Our Research Agenda is the compass that guides our quest for knowledge and improvement in community supervision.
"Adhering to BEST practices while pursuing NEXT practices"
- DCS Commissioner Michael W. Nail
Regarding legal system issues, especially community supervision, we tend to focus on what’s easy to measure, such as success rates or population size. These metrics, however, have limited actionable information. For example, the overrepresentation of justice-involved people with mental illness—despite plenty of research showing mental illness as an unreliable predictor of criminal behavior—is a complicated paradox worthy of deeper examination. Rather than describe a problem, practitioners want to improve services.
Specifically for DCS, we want to sculpt a more humane and productive type of probation and parole. We routinely partner with the academic community to study the interplay between the legal system and the social contexts of people’s lives. Explore our Research Agenda to gain a deeper understanding of the questions we're asking, the solutions we're seeking, and the impact we aim to achieve.
Our Research Agenda is accessible for viewing and downloading as a PDF. Browse the agenda below, or click download pdf to save to your files.
Delivering quality supervision takes time
Officer-supervisee relationships are important for successful outcomes
Allowing feedback promotes fairness
Addressing barriers is critical to success
With the nation’s highest caseloads, DCS must analyze statistical trends to determine where to focus its limited resources. Following the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) framework, the first step of productive supervision entails matching people’s intervention intensity with their likelihood of reoffending (i.e., the Risk principle).
We are advancing knowledge in this area in two ways:
With support from the National Institute of Justice, we are developing a new risk instrument to predict the probability of felony or violent-misdemeanor arrests for individuals on probation or parole. The IDRACS project has multiple objectives: (a) testing artificial intelligence/machine learning algorithms against traditional statistical models, (b) incorporating dynamic variables, (c) identifying protective factors, and (d) integrating uncertainty into predictions. In short, IDRACS will assess risk factors to inform supervision strategies in real-time.
Regardless of academic findings or algorithms, the responsibility of implementing Person-Centered Supervision rests on the shoulders of officers. For instance, officers often exercise discretion when applying risk algorithms, but the impact of deviating from a risk tool is unclear. Therefore, this project examines the relationship between officer overrides and recidivism.
Reoffending is most likely during the first 10-18 months of supervision, and long supervision terms fail to deliver better results. Additionally, incentives are more effective than sanctions at improving outcomes.
In fact, the most valued incentive among individuals is reduced supervision length. Two paths in which this occurs are Unsupervised Status and Early Termination.
Anyone who completes two years of a probation term without issue is eligible for the incentive of no longer reporting to an officer (i.e., Unsupervised Status). Nevertheless, we know little about who receives this incentive or the success rate among those who do. This study aims to fill that gap.
This project will evaluate Georgia's most recent probation reforms that aim to reduce the supervision population through early terminations. The research study examines three areas: (a) Implementation/Process, (b) Criminal Justice Outcomes, and (c) Organizational Impact.
The quality of officer-supervisee relationships heavily influences the success of interventions. As such, it is critical to understand the factors that hinder these relationships, and officer stress is a prime candidate. To this end, we are conducting a series of projects examining the role of officer stress in building working alliances with supervisees and how the resulting relationships impact criminal justice outcomes. Two examples are:
The limited community supervision officer (CSO) stress research often uses subjective reports and rarely incorporates biological measures. Subjective reports of stress are informative but can suffer from recall bias and social desirability, which do not always correlate with the output of the physiological mediators of stress. This study fills this gap by describing CSOs’ daily cortisol profile during their regular work days. Findings will shed light on the utility of incorporating such biological measures in CSO stress research.
Despite expanding the knowledge base on “what works” in community supervision, we have only seen modest gains in criminal justice outcomes. Given that implementing new interventions is the responsibility of CSOs, a deeper understanding of the factors that influence their adoption of evidence-based practices is critical to the effectiveness of probation and parole. To this end, we assess whether increased stress among CSOs is associated with their likelihood of delivering the Enhanced Supervision Program (ESP), a research-informed initiative for improving officer-supervisee relationships.
