Read the following case study and consider your approach when treating this client.

484 Journal of Offender Rehabilitation , 51:484–495, 2012 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1050-9674 print/1540-8558 online DOI: 10.1080/10509674.2012.706245 Case Management in Community Corrections: Current Status and Future Directions ANDREW DAY, LESLEY HARDCASTLE, and ASTRID BIRGDEN School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia Case management is commonly regarded as the foundation of effec - tive service provision across a wide range of human service settings.

This article considers the case management that is offered to clients of community corrections, identifying the distinctive features of case management in this particular setting, and reviewing the empirical evidence relating to the effectiveness of different approaches. It is concluded that models of correctional case management that are clearly informed by the principles of risk, need, and responsivity, and which encourage case managers to form strong and meaning - ful relationships with their clients, are likely to be the most effective.

KEYWORDS case management, corrections, offender rehabilita - tion, risk management Case management, as operationalized in a variety of models, is the principal method of service delivery in health and social work settings. The core func - tions of any case management system are usually clearly specified, and are typically related to a defined sequence of activities, that is, assessment, plan - ning, referral to services, monitoring, and evaluation. While case manage - ment in the corrections field shares these core functions, Turner and Trotter (2010) have observed that generic standards such as The National Standards of Practice for Case Management (Case Management Society of Australia, 2008) are not sufficiently tailored to the organizational context in which case management occurs, and may be particularly ill-suited to correctional This work was supported by Corrections Victoria, Australia, as part of their redevelop - ment of case management in community corrections. The views expressed in this article do not, however, necessarily reflect those of Corrections Victoria or any other agency. Address correspondence to Andrew Day, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Waterfront Campus, Geelong, Victoria 3217, Australia. E-mail: [email protected] Case Management in Community Corrections 485 practice. For example, the definition of case management provided by the Case Management Society of Australia as “a collaborative process of assess - ment, planning, facilitation and advocacy for options and services to meet an individual’s holistic needs through communication and available resources to promote quality cost effective outcomes” (Case Management Society of Australia, n.d.) underplays the coercive aspect of a correctional case man - agement system which is based on a determination of level of risk that offenders present with and the development of case plans that target identi - fied risk factors (see also Jalbert, Rhodes, Flygare, & Kane, 2010). Indeed, one way to understand the unique role of the corrections case manager is in terms of the need to balance client “needs” with their “deeds” (Turner & Trotter, 2010). The aim of this article is to consider some of the ways in which case management in community corrections can be considered to be a specialist type of case management. It does so in two ways, first by offering a summary of contemporary thinking on correctional case management around the English-speaking world, drawing on the published works of authors such as Bourgon (Canada), Trotter (Australia), McNeill (United Kingdom), and Taxman (United States), among others. Second, the empirical evidence sur - rounding the effectiveness of different approaches to community corrections work is reviewed, as identified from searches of the major bibliographic databases. A set of key search terms, truncated as appropriate and in logi - cally constructed search statements appropriate to each database, was used to guide the searches, and only those items with a publication date from 2000 on were considered. These two sources of information are then used to identify some areas for the ongoing development of practice in this area. COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS CASE MANAGEMENT Community supervision has been a part of corrections since the introduction of probation over a century ago (1878 in the United States; 1907 in England; 1946 in Australia). It involves the supervision of offenders on community orders as well as those released on parole after a period of imprisonment.

