Does Training and Coaching Matter? An 18-Month Evaluation of a Community Supervision Model

REFERENCES

• Alexander, M., Palombo, L., Cameron, E., Wooten, E., White, M., Casey, M., & Bersch, C. (2013). Coaching: The true path to proficiency, from an officer’s perspective. Federal Probation, 77(2), 64–68.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (2006). Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment: A meta-analytic investigation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(1), 88–100. doi:10.1177/0306624X05282556
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., & Kiessling, J. J. (1980). Program structure and effective correctional practices: A summary of the CaVic research. In R. R. Ross, & P. Gendreau (Eds.), Effective correctional treatment (pp. 441–463). Toronto, Canada: Butterworths.
   Google Scholar
• Austin, J., & Irwin, J. (2012). It’s about time: America’s imprisonment binge (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T., Yessine, A. K., Gutierrez, L., & Li, J. (2010). The strategic training initiative in community supervision: Risk-need-responsivity in the real world (User Report 2010-01). Ottawa, Canada: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T., Yessine, A. K., Gutierrez, L., & Li, J. (2011). An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(11), 1127–1148. doi:10.1177/0093854811420678
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Scott, T., Bourgon, G., & Yessine, A. K. (2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47(3), 248–270. doi:10.1080/10509670802134085
   Google Scholar
• Bourgon, G., Bonta, J., Rugge, T., & Gutierrez, L. (2010). Technology transfer: The importance of ongoing clinical supervision in translating “what works” to everyday community supervision. In F. McNeill, P. Raynor, & C. Trotter (Eds.), Offender supervision: New directions in theory, research and practice (pp. 91–112). New York, NY: Willan Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Bourgon, G., Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Scott, T., & Yessine, A. K. (2010). The role of program design, implementation, and evaluation in evidence-based “real world” community supervision. Federal Probation, 74(1), 2–15.
   Google Scholar
• Bourgon, G., & Gutierrez, L. (2012). The general responsivity principle in community supervision: The importance of probation officers using cognitive intervention techniques and its influence on recidivism. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(2), 149–166. doi:10.1080/0735648X.2012.674816
   Google Scholar
• Bourgon, G., Gutierrez, L., & Ashton, J. (2012). The evolution of community supervision practice: The transformation from case manager to change agent. Federal Probation, 76(2), 27–35.
   Google Scholar
• Burrell, W. D. (2012). Community corrections management: Issues and strategies. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Clear, T. R. (1994). Harm in American penology: Offenders, victims, and their communities. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power and analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Cullen, F. T., & Gilbert, K. E. (1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2011). Rehabilitation and treatment programs. In J. Q. Wilson, & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime and public policy (pp. 293–344). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2004). The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(2), 203–214. doi:10.1177/0306624X03257765
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gendreau, P., Andrews, D. A., & Theriault, Y. (2010). Correctional Program Assessment Inventory—2010 (CPAI-2100). Saint John, Canada: University of New Brunswick.
   Google Scholar
• Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (1999). The forgotten issue in effective correctional treatment: Program implementation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43(2), 180–187. doi:10.1177/0306624X99432005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
   Google Scholar
• Labrecque, R. M., Schweitzer, M., & Smith, P. (2014). Exploring the perceptions of the offender-officer relationship in a community supervision setting. Journal of International Criminal Justice Research, 1, 31–46. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/121424.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Labrecque, R. M., Schweitzer, M., & Smith, P. (2013). Probation and parole officer adherence to the core correctional practices: An evaluation of 755 offender-officer interactions. Advancing Practices, 3, 20–23.
   Google Scholar
• Labrecque, R. M., Smith, P., Schweitzer, M., & Thompson, C. (2013). Targeting antisocial attitudes in community supervision using the EPICS model: An examination of change scores on the Criminal Sentiment Scale. Federal Probation, 77(3), 15–20.
