Reexamining Evidence-Based Practice in Community Corrections: Beyond “A-Confined View” of What Works

Abstract

This article aims to reexamine the development and scope of evidence-based practice (EBP) in community corrections by exploring three sets of issues. Firstly, we examine the relationships between the contested purposes of community supervision and their relationships to questions of evidence. Secondly, we explore the range of forms of evidence that might inform the pursuit of one purpose of supervision—the rehabilitation of offenders—making the case for a fuller engagement with “desistance” research in supporting this process. Thirdly, we examine who can and should be involved in conversations about EBP, arguing that both ex/offenders' and practitioners' voices need to be respected and heard in this debate.

Understanding Compliance Dynamics in Community Justice Settings

“…As mentioned earlier, this stigmatised status undermines their symbolic capital which is already limited given that they 24 possess relatively low levels of the other forms of capital. Indeed, some have argued that it is important to work with service users to develop the different forms of capital, particularly their social capital and their human capital 6 (their strengths, competencies, capabilities and other similar attributes) so they feel able to recognise and act upon their role as capable agents of change (McNeill, 2012;Shapland et al, 2014).…”

Assessing dynamic risk and protective factors in the community: examining the validity of the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry

“…Community supervision (i.e., parole) is considered central to enhancing successful re-entry; however, there is little empirical evidence to support the view that parole reduces recidivism (Bonta, Rugge, Scott, Bourgon, & Yessine, 2008). In recent years, in a number of jurisdictions, there has been a shift away from a punitive model of community supervision, focused primarily on monitoring compliance, to a hybrid model that combines aspects of the compliance model with a wider focus on rehabilitative interests and change support (McNeill et al, 2012;Serin et al, 2010). This new era of probation highlights the importance of core correctional practice (Bonta et al, 2011;Robinson, VanBenschoten, Alexander, & Lowenkamp, 2011), whereby probation officers use specific skills to enhance client outcomes.…”

Le désistement assisté ? Les interventions des agents de probation telles que perçues par des sursitaires qui se sont désistés du crime1

“…Même s'il s'agit d'une profonde modification dans la conception de la personne contrevenante, des stratégies d'intervention et même des objectifs à atteindre, on observe étrangement une quasiabsence d'études portant sur les interventions prodiguées par les agents de probation au Québec (Lalande, 2012 ;Quirion et Vacheret, 2010). On note également une pauvreté d'études portant sur le rôle de l'agent de probation dans le ou les processus de désistement du crime des contrevenants (Barry, 2013 ;Farrall, 2002Farrall, , 2004Farrall et Maruna, 2004 ;McCulloch, 2005 ;McNeill, Farrall, Lightwoler et Maruna, 2012 ;Rex, 1999Rex, , 2001. Finalement, on « demande rarement [aux personnes contrevenantes] si les interventions qui leur sont destinées ont été favorables à leur désistement du crime » (Barry, 2013, p. 47).…”

“…Considérant néan-moins que les études sur le désistement sont jugées prometteuses pour l'administration de la justice criminelle et pénale (Maguire, 2007), ainsi que pour la pratique des intervenants sociopénaux (McNeill et al, 2012), l'opérationnalisation la plus utilisée de ce phénomène distingue deux phases : le désistement primaire et le désistement secondaire. Le désistement primaire débute dès que les comportements criminels cessent (voir Maruna, Immarigeon et LeBel, 2004, p. 19).…”