Incarceration, even for short periods, interferes with employment, disrupts treatment, and isolates people from their support systems. Further, a key ingredient in effective supervision services is a positive working relationship between officers and their clients, but an overreliance on jails hinders the relationship-building process.
For example, the Probation Options Management (POM) Act, an administrative process for officers to bypass courts and jails when resolving technical violations, is vastly underutilized across the state. Therefore, we are conducting a Jail Impact Study to inform strategies for reducing jail use without compromising public safety. We are in the first two stages of this research project.
Assess the relationship between using jail sanctions and the likelihood of recidivism upon release.
Examine the association between experiencing the incarceration of a household member during childhood and legal system involvement as an adult.
Where the risk principle tells us who to treat, the need principle tells us what to treat. Criminogenic needs are those factors in a person’s life directly related to recidivism. However, there is often a service gap for supervision agencies around two of the most prevalent criminogenic needs: antisocial associates and a lack of prosocial support.
Furthermore, an internal analysis revealed that people labeled with gang affiliation experience worse supervision outcomes than those without a gang label. For instance, only 9% of the DCS population is a known gang associate, but they comprise 18% of all revocations.
Therefore, DCS is seeking support to implement and evaluate a pilot project that stands up a joint mentor/officer caseload directed toward providing strengths-based programming to gang-involved young adults with the objectives of reducing recidivism, increasing prosocial support, and building trusting relationships between officers and the persons they supervise. The joint supervision model combines the skills of formerly incarcerated peer mentors with those of specially trained DCS officers.
Within three years of their release from prison, two out of three people experience rearrests, and 39% are
re-incarcerated. For these reasons, many states have revitalized prison programming into Therapeutic Communities (TC). Incorporating elements like peer mentorship and social navigation, a few studies have found that TCs show promise in improving the success rates of people reintegrating into society.
Drawing on the lived experiences of its participants, DCS is part of a large-scale effort to study a Georgia correctional TC, the ‘Men of Destiny’ program. Findings will shed light on the nuanced needs of persons reentering our communities after incarceration and spark conversations on the importance of rehabilitative programming during confinement.
Facing complex challenges (e.g., homelessness, addiction, and victimization), individuals with mental illnesses experience increased odds of supervision failure, such as rearrests and revocations. Unsurprisingly, assisting people with mental illness takes an emotional toll on officers, which affects their willingness or ability to deliver evidence-based supervision. Hence, we devote much attention to increasing our understanding of the intersection between community supervision and mental illness.
With support from the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program, we are conducting a multi-site pilot project to improve service delivery for people with mental health needs. This project will support officers through clinical case consultations that build their skills and knowledge to effectively assist clients with mental illnesses.
In addition to matching risk level to supervision intensity and prioritizing the criminogenic needs that drive recidivism, the RNR framework calls for us to address individual characteristics that inhibit engagement in and adherence to supervision (i.e., the Responsivity principle). Yet, it is unclear how including a mental health condition as part of a person’s parole impacts their supervision experience. Therefore, we are assessing the relationships between mental health conditions, officer decisions, mental health engagement of supervisees, and criminal justice outcomes.
A disproportionate number of supervisees are dealing with substance use issues, which is one of the primary criminogenic needs directly related to recidivism. Thus, DCS offers an array of direct services to help people with addiction. Two of these services are Day Reporting Centers and the Matrix Recovery Program.
Since 2002, DCS has provided evidence-based behavioral health services through DRCs, including community supervision, cognitive behavioral therapy (i.e., Moral Reconation Therapy), addiction treatment, and psychosocial interventions (e.g., GED, vocational training, and family reunification services). Given the scope of services provided, there was a need to assess the quality of DRCs to ensure they are implemented in accordance with research. For this reason, we developed the DRC-PAT as a validated instrument for evaluating program quality across all DRCs.
We are analyzing administrative data to examine the features that predict substance use treatment outcomes among Matrix and DRC participants.