WK1CCTCH12

1. 1. 12 Behavioral Management for Community Supervision: The Staff is the Agent of Change

Faye S. Taxman

This paper incorporates material from other papers on the topic including a paper commissioned by the National Research Council (Taxman, 2006b) and one published in Perspectives (Taxman, 2006a).

While community supervision is the most prevalent punishment for criminal behavior, with over 4.8 million adults serving such sentences (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006), the effectiveness of supervision is consistently questioned and underresearched (Taxman, 2002). More attention has been given to specialized correctional programs such as drug courts, boot camps, intensive supervision, residential treatment, and so on. Research has failed to examine the degree to which the supervision of the offender varies under different program scenarios. And, more importantly, existing models have not incorporated new theoretical approaches for supervising offenders in the community. This paper will briefly review the existing literature on correctional programs and supervision, identify pertinent theoretical frameworks for applying new models to supervise offenders, and describe a model of behavioral management for offenders.

1. 1. Our Limited Understanding of “What Works”

A long list of researchers (e.g., Bailey, 1966; Farabee, 2005; Mackenzie, 2000; Martinson, Lipton, & Wilkes, 1974; Sherman et al., 1997; Farrington & Welsh, 2005) have questioned the efficacy of correctional programs. All have generally found that very few correctional programs reduce recidivism. The collective wisdom from meta-analysis studies is that 

All of the reviewers have lamented the quality of the existing studies, the lack of rigorous studies, and the inability to measure success. And, while Farabee (2005) and others have focused on the inadequacies in the research design and infrequent experimentation, less attention has been given to the issue that continues to plague correctional programs—implementation. The frequently cited implementation snafus are improper or poorly designed strategies to target the appropriate population for the program, insufficient attention to key programmatic features such as services or supervision strategies, inadequate strategies to address program retention or compliance issues, and unclear expectations as to behavioral objectives for program completion. Martinson and his colleagues, way back in 1974, recognized that most correctional programs were seldom implemented to be different than usual services—and that remains the challenge to the field. These implementation woes imply that more attention is needed to clarify the goals of a correctional programming.

The discussion about implementation is also insightful in that it implies that correctional programs are more likely to be a structured set of activities for the offender than a clinical program. Each activity may have different goals, and the program assumes that by participating in these activities the offender will acquire new information that can assist in the change process. This is in contrast to a clinical intervention which is based on a theoretical foundation as to how to change the person’s behavior (e.g., values, attitudes, etc.), and the corresponding activities to reinforce this change process. Programs assume that participation will lead to the offender regrouping his/her own behavior while interventions assume that it is necessary to provide the offender with new skills for the purpose of changing attitudes, values, and/or behaviors. This distinction between a program and an intervention is important in reviewing the correctional literature because it could be that the “no difference” results are primarily due to failed program designs instead of failed offenders and failed implementation. That is, one might argue that if our approach to correctional interventions were more theoretical in their design, some of the implementation issues might be resolved by helping staff to appreciate key components of a program.

One example of correctional programs that are a set of activities, and that tend to lack a theoretical foundation for behavioral change, is intensive supervision. Consider an intensive supervision program that includes substance abuse education, drug testing, and community service. Each has a different goal—to inform the offender about the consequences of substance abuse, to monitor potential drug use, and to repay society. The offender is expected 

Few studies have directly examined the standard supervision brokerage model, which consists primarily of face-to-face contacts. Standard supervision (brokerage model) is generally seen as treatment as usual in studies of other innovative supervision programs (e.g., intensive supervision, case management, caseload size, drug court, etc.). Overall, one can argue that this model is considered ineffective given the 40 percent of probationers and 54 percent of parolees who fail to successfully complete supervision (Glaze & Palla, 2005). And, more importantly that approximately one-third of the arrests are of people who are currently on supervision at the time of the arrest.

