< Previous21 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION THE PRETRIAL ISSUE PROMOTING SUCCESS ON COMMUNITY SUPERVISION: STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING OUTCOMES AND REDUCING REVOCATIONS INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem N ationally, 1.7 million individuals are incarcerated in jails or prisons across local, county, state, and federal corrections systems, while almost 4 million individuals are on some form of community supervision (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2022; Kaeble, 2021). Community supervision is viewed as an alternative to incarceration, but many states are struggling with increasing or stagnant revocation rates, often resulting in an admission or return to incarceration (Kaeble, 2021; Klingele, 2013). To understand the sources of this trend, the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI), with support from Arnold Ventures, began a comprehensive assessment of sentencing and community supervision practices in four states: Colorado, Florida, Mississippi, and Montana. The goal of the project was to provide state leaders with the information necessary to inform the adoption or expansion of evidence-based supervision practices that have demonstrably made a positive impact on success. Nationally, 1.7 million individuals are incarcerated in jails or prisons across local, county, state, and federal corrections systems, while almost 4 million individuals are on some form of community supervision (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2022; Kaeble, 2021). Community supervision is viewed as an alternative to incarceration, but many states are struggling with increasing or stagnant revocation rates, with revocations often resulting in an admission or return to incarceration (Kaeble, 2021; Klingele, 2013). To understand the sources of this trend, the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI), with support from Arnold Ventures, began a comprehensive assessment of sentencing and community supervision practices in four states: Colorado, Florida, Mississippi, and Montana. The goal of the project was to provide state leaders with the information necessary to inform the adoption or expansion of evidence-based supervision practices that have demonstrably made a positive impact on success. CJI employed a mixed-method analysis using the available data, which encompassed a decade (2010-2019)1 of quantitative data, 54 stakeholder interviews, focus groups made up of 517 correctional agency personnel, surveys of 804 correctional agency personnel, and a file review of 874 supervision cases. Interviews were carried out in person and, after the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, virtually. This assessment took place between 2019 and 2022 and led to five state-specific reports and a national report summarizing findings and recommendations in July of 2022. 2 REVOCATIONS Range of Revocation Rates Revocation rates varied across states and supervision types. Among the agencies CJI surveyed during the 2010- 2019 period, average revocation rates ranged from 25% to 47%, with the highest incarceration rates among people on post-incarceration supervision. By comparison, in 2019 more than 25% of probation sentences as well as 37% of parole sentences nationwide resulted in revocation (Oudekerk & Kaeble, 2021). When considering different forms of supervision within the same state, revocation rates showed even greater variation. For example, revocation rates in Florida ranged from a low of 8% for administrative probation (phone check-ins for lower-risk people) to a high of 85% for individuals under community control (a form of house arrest). By identifying different revocation rates across supervision types, agencies can focus on the practices leading to better outcomes. Revocation Rates by Risk Level In three out of five agencies where risk- based data were available, revocation rates were highest for those assessed as high risk. In Colorado, more than half of individuals on parole assessed as maximum risk were revoked in 2019, compared to 18% of those assessed as minimum risk. For those on probation in Colorado, 53% of individuals assessed as high risk were revoked in 2019, relative to a 9% revocation rate for low-risk supervisees. In Montana, revocation rates among people on parole were higher for people assessed as moderate-risk than for people assessed as low- or high-risk. TABLE 1: Community Supervision Population Sizes and Revocation Rates, 2019 *Population size as of December 31, 2019 (source: BJS). ** Revocation rates based on CJI’s analysis of agency data. Percentages may not match BJS reports due to differences in methodologies. ***Mississippi’s definition of revocation (a return to incarceration or absconding) differed from the definition used by other agencies.22 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 48, NUMBER 2 THE PRETRIAL ISSUE Revocation Rates by Time on Supervision Across the four states, most revocations occurred after individuals had served less than a year on supervision, with peaks in revocation rates around the third month of supervision for people coming from carceral settings. There were also notable differences in the length of time on supervision by outcome and risk level. In Montana, low- risk men who were ultimately revoked spent more time on supervision than high-risk men. Revocation Rates by Race CJI’s analysis found that Black and Native American individuals were overrepresented on community