Community correctional officers (or probation and parole officers) are expected to ensure that the offender meets all the obligations of an order, while at the same time referring those who are identified as in need to ser - vices operated by community agencies. As such, the case manager does not necessarily work directly with the offender to address criminogenic and per - sonal needs (Taxman, 2008b), but acts largely in a service coordination or brokerage role (Trotter, 2006). The case manager thus provides the structure in which interventions are offered, and establishes objectives, tasks, and activities for implementing the case plan and managing the sentence (Day, Howells, & Rickwood, 2003). 486 A. Day et al. Models of correctional case management can be categorized according to the type and level of services that are provided, with brokerage of ser - vices and interventions being on one end of a continuum and personal engagement with the offender through direct casework at the other (see Heseltine & McMahon, 2006; Holt, 2000; Howells & Heseltine, 2003; Ministry of Justice, 2010). The key tasks of the correctional case manager include managing face-to-face contacts, telephone contacts, home visits, residence verification and police contacts, pending court appearances, employment and study verification, urinalysis, registered victim notification, crisis inter - vention and support, and parole board notifications, and the strategic importance of case management to these tasks is clearly recognized in most accounts of good practice in corrections (see for example the UK’s What Works project and companion guide, Evidence-Based Practice; Chapman & Hough, 1998). Most correctional case management systems include a sequence of activities related to assessment, goal setting and planning, monitoring, and reviewing progress. To illustrate, community corrections in the Department for Correctional Services in South Australia conceptualize case management in terms of six related stages. The first stage, admission, involves an intake assessment and assignment to a case manager. This is then followed by an assessment stage, screening, in which offender needs are assessed (this includes screening for risk of reoffense, needs, and eligibility for home detention or bail). The next stage, planning, is where the case plan is devel - oped, and is followed by the supervision stage (face-to-face contacts, exchanging information with other agencies). Finally, a 6-month review takes place (although more frequent reviews occur depending on the length of the order), which is followed by case closure, reintegration, and exit. In this system, the frequency of the supervision and monitoring of offender respon - sibilities, such as attendance at programs, is determined by the outcome of an initial screening process, with higher risk offenders receiving what has been termed “intensive” case management or supervision. This requires more frequent supervision meetings and referral to targeted programs. Jalbert et al. (2010) have defined intensity in supervision as involving “regular moni - toring by an officer with a reduced caseload, mandatory treatment program - ming, follow-up with family members, random drug testing, and often other intermediate sanctions” (p. 236). Recent years have seen an increased interest in specialist case manage - ment for particular groups of offenders, which has had a major impact on the role of the correctional case manager (Turner & Trotter, 2010). In their analy - sis of probation work in Scotland, McNeill, Whyte, and Connelly (2008) sug - gested that: The shift from generic practice (where the caseworker manages and delivers all aspects of the intervention) towards more specialist practice Case Management in Community Corrections 487 (where case management and program delivery functions are typically split) has been one of the most significant changes in probation work in the last decade. (p. 36) However, this shift has also been viewed as creating a more fragmented style of offender management which can lead to offenders having contact with a range of different specialists (e.g., drug and alcohol, sex offending) and mitigating against a consistent and holistic relationship forming between the case manager and the offender (Robinson, 2005). Burnett and McNeill (2005) have gone so far as to suggest that even though workers continue to espouse the importance of relationship building in effecting behavior change, at the policy level the focus has shifted from social work and rehabilitation to law enforcement and monitoring.

The Effectiveness of Case Management There is growing evidence that case management of offenders by itself is insufficient to prevent many offenders from committing new offenses. Not only has it been well established that a large proportion of those on com - munity based orders will not complete their period of supervision (e.g., U.S.

data shows that 41% of probationers and 55% of parolees are unsuccessful, Glaze & Bonczar, 2006), but that even intensive supervision programs do not lead to marked changes in offending behavior. As such, much of the research in this area has compared the impact of different models of supervision, in particular intensive supervision with regular supervision, on reoffending rates. For example, a study by Solomon, Kachnowski, and Bhati (2005) reported no differences in the arrest rates of those who were subject to parole orders and those who were unsupervised after release (even after controlling for risk). More recently, an analysis of the outcomes of commu - nity supervision by Bonta, Rugge, Scott, Bourgon, and Yessine (2008) also found little evidence that supervision practices reduced recidivism. This lit - erature is summarized by Lipsey and Cullen (2007), who concluded that there are only modest favorable effects (2% to 8%) when supervision is com - pared to no supervision (or when intensive supervision is compared to regu - lar supervision). A key finding from the empirical research, however, is that recidivism outcomes do appear to be better when both case work and/or treatment sessions are introduced to the supervisory process (see Jalpert et al., 2010).

