What Makes or Breaks Evidence-Based Supervision? Staff and Organizational Predictors of Evidence-Based Practice in Probation

• Author: Sara Debus-Sherrill,Alex Breno,Faye S. Taxman
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211049182
• Published date: 01 May 2023
• Date: 01 May 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211049182

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2023, Vol. 67(6-7) 662 –686

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X211049182

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

What Makes or Breaks

Evidence-Based Supervision?

Staff and Organizational

Predictors of Evidence-Based

Practice in Probation

Sara Debus-Sherrill1, Alex Breno1,

and Faye S. Taxman1

Abstract

Research on staff and organizational factors that affect receptivity, adoption, feasibility,

and utilization of innovations in justice settings is limited. This study uses survey data

from 349 employees in one probation agency to assess how staff and perceived

organizational factors influence attitudes related to evidence-based practices (EBPs)

and their self-reported use. Staff characteristics, including education and knowledge

about EBPs, and perceptions of the organization, including cynicism about the

organization’s ability to change, predicted EBP outcomes. Staff age, tenure at the

agency, and caseload size affected perceptions of organizational culture, but did not

predict attitudes or use of EBPs. There is weak evidence for a relationship between

self-reported use of EBPs with attitudinal support for EBPs, prior EBP training, and

knowledge of EBPs. This study contributes to an emerging body of literature about

the impact of various individual and organizational factors on support for EBPs with

important lessons for implementation.

Keywords

probation, implementation, organizational culture, evidenced based practices, multi-

level approaches

1George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Faye S. Taxman, George Mason University, 4400 University Boulevard, Fairfax, VA 22030-4444, USA.

Email: ftaxman@gmu.edu

1049182IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X211049182International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyDebus-Sherrill et al.

research-article2021

Debus-Sherrill et al. 663

The recent push in community corrections to embrace evidence-based practices

(EBPs), or those practices that have empirical support for producing better out-

comes, has been supported by reform organizations as a means to reducing recidi-

vism and the use of incarceration. The range of EBPs include the use of a risk and

need assessment tool validated on the population of that agency, the use of a stan-

dard case planning tool, the assignment of individuals to treatment based on risk-

need factors, the matching of service dosage to a person’s risk-need profile, the use

of incentives and sanctions, and a working relationship between the officer and

probation client which fosters an environment of trust for the delivery of probation

services (see Taxman, 2008 for a discussion of EBPs). The EBP movement has been

embraced by the community but it has also met with a number of organizational

challenges which can impede the implementation of EBPs on a larger scale. These

challenges vary from infrastructure, leadership, resources, support at the line staff

level, interagency support, and competition among organizational goals (Dyck et al.,

2018; Fixsen et al., 2009; Rudes et al., 2012; Viglione, 2017; Viglione et al., 2015).

A small number of studies have examined factors affecting support for EBPs at the

staff and organizational level. Understanding the relative influence of both staff and

organizational factors fosters an understanding of implementation efforts that might

better address the needs of probation agencies. This study contributes to the litera-

ture with a review of factors that affect implementation of innovations in a supervi-

sion agency.

Nearly five million adults are on probation in the U.S. with the average probation

officer having caseloads that range from 75 to 100 clients per person (Kaeble, 2018;

Taxman, 2012). Probation is often considered to be a complex setting with goals set by

the judge (i.e., retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation, deterrence, etc.) and the oper-

ational goals of the agency which favor containment (enforcement of conditions),

rehabilitation, or some hybrid. The sentencing goals and operational goals may con-

flict, and EBPs are typically more geared toward the operational goals focused on

helping the individual succeed in reentry. Probation officers often wear two hats—

containment and therapeutic (or social work). EBPs focus more on clinical or thera-

peutic goals of supervision instead of containment. Therapeutic models of supervision

emphasize addressing dynamic risk factors through services and officers serving as a

behavioral change agent. In contrast, containment focuses on conditions of supervi-

sion ordered by the judge with officers abiding by these orders (Taxman, 2008, 2018).

While officers may use both therapeutic and containment approaches, the emphasis on

compliance with conditions often has the effect of overriding therapeutic approaches

(Blasko et al., 2018). As noted by Thurman et al. (2019), when developing case plans,

officers tend to emphasize mandated conditions of supervision without giving atten-

tion to the treatment needs that affect criminal behavior. Moreover, ordered condi-

tions, even treatment orders, may not be consistent with the results from a risk and

need assessment tool. This tension between containment and therapeutic often serves

to undermine the implementation of EBPs (Viglione et al., 2015).

The shift from containment models of supervision to EBPs requires attention to

the organizational culture and staff in an agency. A positive organizational culture can