< PreviousRemoteCOM Robert Rosenbusch, President/CEO 2251 Double Creek Dr. Suite 404 Round Rock, TX 78664 SCRAM Systems Erin White, Events Marketing Manager 1241 West Mineral Avenue, Ste 100 Littleton, CO 80120 Sentinel Offender Services, LLC Mike Dean, Senior VP of Sales 201 Technology Drive Irvine, CA 92618 Shadowtrack Robert L. Magaletta, President & CEO PO Box 1686 Covington, LA 70434-1686 Smart Start, Inc. Annette Beard, National Sales Manager 500 E Dallas Rd Ste 100 Grapevine, TX 76051-7658 The Change Companies Jesse Tillotson, National Director of Justice Services The Change Companies 5221 Sigstrom Dr, Carson City, NV 89706 TRAC Solutions Catherine Nienhouse, Marketing Manager 20 N Wacker DR Chicago, IL 60606 Track Group Miranda Follis, Director of Marketing 200 East 5th AvenueSuite 100 Napierville, IL 60563 Tyler Technologies Lara Lung, Trade Show Specialist 5101 Tennyson Parkway Plano, TX 75024 10 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 47, NUMBER 3 Automated Breathalyzer Kiosk Technologies David Kreitzer General Manager 2855 Country Drive, Suite 100 Little Canada, MN 55117 Phone: (651) 383.1213 associate members corporate members continued 11 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATIONFORGING A PATH FORWARD How Incorporating Desistance Research Can Inform Innovations in Community Supervision By: C.J. Appleton, Department of Criminology, Law & Society George Mason University13 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION DESISTANCE FORGING A PATH FORWARD: HOW INCORPORATING DESISTANCE RESEARCH CAN INFORM INNOVATIONS IN COMMUNITY SUPERVISION Society understands the criminal justice system (CJS) as working to catch those who commit crimes and hold them accountable for their actions. It is through these two functions that the CJS is thought to deter individuals from committing crimes and reduce crime overall. Within this perspective, those who commit crimes are not nuanced and complex people who are navigating structural and interpersonal barriers to live their lives. Instead, they are perceived as motivated “offenders” who make our cities and towns unsafe and who only respond to punishment. Yet, those who work in community supervision understand this picture to be incomplete. Indeed, community supervision is the only branch of the CJS that is tasked with building long-term meaningful relationships with clients and playing an active role in their behavior change process. Because of this, supervision staff have a unique understanding of the complexity of their clients’ lives and how many moving parts need to be aligned for someone to change. Despite this, community supervision as a field is straddling the fence, so to speak. On the one hand, the past 30 years of research innovations and the adoption of evidence- based supervision models has pushed us toward a more rehabilitative approach. On the other hand, there is still a distinct punishment and deficit focus that exists in many jurisdictions around the nation. An example of this deficit focus is the continued use of recidivism as the main measure of success on supervision. As we look toward the future, community supervision has the opportunity to expand its perspective on client behavior change and align its conception of success more closely to the correlates of successful reentry. Desistance research can be an incredibly useful resource for meeting these goals. Its framework and concepts support a humanistic and success-oriented approach in supervision which is focused on what institutional bonds and cognitive shifts allow people to change their lives. This article will review the major theoretical perspectives of desistance. It will then go on to discuss a variety of ways that perspectives from desistance research can inform exciting new possibilities for the field. What Is Desistance? Desistance can be defined as the process whereby someone who has engaged in some act (or series of acts) ceases to undertake these acts (Shapland et al., 2016). In a criminal justice context, desistance refers to the ending of a person’s criminal behavior (Laub & Sampson, 2001). What may seem like a simple and straightforward concept can become very complex depending on how desistance is conceived. One complicating factor in measuring desistance is that it is not the presence of an act but the absence of an act over time (Laub & Sampson, 2001). True desistance would mean an individual remains crime free for the rest of that person’s life, and some have argued that it is impossible to truly know if someone has desisted until the day that they die (Maruna, 2001). Moreover, desistance can result from a variety of circumstances. For instance, research shows that desistance can be an abrupt change, or “knifing off,” of criminal behavior (Maruna & Roy, 2007). On the other hand, desistance can also be a long-term process that can include occasional relapses in offending behavior or a reduction in the severity of crimes committed over time (Maruna, 2001). Despite the difficulty in pinpointing the moment when desistance occurs, it is generally agreed upon that most people do, in fact, desist from crime. In other words, desistance is the rule and not the exception. Theoretical Foundation of Desistance Scholars have developed frameworks that imagine desistance as the result of a number of complex processes – developmental, sociological, and psychological (Laub & Sampson, 2001). One of the most consistent findings in crime research is that, generally, people’s propensity to commit crimes spikes in early adolescence and young