< PreviousJennifer L. Lanterman University of Nevada, Reno Kimberly R. Kras San Diego State University MEASURING SUCCESS Rather than failure: Reevaluating performance standards for community supervision HOW!21 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION DESISTANCE MEASURING SUCCESS RATHER THAN FAILURE REEVALUATING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITY SUPERVISION COVID-19 forced community supervision departments across the nation to quickly modify how they did business (Schwalbe & Koetzle, 2021; Viglione et al., 2020). Suddenly, the need for expanded remote reporting practices exploded, especially the use of virtual platforms (e.g., Zoom, Facetime, Teams, and Google Meet). The resiliency of leaders and staff during this challenging time allowed them to adapt quickly, and it was shown that supervising agencies could still uphold court conditions, and provide meaningful opportunities, support, and resources for people on supervision in a semi-virtual or completely virtual environment. As we gradually enter a post-pandemic world, the issue of continued remote reporting as part of the community supervision toolbox looms large, and important policy decisions need to be made. One of the main goals of community supervision practice has long been to reduce recidivism in the population of individuals assigned to our oversight. It is with this goal in mind that community supervision practitioners work toward reducing factors that might lead to individuals engaging in criminal or undesirable behavior and/or toward developing surveillance- type strategies to quickly and accurately identify violations of the law or supervision conditions by clients. This “reduce recidivism” orientation applies in regard to both to those on typical probation and parole and to others under supervision--increasingly including individuals on pretrial, diversion, and pre- adjudication caseloads. Thus, amidst our growing body of evidence-based practices (EBPs) and the goals outlined in the risk-needs-responsivity (RNR) framework, the outcome of interest is reducing recidivism. We see a few problems with this sole focus on reducing recidivism as a goal of community supervision. First, recidivism rates for probation and parole agencies remain high, suggesting that what we are doing isn’t impacting this particular outcome measure in the ways we expect. Second, recidivism is difficult and complicated to measure. What constitutes recidivism in one place may look different in another, and the ability to collect meaningful data may rely on various agencies within a jurisdiction. Third, and the crux of the argument in this article, is that recidivism is not the best measure to capture the deeply connected and important work that probation and parole staff do and the impact of that work on the lives of their clients. In this article, we will present an alternative to the common focus on recidivism. Using the concept of desistance and a harm reduction approach in behavioral health services, we demonstrate the benefits of a much-needed expansion of the meaning of community supervision practice and, hand in hand, the process of measuring staff impact on clients and general outcomes of clients. We offer that this updated thinking regarding the goals of community supervision also aligns with EBPs. We will conclude with some examples of how this theory can be put into practice by outlining some steps for moving in this direction. Traditional Focus on Recidivism Historically, recidivism has been the primary outcome of interest for most community supervision agencies. The way in which recidivism data is presented in the literature presents a complex picture. For example, recidivism rates vary significantly across states (Pew Center on the States, 2011). Rearrest rates for property, drug, and public order offenses have fluctuated but remained high across all offense categories, and La Vigne and Lopez (2021) examined 2005 and 2012 release cohorts and found that the violent crime rearrest rate remained at 28% (see also Langan & Levin, 2002; Shannon et al., 2017). Reconviction and reincarceration rates have been fairly stable for people released from prison for violence, property, and public order offenses for decades, although reconviction rates for people released from prison for drug offenses featured more variation (Langan & Levin, 2002; Shannon et al., 2017). This trend changed significantly between 2005 and 2012; La Vigne and Lopez (2021) examined Bureau of Justice Statistics national recidivism data for return to incarceration in 34 states and found that people released from state prison in 2012 were significantly less likely to return to prison within 3 years of release than people released from state prison in 2005 (see also Durose & Antenangeli, 2021). The 3-year rate of return to incarceration fell from 50% for the 2005 release cohort to 39% of the 2012 release cohort (La Vigne & Lopez, 2021).22 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 47, NUMBER 3 DESISTANCE Recidivism information such as the above does, of course, have a place in helping us understand trends and outcomes. However, it is important to carefully assess exactly what information is being captured in these recidivism statistics. What Does Recidivism Measure? Several factors can be identified that raise concerns about using recidivism as the primary measure of success or failure. These fall in the general areas of (a) how we measure recidivism, (b) how we collect recidivism data, and (c) how we determine what that data actually tells us. How We Measure Recidivism When you ask several different people to tell you what recidivism means, you will likely not get the same response. In big picture terms, recidivism refers to the return to criminal behavior. To actually count what recidivistic behavior is, we need some more information. