MI is an exemplar practice for CC implementation As a practice method, it offers probation and parole officers the skills needed to establish “dual relationships” between officers and offenders—the “just right” mix that research calls for to lower recidivism MI implementation is empowered by a unique, worldwide organization of experts that conducts and disseminates extensive research (“know”) combined with decades of application (“know-how”) to respond to CC departments As a result, MI offers feasible, effective, and cost-effective ToT models that make possible in-house training and ongoing coaching for model sustainability Finally, MI can continue to be implemented in unusual circumstances like the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, as MI training purveyors can deliver diverse training methods through safe and responsible distance-learning Further, in the future new-age “bot clients” and “conversational agents” will be able to train people in MI through computer simulation of human dialogue All of these factors make MI an important part of the vanguard for present—and future—EBP implementation © 2020 Administrative Office of the United States Courts All rights reserved
Michael L. Dennis Corey N. Smith Chestnut Health Systems Steven Belenko Temple University Danica Knight Texas Christian University Larkin McReynolds Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute Grace Rowan New York University Richard Dembo University of South Florida Ralph DiClemente New York University Angela Robertson Mississippi State University Tisha Wiley National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
There is a sizeable gap between the development and testing of innovations in health care and their delivery in routine practice settings. This gap is noted in many behavioral healthcare fields, including substance abuse (McGovern, Fox, Xie, & Drake, 2004; Miller, Sorensen, Selzer, & Brigham, 2006; Nilsen, 2010; Wandersman et al., 2008). While implementation science in recent years has focused on improving the use of evidencebased substance abuse intervention and prevention practices (EBP), very few studies have examined EBP implementation in settings that serve juvenile justice-involved youth (Development Services Group, Inc., 2015), which comprise a large number of youth presenting to substance abuse treatment (e.g., 39.6 percent of youth entering publicly funded treatment in 2017 were referred by the court/criminal justice system; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2019). Much of the literature addressing EBP implementation in those settings identifies the problem (the gap between science and practice; Development Services Group, Inc. 2015; McKee & Rapp, 2014; Seave, 2011), the challenges to implementation (e.g., EBP design and fit, training challenges, McKee & Rapp, 2014; Seave, 2011), and system-level suggestions for implementation (e.g., state-level implementation; Walker, Bumbarger, & Phillippi Jr., 2015; Welsh & Greenwood, 2015), but do not provide insight into implementation at the direct-care provider level. While it is known that the field is using EBPs (Henderson, Taxman, & Young, 2008), the lack of information about EBP implementation at the provider-level represents a significant gap in the literature.
Like many milestones, both personal and professional, the impending 30th anniversary of the United States Sentencing Guidelines presents a useful opportunity to reflect on the modern federal sentencing scheme and to contemplate what should happen going forward. One way to do that is by asking questions in the context of one of the federal system’s state predecessors, the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines. Like anything else, the Pennsylvania approach has strengths and weaknesses, but it can show that the federal model is not the only option. Sentencing is hard. This piece poses five questions, ranging from the use of discretionary parole release to the value of data and transparency to the role of sentencing guidelines and commissions in a well-functioning criminal justice system. The answers to these questions may offer possible opportunities for the improvement of federal sentencing over the next thirty years.
PROBATION IS THE most widely used alternative to incarceration (Phelps, 2013); therefore, the majority of the responsibility of monitoring criminal offenders in the commu nity falls on probation officials. One of many concerns for probation officers is offenders who abscond from supervision—that is, avoid contact with correctional supervisory agen cies. According to the state oversight agency for community supervision in Texas, the term absconder(s) is defined as:
IN THE CRIMINAL justice system, approximately 80 percent of 4,650,900 adults (Kaeble & Bonczar, 2017) and 60 percent of 974,900 juveniles (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2017) processed through the court system are placed on probation. Indeed, probation has been acknowledged as the most common form of community corrections for both adults and juveniles. The field of probation, and more specifically the adult or juvenile probation officers themselves, have grappled with numerous paradigm shifts and challenges, dealing with appropriate resource allocation, development of new treatment resources, offender supervision effectiveness, effects of caseload size and service quality, and potential risk and dangerousness management and the related community protection needs (Lutze, 2014).
