Supervision— Exploring the Dimensions of Effectiveness

14 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 66 Number 2 Supervision— Exploring the Dimensions of Effectiveness Faye S. Taxman, Ph.D.* Bureau of Governmental Research, University of Maryland WITH OVER 4.2 million adults under of a punishment than other interventions. As limited impact on recidivism unless they in- criminal supervision and over one-third of we will discuss in this paper, a discussion clude a therapeutic component. The question the new intakes to prison a year being fail- about the effectiveness of supervision must that looms is how to incorporate the thera- ures from criminal supervision, the effective- ultimately require a revised model of how peutic component within the fabric of cor- ness of supervision is frequently questioned. supervision can impact offender outcomes. rectional programming to ensure that Meta-analysts had concluded that much in In this paper, we will review the existing lit- behavior change is a goal. Recent efforts have the correctional arena did not work (e.g., boot erature, outline the components of a model aimed at improving the capacity of the su- camps, intensive supervision, and case man- of supervision based on the evidenced-based pervision agencies to handle the offender be- agement) and some interventions work for literature in corrections and psychological havior in the community (Petersilia, 1999; select offenders (e.g., cognitive behavioral interventions, and identify some of the issues Taxman, 1998; Harrell et al., 2002), whether therapy, intensive supervision with treatment, that supervision agencies must address as they through drug court, systemic efforts, or treat- therapeutic community with aftercare). But move towards an evidenced-based model of ment as part of supervision. overall, the vast majority of correctional in- supervision. Researchers have generally concluded that terventions fall into the “don’t know” cat- intensive supervision is ineffective (Mac- egory, where we are unsure about the I. What Works in Supervision? kenzie, 2000; Sherman, et al., 1997). This effectiveness due to a lack of quality evalua- leaves open the question about the effective- For the past nearly two decades, incarcera- tions (e.g., drug courts, supervision, drug test- ness of general supervision, since it is gener- tion (overcrowding) and intermediate sanc- ing, outpatient programming, etc.) ally presumed that general supervision is tions have dominated the discussions in (MacKenzie, 2000; Taxman, 1999; Andrews different from intensive supervision. Byrne corrections. Intermediate sanctions devel- & Bonta, 1996; Martinson, 1974). The field and Pattavina (1992) point out that most of- oped as an approach to address overcrowd- of supervision is one area where very little is fenders complete supervision without a tech- ing, although it was widely recognized that known, primarily due to the scanty number nical violation or new arrest—nearly 60 intermediate sanction programs add intensity of studies that have been devoted to measur- percent according to the latest Bureau of Jus- to the seemingly stark community supervi- ing the effectiveness of overall supervision. tice report (Bureau of Justice Statistics, sion. Intermediate sanction programs were Since supervision is often considered to be 2001a,b)—and therefore supervision is viable. conceived and implemented as short inten- in the background of other programming But few studies have assessed the varying sive programs—such as day reporting centers, (e.g., outpatient therapy, cognitive behavioral frameworks for supervision that reflect dif- boot camps, intensive supervision programs, skill building, drug courts, day reporting pro- ferent missions/goals, different theoretical and drug courts—that use control and pun- grams, etc.), few studies have been devoted frameworks, and different operational com- ishment techniques to handle the correction to understanding what “works” in supervi- ponents. The available studies have not tried populations. Petersilia (1999), in a recent re- sion. The nature and activities of supervision to measure the differential effects of various view of the lessons learned during the decade are often considered inconsequential to effec- types of supervision. From a research perspec- of intermediate sanction programming, con- tiveness. The general impression is that su- tive, a series of randomized experiments or cluded that control-oriented programs have pervision is “in lieu of incarceration,” or less clinical trials is needed to understand the im- *We are indebted to the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services under grant 98-07-298149 for the project that allowed for the development of this model. All opinions are those of the authors and do not reflect the opinion of the