Implementing Evidence-Based 

Policy and Practice in 

Community Corrections 

Second Edition 

 

 

October 2009 

Contributors to Second Edition: 

Meghan Guevara, Crime and Justice Institute 

and Enver Solomon 

for the Crime and Justice Institute and 

the National Institute of Corrections

Contributors to First Edition: 

Brad Bogue, Nancy Campbell, Mark Carey, Elyse Clawson, Dot Faust, Kate Florio, Lore 

Joplin, George Keiser, Billy Wasson, & William Woodward 
This paper was developed as part of a set of papers focused on the role of system 

stakeholders in reducing offender recidivism through the use of evidence-based practices in 

corrections. 

Dot Faust, Correctional Program Specialist 

National Institute of Corrections 

Community Corrections Division 

(202) 514-3001 

dfaust@bop.gov 

www.nicic.org 

Elyse Clawson, Executive Director 

Crime and Justice Institute 

a division of Community Resources for Justice 

(617) 482-2520 

eclawson @crjustice.org 

www.cjinstitute.org 

John Larivee, Chief Executive Officer

Community Resources for Justice 

(617) 482-2520 

jjlarivee @crjustice.org 

www.crjustice.org 

©2009 by the Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice. The National Institute of 

Corrections reserves the right to reproduce, publish, translate, or otherwise use and to authorize others to 

publish and use all or any part of the copyrighted material contained in this publication. 

Suggested citation: 

Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice (2009). Implementing Evidence-Based 

Policy and Practice in Community Corrections, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections and prepared the 

following final report:

Document Title: Implementing Evidence-Based Policy and Practice 

in Community Corrections, Second Edition 

Author: Crime and Justice Institute 

Accession Number: 

Dates Received: 

Award Number: 05C45GJI3 

This paper has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To 

provide better customer service, NIC has made this Federally-funded 

cooperative agreement final report available electronically in addition to 

traditional paper copies. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................................................ vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................................ix

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................- 1 -

CHAPTER 1: WHAT IS EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE? .................................................................................- 3 -

CHAPTER 2: THE INTEGRATED MODEL..........................................................................................................- 7 -

CHAPTER 3: THE PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION ...............................................................- 11 -

1. Eight Evidence-Based Principles for Effective Intervention ..........................................................................- 11 -

2. The Principles and Effective Relationships ....................................................................................................- 17 -

CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTING EVIDENCE-BASED PRINCIPLES ................................................................- 21 -

1. Understanding the Components of Correctional Interventions.......................................................................- 21 -

2. Translating the Principles into Practice ..........................................................................................................- 22 -

3. Applying the Principles at the Case, Organization and System Levels ..........................................................- 25 -

4. Recommended Guidelines for Implementing Effective Interventions............................................................- 26 -

CHAPTER 5: LEADING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT .........................................- 31 -

1. Organizational Case Management: Assessment, Intervention, & Monitoring/ Measurement........................- 32 -

2. Leading Organizational Change .....................................................................................................................- 33 -

3. The Importance of a Healthy Organization ....................................................................................................- 41 -

4. Aligning Business Practices ...........................................................................................................................- 42 -

5. Managing Transitions .....................................................................................................................................- 43 -

6. Program Fidelity.............................................................................................................................................- 45 -

Further Reading ..................................................................................................................................................- 46 -

CHAPTER 6: COLLABORATION FOR SYSTEMIC CHANGE ........................................................................- 47 -

1. Who Should be Included?...............................................................................................................................- 48 -

2. The Need for Structure ...................................................................................................................................- 49 -

3. The Essential Ingredients................................................................................................................................- 51 -

4. Consensus Decision-Making ..........................................................................................................................- 53 -

Further Reading ..................................................................................................................................................- 55 -

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................................- 57 -

APPENDIX A: RESEARCH SUPPORT GRADIENT..........................................................................................- 59 -

APPENDIX B: THE SEARCH CONFERENCE ...................................................................................................- 61 -

APPENDIX C: KEY CONCEPTS IN ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT .................................................- 65 -

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................................- 69 -

iii 

The Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) and the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) are proud to 

present a series of eight whitepapers known as the Box Set. The papers are designed to share 

information with criminal justice system stakeholders about how the implementation of 

evidence-based practices (EBP) and a focus on recidivism reduction affect their areas of 

expertise in community corrections, pretrial services, judiciary, prosecution, defense, jail, prison, 

and treatment. This initiative stems from a cooperative agreement established in 2002 between 

CJI and NIC entitled Implementing Effective Correctional Management of Offenders in the 

Community. The goal of this project is reduced recidivism through systemic integration of EBP 

in adult community corrections. The project’s integrated model of implementation focuses 

equally on EBP, organizational development, and collaboration. It was previously piloted in 

Maine and Illinois, and is currently being implemented in Maricopa County, Arizona and Orange 

County, California. More information about the project, as well as the Box Set papers, are 

available on the web sites of CJI (www.cjinstitute.org

v 

) and NIC (www.nicic.org). 

CJI is a nonpartisan nonprofit agency that aims to make criminal justice systems more efficient 

and cost effective to promote accountability for achieving better outcomes. Located in Boston, 

Massachusetts, CJI provides consulting, research, and policy analysis services to improve public 

safety throughout the country. In particular, CJI is a national leader in developing resultsoriented strategies and in empowering agencies and communities to implement successful 

systemic change. 

The completion of the Box Set papers is due to the contribution of several individuals. It was the 

original vision of NIC Correctional Program Specialist Dot Faust and myself to create a set of 

papers for each of the eight criminal justice stakeholders most affected by the implementation of 

EBP that got the ball rolling. The hard work and dedication of each of the authors to reach this 

goal deserves great appreciation and recognition. In addition, a special acknowledgment is 

extended to the formal reviewers, all of whom contributed a great amount of time and energy to 

ensure the success of this product. I would also like to express my appreciation to NIC for 

funding this project and to George Keiser, Director of the Community Corrections Division of 

NIC, for his support. It is our sincere belief and hope that the Box Set will be an important tool 

for agencies making a transition to EBP for many years to come. 

Sincerely, 

Elyse Clawson 

Executive Director, CJI 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Thank you to the following individuals for their thoughtful review of this document: 

Micheal Collins 

Division Director, 

EBP Implementation Coordinator 

Orange County Probation Department 

Kristy Danford 

Project Manager 

Crime and Justice Institute

Dorothy Faust 

Correctional Program Specialist 

National Institute of Corrections, 

Community Corrections Division 

Sally Kreamer 

Director 

5th Judicial District, Iowa 

Department of Correctional Services

Judith Sachwald 

Senior Policy Advisor 

Crime and Justice Institute 

Thank you also to the following individuals for their contributions to the first edition:

Brad Bogue, Nancy Campbell, Mark Carey, Elyse Clawson, Dot Faust, Kate Florio, Lore 

Joplin, George Keiser, Billy Wasson, & William Woodward 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Introduction 

Across the country, community corrections agencies are struggling to do more with less. 

Offender populations continue to grow, and policymakers and corrections officials look 

to community corrections to alleviate overcrowding in prisons and jails. In the face of 

shrinking budgets, community corrections agencies as well as elected and appointed 

government officials are looking for innovative solutions to reduce new crimes and new 

victimization. Fortunately, a substantial body of literature exists on cost-efficient 

practices that are proven to reduce offender risk. 

Unfortunately, knowledge of these 

evidence-based practices is not sufficient to 

implement and sustain this new way of 

doing business. Agencies and systems 

must have the capacity to undergo a 

significant shift in their business practices 

and organizational culture; they require a 

framework to guide this change. Through a 

cooperative agreement with the National 

Institute of Corrections, the Crime and 

Justice Institute and its partners developed 

the Integrated Model for the 

implementation of evidence-based policy 

and practice (Figure 1). The Model 

incorporates both research on effective corrections practice and practical approaches 

needed to create and sustain an evidence-based organization. The Model has three 

components: Evidence-Based Practice, Organizational Development, and Collaboration. 

The purpose of this paper is to outline the theoretical and empirical support for the model, 

as well as practical strategies for its implementation in community corrections settings. 

Figure 1 

What is Evidence-Based Practice? 

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is the objective, balanced, and responsible use of current 

research and the best available data to guide policy and practice decisions, such that 

outcomes for consumers are improved. In the case of corrections, consumers include 

offenders, victims and survivors, communities, and other key stakeholders. Used 

originally in the health care and social science fields, evidence-based practice focuses on 

approaches demonstrated to be effective through empirical research rather than through 

anecdote or professional experience alone.

An evidence-based approach involves an ongoing, critical review of research literature to 

determine what information is credible, and what policies and practices would be most 

effective given the best available evidence. It also involves rigorous quality assurance 

 ix 
and evaluation to ensure that evidence-based practices are replicated with fidelity, and 

that new practices are evaluated to determine their effectiveness. 

The Integrated Model 

To facilitate the implementation of effective interventions in corrections, the Integrated 

Model emphasizes the importance of focusing equally on evidence-based practices, 

organizational development, and collaboration to achieve successful and lasting reform. It 

acknowledges the fact that scientific evidence is not sufficient to support the development 

of evidence-based organizations. The model incorporates best practices from corrections, 

social sciences, business, and other disciplines, and it provides a framework for 

sustaining effective interventions across the criminal justice system. 

Each of the three components of the integrated model is essential. Evidence-based 

principles form the basis of effective supervision and service provision. Organizational 

development is required to successfully move from traditional supervision to evidencebased practice. Organizations must rethink their missions and values; gain new 

knowledge and skills; adjust their infrastructure to support this new way of doing 

business; and transform their organizational culture. Collaboration with system 

stakeholders enhances internal and external buy-in and creates more holistic system 

change. 

Investment in the Integrated Model offers many benefits. The model is clearly evidencebased, having been developed from empirically tried and tested practices. It also provides 

for an efficient use of resources, fosters responsible practices, promotes accountability, 

and creates a learning organization of informed policymakers, practitioners, and 

consumers. Ultimately, implementation of the model should result in improved 

functioning within agencies and across systems, as well as improved public safety 

outcomes for offenders and communities. 

The Principles of Effective Intervention 

Current research points to eight principles that, when taken together, increase the 

likelihood of offender risk reduction. Though not all of the principles are supported by 

the same weight of evidence, each has a sound empirical or theoretical basis. In addition, 

new evidence is always emerging, so the state of the art in risk reduction is likely to 

evolve over time. 

The eight principles are: 

1. Assess Actuarial Risk/Needs 

2. Enhance Intrinsic Motivation 

3. Target Interventions 

 Risk Principle: Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for higher risk 

offenders. 

 Need Principle: Target interventions to criminogenic (correlated to crime) needs. 

 x 
 Responsivity Principle: Be responsive to temperament, learning style, motivation, 

culture, and gender when assigning programs. 

