Reduced Probation Caseload in Evidence-Based Setting (Iowa)

Evidence Rating:
Effective – One investigate Effective - One study

Program Goals
The Reduced Probation Caseload in Evidence-Based Setting (Iowa) module aims to feature a trial knowledge by shortening a caseloads of trial officers traffic with certain offenders—typically a some-more high-risk probationers. In and with a use of other evidence-based collection and risk comment techniques, a rebate in caseloads aims to revoke probationers’ recidivism in high-risk cases by providing some-more hands-on monitoring and larger inspection of their remedial efforts and diagnosis progress.

Program Components and Theory
The module combines both a use of increasing organisation and larger confluence to a compulsory diagnosis regimen, in multiple with an officer who is some-more accessible and so some-more manageable to a sold needs, risks, and abilities of a probationer. This module also depends on an formation of evidence-based practices within a trial services, as before novel has shown that, by itself, shortening trial caseloads does not revoke recidivism (see a Gendreau, Goggin, and Fulton 2000 meta-analysis of 47 studies of complete organisation probation). In sequence to exercise this program, trial departments should have implemented a following practices:

  • Risk/needs assessments
  • Separate specialized caseloads for domestic violence, sex offenders, mental health, and a like
  • Concentrated services/treatment on assessed energetic risks of medium- and high-risk probationers
  • Considered responsivity (cognitive–behavioral programs, motivate change)
  • Comprehensive box government

The principal evidence-based practices that a module relies on are officer training to brand probationers’ immobile and energetic risks to establish a suitable turn of organisation formed on odds of reoffense. In evidence-based settings, resources are strong on high-risk offenders, including treating and monitoring energetic factors, such as bootleg drug use. This allows for usually a top risk offenders to be placed on a reduced trial caseloads, creation best use of correctional resources in a risk–needs–responsivity (RNR) framework. The RNR indication (Andrews and Bonta 2003; Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge 1990) has 3 core principles:

  1. Risk principle: The turn of services should be matched to a turn of a offender. High-risk offenders should accept some-more complete services; low-risk offenders should accept minimal services.
  2. Need principle: Target criminogenic needs with services—that is, aim those factors that are compared with rapist behavior. Such factors competence embody piece abuse, procriminal attitudes, rapist associates, and a like. Do not aim other, noncriminogenic factors (such as romantic distress, self-respect issues) unless they act as a separator to changing criminogenic factors.
  3. Responsivity principle: The ability and training character of a delinquent should establish a character and mode of intervention. Research has shown a ubiquitous efficacy of regulating amicable training and cognitive–behavioral character interventions.

Target Population/Eligibility
By regulating evidence-based practices in a preference of possibilities for complete supervision, a module aims to boost a efficacy of probation. The assignment of a probationer to an officer with reduced trial caseload is finished on a basement of a risk comment and clever box planning. These offenders are those whose risk of recidivism is highest, for whom diagnosis competence be a requirement of their recover into a community, and whose sourroundings competence also be flighty and changeable.

Target Site
The module was implemented in Polk County, Iowa, that encompasses Des Moines as good as superficial suburbs and farming areas within a state’s Fifth Judicial District. In 1997 a Fifth Judicial District began adopting evidence-based practices, including standardised box planning, motivational interviewing, responsivity, and ubiquitous training for management. Management training of all staff in evidence-based practices was finished by 2004. Polk County also uses a Iowa Risk Assessment Tool to primarily shade and systematise offenders condemned to probation. The Iowa Risk measure determines a organisation power and dictates either other comment collection should be administered (such as a Level of Service Inventory—Revised [LSI–R] or a Jesness Inventory).

Evaluation Outcomes

top borderStudy 1
Revocation Rates

Jalbert and colleagues (2011) hypothesized that reversal rates competence be aloft for a Reduced Probation Caseload in Evidence-Based Setting (Iowa) diagnosis organisation since of improved showing of technical breaches of trial requirements. Their research did not find any differences between diagnosis and control groups on reversal rates.

Arrests for Criminal Offenses
The formula showed that diagnosis organisation subjects were arrested reduction mostly than a control group. At a limit 36-month follow-up, a diagnosis significantly reduced a odds of recidivism by 47 percent for skill and aroused crime and 20 percent for all offenses (using a many optimal-risk bandwidth spectrum formed on attraction tests).

bottom border

Evaluation Methodology

top borderStudy 1
The Jalbert and colleagues (2011) research of Reduced Probation Caseload in Evidence-Based Setting (Iowa) examined a effects of reduced trial caseload on complete organisation probationers compared with probationers underneath high–normal supervision. The Polk County, Iowa, probationers were placed in opposite levels of organisation formed on a use of evidence-based practices involving risk comment and complete diagnosis monitoring. The authors used multiyear conspirator information (2001–07) from Polk County to weigh a effects of reduced trial caseloads on recidivism. The complete organisation in Polk County occurred in a context of a SMART program, that concurrent a receipt and monitoring of delinquent treatment. They released cases where there were programming differences, that meant that womanlike probationers were excluded. Offenders reserved to diversion programs and special caseloads such as sex offenders and offenders with mental illness also were ineligible. Probationers were reserved to reduced caseload officers formed on their Iowa Risk score; however, overrides were allowed. This meant that a pattern of a research could not use pointless assignment; instead a retrogression hiatus pattern was used.

The investigate compared 1,322 control probationers given high–normal supervision, formed on their risk classification, with 1,932 offenders reserved to reduced caseload probation. Participants were followed for adult to 36 months. The research tranquil for Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI–R score, another risk comment instrument), age, marital status, ethanol and drug addiction, practice status, series of before convictions, and before philosophy for aroused offenses.

Analysis of a use of evidence-based practices showed that risk comment was used consistently in a assignment of high-risk probationers to smaller caseloads. Accordingly, reduced caseloads were 40 percent smaller than a comparison high–normal caseloads. Additionally, a diagnosis organisation did indeed accept some-more supervisory contacts, that also led a reduced caseload trial officers to be some-more expected to use correctional interventions.

bottom border


top borderbottom border

Evidence-Base (Studies Reviewed)

top borderThese sources were used in a growth of a module profile:

Study 1
Jalbert, Sarah Kuck, William Rhodes, Michael Kane, Elyse Clawson, Bradford Bogue, Christopher Flygare, Ryan Kling, and Meaghan Guevara. 2011. A Multisite Evaluation of Reduced Probation Caseload Size in an Evidence-Based Practice Setting. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

bottom border

Additional References

top borderThese sources were used in a growth of a module profile:

Andrews, Donald A., and James Bonta. 2003. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Third Edition). Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson.

Andrews, Donald A., James Bonta, and Robert D. Hoge. 1990. “Classification for Effective Rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 17:19–52.

Gendreau, Paul, Claire Goggin, and Betsy A. Fulton. 2000. “Intensive Supervision in Probation and Parole.” In Clive R. Hollin (ed.), Handbook of Offender Assessment and Treatment. Chichester, English: John Wiley, 195–204.

Jalbert, Sarah Kuck William Rhodes, Christopher Flygare, and Michael Kane. 2010. “Testing Probation Outcomes in an Evidence-Based Practice Setting: Reduced Caseload Size and Intensive Supervision Effectiveness.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 49(4):233–53.

bottom border