Many of the new innovations in the field depend on the supervision model as a framework, such as drug courts, day reporting centers, case management models, and so on. However, many of these models have adopted the traditional supervision approach and have then added on treatment services. Such program models often result in conflicting goals with each service having its own goals, and the offender is basically left to discern how the goals complement each other. For example, in a recent study of drug courts, the study found that when judges used treatment sanctions (e.g., more services, counseling, etc.) that reinforced the treatment goals, the offenders were more likely to continue participation in the drug court program than when judges used punitive sanctions (and, then offenders tended to drop out or were expelled from the program) (Taxman, Pattavina, & Bouffard, 2005). While efforts to involve treatment have shown promise (some positive results, some neutral results), the models appear to be more focused on layering on services than working on a similar framework for offender change. It appears that the next steps should involve the use of theoretically oriented correctional programs.

1. 1. MAJOR ADVANCEMENTS IN THE LAST DECADE

A review of the criminal justice, drug treatment, and service literature has identified promising strategies that may be relevant to designing new approaches for the general community 

1. 1. Informal Social Controls versus Formal Social Controls.

In the criminal justice literature there is an ongoing debate about the role and importance of formal social controls. Recent years have seen a growth in the use of conditions of release that serve to raise the bar for standards of conduct of offenders. Correctional programs for the most part rely on using formal social controls to punish the offender, as well as conditions of release to impose treatment conditions for the purpose of rehabilitating the offender. That is, the state uses external controls on the behavior of the offender through a myriad of liberty restrictions on the offender that can range from verbal commands to physical (e.g., curfew limitations, space limitations, incarceration that removes the offender from the community, global positioning systems, requirements to attend treatment, community service, etc.). Little attention is given to the incorporation of informal social controls (e.g., peers, family, support mechanisms, etc.) as part of the correctional intervention except the pro forma collateral contact (and this is generally for monitoring the offender’s progress).

Recent literature in the field has highlighted the role that natural support systems and informal social controls can have on the offender’s behavior. Informal social controls can augment and enhance the formal social controls extolled by correctional agencies by providing the needed support for the individual offender in committing to a prosocial lifestyle. And, by enhancing some of these natural support systems, it provides the opportunity for offenders to develop new networks that include lawabiding citizens and enhance the traditional support networks (e.g., employment, spouse or significant other, families, etc.). In some of their most recent literature, Laub and Sampson (2003) have examined the pathways that affect an individual’s further involvement with the criminal justice system. Adult transition periods, such as marriage, employment, and other naturally occurring events, can be critical factors in affecting a person’s involvement in and desistence from criminal behavior. The substance abuse treatment literature has emphasized the importance of support systems for those in recovery as a means of preventing relapse, as well as assisting the addict to develop new social networks that facilitate a more prosocial role in the community. In the therapeutic literature, family, employment, and other support systems are considered critical in the process of altering behavior and lifestyles as well as assisting the offender to be perceived as a asset in the community (Latkin, Formand, Knowlton, & Sherman, 2003; Latkin, Sherman, & Knowlton, 2003). Based on much of this work, Taxman, Young, and Byrne (2004), in proposing new models of reentry, have identified developing natural support systems as part of the reintegration process. Strengthening the natural support system is theorized as an important step in assisting the offender to assume a citizenship persona as compared to adhering to the outlaw persona (Taxman, 2005). Family case management (see Shapiro, 2006) is another example of a new correctional model that can be used to enhance the natural support systems of offenders.

1. 1. Procedural Justice.

Tom Tyler (2004) and others have proffered the importance of procedural justice as a tool to increase obedience with the law. The underlying premise of the procedural justice theory is that obedience to the law (or compliance with a correctional program) is best achieved when an individual believes that the state is acting legitimately. 