 Dosage: Structure 40-70% of high-risk offenders’ time for three to nine months. 

 Treatment Principle: Integrate treatment into the full sentence/sanction 

requirements. 

4. Skill Train with Directed Practice (e.g., use cognitive behavioral treatment methods) 

5. Increase Positive Reinforcement 

6. Engage Ongoing Support in Natural Communities 

7. Measure Relevant Processes/Practices 

8. Provide Measurement Feedback 

To be effective, these principles must be reflected in the policies, procedures, and day-today work of community corrections agencies. In addition, the success of offenders is 

highly dependent on the rapport developed between officers and clients. Officers are 

most successful when they: strike a balance between an enforcement and intervention 

role; clarify their role with the client; model pro-social behaviors, show empathy without 

diminishing accountability; and focus interactions on problem solving and addressing 

criminogenic needs. 

Implementing the Principles 

Aligning the eight evidence-based principles with the core business practices of an 

organization is an ongoing challenge requiring careful planning. Correctional 

interventions are composed of dozens of interlocking parts that have the ability to impact 

recidivism, including employee skills, case management strategies, community linkages, 

and the policy environment. Depending on how well the processes are aligned and 

managed, they can enhance or diminish successful outcomes. Any organization 

interested in understanding and improving outcomes must manage the operation as a set 

of highly interdependent systems, and must have the data needed to monitor and improve 

processes. 

Minimally, EBP involves: 

 Developing employees’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes congruent with current 

research-supported practice; 

 Implementing offender programming consistent with research recommendations; 

 Sufficiently monitoring employee actions and offender programming to identify 

discrepancies or fidelity issues; and 

 Routinely obtaining verifiable outcome evidence associated with employee 

performance and offender programming. 

Two fundamentally different approaches are necessary for such an alteration in priorities. 

One, the outside/in approach, brings insights gleaned from external research evidence to 

bear on internal organizational practices. The other, the inside-out approach, increases 

organizational capacity to internally measure performance and outcomes for current 

practice. When these two interdependent strategies are employed, an organization 

 xi 
acquires the ability to understand what is necessary and practicable to improve its 

outcomes. 

All of these elements cannot be put in place overnight. It is up to each organization to 

determine a pace of implementation that is appropriate to its level of readiness and the 

resources available. Implementation requires an investment of time and people, but it 

pays dividends by through improved outcomes. 

“Essential Ingredients” for Effective Interventions

 Incorporate Policy and Practice: consider evidence-based changes to external statutes 

and regulations as well as internal policy and procedure. 

 Develop an Organizational Case Plan: assess organizational needs, create a strategic 

plan, and implement the plan. Align all business practices with the evidence, not just 

supervision strategies. 

 Build on Risk, Need, Treatment, and Fidelity: The pillars of evidence-based practice 

are effective assessment, case plans focused on criminogenic needs, effective treatment, and 

a quality assurance process that ensures all facets are being implemented according to 

research. 

 Prioritize the Workforce: Focus on employee development, including awareness of 

research, skill development, and management of behavioral and organizational change 

processes, within the context of a complete training program and supportive human 

resources practice. Develop leaders at all levels of the organization. 

 Measure for Accountability and Improvement: Assess baseline and subsequent 

progress using quantifiable data. Routinely measure employee practices (attitudes, 

knowledge, and skills) that are related to outcomes. 

 Use Data: Provide employees timely, relevant, and accurate feedback regarding 

performance related to outcomes. Utilize extensive data-driven advocacy and brokerage to 

enable appropriate community justice/correctional services. 

 Engage and Communicate: Internal and external stakeholders require constant 

communication on the process of EBP implementation, their role in it, the vision for the 

future, and the outcomes that are realized. You can never have too much effective 

communication!

Leading Organizational Change and Development 

In order to successfully move towards effective evidence-based supervision and service 

provision, significant organizational change and development is required. Organizations 

must critically examine their missions and values; gain new knowledge and skills; adjust 

their infrastructure to support new ways of doing business and transform their 

organizational culture. Shifting to an evidence-based organizational management 

approach may require significant changes in the way business is conducted. 

The three steps of assessment, intervention and monitoring/measurement are critical to 

organizational change and development in the same way they are integral to client 

 xii 
intervention. Assessment determines the existing status of an individual, organization, 

and/or practice by providing information on the potential and options for change. 

Intervention activities are designed to respond to the needs/issues identified in the 

assessment/diagnosis process. Monitoring and measuring performance on both a short 

and long-term basis provide data on changes in knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behavior. 

Strong and flexible organizational leadership is fundamental to the success or failure of 

any change effort. It is especially true when implementing evidence-based practices due 

to the complexity of initiating change in the public safety system. The nature of the 

system requires that leaders identify, create, and show value to internal and external 

stakeholders. Leaders must also be willing to accept the challenges of changing 

organizational culture in order to achieve the full benefits of increased public safety and 

reduced recidivism made possible by implementing evidence-based principles in 

community corrections. 

It is also important to recognize that different styles of leadership are required to achieve 

successful change. Coercive leaders demand immediate compliance. Authoritative 

leaders mobilize people toward a vision. Affiliative leaders create emotional bonds and 

harmony. Democratic leaders build consensus through participation. Pacesetting leaders

expect excellence and self-direction. And coaching leaders develop people for the future. 

The research indicates that leaders who get the best results don't rely on just one 

leadership style; they use most of the styles regularly. 

The Role of Leadership 

 Create the vision 

 Identify partnerships 

 Develop strategies for achieving the vision 

 Utilize process improvement strategies 

 Identify and collect outcome data 

 Review and refine processes and outcomes 

 Seek agreement with partners regarding 

vision & strategies 

Advancing the implementation of evidence-based principles in the supervision of 

offenders requires the realignment of organizational infrastructure, and contemporaneous 

changes in the structure of human resource management systems, policies and 

procedures, and operational standards. All systems and policies, particularly those 

pertaining to the workforce, must be consistent with and supportive of the new way of 

doing business. 

Combining this fundamental organizational change with the philosophy and policy shift 

of evidence-based principles enhances the potential to more effectively institutionalize 

changes. Managing this type of transition involves relentless attention to detail, as well 

as an understanding of how individuals and groups experience change to advance 

implementation and prevent individuals and entire systems from sliding back into the old 

ways. 

 xiii 
Collaboration for Systemic Change 

Collaboration is defined as coming together to work toward a common vision. This 

results in greater achievements than would be attained by one organization working 

alone. Since no public safety agency operates in a vacuum, engaging system stakeholders 

in change efforts helps eliminate barriers, increase opportunities for success, enrich the 

change process, educate stakeholders about the organizational’s work, and create a shared 

vision that supports the systemic change efforts. 

Collaboration and system change are very time consuming and resource intensive 

processes. They require constant attention and nurturing to maintain momentum. 

Collaborative endeavors must develop a balance between broad participation and 

consensus-building and the need to make decisions and take action. In addition, all 

affected stakeholders need a voice at the table. Any process should ensure that the 

number of participants is small enough to allow for productivity, but broad enough to 

hear diverse perspectives and get widespread support. 

An effective collaboration requires structure. Methods of developing structure, such as 

charters, memoranda of understanding, and partnering agreements fulfill multiple 

purposes. These tools should clarify decision-making responsibility and emphasize the 

concept that no single organizational or individual is in charge in the familiar sense. 

Instead, professionals from each center of expertise are empowered to do what they do 

best to the enhancement of the collective goal. 

Essential Ingredients of Collaboration 

 Common Vision 

 Purpose 

 Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities 

 Healthy Communication Pathways 

 Membership 

 Respect and Integrity 

 Accountability 

 Data-Driven Process 

 Effective Problem Solving 

 Resources 

 Environment 

A successful collaborative often meets the following criteria: the group is efficient and 

reliable; it adapts to changing circumstances; it is viewed as legitimate among members 

and stakeholders; it is accountable for its work; and its efforts are sustainable. Successful 

collaboration requires a thoughtful, sustained effort among partner organizations. 

Maintaining a productive collaboration that supports a shared vision is often challenging, 

but it yields great benefit when member organizations are collectively engaged in the 

change process. 

 xiv 
 xv 

Conclusion 

To improve supervision effectiveness and enhance the safety of our communities, 

evidence-based approaches are sorely needed. Organizational budgets can no longer 

support programs and practices that are not proven effective in reducing new crime: 

practices proven effective must be replicated, and new practices must be evaluated for 

efficacy. 

This report provides a guide for agencies to transform themselves into evidence-based 

organizations. By providing an integrated model, it maps out the essential ingredients for 

a successful transition: evidence-based practice, organizational development, and 

collaboration. It is vital that each component is given equal weight and importance. 

Simply implementing one without the others is not sufficient to achieve positive results. 

Implementing evidence-based policy and practice is not a simple task; it requires a 

fundamental change in the way community corrections does business, and a shift in the 

philosophies of those doing this work. However, the benefits are substantial. Evidencebased approaches create safer communities, while often offering cost savings to 

communities in the long term. The Integrated Model can allow jurisdictions to make 

significant strides toward improving public safety, holding offenders accountable, and 

wisely investing public resources. 

INTRODUCTION 

States across the nation are struggling to manage burgeoning offender populations in the 

face of major financial challenges. Prisons and jails are operating at or over capacity, and 

the offender population continues to grow. Policy-makers are focusing increasingly on 

community corrections as a solution to overcrowding, recognizing the need to rely more 

heavily on more economical methods to safely supervise offenders, reduce re-offending, 

and stop offenders from cycling through the criminal justice system. 

Community corrections leaders are being called on to alleviate system pressures by 

supervising increasing numbers of offenders more efficiently and effectively: maintaining 

public safety with a larger population of offenders and a smaller budget. Traditional 

methods of offender supervision will not meet the current challenges facing community 

corrections agencies. Leaders must rethink how they do business and lead their 

organizations through rapid change and innovation.

Historically, community corrections suffered from a lack of research that identified 

proven methods of improving public safety. Recent research efforts based on metaanalysis (the syntheses of data from many research studies) (Andrews & Dowden, 2006; 

Burke, et al, 2003; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; McGuire, 2002; Sherman et al, 1998), 

cost-benefit analysis (Aos, 1998; Milkman & Wanberg, 2007) specific clinical trials 

(Burke et al, 2003; Henggeler et al, 1997; Meyers et al, 2002) and effective 

implementation (Fixen et al, 2005) have broken through this barrier and are now 

providing the field with guidance on how to better reduce re-offending and support 

offenders on the path to productive citizenship. 

An evidence-based approach not only meets the public’s expectations for quality, 

efficiency, and effectiveness but also reflects fairness, justice and accountability. 

