Running Head: BEST PRACTICES IN PAROLE AND PROBATION 1

Best Practices in Parole and Probation

Full Name

Name of University

February 5, 2017
BEST PRACTICES IN PAROLE AND PROBATION 2

Introduction

In examining best practices surrounding probation and parole-related monitoring, the

scholarly literature suggests that a true nexus of best practices is necessary for ensuring optimal

functioning of these programs With the goal of reducing recidivism on the part of those on parole

and probation representing consensus goals within the correctional system, these best practices

are thus evidence-based practices that have been proven to reduce the propensity for recidivism.

Moreover, and considering that substance abuse, mental illness of both are almost universal

challenges across all offender categories, optimizing the probation and parole processes must be

heavily focused upon treating these disorders because they are for all intents and purposes root

causes of crime.

With this, the five best practices identified here are centered on treating the offender as an

individual, and moving away from the one-size-fits-all approach that has historically

predominated in the realms of parole and probation. With this, the essay notes that best practices

include individualized and tailored intake processes, offender-specific treatment programs,

ongoing drug testing and monitoring, the maintenance of a low offender to officer ratio as well

as the development of mandatory relapse prevention programs that are tailored to individual

needs and vulnerabilities. Ultimately, the essay concludes by proposing that the triangulation of

these best practices can, based on evidence from the field, decrease rates of recidivism in

probation and parole contexts.

Best Practice One: Individualized Assessments of Offender Characteristics

To begin, a critical best practice associated with enhancing parole and probation

outcomes pertains to the manner by which intake procedures are undertaken at the beginning of
BEST PRACTICES IN PAROLE AND PROBATION 3

the reentry process. As per Viglione et al. (2015), an outdated paradigm reigns in many

corrections departments nationwide inasmuch as these tend to treat offender on a one-size-fits-all

basis that does little to address the specific needs and vulnerabilities of each individual offender.

Based on this problematic reality, Viglione et al. (2015) note that detailed intake assessments are

necessary for establishing offender traits, vulnerabilities, and specific recidivism risks that

different offenders pose. Thus, rather than treating all offenders under supervision as identical,

Viglione et al. (2015) propose that the use of these enhanced initial screening tools have been

tied to the mitigation of the risk of recidivism.

In this respect, Viglione et al. (2015) note that programs like the AUTO Screener are

useful in that they break down the reentry process associated with offenders into multiple

categories. Allowing the probation or parole officer to input static assessments into these

different categories during intake and then modify these assessments as reentry ensues, Viglione

et al. (2015) argues that the benefits of these types of programs lie in the fact that they

disaggregate the different risks posed by the offender, and thus the offender’s different

rehabilitation needs. By allowing for the personalization of the reentry protocols that will follow,

Viglione et al. (2015) thus frame these initial reentry assessments as the core building block of

optimized parole and probation supervision.

Best Practice Two: Treatment for Mental, Substance Abuse, and Co-Occurring Disorders

Moving forward, a second best practice in relation to increasing probation and parole

efficacy pertains to the provision of tailored mental health, and substance abuse treatment to

offenders. Indeed, Welsh et al. (2016) propose that linking offenders to necessary and

appropriate treatment programs for mental illness, substance abuse difficulties, and histories of
BEST PRACTICES IN PAROLE AND PROBATION 4

sexual offenses as well domestic violence is critical as it pertains to matching different offenders

on parole or probation with the services that they need so as to best reintegrate their

communities. With this, Welsh et al. (2016) proposes that these linkages are critical to ensuring

that these root causes of criminality are mitigated.

In this regard, Lamberti (2016) notes that probation and parole officers must be especially

cognizant of the high risks associated with co-occurring disorders. Indeed, and given that many

individuals suffering from a mental illness or substance abuse program also suffer from a

simultaneous disorder that may or may not be tied to a previous offense, Lamberti (2016) makes

it clear that tailoring treatment to these co-occurring disorders from the moment of the initial

intake is absolutely critical to effectively deriving treatment strategies that will be efficacious,

and germane to the long-term mitigation of the risk of recidivism.

Best Practice Three: Monitoring and Drug Testing in the Context of Treatment

With these best practices pertaining to treatment in mind, Wooditch et al. (2016) note that

regular drug testing is absolutely critical for preventing the risk that an offender might relapse

into active substance abuse, and the criminogenic factors that are associated with it. Based on

this reality, Wooditch et al. (2016) propose that parole and probation departments must

implement and enforce consistent testing programs that do not allow for exceptions or

irregularities without significant consequence. Alongside this, Wooditch et al. (2016) argue that

parole and probation officers must be provided with street-level discretion to order a spot

mandatory drug test should they suspect an offender, especially one with a history of substance

use or a co-occurring disorder, of using a drug. While noting that all instantiations of drug use

should lead to a return to incarceration, instead favoring a tiered approach to punishment,

BEST PRACTICES IN PAROLE AND PROBATION 5

Wooditch et al. (2016) nevertheless make it clear that substance use in the community cannot be

tolerated on the pathway to rehabilitation.