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), recidivism includes three parameters shared across all definitions (Alper et al., 2018, p. 3): • A starting event, such as a release from prison or jail or placement on probation or parole; • A measure of failure, which could be a new arrest, reconviction, or new prison terms, among others, or a combination of these; and • A window of measurement, or range of time, during which failure events are tracked and measured (generally up to 3 to 5 years after the starting event). These parameters are instructive for us in thinking about the details regarding measuring recidivism. The starting event and range of time are likely the simplest decisions (though they vary considerably across agencies). The most difficult point to measure is what constitutes failure. Across agencies, we have relied on three primary measures (Figure 1): Figure 1. Common Ways of Measuring Recidivism These three measures are not comparable, but discussions can and often do conflate them with reference to “recidivism” generally, rather than the specific type of recidivism. For example, in one jurisdiction recidivism might be measured as a reconviction within 3 years of release (such as in California), and in another jurisdiction it is measured as reincarceration in a department of corrections (DOC) within 3 years of release (such as Nevada DOC). Even though these metrics seem similar, in essence we are comparing apples and oranges. An additional challenge in measuring recidivism for community supervision agencies is whether to include technical violations (e.g., non-criminal violations of community supervision terms/conditions) in measures Common Ways of Measuring Recidivism Rearrest Reconviction Reincarceration Being arrested by police for an alleged new crime (but not convicted) Being convicted for a new crime Being incarcerated in prison or jail after being convicted for a new crime23 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION DESISTANCE of recidivism. The inclusion of technical violations, especially those resulting in return to prison, reveals the staggering rate at which people are incarcerated for behavior that reflects noncompliance with rules rather than engaging in illegal behavior. When those who were imprisoned for a technical violation are released, they are now part of the broader pool encompassing recidivism statistics, despite not having committed a new offense. Furthermore, being charged with or found guilty of a technical violation is not solely a measure of client behavior, as many probation and parole agencies afford staff discretion on whether to charge clients with technical violations. For the same type of behavior, some staff are more inclined than others to pursue a technical violation charge. Further, client noncompliance may also be the result of various barriers they face in their communities (e.g., transportation, work/appointment conflicts, etc.). As such, recorded technical violations are a measure of both client and staff behavior (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022). How We Collect Data to Measure “Recidivism” A common adage for data scientists is “garbage in, garbage out,” for the quality of the data gathered in our collection efforts impacts the quality of the information we can report. Agencies rely on numerous different data collection and reporting strategies. A related complication is that divisions within corrections organizations may also have differing data coding practices. For example, institutional corrections agencies might record revocations on different dates (such as the date an individual entered prison) than probation and parole agencies (which might capture the date of the court or board ruling). This is problematic, because the institutional corrections and community supervision agencies rely on each other’s data to develop performance measures that reflect the effectiveness of corrections as a whole. For instance, continuing with the previous example of variance in revocation date recording practices, if a state is trying to identify justice-involved individuals’ time-to-failure in the community (e.g., the amount of time they were in the community before a recidivism event), then different revocation date recording practices will enter inconsistent or inaccurate data into the formula, resulting in two separate outputs. The divide between the data of institutional corrections and community supervision agencies can be illustrated further. For example, if a DOC is providing recidivism data from an agency information management system in relation to people on community supervision, then those data are limited because they will fail to reflect reconvictions that do not result in incarceration in DOC facilities (e.g., resulting in jail, another probation term, or community- based alternatives like drug court). They also don’t reflect data for out-of-state convictions, which is a significant issue for states with transient populations (e.g., Nevada, which experiences a high rate of homelessness and people moving in and out of the state) or states that are in close proximity to several other states (e.g., Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states). How We Determine What Data Actually Tell Us About Performance Outcomes for EBPs in community-based corrections are primarily measured in terms of client recidivism, but we need to examine our assumptions and carefully assess what utility this information has for supervision practices and performance evaluation of the organization and staff (or specific program). For example, two questions that linger are: 1. What useful information does “client did or did not reoffend/fail” provide for probation or parole staff in their efforts to supervise clients? 