Accordingly, all employees, from Probation Officers to Chiefs, can contribute to meeting 

these goals and must share a common commitment to constantly utilize new knowledge 

to enhance practice 

An integrated and strategic model for evidence-based policy and practice is set out to 

adequately bridge the gap between current practice and evidence supported practice in 

community corrections. The model incorporates both existing research findings and 

operational methods of implementation. The biggest challenge in adopting better 

interventions is not identifying the interventions with the best evidence so much as it is 

changing our existing systems to appropriately support the new innovations. Identifying 

interventions with good research support and realigning the necessary organizational 

infrastructure are both fundamental to evidence-based practice. 

The integrated model was developed by the Crime and Justice Institute and its partners 

through a cooperative agreement with the National Institute of Corrections. The vision 

for the model development was “to build learning organizations that reduce recidivism 

through systemic integration of evidence-based principles in collaboration with 

community and justice partners.” This model is being implemented in corrections 

- 1 - 
- 2 - 

agencies throughout the country as a framework for sustainable system reform. The 

model has three components: evidence-based principles, organizational development and 

collaboration. 

The primary purpose of this paper is to introduce the accumulated body of knowledge 

regarding correctional practice that promotes offender behavior change and ultimately 

improve policy and practice outcomes. Though focused on community corrections 

administrators and staff, the content may be useful for anyone involved in corrections 

policy development, administration, or direct practice. The report begins with chapters 

that explain what is meant by evidence-based practice and provides more detail about the 

merits of the Integrated Model. Each of the three components of the integrated model is 

then examined individually, including the rationale, supporting literature, and strategies 

for implementation. In addition, the chapters on organizational development and 

collaboration provide suggestions for further reading. Ideally, this paper will serve as a 

starting point for individuals, organizations, or collaboratives to develop an 

understanding of the integrated model and its potential benefits, as well as providing a 

cursory roadmap for action. 
CHAPTER 1: WHAT IS EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE? 

The term evidenced-based practice is often used in medical and social science disciplines, 

as well as by policy makers to support new reforms. But what does it actually mean for 

people working in corrections? 

There are, of course, different forms of evidence. The least tested and least reliable form 

is anecdotal evidence. The most tried and tested, most reliable form is empirical 

evidence, often based on results from controlled studies. Evidence-based practice (EBP) 

draws on the highest form of empirical evidence. It is the objective, balanced, and 

responsible use of current research and the best available data to guide policy and 

practice decisions, such that outcomes for consumers are improved. In the case of 

corrections, consumers include offenders, victims, communities, and other key 

stakeholders. 

EBP was originally conceived in the healthcare field and emphasized the use of the best 

current research results in making clinical decisions for individual patients and wider 

health policy decisions for communities. Ultimately it was an approach to decisionmaking in which the clinician uses the best evidence available, in consultation with the 

patient, to decide upon the option that suits the patient best (Gray, 2001). 

This research indicates that certain programs and intervention strategies, when applied to 

a variety of offender populations, reliably produce significant reductions in recidivism. 

The conventional approach to supervision in this country emphasizes individual 

accountability from offenders, and officers were expected to rely on their personal 

experience and instincts to determine the most effective interventions for their clients. 

Though individuals were making their best efforts, they were not provided with the full 

range of information needed to implement risk-reduction strategies. Despite the evidence 

that indicates otherwise, officers continue to be trained on standards that stress quantity 

rather than quality of interactions with clients, rather than balancing both. Officers are not 

so much clearly directed what to do, as what not to do. 

This approach has been defined as ‘correctional quackery’ which, according to Latessa, et 

al (2002), is: 

...dismissive of scientific knowledge, training, and expertise. Its posture is 

strikingly over-confident, if not arrogant. It embraces the notion that 

interventions are best rooted in ‘common sense,’ in personal experiences 

(or clinical knowledge), in tradition, and in superstition.... ‘What works’ 

is thus felt to be ‘obvious,’ derived only from years of an individual’s 

experience, and legitimized by an appeal to custom. 

 

Latessa, et al conclude: “Correctional quackery, therefore, is the use of treatment 

interventions that are based on neither 1) existing knowledge of the causes of crime nor 

2) existing knowledge of what programs have been shown to change offender behavior” 

(Latessa, Cullen, & Gendreau, 2002). 

- 3 - 
Evidence-based practice is the opposite of ‘correctional quackery’. It is the body of 

research and replicable clinical knowledge that describes contemporary correctional 

assessment, programming and supervision strategies that lead to improved correctional 

outcomes such as the rehabilitation of offenders and increased public safety. A 

significant trend throughout all human service fields that emphasize outcomes, it is based 

on the notion that interventions within corrections are considered most effective when 

they reduce offender risk and subsequent recidivism and therefore make a long term 

contribution to public safety. 

Clarifying Terms 

The terms best practices, what works, and evidence-based practice (EBP) are often 

used interchangeably. While these terms refer to similar concepts, pointing out the subtle 

distinctions between them helps to clarify the distinct meaning of evidence-based practices. 

For example, best practices do not necessarily imply attention to outcomes, evidence, or 

measurable standards. Best practices are often based on the collective experience and wisdom of 

the field rather than scientifically tested knowledge. 

What works implies linkage to general outcomes, but does not specify the kind of outcomes 

desired (e.g., just desserts, deterrence, organizational efficiency, rehabilitation, etc.). Specificity 

regarding the desired outcomes is essential to achieving system improvement (Harris 1996; 

O'Leary and Clear 1997). 

In contrast, evidence-based practice implies that 1) there is a definable outcome(s); 2) it is 

measurable; and 3) it is defined according to practical realities (recidivism, victim satisfaction, 

etc.). Thus, while these three terms are often used interchangeably, EBP is more appropriate for 

outcome-focused human service disciplines (Ratcliffe et al, 2000; Tilley & Laycock, 2001; AMA, 

1992; Springer et al, 2003; McDonald, 2003). 

Within the field of corrections, evidence-based practices can involve research tested 

principles that guide intervention, or they can refer to specific intervention models proven 

to lead to desirable outcomes. Ultimately, developing evidence-based approaches to 

correctional services is about taking an objective, balanced, and responsible review and 

use of the professional literature to find good evidence, and then using it effectively to 

support policy and practice. It does not mean that all research findings pertaining to a 

specific intervention or strategy must reach the same conclusion for all samples and 

across all settings. It also does not mean that additional findings cannot provide refuting 

evidence at a later stage. In other words, once evidence-based is not always evidencedbased. 

Most importantly, adopting evidence-based practices is not an indication that correctional 

services are going “soft” on crime or criminals. In fact it is quite the opposite. Evidencebased practice provides more assurance that professionals are using the ‘right’ strategies 

and approaches, which will result in reduced misconduct and enhanced safety for all. 

- 4 - 
- 5 - 

Finally, it is important not to oversell what can be achieved by assuming that any specific 

evidence-based intervention or strategy is guaranteed, failsafe, or a ‘magic bullet’. 

Reducing recidivism is a complex process that depends on a number of variables. In 

addition, evidence-based practices must be implemented with fidelity to the original 

approach in order to replicate the results. A commitment to continuous quality 

improvement is needed both to ensure that interventions are replicated with fidelity and 

that new evidence is incorporated as it becomes available. The “best available evidence” 

evolves as the body of corrections research grows. 

CHAPTER 2: THE INTEGRATED MODEL 

To facilitate the implementation of effective interventions in corrections, the Integrated 

Model emphasizes the importance of focusing equally on evidence-based practices, 

organizational development, and collaboration to achieve successful and lasting reform. 

The scope of the model is broad enough that it can be applied to all components of the 

criminal justice system (pretrial, jail, probation, parole, private/public, etc.) and across 

varying jurisdictions. It provides a 

framework for effective interventions within 

federal, state, county, local or private 

corrections systems. 

The Integrated Model described in this 

report recognizes that simply expounding on 

scientific principles is not sufficient to guide 

the ongoing political and organizational 

change necessary to support implementation 

of evidence-based principles in a complex 

system. It requires the integration of 

seemingly disparate best practices from a 

number disciplines, a development that is 

gradually being recognized in the field of community corrections, in order to achieve 

better outcomes (Bogue 2002; Carey 2002; Corbett et al. 2000; Lipton et al. 2000; 

Taxman and Byrne 2001). Fundamentally it is designed to achieve lasting change in both 

practice and policy. 

Figure 2 

Three components form the Integrated Model for system reform. Each component of the 

integrated model is essential. Evidence-based principles form the basis of effective 

supervision and service provision. Organizational development is required to 

successfully move from traditional supervision to evidence-based practice. Organizations 

must rethink their missions and values; gain new knowledge and skills; adjust their 

infrastructure to support this new way of doing business; and transform their 

organizational culture. Collaboration with system stakeholders enhances internal and 

external buy-in and creates more holistic system change. 

There are a number of reasons why the Integrated Model is a worthwhile long term 

investment: 

 The model is clearly evidence-based, having been developed from empirically 

tried and tested practices. It does not require risky ‘trial and error’ approaches with 

offenders but instead builds on lessons learned from previous policy and practice. By 

adopting the model, employees are required to question and challenge the blind 

adoption of practices, countering a naïve adherence to the status quo, which often 

unintentionally does harm by producing poor results. So called ‘pop’ psychology is 

eliminated and there is greater consistency across organizations. Consequently, it 

- 7 - 
gives correctional employees a clear rationale and mission for the work they are 

doing. 

 The model provides for the demonstration of public value. At a time of fiscal 

constraint it is 

necessary to invest 

limited resources 

wisely to ensure the 

best return on 

investment. The model 

is based on the premise 

that funding will be 

targeted on the 

interventions that bring 

the greatest returns. In 

the long term there 

should be significant 

financial savings from 

adopting policies and 

practices that have 

proven outcomes, and 

are worthy of public 

and political support. 

 The model fosters 

responsible practices 

and promotes 

accountability. It 

ensures that employees 

are accountable for 

their actions and that 

correctional 

departments are more 

accountable to their 

local communities. In 

relations with internal 

and external 

stakeholders it also 

ensures that there is 

greater understanding 

and support for 

practices and decisions. 

The Role of Policy

The Integrated Model is a systemic approach, and its 

implementation requires a critical review the way a system does 

business. Often, implementation of evidence-based practices 

focuses on the day-to-day procedures and practices within 

community corrections agencies. However, true systemic 

change requires reflection on the big picture: are the policies 

governing corrections practice, include statutes, regulations, and judicial 

guidelines, in line with the evidence? 

Thoughtful review of policy and the implementation of evidencebased policy change can promote coordinated implementation, 

create a sense of urgency, and provide and avenue for holding 

system stakeholder accountable. Policy change can be complex, 

and change may take time, but the long-term impact can be 

significant. 

