The effectiveness of probation supervision towards reducing reoffending: A Rapid Evidence Assessment
| Author | Kim Heyes,Zsolt Kiss,Chris Fox,Andrew Smith,Jordan Harrison,Andrew Bradbury |
| Published date | 01 December 2018 |
| Date | 01 December 2018 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0264550518796275 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Probation Journal
The effectiveness of
2018, Vol. 65(4) 407–428
ª The Author(s) 2018
probation supervision
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0264550518796275
towards reducing
journals.sagepub.com/home/prb
reoffending: A Rapid
Evidence Assessment
Andrew Smith , Kim Heyes, Chris Fox
and Jordan Harrison
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
Zsolt Kiss
ZK Analytics, UK
Andrew Bradbury
Birmingham City University, UK
Abstract
In response to the lack of universal agreement about ‘What Works’ in probation
supervision (Trotter, 2013) we undertook a Rapid Evidence Assessment of the
empirical literature. Our analysis of research into the effect of probation supervision
reducing reoffending included 13 studies, all of which employed robust research
designs, originating in the USA, UK, Canada and Australia, published between 2006
and 2016. We describe the papers included in our review, and the meta-analyses of
their findings. Overall, we found that the likelihood of reoffending was shown to be
lower for offenders who had been exposed to some type of supervision. This finding
should be interpreted cautiously however, given the heterogeneity of the studies. We
suggest future research and methodological considerations to develop the evidence
base concerning the effectiveness of probation supervision.
Corresponding Author:
Andrew Smith, Policy Evaluation and Research Unit, Manchester Metropolitan University, Geoffrey Manton
Building, Rosamund St. West, Manchester, M15 6BH, UK.
Email: a.smith@mmu.ac.uk
408
Probation Journal 65(4)
Keywords
probation, supervision, recidivism, Rapid Evidence Assessment, meta-analysis
Introduction
Rapid Evidence Assessments (REAs) are a form of academic systematic review,
usually undertaken intensively in a shorter period than a full systematic review (e.g.
approximately 3 months as opposed to 12 months). REAs are often used to
understand the impact of a particular issue or intervention, in order to produce
evidence that may inform policy and practice (Government Social Research Unit,
2007). Prompted by our understanding of probation supervision and lack of uni-
versal agreement about ‘What Works’ (Trotter, 2013), we undertook an REA to
address the question ‘what is the effect of probation supervision on recidivism?’
We firstly provide an overview of the current state of evidence on probation
supervision including its definition, features and the state of the art from an empirical
perspective. We then describe our review methodology and findings, including a
meta-analysis, before offering a short discussion and signposting steps to devel-
oping the evidence base concerning the effectiveness of probation supervision
towards reducing reoffending.
Background to the review
Supervision in probation has often been understood in terms of its commonality
with supervision and professional helping relationships in other sectors, and
consequently it has not always been understood only in relation to working with
involuntary clients (Gursansky et al., 2003). Definitions of supervision in criminal
justice vary according to jurisdiction as well as government policy and wider
societal factors (Bottoms et al., 2001). The Council of Europe (2017) makes clear
that ‘supervision’ is integral to community sanctions and measures, which should
be meaningful to suspects and offenders and seek to contribute their personal and
social development. Supervision should therefore serve these aims (Council of
Europe, 2017).
In the UK supervision varies across jurisdictions. In Scotland the devolved
administration has maintained a stronger focus on the social work dimension of
community measures and sanctions with policy initiatives focused on reparation and
rehabilitation and, to a lesser extent, reintegration (McNeill, 2016). In Northern
Ireland community measures and sanctions have been shaped by the political
context, although in recent years a period of ‘normalization’ of the criminal justice
system has seen the role of supervision changing (Carr, 2016). England and Wales
has seen radical reform of the criminal justice system. Transforming Rehabilitation:
A Strategy for Reform (Ministry of Justice, 2013) reiterated the Ministry of Justice’s
intention to introduce a widespread programme of competition for probation
services, including regional Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) taking
responsibility for low and medium-risk offenders in the community and
Smith et al.
