< Previous30 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 47, NUMBER 3 MEASURING PROGRESS IN COMMUNITY SUPERVISION: A focus on desistance from crime Lily Gleicher, Ph.D.Lily Gleicher, Ph.D. 31 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION DESISTANCE Cor decades simulations have served as effective tools for education and training. Simulations provide safe, controlled environments for learning skills that would otherwise be difficult to acquire or practice. They have been used in fields as diverse as aviation, medicine, psychology, construction, and the military. Despite its long history in other areas, the use of simulations in criminal justice has developed only recently. Correctional agencies such as those responsible for community supervision emphasize outcomes related to recidivism, as do most programs and services that serve individuals involved in the criminal legal system. Those in the community supervision field continually keep track of “failure” of individuals, programs, and agencies, presenting their recidivism statistics as the primary outcome of importance. Indeed, the reliance on recidivism as the principal—or only--tool for understanding program impact has long been taken for granted. Assessments of program and policy success—and funding and support for such programs— tend to be largely based on recidivism rates of the individuals under supervision. Recently, however, a new perspective has been emerging, and some criminal justice professionals have called out for less reliance on recidivism as the stand-alone measure for “gauging success of criminal justice interventions or of those who participate in them” (Klingele, 2019, p. 769). The case is being increasingly made for movement away from measuring failure and toward measuring success (National Academies of Science, Engineering, & Medicine (NASEM), 2022), which means enhancing our data collection efforts to focus on progress and success–such as measuring desistance. Shifting away from solely thinking in terms of recidivism requires a new perspective and renewed efforts to conceptualize and determine the best ways to adequately measure success rather than failure (NASEM, 2022). Success in this field can be defined in various ways–including the effectiveness of the overall system and its actors, the success of individuals, and the impact of programs or interventions that serve them. It is likely that those taking the first steps toward measuring effectiveness or success will encounter difficulties, and it is important to begin by understanding the implications of making such a shift in orientation. The purpose of this article is to provide some background on these issues and then to specifically describe the potential impact of moving away from measuring recidivism to measuring other markers of success, such as desistance, for system-involved individuals with substance use disorders. This does not only include measures of individuals’ outcomes but can–and should–include measures of systems, system actors, and programs. Background Measuring how the community supervision system is doing in meeting its goals, how individuals under supervision are doing in meeting their own goals, and the extent to which programs and interventions are succeeding can be done more effectively if rates of recidivism are not the only measured outcome (Klingele, 2019; NASEM, 2022). Bringing about advancements in this area means incorporating, defining, and clearly outlining multiple measures of success. It also means focusing on strengths, and incremental movements away from crime rather than the binary “yes/no” of recidivism (whether that be rearrest, reconviction, or reincarceration, among others). This does not mean we should not measure recidivism at all, but any measure of recidivism must be transparent and well defined, with clarity in regard to what it is actually being counted (NASEM, 2022), and would be best assessed while also considering the multifaceted process of how individuals change their behaviors along with the ways in which systems and programs impact success (Klingele, 2019). The challenge is to strategically think about the purposes and goals of community supervision programming and then focus on success in measuring outcomes related to those purposes and goals. What if we measured success rather than failure? What if, instead of thinking about outcomes in terms of the presence or absence of recidivism, we measured progress and incremental changes that support the movement away from crime and other undesired behaviors? For community supervision, this means focusing on changes in criminogenic needs and responsivity factors above and beyond a change in risk level as it relates to the Risk-Need- Responsivity model, for example. This new way of thinking embraces a criminological approach called desistance, which aims to capture this process of transformation for system-involved individuals (see Appleton, this issue, for a comprehensive review of desistance). Before focusing more specifically on the impact of expanding markers of success for those individuals with substance use disorders who are