Some examples of evidence-based policy change: 

• Statutes requiring or encouraging reductions in revocation to 

prison or jail; 

• Statutes requiring funding to be used for evidence-based 

programming; 

• Statutes or administrative policies requiring structured 

responses to probation or parole violations; 

• Statutes allowing for earned early release from incarceration 

or supervision for compliant behavior; 

• Use of actuarial risk/needs assessment tool for supervision 

and caseplanning; 

• Use of Criminal Justice Coordinating Councils or other 

collaborative bodies for criminal justice system planning, 

decision-making, and resource allocation. 

For more information on evidence-based policy change, please 

see the Policy Framework to Strengthen Community Corrections 

from the Pew Center on the States, Public Safety Performance 

Project (2008).

 The model creates a learning system of informed policymakers, practitioners, 

and consumers. They are more knowledgeable not only about what works in their 

field, but also about the effectiveness of their own practices due to regular review of 

- 8 - 
- 9 - 

data. Consequently they are able to make better informed decisions that are likely to 

result in better outcomes. 

Ultimately the model should result in improved measurable outcomes in terms of reduced 

recidivism, improved public safety, and improved social outcomes for offenders in 

relation to education, training and employment, housing, substance misuse and health 

needs. There are also additional improved organizational outcomes as a result of effective 

collaboration with stakeholders, higher quality data and information sharing, better 

decision making and a more productive organizational culture. The community also 

benefits from a collaborative approach, where the perspectives of system stakeholders, 

victims, and the public are taken into consideration when making public safety decisions. 

The subsequent sections of this paper describe the components of the integrated model in 

detail, and their role in creating and sustaining evidence-based organizations and systems. 

CHAPTER 3: THE PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE 

INTERVENTION 

The current research on offender rehabilitation and behavioral change is now sufficient to 

enable corrections to make meaningful inferences regarding what works in the field to 

reduce recidivism and improve public safety. Based upon previous compilations of 

research findings and recommendations (Aos et al, 2006; Andrews and Bonta, 2006; 

Burrell, 2000; Carey, 2002; Currie, 1998; Corbett et al, 2000; Gendreau & Andrews, 

2001; McGuire, 2002; Latessa et al, 2002; Sherman et al, 1998; Taxman & Byrne, 2001), 

there now exists a coherent framework of guiding principles. This chapter describes 

those principles, as well as effective approaches for interacting with offenders. However, 

the principles should be reviewed with the caveat that while they represent the state of the 

art in corrections at the time this paper was written, research is always evolving, and 

principles of effectiveness will change with time. 

Research does not support each of these principles with equal volume and quality, and 

even if it did, each principle would not necessarily have a similar impact on outcomes. 

Too often programs or practices are promoted as having research support without any 

regard for either the quality or the methodology of the underlying research. As part of the 

model development process, a research support gradient was established, indicating 

current research support for each principle (see Appendix A). All of the principles 

outlined in this chapter fall between the gold standard and the bronze standard set out in 

the research support gradient. 

1. Eight Evidence-Based Principles for Effective Intervention 

1. Assess Actuarial Risk/Needs. 

2. Enhance Intrinsic Motivation. 

3. Target Interventions. 

a. Risk Principle: Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for higher risk 

offenders. 

b. Need Principle: Target interventions to 

 criminogenic needs. 

c. Responsivity Principle: Be responsive to temperament, learning style, 

motivation, culture, and gender when assigning programs. 

d. Dosage: Structure 40-70% of high-risk 

 offenders’ time for 3-9 months. 

e. Treatment Principle: Integrate treatment into the full sentence/sanction 

requirements. 

4. Skill Train with Directed Practice (use Cognitive Behavioral treatment methods). 

5. Increase Positive Reinforcement. 

6. Engage Ongoing Support in Natural Communities. 

7. Measure Relevant Processes/Practices. 

8. Provide Measurement Feedback. 

- 11 - 
The listing of these eight principles is not meant to imply a temporal order to their 

implementation, or a hierarchy of importance. The principles are mutually reinforcing, 

and coordinated implementation brings the benefits of each. However, research does 

indicate that the targeting of interventions is the core of evidence-based practice. 

Research indicates that resources are used more effectively when they are focused on 

higher-risk rather than lower-risk offenders, therefore considering offenders’ risk to 

reoffend and subsequently addressing criminogenic needs allows agencies to target 

resources on higher-risk offenders. 

1) Assess Actuarial Risk/Needs. 

Develop and maintain a complete system of ongoing offender risk screening/triage and 

needs assessments. Assessing offenders in a reliable and valid manner is a prerequisite 

for the effective management (i.e., supervision and treatment) of offenders. Timely, 

relevant measures of offender risk and need at the individual and aggregate levels are 

essential for the implementation of numerous 

principles of best practice in corrections, (e.g., 

risk, need, and responsivity). Offender 

assessments are most reliable and valid when 

employees are formally trained to administer 

tools. Screening and assessment tools that focus 

on dynamic and static risk factors, profile 

criminogenic needs, and have been validated on 

similar populations are preferred. They should 

also be supported by sufficiently detailed and 

accurately written procedures. 

Offender assessment is as much an ongoing 

function as it is a formal event. Case 

information that is gathered informally through 

routine interactions and observations with 

offenders is just as important as formal assessment guided by instruments. Formal and 

informal offender assessments should reinforce one another. They should combine to 

enhance formal reassessments, case decisions, and working relations between 

practitioners and offenders throughout the term of supervision. 

Questions to Ask: 

 Does the assessment tool we’re 

using measure for criminogenic risk 

and need? 

 How are officers trained to conduct 

the assessment interview? 

 What quality assurance is in place 

to ensure that assessments are 

conducted appropriately? 

 How is the assessment information 

captured and used in the 

development of caseplans? 

(Andrews & Bonta 2006; Bonta 1996; Gendreau, et al, 1996; Hollin, 2002; Hubbard et al 

2001) 

2) Enhance Intrinsic Motivation. 

Employees should relate to offenders in interpersonally respectful and constructive ways

to enhance intrinsic motivation in offenders. Behavioral change is an inside job; for 

lasting change to occur, a level of intrinsic motivation is needed. Motivation to change is 

dynamic and the probability that change may occur is strongly influenced by 

interpersonal interactions, such as those with probation officers, treatment providers, and 

institution employees. Feelings of ambivalence that usually accompany change can be 

explored through motivational interviewing, a style and method of communication used 

to help people overcome their ambivalence regarding behavior changes. Motivational 

- 12 - 
interviewing depends on a patient process of 

helping offenders to see discrepancies 

between how they behave and what they say 

they want. Research strongly suggests that 

motivational interviewing techniques, rather 

than persuasion tactics, effectively enhance 

motivation for initiating and maintaining 

behavior changes. 

(Burke et al 2003; Clark et al 2006; 

Ginsburg, et al, 2002; Miller & Rollnick, 

2002) 

Questions to Ask: 

 Are officers and program staff trained 

in motivational interviewing 

techniques? 

 What quality assurance is in place? 

 Are staff held accountable for using 

motivational interviewing techniques 

in their day-to-day interactions with 

offenders? 

3) Target Interventions. 

A. RISK PRINCIPLE: Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for higher 

risk offenders. 

B. NEED PRINCIPLE: Target interventions to criminogenic needs. 

C. RESPONSIVITY PRINCIPLE: Be responsive to temperament, learning 

style, motivation, gender, and culture when assigning to programs. 

D. DOSAGE: Structure 40-70% of high-risk offenders’ time for 3-9 months. 

E. TREATMENT PRINCIPLE: Integrate treatment into the full 

sentence/sanction requirements. 

a) Risk Principle: prioritize primary supervision and treatment resources for 

offenders who are at higher risk to re-offend. Research indicates that 

supervision and treatment resources that are focused on lower-risk offenders tend 

to produce little if any net positive effect on recidivism rates. Shifting these 

resources to higher risk offenders promotes harm-reduction and public safety 

because these offenders have greater need for pro-social skills and thinking, and 

are more likely to be frequent offenders. They are also more likely to be in need 

of structured pro-social activities, versus low risk offenders who may already be 

positively engaged in the community. Reducing the recidivism rates of these 

higher risk offenders reaps a much larger return on investment, since they 

contribute to the greatest percentage of repeat offenses. Successfully addressing 

this population requires smaller caseloads, the application of well-developed case 

plans, and placement of offenders into sufficiently intense cognitive-behavioral 

interventions that target their specific criminogenic needs. 

(Andrews and Dowden, 2006; Gendreau, 1996; Lowenkamp et al, 2006: 

McGuire, 2001)

b) Criminogenic Need Principle: address offenders’ greatest criminogenic 

needs. Offenders have a variety of needs, some of which are directly linked to 

criminal behavior. These criminogenic needs are dynamic risk factors that, when 

addressed or changed, affect the offender’s risk for recidivism. According to 

meta-analytic research, the eight most significant criminogenic needs are: 

antisocial behavior; antisocial personality; criminal thinking; criminal associates; 

dysfunctional family; employment and education; leisure and recreation; and 

- 13 - 
substance abuse. Based on an assessment of the offender, these criminogenic 

needs can be prioritized so that services are focused on the greatest criminogenic 

needs. 

(Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Harland, 1996; Ward & Stewart, 2003)

c) Responsivity Principle: consider individual characteristics when matching 

offenders to services. These 

characteristics include, but are not 

limited to: culture, gender, 

motivational stages, developmental 

stages, and learning styles. These 

factors influence an offender’s 

responsiveness to different types of 

treatment. The principle of 

responsivity also requires that 

offenders be provided with treatment 

that is proven effective with the 

offender population. Certain 

treatment strategies, such as 

cognitive-behavioral methodologies, 

have consistently produced 

reductions in recidivism with 

offenders under rigorous research 

conditions. Providing appropriate 

responsivity to offenders involves 

selecting services in accordance with 

these factors, including: a) Matching 

treatment type to offender; and b) 

Matching style and methods of 

communication with offender’s stage of change readiness. 

(Andrews & Kiesling, 1980; Birgden, 2004; Miller & Rollnick, 2002; Prochaska & 

DiClemente, 1984)

Questions to Ask: 

 How do we manage offenders assessed as 

low risk to reoffend? 

 Does our assessment tool assess for 

criminogenic need? 

 How are criminogenic risk and need 

information incorporated into offender 

caseplans? 

 How are offenders matched to treatment 

resources? 

 How structured are our caseplans for 

offenders, especially during the three to 

nine month period in the community 

after leaving an institution? 