2. How is “client did or did not reoffend/fail” useful for assessing agency or staff performance or resource needs? These issues aside, what people generally mean when they think of recidivism reduction is “no more new crime, no matter how we measure it.” Of course, this is ideal. It would be of great benefit to society if every person convicted of crime immediately and forever ceased committing crime. This is also unrealistic, given what we know about crime rates, the dynamic factors that influence the commission of crime, and the challenges in providing relevant and high-quality evidence-based programming (both in implementation and daily practice) to address these factors in prisons, jails, and communities throughout the U.S (Augustine & Kushel, 2022; Pew Center on the States, 2018; Wang, 2023). Further, “a recidivism event requires an interaction with the criminal justice system, which means that DESISTANCE 24 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 47, NUMBER 3 recidivism rates measure some combination of the behavior of individuals who have been involved in the justice system and the system’s responses to that behavior” (Bucklen, 2021, p. 5). Bucklen explains that using recidivism to exclusively measure the success of criminal justice interventions is like using school dropout rates to exclusively measure the success of teachers (Bucklen, 2021). We recognize that teachers engage in educational practice in an environment influenced by factors beyond their control, such as family dynamics, poverty, impaired capacity to learn, and other disabilities (McAdams, 2010). We know that a child’s engagement in school may be related to something as simple as whether a sufficient breakfast (Imberman & Kugler, 2014; Leos Urbel et al., 2013). Therefore, distinguishing individual behavior changes from criminal justice system policy changes can be difficult when using a broad metric like recidivism rates. To this point, one of the most important critiques of recidivism as a measure of performance more generally is that it focuses on failure rather than success (Butts & Schiraldi, 2018). To a great extent, the entire premise of community-based supervision has been focusing on trying to get people not to fail rather than trying to get them to succeed, which is a significant difference in emphasis. As we will outline in the following section, success is not equal to “not failing.” For community supervision to enhance its effectiveness at improving lives and public safety, we propose that it focus more on how to improve the conditions of people’s lives and less on deterring them. Shifting Focus from Reducing Recidivism to Desistance and Harm Reduction Desistance has emerged as a key concept that with the potential for improving our understanding and measurement of community supervision’s performance. Whereas recidivism measures a discrete (yes/no) failure event (e.g., rearrest, reconviction, reincarceration), desistance is a longitudinal metric of success that is measured with numerous data points over time. It is intended to measure the process by which those who previously participated in criminal behavior move toward stopping the behavior or ending a criminal career. While much of the criminological research focuses on the reasons people engage in offending behavior, desistance suggests the reasons someone may stop engaging in crime are often different from, not just the mere opposite of, the original criminogenic factors (Bucklen, 2021). That is, the factors that increase individuals’ likelihood to engage in crime in the first place are not necessarily the same factors that explain the process by which they move away from it. How Do We Measure Desistance? Measuring desistance is admittedly challenging, and capturing it accurately will require innovative data collection and management efforts as well as reliance on more robust technologies. We offer some important definitions which will allow agencies to consider tangible ways of conceptualizing (what does it mean?) and operationalizing (how will we count it?) desistance. Bucklen (2021) identified deceleration, de-escalation, and “reaching a ceiling” as three desistance measures and defines them in the following way (see Figure 2): 1. Deceleration: Captures a slowdown in the frequency of criminal offending and may be measured, for example, by comparing arrest rates in fixed periods of time before and after a criminal justice sanction, such as incarceration. 2. De-escalation: Captures a reduction in the seriousness of offending and may be measured by changes in offense gravity or severity. (Severity scores are already used in many states to rank the seriousness of individual crime types.) 