This work further suggests that it is the style of supervision that is likely to be most important to outcomes. For example, Paparozzi and Gendreau (2005) used a matched-sample design to compare the number of technical\ violations, new convictions, and revocations for 240 parolees who were offered one of three different styles of supervision (law enforcement only, social casework only, and a combined law enforcement/social casework 488 A. Day et al. approach). A 20% to 30% reduction in reoffending was observed when inten - sive supervision involved elements of both law enforcement and social case - work, targeted high risk-need offenders, and when it was implemented within a supportive organization. Paparozzi and Gendreau (2005) also found that intensive supervision, when combined with (coerced) treatment, reduced revocation rates from 47.5% to 19.2%, with the group receiving treatment reoffending at a rate 10% to 20% less than the control group. Finally, Aos, Miller, and Drake (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of 74 studies of interme - diate sanctions, reporting that intensive supervision results in a 21.9% reduction in recidivism if combined with rehabilitation (compared to a zero reduction when not combined with rehabilitation). Such findings have led to the development of models of correctional supervision in which the case manager is generally expected to provide interventions that are rehabilitative in nature.

Practice Issues Bonta et  al. (2008) explained the somewhat disappointing findings of their meta-analysis of case management outcomes in terms of the failure of case managers to deliver interventions that were consistent with what is currently known about effective rehabilitation. Bonta and colleagues concluded that probation officers often spent too much time on the enforcement aspect of supervision (compliance) and insufficient time in the engaging offenders in a process of behavior change. These authors described what they considered to be relatively poor adherence to some of the basic principles of effective rehabilitation (i.e., the principles of risk, need, and responsivity), and that major dynamic risk factors (such as antisocial attitudes and social supports for crime) were largely ignored. Finally, they argued that probation officers showed little evidence of skills such as prosocial modeling and reinforce - ment, which are typically associated with behavioral change. Dowden and Andrews (2004), in their meta-analysis of effective inter - personal skills of correctional officers, found that the development of an open and positive relationship between offender and case manager (what they termed characteristics of core correctional practice: effective use of authority; appropriate modeling and reinforcement; problem solving; effec - tive use of community resources; and quality of interpersonal relationships\ ) was likely to enhance the positive effects of offending behavior programs and was associated with significant reductions in rates of reoffending. In a more recent study, Skeem, Louden, Polaschek, and Camp (2007) found that mandated treatment providers have better outcomes when they maintain not only a caring, but also fair, trusting and authoritative style with probationers.

Trotter’s (2006) work similarly suggests that a crucial determinant of effective case management is the quality of the relationship that is formed between the client and caseworker. Case Management in Community Corrections 489 The proactive community supervision (PCS) model developed in Maryland, is a good example of this type of approach (Taxman, Yancey, & Bilanin, 2006). The PCS model seeks to combine law enforcement and social work approaches in working with high-risk offenders through the develop - ment of goal-directed case management plans that are explicitly linked to identified dynamic risk factors. In essence, Community Corrections Officers (CCOs) are expected to apply behavioral strategies, risk and need assess - ment tools, case plans, and compliance management to rehabilitate or manage the offenders that they supervise. There are seven components in the PCS model (see Taxman et al., 2006): 1. Assessment of risk 2. Development of a case plan that is responsive to dynamic risk factors and other needs. 3. Referral to treatment and other services.

4. Use of supervision to assist the offender to learn about the triggers that lead to criminal behavior. 5. Use of incentives and sanctions to shape offender behaviors.

6. Communication in a timely manner with the offender to review prog - ress on the case plan. 7. An emphasis on desistence from a criminal lifestyle.

The PCS model is described in detail in a set of practice guidelines that are available online (see Table 1) and which have now been subject to an outcome evaluation (Taxman, 2008a). The evaluation concluded that, after controlling for sentence length and prior history, those who received proactive supervision were rearrested less often (30% vs. 42%) and were less likely to violate the conditions of their orders (34.7% vs.

