole and Probation.
37.
VaillP. B. (1978). Reflections on technology. In WeisbordM. (Ed.), Organizational diagnosis: A workbook of theory and practice (pp. 153–159). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