 How are staff held accountable for using 

assessment information to develop a 

caseplan and then subsequently using 

that caseplan to manage an offender? 

d) Dosage: providing appropriate quantities of services, pro-social structure, and 

supervision is a strategic application of resources. Higher risk offenders require 

significantly more initial structure and services than lower risk offenders. During 

the initial three to nine months on post-release supervision, 40%-70% of their free 

time should be clearly occupied with delineated routine and appropriate services, 

(e.g., outpatient treatment, employment assistance, education, etc.) Certain offender 

subpopulations (e.g., severely mentally ill, chronic dual diagnosed, etc.) commonly 

require strategic, extensive, and extended services. However, too often individuals 

within these subpopulations do not receive a coordinated package of 

supervision/services. The evidence indicates that incomplete or uncoordinated 

approaches can have negative effects, often wasting resources. In addition to 

referring offenders to treatment and other structured activities, the officer must 

- 14 - 
determine whether offenders are engaging in these activities and attending and 

completing treatment. 

(Bourgon & Armstrong, 2005; Gendreau & Andrews 2001; Palmer, 1995)

e) Treatment Principle: treatment, particularly cognitive-behavioral types, 

should be applied as an integral part of the sentence and sanction process. In 

addition to considering risk and seriousness of offense, integrate treatment into 

sentence and sanction requirements through assertive case management (taking a 

proactive and strategic approach to supervision and case planning). Delivering 

targeted and timely treatment interventions focused on criminogenic needs will 

provide the greatest long-term benefit to the community, the victim, and the 

offender. This does not necessarily apply to lower risk offenders, who should be 

diverted from the criminal justice and corrections systems whenever possible. 

When low risk offenders attend treatment that exposes them to higher risk 

offenders, the benefits of the treatment are negligible while the exposure to higherrisk peers can be detrimental. In addition, treatment attendance, while offering 

needed structure for high-risk offenders can disrupt existing involvement in 

prosocial community activities among low-risk offenders. 

(Lipsey et al, 2001; MacKenzie, 2006; Milkman & Wanberg, 2007; Taxman & 

Byrne, 2001)

4) Skill Train with Directed Practice (using cognitive behavioral treatment methods) 

Provide evidence-based programming 

that emphasizes cognitive behavioral 

strategies and is delivered by welltrained employees. These strategies can 

be applied in treatment settings, but also 

in routine interactions between officers 

and offenders. To successfully deliver 

this intervention to offenders, employees 

must understand antisocial thinking, 

social learning, and appropriate 

communication techniques, and be able 

to identify and redirect anti-social 

thinking. Skills are not just taught to the 

offender, but are practiced or role-played 

and the resulting pro-social attitudes and 

behaviors are positively reinforced by employees. Correctional agencies should 

prioritize, plan, and budget to predominantly implement programs that have been 

scientifically proven to reduce recidivism. 

Questions to Ask: 

 How are social learning techniques 

incorporated into the programs we 

deliver? 

 How do we ensure that our contracted 

service providers are delivering services 

in alignment with social learning 

theory? 

 Are the programs we deliver and 

contract for based on scientific evidence 

of recidivism reduction?

(Allen et al, 2001; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Lipsey et al, 2001; Milkman & 

Wanberg, 2007; Sundel & Sundel, 2005) 

5) Increase Positive Reinforcement 

When learning new skills and making behavioral changes, human beings respond 

better and maintain learned behaviors for longer periods of time, when approached 

- 15 - 
with carrots rather than sticks. Behaviorists recommend applying a much higher ratio 

of positive reinforcements to negative reinforcements in order to better achieve 

sustained behavioral change. Rewards do not have to be applied consistently to be 

effective (as negative reinforcement does) but can be applied randomly. 

Increasing positive reinforcement should not be done at the expense of or undermine 

administering swift, certain, and real responses for negative and unacceptable 

behavior. Offenders having problems with 

responsible self-regulation generally 

respond positively to reasonable and 

reliable additional structure and boundaries. 

Offenders may initially overreact to new 

demands for accountability, seek to evade 

detection or consequences, and fail to 

recognize any personal responsibility. 

However, with exposure to clear rules that 

are consistently (and swiftly) enforced with 

appropriate graduated consequences, offenders and people in general, will tend to 

comply in the direction of the most rewards and least punishments. This type of 

extrinsic motivation can often be useful for beginning the process of behavior change. 

(Gendreau, 1996; Gendreau & Andrews 2001; Higgins & Silverman, 1999; Sundel & 

Sundel, 2005) 

6) Engage On-going Support in Natural Communities 

Realign and actively engage pro-social supports for offenders in their communities. 

Research indicates that many successful interventions with extreme populations (e.g., 

inner city substance abusers, homeless, 

dual diagnosed) actively recruit and use 

family members, spouses, and supportive 

others in the offender’s immediate 

environment to positively reinforce desired 

new behaviors. This Community 

Reinforcement Approach (CRA) has been 

found effective for a variety of behaviors 

(e.g., unemployment, alcoholism, substance 

abuse, and marital conflicts). In addition, 

relatively recent research now indicates the efficacy of twelve step programs, religious 

activities, and restorative justice initiatives that are geared towards improving bonds 

and ties to pro-social community members. This is especially important for offenders 

who are returning to the community from prison or jail. 

Questions to Ask: 

 Do we model positive reinforcement 

techniques in our day-to-day 

interactions with our co-workers? 

 Do our staff understand and use the 

four-to-one theory in their 

interactions with offenders?

Questions to Ask: 

 Do we engage community supports 

for offenders as a regular part of 

case planning? 

 How do we measure our community 

network contacts as they relate to an 

offender?

(Azrin et al, 1982; Braithwaite, 1989; Higgins & Silverman, 1999; Lattimer et al 

(2005); Meyers et al, 2002 & 2005; O’Connor & Perryclear, 2003; Smith & Meyer, 

2004) 

7) Measure Relevant Processes/Practices 

- 16 - 
Accurate and detailed documentation of 

case information, along with a formal and 

valid mechanism for measuring 

outcomes, is the foundation of evidencebased practice. Agencies must routinely 

assess offender change in cognitive and 

skill development, and evaluate offender 

recidivism, if services are to remain 

effective. In addition to routinely 

measuring and documenting offender 

change, employee performance should 

also be regularly assessed Employees that 

are periodically evaluated for 

performance achieve greater fidelity to 

program design, service delivery 

principles, and outcomes. Employees 

whose performance is not consistently monitored, measured, and subsequently 

reinforced work less cohesively, more frequently at cross-purposes and provide less 

support to the organization’s mission. 

(Bernstein et al, 2001; Dilulio, et al 1993; Gendreau and Andrews, 2001; Henggeler 

et al, 1997; Quay, 1977; Lowenkamp et al, 2006; Milhalic & Irwin, 2003; Waltz et al, 

1993) 

8) Provide Measurement Feedback 

Once a method for measuring relevant processes/practices is in place (principle 

seven), the information must be used to monitor process and change. Providing 

feedback to offenders regarding their 

progress builds accountability and is 

associated with enhanced motivation for 

change, lower treatment attrition, and 

improved outcomes (e.g., reduced 

drink/drug days; treatment engagement; 

goal achievement). The same is true within 

an organization. Monitoring and evaluating 

delivery of services and fidelity to 

procedures helps build accountability and 

maintain integrity to the organization’s 

mission. Regular performance audits and 

appropriately applied case reviews with an 

eye on improved outcomes, keep employees 

focused on the ultimate goal of reduced 

recidivism through the use of evidence-based principles. 

Questions to Ask: 

 What data do we collect regarding 

offender assessment and case 

management? 

 How do we measure incremental 

offender change while they are under 

supervision? 

 What are our outcome measures and 

how do we track them? 

 How do we measure staff performance? 

What data do we use? How is that 

data collected?

Questions to Ask: 

 How is information regarding 

offender change and outcomes 

shared with officers? With 

offenders? 

 With whom do we share 

information regarding outcome 

measures? 

 How is staff performance data used 

in the performance evaluation 

process?

(Alvero et al, 2001; Gendreau & Andrews, 2001; Harris and Smith, 1996; Klein & 

Teilmann 1980; Ludeman, 1991; Quay, 1977; Zemke, 2001) 

2. The Principles and Effective Relationships 

- 17 - 
The lynchpin of effective practice is the relationship between corrections professionals 

and clients. Offenders’ attitudes and behavior can be influenced by their interactions 

with supervision officers and treatment providers. The use of specific skills by 

corrections employees to develop effective relationships with clients that reinforce the 

principles outlined above are therefore critical to reduced recidivism and improved public 

safety. In fact, the importance of a good working relationship can be a key component for 

achieving successful outcomes. This relationship includes demonstrating respect, 

building rapport, balancing enforcement with treatment, and maintaining focus on 

criminogenic needs. (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bonta et al, 2008; Skeem and Manchak, 

2008; Gendreau, et al 2002; Taxman, 2002; Trotter 1996, 1999, 2000).

A well-known model of intervention focused on the supervisory relationship, rather than 

on the features of a given intervention program, is that developed by Chris Trotter (1999, 

2000). The central principles of Trotter’s pro- social modeling approach include: 

 

• Role clarification: involving frequent and open discussions about roles, purposes, 

expectations, the use of authority, negotiable and non-negotiable aspects of intervention 

and confidentiality. 

• Pro-social modeling and reinforcement: involving the identification, reward and 

modeling of behaviors to be promoted and the identification, discouragement and 

confrontation of behaviors to be changed. 

• Problem solving: involving the survey, ranking and exploration of problems, goal 

setting and contracting, the development of strategies and ongoing monitoring. 

• Relationship: involving the worker being open and honest, empathetic, able to 

challenge and not minimize rationalizations, non-blaming, optimistic, able to articulate 

the client’s and family members’ feelings and problems, using appropriate self-disclosure 

and humor. 

 

The development of effective relationships requires the use of communication, 

engagement, counseling and inter-personal skills. Attempts to influence offenders 

positively require these skills to be deployed as part of relationships based on moral 

legitimacy in the eyes of offenders. These relationships are important to creating an 

environment where offenders feel they can trust the officers, and to a large extent have 

some desire to comply with their conditions. 

It is unlikely that anything can be achieved in work with offenders unless and until such 

effective working relationships are first established and then maintained (McNeil et al, 

2005). 

At the same time, it is important to recognize that for offenders the process of change is a 

difficult and lengthy one, interrupted by frequent reversals and relapses. This may require 

correctional employees to use their relationship skills to work with offenders to develop 

new accounts or ‘narratives’ about their own identity and their ability to take charge of 

- 18 - 
their own lives rather than remain victims of circumstances (Maruna, 2000; Farrall, 2002; 

Burnett, 2004). 

Emerging research in the area of officer-client relationships describes the dual role of

community corrections officers and its importance to offender success (Paparozzi and 

Gendreau, 2005; Skeem and Manchak, 2008). Community corrections officers often 

struggle with defining their role: should their focus be on law enforcement and 

accountability, or rehabilitation and social support? The answer is both. A balance 

between supervisory and relational approaches yields optimal outcomes. 

