VOLUME 4 7, NUMBER 3 THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION Desistance call 859.244.8204 for more information. SCAN ME! Hyatt Regency 808 Howell St. Seattle, WA 98101 LOCATION • Allan Kehler • Christopher Poulos • Jermaine Galloway SPEAKERS • Evidence-Based Principles • Health and Wellness • Juvenile Justice • Leadership and Management • Medication Assisted Treatment Forum • Reentry and Employment • Reform • Tribal Training (special track) • and much more... TOPICS 2024 WINTER TRAINING INSTITUTE February 25 - 28 | Hyatt Regency3 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION You may be familiar with the subject of desistance, or perhaps it is new to you. Either way, reading what the authors of the articles in this issue of Perspectives have to say should certainly pique your interest in what has been recently learned in this area – and what can potentially be learned by future investigators. I find exploring desistance literature and pondering its ramifications stimulates thought about our work and our potential future progress. It’s a good brain food. Perhaps you first encountered “desist” as a component of a “cease and desist” order, in which a court compels immediate cessation of some unpermitted activity. This sense of coming to an abrupt stop is also reflected in this early example of the word’s use that caught my attention: Attending nearly to a Spider weaving a Net, he observ’d it suddenly to desist in the mid-work. - E. Chambers, Cyclopædia (1728) In the criminal justice and psychology context, however, the term “desistance” is used quite differently. It is not regarded as a simple stopping point. Instead, it tends to be viewed more as a complicated, dynamic process, something that can take considerable time and is promoted by a variety of factors. Importantly, those factors include the interventions by those working in community supervision and the programs and interventions they can offer. The articles in this Perspectives do not try to gloss over the fact that understanding and measuring desistance and its multifactorial components is not going to be simple. However, “recidivism” has long been a complicated concept as well, one that has been defined and measured in many, many different ways. In any case, introducing desistance as a dominant perspective in the criminal legal system may well be gradual, but appears to be taking shape. Of course, building the road from theory to increased understanding and then to application is our exciting challenge. I want to point out that our authors have done an excellent job of contrasting the implications of having a recidivism perspective versus a desistance perspective. In doing so, they also make a strong case for switching to desistance- connected measurements to assess the benefits of the work done by those in our field. A longtime player and learner in this field, I have anxiously awaited a more consistent definition of recidivism but recognize that decentralization and variation from jurisdiction to jurisdiction make it almost impossible. Rather than total reliance on simple recidivism statistics, it seems likely that increased emphasis on other means of tracking the constructive efforts done in community supervision may become more prevalent in the near future. That would be a welcome development indeed. My sincere thanks to each of the authors for their contributions in this area. The value of highlighting different viewpoints and approaches to our work is crucial. We all stand to benefit from your work. As I conclude my comments in this issue of Perspectives, I am keenly aware of the significance of the season of joy! While it is important to be kind, fair, and considerate as well as to show grace, respect, and appreciation to others every single day, this is the season when we go beyond to put our best qualities on display and show gratitude to people who bring happiness and/or value to our lives – both at home and at work. I am sure the staff and members of the Board of Directors of APPA join me in thanking you for staying connected to the association and for your willingness to continuously learn and grow as professionals. Your personal stake in the field and your commitment to supporting efforts to increase positive outcomes and enhance public safety cannot be overstated. Thank you! VERONICA CUNNINGHAM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO APPA executive director/ceo's message4 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 47, NUMBER 3 W hen I was growing up and in primary and secondary school, I always wanted to be the smartest person in the room. Chances are that if you asked me if I was, I probably would have told you, “Yes.” I wanted to do things my way, because I was convinced it was the best way. Even when shown a different and more effective method of operation, I still had to try