supervision, sometimes by two to three times as many people as their share of the state population. For example, 6% of Montana’s population is Native American, but Native people make up 16% of the supervision population. Additionally, once on community supervision, people of color were often disproportionately revoked. In most cases, Black and Native American individuals were revoked at a rate 5-10 percentage points higher than the statewide revocation rate. Drivers of Revocations When taken together, CJI’s quantitative data analysis and case file reviews indicated that technical violations were prevalent, but absconding and new crime violations more often resulted in a revocation. Revocations were generally the result of repeated violation behaviors, with individuals averaging two or three technical violations and a new offense prior to revocation. CJI also examined trends in violations among the community supervision population regardless of whether those violations ultimately led to a revocation. Most agencies reported positive/missed drug tests, treatment noncompliance, and missed reporting requirements among their top five violations in 2019. For example, in Montana, half of individuals revoked from parole, 61% of individuals revoked from probation, and two-thirds of individuals revoked from conditional release in 2019 had at least one violation related to substance use. A review of case files indicated that methamphetamine and amphetamines were the most prevalent substances on positive drug screens. Reporting violations were also frequently cited. In Colorado, two-thirds of individuals revoked from probation in 2019 had at least one missed appointment, compared to 23% of people who successfully completed probation. CONDITION-SETTING AND MODIFICATION Disconnect Between Conditions and Risk/Needs CJI’s assessment included an examination of the condition- setting process in each state, which determines the requirements supervisees must abide by and officers must enforce. Research has found that when conditions of supervision are tailored for the individual, with an effort to address that individuals’ specific needs and risks, they are more effective at reducing recidivism and producing successful outcomes (Solomon et al., 2008b). Studies show that having too many conditions imposed, especially ones not linked to public safety, can cause people on supervision to struggle to achieve compliance (Uggen & Stewart, 2015). In all four states, state law empowers the sentencing judge or parole board to impose a series of standard conditions at the time of an individual’s sentencing or parole hearing, and these conditions do not typically vary based on individuals’ needs or risk factors. Such conditions generally include abiding by the law, obtaining a job or education, forbidding gun ownership, and regular reporting. Judges or parole boards may impose special conditions, most commonly pertaining to drug use and treatment/testing requirements. CJI’s analysis of special conditions from three agencies revealed that these conditions are often not individualized or reflective of what the individual needs to be successful on supervision. For example, an analysis of the most frequently imposed special conditions for individuals on probation in Colorado showed that their application was based on the individual’s underlying offense, as often required by statute, rather than their risk level or criminogenic needs.3 A file review analyzing all supervision conditions in Montana revealed special conditions often duplicated standard conditions, leading to officers spending time enforcing conditions that do not further rehabilitation or public safety. Modifying Conditions Is Uncommon One way to improve the effectiveness of conditions is to give officers the ability to modify or align conditions accurately with the needs of their supervisees. However, in all four states, officers either had limited ability to make changes to conditions without permission from the sentencing authority or had that authority but only used it in response to violations rather than as needed throughout supervision to reduce the number and types of conditions where risk/need levels decreased over time. For example, officers in Montana and Mississippi need to request permission from the judge or parole board to alter supervision conditions and cannot independently make changes. RESPONSES TO BEHAVIOR CJI examined states’ policies and practices surrounding the use of responses to behavior and procedures for initiating a revocation. Research has found that when behavior responses are not applied in a timely, clear, and proportional manner, supervised individuals can struggle to achieve compliance because they may be left unsure of expectations or consequences (Kleiman 23 \AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION THE PRETRIAL ISSUE et al., 2014). To achieve swift, certain, and proportional responses, officers need autonomy to address behaviors— both prosocial and antisocial—in objective and impartial ways that reinforce positive behavior change (Wodahl et al., 2011). In particular, the use of incentives such as reductions in the duration of one’s supervision sentence for good behavior has been effective at motivating positive behavioral changes (Wodahl et al., 2017). Resources such as graduated response matrices can also assist officers in delivering timely, neutral, and proportional responses that both reinforce positive behavior and effectively respond to misconduct (Latessa, 2011). Graduated