Evaluation of the California Parole Violation Decision-Making Instrument (PVDMI)

Turner, Susan; Braithwaite, Helen; Kearney, Lauren; Murphy, Amy; Haerle, Darin R.

doi:10.1080/0735648x.2012.683636

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The actions of the parole officers occurred even when the agency directed officers to use a graduated response guideline to handle various forms of noncompliance. Rather, officers preferred use of power techniques to justify the revocation process (Turner, Braithwaite, Kearney, Murphy, & Haerle, 2012). This is consistent with implementation problems experienced in other states using guidelines to structure technical violation decisions (Steiner, Hester, Makarios, & Travis, 2012).…”

Section: Discretion In Decision-making By Community Supervision Officersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Viglione, Rudes, and Taxman (2015) found that officers held probationers accountable for court conditions even when validated risk and need instruments suggested the condition had no relevance to the individual probationer’s risk for recidivism. It is well documented that discretion is at the heart of the behavior of the supervision officer (Rudes, 2012; Steiner et al, 2012; Turner et al, 2012; Viglione et al, 2015) and defines the experience that the supervisee encounters while under supervision (Blasko et al, 2015; Taxman & Ainsworth, 2009).…”

Section: Discretion In Decision-making By Community Supervision Officersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are Supervision Practices Procedurally Fair? Development and Predictive Utility of a Procedural Justice Measure for Use in Community Corrections Settings

Blasko

Taxman

2018

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study describes the development and refinement of a practical measure for use by community supervision staff to assess the extent to which individuals under community supervision perceive the supervision process as fair. Seven items functioned statistically and theoretically well. Results showed a clear, one-factor structure. The resulting measure demonstrated significant relationships with supervision outcomes of both crime and technical violations across two independent community supervision samples. This practical measure is grounded in theory and provides supervision agencies with a tool to measure the degree to which the interactions between supervisees and officers are positive and prosocial, and facilitate outcomes that are perceived as legitimate. Findings are framed within the “what works” corrections literature, and the important, yet underresearched theory of procedural justice as it related to community corrections settings.

show abstract

Section: Discretion In Decision-making By Community Supervision Officersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discretion In Decision-making By Community Supervision Officersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Supervision Practices Procedurally Fair? Development and Predictive Utility of a Procedural Justice Measure for Use in Community Corrections Settings

Blasko

Taxman

2018

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of the SCF studies also use incentives along with sanctions as a way to respond to the noncompliant behavior. The general literature on graduated sanctions illustrates that officers do not comply with the sanction grid (Steiner, Makarios, Travis, & Meade, 2012; Turner, Braithwaite, Kearney, Murphy, & Haerle, 2012). The findings on SCF are mixed.…”

Section: We Know What Work But We Lack Knowledge About the Nitty Grittymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Partially Clothed Emperor: Evidence-Based Practices

Taxman

2018

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evidence-based practices literature has defined a core set of practices and treatments that are effective, at least in empirical studies. Implementing these evidence-based practices and treatments requires a different set of empirical studies to understand the operational issues that affects client-driven outcomes. In this article, we review the following three areas: (a) use of a standardized risk and need assessment tool, (b) use of cognitive-behavioral programs to address criminogenic needs, and (c) use of swift and certain responses to shape behavior. The review focuses on the unanswered questions regarding implementation and organizational change strategies to increase receptivity for the evidence-based practices, lay the foundation for improving effectiveness of "evidence-based practices and treatments," and provide a work environment that supports evidence-based practices and treatments. This article outlines a research agenda to build implementation knowledge that can further the use of evidence-based practices and treatments. Keywords risk and need assessment, cognitive-behavioral programs, swift and certain responses to behavior, evidence-based practices, implementation issues "What works" or evidence-based practices (EBPs) and treatments emerged over the last 40 years as a means to emphasize that community and institutional corrections should practice what research finds (preaches)-that is, what is relevant and effective in changing outcomes of individuals in the justice system. If community and institutional corrections are to be successful in reducing recidivism-an outcome that is frequently cited as the main goal of corrections-then the practices need to

show abstract

“…And in fact, we did not see any reductions in returns to prison or any changes in recidivism for those parolees participating in the "experimental" sites. We felt like air had been let out of our risk balloon (Turner et al, 2012 ).…”

Section: Skepticism In the Parole Ranksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Envisioning Criminology

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of the California Parole Violation Decision-Making Instrument (PVDMI)

Cited by 14 publications

References 5 publications

Are Supervision Practices Procedurally Fair? Development and Predictive Utility of a Procedural Justice Measure for Use in Community Corrections Settings

Are Supervision Practices Procedurally Fair? Development and Predictive Utility of a Procedural Justice Measure for Use in Community Corrections Settings

The Partially Clothed Emperor: Evidence-Based Practices

Envisioning Criminology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About