Back to top

Evidence-based practice

“Employment is a key to community reintegration for both people with mental illness and those with justice involvement. At present, the empirical literature on employment services for justice-involved people with or without mental illness is meager. By contrast, an extensive evidence base documents the effectiveness of a specific employment model for people with severe mental illness: the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) model of supported employment” (p. 1). This publication covers: the IPS Model of Supported Employment; current trends in IPS services for justice-involved people; vocational programs for ex-offenders; and adaptations of IPS for justice-involved people.

Supported Employment for Justice-Involved People with Mental Illness Cover

The instrumental use of evidence-based research for influencing the passage of reform efforts affecting the juvenile justice system in Ohio is explained. “Many states across the country face the challenges posed by young people in the juvenile justice system. Ohio is among the few states that has created and implemented innovative funding strategies and relied on research and evaluation to improve its approach” (p. i). Sections following an executive summary are: introduction—case study as a learning tool and overview of partners and policy change with a focus on child well-being; leveraging the policy window—political climate, juvenile justice landscape in Ohio pre-reform and key stakeholders; juvenile justice as a compelling social problem—the role of policy research in making the case for reform; agenda-setting and framing solutions to “invest in what works”—using research to inform a policy reform plan; spheres of influence model—core team and collaborative strategy for juvenile justice policy reform; juvenile justice policies achieved within House Bill 86 reflect research-based, child development, and well-being perspective; and principles and implications for future policy reform efforts.

The Bridge to Somewhere: How Research Made its Way into Legislative Juvenile Justice Reform in Ohio: A Case Study|Revised [edition] Cover

Risk and need (RNR) assessments have been administered in the criminal justice system for decades but often have not influenced professional decision-making in intended ways. Although these assessments should improve outcomes by matching individuals to indicated services, information derived from these tools has often been ignored or has been connected to increased incarceration rates and unfair racial and ethnic disparities. For example, people classified as high risk may be more likely to be detained pretrial or to receive a jail or prison sentence, when almost no tools have been developed or validated for this purpose. Most commonly used tools were created to set community-based conditions of treatment and supervision in lieu of detention. Especially in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and discussions around criminal justice reform, practitioners and policy makers must understand what RNR is and how it should be applied correctly to enhance both public health and public safety. This webinar seeks to define the core principles and practical application of Risk-Need-Responsivity along with strategies to create and maintain critical collaborative relationships to achieve reentry goals.

Learning Objectives: During this 90-minute webinar, participants will:

  • Understand how common fallacies and misunderstandings about RNR principles have contributed to unnecessary reliance on incarceration and links to racial and ethnic disparities
  • Learn how proper use of RNR can reduce disparities, enhance criminal justice outcomes, and contribute to effective and equitable justice reform
  • Experience a practical application of the principles in a case study of reintegrating individuals within Multnomah County, Oregon
  • Learn strategies to create and maintain collaborative relationships to achieve your jurisdiction’s reentry goals

This webinar was originally broadcast  July 21, 2021/ 11am PT / 12pm MT /1pm CT / 2pm ET for 90 minutes.

 

Speakers
Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D., is a senior scientific consultant for the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) and senior science and policy advisor for Alcohol Monitoring Systems. Previously, he was the chief of science, law and policy for NADCP, the director of law and ethics research at the Treatment Research Institute, and an adjunct associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. Dr. Marlowe has published over 175 journal articles, monographs, books, and book chapters on the topics of correctional rehabilitation, forensic psychology, and treatment of substance use disorders.

Erika Preuitt is the director of Multnomah County Department of Community Justice in Oregon, which provides adult and juvenile probation, pretrial release detention and parole and juvenile services. Ms. Preuitt has over twenty years of experience with the Department of Community Justice. Her core value is that people can change, and she is committed to evidence-based practices and community engagement and partnership. Ms. Preuitt is also the immediate past-president of the American Probation and Parole Association. She has served in several leadership roles in APPA.

Mack Jenkins’s career in the criminal justice system spanned four decades. Chief Jenkins retired as the chief probation officer for San Diego County, where he oversaw a department of more than 1,300 staff who provided supervision and services to more than 13,000 adults and 2,500 juveniles under supervision. During his career, Jenkins has developed expertise in the use of evidenced-based practices for community supervision, implemented special supervision programs for people with domestic violence and sex crime convictions, and managed reentry programs for justice-involved juveniles. He has more than 20 years of experience working in drug courts and collaborative justice programs. While chief in San Diego, he chaired both the San Diego County Community Corrections Partnership and the Juvenile justice Coordinating Council.

 

 

The Foundation of Practical Application of Risk, Need, and Responsivity in the Age of COVID-19 and Justice Reform [Webinar]

This report explains why the current probation officer to supervisor ratio (7:1 span of control) should not be increased to a higher level due to significant impacts on the implementation and sustainability of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in the Community Based Correctional System in Iowa. Span of control is “the number of individuals, or resources, that a person can effectively supervise within a structured organizational, business of military setting” (p. i). Sections of this report following an executive summary are: the importance of a low span of control in effective implementation of EBPs for probation and parole; findings on the impact of this low span of control; probation officer competencies; application of theoretical span of control factors to an EBP probation and parole environment; and conclusions and considerations.