Case Study: Maryland’s Proactive Community Supervision 

In Maryland, a proactive community supervision (PCS) model has been developed to work with 

offenders. The model adopts a risk-need-responsivity approach where the agency uses a risk and 

need tool to identify appropriate treatment and control services and then assigns offenders to such 

services. As part of the approach a social learning environment is created that makes supervision 

officers active in facilitating offender change. 

The social learning environment uses research-based behavioral management strategies to work 

with supervisees identifying realistic and pertinent behavioral goals, and implementing strategies 

for supervisees to achieve these goals. The process is designed to engage supervisees in the 

supervision process and increase their commitment to and ownership of the goals. Supervisees 

tailor the supervision period to their own personal needs and goals while also satisfying the public 

safety purposes of supervision. The goal is to empower the offender. 

Staff take on the role of a behavioral manager who helps supervisees in learning about their own 

behavior; understanding the links between their behavior and their involvement with the criminal 

justice system, and crafting responses to their behavior. It is a move away from traditional 

accountability mechanisms to shared decision-making models where the offender weighs the 

methods to ameliorate negative outcomes. 

The results have been impressive. Evaluation found that offenders who were supervised under the 

PCS model were less likely to be rearrested and less likely to have a warrant issued for technical 

violations. It has led to staff perceiving their job to be facilitators of offender change, and working 

with offenders to improve supervision outcomes. Staff have developed techniques that led to them 

working with more difficult cases for longer periods of time to assist the offender in efforts to 

address criminogenic risk/need factors. 

(Taxman 2008; Taxman and Thanner, 2004; Sachwald et al 2006)

Taken together, these principles have the potential to improve public safety outcomes and 

to ensure that resources are being used efficiently. However, knowledge of the principles 

is not enough to ensure their effectiveness. Correctional systems and their component 

organizations must put the systems in place to support the principles, employees must 

have the skills they need to implement the principles, and the quality of implementation 

must be regularly monitored so that improvements can be made. This requires a 

fundamental change in the way organizations do business. The next chapter describes 

- 19 - 
- 20 - 

approaches for EBP implementation, followed by a chapter on developing an evidencebased organization. 
CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTING EVIDENCE-BASED 

PRINCIPLES 

Aligning the eight evidence-based principles with the core business practices of an 

organization is a significant challenge and will largely determine the impact the 

organization has on sustained reductions in recidivism. In order to accomplish this shift to 

an outcome orientation, practitioners must be prepared to dedicate themselves to a 

mission that focuses on achieving sustained reductions in recidivism, and to 

operationalize that mission at the individual, organizational, and system levels. At each 

of these levels, thorough, comprehensive, and strategic planning will be necessary in 

order to succeed. Identifying, prioritizing, and formulating well-timed plans for 

addressing such particular issues are tasks requiring system collaboration and a focus on 

organizational development (see Chapters 5 and 6). 

An essential caveat here is a caution about implementation; the devil is in the details. 

However, there is helpful literature regarding implementation principles. Prior to 

embarking on any implementation or strategic planning project, a succinct review of this 

literature is recommended (Bernstein et al, 2001; Durlak, 1998; Ellickson et al, 1983; 

Gendreau et al, 1999; Henggeler et al, 1997; Harris & Smith, 1996; Mihalic & Irwin, 

2003; Mihalic et at, 2004; Burke, 2008; Crime and Justice Institute, 2009). This chapter 

offers some suggestions on approaching the challenge of implementation. 

1. Understanding the Components of Correctional Interventions 

Initially it is instructive to consider the components of corrections services and how they 

should relate to each other. One way to deconstruct a community corrections intervention 

for planning or evaluation purposes is to consider the separate aspects of the intervention 

that might influence an offender’s potential for behavioral change. Researchers and 

practitioners are quick to recognize a number of common elements in all programs that 

have some potential impact on outcomes such as recidivism: 

 The Skills of Employees—a wide array of ongoing interpersonal relations

specifically pertaining to the communication skills and interactions exercised between 

employees and offenders; 

 Decisions on Intervention Assignment—continuous case management decisions 

that match offenders to varying levels and types of supervision conditions; 

 Programming – services, i.e. both treatment and monitoring interventions; 

 Sanctions—determinations of accountability for assigned obligations and 

accompanying compliance consequences, i.e., both positive and negative 

reinforcements; 

- 21 - 
 Community Linkages—formal and informal interfaces with various community 

organizations and groups; 

 Case Management—a case management system that relegates individual case 

objectives and expectations within a prescribed set of policies and procedures; and 

 Organization—internal (operational) and external (policy environment) 

organizational structures, management techniques, and culture. 

Each of these factors can be construed as separate processes that interact with each other 

continuously in any community corrections setting (e.g., probation, parole, outpatient 

treatment, residential, etc.). Depending on how well the processes are aligned and 

managed, they can either enhance or diminish successful outcomes. An organization, for 

example, might provide an excellent cognitive skill-building curriculum that has good 

research support but is delivered by employees with limited training or skills. Conversely, 

an organization might be structured so that there is no differentiation of services (one size 

fits all) and the programming has limited or negligible research support, but employees' 

overall skills are excellent. A broad interpretation of the existing research suggests that 

each of the above seven factors have their own independent effect on successful 

outcomes. Maximum benefit is achieved through the interaction of multiple components. 

Any organization interested in understanding and improving outcomes must reckon with 

managing the operation as a set of highly interdependent systems. An organization's 

ability to become progressively more accountable through the utilization of reliable 

internal controls (e.g., data) is integral to EBP. This approach is based on established 

business management practices for measuring performance objectives and achieving 

greater accountability for specified outcomes (for example, Continuous Quality 

Improvement or Results Based Accountability). Providing routine and accurate 

performance feedback to employees is associated with improved productivity, profit, and 

other outcomes; without regular access to data, employees will not have the information 

they need to change their behavior and improve their practices. Data is also useful when 

advocating for certain practices with policymakers, stakeholder groups, and the 

community. 

2. Translating the Principles into Practice 

Implementing and integrating this web of practice in corrections is a tremendous 

challenge requiring strong leadership and commitment. Such an undertaking involves 

more than simply implementing a research recommended program or two. Minimally, 

EBP involves: 

 Developing employee competencies (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) congruent with 

current research-supported practice (principles #1-8); 

- 22 - 
 Implementing offender programming consistent with research recommendations (#2-

6); 

 Sufficiently monitoring employee actions and offender programming to identify 

discrepancies or fidelity issues (#7); 

 Routinely obtaining verifiable outcome evidence (#8) associated with employee 

performance and offender programming. 

Implementing these functions is tantamount to revolutionizing most corrections 

organizations. Nevertheless, many agencies are taking on this challenge and have begun 

to increase their focus on outcomes and shift their priorities. Two fundamentally different 

approaches are necessary for such an alteration in priorities. One, the outside/in approach, 

brings insights gleaned from external research evidence to bear on internal organizational 

practices. The other, the inside-out approach, increases organizational capacity to 

internally measure performance and outcomes for current practice. When these two 

interdependent strategies are employed, an organization acquires the ability to understand 

what is necessary and practicable to improve its outcomes. The following describes how 

these approaches support EBP in slightly different ways. 

Outside/In Approach

Adopting research-supported program models fosters an outcome orientation and 

minimizes the syndrome of ‘reinventing-the-wheel’. Insights, practices, and 

intervention strategies gleaned from external research can significantly improve the 

efficacy any program has if implemented with appropriate fidelity. 

One approach to EBP is to pay strict attention to the external research and carefully 

introduce those programs or interventions that are supported by the best research. There 

are a growing number of examples of internal promotion of external evidence-based 

programs. The Blueprint Project, conducted by the Center for the Study and Prevention 

of Violence, uses independent outside research to promote the implementation of 

effective juvenile programs (Mihalic et al. 2001). 

The National Institute of Justice commissioned research investigators to conduct similar 

reviews of both adult and juvenile offender programming, recommending programs 

according to the caliber of the research support (Sherman et al, 1998). The Washington 

State Institute for Public Policy, a non-partisan state research institute, regularly conducts 

and publishes similar reviews for adult and juvenile offender programming implemented 

in Washington (Aos, 1998). 

What these strategies have in common is the promotion of research-supported external 

program models within internal implementation and operations. These are outside-in 

applications striving to replicate proven models with fidelity. This approach is limited by 

the fact that environmental, cultural, and operational features vary between organizations 

and often have significant effect on program efficacy (Palmer 1995; Mihalic & Irwin, 

- 23 - 
2003). Thus, the second inside-out approach to evidence-based practice attends to these 

internal factors. 

The Blueprints Project 

The Blueprint Project, conducted by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence 

(CSPV), examined literature on over 500 different program interventions with at-risk or 

delinquent youth. Ten programs met CSPV’s strict criteria for scientific support. These were 

labeled Blueprint programs, while programs that partially met the criteria were designated 

Promising (Mihalic et al. 2001). 

CSPV documented the operational details of these programs and distributed the descriptions to 

practitioners, emphasizing the importance of maintaining fidelity to the program models. 

Programs that were scientifically determined to produce systematic and significant results were 

identified and promoted through a central clearing-house (Mihalic et al, 2004). 

Inside/Out Approach

Developing and maintaining ongoing internal controls, particularly information 

controls related to key service components (e.g., targeted interventions, treatment

dosage, treatment attendance and adherence, etc.) ensures greater operational 

ability to affect outcomes. 

The program evaluation, performance, and audit research literature emphasizes that 

insufficient information controls not only hamper program assessment, but impede 

program performance (Bernstein et al, 2001; Burrell, 1998; Dilulio et al, 1993; Gendreau 

& Andrews, 2001; Lipton et al, 2000; Mee-Lee et al, 1996;). Such internal control issues 

appear not only in program evaluation research, but also in organizational development, 

business, and systems analysis. 

Internal controls provide information and mechanisms for ensuring that an organization 

will accomplish its mission (i.e., recidivism reduction). For agencies with historically 

“command and control” corrections orientations, the transition to outcome-oriented 

corrections is often significant (Burrell 1998; Dilulio et al 1993; Lipton et al. 2000). 

Therefore, developing new methods for gathering operational information and then 

sharing and learning from them is a large part of the transition from custodial to outcome 

orientation in corrections. 

Information controls necessary for implementing new or best practices specifically focus 

on key components within the desired practices. They include an ongoing process of 

identifying, measuring, and reporting key operational processes and functions. An 

organization or organization has many options regarding what to measure. Some 

examples are: 

 Offender measures, such as risk levels, criminogenic needs, and motivation. 

- 24 - 
 Operational measures, such as assigning caseload by risk, referring to appropriate

interventions, program availability, program integrity, and program quality assurance 

norms. 