sponsoring agency. Special acknowledgement to Brad Bogue & Teresa Herbert (JSAT); Judith Sachwald, Rick Sullivan & Ernest Eley (DPP); and Eric Shepardson & Lina Bello (BGR) for assisting in this project. All questions should be directed to Dr. Faye S. Taxman at [email protected] or (301) 403-4403. Do not cite without permission of Dr. Taxman. September 2002 DIMENSIONS OF EFFECTIVENESS 15 pact of different sanctions and a mixture of general assumption that more contacts are caseload with better outcomes if they had a supervision services, such as a comparison of needed for high-risk offenders to provide ex- smaller number of offenders to supervise. weekly to monthly contact, where it is hypoth- ternal controls on their behavior. With the average agent having over 100 of- esized that such incremental differences (four A number of studies have been conducted fenders to supervise, it was widely recognized contacts vs. one contact a month) could make to test the effectiveness of contacts on offender that such a caseload did not allow for appro- a difference in outcomes. outcomes, as shown in Table 1. Contacts have priate monitoring, oversight, or rapport Overall, there have been few rigorous as- been operationalized in two different ways: building. The preferred caseload size (rang- sessments of the effectiveness of different in- 1) increasing the number of times that there ing from 25 to 40 to one agent) in theory al- terventions in the field of supervision. The is personal exposure between the offender and lows the staff to devote more time to each case. majority of studies have related to caseload agent, generally referred to as intensive su- A series of studies on caseload size, beginning size and intensive supervision. Little has been pervision; and 2) reducing the span of con- in the 1970s, illustrated that the caseload size done on case management, risk assessment, trol of agents to a manageable caseload size did not make a difference in offender out- or models testing different philosophies of to allow the agent and the offender to inter- comes. Smaller caseloads did not reduce re- supervision. Overall, supervision is consid- act both more frequently and more directly arrest rates. In a recent study conducted by ered atheoretical in that it is the process of on criminogenic issues. These two concepts Latessa and his colleagues, offenders super- monitoring. It is typically based on no theory of supervision programs—number of con- vised in smaller caseloads had similar rearrest other than social control. Monitoring is rec- tacts and size of the caseload—have been rates to offenders on normal caseloads (75 or ognized as a form of external control by the studied in a number of experiments dating more). The researchers also found that offend- provision of an authority figure to monitor back to the 1960s. Results from the initiatives ers in smaller caseloads and traditional caseloads the adherence to certain restrictions (e.g., tended to indicate that increased contacts or received similar services (Latessa, Travis, Fulton curfews, drug use, gun possession, etc.). Es- smaller caseloads did not result in reduced & Stichman, 1998). Smaller caseloads did not sentially the external control model presumes recidivism (Petersilia & Turner, 1993a,b; result in fewer arrests or greater participation that the offender has the capacity and skills Petersilia, 1998; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, in treatment services. The studies tended to find to internalize the required change as part of 1985; Taxman, 1982; MacKenzie, 2000). that agents with reduced caseloads tended to be the compliance process. It also assumes that The most widely recognized evaluation of involved in more administrative duties than in the external controls will be perceived as lim- intensive supervision was conducted by Joan supervision of offenders. iting in the eyes of the offender, which will Petersilia and Susan Turner in the late 1980s/ The search for the magic number of con- ultimately improve offender compliance. early 1990s. The fourteen (14) site evaluations tacts and the appropriate caseload size has Supervision services are built on the of intensive supervision randomly assigned resulted in some disappointments, because framework that “contacts,” or the relation- offenders to intensive supervision (ranging the research continues to find that the quan- ship between the offender and the supervi- from 4 to 20 contacts a month) or general su- titative nature of contacts does not impact sion agent, are the cornerstone to managing pervision (refer to Table 2). Table 2 also illus- offender outcomes such as rearrest rates. and/or changing offender behavior. (Even in trates the focus of the supervision programs MacKenzie in her review of correctional pro- the control model, the anticipated

Load more