Evidence-Based Practices
Contextualizing the above answers , one respondent bluntly stated that “ we are trying to do supervision that works . We believe in the evidence based practices approach , but carrying them out can be difficult .” Another respondent mentioned that “ we are in the process of instituting evidence-based practices and redistributing caseloads to focus more resources on higher risk offenders and better target our interventions .” These respondents focus on the need for developing effective strategies to intervene in offenders ’ lives , which is not easy . Indeed , it can be “ difficult ” to say the least . One respondent emphasized further the movement in community corrections to evidence-based practices decision making when he or she commented that “ recent implementations of new assessment tools , with incorporation of motivational interviewing , cognitive restructuring , and case planning has emphasized targeting high-risk offenders .”
The point here is that if evidence-based practices are going to amount to more than another catch phrase , then appropriate funding and personnel decisions are necessary preconditions . It seems that community corrections agencies , at least judging from the respondents to this survey , are seriously incorporating the notions advanced in the evidence-based practices literature . While agencies are interested in evidence-based practices , it appears that the lack of funding for fully implementing such changes fosters a half-hearted attempt .
Central to evidence-based practices is the use of specialized caseloads . Interventions should be targeted at an individual ’ s risks and needs , with little intervention planned for low-risk offenders and more directed ( even intense ) supervision for higher risk offenders . Respondents also commented on the trend toward developing specialized units for high-risk offenders , such as sex offenders . “ Our department ,” according to one respondent , “ has more specialized and high-risk officers and casebooks than basic or general casebooks .” They go on to state that “ this has become a trend .” Consider another respondent ’ s comment : “ The proliferation and use of GPS with sex offenders has significantly increased our workloads and thus has altered our resource allocations .”
Anyone familiar with contemporary crime and justice issues is aware of the increased use of GPS to track offenders . For the most part , there has been little critical attention to using this tool as part of community supervision , especially from a pragmatic view of how these technologies affect workload . Consider one respondent ’ s view : “ The proliferation and use of GPS with sex offenders has significantly increased our workloads and thus altered our resource allocation .”
Discussion back to top
Community supervision of offenders is one of the fastest growing justice system practices . Comments from the probation and parole officials in this study showed a concern about goal ambiguity , funding , and evidence-based practices . Based on the feedback from this sample of respondents , attention can be given to the way that these three themes can be addressed .
A growing area of emphasis for probation administrators is how to supervise more efficiently nonviolent offenders presenting relatively low levels of risk to the community ( Dedel-Johnson , Austin , and Davies , 2002 ). Probation administrators are responsible for providing adequate levels of supervision and intervention to offenders , based upon individual risks and criminogenic needs ( see Andrews et al ., 1990 ). The potential exists for probation to over-supervise some offenders ( i . e ., the low risk ) and divert resources — both time and funds — from the offenders presenting the greatest risk ( i . e ., repeat violent offenders ).
Probation is routinely criticized for being soft on criminals . Over a three-year period , Langan ( 1994 ) analyzed survey data from 12,370 State probationers convicted of a felony during their probation supervision . Few probation departments adequately enforced conditions , as 69 percent of probationers did not pay supervision fees , 40 percent failed to pay restitution , and 32 percent never received ordered drug treatment . Many offenders do not complete the terms of their community supervision , with the best national figures estimating that about two-thirds of