TAKING IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL:
Effective Practices in
Correctional Supervision
Paula Smith, Ph.D.
School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati
Presented at the annual meeting of IACCAC
November 2012
Previous Research
• Solomon, Kachnowski, & Bhati (2005)
– Results indicated no statistical difference between the rearrest rates
of offenders who were assigned to mandatory release, discretionary
release and unconditional release conditions.
• Bonta et al. (2008)
– Meta-analysis did not support the effectiveness of community
supervision in reducing offender recidivism.
General recidivism: r = .022 (k = 26, n = 53,930)
Violent recidivism: r = .004 (k = 8, n = 28,523)
Some Problems with
“Traditional” Community Supervision
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Insufficient dosage
Length of community supervision
Caseload size
Unknown risk of offenders
Availability and quality of community referrals
Content of interaction with offenders
Focus on external controls
Other policy and procedural issues
Previous Research
• Bonta et al. (2008)
– A research agenda was initiated to develop and assess the Strategic
Training Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS).
• Bourgon et al. (2010); Bonta et al. (2010)
– Preliminary results indicated that use of core correctional practices
by STICS trained officers was associated with reductions in
recidivism.
Overview of EPICS Model
• Applies the RNR framework to community supervision
• Trains officers on core correctional practices
• Includes measures of fidelity and coaching sessions
• Involves on-going research studies to examine the relationship
between officer characteristics and offender outcomes
Risk Principle
• Identify higher risk offenders with an actuarial assessment.
• Higher risk offenders should receive more intensive
services, treatment and supervision.
• Avoid targeting lower risk offenders as it may increase
their risk and failure rates.
Translating the Risk Principle
• Probation and parole officers focus on higher risk
offenders.
• A deliberate effort is made to increase dosage through the
use of more frequent case management meetings as well as
increased supervision and community referrals.
Need Principle
• Identify and target criminogenic needs:
– Antisocial attitudes, values and beliefs
– Procriminal peer associations
– Personality
________________________________________________________
–
–
–
–
Education/employment
Family
Substance abuse
Leisure and recreation
Translating the Need Principle
• Probation and parole officers are trained to target
criminogenic needs (e.g., antisocial cognitions and social
skills).
Specific Responsivity Principle
• Remove or address potential barriers to treatment.
• Match the style and mode of service delivery to key
offender characteristics.
General Responsivity Principle
• Use cognitive-behavioral strategies as these techniques are
the most effective in changing attitudes and behaviors.
Translating the Responsivity Principle
• Probation and parole officers use role clarification and
other relationship skills to establish a strong collaborative
working relationship with offenders (see Skeem et al.,
2007; Trotter, 2006).
• EPICS uses a structured, active approach to changing
antisocial attitudes and behaviors.
– Defining themes and characteristics of cognitive-behavioral model
– Core correctional practices
Structure of EPICS Session
• Each EPICS session should be structured to include the
following four components:
1. Check-In
2. Review
3. Intervention
4. Homework
Pilot Project
• The original pilot project was conducted in Grant County, IN.
–
–
–
–
–
Northeastern Indiana, population of 69,825
Predominantly white (90.3%)
Per capita income $25,756 (with a below poverty rate of 13.7%)
Education: High school diploma (80.9%), BA degree or higher (12.4%)
Unemployment rate of 7.0%
• Community corrections serves adults and juveniles, as well as
offenders convicted of both felonies and misdemeanors.
Sample of Probation Officers
• A total of 6 probation officers were selected to be trained
on the EPICS model (4 males, 2 females).
• In order to support implementation and ensure fidelity,
trained officers attended bi-monthly coaching sessions with
UC research associates.
• A total of 4 probation officers were assigned to the control
group (1 male, 3 females).
Sample of Offenders
• Each probation officer was asked to recruit five offenders
to participate in the pilot project.
– Higher risk on the LSI-R
– Minimum of six months on community supervision
• Sample included both males and females, adults and
juveniles.
Research Design
• Probation officers recorded three sessions with each
offender after 1, 3, and 6 months of supervision.
• All tapes were coded by the University of Cincinnati in
order to compare trained versus untrained officers on their
use of core correctional practices.
Research Design
• Offenders also completed two measures after the first
session, and then again after six months of supervision.
– Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified (CSS-M)
– Dual Role Inventory (DRI)
• Collection of outcome data is on-going, and includes the
results of urinalysis as well as technical violations, re-arrest,
re-conviction, and re-incarceration.
Results
• A total of 93 audiotapes were coded (52% first session;
31% second session; 17% third session).
• The experimental group submitted a total of 57 tapes,
whereas the control group submitted a total of 36 tapes.
Results
• Trained were more likely to spend time discussing
criminogenic needs rather than probation conditions and/or
non-criminogenic needs.
WERE CRIMINOGENIC NEEDS DISCUSSED IN SESSION?
% of
audiotapes
Results
• Trained officers were more likely to make effective use of
social reinforcement as a result of training on the EPICS
model.
DID THE OFFICER USE SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT?
% of
audiotapes
Results
• Trained officers were far more likely to identify antisocial
thinking, but struggled with strategies to challenge (or
replace) these cognitions.
WERE ANTISOCIAL THOUGHTS/BELIEFS IDENTIFIED?
% of
audiotapes
WERE ANTISOCIAL THOUGHTS/BELIEFS CHALLENGED?
% of
audiotapes
Results
• Trained officers reported that their comfort level with
structured skill building (i.e., role playing) was relatively
low.
• As a result, this technique was specifically targeted in
coaching sessions. There was evidence that use of social
skill building increased slightly over time.
DID THE OFFICER USE BEHAVIORAL REHEARSAL?
% of
audiotapes
Results
• Trained officers made adequate use of structuring skills
generally, and were more likely than untrained officers to
assign homework.
DID THE OFFICER ASSIGN HOMEWORK?
% of
audiotapes
Recent EPICS Research Projects
• Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (ODRC)
– Research with three adult parole regions
– Designed to pilot the use of EPICS model with parole officers
• Office of Criminal Justice Services (OCJS)
– Research with three adult agencies and one juvenile agency
•
•
•
•
Franklin County Adult Probation
Hamilton County Juvenile Probation
Hamilton County Adult Probation
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections
Recent EPICS TA Projects
• We have more than 40 sites that have trained officers on
EPICS and participated in subsequent coaching sessions.
EPICS Performance and DRI Score
DRI Score
EPICS Score
Below Average
Above Average
ϕ = .17, p < .10
Below Average
% (n)
Above Average
% (n)
58.5 (38)
41.1 (23)
41.5 (27)
58.9 (33)
Common Barriers to Implementation
• EPICS requires officers to spend more time with higher risk
offenders (and this may create the need to realign workloads).
• Officers need to learn and practice new skills – and this
requires training and coaching!
• In order for successful implementation to occur, supervisors
must be part of the process.
Common Barriers to Implementation
“It’s too time consuming.”
– Evidence in the pilot project that time decreased slightly as officers
became more proficient in the model.
“It’s too difficult to conduct EPICS session in the field; it is so
much easier to do in the office.”
– It can be difficult to conduct sessions with parents, siblings and
other distractions in the home or school environment.
“I already do it – just not the way UC prefers.”
Common Barriers to Implementation
“I’m not a therapist or counselor; I refer them to treatment
services. It isn’t my job and I’m not qualified.”
– EPICS is not intended to replace other treatment services and
community referrals.
– Some probation and parole officers do not view themselves as
agents of change.
“Why bother to do all of this? I know that all offenders lie.”
“This might work with other offenders, but my specific
caseload is unique.”
Strengths
• Most probation and parole officers (both trained and
untrained) regularly monitor for compliance and exhibit
some relationship skills.
• In general, trained officers are able to make effective use of
social reinforcement.
Areas for Improvement
• While probation and parole officers can identify antisocial
thinking, they often do not challenge it.
• Most officers continue to be uncomfortable with some
aspects of structured skill building (i.e., role playing).
• Many homework assignments are not meaningful.
• Coders routinely note several “missed opportunities” to
target criminogenic needs.
Conclusion
• EPICS appears to enhance adherence to RNR model.
– Officers focus more on criminogenic needs.
– Trained officers use more cognitive-behavioral strategies in
comparison with untrained officers.
• This model is not intended to replace more intense
interventions to address specific criminogenic need areas.
Contact Information
For more information, please contact:
Paula Smith, Ph.D.
Director, Corrections Institute
School of Criminal Justice
University of Cincinnati
paula.smith@uc.edu