The field of corrections has not benefited from direct testing of the theories of trust, legitimacy, and fairness and the potential impact on compliance with supervision requirements/programs or correctional programs. A few papers have pursued whether these theories have some saliency, and they tend to have positive findings but indicate that more work in this area is warranted. Taxman and Thanner (2003/2004) reported that offenders under supervision had reductions in rearrest, positive drug tests, and warrants for violation of probation when offenders expressed that their probation officer listened to them and treated them with respect. The protocol that was being tested in this scenario was that the officer had to identify the key behavioral objectives that would lead to the offender successfully completing supervision. In a study on clients’ and counselors’ expectations regarding behavior in treatment situations, an agreement on the expected behavior in treatment is closely associated with a more positive therapeutic alliance (Al-Demarki & Kivlighan, 1993). Conversely, a lack of agreement between expectations is likely to create problems in communication and may ultimately lead to failure or early termination. These scenarios apply to community supervision in which the roles for successful completion are often obtuse, and often depend on the behavior of the individual supervision officer. In fact, applying some of the police literature to the probation scenario illustrates that the same conditions for perceptions of illegitimate action by state actors may exist in the judicial and correctional environments where certain behaviors are not guaranteed to be related to certain outcomes—plea bargaining, conditions of supervision, use of revocation, and so on, are all system decisions that depend significantly on the state actors. And they are often applied differentially to offenders in a public forum where it is often difficult to explain the differential treatment (Taxman, Byrne, & Pattavina, 2005). Creating a supervision environment in which the rules for successful completion are clear and equally applied appears to be important to address the toxic nature of supervision, which has become increasingly stiff based on the rules to complete supervision and the number and types of conditions for release.

1. 1. SOCIAL LEARNING AND COGNITIVE-BEHAVIORAL THERAPIES

Major advancements have occurred in the delivery of treatment services for substance abusers, offenders with mental health disorders, and other care providers. Traditional therapeutic modalities emphasized an array of strategies from psychodynamic to confrontational to reality therapies. Most of these were designed to focus on individuals developing insight and 

Meta-analytic studies have confirmed the efficacy of social learning, cognitive, and cognitive-behavioral models for offenders and/or addicts (Andrews & Bonta, 1998; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2006; Lipsey & Landenberger, 2006; Sherman et al., 1997). The techniques that are involved in the cognitive and cognitive-behavioral processes are pertinent, and probably relevant to the handling of offenders from a supervision perspective. That is, they provide guidance on the communication and behavioral tools that can be useful in dealing with offenders who are resistant, noncompliant, and disobedient. The face-to-face contact, which is the traditional vehicle of probation, can be modified by incorporating the principles of these therapeutic strategies particularly in the interactions with the offender. Probation officers can use these techniques to enhance their contacts with offenders. Recent work by Landenberger & Lipsey (2006) has focused on the key components of cognitive-behavioral therapies such as role-playing, content time, and so on, in terms of affecting positive outcomes; this provides guidance on how supervision contacts can be modified to improve offender outcomes.

1. 1. RISK, NEED, RESPONSIVITY, AND THE SUPERVISION PROCESS

Over the last two decades, researchers have devoted attention to the process by which change occurs. Beginning with the stages of change model developed by Prochaska, DiClemente, and Norcross (1992), a theoretical model exists for how an individual can change. Researchers have contributed to considering how the treatment and/or criminal justice processes should occur to facilitate individual offender change. Several models have been articulated that focus on the key business processes and components to advance the offender commitment to change. Taxman (1998), in a paper on the seamless system, identified 12 programmatic processes that can facilitate offender change, such as goals that are compatible across agencies, use of assessment tools, use of responsivity, use of incentives and sanctions to shape behavior, and so on. In further work on reentry, Taxman, Byrne, and Young (2004) have identified a process for reintegration that incorporates the seamless system principles but 

In the treatment arena, Simpson (2004) have developed a treatment process that expands on the key components of an effective treatment delivery system. The components of this model are similar to that recommended by researchers in that assessment should drive program placement (responsivity). Treatment processes should consist of several layers to facilitate the individual change process including engagement, intensive treatments addressing client/offender needs, and adequate retention in treatment to affect change. Treatment should be supplemented by support systems that can be used to maintain the recovery of the addict. As identified by Simpson and his colleagues, organizational factors affect the services offered include staff motivation, resources, attributes, and climate issues.