Response Matrices’ Adoption Challenges All five supervision agencies have a graduated response policy in place to guide decisions around responding to supervision violations, but the consistent implementation of these policies has been a challenge. For example, Colorado Probation developed and implemented the Strategies for Behavior Change (SBC) initiative to reinforce positive behavior and minimize probation violations. Still, the supervision matrix was not adopted in every district, producing confusion for individuals who are transferred between jurisdictions. Montana’s supervision grid also lacked guidance on how to exhaust response options prior to revocation, leading to regional variations and frustration among officers. Some agencies did not track when behavioral responses were being used, making it challenging to analyze agency performance, while other agencies struggled to update their graduated response policies over time. Finally, all four states struggled to implement the use of incentives for positive behavior across their systems, although some agencies and offices were able to implement compliance incentives such as earned time-off credits or fewer office visits. EVIDENCE-BASED SUPERVISION PRACTICES Lack of Fidelity when Using Evidence-Based Practices CJI’s assessment included an examination of the states’ use of evidence-based practices (EBPs), including overall adherence to the Principles of Effective Intervention (PEI). Research has found that to have the greatest impact on reducing recidivism, supervision practices should adhere to PEI, including the risk, need, responsivity, and fidelity principles. This includes using a validated risk and needs assessment to identify an individual’s risk to recidivate and directing supervision and treatment resources to high-risk people, while ensuring that low-risk people are not over-supervised (Latessa, 2011). This also requires case management practices that are driven by the result of a risk and needs assessment and are individualized to target criminogenic behavior (Latessa, 2011). To promote responsivity, agencies should train staff in Core Correctional Practices (CCP) and address barriers that impact success on supervision, such as lack of transportation or mental health issues (Bonta & Andrews, 2007). Finally, to ensure fidelity to the model, staff must receive proper training and coaching to effectively implement evidence-based policies (Bonta & Andrews, 2007). Each agency has taken steps to adopt the use of EBPs but are at very different places with respect to implementing these practices. Potential areas of improvement included more training on administering risk and needs assessments, validation of assessments’ accuracy and utility, and development of individualized case plans based on assessment results. CJI found that Montana, Mississippi, and Colorado Parole were not using the results of their risk and needs assessments to inform individuals’ case plans, although case plans are sometimes required by statute (Mississippi) or policy (Colorado). Colorado Probation effectively uses assessment results to tailor case plans and has established a system to group people with similar risk/need scores together to improve supervision and resource delivery. However, the agency lacks a formal quality assurance or coaching process to ensure that its success continues. Staff in all four states expressed a need for additional training and support in developing quality assurance processes. PROGRAMMING AND RESOURCES An individual’s success on supervision relies heavily on whether the underlying criminogenic risk factors that brought that person into contact with the justice system have been met through treatment and intervention. Once an individual’s risk factors and needs are identified, supervision agencies need to match individuals to services based on their unique characteristics. These include responsivity factors such as gender, age, ethnicity, learning style, motivation to change, cognitive abilities, mental health, culture, and strengths (Cobb et al., 2013). It is also important to make sure that people have access to needed resources such as outpatient and inpatient treatment, therapy, and vocational training, without geographic or financial disruption (Lowenkamp et al., 2006). Behavioral Health Staff across all four states noted the lack of mental health programming and resources as a significant barrier to successful completion of community supervision. Although mental health is not a predictor of future criminal behavior, mental illness can impact an individual’s ability to successfully complete programming and interventions, making it a responsivity factor that needs to be addressed to ensure success on supervision (Bonta & Andrews, 2007). In a survey of officers in Montana and Florida, 43% of Montana officers reported their area of the state had insufficient mental health resources to meet the needs of their caseload, and 54% of officers in Florida reported a lack of mental health programming as the biggest treatment need for their supervisees.THE PRETRIAL ISSUE 24 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 48, NUMBER 2 Substance use treatment was also lacking in some areas in all four states. In Florida, a third of officers indicated that inpatient and outpatient treatment was needed but not readily available in their district. In Montana, 98% of people who were revoked during the study period had substance use issues. For Colorado probation, substance use treatment