3. “Reaching a ceiling”: Reaching a ceiling reflects a complete cessation in criminal offending; it is essentially the inverse of recidivism for some specified follow-up period of time. Figure 2. The Desistance Process25 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION DESISTANCE Across these definitions, desistance allows us to account for the process of moving away from the conditions that contribute to the offending behavior and introducing or reinforcing conditions that help someone adopt a behavior pattern that includes abstinence from causing harm. Here, desistance also allows us to develop a measure that encompasses the notion of harm, rather than a criminal offense or violation of law, to focus on efforts toward rehabilitation and healing. Harm Reduction, Abstinence, and Gradualism Harm reduction is an umbrella term that refers to an approach to supporting and providing access to programs and services to people living with a range of behavioral health disorders, including substance use disorder, that does not require them to commit to abstinence before starting treatment (Logan & Marlatt, 2010; Psychology Today, 2023). The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) defines harm reduction as a practical approach that includes “prevention, risk reduction, and health promotion--to empower PWUD [people who use alcohol and other drugs] and their families to live healthy, self-directed, and purpose-filled lives” (SAMHSA, 2023, p. 4). The harm reduction approach centers on incremental change guided by individual strengths, goals, and motivations (SAMHSA, 2023). Gradualism is a framework that integrates the continuum of harm reduction strategies and: The abstinence-oriented treatment field... [combining] the harm reduction emphases on outreach...incremental change, and gradual healing with the abstinence-oriented therapeutic perspective that the use of substances in an addictive or abusive manner is antithetical to the growth and wellbeing of humans. (Kellogg, 2003, p. 243; see also Marlatt et al., 2001). In other words, gradualism is a substance use treatment framework that employs harm reduction strategies to move clients toward “abstinence eventually” (Kellogg, 2003). The absence of immediate and permanent abstinence does not mean that clients cannot make positive changes that are relevant to treatment goals or more general life goals. By reframing clinical success from the pursuit of abstinence from the outset of treatment to any client improvement that reduces the risk of harm, treatment providers are able to engage, support, and work with clients who might not initially be able or willing to commit to abstinence so that they can build rapport, make positive behavioral change, and, maybe, eventually shift their goal to abstinence (Logan & Marlatt, 2010; Mignon, 2015). The harm reduction ethos to “meet people where they are” (Perera et al., 2022; SAMHSA, 2023) and to harness their strengths and build on their goals and motivation enables treatment providers to engage clients with a range of EBPs to reduce the frequency or severity of substance use, reduce the prevalence of negative health outcomes (e.g., overdose deaths, disease transmission, organ failure), and reduce associated negative life circumstances (e.g., homelessness, unemployment, fractured family relationships). Applying this approach to community supervision provides a better representation of the performance of community-based supervision and programs and client behavior. The Utility of Desistance for Supervision and Performance Evaluation Desistance is a particularly useful measure when it comes to tracking individual and system performance with individuals who are assessed as high-risk. High- risk probation or parole clients are likely to have multiple moderate or severe criminogenic needs and substantial barriers to targeting those needs for change (responsivity). They may have long criminal histories. It is desirable for them to immediately cease criminal behavior and involvement in risky activities that increase probability of continuing to engage in criminal behavior (e.g., eliminate relationships with antisocial peers). However, it is not realistic to expect numerous, significant, or substantial changes to occur instantly and simultaneously, especially when the behavioral changes require participation in programs or treatment to develop new skills and integrating these into their daily lives. Historically, client, as well as staff and agency, failure is measured by assessing whether or not clients reoffended within 3 years post- release, but periods of 1 and 5 years are also common (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022). The time horizon on measurement, or time required to collect relevant data, and, by extension, feedback is long. This long-time horizon on measurement and feedback is inconsistent with 26 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 47, NUMBER 3 DESISTANCE EBPs for community supervision, particularly the need to increase reinforcement of positive or prosocial behaviors; measure relevant processes and practices, including incremental changes while on supervision; and providing measurement feedback to offenders regarding their performance (Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Wilson et al., 2022). The current method of measuring probation and parole client performance during those traditional recidivism follow-up periods of 1, 3, or 5 years does not accurately or effectively account for clients’ incremental behavioral changes, including those necessary for the long-term goal of no recidivism. Shifting the agency supervision and performance measurement focus from recidivism only, which is