involved in the criminal justice system, it would be helpful to present an overview MEASURING PROGRESS IN COMMUNITY SUPERVISION: A FOCUS ON DESISTANCE FROM CRIME32 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 47, NUMBER 3 DESISTANCE of the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model and of the concept of desistance. Risk-Need-Responsivity Model Briefly, the RNR model of offender assessment and treatment is based on the General Personality Cognitive Social Learning (GPCSL) perspective (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). That is, there are, “major psycho-social-biological factors that influence and maintain criminal behavior…” (Bonta & Andrews, 2017, p. 43). Risk, the first R in the acronym, focuses on assessing individuals for their risk of engaging in criminal behavior with the aim of targeting the most intensive services for the highest risk. Arguably, this is the most well understood (or perhaps most emphasized) element of the RNR model. However, for purposes of this article, I will focus on Need and Responsivity, specifically the criminogenic need of substance use and a specific associated responsivity factor of motivation to change. These domains have the most to offer in understanding and aligning with desistance. There are several criminogenic needs, that decades of research indicate are directly associated to re-offending: pro=criminal attitudes/values/beliefs, antisocial personality patterns, social supports for engaging in antisocial behavior, substance use, family/marital relationships, education/ employment, and unstructured leisure time (Bonta & Andrews, 2007). Bonta and Andrews do not just focus on these criminogenic needs in isolation, but also in the contexts of the immediate environment and background context. Responsivity in general is defined as matching the delivery of programs to individuals’ mode and style of learning. However, responsivity goes a bit deeper in that there are two types: (a) general responsivity, which suggests that cognitive-behavioral and cognitive social learning techniques are what works best for most people for behavior change, and (b) specific responsivity, which indicates that there are a variety of factors that may be barriers to or need to be considered in catering to specific individuals that may reduce the ability to target criminogenic needs (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). Criminogenic needs and (for purposes related to this article) specific responsivity are infrequently measured in terms of desistance. Understanding how and to what extent people may be demonstrating incremental change and a movement away from crime or undesired behaviors (e.g., substance use) can provide more valuable information on the effectiveness of systems, programs, and success of individuals than whether someone engages in crime or uses substances in some period of time. This is different from recidivism, a yes/no measure of whether someone is continuing negative behaviors, and instead considers the how and the why in relation to getting to desistance. An estimated one-third of individuals under probation supervision have a substance use disorder, as compared to an estimated 7% rate in the general population (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2020). Similarly, a higher proportion of individuals involved in the criminal legal system suffer from addiction relative to the general population (Galvin et al., 2021; Fabian et al., 2021). Indeed, substance use disorders are a pressing public health crisis in both the general population and in the justice-involved population. Desistance and Measurement Desistance is largely defined by historical context, time, place, the interconnectedness of individuals, and each individual’s agency—or choice (Rocque, 2021). In addition, it is a different way of thinking about the impact of community supervision and related programming relative to individuals serving a term of community supervision and, as well, relative to community supervision staffs’ and program staffs’ impact on individuals and effectiveness. Ultimately, desistance attempts to measure success and explain change rather than continuity of behavior–measuring individuals’ movement towards the absence of undesired behavior relative to their prior behavior (Bucklen, 2021). Desistance is a more complex concept than recidivism, and it is not how the criminal legal system has typically measured outcomes. Essentially, measures of desistance try to measure the lack of a specified activity rather than the mere presence or absence of it (Rocque, 2021; NASEM, 2022). It looks at measures related to sequence, time, place, and severity of offending behavior or other related behavior (such as substance use) and looks at outcomes in terms of success rather than a focus on failure. Because a goal of the criminal legal system is to reduce criminal activity, recidivism rates seem like a practical measure, with those who do not offend again as the measure of success, Klingele (2019) notes: Even so, there is a difference between commending those who abandon crime entirely – whether by virtue of a criminal justice system intervention or otherwise – and saying that the criminal justice system fails whenever it does not fully transform law-breakers into models of perfect compliance. (p. 774) Desistance, or moving away from crime or other undesirable behavior is a process, one that is not always linear and one where success can look different for different people. Behavior change in general, of course, is rarely linear. 