Abstract

The body of research and literature referred to as “evidence-based practice” (EBP) holds enormous potential for improving the outcomes of probation and parole. The commitment to EBP must not only reflect the principles that drive effective correctional intervention, but also incorporate the growing body of knowledge that speaks to the “science of implementation.” Efforts to date to adopt EBP reflect five important lessons for agencies to consider: the investment of time is a critical issue to successful implementation; training alone is not sufficient; the assessment of risk and need is the foundation of EBP; measurement is essential; and collaboration is a core strategy for successful implementation. If the retooling of community corrections towards EBP remains largely unfinished business, the obstacles to doing so are not insurmountable as substantial resources and significant experiences are available to draw upon.

Abstract

Probation and parole professionals argue that supervision outcomes would improve if caseloads were reduced below commonly achieved standards. Criminal justice researchers are skeptical because random assignment and strong observation studies have failed to show that criminal recidivism falls with reductions in caseload sizes. One explanation is that caseload reduction by itself is insufficient; supervision must also be allotted and distributed to make the best use of supervision resources, a cornerstone of evidence-based practice (EBP). This study uses a regression discontinuity design (RDD) to test the null hypothesis that reduced caseload in an agency using EBP has no effect on criminal recidivism. Our conclusions are that reduced caseloads in this context probably reduce criminal recidivism and probably do not increase revocations for technical violations.