 Employee measures, such as interpersonal skills, abilities to discern anti-social 

thinking and behavior, and attitudes and beliefs regarding interventions. 

 

Though many examples of potential measures are available in the literature, it is 

ultimately the decision of each organization as to what data is available and most useful 

for monitoring progress. 

3. Applying the Principles at the Case, Organization and System Levels 

The eight principles provide a roadmap for intervention at the level of an individual case, 

with the potential to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. However, in many ways the 

principles are universal to human and organizational behavior, and they can also be 

applied to agencies and systems that are attempting to change their collective behavior. 

Below, the application of the principles at the case, organization, and system levels are 

described. 

Case Level 

At the case level, the logical 

implication is that one must assess 

(principle #1) in order to triage and 

targeting interventions ( #3), and that it 

is beneficial to begin building offender 

motivation ( #2) prior to engaging 

these offenders in skill building 

activities (# 4). Similarly, positively 

reinforcing new skills (#5) has more 

relevancy after the skills have been 

introduced and trained (#4) and at least 

partially in advance of the offender’s 

realignment with pro-social groups and 

friends (#6 ). The seventh (measure 

relevant practices) and eighth (provide 

feedback) principles need to follow the 

activities described throughout all the 

proceeding principles. Assessing an offender’s readiness to change as well as the ability 

to use newly acquired skills is possible anywhere along the case management continuum. 

These last two principles can and should be applicable after any of the earlier principles 

but they also can be considered cumulative and provide feedback both to the officer and 

the client on the entire case management process. 

Figure 3

- 25 - 
Organization Level 

The principles, when applied at the organizational level, assist with more closely aligning 

employee behavior and organizational operations with EBP. Initial assessment of 

organizational climate and culture followed by motivational enhancement will help 

employees to prepare for the significant changes ahead. Organizational priorities must be 

clarified and new protocols established and trained, with ample opportunity for 

employees to practice new skills and receive feedback. Increasing positive rewards for 

employees who demonstrate new skills and proficiency is straightforward and an 

accepted standard in many organizations. The sixth principle regarding providing 

ongoing support in natural communities can be related to teamwork within the 

organization as well as with external stakeholders. The seventh and eighth principles are 

primarily about developing quality assurance systems, both to provide outcome data 

within the organization, but also to provide data to assist with marketing the organization 

to external stakeholders. 

System Level 

The application of the principles at the system level is fundamentally no different than the 

organizational level. Funding, for most systems, channels through state and local 

agencies having either jurisdictional or oversight responsibilities. Demonstrating the 

value of EBP is crucial at this level in order to effectively make the argument for 

increases in future funding. Another distinction in applying the principles at the system 

level is the need for policy and practice integration. The principles for EBP must be 

understood and supported by policy makers so that appropriate policy development 

coincides effectively with implementation. Once a system decisively directs its mission 

towards an outcome such as sustained reductions in recidivism, it becomes incumbent on 

the system to deliberately rely upon scientific methods and principles. This will require 

coordinated implementation plans, communication, cross-training and accountability, as 

well as maintaining morale as organizations struggle with the complexities of EBP 

implementation. 

4. Recommended Guidelines for Implementing Effective Interventions 

Below are seven recommended guidelines for implementing effective interventions based 

on the collective wisdom and experience of professionals in the field. These guidelines 

are based on recent preliminary implementation research; they are not necessarily based 

on scientifically tested knowledge. (For additional discussion of research on 

implementation, please see Fixen et al., 2005)

I. Limit new projects to mission-related initiatives. 

Clear identification and focus upon mission is critical within business and the best-run 

public agencies. When mission scope creep occurs, it has a negative effect on progress, 

morale, and outcomes. 

(Ellickson et al, 1983; Harris & Smith, 1996;) 

- 26 - 
II. Assess progress of implementation processes using quantifiable data. 

Monitoring system implementations for current, valid information regarding progress, 

obstacles, and direction changes is pivotal to project success. These monitoring systems 

cannot always be designed in advance but implementation plans should include 

provisions for obtaining this type of ongoing information. 

(Burrell, 2000; Dilulio et al, 1993; Gottredson & Gottfredson, 2002; Harris & Smith, 

1996; Klein & Teilmann 1980; Mihalic & Irwin, 2003; Mihalic et al, 2004; Palmer, 1995) 

III. Acknowledge and accommodate professional overrides with adequate 

accountability. 

No assessment tool, no matter how sophisticated, can (or should) replace a qualified 

practitioner’s professional judgment. In certain instances, only human judgment can 

integrate and make the necessary subtle distinctions to adequately recognize and 

reinforce moral or behavioral progress. All professional overrides, both to higher and 

lower supervision levels, need to be adequately documented, defensible, and made 

explicit. 

(Andrews, et al, 1990; Burrell, 2000; Clear, 1981; Gendreau et al, 1999) 

IV. Focus on employee development, including awareness of research, skill 

development, and management of individual and organizational change processes, 

within the context of a complete training or human resource development program. 

Employees need to develop reasonable familiarity with relevant research, and they need 

to be actively engaged in the change process. Beginning in the 1990s there has been 

tremendous growth in the volume and quality of corrections related research. Much of the 

more recent research is directly relevant to everyday operational practice; therefore it is 

incumbent on professionals in the field to keep abreast of this literature. The current 

research literature includes in house investigations, internet resources, and other public 

sector articles, as well as professional and academic journal publications. This literature 

is also evolving and becoming more international and inter-disciplinary in scope. It is the 

responsibility of organizational leadership to assist in the successful dissemination of 

recent research findings relevant to respective classes of job performers. Informed 

administrators, information officers, trainers, and other organizational ambassadors are 

necessary to facilitate this function in larger agencies or systems. Effective fulfillment of 

this principle is essential to promoting Learning Organizations. 

(Andrews, 1989; Baer, et al, 1999; Durlak, 1998; Gendreau, et al, 1999; Harland, 1996; 

Klein & Teilmann 1980; Latessa, et al, 2002; Taxman & Byrne, 2001; Taxman, 2002 and 

2008) 

V. Routinely measure employee practices (attitudes, knowledge, and skills) that are 

considered related to outcomes. 

Critical employee processes and practices should be routinely monitored in an accurate 

and objective manner to inform managers of the state of the operation. These measures 

occur at multiple levels (e.g., aggregate, for example: turnover and organizational cultural 

beliefs; and individual, for example: interviewing skills and ability to identify thinking 

errors) and should be organized accordingly and maintained in ongoing databases for the 

purposes of both supporting management and employee development. This may include 

- 27 - 
a review of assessment and case plan information for accuracy and alignment with 

offender needs; observation and feedback on officer interaction techniques; or evaluation 

of the implementation of cognitive behavioral treatment groups. Measurement and 

feedback should be conducted in the spirit of continuous quality improvement. 

(Bernstein, 2001; Gendreau, et al, 1999; Henggeler et al, 1997; Miller & Mount, 2001) 

VI. Provide employees timely, relevant, and accurate feedback regarding 

performance related to outcomes. 

Programs and agencies that want to produce better outcomes will ultimately learn to pay 

closer and more attention to what is involved in generating their own outcomes. Initially, 

agencies have much to learn and incorporate into policy from the generic research 

literature in corrections. Ultimately however, in order to achieve deeper adaptations and 

organizational support of effective practices, immediate, objective, and internal measures 

of the respective organization will be routinely required. 

At an organizational level, gaining appreciation for outcome measurement begins with 

establishing relevant performance measures. Measuring performance implies a 

relationship between a given activity and a given output or outcome. These types of 

measures can be established at either the organizational (aggregate) or individual job 

performer levels and there are several important issues related to establishing effective 

performance measures: 

1) If a certain kind of performance is worth measuring, it is worth measuring right (with 

reliability and validity); 

2) Any kind of employee or offender activity is worth measuring if it is reliably related to 

desirable outcomes; 

3) If performance measures satisfy both the above conditions, these measures should be 

routinely generated and made available to employees and/or offenders, in the most userfriendly manner possible. 

The primary ingredients of any correctional system or treatment program are employees 

and offenders. Therefore when a commitment emerges to develop greater focus on 

outcomes, it behooves managers and employees at all levels to learn how to better 

measure employees, offenders, and their related interactions. The latter is an evolutionary 

and ongoing process rather than change of operational components. Some examples of 

promising performance measures at the organizational level are: proportion of resource 

gaps at various treatment levels; degree of implementation and program fidelity; 

employee turnover; and organizational cultural norms. Examples of promising job 

performer level measures are: adequacy of communication skills; consistency in certain 

functions (e.g., assessment, case planning, treatment referrals); and caseload average gain 

scores for offender dynamic risk indicators. 

(Burrell, 1998; Bogue, 2002; Carey, 2002; Henggeler, 1997; Lipton, et al, 2000; Maple, 

2000; O’Leary & Clear, 1997; Taxman 2008) 

- 28 - 
- 29 - 

VII. Utilize high levels of data-driven advocacy and brokerage to enable appropriate 

community justice/correctional services. 

In terms of producing sustained reductions in recidivism, the research indicates that the 

treatment service network and infrastructure is the most valuable resource that criminal 

justice agencies can access. Collaborating and providing research and quality assurance 

support to local service providers enhances interagency understanding, service 

credibility, and longer-term planning efforts. It also contributes to the stability and 

expansion of treatment services. 

(Bogue, 2002; Corbett, et al, 2000; Gendreau 1996; Maple, 1999; Meyers et al Smith, 

2005) 

These elements cannot be put in place overnight. It is up to each organization to 

determine a pace of implementation that is appropriate to the organization’s level of 

readiness and the resources available. Whatever the pace and the tactics employed, an 

organization must be prepared to dedicate people and time to this effort. Developing and 

sharing a plan that spells out detailed strategies and timelines for implementation will 

smooth both communication and the implementation itself. Many agencies find it helpful 

to dedicate a employee to oversee the initiative, keep it on everyone’s radar, and move 

implementation forward. Implementation requires an investment of time throughout the 

organization, but it pays dividends by reducing the amount of time spent on ineffective 

and unnecessary work. 

CHAPTER 5: LEADING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 

AND DEVELOPMENT 

In order to successfully move towards effective evidence-based supervision and service 

provision significant organizational change and development is required. Organizations 

must rethink their missions and values; gain new knowledge and skills; adjust their 

infrastructure to support new ways of doing business and transform their organizational 

culture. These are challenging tasks that require energetic, dynamic leadership with a 

willingness to place equal focus on evidence-based principles in organizational 

development as well as service delivery. 

This chapter relies heavily on Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline (1990) and Mark 

Moore’s Creating Public Value (1995). Senge’s and Moore’s models provide a 

framework upon which organizations can begin their internal work and thereby apply 

evidence-based principles to achieving organizational change (see Appendix 2). 