40%) than those who did not receive proactive supervision. Although, these reductions may appear to be relatively modest, they can also be considered to be socially significant in terms of the direct and indirect costs of crime. The evaluation of the Manitoba Case Management Study, the Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision (known as STICS) further illus - trates how important the content and style of supervision offered is to out - comes for moderate to high-risk offenders (Bourgon, Bonta, Rugge, Scott, & K., 2009). In this study, probation officers were provided with training and ongoing clinical supervision in intensive supervision techniques based on the risk, needs, and responsivity principles. Those offenders who were supervised by officers trained in the STICS method had up to a 15% reduc - tion in their rate of recidivism. Collectively, these findings suggest that correctional case managers who work in ways which are consistent with what is known about effective reha - bilitation will have better outcomes than those who do not. They underscore the work of others such as Holt (2000), McNeill and Whyte (2007), and 490 A. Day et al. Partridge (2004) who have each identified a number of key, interrelating features which they believe are associated with effective case management and are summarized in Table 2. In short, the correctional case manager needs to have a good under - standing of the causes and functions of offending behavior, to understand which aspects of risk may be amenable to change through intervention, and an awareness of how this might be achieved. There is a need for specialist training in each of these areas. Taxman, Yancey, and Bilanin (2006) have described the strategies utilized in Maryland to equip staff with new skills and to provide the organization with the means to focus on reducing TABLE 1 Essential Components of the Maryland Proactive Community Supervision Model Aims 1. Maintain a safe and secure community2. Hold offenders accountable to victims and the community3. Help offenders become responsible and productive Tasks 1. Assess risk and need factors2. Develop a case plan that is responsive to identified dynamic risk factors and the home environment (i.e., the offender-environment context)3. Refer to appropriate treatment, educational, vocational, and other services to assist offenders develop new skills to be a productive citizen4. Use the supervision process to assist the offender to learn about the triggers (e.g., people, places, or situations) that influence reoffending5. Apply incentives and sanctions to shape prosocial behaviors6. Communicate regularly with offenders to review progress on the case plan and achievement of supervision goals 7. Emphasize desistence from criminal lifestyle and conduct Roles of CCOs 1. Engage offenders in a change process that focuses on obtaining prosocial skills2. Use supervision tools and treatment interventions that address dynamic risk factors to commence the change process3. Assist offenders to sustain change through positive involvement with community support networks (family, associates, mentors, and nongov - ernmental organizations) Community expectations 1. Work closer to where offenders live2. Work with offenders to manage drug-related offending and violence3. Assist offenders to obtain basic education and job skills so they can become contributing citizens4. Build relationships with offenders’ families, friends and neighbors—people who can alert them before problems arise5. Intervene before an offender reoffends6. Respond quickly when an offender’s behavior necessitates removal from the community. Organizational requirements 1. Reduce caseloads to appropriate levels so CCOs can spend more time in the community (or neighborhoods) working 1:1 with offenders2. Provide training to CCOs on how to motivate offenders, identify critical risk factors and create practical supervision plans3. Provide suitable technological tools, such as laptops, to help CCOs perform their jobs while working outside the office in the community Note. Adapted from http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/rehabservs/dpp/pcs.shtml. CCO = Community Corrections Officer Case Management in Community Corrections 491 reoffending. These include the provision of motivational interviewing and verbal communication skills training, as well as ongoing coaching and men - toring for case managers. A critical area of training relates to identifying ways to address dynamic risk factors within the case plan. An important consideration is the amount of time it can take to deliver interventions within the case management role. Jalpert et  al. (2010) con - cluded that intensive supervision, with its increased number of supervision contacts, did reduce reoffending in general, and in drug, property and vio - lent crimes in particular, but that these results were only achieved when the caseloads of case managers were reduced (to 30 offenders). In some juris - dictions correctional case managers carry far larger loads, and this can impact on the integrity of any efforts to rehabilitate. As Taxman (2008a) noted, integrating treatment into supervision can be problematic, with ser - vices not always delivered as intended, and supervisory officers adopting a range of styles. An additional issue is the extent to which caseloads should be generalist or specialist. There is a view, such as that expressed by the U.S. Center for Sex Offender Management (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2008), that offender supervision is most effective when policies allow case manag - ers to specialize in a particular area. This, it is suggested, can help to ensure that offenders—who might be lost on nonspecialist caseloads—are super - vised intensively and that the supervision is more responsive to their particu - lar needs. It is not clear, however, whether specialist case managers actually work in a different way to generalists, with one UK Home Office study find - ing that generalist models provided an overall more coherent supervision experience for offenders (Partridge, 2004). The interface between community case management and the work of other rehabilitation providers, such as those who deliver intensive treatment TABLE 2 Effective Practice in Correctional Case Management Acknowledgement of clients’ needs and experiences. Chief motivating factors for clients include transparency, flexibility, and support.Consistency: A crucial facet of seamless service delivery and prerequisite to increasing offender motivation and learning and the development of an effective worker -client relationship.Continuity: Required for assessment and supervision across time and the entire spectrum of interventions to create the sense of a single holistic, supportive, and steady relation - ship. Particularly important in the early supervision stages.Consolidation of learning, required to assist offenders to join up fragments of learning to form a whole, using reflective practice and supervision, as well as community integra - tion where offenders’ strengths can be utilized and confirmed.Commitment of the case manager to the case plan, offender, and process of supervision, vital to reducing recidivism and promoting positive change.Compliance of the client with the conditions of the legal order and the associated\ case plan.