adulthood and then drops as they age – a pattern frequently referred to as the age-crime curve (Farrington, 1986). The developmental approach to desistance attempts to understand this relationship between age and crime. Some scholars have concluded that there is a process of physical and mental maturation that occurs during those years that changes people’s behavior (Glueck & Glueck, 1937). Others have argued that as people age their self-conceptions (i.e., identity), interests, and aspirations change. Moreover, they develop meaningful relationships with people and with employment that produce a disenchantment with criminal behavior (Shover, 1983). Key features of all developmental approaches are the beliefs that delinquency is a normal part of human development and that some cognitive shift explains the decline of delinquency over time. Another traditional theoretical explanation of desistance takes a macro-level approach by focusing on social structure (Farrall & Bowling, 1999). Structural factors 14 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 47, NUMBER 3 DESISTANCE that influence desistance include, but are not limited to, financial (Nagin & Waldfogel, 1998), housing (Lewis et al., 2003), meaningful employment (Western et al., 2001), marriage (Laub et al., 1998), family ties (Lanier, 2003), and drugs and alcohol. Because desistance is the absence of criminal behavior over time, it is important for desistance research to take a longitudinal approach. Life-course research does this by combining aspects of the developmental and social structural approaches. Most notably, life-course research acknowledges that early acts of delinquency are often markers for criminal behavior throughout an individual’s life. However, the life-course perspective also highlights the possibility of transitions and turning points occurring in people’s lives which open pathways toward new behavior (Sampson & Laub, 1993). In particular, life-course research has found that developing strong bonds in adulthood with pro-social institutions (e.g., marriage, employment, school, religion, military service) can serve as turning points in people’s lives and lead to desistance from engaging in negative behavior(s) (Craig & Foster, 2013; Martin et al., 2015; Staff et al., 2010; Dennison, 2019; Abeling-Judge, 2020). Much of the research published to date is invaluable as a backdrop on this subject, allowing increased understanding of the factors impacting those who begin desisting from negative behaviors, but also needed is a more in-depth understanding of how and why these factors lead to desistance. To answer these questions, one must examine the cognitive, or subjective, processes that occur within an individual (Giordano et al., 2002). Indeed, scholars note that individual subjective factors (e.g., motivation to change, self-concept, identity) play a significant role in how individuals make sense of and give meaning to their lives (Giordano et al., 2002; Lebel et al., 2008). While understanding such internal processes may be a challenge, it is a vital part of understanding desistance. Two theoretical perspectives of subjective meaning-making are especially important to probation and parole, yet they haven’t been routinely integrated into current practices or training. They are Giordano et al.’s (2002) concept of cognitive transformation and Maruna’s (2001) study of desistance narratives. The Theory of Cognitive Transformation For Giordano and colleagues (2002), the traditional approaches to desistance research are limited in their focus on factors external to the individual. Research notes that the effects of structural factors such as marriage and employment do not always predict desistance in the way we would expect (Link & Roman, 2017; Smith, 2019). Instead, Giordano and her colleagues argue that cognitive transformations are occurring within each individual, and these are the key to desistance. Specifically, the theory of cognitive transformation presents four characteristics in its blueprint for successful desistance: 1. There is a “readiness” or openness to change. 2. There is receptivity to catalysts or hooks to change. 3. Individuals envision a replacement self that can supplant the one that must be left behind. 4. There are changes in the meaning/desirability of the delinquent behavior itself. Within this framework, these transformations may not occur in any particular order. Instead, Giordano explains that it is more useful to consider these elements as unfolding simultaneously and as mutually reinforcing facets of the change process (Giordano, 2016). What is unique about this approach is the way it conceptualizes the interplay between individual choice, autonomy (agency), and social structure. Indeed, our thoughts, feelings, and actions in this world come through constant interactions with our social setting. This is a dialectic relationship in which the social setting will both encourage and constrain certain behaviors of the individual (Giordano et al. 2002). Simultaneously, individuals have unique experiences, personality characteristics, and perceptions that shape how they ultimately behave within their social setting. The implications of this for desistance are twofold. First, to promote desistance, a person can be encouraged to structure his/her life around people, places, and activities that discourage delinquent behavior while promoting openness to change and the adoption of a new pro-social identity. However, not all people, places, and activities will have the same influence on different people or on