was a special condition ordered in 41% of the cases, and for Colorado parole, the most frequent “destabilizing factor” cited in the response matrix as a reason for increasing violation severity was increased substance use. The high concentration of violations related to substance use may indicate that treatment needs are not being met. Housing, Transportation, Poverty Stakeholders in all four states noted that housing, transportation, and financial barriers impeded supervision successes, particularly in rural areas. Supervision officers in Montana noted that a lack of available housing has contributed to homelessness and subsequent increases in absconding, as individuals move to try to find stable housing. Officers in Colorado cited the out-of-pocket costs of required drug testing as a challenge for individuals, particularly those who are already struggling to obtain and maintain employment. In Florida, sweeping license- suspension policies result in many individuals losing access to transportation and struggling to comply with reporting requirements. Among those officers in Florida who felt access to services was inadequate, 86% cited transportation as being one of the primary factors impeding this access. Supervision staff in Mississippi noted a lack of local job opportunities as a driver of noncompliance with supervision conditions; specifically, officers cited a need for more trade skills programs both inside prisons and in the community. RECOMMENDATIONS CJI’s assessment encouraged the continued use of EBPs that contribute to fewer people being revoked and promote long-term success for justice-involved individuals. CJI’s recommendations fell into five categories: • Removing barriers impacting supervision success; • Ensuring evidence-based supervision practices are implemented with fidelity; • Focusing resources on the initial period of supervision and high-risk individuals; • Ensuring supervision agencies have the tools and resources necessary to effectuate lasting behavior change; and • Developing infrastructure to support sustainable policies and practices to improve outcomes. Removing Barriers CJI’s qualitative and quantitative data review revealed that conditions are often set without consideration of an individual’s risk level or criminogenic needs, leading to inefficient use of officers’ time and significant challenges for supervisees. In some states, CJI found that individuals with the greatest number of conditions of supervision had the highest rate of revocations. This impedes agencies’ ability to effectively supervise someone based on needs and direct resources towards people at the highest risk to reoffend. To address this barrier, CJI recommended that partner states limit supervision conditions to those that address each person’s identified risks and needs to foster behavior change and promote public safety, including by mandating the use of risk and need assessments to create case plans and establish conditions. States such as Arkansas4 and Kentucky5 have instituted such a requirement, while Ohio6 and Michigan7 have eliminated some standard conditions of supervision in favor of ones tailored to the individual. CJI also recommended that states make it easier to remove or modify conditions of supervision, as existing modification processes are cumbersome and generally underused. Departments can also take steps to address other barriers to success on supervision. By expanding the post-pandemic use of remote reporting, such as virtual visits or phone check-ins, agencies can make it easier for people to meet with officers without barriers including transportation, childcare, or employment. Agencies can also provide transportation vouchers and text-message notifications to assist with access. CJI also recommended that drug testing, which has not been found to reduce reoffending or drug use (Robina Institute, 2020), should be used for tailored interventions rather than as a widespread monitoring tool. Additionally, to address potential financial barriers, CJI recommended that states consider administrative or statutory opportunities to adopt payment plans, create automatic waivers of payment for the first few months of supervision, and implement the use of ability-to- pay hearings to determine an individual’s ability to pay prior to levying fines and fees. Ensuring Fidelity Leaders in all four states have taken steps to enact EBPs through legislation and administrative policies to reduce recidivism. However, additional policy and practice changes are needed to ensure that policies intended to improve outcomes are implemented with fidelity (Sperber, 2020). To ensure that officers and supervisors are using graduated response matrices as intended, agencies should regularly review policies related to those matrices,8 confirm that they are standardized across districts, establish an oversight system, and prioritize officer training, including, skill development, coaching, and booster training sessions.9 Another CJI recommendation is for agencies to improve 25 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION THE PRETRIAL ISSUE fidelity by validating their risk and needs assessments at regular intervals and developing standardized definitions of technical violations and absconding10,11 to promote transparency, fairness, and equity across cases. Agencies should also continually solicit and implement staff feedback to promote continuous quality improvement.12,13 Finally, CJI recommended that supervision agencies prioritize effective case management