1. 1. A NEW MODEL OF SUPERVISION

The focus on the organization essentially recognizes that individual outcomes are relative to the processes that the offenders are involved in, whether it is in the criminal justice or treatment systems. Collective processes that have been identified as being key to better offender outcomes include having goals that reinforce the importance of offender change, using assessment information to drive the placement in treatment programs, assigning offenders to programs and services (including external controls or restrictions) based on their level of public safety risk and need for services, using sanctions and incentives to address compliance factors, and modifying services based on the progress of offenders. Taxman (2002) discussed this issue in an article about the effectiveness of supervision and argued that there is a need to move away from the nature of face-to-face contacts to a supervision process with measurable phases. In this model, the role of the supervision agent shifts significantly. The supervision officer does not merely have enforcement responsibilities but also has responsibilities to instruct and model prosocial behavior. This shifts the basic function of the supervision business to goal-directive, face-to-face concepts. Goal-directive, face-to-face concepts recognize that in each interaction (e.g., interviews, collateral contacts, phone contacts, etc.), the purpose of the contact needs to be clear.

Generally there are four main goals of contacts:

• • Engagement: To assist the offender in taking ownership for his/her supervision contract and behavioral plan. Ownership derives from the offender understanding the rules of supervision (e.g., the criteria for being successful, the rewards for meeting expectations, the behaviors that will end in revocation, etc.), the offender’s criminogenic drivers that affect the 

  
  likelihood of involvement with the criminal justice system, the dynamic criminogenic factors that can be altered to affect the chance that the offender will be likely to change, and the prosocial behaviors that will be rewarded by the community (and criminal justice system).

• • Early Change: To assist the offender in addressing dynamic criminogenic factors that are meaningful to both the offender and the criminal justice system. As part of the change process, all individuals have certain interests and needs that can be used to motivate them to commit to a change process. The change process begins by allowing the offender to act on these interests as well as begin to address one dynamic criminogenic driver (which will eventually lead to addressing other criminogenic traits). The trade-off in achieving this goal is that the offender’s interests in being a parent or provider, or addressing specific needs (e.g., religious, health, etc.), should be acted on simultaneously to the needs identified in the standardized risk/needs assessment tool as a means to assist the offender in taking ownership to his/her own change process.

• • Sustained Change: The goal of supervision is to transfer external controls from the formal government institutions to informal social controls (e.g., parents, peers, community supports, employers, etc.). This is best achieved by allowing the offender, as gains are made in the change process, to help stabilize in the community, and to utilize informal social controls to maintain the changes. Part of the supervision process should be to identify those natural support systems that the offender has or to develop these natural support systems to be a guardian for the offender to provide the support mechanisms.

• • Reinforcers: The goal of each contact is to reinforce the change process. Formal contingency management systems assist with this goal by providing supervision staff with the tools to reward positive gains and to address negative progress. The formal process of swift and certain responses provides “protection” for the offender by showing that supervision staff recognizes small incremental steps that facilitate and sustain change.

1. 1. Model of Supervision Process

1. 1. P

      
      

      
      UTTING THE MODEL INTO PLACE

Many supervision agencies have recognized that to put in place behavioral management systems requires commitment to organizational changes and enhancements. The commitment must involve a strong endorsement of and integration of behavioral management goals, into the fabric of the processes. It also involves new resources to achieve these goals. And as part of the advancements to improve reentry efforts and to change the nature of supervision, a need exists to ensure that supervision system addresses these goals. The first key to advancing the model is the use of motivational interviewing and other strategies to assist the staff in constructive communication with the offender. Many agencies are training their staff on motivational interviewing techniques and other strategies for the purpose of providing a technique to focus on client-centered approaches that build trust and rapport. Communication becomes the key strategy for the behavioral management approach because parole officers must provide consistent feedback to the offender and community to assist the offender in the change process. The manner in which that feedback is provided is critical. And, to be effective in shaping behavior the offender needs to have timely and consistent information about his/her performance to adjust the case plans.