Note. Adapted from Turner and Trotter (2010). 492 A. Day et al. services or nongovernment reintegration service providers, is also widely regarded as a critical moderator of case management outcomes. This is more straightforward if the case manager is supervising the offender and broker - ing a range of welfare and rehabilitation services as required, but becomes more complex when the case manager seeks to provide rehabilitation. It would seem important that any interventions delivered through community corrections are consistent with those that are delivered by specialist treat - ment services, although Day and Casey (2010) have suggested that little guidance is available as to how community corrections officers should build on changes that may have occurred in treatment programs. Further work is required to operationalize what type of interventions might usefully rein - force treatment outcomes, especially in those contexts where interagency approaches are considered to be necessary to effectively manage risk (see Ministry of Justice, 2011). Finally, most of the current literature in this area focuses on the need to implement a differentiated case management model based on the principles of risk, needs, and responsivity (see Andrews & Bonta, 2010). In this system, the most intensive supervision is provided to higher risk offenders and inter - ventions are offered that directly address dynamic risk factors. Given the work of Trotter (2006), which identified the quality of the relationship formed between the offender and caseworker as important, there may also be a role to develop more strength-based approaches to correctional case manage - ment. These aim to assist offenders in achieving their personal goals as well as managing their risk, and conceptualize case management as much as a social integration and competency building task as a risk management one.

It is, however, only recently that attempts have been made to operationalize such ideas in practice, and no evaluations have been published. To illustrate the approach, however, Purvis, Ward and Willis (2011) have outlined a model of case management that is based on the Good Lives Model (Ward & Maruna, 2007). In this model case management is made up of six phases, as follows.