in their policy development and training. Focus on Initial Period of Supervision CJI’s assessment revealed that revocation rates were highest for those assessed as high risk and that most revocations occur when an individual has served a year or less on supervision. Furthermore, in some states, individuals assessed as low risk are serving lengthy supervision terms. Research shows that focusing supervision resources on individuals who have the highest risk to recidivate yields the greatest reduction in recidivism (Andrews & Dowden, 2006), while placing unnecessary supervision requirements on individuals identified as low-risk can increase the likelihood of recidivism (Lowenkamp, 2004). CJI’s partner supervision agencies can best serve people on supervision and protect public safety by taking steps to reduce the duration and intensity of supervision for lower-risk individuals, allowing officers to focus time and resources on people at high risk of recidivism or during vulnerable periods of supervision. Research has found that longer terms of probation are not correlated with lower rates of reoffending and are more likely to result in technical violations (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2020). Accordingly, CJI recommended reducing the statutorily authorized probation supervision period, as well as expanding eligibility for early termination, earned-time credits, and administrative supervision. States should also ensure that tools and resources are available to officers and the people they supervise during the critical first year of supervision (Solomon et al., 2008a). CJI recommended that officers receive training and ongoing coaching in CCP skills, which are used to enhance long-term behavior change and include components of cognitive behavioral interventions. Research shows that individuals supervised by officers proficiently trained in CCP skills had lower recidivism rates than those supervised by officers who do not receive this training (Robinson et al., 2012). Staff can also successfully use CCP skills with the individuals they supervise without increasing the time spent in one-on-one interactions (Robinson et al., 2012). Additionally, CJI recommended agencies identify the criminogenic needs of individuals on supervision, the availability of services to address these needs throughout the state, the average time between referral and accessing the service, and the quality of services provided. The results of this analysis can then be used to improve treatment quality and accessibility. Administrative Improvements One barrier to effectively implementing evidence-based practices mentioned by staff during interviews was the lack of time and resources needed to fully use them, and a disconnect between staff and leadership that impacts buy-in. The perceived lack of support from staff regarding the use of supervision EBPs is not an indication that these practices do not work to effectively change behavior. Rather, this feedback is evidence of the need for more staff training and better communication to ensure officers and leadership are aligned around the goals of taking a proactive approach to behavior change. Agencies can improve staff buy-in by gathering feedback from staff about policy and practice changes that impact their daily work, as well as by developing and using mechanisms for staff to provide meaningful feedback on those changes. Other initiatives include educating policymakers and community members on evidence- based practices, ensuring that job descriptions align with the agency’s mission, and investing in enhanced data infrastructure that may help officers manage their daily work more efficiently and allow for real-time decision-making. Additionally, the data did not explain why certain trends in revocations occurred, such as the high percentage of those under supervision who absconded or failed to appear during the course of supervision. Finally, racial disparities existed across the four states, both related to who was initially sentenced to supervision and to rates of unsuccessful terminations from supervision. CJI recommended that the agencies conduct further analysis around both absconding and the factors driving racial and ethnic disparities to paint a fuller picture of these supervision challenges. NEXT STEPS Since the release of its state-level and national reports, CJI has had conversations with each supervision agency about how to implement the recommendations, and all these agencies have incorporated lessons from the report as they advance multiple initiatives to improve supervision practices. In Montana, for example, CJI is providing support to Montana’s Department of Corrections (DOC), the Montana Legislature’s bipartisan, the bicameral Criminal Justice Oversight Council (CJOC), and the Montana Board of Pardons and Parole (BOPP), among other state partners. The DOC has implemented several of CJI’s recommendations, such as updating its policies to define absconding, providing guidance on the use of its graduated supervision response matrix, and establishing a quality control department to collect supervision data and identify trends. This Quality Assurance department was developed to ensure policy and practice changes are implemented with fidelity, and it is working alongside CJI to facilitate workgroups addressing the report recommendations and measuring outcomes. Additionally, all DOC staff will receive training in evidence-based practices by the end of 2025.26 PERSPECTIVES To improve effective case