similar to abstinence-oriented treatment, to desistance allows the agency to capture important incremental changes in client behavior; provide timely feedback on performance to the client, staff, and overall agency; and either increase reinforcement of prosocial behaviors or, as may be necessary, develop a plan to address existing or new client needs or build off new client strengths. In this way, desistance measures function like the criminal justice version of the gradualist integration of harm reduction and abstinence measures seen in substance abuse treatment. They allow us to identify myriad positive behavioral changes in clients and the degree of support by the system through the use of EBPs and referral to evidence-based programs. This differs considerably from relying on a single, binary— yes/no–measure at 1, 3, or 5 years as the sole measure of failure or not. Current Challenges & Solutions We identify several important challenges and possible solutions facing community supervision organizations when implementing new measures of performance and client outcomes, with a focus on success. Data Measurement and Management One of the first challenges agencies will face is imagining how to meaningfully conceptualize and measure desistance. This will require considering new things to “count” in the lives of clients and new ways of capturing a process, rather than discrete events. Agencies must develop staff implementation teams that include frontline staff, middle and upper management, data scientists, criminologists, and other experts, including data management system vendors. This cross-section of voices will allow for obtaining a full array of possibilities and challenges in developing new data measurement and management systems. This involves both the “what” and the “how,” as not only do we need to determine what needs to be counted (e.g., how many jobs obtained and for how long, educational achievements, days of sobriety, etc.), but we must consider how it will be catalogued over time to depict the process of desisting from engaging in criminal behavior or other harmful behavior. This second point is why it is essential to have frontline staff involved in this decision-making process, as it is important that the primary data collectors have buy-in and can create relevant and manageable processes for implementation in their day-to-day routines. Culture A strong organizational culture that shifts focus from looking for and measuring failure to promoting and measuring success is essential for improving supervision practice. There is an element of truth in the saying, “what gets measured is what gets done,” and, considering that—and our long history of being excessively focused on measuring on what is arguably “the wrong thing”— it is no surprise that community supervision success and failure statistics don’t always seem to reflect the actual impact of our hard work. The sum total of community supervision practices, including the humanizing and compassionate parts of our work and the positive impact on many lives, is being reduced to a simple measure of failure or not. Our correctional culture should instead reflect our staff members’ difficult and complex job responsibilities and continue to build movement toward approaches that consider and positively impact the complex lives of our clients, supporting their change for the better in every way possible. That approach seems preferable to continuing to simplistically hone in on deterrence alone as our primary approach to crime prevention—an approach that doesn’t seem to be working as well as one might expect. It goes without saying that we strongly desire a reduction in crime, and we are devoted to ensuring public safety, but we need to accomplish these goals in the most effective way. To influence this organizational culture shift, agencies could capitalize on the gains made during the Covid-19 pandemic and nationwide social movements to infuse human-centered practices, focus on staff and client well-being, and radically change traditional approaches so that we meet people where they are, literally and figuratively (Kras et al., 2020; Viglione et al., 2020).27 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION DESISTANCE Equity When improving our data practices and reconsidering how to measure our performance, we must also consider these efforts through an equity lens. An equity lens refers to being deliberately inclusive when making decisions, especially when historically marginalized groups are involved (Center for Non-Profit Advancement, 2020). To begin, initial decision-makers tasked with the responsibility of moving the focus from recidivism to desistance must consider who has a seat at the table. The decision-makers in criminal justice organizations have historically been male and White, and thus an equity lens would include individuals to reflect the many other identities that have typically been left out, while also including a cross-sectional cut of an organization (e.g., to include line staff, management, and beyond). The decision-makers can then wrestle with the difficult issues of: What are our assumptions? Which of our practices which might inherently disadvantage or disproportionately affect particular groups? What impact will our decisions have on the outcomes of people historically disadvantaged by the criminal legal system? Developing a robust and equitable decision-making process will inherently improve the impacts of the system and align it more closely with serving