What Happens in Home Visits? Examining a Key Parole Activity

• Author: John P. Prevost,Sharon Johnson,George Braucht,Shila René Hawk,Tammy Meredith
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854820910173
• Published date: 01 May 2020
• Date: 01 May 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2020, Vol. 47, No. 5, May 2020, 601 –623.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820910173

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2020 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

601

WHAT HAPPENS IN HOME VISITS?

Examining a Key Parole Activity

TAMMY MEREDITH

SHILA RENÉ HAWK

SHARON JOHNSON

Applied Research Services, Inc.

JOHN P. PREVOST

Georgia State University

GEORGE BRAUCHT

Brauchtworks Consulting

Home visits provide a space for officer–supervisee encounters. However, little is known about the dynamics of home visits

and their association with supervision outcomes. This study examines the context, content, and role of home visits in parole.

Home visits are described using systematic observation data of officer-initiated contacts (N = 383). The average visit

included only those on parole, inside a single-family home, lasted 8 minutes, was conducive to discussions, and covered rules

and needs topics. A separate agency records dataset (N = 26,878) was used to estimate Cox hazard models. Findings suggest

that each visit is related to reduced risk of a new felony arrest or a revocation, controlling for criminogenic factors and super-

vision activities. Risk was further associated with a reduction if officers engaged in mixed-topic discussions (rules and needs).

Home visits can enable officers to help people on parole successfully navigate the challenges of reentry.

Keywords: parole; community corrections; supervision; home visits; reentry

INTRODUCTION

The majority of the nearly 900,000 U.S. residents on parole will fail one or more condi-

tions of supervision, resulting in violations, arrest, or revocation (Kaeble, 2018; Meredith &

Prevost, 2009). Determining what reduces supervision failure is a public health concern as

AUTHORS’ NOTE: This article was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice (2013-IJ-CX-0062). The contents of this document reflect the views of the authors and do

not represent the official opinion or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The authors wish to thank the

many people at the Georgia Department of Community Supervision who made this project a successful col-

laboration. The authors are also grateful to Dr. Mary A. Finn, Director and Professor of the School of Criminal

Justice at Michigan State University. Her contributions to this research were invaluable. The authors also

appreciate the reviewers who helped improve earlier versions. Correspondence concerning this article should

be addressed to Tammy Meredith, Applied Research Services, Inc., 3235 Cains Hill PL NW, Atlanta, GA 30305;

e-mail: meredith@ars-corp.com.

910173CJBXXX10.1177/0093854820910173Criminal Justice and BehaviorMeredith et al. / What Happens in Home Visits?

research-article2020

602 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

it can affect individual and community safety and wellness, corrections management, and

institutional spending. Research thoroughly examines the role of individual risk factors

(e.g., personal characteristics and criminal histories) on parole outcomes (Gendreau et al.,

1996; Petersilia, 1985, 2009), whereas far less attention is paid to the effects of specific

supervision activities (Grattet et al., 2011; Grattet & Lin, 2014; Luallen et al., 2013). This

study expands the correctional literature by examining a common supervision activity—

home visits.

Policymakers prioritize home visits as a critical supervision activity, despite the time,

cost, and concern for officer safety (Lindner, 1992). The practice is seen as a risk manage-

ment tool, and thus the time spent with people on parole varies based their assessed risk/

assigned supervision level (Bakke et al., 1990; DeMichele, 2007). Higher risk individuals

receive increased supervision intensity (i.e., closeness of monitoring or frequency of con-

tacts). However, research rarely delves into whether the home setting is a viable location for

reliable and valid supervision activities, and assessment of the independent effects of home

visits on supervision outcomes is limited (Ahlin et al., 2013; Aland, 2015). As a next step in

explaining “the role of supervision itself” in outcomes (Grattet et al., 2011, p. 373), this

study focuses on both systematically defining the attributes of home visits and examining

their association with parole outcomes.

Empirical assessments of risk–need–responsivity (RNR) variables posited to enhance

supervision effectiveness (Bonta & Andrews, 2007) have recently included examining

the intensity of supervision for its independent effects on parole outcomes (Grattet

et al., 2011; Grattet & Lin, 2014). The manner and how closely people on parole are

supervised (i.e., monitoring requirements) are often based on assessed risk. People on

parole assigned to the highest supervision risk/level receive the most intense supervi-

sion (including service provisions). Thus, research often measures supervision intensity

using individuals’ risk/level. Grattet and colleagues (2011) observed that the variation

in the effect of supervision on outcomes was in part due to differences in the application

of supervision standards by agency officials, pointing to the importance of measuring

the multiple dimensions of monitoring activities. Next, research measuring the actual

number and types of contacts is needed to fully understand dimensions of intensity. In

addition, subsequent research found that supervision intensity influenced some out-

comes but not others, pointing to the importance of examining multiple measures of

parole behaviors (Grattet & Lin, 2014). Acknowledging the dynamic interplay between

supervision monitoring and the behaviors of those supervised (Rudes, 2012), Grattet

and colleagues (2011) recommended that future research empirically disaggregate the

two, which would require data that independently measured both over time. We begin

to fill this gap using such data to estimate Cox hazard models1 with multiple measures

of supervision activities and behaviors, focusing on risk of arrest and revocation by

home visit frequency and discussion types.

Although increasing contact frequency would intuitively translate into more intensive

supervision, direct measurement of monitoring encounters is lacking in the literature.

Observation of officers as they encounter people on supervision may be important for

understanding how environment facilitates or impedes parole success. Observations of

interactions outside the comfort and safety of the office are particularly limited. Knowledge

of contact features, what officers communicate and with whom, all in the home setting

could contribute significantly to officers’ professional development and supervision