Sorting Through the Evidence: A Step Toward Prioritization of Evidence-Based Community Supervision Practices

• DOI: 10.1177/00938548211036474
• Date: 01 June 2022
• Published date: 01 June 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2022, 817 –837.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211036474

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2021 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

817

SORTING THROUGH THE EVIDENCE

A Step Toward Prioritization of Evidence-Based

Community Supervision Practices

Brandy L. Blasko

George Mason University

Jill Viglione

University of Central Florida

Liana R. Taylor

Texas A&M University–Central Texas

Faye S. Taxman

George Mason University

Studies of implementation of evidence-based supervision policies and procedures often report minimal to moderate adher-

ence to evidence-based models. The few studies that exist examine the degree to which characteristics of probation officers,

individuals on supervision, and supervision processes have an impact on rearrest (outcomes). Using administrative data on

7,326 probationers and surveys from 161 probation officers employed by five agencies, hierarchical linear models were used

to identify the features of supervision processes that are most important to reduce recidivism. The findings clarify that no one

evidence-based supervision feature (i.e., a validated risk and need assessment tool, case planning, treatment, compliance

management, etc.) can achieve recidivism reductions. The best results can be achieved by using all features, although a risk-

based case management approach that prioritizes employment and/or reducing the criminogenic needs creates similar out-

comes. This article discusses the implications of prioritizing which supervision processes are used to impact positive

supervision outcomes.

Keywords: probation supervision; risk-based case management; evidence-based supervision; probation culture; officer

surveys

The evidence-based practice (EBP) movement has dominated the community supervision

field for nearly 20 years by emphasizing “approaches demonstrated to be effective

through empirical research rather than anecdote or professional experience alone” (Crime and

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Data used here were collected under Grants 2010-DG-BX-K026 from the Bureau of

Justice Assistance and 202170 from SAMHSA (Faye S. Taxman, Principal Investigator). The opinions, findings,

and conclusions or recommendations expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect

those of the funder or George Mason University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed

to Faye S. Taxman, Schar School for Policy and Government, Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence,

George Mason University, 3351 Fairfax Avenue, Arlington, VA 22201; e-mail: ftaxman@gmu.edu.

1036474CJBXXX10.1177/00938548211036474Criminal Justice and BehaviorBlasko et al. / Sorting Through the Evidence

research-article2021

818 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Justice Institute, 2009, p. ix). Evidence-based supervision is promoted by correctional agen-

cies to achieve better supervision outcomes (e.g., reduced recidivism) and deliver a fairer,

more just probation/parole process. The evidence-based supervision movement is deeply

embedded in a “what works” philosophy with divergent, but complementary approaches—

rehabilitation and providing treatment services (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Cullen & Jonson,

2016; Latessa et al., 2020; Taxman, 2008), engaging the individual in supervision goals

(Taxman, 2008), managing conditions to ensure supervision requirements are fulfilled

(Petersilia & Turner, 1993), and achieving short-term gains in employment and/or other life

skills to help individuals make improvements in their quality of life (Bushway & Apel, 2012;

Seiter & Kadela, 2003). Collectively, components of each supervision approach are embed-

ded in evidence-based supervision to better manage individuals in the community while hold-

ing them accountable for the requirements assigned by the parole board and/or judiciary,

probation or parole agency, treatment agencies, and/or specialized courts (Taxman, 2008).

The mere existence of a varied list of evidence-based or best practices is challenging for

agencies to sift through the existing research and identify options that best fit their agency.

Agencies must assess how best to integrate these practices into the existing contact stan-

dards that normally guide how individuals are supervised (Thurman et al., 2019). The cur-

rent study seeks to address these challenges in adopting and implementing evidence-based

supervision strategies that are designed to achieve the best outcomes for individuals on

probation. The primary aim is to identify which EBPs are more important to implement to

reduce recidivism. A secondary aim is to identify which of these practices are compatible

with the attitudes of officers primarily responsible for supervision strategies.

EBPS IN CORRECTIONS

Evidence-based supervision incorporates supervision techniques effective in achieving

behavioral change with individuals under probation/parole supervision. While Andrews and

Kiessling (1980) define the five dimensions of effective correctional practice, (i.e., effective

use of authority, anti-criminal modeling and reinforcement, problem-solving, use of commu-

nity resources, and quality of interpersonal relationships between staff and individuals), struc-

tural aspects of supervision are more frequently associated with evidence-based supervision.

These include the use of a standardized risk and need assessment tool, case planning, cogni-

tive-behavioral therapies, and attention to compliance issues through sanctions and rewards

(Taxman, 2008). However, evidence-based supervision transforms traditional face-to-face

contacts between the officer and the individual on supervision by emphasizing the importance

of communication and the formation of a quality working relationship (Skeem et al., 2009;

Taxman & Ainsworth, 2009). How officers behave can affect whether individuals on proba-

tion perceive their experience as fair and just (Blasko & Taxman, 2018), and this perception

can affect supervision outcomes, including fewer violations and drug use days (Blasko et al.,

2015). Officers are encouraged to use motivational interviewing to address ambivalence to

change (W. R. Miller & Rollnick, 2013) and implement active listening, problem-solving, and

cognitive-behavioral techniques (Smith et al., 2012; Taxman, 2002) to achieve positive out-

comes (Toronjo, 2019; Toronjo & Taxman, 2017).

In addition to communication strategies and development of quality relationships, the risk,

reed, responsivity (RNR) model is a common framework used to guide an actuarial, manage-

rial based strategy that includes a clinical model of supervision (Andrews & Bonta, 2010;