Best Practice Four: Low Offender to Supervisory Officer Ratios

In this context of offender-specific rehabilitation and treatment, Miller (2015) stresses the

importance of maintaining appropriate ratios between parole and probation supervisory officers,

and offenders. Indeed, and speaking of the general offender population, Miller (2015) proposes

that the ratio of officers to offenders should never exceed fifty to one. In turn, and in dealing with

specialized populations, notably those suffering from co-occurring disorders or histories of child

abuse, sexual abuse or domestic violence, Miller (2015) argues that the best practice is a ratio of

no more than twenty-five to one. Indeed, and in the context of an approach that is as

individualized and tailored as the one proposed here, a higher ratio would be unsustainable

inasmuch as it would lead parole and probation officers to revert to the problematic one-size-fits-

all approach that has failed in the past.

This said, Miller (2015) recognizes that these ratios are one of the most difficult

challenges faced by parole and probation departments. With these chronically understaffed and

with the public largely unwilling to commit additional funds to prisoner services, Miller (2015)

proposes that departments wishing to install such low ratios for the first time may wish to do so

as a pilot program affecting only a small proportion of the inmates released into the jurisdiction.

In doing this, Miller (2015) notes that a department can demonstrate the efficacy of this best

practice, notably as it pertains to lower rates of recidivism, and use the goodwill obtained

through this demonstration so as to develop further support and funding for it. Noting that battles
BEST PRACTICES IN PAROLE AND PROBATION 6

to develop such ratios remain uphill battles for many parole and probation departments, Miller

(2015) nevertheless makes it clear that such ratios are critical for effective recidivism prevention.

Best Practice Five: Relapse Prevention Programs

Finally, Gossner et al. (2016) argue that relapse prevention programs are critical in

dealing with the multi-faceted criminogenic factors that can bring about recidivism. In this

respect, Gossner et al. (2016) note that psychological professionals can help in relation to relapse

prevention in that cognitive behavioral therapy has been shown to have a potent effect on

allowing ex-convicts to use cognitive strategies so as to mitigate the criminal impulses that

emerge from within them. With this, Gossner et al. (2016) recommend that complex high-risk

offenders be placed in a course of cognitive behavioral therapy so as to prevent relapse in terms

of both drugs and criminality. Noting that such widespread therapy would be unaffordable in

relation to all offenders in the community, Gossner et al. (2016) simultaneously note that a

cheaper form of relapse prevention can be applied to the general offender population through

group mindfulness-based therapy. With this, Gossner et al. (2016) note that the use of such

therapies as adjuncts to the other strategies discussed above represent a valuable addition in

relation to mitigating and lowering recidivism risks.

Conclusion

In the end, and while the policies above represent best practices, they should and must

not be applied in isolation from each other. Indeed, these are likely to function best when they

are deployed as a nexus. Because of the fact that these are all centered on an approach which

aims to better understand the offender as an individual, their application must be done in the

aggregate. This said, and given the well-known financial constraints facing the correctional
BEST PRACTICES IN PAROLE AND PROBATION 7

sector, funding for these types of intensive probation and parole protocols is likely to be difficult

to obtain. Given this reality, initial deployment as a pilot project for both low and high risk

offenders likely represents another best practice germane to proving their value, and thus

obtaining more funding for their broader implementation.

BEST PRACTICES IN PAROLE AND PROBATION 8

References

Gossner, D., Simon, T., Rector, B., & Ruddell, R. . (2016). Case planning and recidivism of high

risk and violent adult probationers. Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being, 1(2),

32-43.

Lamberti, J.S. (2016). Preventing criminal recidivism through mental health and criminal justice

collaboration. Psychiatric services, 67(11), 1206-1212.

Miller, J. . (2015). Contemporary modes of probation officer supervision: The triumph of the

“synthetic” officer? Justice Quarterly, 32(2), 314-336.

Viglione, J., Rudes, D.S., & Taxman, F.S. . (2015). Misalignment in supervision: Implementing

risk/needs assessment instruments in probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(3),

263-285.

Welsh, W.N., Knudsen, H.K., Knight, K., Ducharme, L., Pankow, J., Urbine, T., . . . Monico, L.

(2016). Effects of an organizational linkage intervention on inter-organizational service

coordination between probation/parole agencies and community treatment providers.

Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 43(1),

105-121.

Wooditch, A., Duhaime, L., & Meyer, K. (2016). Street-Level Discretion and Organizational

Effectiveness in Probation Services. Fed. Probation, 80, 39.