Taking the Leap: From Pilot Project to Wide-Scale Implementation of the Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS)

• Date: 01 June 2013
• Published date: 01 June 2013
• Author: Guy Bourgon,Carmen Gress,Leticia Gutierrez,Tanya Rugge,James Bonta
• DOI: 10.3818/JRP.15.1.2013.17
• Subject Matter: Toward Evidence-Based Decision Making in Community Corrections: Research and Strategies for Successful Implementation



*



Taking the Leap: From Pilot Project to Wide-Scale

Implementation of the Strategic Training Initiative

in Community Supervision (STICS)

James Bonta

Guy Bourgon

Tanya Rugge

Public Safety Canada

Carmen Gress

British Columbia Ministry of Justice

Leticia Gutierrez

Public Safety Canada

JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2013

© 2013 Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada

DOI: 10.3818/JRP.15.1.2013.17

This article is published with permission of the Government of Canada granted through

signed agreement.

* Abstract

Meta-analytic reviews of the offender rehabilitation literature have consistently demon-

strated that treatment can reduce recidivism. The majority of the treatment programs in

these reviews consist of small-scale demonstration projects (N < 100). Larger interven-

tions, although effective in reducing recidivism, do not produce as robust effects as the

smaller demonstration projects. The reasons for this may have to do more with quality

implementation issues rather than with the treatment itself. This article describes the

implementation plans for a previously validated probation off‌icer training intervention

that is being introduced across a large jurisdiction. The steps taken to ensure quality

implementation are outlined and obstacles that arose are discussed.

The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the views of Public Safety Canada or the

British Columbia Ministry of Justice. Correspondence can be addressed to the f‌irst author at

Jim.Bonta@ps.gc.ca or James Bonta, Public Safety Canada, 340 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa,

Ontario, Canada, K1A 0P8.

To w a r d Ev i d E n c E -Ba s E d dEc i s i o n Ma k i n g i n co M M u n i T y co r r E c T i o n s :

rE s E a r c h a n d sT r a T E g i E s f o r su c c E s s f u l iM p l E M E n Ta T i o n

P



The United States and many other jurisdictions are awakening to the reality that

getting tough on offenders has not reduced recidivism. The lessons learned from

the fruitless experimentation with mandatory sentences, lengthier prison sentences,

boot camps, electronic monitoring, and the myriad of correctional punishments

have renewed attention on offender rehabilitation. Although rehabilitation appears

to be enjoying a resurgent popularity within correctional policy, it remains to be

seen whether offender treatment programs will show an impact beyond the small

demonstration projects that represent the bulk of the treatment literature.

* Effectiveness of Offender Rehabilitation

What we understand to be “offender rehabilitation” has changed signif‌icantly

from Lipton, Martinson and Wilks’ (1975) conceptualization of what represented

a treatment program. At the time, Lipton et al. (1975) created confusion by mix-

ing setting factors (e.g., prison, probation) with the person-to-person delivery of

human services (e.g., counseling). Adams (1975), Palmer (1975), and Gendreau

and Ross (1979), among others, immediately recognized the error. Only human

services could rightfully represent a rehabilitative intervention. However, clinicians

and researchers also recognized that not all human services are equally effective.

Consequently, work began to delineate the characteristics of rehabilitation pro-

grams that were associated with effectiveness (i.e., reduced recidivism).

In 1990, Andrews, Bonta and Hoge outlined four principles that appeared to

govern treatment effectiveness. Treatment programs that demonstrated reduced

recidivism seemed to follow these principles:

Risk principle: Match the level of treatment services to the offender’s level

of risk. Higher risk offenders benef‌it from intensive services, whereas low-

risk offenders do just f‌ine with minimal services.

Need principle: The intervention should target criminogenic needs or those

dynamic factors related to criminal behavior.

Responsivity principle: Match the mode and style of intervention to the of-

fender’s personal characteristics and learning style. For the most part, offend-

ers are most responsive to cognitive-behavioral interventions, but specif‌ic

biopsychosocial characteristics of the offender (e.g., motivation, personality,

gender) may also need to be considered in order to maximize effectiveness.

Professional override: The professional may need to consider specif‌ic cir-

cumstances and factors not covered by the above three principles in tailor-

ing an effective intervention.

On the heels of the Andrews et al. (1990) publication came a test of the prin-

ciples. Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau, & Cullen (1990) conducted a

meta-analytic review of the offender rehabilitation literature. This meta-analysis

of

154 treatment comparisons essentially supported the principles of risk, need,

and