Phase 1 (information gathering) corresponds to the intake and assessment phase in other models, but the focus here is on understanding pathways to offending and what motivates the client. Phase 2 (translation of information into intelligence) involves interpreting the information gathered in terms of an understanding of the offender’s commitments, priorities, desires, motiva - tions, challenges and strengths. Phase 3 (documentation of data) aims to summarize the offender’s life and experiences and translate this data into a case plan. Phase 4 (preliminary intervention plan) aims to: (a) reveal what is good and right in the offender and the offender’s life; (b) highlight all the areas that need to be targeted for improvement and change; and (c) priori - tize areas for intervention. Priority is given to targeting those areas that dem - onstrate a direct pathway to offending. Phase 5 (analysis) requires the case manager to perform some analysis with respect to the Good Lives Model concepts of capacity, means, scope and coherence. It is then suggested that Case Management in Community Corrections 493 the case manager describes and analyzes the offender’s past life plan/way of living (around the time of the offense) and his or her current life plan (these may or may not be the same). The purpose is to reveal to the case manager the areas of most concern. Finally, Phase 6 (informed case management plan and goal setting) produces an individualized case management strategy, including both short-term and long-term goals. CONCLUSION The intention of the article was to offer a synthesis of current knowledge and practice around correctional case management which will provide a resource not only for those who work in this area but also for those who act as case managers in other settings and services. What emerges is the need to consider the unique setting within which correctional case management occurs and how this might influence practice. It is apparent that approaches which rely solely on supervision and monitoring are unlikely to lead to significant reduc - tions in reoffending, although when case managers are able to engage their clients in a process of behavior change and ensure that rehabilitative inter - ventions are delivered to higher risk offenders then the results are much more encouraging. Finally, it seems clear that in order to deliver effective services, case managers need to be equipped with the interpersonal skills, training, support, and most importantly, time, to work effectively with their clients. REFERENCES Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology , Public Policy , and Law , 16 (1), 39 -55. Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based adult corrections programs: What works and what does not. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T.-L., Yessine, A., Gutierrez, L., & Li, J. (2010). The strategic training initiative in community supervision: Risk-need-responsivity in the real world (User Report 2010-01). Ottawa: Public Safety Canada. Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Scott, T.-L., Bourgon, G., & Yessine, A. K. (2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation , 47 , 248 -271. Burnett, R., & McNeill, F. (2005). The place of the officer -offender relationship in assisting offenders to desist from crime. The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice , 52 , 221 -224. Case Management Society of Australia. (n.d.). What is case management? Retrieved from http://www.cmsa.org.au/definition.html Case Management Society of Australia. (2008). National standards of practice for case management (Rev. ed.). Castle Hill, Australia: Author. Center for Sex Offender Management. (2008). Comprehensive approach to sex offender management. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/ abstract.aspx?ID=250385 494 A. Day et al. Chapman, T., & Hough, M. (1998). Evidence based practice: A guide to effective prac - tice . London: HM Inspectorate of Probation. Day, A., & Casey, S. (2010). Maintaining change programmes for offenders: Some suggestions for practice. Psychology , Crime & Law , 16 , 449 -558. Day, A., Howells, K., & Rickwood, D. (2003). Victorian juvenile justice rehabilitation Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Government Dept. of Human Services. Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2004). The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 48 , 203 -214. Glaze, L. E., & Bonczar, T. P. (2006). Probation and parole in the United States 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Heseltine, K., & McMahon, E. (2006). Case management in community corrections: An effective tool in reducing recidivism. Australian Journal of Case Management , 7, 14–17. Holt, P. (2000). Case management: context for supervision, a review of research on models of case management: Design implications for effective practice. Community and Criminal Justice Monograph 2 , Leicester: The Community and Criminal Justice Studies Unit, School of Health and Applied Social Sciences, Department of Social and Community Studies/Centre for Social Action, De Montfort University, Scraptoft. Howells, K., & Heseltine, K. (2002). Community–based corrections. In A. Goldsmith, M. Israel, & K. Daly (Eds.) Crime and justice in the 21st century: an Australian textbook in criminology (2nd Ed). (pp. 34 – 45). Sydney: LBC. Jalbert, S., Rhodes, W., Flygare, C., & Kane, M. (2010). Testing probation outcomes in an evidence-based practice setting: Reduced caseload size and intensive supervision effectiveness. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation , 49 , 233 -253. Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science , 3, 297–320. McNeill, F., & Whyte, B. (2007). Reducing reoffending: Social work with offenders in Scotland . Cullumpton, UK: Willan Publishing. McNeill, F., Whyte, B., & Connelly, M. (2008). Towards effective practice in offender supervision: Source document. Retrieved from http://www.cjsw.ac.uk/cjsw/ files/Towards%20Effective%20Practice.doc Ministry of Justice. (2010). Annual statistics on multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) eligible offenders . London, England: Ministry of Justice. Paparozzi, M. A., & Gendreau, P. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organisational support - iveness. Prison Journal , 85 , 445 -466. Partridge, S. (2004). Examining case management models for community sentences . London, England: Home Office. Purvis, M., Ward, T., & Willis, G. (2011). The good lives model in practice: Offence pathways and case management. European Journal of Probation , 3(2), 4 -28. Robinson, G. (2005). What works in offender management? Howard Journal of Criminal Justice , 44 , 307 -318. Skeem, J., Louden, J. E., Polashek, D., & Camp, J. (2007). Assessing relationship qual - ity in mandated community treatment: Blending care with control. Psychological Assessment , 19 , 397 -410. Case Management in Community Corrections 495 Solomon, A. L., Kachnowski, V., & Bhati, A. (2005). Does parole work? Analyzing the impact of postprison supervision on rearrest outcomes. The Urban Institute . Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311156_Does_Parole_Work. pdf Taxman, F. S., Yancey, C., & Bilanin, J. E. (2006). Proactive community supervision in Maryland: Changing offender outcomes. Retrieved from http://www2.dpscs.

state.md.us/publicinfo/publications/pdfs/PCS_Evaluation_Feb06.pdf Taxman, F. S. (2008a). No illusions: Offender and organisational change in Maryland’s procative supervision efforts. Criminology & Public Policy , 7, 275 -302. Taxman, F. S. (2008b). To be or not to be: Community supervision deja vu . Journal of Offender Rehabilitation , 47 , 209 -219. Trotter, C. (2006). Working with involuntary clients . Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Turner, S., & Trotter, C. (2010). Literature review: Case management with women offenders . Melbourne, Ausralia: Corrections Victoria. Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk paradigm . London, England: Routledge. Copyright of Journal of Offender Rehabilitation is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.