   Google Scholar
• Latessa, E. J., Smith, P., Schweitzer, M., & Labrecque, R. M. (2012). Evaluation of the Effective Practices in Community Supervision model (EPICS) in Ohio. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
   Google Scholar
• Lowenkamp, C. T., Alexander, M., & Robinson, C. R. (2013). Using 20 minutes wisely: Community supervision officers as agents of change. In J. Smykla, & M. Crow (Eds.), Offender reentry: 21st century issues (pp. 181–202). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
   Google Scholar
• Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., Flores, A. W., Koutsenok, I., & Pearl, N. (2013). Changing probation officer attitudes: Training experience, motivation, and knowledge. Federal Probation, 77(2), 54–58.
   Google Scholar
• Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., Robinson, C. R., & Alexander, M. (2014). Diminishing or durable treatment effects of STARR? A research note on 24-month re-arrest rates. Journal of Crime and Justice, 37(2), 275–283. doi:10.1080/0735648X.2012.753849
   Google Scholar
• Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology and Public Policy, 5(3), 575–594. doi:10.1111/cpp.2006.5.issue-3
   Google Scholar
• Lowenkamp, C. T., Robinson, C. R., VanBenschoten, S. W., & Alexander, M. (2011). Initial STARR results: A positive step forward. News & Views: A Biweekly Newsletter of the United States Probation and Pretrial Services System, 36(8), 3–4.
   Google Scholar
• Lowenkamp, M. S., Robinson, C. R., Koutsenok, I., Lowenkamp, C. T., & Pearl, N. (2012). The importance of coaching: A brief survey of probation officers. Federal Probation, 76(2), 36–39.
   Google Scholar
• MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest, 35, 22–54.
   Google Scholar
• Maruschak, L. M., & Parks, E. (2012). Probation and parole in the United States, 2011. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Matthews, B., Hubbard, D. J., & Latessa, E. J. (2001). Making the next step: Using evaluability assessment to improve correctional programming. The Prison Journal, 81(4), 454–472. doi:10.1177/0032885501081004003
   Google Scholar
• McGuire, J. (2002). Integrating findings from research reviews. In J. Maguire (Ed.), Offender rehabilitation and treatment: Effective programmes and policies to reduce re-offending (pp. 3–38). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• McGuire, J. (2013). “What works” to reduce re-offending: 18 years on. In L. A. Craig, L. Dixon, & T. A. Gannon (Eds.), What works in offender rehabilitation: An evidence-based approach to assessment and treatment (pp. 20–49). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 17, pp. 281–335). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, C. R., Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., VanBenschoten, S. W., Alexander, M., & Oleson, J. C. (2012). A random study of Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest (STARR): Using core correctional practices in probation interactions. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(2), 167–188. doi:10.1080/0735648X.2012.674823
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, C. R., VanBenschoten, S., Alexander, M., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2011). A random (almost) study of staff training aimed at reducing re-arrest (STARR): Reducing recidivism through intentional design. Federal Probation, 75(2), 57–63.
   Google Scholar
• Rothman, D. J. (1980). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its alternatives in progressive America. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Skeem, J. L., Eno Louden, J., Polaschek, D., & Camp, J. (2007). Assessing relationship quality in mandated community treatment: Blending care with control. Psychological Assessment, 19(4), 397–410. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.19.4.397
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skeem, J. L., & Manchak, S. (2008). Back to the future: From Klockars’ model of effective supervision to evidence-based practice in probation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47(3), 220–247. doi:10.1080/10509670802134069
   Google Scholar
• Smith, P., Schweitzer, M., Labrecque, R. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2012). Improving probation officers’ supervision skills: An evaluation of the EPICS model. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(2), 189–199. doi:10.1080/0735648X.2012.674826
   Google Scholar
• Solomon, A. L.. (2006, Spring). Does parole supervision work? Research findings and policy opportunities. Perspectives, 30(2), 26–37.
   Google Scholar
• Taxman, F. S. (2008). No illusions: Offender and organizational change in Maryland’s proactive community supervision efforts. Criminology & Public Policy, 7(2), 275–302. doi:10.1111/cpp.2008.7.issue-2
   Google Scholar
• Trotter, C. (2006). Working with involuntary clients: A guide to practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Trotter, C. (2013). Reducing recidivism through probation supervision: What we know and don’t know from four decades of research. Federal Probation, 77(2), 43–48.
   Google Scholar