The Importance of a Low Span of Control in Effective Implementation of Evidence Based Probation and Parole Practices Cover
Recognizing the importance of effective reentry practices at the federal, state, and local levels, in September 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) co-sponsored the National Reentry Symposium: Promising Practices and Future Directions.Throughout the two-day session, federal and state representatives from each of the BOP’s six national regions met as teams to discuss methods to enhance federal and state collaborative efforts within their regions.The culmination of the Symposium was the development of regionally based reentry action plans designed to reduce the likelihood of recidivism through improved coordination and collaboration and the delivery of enhanced evidence-based programs and services. This report is a summary of that meeting. 
The Reentry of Formerly Incarcerated Persons Cover

The use of Strategy in Training Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS), a comprehensive model for community supervision, is discussed. Those individuals involved with community corrections and its increased effectiveness should read this article. It will explain how to transfer evidence-based practice into “real world” community supervision. Topics covered include: the emergence of the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model; the Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision—program design, implementation, and evaluation issues; and steps to bringing “what works” to the real world.

The Role of Program Design, Implementation, and Evaluation in Evidence-Based 'Real World' Community Supervision Color

The application of the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation to one-on-one supervision of offenders placed under probation is examined. This RNR-based training program is called the Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS). Sections of this report include: abstract; the RNR model of offender rehabilitation; the present study; method; results for the success of random assignment, length and content of session discussions, quality of probation officers’ skills and intervention techniques, recidivism, and clinical support; and discussion. “The results showed that the trained probation officers evidenced more of the RNR-based skills and that their clients had a lower recidivism rate” (p. ii).

The Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision: Risk-Need-Responsivity in the Real World Cover

Articles in this issue include:

  • “Foreword” by Ken Rose
  • “A Framework for Implementing Evidence-Based Practices in Pretrial Services” by John Clark
  • “Advancing Evidence-Based Practices in the Pretrial Field” by Katie Green, Pat Smith, and Kristina Bryant
  • “Improving Pretrial Assessment and Supervision in Colorado” by Michael R. Jones and Sue Ferrere
  • “Pretrial Defendants: Are They Getting Too Much of a Good Thing?” by Barbara M. Hankey
  • “Charge Specialty and Revictimization of Defendants Charged with Domestic Violence Offenses” by Spurgeon Kennedy
  • “Pretrial Rearrests Among Domestic Violence Defendants in New York City” by Richard R. Peterson
Topics in Community Corrections, Annual Issue 2008: Applying Evidence-Based Practices in Pretrial Services Cover

This publication "contains invited articles on community corrections, with special emphasis on successful implementation strategies. A common thread that runs through these articles relates to what is needed to better ensure fidelity to evidence-based practices in community supervision and treatment. The research and implementation strategies shared by the authors should provide greater guidance to agency and program administrators working to assimilate evidence-based practices into their organizations" (p. 1). Articles include: "Current Practice and Challenges in Evidence-Based Community Corrections" by Stephen M. Haas; "STICS: From Pilot Project to Wide-Scale Implementation" - review; "Motivational Interviewing Proficiency in Corrections" – review; "Ohio Youth Assessment System – Creation, Validation, and Implementation" – review; "Actuarial Risk/Need Assessment and Its Effect on Supervision Revocation" – review; and "Establishing the Proper Risk-Dosage Relationship" – review. Each review explains: why the study was done; what the program was and what the researchers did; what the researchers found; and what the implications are of the study for policy making. Also included are two review essays. "Review Essay: Implementing EBP in Community Corrections" discusses what works, EBP models, planned change, and dosage. "Review Essay: Moving Implementation of EBP Forward" looks at three challenges to implementing EBPs in community corrections programming.

Toward Evidence-Based Decision Making in Community Corrections: Research and Strategies for Successful Implementation Cover

These toolkits comprise "a series on promoting the use of evidence-based practices in State Administering Agencies (SAAs) [in understanding and implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) in their states]. These toolkits include a briefing paper, an executive summary, and a slideshow. The slideshows can be tailored by SAAs to highlight their own efforts in promoting evidence-based practices in their state. Additional toolkits are currently being developed based on feedback from SAA directors". Toolkit 1—An Introduction to Evidence-Based Practices: a brief history of the evidence-based "movement"; where the evidence comes from; resources for identifying EBPs; implementing EBPs; what to do if there is no evidence; and summary. "With diminishing resources available for funding criminal justice issues, understanding how to identify and implement EBPs will be critical for decisionmakers in all areas of the justice system" (p. 15). Toolkit 2—Implementing Evidence-Based Practices: introduction; how evidence-based programs are identified; the defining characteristics of a program; implementation fidelity; achieving implementation fidelity; implementation science; what can be done to support high-quality implementation; measuring implementation fidelity; moderators of implementation fidelity; core program components and program adaptation; and summary. "Given the importance of implementation fidelity, adaptation is likely to be advantageous only when it is guided by scientific evidence, pursued with caution, and monitored to prevent potentially harmful effects" (p. 16).

Understanding, Promoting, and Sustaining the Use of Research and Evidence-Based Practices by State  cover

Pages

Subscribe to Evidence-based practice