ONE OF THE primary goals of the U.S. Pretrial Services System is to supervise federal defendants during their pretrial period in the community while also ensuring that these individuals do not pose a risk to the public. More specifically, under the Bail Reform Act of 1984, the court is tasked with setting the least restrictive conditions of release to reasonably ensure community safety and the defendant’s appearance in court as required. The functions and powers relating to the role of pretrial services in this process are outlined in Title 18 U.S.C. § 3154, which provides for (a) the investigation of federal defendants for bail-setting purposes, (b) the preparation of reports that provide risk-related information and recommendations to the court, and (c) the monitoring and enforcement of release conditions imposed by the court. Accordingly, authorities may wish to control or to monitor the location of an individual without resorting to the use of pretrial detention as a means to mitigate risk the defendant may pose prior to trial. One of the release conditions commonly used by pretrial services is location monitoring (also known as electronic monitoring). The Federal Location Monitoring Program (LMP) provides officers with the technology and capability to better monitor a defendant’s compliance with conditions of release, such as restrictions on residence, travel, curfew, and contacts, to name a few. Additionally, certain offenses such as those charged under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 also require the imposition of restrictive conditions of release, including electronic monitoring.1 In 2009, as a result of continued technological advancements and increasing policy requirements promulgated by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the District of New Jersey (the district) reorganized the supervision of location monitoring cases. A thoroughly trained specialized unit was developed with one supervisor solely responsible for the oversight of the location monitoring program. The focus of supervision work transitioned into more of a community-based supervision approach. This strategy improved the ability of officers
THE IMPLEMENTATION of evidence-based practices (EBP) into community corrections has become one of the most important initiatives in the field. Although the early focus was on effective programs for offenders, more recent emphasis has been on the skills needed for probation officers to provide effective supervision. This shift was partially due to a meta-analysis indicating that community supervision, as currently practiced, had virtually no effect on recidivism rates (Bonta, Rugge, Scott, Bourgon, & Yessine, 2008). However, Bonta et al. also noted that many officers were not practicing the riskneed-responsivity (RNR) principles, which is crucial to impacting recidivism rates. Prior meta-analytic reviews of treatment programs (see Andrews & Bonta, 2010) have found that not following RNR principles actually results in an increase in recidivism, while preliminary studies of officers randomly assigned to training in RNR show those offenders supervised by officers who adhere to the RNR model had lower recidivism rates. Given the potential for substantial reductions if the principles are followed, a number of training programs have been developed, including the Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS), Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS), and Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest (STARR). All of these programs aim to teach officers specific skills related to the risk-need-responsivity principles, with a particular emphasis on the use of cognitive-behavioral techniques. However, implementation research in a variety of settings has indicated that formal training alone is not effective in changing professional behavior, and research to date on the implementation of these programs shows similar results (Bonta et al., 2008). Research in other helping professions has noted the need for follow-up support to ensure that skills learned in training result in changes during actual practice (Miller, Yahne, Moyers, Martinez, & Pirritano, 2004; Walters, Matson, Baer, & Ziedonis, 2005). There is a substantial body of literature on the effectiveness of correction interventions and practices (see McGuire, 2000; Taxman, Shepardson, & Byrne, 2005; White and Graham, 2010) and works that highlight specific Principles of Correctional Interventions (National Institute of Corrections, n.d.) as central to evidence-based practices with offenders (see also Crime and Justice Institute, 2009; Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2006; Taxman et al., 2005). As noted by Rhine, Mawhorr, & Parks (2006), however, weak implementation can derail an otherwise effective program. The present study describes the strategy utilized by a federal probation district office in the implementation of the STARR training program. The purpose of this study is to highlight one district’s efforts to protect program integrity, the challenges faced by those efforts, and the outcomes of those efforts. The hope is that this information will help other federal probation offices improve their own implementation of the STARR program, as well as other criminal justice agencies seeking to implement similar programs or practices.
CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES ABOUT why commit crime are used-and misused-every day by legislative policy makers and community corrections managers when they develop initiatives, sanctions, and programs; and these theories are also being applied-and misapplied-by line community corrections officers in the workplace as they classify, supervise, counsel, and control offenders placed on their caseloads. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief overview of the major theories of crime causation and then to consider the implications of these criminological theories for current and future community corrections practice. Four distinct groups of theories will be examined: classical theories, biological theories, psychological theories, and sociological theories of crime causation. While the underlying assumptions of classical criminology have been used to justify a wide range of and corrections policies and practices over the past several decades, it is also possible to identify the influence of other theories of crime causation on corrections policies and practices during this same period. As we examine each group of theories, we consider how-and why-the basic functions of probation and parole officers change based on the theory of crime causation under review.When considering the link between theory and practice, it is important to remember the following basic truth: Criminologists disagree about both the causes and solutions to our crime problem. This does not mean that criminologists have little to offer to probation and parole officers in terms of practical advice; to the contrary, we think a discussion of cause is critical to the ongoing debate over the appropriate use of community-based sanctions, and the development of effective community corrections policies, practices, and programs. However, the degree of uncertainty on the cause-or causes-of our crime problem in the academic community suggests that a certain degree of skepticism is certainly in order when new crime control strategies are introduced. We need to look carefully at the theory of crime causation on which these initiatives are based. It is our view that since each group of theories we describe is applicable to at least some of the offenders under correctional control in this country, intervention strategies will need to be both crime- and offender-specific, if probation, parole, and other community corrections programs are to be successful as people changing agencies. But can we reasonably expect such diversity and flexibility from community corrections agencies, or is it more likely that one theory- or group of theories-will be the dominant influence on community corrections practice? Based on recent reviews of United States corrections history, we suspect that one group of theories-supported by a dominant political ideology-will continue to dominate until the challenges to its efficacy move the field- both ideologically and theoretically-in a direction. We may-or may not-be at such a watershed point in the United States today. See Table 1 below.1. CriminologyWhy do decide to break the law? To a classical criminologist, the answer is simple: The benefits of law breaking (such as money, property, revenge, and status) simply outweigh the potential costs/consequences of getting caught and convicted. When viewed from a classical perspective, we are all capable of committing crime in a given situation, but we make a rational decision (to act or desist) based on our analysis of the costs and benefits of the action. If this is true, then it is certainly possible to deter a potential offender by (1) developing a system of sentencing in which the punishment outweighs the (benefit of the) crime, and (2) ensuring both punishment certainty and celerity through efficient police and court administration. Classical theories of criminal behavior are appealing to criminal justice policy makers, because they are based on the premise that the key to solving the crime problem is to have a strong system of formal social control. …