the same person at different times in their lives. Instead, each person goes through internal changes that make them uniquely open to change and receptive to certain “hooks for change.” A hook for change is a connection with a social structural factor (e.g., employment, marital relationship, school, religious institution) that is especially meaningful to the individual and thus has a larger effect on behavior 15 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION DESISTANCE change. Therefore, an important component to identifying potential hooks for change is a better understanding of how people determine meaning and value in their lives. One of the most influential endeavors in the examination of subjective meaning- making has been the research on self-narratives. Narrative Identity Narratives are a core component of the human experience that we use to organize our understanding of ourselves, other people, and the world around us (Presser & Sandberg, 2015). In telling stories about our lives, we construct and internalize an evolving and integrative narrative that psychologists call “narrative identity.” In 1995, Dan McAdams presented a theory that an individual’s life-story is a representation of their identity. He argues that beginning in late adolescence, we construct stories to integrate the elements of our lives that don’t always go together. In doing so, we become self- biographers who craft stories to answer the questions of “who am I?” and “how do I fit into the adult world?” Taken together, the life story is an autobiography that situates a person in the world, integrates a life in time, and provides meaning and purpose (McAdams, 1995). In 2001, Shadd Maruna noted that desistance researchers identified what factors influenced desistance (e.g., employment, marriage, school) but not why these factors led to desistance in some people and not others. Narrative methodology allows for the examination of the relationship between environmental influences and individual behavior. Maruna argues that self-narratives can offer a unique window into the cognitive shifts that determine individuals’ desistance. Specifically, Maruna (2001) compared the self- narratives of individuals previously involved in the CJS who were desisting (not engaging in crime, or what he called desisters) to those of a matched sample of individuals actively engaged in criminal behavior (which he called persisters) to identify the specific cognitions and scripts they used. His major finding was that persisters used a condemnation script that reflected pessimism, a lack of control over their lives, and a fatalistic worldview (e.g., “I’m doomed”). On the other hand, desisters used a redemption script where they believed they were a good person at their core, and that their past was a prerequisite for who they are today, along with developing a greater concern for helping others. Ultimately, Maruna’s book effectively demonstrates the value of examining narratives to understand subjective meaning-making. What Does This Mean for Community Supervision? Over the past 40 years, innovations in the fields of psychology and corrections have been adopted to move community supervision away from its punitive past, embracing more of a rehabilitative approach. Innovations like core correctional practices, psychology of criminal conduct, risk-need-responsivity (RNR) principles, and evidence-based practices all have similar constructs that highlight the effectiveness of the rehabilitative approach in community supervision (Gleicher et al., 2013). However, despite these incredible advancements, there is still more work to be done. For instance, we still struggle to take a truly humanistic approach when working with clients (Polizzi et al., 2014). Instead, we continue to view clients through a deficit lens which emphasizes their riskiness and pays less attention to the client’s strengths, autonomy, and well-being (Ward et al., 2007). To this point, there is a misalignment between how we measure success and the practices that evidence-based research promotes. Namely, recidivism has continued to be used as the primary marker of success, while focusing less on stabilizing clients (e.g., housing, food, shelter), on officer-client rapport, and on how well we address client needs and build off of client strengths. Fortunately, the desistance research offers insights that can inspire innovative approaches and address some of these limitations. In this section, I will discuss how desistance research promotes the measurement of client success beyond recidivism and how recognizing desistance as a process can address how client success is viewed on supervision. Beyond Recidivism: Using Desistance Theory to Promote Behavioral (and Identity) Change Recidivism generally refers to a return to criminal activity for someone who has previously been convicted of a crime (National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022). As the CJS is focused on reducing crime and ensuring public safety, determining the extent to which individuals “re-offend” is a key piece of determining the success of criminal legal policies, programs, and 16 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 47, NUMBER 3 DESISTANCE practices. Given the importance of this outcome for those in the CJS field, our current tendency to rely on recidivism as the sole means to quantify the results of our work is problematic due to some inherent limitations. Recidivism data lack reliability due to the various ways “recidivism” is conceptualized (and hence measured) and a tendency