409
post-sentence. Supervision of high-risk offenders was moved to a new National
Probation Service (NPS). Most of the CRCs are managed by private, for-profit,
organisations, with some working in partnership with not-for-profit organisations.
The Offender Rehabilitation Act (2014) extended the use of post-custody super-
vision to prison sentences under 12 months (often referred to as ‘short sentences’). In
her most recent Annual Report, the Chief Inspector of Her Majesty’s Probation
Inspectorate described a two-tier and fragmented probation service, with individ-
uals being supervised more effectively by the NPS than by CRCs, ineffective
‘through-the-gate’ services, and a lack of continuity in supervisory relationships
within CRC settings (HMIP, 2017).
Despite variation across jurisdictions, supervision typically incorporates the
oversight and monitoring of an individual’s activities in the community (Robinson
et al., 2013). The concept of supervision is complex as it can include functions
and goals such as monitoring offenders, enforcing court sentencing, ensuring
public protection and reducing reoffending. Supervision is associated with ‘a
measure of sanction before imprisonment, instead of imprisonment, as an inter-
lude during imprisonment (temporary release) and after imprisonment’ (Durnescu
et al., 2013: 21).
Within the United States, approximately 6.5 million offenders are under super-
vision (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2015). Offender management in the UK has a
history of over a century. A shift towards a more community orientated approach to
working with offenders has resulted in supervision becoming a vital component of
the justice system in the UK and in Europe, which has developed rapidly in scale,
distribution and intensity (Beyens and McNeill, 2013). There were 265,047
offenders on probation as at 30 September 2017, a high proportion of which will
have been under supervision (Ministry of Justice, 2018a). Reoffending rates for
those serving community sentences in England and Wales have fluctuated between
28 per cent and 31 per cent over the past decade (Ministry of Justice, 2018b). The
probation service’s total annual offender caseload increased by 32 per cent
between 2001 and 2006, placing a considerable amount of pressure on the pro-
bation service (National Audit Office, 2008).
Different approaches to supervision
Supervision in the UK and further afield incorporates models that seek to establish
roles and responsibilities, encouraging compliance and the use of authority to deter
future criminality. However, there is not a single unified model of supervision.
Supervision practice typically requires the risk assessment of offenders to identify
factors that may influence their likelihood of partaking in criminality (Healey, 1999).
While assessment processes and tools vary over time and by jurisdiction, their pri-
mary aim is to understand an offender’s needs, concerns and attitudes that may
negatively influence their behaviour. Following assessment, practitioners are able to
apply techniques and/or interventions during supervision to address needs, dis-
courage criminal behaviour and promote positive change (Andrews and Bonta,
2006). The nature of interventions and techniques used in supervision and the
410
Probation Journal 65(4)
degree of professional discretion available to practitioners has been influenced by
‘What Works’ narratives, a body of empirical research that determines what is
effective when aiming to reduce recidivism (McGuire, 1995, Lipsey and Cullen
2007). Additionally, practitioners may refer offenders to services in the community,
with the aim of mitigating risk and to provide practical support. Supervision ses-
sions often take place in a private setting to allow the facilitation of sensitive issues
relating to an offender’s life (Durrance et al., 2010). In the initial stages, sessions
often support the development of inter-personal relationships which helps to pro-
vide a bedrock for desistance. Regular interaction between offender and offender
manager is regarded as fundamental in the early stages of an order, as evidence
suggests reoffending is significantly higher during this period (Shapland et al.,
2012).
Modern practice has received significant influence from the principles outlined
in the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model (Andrews and Bonta, 2006; Taxman
and Marlowe, 2006). RNR aligns the level of service to the risk posed by an
individual by targeting criminogenic needs and identifying appropriate treatment
as a response. Supervision has also been influenced by the Good Lives Model
(GLM) approach to offender rehabilitation, which interprets an individual’s life
holistically, rather than directing attention to risk factors (Ward and Maruna,
2007). GLM understands offenders as those who are lacking in areas that define
a good life and that criminality reflects failed attempts to pursue primary needs.
Both proponents of the RNR and the GLM models argue that there are similarities
or overlaps between the two models (e.g. Ward and...
To continue reading
Request your trial