This study details the results of a quantitative evaluation of a new model of probation and parole called Triple-S: Social Supports in Supervision. The pilot project positioned community corrections staff as ‘super controllers’ who incorporate the parents, partners or peers of probationers and parolees into each client’s order to serve in the roles of offender handlers, target guardians and place managers. The findings demonstrated Triple-S had inconsistent effects on reoffending, as reductions were not always significant or sustained; however, some promising results showed a reduction of recidivism frequency and severity. Program fidelity (the slippage between expected versus observed Triple-S sessions) was influential, with greater model adherence resulting in lower rates of reoffending.
References
URLs correct as at February 2022
Bares KJ & Mowen TJ 2020. Examining the parole officer as a mechanism of social support during re-entry from prison. Crime & Delinquency 66: 1023–1051. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128719881599
Burrell WD 2012. Community corrections management: Issues and strategies. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute
Cohen LE & Felson M 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44: 588–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094589
Cullen FT 1994. Social support as an organizing concept for criminology: Presidential address to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. Justice Quarterly 11: 527–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829400092421
Cullen FT, Eck JE & Lowenkamp CT 2002. Environmental corrections: A new paradigm for effective probation and parole supervision. Federal Probation 66(2): 28–37
Cullen FT & Jonson CL 2012. Correctional theory: Context and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Cullen FT, Jonson CL & Mears DP 2017. Reinventing community corrections. In M Tonry & DS Nagin (eds), Reinventing American criminal justice – Crime and justice: A review of research (vol 46). Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 27–93
Denney AS, Tewskbury R & Jones RS 2014. Beyond basic needs: Social support and structure for successful offender reentry. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice & Criminology 2: 39-67. https://doi.org/10.21428/88de04a1.d95029f6
Eck JE 2003. Police problems: The complexity of problem theory, research and evaluation. Crime Prevention Studies 15: 67–102
Executive Session on Community Corrections 2017. Toward an approach to community corrections for the 21st century: Consensus document of the Executive Session on Community Corrections. Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, Harvard Kennedy School
Gleicher L, Manchak SM & Cullen FT 2013. Creating a supervision toolkit: How to improve probation and parole. Federal Probation 77(1): 22–27
Hollis-Peel ME, Reynald DM, van Bavel M, Elffers H & Welsh BC 2011. Guardianship for crime prevention: A critical review of the literature. Crime, Law and Social Change 56: 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-011-9309-2
MacKenzie DL 2006. What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499470
Madensen TD & Eck JE 2013. Crime places and place management. In FT Cullen & P Wilcox (eds), The Oxford handbook of criminological theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press: 554–578. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199747238.013.0029
Martinez DJ & Abrams LS 2013. Informal social support among returning young offenders: A metasynthesis of the literature. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 57: 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X11428203
Mazerolle L & Ransley J 2005. Third party policing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489297
Miller JM & Miller HV 2015. Rethinking program fidelity for criminal justice. Criminology & Public Policy 14(2): 339-349. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12138
Pew Center on the States 2008. Putting public safety first: 13 strategies for successful supervision and reentry. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2008/12/03/putting-public-safety-first-13-strategies-for-successful-supervision-and-reentry
Sampson R, Eck JE & Dunham J 2010. Super controllers and crime prevention: A routine activity explanation of crime prevention success and failure. Security Journal 23: 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2009.17
Schaefer L 2021. Routine activity theory. In H Pontell (ed), Oxford research encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.326
Schaefer L & Brewer S 2021. Probation and parole: From control to case management. In E Jeglic & C Calkins (eds), Handbook of issues in criminal justice reform. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77565-0_15
Schaefer L, Cullen FT & Eck JE 2016. Environmental corrections: A new paradigm for supervising offenders in the community. Los Angeles: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071801260
Schaefer L, Cullen FT & Manchak SM 2017. The role of place in probation and parole. In D Weisburd & JE Eck (eds), Unraveling the crime-place connection: New directions in theory and policy. Advances in Criminological Theory series, vol 22. New York: Routledge: 191–215
Schaefer L & Little S 2020. A quasi-experimental evaluation of the “environmental corrections” model of probation and parole. Journal of Experimental Criminology 16: 535–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09373-2
Schaefer L, Moir E & Williams G 2019. When a loved one is on community supervision: The crime controller strategies used by ‘PoPPs’ (parents/partners/peers of probationers and parolees). Criminal Justice Studies 32(2): 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2019.1600817
Schaefer L, Townsley M & Hutchins B 2022. Can family and friends improve probation and parole outcomes? A quantitative evaluation of Triple-S: Social Supports in Supervision. Report to the Criminology Research Advisory Council. CRG 38/18–19. https://www.aic.gov.au/crg/reports/crg-3818-19
Schaefer L, Williams GC & Ford T 2021. Social supports for community-supervised offenders: Risk factors or protective factors? Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice and Criminology 11(1). https://doi.org/10.21428/88de04a1.69f6e14b
Smith MJ, Clarke R & Pease K 2002. Anticipatory benefits in crime prevention. In N Tilley (ed), Analysis for crime prevention: Crime prevention studies vol 13. Devon, UK: Criminal Justice Press and Willan Publishing: 71-88
Sullivan CJ, Welsh BC & Ilchi OS 2017. Modeling the scaling up of early crime prevention: Implementation challenges and opportunities for translational criminology. Criminology & Public Policy 16(2): 457-485 https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12286
Taxman FS 2011. Parole: Moving the field forward through a new model of behavioral management. In L Gideon & H-E Sung (eds), Rethinking corrections: Rehabilitation, reentry, and reintegration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 307–328. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230474.n12
Taxman FS, Young D & Byrne J 2004. With eyes wide open: Formalizing community and social control intervention in offender reintegration programmes. In S Maruna & R Immarigeon (eds), After crime and punishment: Pathways to offender reintegration. Portland, OR: Willan: 233–260
United Nations 2018. Introductory handbook on the prevention of recidivism and the social reintegration of offenders. Vienna: United Nations
Williams GC & Schaefer L 2021. Expanding desistance theory through the integration of offender strategies. Journal of Crime and Justice 44(1): 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2020.1782248