my own solutions first. My parents referred to my behavior as bossiness. I liked to call it self-confidence. Fortunately, as I matured, I found that there were usually people in the room who were much more intelligent that I was, especially when the topic was the criminal legal system and community supervision. When I first began to have opportunities to attend training sessions with researchers like Ed Latessa, Faye Taxman, and many others, I was amazed that people were doing research on different forms of community supervision to identify which methods were successful and which were not. I had naively assumed that supervision was black and white. Follow the rules to stay out of jail and break them if you were comfortable being incarcerated. How little I knew! Fast forward to 2023, when we have an abundance of information on methods of supervision which have proven to be successful in changing client behavior. Much like a promising new treatment for a medical condition, these methods are backed by research and consistently shown to have positive effects when used properly. Most of us are now comfortable explaining to a stranger what an evidence- based program is, and most supervision officers are now required to obtain a minimum number of EBP training hours every year. The research has also helped to show us supervision methods that have a negative impact on behavior, such as expecting a person suffering from an addiction to immediately stop using simply due to the threat of incarceration. With all this information now readily available, why are we, the individuals who work in community supervision, so resistant to change our methods of operation to match what research has shown us to be true? Why do we continually revert to the way we did business 20 years ago? My hunch is that much like 15-year-old Susan, we still think we know best. I’ll be the first to admit that sometimes I found it hard to change my ways back when I was providing supervision. There were times when I would attend a conference, learn about promising new evidence-based programs, and return to work ready to conquer the world - only to be met on my return with a stack of positive drug screens that immediately prompted me to file violation reports with requests for arrest warrants. It was familiar, it was easy, and in many situations it was what was expected of me by others working in the system and by those in my community. Fortunately, the work to adjust our methods of supervision to improve outcomes continues, despite us dragging our feet from time to time. The research goes on, and those who I now know are much smarter then I will continue to push us to utilize methods that work. The articles in Perspectives offer a great opportunity for those in the field to stay up to date on the latest research and where we need to focus our attention. This edition features articles on reevaluating the performance standards we use, the use of desistance research, and promising practices in pretrial supervision. I encourage you to not only read the articles, but to also commit to utilizing at least one new concept you learn. Just as we often encourage our clients to take baby steps toward reducing their undesirable behavior, we can take small steps to embrace and utilize new concepts in supervision practices. Fortunately, I see many glimmers of hope, as more and more agencies are utilizing better methods of supervision, redefining success, and encouraging their peers to do the same. We must continue to embrace the practices which have proven to be reliable and discontinue those which cause harm to clients. This includes working to educate others (judges, prosecutors, and community members) on what the research shows to be true and convincing them that there are better ways to do business. I hope you will join me as we continue to seek solutions which provide the best outcomes for the clients with whom we work. board president’s message SUSAN RICE BOARD PRESIDENT5 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION editor’s notes Community corrections organizations and programs have traditionally relied heavily on recidivism rates (rearrest, reconviction, reincarceration) to measure their effectiveness. However, more recently, there has been a call to action to move away from the yes/no of recidivism as a main organizational or program outcome and to move toward understanding organizational, program, and individual performance through a lens of success and progress. More government, community- based, and nonprofit organizations serving system-involved populations are seeking to understand how to develop and collect information related to more than just a binary measure of recidivism. Consideration of incremental progress and change is also helpful in understanding the effectiveness of organizations, programs, and clients served under the