to be both over- and under-inclusive in counting instances of criminal activity. Desistance Focuses on the Collateral Consequences of Conviction Given that the exclusive reliance on recidivism data promotes a focus on deficits and negative outcomes, thereby missing important aspects of the process of reintegrating into society post-conviction, switching from viewing community supervision success through the lens of negative outcomes to positive outcomes makes sense. Having a criminal record presents additional barriers (e.g., access to employment, housing, support services) that make reintegration more difficult for people post-conviction. Since desistance research emphasizes the importance of developing institutional bonds, a desistance-inspired approach in supervision would specifically address these collateral consequences head-on. The challenge, therefore, is to expand our view of success beyond reducing recidivism to a conception of reintegration which emphasizes positive outcomes and interpersonal growth. Aligning our conception of supervision success with insights from the desistance literature can go a long way toward accomplishing this goal. The focus of desistance is on what institutional bonds and psychological changes are correlated with the ending of criminal behavior. In this sense, reframing success using a desistance perspective would include how well clients get connected with employment, education, and social safety net services. We would capture personal changes in clients’ social lives, like reconnecting with family, developing a pro-social peer group, obtaining stable housing, and productive use of free time. Finally, a desistance-influenced idea of success would include changes in areas like self-esteem, readiness to change, hope, criminal thinking, and identity as important measures of progress while on supervision rather than not reoffending. Taken together, this reframing would encourage community supervision departments to capture the multiple components that go into the behavior change of clients, while minimizing potential barriers their clients come up against due to their CJS involvement. This information can then be used to make evaluations of the impact of local policies, programs, and practices and point to areas of improvement. Desistance Focuses on the Process Clients on supervision are viewed through a lens of risk (a deficit focus). In fact, when an individual is placed on supervision, one of the first tasks is to determine their risk of reoffending and to tailor their supervision experience based on that risk. Some would argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with this process. Indeed, modern RNR- based supervision calls for the capturing of both static (unchangeable) and dynamic (changeable) risk factors to identify “who” is best-suited for intervention and “what” type of intervention they need (Ziv, 2017). However, others have noted the ways that risk has reframed our view of clients as a dangerous population that must be managed efficiently and prudently (Hannah-Moffat, 2013). For example, researchers have noted how community supervision departments have policies that automatically place certain groups at a higher risk level due to their criminal history (e.g., sex-offense, violent, gang-involved; Viglione & Taxman, 2018; Viglione, 2019). While community supervision has been operating under the idea that “past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior,” desistance research reveals flaws in the idea that a criminal history is directly tied to a person’s ability to desist. In fact, most people who commit a crime go on to desist from criminal activity in their lifetime. For instance, self-report data show a vast majority of people (96%) report law-breaking behavior by their 30s (Farrington, 2001). Yet, we understand that the vast majority of adults are not actively engaging in criminal behavior. Moreover, research shows that offending behavior in adolescence and young adulthood is not necessarily tied to increased offending later in adulthood (Kazemian, 2021). Finally, even those who engage in crime for a period of time in their lives (so called “career criminals”) eventually stop (Laub & Sampson, 2001). Additionally, the expectation for supervision clients is often that they should be primed and ready to change their lives immediately when they get sentenced to probation or released on parole. Clients who struggle or show resistance to the supervision process are viewed as a problem and even can be labeled as “not a good fit for supervision.” Desistance research challenges the perspective that resistance to change, or failures along the path toward change, are evidence that desistance is not possible. In fact, resistance to change and multiple failures are a natural part of human existence. What 17 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION DESISTANCE desistance promotes is a long-term process of change that expects clients to potentially misstep, as desistance is not a linear path. Researchers have helped imagine this by focusing on primary and secondary desistance. Primary desistance refers to the initial cessation of criminal activity, where someone stops engaging in crime or negative behaviors. However, even in stopping, they may still hold onto negative scripts or beliefs about themselves (sometimes reinforced by the CJS). Secondary desistance refers to the long-term behavior change process where someone adopts an identity that no longer aligns with their previous “criminal” identity. It is important to note