Reimagining probation and parole for young adults in the United States
| Author | Miranda Sitney,Kimberly Bernard,David Schwager |
| DOI | 10.1177/2066220320981180 |
| Published date | 01 December 2020 |
| Date | 01 December 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
981180EJP0010.1177/2066220320981180European Journal of ProbationBernard et al.
2020
Original Article
European Journal of Probation
2020, Vol. 12(3) 200 –218
Reimagining probation and
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
parole for young adults in
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/2066220320981180
DOI: 10.1177/2066220320981180
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejp
the United States
Kimberly Bernard , David Schwager
and Miranda Sitney
Multnomah County Department of Community Justice, USA
Abstract
The aim of this article is to propose an overhaul in how young adults (approximately
aged 15–25 years) should be supervised in the community while serving probation or
parole sentences. Using a pilot model implemented in the Pacific Northwest in the
United States, we describe the development of a new specialized caseload focused on
the developmental needs of this age group. Once established, an ambitious training
program using external subject matter experts was used to educate supervising officers
and integrate best practices across four emerging areas in the literature: trauma
informed care, brain development science, an Equity and Empowerment Lens with a
racial justice focus, and the case management approach Effective Practices in Community
Supervision. Results show the potential of this approach to change the trajectory of the
life course of participants, as well as promote systematic and systemic reform in the
participating jurisdiction.
Keywords
Brain development, cognitive-behavioral program, Effective Practices in Community
Supervision, officer training, parole, probation, racial equity, recidivism, specialized
unit, trauma informed, young adult
Introduction
In the United States, there is increasing attention on how best to provide probation and
parole services to young adults, usually defined as those spanning 15 to 25 years in age
(Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2015; National Research Council, 2013).
Corresponding author:
Kimberly Bernard, Research and Planning Unit, Multnomah County Department of Community Justice, 501
SE Hawthorne Boulevard, Portland, OR 97214, USA.
Email: kimbernardlinked@gmail.com
Bernard et al.
201
This population straddles separate and distinct adult and juvenile service systems. Young
adults transfer between these two systems either by reaching a milestone birthday defined
by the State, or through charging decisions of the District Attorney’s Office. In reality,
youth sharing very similar demographics, committing very similar crimes, can be man-
aged in disparate supervision systems where their experience with evidence-based prac-
tices may vary dramatically. In both the juvenile and adult systems, those aged 15 to 25
are often outlier clients—a bit older than the usual client in the juvenile system, and a bit
younger than those typical in the adult system. For a Corrections Supervising Officer
(CSO)1 whose caseload composition is organized by specific crime types, or assessment
scores of criminogenic risk, there is little training in how to meet the unique develop-
mental needs of the occasional 15- to 25-year-old appearing on their caseload.
The dispersion of young adults aged 15 to 25 across systems can mask a disturbing
truth about this population—they often have the highest recidivism rates (Durose et al.,
2014). For example, approximately 20% of young people incarcerated in the juvenile
justice system were between the ages of 18 and 20 and more than half of these young
adults (7044 people) were incarcerated as the result of a serious offense (Sickmund et al.,
2015). In the United States, this is also an equity issue where Black males ages 18 to 24
comprised nearly 40% of all young adults admitted to adult state and federal prisons in
2012 (Carson and Golinelli, 2014). These findings are also consistent with foundational
criminology research establishing the relationship between age and criminal activity.
The fact that crime frequency peaks in young adulthood and then dissipates over the life
course is an almost ubiquitous phenomenon (Hirschi and Gottfredson, 1983).
This unfortunate trend also held true in Multnomah County, Oregon, in 2014 where the
Department of Community Justice (DCJ) managed approximately 950 young adults across
its adult or juvenile divisions. The Department won a federal grant award in 2015 to
restructure how young adults were managed within the department and to invest in a sig-
nificant overhaul of how the officers working with these young people were trained. There
was also a requirement that the entire effort be externally evaluated for long-term impacts
on the recidivism of the participating youth. This article describes the overall approach,
measures of training effectiveness, and quantitative client outcomes of the clients. This
article concludes by discussing the lessons learned in this jurisdiction as well as challenges
to implementing this approach on a wider scale.