umbrella of community corrections. The first article, C. J. Appleton’s “Forging a Path Forward: How Incorporating Desistance Research Can Inform Innovations in Community Supervision,” discusses how community supervision still “straddles the fence” on the adoption of more rehabilitative models and programs, while still distinctly focused on punishment or failure in the field. In forging this path forward, the author discusses the opportunities for community corrections to incorporate desistance. He provides a brief overview of the theoretical frameworks that offer an opportunity to understand things that impact an individual moving away from negative behaviors–or desisting from negative behaviors. He concludes by suggesting community corrections take a step towards continuing to – and enhancing – the adoption of the rehabilitative approach through the use of meaning-making. This meaning-making and understanding of individuals’ internal processes are valuable in understanding their desistance. The second article in this issue delves further into the notion of recidivism as an incomplete measure of program or staff success that fails to capture important work that probation and parole staff do and clients’ lives, more generally. Drs. Jennifer Lanterman and Kim Kras wrote this second article, “Measuring success rather than failure: Reevaluating performance standards for community supervision staff and organizations.” In their article, they first discuss what recidivism measures, the importance of defining what recidivism measures (and differences in measures across organizations), and the challenges in measuring recidivism in community corrections. In the second part of the article, Drs. Lanterman and Kras focus on how data for use in community corrections performance is collected and coded, the differences in this and reporting strategies, and the issues related to developing consistent performance measures across systems. Further, they discuss whether recidivism is a good measure of organizational or client performance and what utility it provides. In addition, they delve into what might “matter” when thinking about how information is collected and what it tells us about performance or how it may enable correctional staff to understand staff and client performance or needs. Overall, the article focuses on how we can best measure success, rather than failure, moving away from the binary measure of recidivism and towards focusing on how to improve people’s lives in order to improve community supervision effectiveness. In another article in the issue, “Measuring progress in community supervision: A focus on desistance from crime,” by Lily Gleicher, Ph.D., discusses recent research on moving beyond recidivism as the key, or only measure, of community supervision success. In this article, Dr. Gleicher goes into ways to think about developing measures for success and progress. In particular, she provides a deeper dive into what measures of success could look like for those organizations that use the Risk-Need-Responsivity model (which also poses relevance to other models of community supervision (e.g., the Good Lives Model, the Recovery Model). In particular, Dr. Gleicher focuses on considerations of measures based on criminogenic needs and responsivity needs to help enhance our understanding of supervision and individual success. The final article, by Joe Winkler, Director of Community Corrections in Florida, presents information on emerging programs across the state to engage clients with staff. In particular, Mr. Winkler describes several initiatives aimed at meeting individuals on probation and parole in the community to support accountability and responsibility before someone is found to be non-compliant. Early data suggest these programs are having a positive impact, not only related to traditional markers like recidivism, but also on officer well-being and community collaboration. This issue allows us to reflect on how to best measure community supervision performance, for both staff and clients, with an intentional focus away from a binary recidivism measure. This movement to measure success can more directly support our understanding of organization and individual progress, without concluding staff or clients “fail” if they recidivate. Recidivism alone does not take into consideration the complex nature of individuals served by community supervision organizations, nor does it provide much insight into how the organization is performing, or supporting clients. LILY GLEICHER SENIOR SUPERVISORY RESEARCH SCIENTIST THE BAIL PROJECT KIMBERLY R. KRAS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY Desistance-Focused Community Corrections: Measuring Progress and Success6 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 47, NUMBER 3 Perspectives disseminates information to the American Probation and