that many factors that can motivate or even force primary desistance (e.g., arrest) do not necessarily lead to secondary desistance. Moreover, the path from primary to secondary desistance is not linear and people may actually zig-zag during the process away from a criminal lifestyle as our environments and relationships may pull us back and forth (Sampson & Laub, 1993; Giordano et al., 2002; Maruna, 2001). Conclusion Desistance research offers a pathway for community supervision to continue its journey toward becoming a more evidence-based, data-driven field. There are a variety of changes that both organizations and officers can make to adopt a desistance orientation. Organizations can support this incorporation by expanding their data- collection practices to include the social structural (i.e., employment, education, housing) and subjective (i.e., self-efficacy, readiness to change, criminal cognitions) correlates of desistance. Additionally, organizations can ensure that they consistently reassess clients to track changes in these important domains. Finally, how organizations evaluate officers is best when aligned with the new desistance orientation. For instance, officer success can be measured by connecting clients with programming and delivering evidence-based cognitive interventions. Moreover, officers can be recognized for helping clients find employment, get back into school, or change criminal cognitions to incentivize the new approach. Officers can support these changes by explaining to clients what the research says about desistance. During these conversations, officers can inform clients that they understand behavior change can take time, that it is not a linear process, and commit to helping them throughout the process. These interactions can be used to build rapport. Additionally, officers can use client narratives to help them identify which bonds are especially meaningful and encourage clients to pursue them. Taken together, the above approaches show how building on desistance research can produce an innovative and constructive orientation in community supervision practice. As has been stated, community supervision professionals already try to build meaningful relationships with clients and play an active role in their behavior change. A shift in our orientation towards desistance may be helpful in such efforts—and with added benefit in regard to outcome measurements that more accurately align the conception of success to the correlates of successful reentry. Hopefully, the knowledge continuing to be gained in this area will promote more and more innovative and successful practices and forge a path that improves community supervision efforts and overall outcomes. References • Abeling-Judge, D. (2020). Does military service continue to facilitate desistance? Revisiting theory and practice. Deviant Behavior, 41(5), 574-590. • Craig, J., & Foster, H. (2013). Desistance in the transition to adulthood: The roles of marriage, military, and gender. Deviant Behavior, 34(3), 208-223. • Dennison, C. R. (2019). Intergenerational educational pathways and instrumental crime, violent crime, and illegal drug use across the life course, Journal of Crime and Justice, 42:2, 99-120, DOI: 10.1080/0735648X.2018.1510337 • Farrall, S., & Bowling, B. (1999). Structuration, human development and desistance from crime. The British Journal of Criminology, 39(2), 253–268. bjc/39.2.253 • Farrington, D.P. (1986) Age and crime. Crime and Justice, 7, 189-250. • Farrington, D. P. (2001). Key results from the first forty years of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. In T. P. Tornberry & M. D. Krohn (eds.). Taking stock of delinquency: An overview of findings from contemporary longitudinal studies (pp. 137-183). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. • Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 990– 1064. • Giordano, P. C. (2016). Mechanisms underlying the desistance process. In J. Shapland, S. Farrall, & A. Bottoms (Eds.), Global perspectives on desistance: Reviewing what we know and looking to the future, (1st ed., pp. 11 - 27). Routledge. • Gleicher, L., Manchak, S. M., & Cullen, F. T. (2013). Creating a supervision tool kit: How to improve probation and parole. Federal Probation, 77(1), 22–27.• Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1937). Later Criminal Careers. The Commonwealth Fund. • Kazemian, L. (2021, November 8). Pathways to Desistance from Crime Among Juveniles and Adults: Applications to Criminal Justice Policy and Practice. National Institute • Lanier, C. S. (2003). Who’s doing the time here, me or my children? Addressing the issues implicated by mounting numbers of fathers in prison. In J. I. Ross & S. C. Richards (Eds.) Convict criminology (pp. 170-90). Wadsworth. • Laub, J. H., Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal offending: Good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological Review, 63(2), 225-238. • Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2001). Understanding desistance from crime. Crime & Justice, 28, 1–69. • LeBel, T. P., Burnett, R., Maruna, S., & Bushway, S. (2008). The ‘chicken and egg’ of subjective and social factors in desistance from crime. European Journal of Criminology, 5(2), 131-159. • Lewis, S., Vennard, J., Maguire, M., Raynor, P., Vanstone, M., Raybould, S., & Rix, A. (2003). The Resettlement of Short-Term Prisoners: An Evaluation of Seven Pathfinders: (667902007-001) [Data set]. American Psychological Association. • Link, N. W., & Roman, C. G. (2017). Longitudinal associations among child support debt, employment, and recidivism after prison. The Sociological Quarterly, 58(1), 140-160. • Martin, M. J., Conger, R. D., Sitnick, S. L., Masarik, A. S., Forbes, E. E., & Shaw, D. S. (2015). Reducing risk for substance use by economically disadvantaged young men: Positive family environments and pathways to educational attainment. Child development, 86(6), 1719-1737. • Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives (1st ed.). American Psychological Association. • Maruna, S., & Roy, K. (2007). Amputation or Reconstruction? Notes on the Concept of “Knifing Off” and Desistance from Crime. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(1), • McAdams, D. P. (1995). What Do We Know When We Know a Person? Journal of Personality, 63(3), 365–396. • Murray, H. A. (2007). Explorations in personality (70th anniversary ed., 2007; foreword by D. McAdams.). University Press. (Original work published 1938) • Nagin, D., & Waldfogel, J. (1998). The effect of conviction on income through the life cycle. International Review of Law and Economics, 18(1), S0144-8188(97)00055-0 • National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. (2022). The limits of measuring recidivism: Measuring success after prison. The National Academies Press. • Polizzi, D., Braswell, M., & Draper, M. (2014). Transforming corrections: Humanistic approaches to corrections and offender treatment. Carolina Academic Press. • Presser, L., & Sandberg, S. (2015). Narrative criminology: Understanding stories of crime. NYU Press. • Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press. • Shapland, J., Farrall, S., & Bottoms, A. (Eds.). (2016). Global perspectives on desistance: Reviewing what we know and looking to the future. Routledge. • Shover, N. (1983). The later stages of ordinary property offender careers. Social Problems, 31(2), 208-218. • Staff, J., Osgood, D. W., Schulenberg, J. E., Bachman, J. G., & Messersmith, E. E. (2010). Explaining the relationship between employment and juvenile delinquency. Criminology, 48(4), 1101-1131. • Smith, M. (2019). Age-graded informal social control and motivations among street sex buyers. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 5(4), 587-613. • Viglione, J., & Taxman, F. S. (2018). Low risk offenders under probation supervision: Risk management and the risk-needs-responsivity framework. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(12), 1809–1831. • Viglione, J. (2019). The risk-need-responsivity model: How do probation officers implement the principles of effective intervention? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(5), 655-673. • Ward, T., Melser, J., & Yates, P. M. (2007). Reconstructing the risk-need-responsivity model: A theoretical elaboration and evaluation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 208- 228. • Ziv, R. (2017). The future of correctional rehabilitation: Moving beyond the RNR model and good lives model debate. Routledge. 18 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 47, NUMBER 3 DESISTANCE19 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION DESISTANCE Target Audience: This session is for pretrial, probation, and parole department heads only. A limited number of slots available for judges, legislators, and senior criminal legal system policy makers. Overview: Leaders, come to the summit to get updates on policies and practices that are relevant to today’s community corrections field; leave with information that will assist you in leading your agency and making decisions that will help shape the next level of success for both staff and individuals being supervised. February 23 - 24, 2024 Join us for insightful discussions, networking, and a glimpse into the future of community corrections! SPECIAL NOTE: Space is limited and will not exceed 150 attendees. Individual registration rate is $799. (contact APPA for special rate for summit/training institute combo) Stronger Together: Shaping the Future of Community Corrections Register and Learn More Keynote Address: Dr. Nancy La Vigne, U.S. Presidential Appointee Director, National Institute of Justice - Office of Justice Programs Leading with Co-Elevation: Elevating Culture - Speaker, Glenn Tapia, Director of Leadership and Organizational Intelligence at ACJI, will explore the Six Principles of CoElevation Leadership. Staff and Organizational Wellness - Speaker, Carmen Gomez, Regional Supervisor at Massachusetts Probation Service, will discuss the intersection between leadership and wellness, offering strategies for effective daily practices. Promising (Emerging) Practices in Community Corrections - Speaker, Danielle Young, Senior Court Management Consultant at the National Center for State Courts, will provide an overview of emerging practices in community corrections. APPA’s National Standards for Community Supervision - Speaker, William Burrell, Corrections Management Consultant at Burrell Consulting, LLC, will explore the development process and content of national standards for adult community supervision. Artificial Intelligence: Through the Lens of Community Corrections and Ethics - Speaker, Gary Marchant, Regents and Foundation Professor of Law at Arizona State University, will discuss what AI is and how it can improve community corrections decisions, while identifying some risks of reliance on AI. Combating Staff Shortages While Retaining Staff Representatives from the Center for Effective Public Policy will address innovative hiring practices and strategies for retaining staff in the current landscape. Summit Highlights:Next >