The Reduced Probation Caseload in Evidence-Based Setting (Oklahoma City, Okla.) program aims to intensify the probation experience by reducing the caseloads of probation officers dealing with certain offenders—typically the more high-risk probationers. In conjunction with the use of other evidence-based tools and risk assessment techniques, the reduction in caseloads aims to reduce probationers’ recidivism in high-risk cases by providing more hands-on monitoring and greater scrutiny of their rehabilitative efforts and treatment progress.
Program Components and Theory
The program combines both the use of increased supervision and greater adherence to a required treatment regimen, in combination with an officer who is more available and thus more responsive to the particular needs, risks, and abilities of the probationer. This program also depends on an integration of evidence-based practices within the probation services, as previous literature has shown that, by itself, reducing probation caseloads does not reduce recidivism (see the Gendreau, Goggin, and Fulton 2000 meta-analysis of 47 studies of intensive supervision probation). In order to implement this program, probation departments should have implemented the following practices:
- Risk/needs assessments
- Separate specialized caseloads for domestic violence, sex offenders, mental health, and the like
- Concentrated services/treatment on assessed dynamic risks of medium- and high-risk probationers
- Considered responsivity (cognitive–behavioral programs, motivate change)
- Comprehensive case management
The principal evidence-based practices that the program relies on are officer training to identify probationers’ static and dynamic risks to determine the appropriate level of supervision based on likelihood of reoffense. In evidence-based settings, resources are concentrated on high-risk offenders, including treating and monitoring dynamic factors, such as illegal drug use. This allows for only the highest-risk offenders to be placed on the reduced probation caseloads, making best use of correctional resources in a risk–needs–responsivity (RNR) framework. The RNR model (Andrews and Bonta 2003; Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge 1990) has three core principles:
- Risk principle: The level of services should be matched to the level of the offender. High-risk offenders should receive more intensive services; low-risk offenders should receive minimal services.
- Need principle: Target criminogenic needs with services—that is, target those factors that are associated with criminal behavior. Such factors might include substance abuse, procriminal attitudes, criminal associates, and the like. Do not target other, noncriminogenic factors (such as emotional distress, self-esteem issues) unless they act as a barrier to changing criminogenic factors.
- Responsivity principle: The ability and learning style of the offender should determine the style and mode of intervention. Research has shown the general effectiveness of using social learning and cognitive–behavioral style interventions.
By using evidence-based practices in the selection of candidates for intensive supervision, the program aims to increase the effectiveness of probation. The assignment of a probationer to an officer with reduced probation caseload is done on the basis of a risk assessment and careful case planning. These offenders are those whose risk of recidivism is highest, for whom treatment may be a requirement of their release into the community, and whose environment may also be volatile and changeable.
Jalbert and colleagues (2011) hypothesized that revocation rates might be higher for the treatment group because of better detection of technical breaches of probation requirements. Their evaluation found a significantly higher revocation rate for the treatment compared with the control group. However, the rate of revocations was still very low, at only 5.2 percent for treatment and 1.3 percent for control probationers.
Arrests for Criminal Offenses
The results showed that the treatment group was arrested less often than the control group. At the maximum 1½-year follow-up, the treatment group had a significantly lower probability of recidivism than the control group, with a roughly 30 percent lower recidivism rate.
2 26 28 35 157 159 167 188 189