communities and humanizing practice. Importantly, an equity lens is not a single time decision, just as the measurement of our performance is not. Instead, decision-makers need to consider how these approaches will be “baked into” the culture and processes of measuring our organizational impact. Politics The politics surrounding criminal justice are deeply intertwined with our approaches and decisions. Any tenured probation or parole staff member can attest to the pendulum shifts and drastic changes in practice that have occurred based on the political atmosphere or who is in office. To this point, the move from focusing only on recidivism to include desistance invites much political discord. At a baseline, this stems from many politicians, policy makers, and the public not having a full understanding of the limits and problems with measuring criminal justice system success through recidivism. It is already the case that community-based corrections agencies in many jurisdictions must respond to a perception of their being “too soft on crime” and are tasked by demands from the public, sometimes realistic and sometimes not. It becomes essential then, that this work on improving our performance measurement includes champions at the top of the organization and people positioned throughout the organization who can successfully communicate to staff, the public, and policymakers that these approaches are aligned with continued pursuit of public safety. Conclusion Measuring community supervision’s performance via recidivism (however captured and defined) gives a very incomplete picture of both the work that staff are engaged in and client behavior. The various ways recidivism is measured are also inconsistent with some aspects of EBPs for community supervision, particularly with respect to increasing reinforcement of prosocial behaviors, measuring relevant processes and practices, and providing measurement feedback. It is incumbent upon probation and parole agencies to realign measures of staff and client performance with agency missions, which typically include enhanced community safety and successful client community reintegration—both measures of success. Desistance offers an avenue to reorient staff and client performance standards from a focus on failure to a focus on success. The EBPs that many probation and parole staff are now using in their work with clients are oriented toward improving staff-client relationships to enhance rapport and communication. Probation and parole staff are performing their duties with a recognition that it is just as important to “catch their clients doing the right thing” and to acknowledge and reinforce it in a timely fashion as it is to intervene and respond when they determine that their clients violate the law or are non-compliant with the conditions of their supervision. Desistance is a meaningful conceptual measure to reorient performance standards to map the process of clients gradually moving away from criminal behavior, inclusive of all incremental improvements on their path toward a complete cessation of criminal behavior and other harmful behaviors. This reorientation of community supervision performance standards is similar to what has been happening in the field of substance use treatment, where even those who will not commit to abstinence when they enter a program or initiate treatment are allowed to benefit from a coupling of abstinence-oriented treatment and harm reduction strategies in a way that lessens the harm associated with their substance use while also supporting them in positive changes up to and including eventual abstinence. The shift from measuring failure to measuring success will be accompanied by numerous challenges. Whether those challenges are related to data measurement and management, agency culture, deciding who is involved in this process, the political climate, or any combination PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 3 DESISTENCE of the above, it is incumbent upon probation and parole agencies to begin devising solutions—solutions that will enable them to effectively realign agency performance standards for staff and clients in a way that reflects agency missions focused on success. This will be long and difficult work, but it will create the conditions that allow probation and parole agencies to more accurately report the work their staff carries out, client behavior, and agency, staff, and client success. References • Alper, M., Durose, M. R., & Markman, J. (2018). 2018 update on prisoner recidivism: A 9-year follow-up period (2005-2014). U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice • Augustine, D., & Kushel, M. (2022). Community supervision, housing insecurity, and homelessness. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 701(1), 152- 171. • Bucklen, K. B. (2021). Desistance-focused criminal justice practice (NCJ 301497). U. S. Department of Justice, National • Butts, J. A., & Schiraldi, V. (2018). Recidivism reconsidered: Preserving the community justice mission of community corrections. Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, Harvard Kennedy School. reconsidered.pdf • Center for Non-Profit Advancement. (2020). What is an equity • Durose, M. R., & Antenangeli, L. (2021). Recidivism of prisoners released in 34 states in 2012: A 5-year follow-up period (2012- 2017). U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. rpr34s125yfup1217.pdf • Guevara, M., & Solomon, E. (2009). Implementing evidence- based policy and practice in community corrections (2nd ed.). National Institute of Corrections. and-practice-community • Imberman, S. A., & Kugler, A. D. (2014). The effect of providing breakfast in class on student performance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(3), 669–699. https://doi. • Kellogg, S. H. (2003). On “gradualism” and the building of the harm reduction-abstinence continuum. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 25(4), 241–247. 5472(03)00068-0 • Kras, K. R., DeMichele, M., Martin, K., Scwalbe, C., Swan, H., Viglione, J. (2020). Community corrections virtual roundtable: Using research to understand how the Coronavirus pandemic has changed community corrections operations [Conference session]. Annual meeting of the American Probation and Parole Association. • Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994 (NCJ 193427). U.S. Department of Justice. • La Vigne, N., & Lopez, E. (2021, September 1). Recidivism rates: What you need to know. Council on Criminal • Leos Urbel, J., Schwartz, A. E., Weinstein, M., & Corcoran, S. (2013). Not just for poor kids: The impact of universal free school breakfast on meal participation and student outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 36, 88–107. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.06.007 • Logan, D. E., & Marlatt, G. A. (2010). Harm reduction therapy: A practice-friendly review of research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 66(2), • Marlatt, G. A., Blume, A. W., & Parks, G. A. (2001). Integrating harm reduction therapy and traditional substance abuse treatment. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 33(1), 13–21. • McAdams, R. P. (2010). Exploring the myths and realities of today’s schools a candid review of the challenges educators face. Rowman & Littlefield Education. • Mignon, S. I. (2015). Substance abuse treatment: Options, challenges, and effectiveness. Springer Publishing Company. • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2022). The limits of recidivism: Measuring success after prison. The National Academies • Perera, R., Stephan, L., Appa, A., Giuliano, R., Hoffman, R., Lum, P. & Martin, M. (2022). Meeting people where they are: Implementing hospital-based substance use harm reduction. • Pew Center on the States. (2018, September 25). Probation and parole systems marked by high stakes, missed opportunities. • Pew Center on the States. (2011, April). State of recidivism: The revolving door of America’s prisons. • Psychology Today. (2023). Harm reduction. • Shannon, S. K. S., Uggen, C., Schnittker, J., Thompson, M., Wakefield, S., & Massoglia, M. (2017). The growth, scope, and spatial distribution of people with felony records in the United • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. • Viglione, J., Alward, L. M., Lockwood, A., & Bryson, S. (2020). Adaptations to COVID-19 in community corrections agencies across the United States. Victims & Offenders, 15(7-8), 1277- 1297. • Wang, L. (2023, May). Punishment beyond prisons 2023: Incarceration and supervision by state, Prison Policy Initiative. • Wilson, A., Applegate, B. K., & Bolin, R. M. (2022). Evidence- based practices in community corrections: Officers’ perceptions of professional relevance and personal competence. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 47(1), 117–139. https://doi. scramsystems.com Empowering Clients on the Road to Sobriety SCRAM Continuous Alcohol Monitoring® (SCRAM CAM®) has played a pivotal role in transforming the lives of clients that have been court-ordered to abstain from alcohol or have voluntarily chosen the path to sobriety. Some key features that set SCRAM CAM apart include: • Anti-Tamper Technology. Industry- leading technology that encourages client compliance and accountability. • Recidivism Reduction. SCRAM CAM provides crucial support for long-term sobriety. • Proven Research. Validated by multiple independent research studies and peer-reviewed publications. • Single-Source Admissibility. Single- source admissible results upheld by the Frye-Daubert standards of admissibility. SCRAM Systems offers a full spectrum of monitoring solutions that give probation departments the tools they need to efficiently supervise and manage diverse caseloads. 1 MILLION ‘‘ The SCRAM program really helped me out with everything in life and made me a better father, son, and husband.’’ —SCRAM CAM Participant29 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION DESISTENCE scramsystems.com Empowering Clients on the Road to Sobriety SCRAM Continuous Alcohol Monitoring® (SCRAM CAM®) has played a pivotal role in transforming the lives of clients that have been court-ordered to abstain from alcohol or have voluntarily chosen the path to sobriety. Some key features that set SCRAM CAM apart include: • Anti-Tamper Technology. Industry- leading technology that encourages client compliance and accountability. • Recidivism Reduction. SCRAM CAM provides crucial support for long-term sobriety. • Proven Research. Validated by multiple independent research studies and peer-reviewed publications. • Single-Source Admissibility. Single- source admissible results upheld by the Frye-Daubert standards of admissibility. SCRAM Systems offers a full spectrum of monitoring solutions that give probation departments the tools they need to efficiently supervise and manage diverse caseloads. 1 MILLION ‘‘ The SCRAM program really helped me out with everything in life and made me a better father, son, and husband.’’ —SCRAM CAM ParticipantNext >