What Works (and Doesn't) in Reducing Recidivism

Latessa, Edward J.; Listwan, Shelley Johnson; Koetzle, Deborah

doi:10.4324/9781315721224

Cited by 96 publications

(94 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, for some survey questions, the respondents were not overwhelmingly in the affirmative for EBP, which suggests many PAs may need policy changes and technical assistance to move in this direction. And while a large body of evidence is dedicated to understanding how EBP operates in corrections more broadly (see, for example, Andrews et al, 1990; Latessa et al, 2015; MacKenzie 2000), less evidence exists evaluating policies specific to parole. This includes evaluations of the effectiveness of parole release guidelines and the factors important to predict public safety outcomes, or the ways in which PAs can assign conditions to set someone up for success on parole supervision.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the changes in parole and post-release in the United States, the field of EBP in corrections has expanded to include a large body of evidence for “what works” in prisons, community supervision, and reentry (see, for example, Andrews et al, 1990; Latessa et al, 2015; Listwan et al, 2006; MacKenzie, 2000; Ndrecka et al, 2017; Petersilia and Reitz, 2012; Taxman and Belenko, 2012). However, achieving EBP depends on the goal and purpose of the correctional practice (McNeill et al, 2012).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Examining the policies of paroling authorities in the United States to support evidence-based practices

Harbinson¹,

Ruhland

2020

European Journal of Probation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While much research in community corrections examines ways in which direct supervision can reduce recidivism, less is known about the role of paroling authorities in using or supporting evidence-based practices. This study presents a selection of results from a survey of paroling authorities across the United States conducted in 2015. We analyze and discuss survey results on the following three topics: (1) What is the structure and power/authority of the paroling authorities? (2) What are the appointments and requirements of paroling authorities? and (3) What evidence-based practices are paroling authorities utilizing? These results demonstrate the state of evidence-based practices in parole decision-making and illustrate ways in which paroling authorities can implement policies and practices that promote sustainability of evidence-based practices in community supervision. The findings indicate that many paroling authorities have adopted policies supportive of evidence-based practices; however, there are some areas in which parole can create continuity and promote better application of them.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the policies of paroling authorities in the United States to support evidence-based practices

Harbinson¹,

Ruhland

2020

European Journal of Probation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is ultimately about creating an environment which engenders learning (Bourgon and Bonta, 2014). Most studies of specific responsivity reveal that it is important to match treatment approaches to the age, gender, and race of clients while others suggest that internal barriers to success, such as mental health, motivation, and personality, are important responsivity considerations (see Latessa et al, 2014). There is also evidence to suggest that external factors (e.g.…”

Section: Rnr Model Of Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rehabilitative attempts to reduce recidivism have generally focused on reducing risk and addressing criminogenic needs. The most effective correctional treatment programs are largely designed to change criminal thinking and build human capital by teaching social, coping, and self-regulation skills (Latessa et al, 2014). The most effective programs reduce recidivism about 30% on average; however, many programs fall far short (Andrews and Bonta, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social capital: The forgotten responsivity factor

Koetzle

Matthews

2020

European Journal of Probation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Risk-Need-Responsivity model of correctional intervention has become the cornerstone of correctional practice in the United States. With a primary focus on building human capital through interventions aimed at developing knowledge and skills needed for prosocial behavior, the model enjoys widespread empirical support. This approach, however, has been criticized by desistance-focused scholars for its failure to recognize social capital and the importance of social networks for facilitating behavior change. The current article examines the concept of individual-level social capital and describes how its development can be integrated into the Risk-Need-Responsivity model of correctional interventions as an important responsivity factor. Recommendations include assessing for social capital and strategies for enhancing both bonding and bridging social capital.

show abstract

“…These newer empirically rooted approaches used to optimize correctional supervision and treatment are known as evidence-based practices (EBPs). Risk and need assessments, cognitive-behavioral treatments, and motivational interviewing are examples of EBPs commonly implemented in supervision agencies across the country with varying degrees of success (Latessa, Listwan, & Koetzle, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Sanctions and Incentives in Promoting Successful Reentry: Evidence From the SVORI Data

Mowen

Wodahl

Brent

et al. 2018

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior work on the efficacy of incentives and sanctions in community supervision practices suggests both can encourage desistance during prison reentry. Yet limited scholarship has investigated how sanctions and incentives impact reentry together and most research in this area is cross-sectional. Using four waves of data from the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, results of cross-lagged dynamic panel models reveal that certain incentives, namely supervision officer praise, relate to significantly lower levels of offending and substance use. Conversely, supervision sanctions and supervision officer reprimands relate to higher levels of offending and substance use over time. Overall, supervision practices that emphasize recognizing prosocial behavior over punishing noncompliance appear to hold greater promise for promoting successful reentry. Findings suggest that supervision agencies should consider the potential negative outcomes of sanctions during the reintegration process, and policies should be put into place that more closely consider the role of sanctions on behavior.

show abstract

What Works (and Doesn't) in Reducing Recidivism

Cited by 96 publications

References 0 publications

Examining the policies of paroling authorities in the United States to support evidence-based practices

Examining the policies of paroling authorities in the United States to support evidence-based practices

Social capital: The forgotten responsivity factor

The Role of Sanctions and Incentives in Promoting Successful Reentry: Evidence From the SVORI Data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About