33 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION DESISTANCE Consider the example of my frequent New Year’s resolution to work out more at the gym (let’s say, go to the gym four to five times a week)—a resolution that is not infrequent in the general public (and pretty much my resolution every year). Now, consider the difficulty and other contexts of my environment (or others’ environments) in meeting this resolution. We may have children we are responsible for, a full-time job, short windows of time to engage in exercise, periods of lack of motivation, potential financial impacts from the cost of being a member of a gym, car problems, and injury, among others. If I start going to the gym a couple of times a week for the first few months of the year, and then I don’t go for a couple of months (for whatever reason), and then I decide to make walking more of a physical health priority and finish out the year walking two to three times a week, did I fail at my New Year’s resolution? Researchers focused on desistance would suggest this is not failure–that I made changes throughout the year that helped improve my physical health, even if I did not strictly go to the gym four to five times a week and even if there was a period of time that I did not go to the gym. This example is meant to explain that the focus of measuring success is best measured and more deeply understood in terms of incremental change and potential change in other areas. In regard to my example, the overall goal of physical activity is one way to reduce the consequences of a sedentary job. Despite the time period where I was more sedentary, the inclusion of more physical activity improved my life in other ways too–my mental health, my choices in food, and feeling better physically than I have in years past. Change is not always linear. In terms of desistance among community supervision, it is markers of desistance that may be a better gauge of effectiveness of community supervision and program outcomes, but also success for individuals (Klingele, 2019; NASEM, 2022). Desistance and Substance Use One way to think about desistance from substance use is through a harm reduction lens. Substance use is a chronic, relapsing condition, in which there are many pathways for change and recovery. It is also a common criminogenic need among those serving a term of community supervision. Harm reduction more generally is a set of principles or strategies that work to reduce mitigate the harms (of any behavior, including criminal offending and drug use, among others). This includes respecting individuals’ agency (or choice) by meeting people “where they are” (National Harm Reduction Coalition, 2020). This framework also includes understanding that behavior (particularly drug use, including those who use substances that are under community supervision) is complex and multifaceted, but that the overall goal is to increase quality of individuals lives and their communities in a non-judgmental and non-coercive way that also empowers individuals to see themselves as the primary agents of change (National Harm Reduction Coalition, 2020). Desistance and Specific Responsivity Specific responsivity factors, only indirectly associated with criminal offending according to research, are important factors for consideration of system, program/staff, and individual success. Specific responsivity can be thought of as barriers (system, program, or individual) that reduce an individual’s ability or desire to engage in community supervision or things like substance use treatment and recovery services more generally. Specific responsivity includes factors such as the following (see Bonta & Andrews, 2017): • The individual has access to transportation. • The program or community supervision is provided in an individual’s native language. • The program or community supervision is culturally competent to account for cultural differences. • The program is affordable (if the individual is required to pay). • The individual has access to daycare or supervision of their child(ren) to attend the program or community supervision meetings and requirements. • The program or community supervision is adapted for individuals with limited intellectual or cognitive functioning. • The program or community supervision is adapted for individuals who may have difficulties reading or writing. • The individual feels comfortable in a group setting or individual setting for receipt of services. • The program or community supervision is responsive to age and gender-specific needs. • The community has access to services that can provide not just cognitive-behavioral or cognitive social learning programs, but the quality of those programs