Second, supervision plans should incorporate the constructs of behavioral contracts. In these behavioral contracts, they serve to target goals to address criminogenic needs, conditions of supervision to attend to these needs, and incremental steps to achieve goals. The supervision plan is more than a piece of paper; instead, it is a document that is subject to revision based on the progress of the offender and changing goals of supervision (e.g., engagement, change, sustaining progress). Also, the plan incorporates the agreements that hold both the offender and the system actors accountable. That is the behavioral contract tool translates conditions into short, behavioral steps that are reinforced by incentives and punishments.

The next component is to build on the offender’s natural support systems as the protector for the offender. This means the goal of supervision is to assist the offender in the process of identifying and developing a noncriminal, non-substance-abusing natural support system that can be productive in limiting the goals of the offender. More agencies are developing programs and services that include the community in the supervision process. As part of some of the reentry efforts, community guardians (e.g., civic activists, community volunteers, etc.) are being assigned to offenders to assist them in the transition from prison to community; to assist offenders in retention efforts as part of jobs/employment, schooling, or treatment services; and to assist offenders in developing a network that does not involve criminal peers or associates. These efforts are designed both to address retention issues and to lay the groundwork for building those natural support systems.

Another effort is devoted to expanding the service options to accommodate both the offender’s interests and a broader array of services that can be used to address criminogenic needs. Many parole agencies have expanded the service providers to include more natural supports in the community such as faith-based organizations, civic associations, educational institutions, employers or local businesses, and so on. Opening the doors of the correctional system has the potential of assisting the offender in the change and maintenance process.

The change process is a difficult one. To advance organization change that moves away from an enforcement-driven process, agencies are using place-based strategies to adopt new innovations and affect the surrounding community in which the offender resides 

Finally, management controls are needed to assist with the organizational change. As demonstrated in other areas, performance management systems can be used to provide weekly feedback on progress. The old saying, “what gets measured, gets done” is being translated into strategic management sessions in which supervision staff are held accountable for the gains in meeting supervision goals. In some offices these meetings are held weekly, in others monthly. But the goal is to use the performance management system to monitor outcomes (e.g., assessments and case plans completed, employment retention, treatment sessions attended, negative drug test results, rearrests, warrants for violations, etc.), and then to build the organization to achieve these outcomes.

The advancement of this model requires organizations to move slowly but quickly in adapting the core principles. To this end, the authors of this chapter wrote a manual Tools of the Trade that was published by the National Institute of Corrections. (Taxman, Shepherdson, & Byrne, 2004). This manual was designed to illustrate how the behavioral management approach operates, as well as to provide the agencies with a guidebook for implementation. Appendix A is a copy of the manual. The manual walks through the key concepts, operational features, tools to assist with the bridging of science to practice (e.g., assessment information, offender interest surveys, behavioral contracts, and typologies), and illustrations of how to administer the model. As discussed in the diffusion literature, this type of manual is a key to operability because it translates to the organization the science into “their” language and business process.

1. 1. CONCLUSION

With nearly 80 percent of offenders under correctional control in community supervision and prison populations driven by failures on community supervision, new technologies in the supervision field are critical. These new technologies can assist the field to integrat science into practice. The behavioral management model provides that step forward to change the core practice of supervision—contacts—into a meaningful and potentially powerful tool to achieve the goals of sentencing. While we as researchers have done our job in assisting the correctional field in translating research into operational business terms, the next 10 years will be of interest to see how different correctional agencies adopt, adapt, and use this model. If science can provide fruitful information through small incremental steps, the behavioral management approach to supervision will be a giant leap, and small incremental steps will be taken by organizations as they work through the change process. With more than 10 states and many local probation departments adopting this model, the next 10 decade will provide fruitful information as to the viability of the behavioral management approach within correctional environments.