Parole Association’s members on relevant policy and program issues and provides updates on activities of the Association. The membership represents adult and juvenile probation, parole, and community corrections agencies throughout the United States and abroad. Articles submitted for publication are screened by an editorial committee and, on occasion, selected reviewers, to determine acceptability based on relevance to the field of criminal justice, clarity of presentation, or research methodology. Perspectives does not reflect unsupported personal opinions. Articles must be emailed to in accordance with the following deadlines: • Unless previously discussed with the editors, submissions should not exceed 12 typed pages, numbered consecutively, and double-spaced. All charts, graphs, tables, and photographs must be of reproduction quality. Optional titles may be submitted and selected after review with the editors. • All submissions must be in English and in American Psychological Association (APA) Style. • Authors should provide a one-paragraph biography, along with contact information. • Notes should be used only for clarification or substantive comments, and should appear at the end of the text. • References to source documents should appear in the body of the text with the author’s surname and the year of publication in parentheses, e.g., to (Mattson, 2015, p. 73). • Alphabetize each reference at the end of the text using the following format: • Mattson, B. (2015). Technology supports decision making in health and justice. Perspectives, 39(4), 70-79. • Hanser, R. D. (2014). Community corrections (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. While the editors of Perspectives reserve the right to suggest modifications to any contribution, all authors will be responsible for, and given credit for, final versions of articles selected for publication. Submissions will not be returned to contributors. instructions to authors Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Advocate Program, Inc American Correctional Association Association of Paroling Authorities International Association of Women’s Executives in Corrections Chief Probation Officers of CA Confederation of European Probation Correctional Leaders Association Dismas Charities, Inc. FL Association of Community Corrections Franklin County Municipal Court Hidalgo County CSCD IJIS Institute International Community Justice Association Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision MN Association of Community Corrections Act Counties MN Association of County Probation Officers National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies National Association of Probation Executives National Crime Prevention Council New England Council on Crime and Delinquency New York State Probation Officers Association New Zealand Association of Probation Officers OH Chief Probation Officers Association PA Association of Probation, Parole, and Corrections Pine County Probation Probation and Community Corrections Officers Association Probation Association of New Jersey Probation Officers Association of Wielkopolska Probation Officers Professional Association of IN Saratoga County Probation Department SC Probation and Parole Association VA Probation and Parole Association affiliate members7 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION MEASURING PROGRESS IN COMMUNITY SUPERVISION: A FOCUS ON DESISTANCE FROM CRIME – LILY GLEICHER 28 INNOVATIVE SUPERVISIONS STRATEGIES USED IN PROBATION JOE WINKLER 40 corporate members 12 FORGING A PATH FORWARD HOW INCORPORATING DESISTANCE RESEARCH CAN INFORM INNOVATIONS IN COMMUNITY SUPERVISION – CJ APPLETON MEASURING SUCCESS RATHER THAN FAILURE: REEVALUATING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITY SUPERVISION – JENNIFER L. LANTERMAN & KIMBERLY R. KRAS 20 featuresPRODUCTION STAFF Veronica Cunningham Editor in Chief Kimberly Kras Perspectives Co-Editor Jason Stauffer Perspectives Co-Editor Travis Johnson Production Coordinator Cathryn Hahn Graphic Designer DIRECTORY APPA Main (859) 244-8204 Publication Orders (859) 244-8204 General Training Institute (859) 244-8236 Information Clearinghouse (859) 244-8204 Membership (859) 244-8212 Request for Training (859) 244-8236 Resource Expo (859) 244-8206 Advertising (859) 244-8206 Grants/TA (859) 244-8015 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Susan Rice President Marcus Hodges President-Elect Thomas Gregory Vice President Tania Appling Treasurer Audrey Rigsbee Secretary Brian Lovins Immediate Past President Scott Taylor Second Past President Isabel Perez-Morina Affiliate Representative Pamerson O. Ifill Member At-Large Alyza Gonzalez Line Staff Representative Herb Sinkinson Region 1 Representative Corinne Brisco Region 2 Representative Dena Davis Region 3 Representative Gene Cotter Region 4 Representative LaTasha Jones Region 