and the ability of those programs to adapt to specific responsivity needs mentioned above. • The community has programming available and/or sufficient capacity.34 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 47, NUMBER 3 DESISTANCE Motivation to change is a frequent responsivity factor among system-involved individuals and is a particular barrier for individuals in reducing substance use or meeting their goals in this area. In general, motivational interviewing is a mechanism and technique used to facilitate change in behavior, especially with clients who may be apathetic or averse to changing their behavior (McMurran, 2009; Miller & Rollnick, 2013). In one meta- analysis, McMurran and Theodosi (2007) identify the issues of participant recruitment, completion, and retention in programs. An issue relevant to these findings is the level of motivation or readiness to change in engaging in programs (McMurran, 2009). In McMurran’s (2009) systematic review of motivational interviewing in treatment for those convicted of a criminal offense, she found use of motivational interviewing can increase retention in treatment as well as enhance individuals’ motivation to change. Use of motivational interviewing has not only become more common in treatment settings, but tools that probation and parole officers can use with clients to enhance motivation to change and reducing the ambivalence to change (Armstrong et al., 2016). What to Consider for Measurement With these frameworks in mind, what are ways community supervision and related programming can measure success for the individuals they serve, but also in terms of the systems and programs that provide these services and how staff impacts outcomes? Figure 1 provides examples of questions to consider in relation to developing measures of desistance for individuals with substance use disorders under community supervision. It is important to note that any measure should be clearly defined and be transparent in regard to what and how the data is being collected and how the measure is being calculated. Further, being able to measure markers of desistance can be enhanced by considering success not just in one domain (NASEM,2022). Figure 135 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION DESISTANCE Considerations for Measuring Desistance in Community Supervision for Individuals with Substance Use Disorders: System, Program/Staff, and Individual Success Time (Individual): What are the number of days between substance use, or periods of abstinence is there a longer time between periods of substance use? What is the time between criminal offending events - is there a longer time between criminal offending events? Frequency or Deceleration (Individuals): What is the frequency of substance use, whether that be in the number of times substances are used in a day, a week, a month, or other time frame is there a reduction in the frequency with which someone is engaging in substance use? Severity or De-escalation (Individual): Have individuals changed the way in which they use substancese.g., intravenous, oral, nasal, etc.. are individuals using more safely? What is the severity of criminal offending over time is there a decrease in severity? Related Progress (Individual): Are there improvements regarding individuals’ motivation to change substance use and/or criminal offending behavior over time? What does an individual’s progress look like in terms of education or employment over time are individuals maintaining employment for a longer period of time? What are the quality of individuals relationships to support systems? Capacity (Systems) What is the capacity of substance use and recovery support programs given the need for treatment and recovery supports, is there capacity in the community to serve individuals under community supervision? Does programming and treatment meet the needs of individuals under community supervision who use substance? Accessibility (Systems) Of those who need or want treatment or programming, what is the accessibility of these programs and factors that may impact an individual’s ability to access these programs? (e.g., affordability, distance, responsiveness in terms of learning styles, daycare provisions)? Fidelity (Systems/Staff): How frequently are staff using motivational interviewing techniques to support client behavior change? With what consistency are staff using evidence-informed practices in group or individual sessions with clients? Conclusion The push to measure success–or desistance–is a collective call those in this field to improve what we understand about individual behavior change and community supervision and program effectiveness rather than focusing on an aspect of failure that may not fully capture reality. However, challenges remain in regard to defining, developing, and implementing these measures in practice. Challenges to measuring desistance include, • Gaining access to the necessary data or developing data collection practices to capture new information (or more information); • Clearly defining and developing valid measures of desistance and translating this to various audiences (Bucklen, 2021); • Identification of what to measure and making sure outcomes are related to process and programs (e.g., do the activities identified relate to or support change in terms of outcomes? How are technical violations considered in terms of desistance?); and • Determining how to measure the impacts of policies that may impact individuals’ outcomes while serving a term of community supervision (e.g., use of incarceration, technical violations, use of conditions of supervision that may impede or support desistance, among others). What we do know is that a stand-alone measure of whether someone does or does not offend after receipt of a program or community supervision is insufficient to make determinations of system, program, or individual success. It does not provide for the context of behavior more holistically and too frequently is used as a measure of success or failure which may be attached to funding and support of alternatives to incarceration such as community supervision and related programs. There are limits to using recidivism as a primary metric, but this does not mean to exclude it. It means thinking about success through a different lens—the lens of incremental change, movement away from crime or other undesired behaviors, and a focus on success. References • Armstrong, G. S., Atkin-Plunk, C., & Gartner, N. R. (2016). Perceptions of motivational interviewing: Validation of the client evaluation of motivational interviewing scale with probation clients. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(8), 1095 – 1106. • Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct. (6th Ed.). Routledge.36 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 47, NUMBER 3 DESISTANCE • Bucklen, K. B. (2021). “Desistance-focused criminal justice practice.” NCJ 301501, in Desistance from crime: Implications for research, policy, and practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. • Fabian, K., Shively, R., & Aufderheide, D. (2021, January/February). Co-occuring disorders in the incarcerated population: Treatment needs. Corrections Today. • Galvin, M. A., Davidson, K. M., & Kleiman, M. (2021). Substance involvement and probation outcomes: Evidence from a cohort study. Journal • Klingele, C. (2019). Measuring change: From rates of recidivism to markers of desistance. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 109(4), 769 - 817. • McMurran, M. (2009), Motivational interviewing with offenders: A systematic review. Legal and • McMurran, M., & Theodosi, E. (2007). Is offender treatment non-completion associated with increased reconviction over no treatment? Psychology, Crime, and Law, 13, 333–343. • Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd edition). Guilford Press. • National Harm Reduction Coalition. (2020). Principles of harm reduction. Retrieved on • National Institute of Justice. (2021). Desistance from crime: Implications for research, policy, and practice. Author. • National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. (2022). The limits of measuring recidivism: Measuring success after prison. The National Academies Press. • Rocque, M. (2021). “But what does it mean? Defining, measuring, and analyzing desistance from crime in criminal justice,” NCJ 301498, in Desistance from crime: Implications for research, policy, and practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2020). National survey on drug use and health (NSDUH) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.37 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION DESISTENCE 37 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 47, NUMBER 3 TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES Page intentionally left blank for figure displacement Serve your community. Stand for justice. Connect with others. Ready to make a deeper impact in your community? JOIN TODAY! APPA has provided me a voice and the conndence to move forward in the changing times of community supervision. - Greg Dillon for Individuals APPA Membership OPTIONS: APPA offers 1-year, 3-year, and Lifetime membership options Individual Membership 1-year membership open to any college student interested in furthering their professional development in pretrial, probation, parole, community corrections, social sciences, criminal justice, or education. Student Membership38 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 3 DESISTENCE 38 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES Page intentionally left blank for figure displacement APPA Membership Application YES! I WOULD LIKE TO JOIN APPA: REFERRED BY:___________________________ (U.S. currency) Individual Member(1 year) $50 Individual Member(3 year) $135 Level I Agency Member(800+ staff - 1 year) $1,000 Level II Agency Member(500-799 staff - 1 year) $750 Level III Agency Member(101-499 staff - 1 year) $550 Level IV Agency Member(<100 staff - 1 year) $300 Affiliate Member(1 year) $250 Associate Member(1 year) $1,000 Corporate Member(1 year) $7,000 Educational Institution(1 year) $150 Library Subscription(1 year) $60 Lifetime Member(Lifetime) $300 (Individual must meet qualification criteria. Additional materials will be mailed to you upon receipt of this form to complete your application) Presidential Advisory(1 year) $1,200 (Additional materials will be mailed to you upon receipt of this form to complete your application) CONTACT INFORMATION: First Name: Last Name: Title: Email: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: Fax: Agency/Organization: Check if same address as above Agency/Org. Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: Fax: Website: METHOD OF PAYMENT: Check Purchase Order Check Enclosed Government Purchase Order Enclosed; PO # _________________________________________________________ For credit card payments, please call Kimberly Mills at 859.244.8204. Mail or fax application and payment to: APPA c/o The Council of State Governments 1776 Avenue of the States • Lexington, KY 40511-8482 Fax: (859) 244-8001 For further information, call (859)244-8204 or email Individual applicants, please complete the following: Less than 2 years 2-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years More than 26 years LENGTH OF EXPERIENCE IN COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Female Male GENDER African American Asian Caucasian Hispanic Native American/ Alaska Native Other______________ RACE/ETHNICITY Associate’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree GED High School Diploma Master’s Degree Doctorate HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION Urban (Pop. >50,000) Rural (Pop. <50,000) Both Urban and Rural GEOGRAPHIC WORK AREAS City County Federal Province State Tribal Alaskan Village Other _____________ JOB JURISDICTION Adult Education APPA Awards Community Justice Domestic Violence Drug Testing Electronic Monitoring Family Violence Gang Violence Gender Specific Issues Health & Safety Internet Crimes Issues, Positions & Resolutions Judicial Juvenile Education Juvenile Justice Legislation Media/Public Relations Multicultural Issues Prevention Professional Development Research Restorative Justice Sex Offender Management Standards Substance Abuse Supervision Strategies Technology Training Accreditation Victim Issues I AM INTERESTED IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS: Academia Adult Correction Adult Parole Adult Probation Adult Probation & Parole Community Justice Juvenile Parole Juvenile Probation Juvenile Probation & Parole Judicial Non-Profit Pretrial Services Private Residential Treatment Provider PRIMARY WORK SECTOR Administrator Attorney Commissioner/Director/Chief Consultant Educator Grant Coordinator Judge Line Officer Parole Board Member Private Project Director Retired Specialist Student Supervisor Trainer Transition Specialist PROFESSIONAL CATEGORY Connecting Top Employers with Premiere Professionals! Employers https://careers.appa-net.org Professionals The APPA Career Center provides all the functionality and reach of contemporary job boards while specifically focusing on the Community Corrections industry. *To receive these member benefits, login with your company’s primary APPA contact email. PLACE your job in front of qualified professionals. SEARCH our Resume Bank using robust filters to narrow your candidate search. UTILIZE our job posting and Job FlashTM email packages to earn greater visibility. Bonus for those with Agency or Corporate APPA Membership!* RECEIVE discounted rates on job posting packages! STAND-OUT as your job is tagged “Member Company”! *To receive these member benefits, login with your APPA email. UPLOAD your resume and lead employers to you. SEARCH and apply to top industry jobs that value you. RECEIVE Job Alerts whenever a job matches your criteria. ACCESS career resources, job searching tips, and tools. Bonus for those with Individual APPA Membership!* ENJOY early access to Job Postings and Email Listings! STAND-OUT as your resume is tagged “APPA Member”! Make us a regular step in your hiring process! CAREER CENTER39 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION DESISTENCE Connecting Top Employers with Premiere Professionals! EmployersProfessionals The APPA Career Center provides all the functionality and reach of contemporary job boards while specifically focusing on the Community Corrections industry. *To receive these member benefits, login with your company’s primary APPA contact email. PLACE your job in front of qualified professionals. SEARCH our Resume Bank using robust filters to narrow your candidate search. UTILIZE our job posting and Job FlashTM email packages to earn greater visibility. Bonus for those with Agency or Corporate APPA Membership!* RECEIVE discounted rates on job posting packages! STAND-OUT as your job is tagged “Member Company”! *To receive these member benefits, login with your APPA email. UPLOAD your resume and lead employers to you. SEARCH and apply to top industry jobs that value you. RECEIVE Job Alerts whenever a job matches your criteria. ACCESS career resources, job searching tips, and tools. Bonus for those with Individual APPA Membership!* ENJOY early access to Job Postings and Email Listings! STAND-OUT as your resume is tagged “APPA Member”! Make us a regular step in your hiring process! CAREER CENTERNext >