management practices, the Montana DOC has also convened a workgroup of officers and supervisors to recommend further improvements on case management guidance, contact standards, referrals, and building more informed case plans throughout supervision. The group has coalesced around a proposal to create a phased supervision model in which supervisees receive specialized attention to mitigate barriers during the beginning of their supervision period, focusing on skill development and connection with resources, and they will graduate to lower levels of supervision once they have shown skill acquisition that supports successful completion of supervision. A second workgroup, composed of DOC personnel as well as judges, public defenders, and county attorneys, is examining the state’s system of assigning supervision conditions, in alignment with CJI’s recommendation. In addition to recommending changes to the state’s existing approach to assigning supervision conditions, that group is also considering whether to recommend changes to the condition modification process so that officers can more easily modify conditions that are not necessary to ensure public safety and create barriers to an individual’s compliance on supervision. In addition, the CJOC is also interested in re-evaluating the pre-sentence investigation (PSI) process and has asked for CJI’s assistance in learning more about other states’ processes. In Montana, PSIs are developed prior to a person’s sentencing hearing and inform sentencing decisions, but they also continue to be used as a source of background information as the person moves through the justice system. The CJOC wants to ensure that the PSIs contain the appropriate information for judges to make sentencing decisions based on the person’s individual needs, while also ensuring that people are not detained for undue amounts of time while the PSI is being completed. CJI is providing statutory information and examples of promising sentencing practices from other states as the CJOC considers what changes to recommend to that process. Based on recommendations from the revocations analysis, CJI is also assisting the BOPP in evaluating the decision- making framework that it uses to help decide whether to release people from prison. This involves analyzing BOPP’s Guidelines Score assessment to determine whether these scores align with BOPP decision-making and are predictive of individuals’ success on parole, as well as other factors that might contribute to release decisions.27 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION THE PRETRIAL ISSUE Lastly, at the request of the DOC, CJI is doing a deeper dive into the drivers of absconding, which was identified as an area requiring further review in the first phase of CJI’s project. As part of this work, CJI has examined quantitative data, reviewed case files of supervisees, and is in the process of holding focus groups with people currently or formerly on supervision to determine why individuals might stop reporting to supervision. The results of this study will be presented back to the DOC and used to identify policy and practice changes that can be made to reduce rates of absconding and improve outcomes on community supervision. CONCLUSION Revocations from supervision highlight challenges both supervisees and supervision agencies face when advancing sustainable behavior change. Some of these challenges are related to unmet needs that can be addressed by changes to supervision practices. Observations from the data and feedback from practitioners across the four states have led to recommendations that reflect evidence-based practices, which, when implemented with fidelity, may lead to not just a reduction of revocations but also to improved positive outcomes on supervision across several metrics. REFERENCES Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (2006). Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment: A meta-analytic investigation.International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology,50(1), 88-100. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0306624X05282556. Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-need- responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation.Rehabilitation,6(1), 1-22. https://www. publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rsk-nd-rspnsvty/rsk-nd- rspnsvty-eng.pdf. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2022). Correctional populations in the United States, 2020 – Statistical Tables. https://bjs.ojp. gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus20st.pdf Cobb, K. A., Mowatt, M. A., & Mullins, T. (2013).Risk- needs responsivity: Turning principles into practice for tribal probation personnel. US Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Assistance. https://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/ APPA/pubs/RNRTPPTPP.pdf. Kaeble, D. (2021).Probation and parole in the United States, 2020. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/ pdf/ppus20.pdf. Kleiman, M. A., Kilmer, B., & Fisher, D. T. (2014). Theory and evidence on the swift-certain-fair approach to enforcing conditions of community supervision.Fed. Probation,78, 71. https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/78_2_8_0.pdf. Klingele, C. (2013). Rethinking the use of community supervision.Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology,103, 1015. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=7463&context=jclc. Latessa, E. (2011). Why the risk and needs principles are relevant to correctional program (even to employment programs).Criminology & Public Policy,10, 973-977. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745- 9133.2011.00759.x. Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional interventions can harm low-risk offenders.Topics in community corrections,2004, 3-8. Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention.Criminology & Public Policy,5(3), 575-594. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00388.x. Oudekerk, B., & Kaeble, D. (2021). Probation and parole in the United States, 2019.Bulletin (NCJ 256092). Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus19.pdf. Pew Charitable Trusts (2020). Policy reforms can strengthen community supervision: A framework to improve probation and parole. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and- analysis/reports/2020/04/policy-reforms-can-strengthen- community-supervision Robina Institute. (2020). Drug testing as a condition of supervision. https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/sites/ robinainstitute.umn.edu/files/2022-02/drug_testing.pdf. Robinson, C. R., Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., VanBenschoten, S., Alexander, M., & Oleson, J. C. (2012). A random study of Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Re-arrest (STARR): Using core correctional practices in probation interactions.Journal of Crime and Justice,35(2), 167-188. Solomon, A. L., Osborne, J. W., Winterfield, L., Elderbroom, B., Burke, P., Stroker, R. P., Rhine, E. E., & Burrell, W.D. (2008a). Putting public safety first: 13 parole supervision strategies to enhance reentry outcomes. The Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/ publication/32156/411791-putting-public-safety-first-parole- supervision-strategies-to-enhance-reentry-outcomes- paper-_0.pdf. Solomon, A. L., Osborne, J. W., Winterfield, L., Elderbroom, B., Burke, P., Stroker, R. P., Rhine, E. E., & Burrell, W. D. (2008b). Putting public safety first: 13 parole supervision strategies to enhance reentry outcomes [Policy brief]. The Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/ files/publication/32201/411800-putting-public-safety-first- strategies-for-successful-supervision-and-reentry-policy- brief-.pdf. Sperber, K. G. (2020). Fidelity to evidence-based practice: Our obligation to effective supervision and service delivery.Fed. Probation,84, 5. https://28 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 48, NUMBER 2 THE PRETRIAL ISSUE heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ fedpro84&div=14&id=&page= Uggen, C., & Stewart, R. (2015). Piling on: Collateral consequences and community supervision.Minn. L. Rev.,99, 1871., https://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/09/Uggen_4fmt_PDF.pdf. Wodahl, E. J., Garland, B., Culhane, S. E., & McCarty, W. P. (2011). Utilizing behavioral interventions to improve supervision outcomes in community-based corrections.Criminal Justice and Behavior,38(4), 386-405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810397866. Wodahl, E. J., Garland, B. E., & Mowen, T. J. (2017). Understanding the perceived value of incentives in community supervision.Corrections,2(3), 165-188. https:// doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2017.1291314. AUTHOR BIOS Valerie Meade, Deputy Director Valerie Meade has worked in criminal justice for over 20 years, with expertise in the areas of cognitive behavioral interventions, case management, model fidelity, and continuous quality improvement, and extensive experience with adult and juvenile populations on community supervision, in correctional facilities, and in substance abuse treatment. Caitlin Flood, Senior Policy Specialist Caitlin started her career as a public defender and has provided training and technical assistance to different jurisdictions working towards criminal justice reform through treatment courts, pretrial interventions, and community supervision reform. Caitlin leads CJI’s community supervision revocation reform work, assisting states with data-driven, evidence-based strategies to improve supervision outcomes. Maja Vlajnic, Ph.D, Senior Data and Policy Specialist As a member of the policy team, Maja Vlajnic works primarily with adult corrections and community supervision. She brings to the role an extensive background in scholarly research on criminal justice, as well as interdisciplinary experience in analytical work. Amanda Coscia, Communications Specialist Amanda Coscia brings extensive experience in graphic design and justice-system communications to her role on the CJI communications team. Amanda began her career in criminal justice reform at a nonprofit organization where she conducted policy work at the federal and state levels. At CJI, Amanda designs and produces top-quality content that enhances project work and strengthens the brand. Andy Tisdel, Policy Specialist Andy primarily supports CJI’s pretrial justice work, providing technical assistance and contributing to the assessment of pretrial systems in various states,as well as CJI’s implementation team. Andy is committed to analyzing and communicating effective, evidence-based policies that help states reform their justice systems and improve their outcomes.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 ParticipantRE-WRITING RULES OF SUPERVISION to Reduce Revocations with Action Research Teams By Linda Brady, Eric Grommon, Troy Hatfield, Brian Lovins, Evan M. Lowder, Miriam Northcutt Bohmert, Michelle YingNext >