5 Representative Veronica Cunningham Executive Director/CEO Communications should be addressed to: American Probation and Parole Association c/o The Council of State Governments 1776 Avenue of the States, Lexington, KY, 40511 Fax: (859) 244-8001, Website: Perspectives is published four times annually by the American Probation and Parole Association through its secretariat office in Lexington, Kentucky. ISSN 0821-1507 Reprint permission. Direct requests for permission to use material published in Perspectives in writing to © 2023 The Council of State Governments CO-CHAIRS LILY GLEICHER Senior Supervisory Research Scientist The Bail Project PO Box 750 Venice, CA 90294 Phone: (312) 869 - 4806 KIMBERLY R. KRAS, PHD, San Diego State University Department of Criminal Justice School of Public Affairs 5500 Campanile Drive San Diego, CA 92182 Phone: (619) 594-1158 MEMBERS: Eileen Ahlin, PhD, Penn State Harrisburg Ansley Dille, Utah Administrative Office of the Courts Lauren Duhaime, Bureau of Justice Assistance/George Mason University Phillip Galli, University of Wisconsin-River Falls Lily Gleicher, PhD, Robina Institute/DePaul University Shelley Johnson, PhD, University of North Carolina Charlotte Jennifer Lanterman, PhD, University of Nevada Reno Sarah Manchak, PhD, University of Cincinnati Katie Meyer, CAIS/JAIS Program Manager Carrie Ross, Yavapai County Adult Probation David Sattler, Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts Reveka Shteynberg, PhD, California State University San Bernardino Renea Snyder, Public Health Advisor Mark Stodola, NHTSA Probation Fellow David Taylor, Montgomery County (OH) Probation Reyna Cartagena Vasquez, CSOSA Jill Viglione, PhD, University of Central Florida Melissa Waldock, Kansas Department of Corrections Susan Wright, Pennsylvania Counseling Services editorial board The American Probation and Parole Association is an affiliate of and receives its secretariat services from The Council of State Governments (CSG). CSG, the multibranch association of the states and U.S. territories, works with state leaders across the nation and through its regions to put the best ideas and solutions into practice.American Community Corrections Institute Trevor Lloyd, President P.O. Box 1910, Orem, UT 84059-1910 Acivilate, Inc. Dana Malament, CEO 311 Ferst DR NW Ste L, Atlanta, GA 30318-5602 Allied Universal Electronic Monitoring Kerri Ryan, Strategic Marketing Manager 1838 Gunn Hwy, Odessa, FL 33556 Allvest Services dba Vant4ge Sean Hosman, CEO. PO Box 1802, Salt Lake City UT - 84110-1802 Averhealth Justin Manni, Vice President of Business Development 2916 W. Marshall Street, Suite A Richmond, VA 23230 Axon Zach Austin, Director of Sales, Corrections 17800 North 85th Street, Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Buddhi ED Harrison, Director of Sales & Service Buddi US, LLC 2710 Alt 19 North, Palm Harbor, FL 34683 Care Guide Services Happye Dyer, Director of Reentry Services 8281 Goodwood Blvd Baton Rouge, LA 70808 CoreCivic Shannon Carst, Vice President 5501 Virginia Way, Ste 110 Brentwood, TN 37027 Corrections Software Solutions James Redus, President 316 North Lamar Street, Austin, TX 78703 Fieldware Ken Tomlinson, Director Customer Engagement 13012 Harmony Parkway Westminster, CO 80234 FRSH Chris Heckler, President 5815 Walnut Hill Lane, Dallas, TX 75230 Geo Care Monica Hook, VP, Communications 4955 Technology Way Boca Raton, FL 33431-3367 Indivior Scott Schoenborn, Therapeutic Area Lead 10710 Midlothian Tpke, Suite 430 North Chesterfield, VA 23235-4722 Intoxalock Linda Vadel, Affiliate Marketing Coordinator 11035 Aurora Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50322 Journal Technologies Kathy Cullen, Marketing Director 915 E 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA - 90012 Lifelab Studios Sasha Barab, CEO 27500 N 115th ST, Scottsdale, AZ 85262-7501 Micro Distributing Justin Lee. Sr. National Sales Executive 620 Kennedy Court, Belton, TX-76513 PO Box 1753, 620 Kennedy Court Belton, TX 76513 National Curriculum and Training Institute Gary Bushkin, President 319 East McDowell Road, Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85004-1534 Noble Software Group Diana DeMedio, President 108 Rosewood ST, Lake Jackson, TX 77566-4937 Premier Biotech Todd Bailey, President P.O. Box 296 Excelsior, MN 55331 Reconnect Pete Andrews, CEO 1 Faraday Drive Cumberland, ME 04021 9 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION Corporations with an interest in the field of probation, parole, and community corrections are invited to become APPA corporate members. Corporate members receive benefits such as enhanced visibility among APPA’s international network of community corrections professionals, as well as shared information on the latest trends and issues that specifically affect community corrections. CORPORATE MEMBER corporate membersNext >