1. 1. R

      
      

      
      EFERENCES

Al-Darmaki, F., & Kivlighan, D. M. (1993). Congruence in client-counselor expectations for relationship and the working alliance. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 379–384.

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. L. (2003). Level of Service Inventory—Revised (LSI-R): U.S. norms manual supplement. Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.

Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Bailey, W. C. (1966). Correctional outcome: An evaluation of 100 reports. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 57(2), 153–160.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006). Correctional surveys: The Annual Probation Survey, National Prisoner Statistics, Survey of Jails, and the Annual Parole Survey as presented in Correctional Populations in the United States, Annual, Prisoners in 2004 and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2004. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corr2.htm

Byrne, J. M., & Taxman, F. S. (2005). Reaction essay: Crime (control) is a choice: Divergent perspectives on the role of treatment in the adult corrections system. Criminology and Public Policy, 4(2), 291–310.

Byrne, J. M. (1990). The future of intensive probation supervision and the new intermediate sanctions. Crime and Delinquency, 36(1), 6–41.

Byrne, J. M. (1989). Reintegrating the concept of community into community-based corrections. Crime and Delinquency, 35(3), 471–499.

Eley, E. (2005). Personnel correspondence. November 29, 2005.

Farabee, D. (2005). Rethinking rehabilitation: Why can’t we reform our criminals? Washington, DC: AEI Press.

Farrington, D., & Weldon, B. (2005). Randomized experiments in criminology: What have we learned in the last two decades? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 1–29.

Glazc, L. E., & Palla, S. (2005). Probation and Parole in the United States, 2004. (Publication No. NCJ-210676), Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictions of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575–607.

Kane, R. (2005). Compromised Police Legitimacy as a Predictor of Violent Crime in Structurally Disadvantaged Communities, Criminology, 43, 469–498.

Landenberger, N. A., & Lipsey, M. W. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(4), 435–450.

Latkin, C. A., Sherman, S., & Knowlton, A. R. (2003). HIV prevention among drug users: Outcome of a network-oriented peer outreach intervention. Health Psychology, 22(4), 332–339.

Latkin, C. A., Forman, V., Knowlton, A. K., & Sherman, S. (2003). Norms, social networks, and HIV-related risk behaviors among urban disadvantaged drug users. Social Science and Medicine, 56(3), 465–476.

Laub, J., & Sampson, R. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Liddle H. A., Rowe, C. L., Quille, T., Dakof, G., Mills, D. S., Sakran, E., & Biaggi, H. (2002). Transporting a research-based adolescent drug treatment into practice. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22(4), 231–243.

Lipsey, M. W., & Landenberger, N. A. (2006). Cognitive-behavioral interventions. In B. C. Welsh & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works for children, offender, victims, and places. Great Britain: Springer.

L

MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime and Delinquency, 46(4), 457–461.

Marlowe, D. B. (2003). Integrating substance abuse treatment and criminal justice supervision. Science and Practice Perspectives 2(1), 4–14.

Marlowe, D. B., & Kirby, K. C. (1999). Effective use of sanctions in drug courts: Lessons from behavioral research. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2, 1–31.

Martinson, R., & Wilkes, J. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment. New York: Praeger.

Paternoster, R., Bachman, R., Brame, R., & Sherman, L. W. (1997). Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law and Society Review, 31, 163–204.

Petersilia, J. (2000). When prisoners return to the community: Political, economic, and social consequences. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole: Results of a nationwide experiment. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Prochaska, J., DiClemente, R., & Norcross, J. (1992). In search of how people change. American Psychologist, 47(9), 1102–1114.