Focus areas of the program
The first major milestone of the pilot was to transfer all young adults being supervised in
the adult and juvenile divisions to specialized caseloads where the assigned CSOs would
exclusively manage young adults. There were a few exceptions for young adults who
committed certain types of crimes such as sex offenses, domestic violence, or gang-
related crimes. The CSOs selected for this pilot volunteered for the transfer, and were not
mandated to serve in the units. These CSOs would also be committing to a rigorous train-
ing program and peer-review requirements.
The goal for the unit was to become an exemplar of supervising young adults by suc-
cessfully integrating four emerging areas of evidence-based practice: Effective Practices
in Community Supervision (EPICS) case management, Brain Development Science,
202
European Journal of Probation 12(3)
Trauma Informed Care (TIC), and an Equity and Empowerment Lens (E & E Lens) with
a racial justice focus. This ambitious aim is consistent with the evidence-based move-
ment that has driven criminal justice programming in the United States for over 20 years
as well as an increasing number of federal initiatives designed to help adolescents (Metz
and Albers, 2014; Przybylski et al, 2015).
EPICS
EPICS was developed by the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute, grounded in
the principles of effective intervention and research on community supervision and
implementation (Smith et al., 2012). This model has been used in more than 80 state and
local community corrections agencies since 2006. DCJ had initially adopted the EPICS
model in the Adult Division in 2011, but the model was not introduced to CSOs serving
young adults in the Juvenile Division until the start of the pilot.
The EPICS model of supervision takes a structured approach in face-to-face interac-
tions between community supervision officers and clients. The model uses a Risk-Needs-
Responsivity (RNR) methodology, prescribing higher treatment dosages of intervention
to higher risk clients. By focusing on RNR, officers can divert resources from lower level
clients, who are negatively impacted when dosages are too high, and concentrate those
resources of time and services to clients who have a higher likelihood of reoffending.
Officers are also trained to focus on criminogenic needs and use a cognitive-behavioral
therapy approach to interrupt the criminogenic thought-behavior link that leads to repeat
offenses. The model is further supported by systematically engaging supervisors and peer
coaches in the supervision process.
An EPICS session consists of four steps:
1. Check-in: CSO works to build trust and rapport with the client, determine any
acute needs that can be addressed to ensure client success, and assess the client’s
level of compliance with current court orders.
2. Review: CSO and client discuss the skills that were learned in the last EPICS
session to determine whether the client has been able to implement those skills
and to troubleshoot challenges in implementation.
3. Intervention: CSO helps the client learn new skills to overcome obstacles toward
success, targeting the client’s highest risk areas and teaching through a variety of
methods, including role-playing.
4. Homework: CSO assigns the client homework to provide them with an opportu-
nity to practice the interventions through writing exercises and any real-world
applications.
Clients supervised by CSOs who adhere closely to the EPICS model have demon-
strated significantly fewer incidences of recidivism (arrests and incarcerations) than
those supervised by less adherent CSOs (Latessa et al., 2012). Developing a good rela-
tionship between CSOs and clients is also important, as clients in a trusting relationship
with their supervising officer have had significantly lower rates of new crime arrests
(Smith et al., 2012). Clients supervised by officers trained in EPICS also show reduc-
tions in antisocial attitudes and beliefs over time (Labrecque et al., 2013).
Bernard et al.
203
Brain development science
Over the last decade, juvenile justice researchers have been placing more emphasis on
the role of brain development in youth criminality and recognizing that youth differ from
adults in ways that are important to consider in the criminal justice system (Steinberg,
2017). As people age through adolescence, stages of brain development can influence
their behaviors and decision-making. The prefrontal cortex is still developing during this
time,...
To continue reading
Request your trial