Reinventing Probation Council. (2000). Transforming probation through leadership: The “Broken Windows” Model. New York: Manhattan Institute, Center for Civic Innovation.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2004). A general age-graded theory of crime: Lessons learned and the future of life-course criminology. In D. Farrington (Ed.), Advances in Criminological Theory: Testing Integrated Developmental/Life Course Theories of Offending, Vol. 13. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2001) Understanding variability in lives through time: Contributions of life-course criminology. In A. Piquero & P. Mazerolle (Eds.), Life-course criminology: Contemporary and classic readings (pp. 242–258). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001, February). Disorder in urban neighborhoods—Does it lead to crime? Research in Brief, 1–5.

Shapiro, C. (2006). Family Justice Organization. www.familyjustice.org

Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising: A report to the United States Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Simpson, D. D. (2004). A conceptual framework for drug treatment process and outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 27, 99–121.

Skogan, W., & Frydl, K. (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Taxman, F. (1998). Reducing recidivism through a seamless system of care: Components of effective treatment, supervision, and transition services in the community. Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy, Treatment and Criminal Justice System Conference, February 1998.

Taxman, F., & Bouffard, J. (2000). The importance of systems in improving offender outcomes: New frontiers in treatment integrity. Justice Policy Journal, 2(2), 37–58.

Taxman, F., Soule, D., & Gelb, A. (1999). Graduated sanctions: Stepping into accountable systems and offenders. Prison Journal, 79(2), 182–204.

Taxman, F. S. (2006a). “What should we expect from parole (and probation) under a behavioral management approach?” Perspectives, 30(2), 38–45.

Taxman, F. S. (2006b). A behavioral management approach to supervision: Preliminary findings from Maryland’s Proactive Community Supervision (PCS) pilot program. Commissioned paper by the National Research Council, semi-annual meeting of the Committee on Law and Justice and Workshop on community supervision and desistance from crime.

T

Taxman, F. S. (2002). Supervision—Exploring the dimensions of effectiveness. Federal Probation, 66(2), 14–27.

Taxman, F. S., & Bouffard, J. (2005). Explaining drug treatment completion in drug court courts. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 42(1), 23–50.

Taxman, F. S., Byrne, J. M., & Pattavina, A. (2005). Racial disparity and the legitimacy of the criminal justice system: Exploring impacts on deterrence. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 16 (4, Supplement B), 57–76.

Taxman, F. S., & Marlowe, D. B. (2006). Risk, needs, responsivity: In action or inaction? Crime & Delinquency, 52, 3–6.

Taxman, F. S., Shepardson, E. S., & Byrne, J. M. (2004). Tools of the trade: A guide to incorporating science into practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. www.nicic.org/Library/020095

Taxman, F. S., & Thanner, M. (2006). Risk, need, & responsivity: It all depends. Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 28–52.

Taxman, F. S., Young, O. W., & Byrne, J. M. (2004). “Transforming Offender Reentry into Public Safety: Lessons from OJP’s Reentry Partnership Initialise,” Justice Policy and Research, 5(2), 101–128.

Taxman, F. S., Byrne, J. M., & Pattavina, A. (2005). “Racial Disparity and the Legitimacy of the Criminal Justice System; Exploring Impacts on Deterrence,” Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Undeserved, 16(4), 57–76.

Taxman, F. S., Pattavina, A., & Bouffard, J. (2005) Treatment in Drug Courts in Maine: An Examination of the Impact Virginia: Virginia Commonwealth University.

Taxman, F. S., & Thanner, M. (2003/2004). Probation from a Therapeutic Perspective: Results from the Field. Contemporary Issues in Law, 7(1), 39–63.

Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing Police Legitimacy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593: 84–99.

Tyler, T. R. (2006). Legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400.

Weisburd, D., Mastrofski, S. D., McNally, A. N., Greenspan, R., & Willis, J. J. (2003). Reforming to Preserve: Compstat and Strategic Problem Solving in American Policing. Criminology & Public Policy, 2(3), 421–456.