The organizational development concepts and strategies set out in the chapter mirror the 

evidence-based principles of effective intervention set out in previous chapters. Many 

behavior change principles apply to all people, offenders and non-offenders alike, so 

parallel approaches can be used to manage offender cases and change offender behavior 

as well as to manage organizations and change organizational behavior (Latessa, 2004). 

These principles include: assessment, intervention, and monitoring/measurement. The 

concepts are broad enough to fit most in-progress organizational development efforts and 

yet sufficiently simple and direct to allow for guided implementation in community 

corrections agencies. 

Shifting to an evidence-based organization management approach may require significant 

changes in the way business is conducted. Some changes may include how employees 

are recruited and hired; conduct their job duties; receive performance feedback; and 

interact with each other, offenders, and system stakeholders. While the strategies that 

follow will help guide leaders toward the goal of implementing evidence-based practices 

both in offender supervision and organizational management, leaders must be prepared 

for the inherent challenges of conducting such a transition process. 

This chapter is not intended to serve as a definitive treatise on organizational change, but 

rather as a starting point or refresher for jurisdictions working to implement evidencebased principles in community corrections. It will assist leaders to: 

 develop the highest productivity climate for implementing evidence-based 

principles at the organizational level; 

 provide a positive learning environment and a focus on improving organizational 

capacity; and 

 focus on systemic change versus single events or pilot projects. 

 

- 31 - 
The goal is to stimulate questions and discussion about the change process and how it 

might play out in different organizations. Organizational leaders willing to undertake this 

level of systemic change should begin by asking themselves the questions outlined in the 

chapter. 

1. Organizational Case Management: Assessment, Intervention, & 

Monitoring/ Measurement 

The three steps of assessment, intervention and monitoring/measurement are critical 

processes to follow to deliver successful organizational change and development in the 

same way they are integral to client intervention. 

i) Assessment/Diagnosis 

Assessment determines the existing status of an individual, organization, and/or practice 

by providing information on the potential and options for change. Assessment strategies 

include: 

 Surveys (Gather information either through self-report or third party reporting. 

Survey designs can either be used off the shelf or customized to fit specific 

organizational needs.) 

 Interviews 

 Observation 

 Data review and analysis 

ii) Intervention 

Intervention activities are designed to respond to the needs/issues identified in the 

assessment/diagnosis process. Intervention strategies include: 

 Strategic planning 

 Systems restructuring 

 Change management 

 Team building 

 Coaching and mentoring 

 Education/training 

 Skill building activities & competency development 

 Soliciting and using input from across the organization to create a sense of ownership 

 Feedback activities, such as 360 assessments (assessments of leadership from 

multiple viewpoints) for individuals or groups 

 Succession planning 

iii) Monitoring and Measuring Performance 

Monitoring and measuring performance on both a short- and long-term basis provide data 

on changes in knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behavior. Types of measures include: 

 Process measures provide feedback throughout change process. 

 Outcome measures demonstrate impact at the individual and organizational level. 

- 32 - 
 Individual: Measure actual change in knowledge, skills, attitudes, and/or 

behavior. Measurement tools include surveys, performance evaluation, and 

data analysis. 

 Organizational: Measure improvement in productivity as well as progress 

toward organizational goals. Measurement tools include surveys and data 

analysis. 

The scale of these three steps varies across organizations, but implementing a process to 

assess and address key organizational issues is essential to creating an environment 

conducive to change. 

2. Leading Organizational Change 

Leadership is the art of mobilizing others to struggle for shared aspirations. 

(Kouzes & Posner, 2007) 

Certain qualities of leadership are essential to managing organizational change: ability for 

reflection; acknowledgement of personal strengths and weaknesses; willingness to take 

risks and receive feedback; the ability to motivate others; and demonstration of the 

fundamental principles of honesty, openness, respect and trust. 

The artistry of leadership exists in choosing the manner by which one will influence 

people. Different situations require different leadership styles and strategies. Leaders are 

most effective when they create a shared desire by a group to attain a goal or to move in 

a particular direction. 

In the public sector, leaders are expected to articulate the values that drive their beliefs 

about needed change. Reiterating those values throughout the change process helps to 

cement them. 

Strong and flexible organizational leadership is key to the success or failure of any 

change effort. It is especially true when implementing evidence-based practices in 

community corrections due to the complexity of implementing change in the public 

safety system (Latessa, 2004). 

The systemic nature of the public safety system requires that leaders identify, create, and 

show value to internal and external stakeholders. In Mark Moore’s Creating Public 

Value, (1995) he emphasizes a key assumption for any service provided by the public 

sector: the service or product provides value for a variety of constituents. 

- 33 - 
Figure 4 

Public sector leaders must focus on: defining the value their organization provides 

to the public; building support for the organization and its services as they align 

with that value; and ensuring the necessary organizational capacity exists to 

achieve that value. 

 

Leaders of community corrections organizations interested in building value through 

implementing this level of systemic change must evaluate their readiness to lead an 

intensive transition. This requires extensively evaluating their own strengths and 

weaknesses as well as those of their organization. Developing and leading an 

organization that not only provides public value, but also functions as a learning 

organization, requires the capacity and willingness to practice outcome-oriented, data 

driven, collaborative leadership styles instead of more traditional, authoritarian styles of 

leadership. 

Leaders must also be willing to accept the challenges of changing organizational culture 

in order to achieve the full benefits of increased public safety and reduced recidivism 

made possible by implementing evidence-based principles in community corrections. 

Leadership Style 

Traditionally, public safety agencies have relied on hierarchical and other highly 

stratified command and control management models. These models hinder the successful 

implementation of evidence-based practices, and require significant changes in 

organizational structure and leadership philosophy to determine when hierarchy is 

appropriate and when participatory decision making is needed. Changes are also required 

in practice, supervision, recruitment, hiring, training, work plans, and rewards systems. 

- 34 - 
The role of leadership in the implementation of this level of systemic change is key to its 

success. Leaders must be willing to commit to the following process steps: 

 Create the vision 

 Identify partnerships 

 Develop strategies for achieving the vision 

 Seek agreement with partners regarding vision and strategies 

 Utilize process improvement strategies 

 Identify and collect outcome data 

 Review and refine processes and outcomes 

Creating the Vision 

Before the change process begins, there must be a clear vision of what the changed 

organization will look like. This vision should be articulated in a concise statement 

describing the changed organization and how it interacts with others, including service 

recipients, system partners, and employees. For example, the vision statement for the 

Maryland Department of Public Safety Division of Parole and Probation is as follows: 

It is the vision of the Division of Parole and Probation to become a 

comprehensive 

community corrections agency that works in collaboration with criminal justice 

agencies, communities and service providers to prevent and interrupt the criminal 

behavior of probationers, parolees and other supervisees. The Division will 

identify and implement evidence-based practices to facilitate the successful 

reintegration of supervisees into their families and communities. The Division 

will develop a safe and supportive work environment that encourages all 

employees to achieve their maximum professional potential. 

Strong, visionary leadership is a must. The 

vision for change can be formed in numerous 

ways by various groups, including the 

leadership of the organization, policymakers, or 

diagonal slice groups. No matter how the 

vision is formed, leadership must embrace it and 

take responsibility for charting the direction and 

change process for the organization. 

Once the leadership has crystallized the 

direction of change, it needs to look broadly

throughout the organization and consider the 

many layers of change that will occur as a result 

of the process. The most progressive public 

policy direction for an organization is 

meaningless at the line staff and client level 

Questions to Ask:

 Is there a story or a metaphor for what 

the organization is trying to become? 

Can you draw a picture of it? 

 If the organization achieves its goals 

for change, what will a client say 

about their experience of this 

organization? 

 What will a member of the public say? 

 What will employees say? 

 What facets of the organization will 

be affected by the change? 

- 35 - 
without leadership and strategic action to cultivate the change at all levels. True change 

happens at the top, at the bottom, and in between – it’s up to the leadership to consider 

each of those layers. 

Communicating the vision 

Once the leadership clarifies the organizational goals for change, the next step is 

communication of the vision. Involving employees in the development of the vision 

leads to greater commitment from and more effective communication with those 

employees. Effective communication is a critical ingredient to achieving successful and 

long-lasting change, and leadership must model openness and ongoing dialogue. 

Communication is the key! The clearer a leader communicates the goals of 

organizational change, the more helpful employees, community, clients, and policy 

makers can be. Once they understand what leadership seeks to accomplish, they can 

assist in reaching those goals. 

How an idea or goal is communicated can be as important as the goal or idea itself. 

Leaders attend to both process and outcomes. People will draw conclusions from how 

the message is communicated as well as from the content of the message. For example, if 

a leader directly and personally communicates an idea to the organization, the message 

has more impact and meaning than if it comes down to line staff through channels. If a 

leader convenes a focus group of employees to discuss an issue, the importance of the 

issue is heightened, simply by the fact that the leader cared enough to gather a group to 

address it. 

Leadership must also tailor communication strategies to the groups they seek to reach. 

Leaders need to think about their audience in advance, consider how they receive 

information, and strategize about how to best reach them. Communication must occur 

continually throughout the organization – both horizontally and vertically. 

Leaders also need to pay close 

attention to the collective impact of 

seemingly minor decisions during the 

change process. For example, if 

leadership determines that those 

employees who actively participate 

and cooperate with the change process 

will be rewarded, that strategy must be 

consistent throughout the organization, 

even in seemingly minor decisions. 

One act, in one part of the 

organization, such as the promotion of 

a line staff person who is still doing 

business the old way might not seem 

like it could affect the change process. 

However, if it happens several times in 

different parts of the organization, 

Questions to Ask: 

 What is your personal communication style? 

 What are your strengths and weaknesses in this 

arena? 

 How is information communicated in your 

organization? 

 Are there more effective communication strategies 

for reaching multiple audiences? 

 What are the greatest communication challenges 

for the organization? 

 What leadership, management, and employee 

behavior supports the vision? 

- 36 - 
these independent, unrelated decisions can collectively send a message that contradicts 

and undermines the change process. 

Trust and confidence in the organization’s vision and leadership is built through 

understanding and awareness of how decisions are made. Decisions and the process by 

which they are reached should be transparent to the members of the organization. Good 

leaders seek broad input into decision-making and encourage consideration of different 

perspectives. After all, employees also are members of the public and voters. Diverse 

perspectives build strength. Good leaders also ensure that decisions support the stated 

vision, values, and direction of the organization. This requires the leader to stay in touch 

with decision-making at many levels in the organization in order to ensure that the 

organization walks its talk. 

Identifying partnerships 

Leaders seeking change must work closely with organization employees, other 

government entities, and service providers. Collaboration with partners is critical and 

powerful. The partners, both internal and external, can be identified using several 

methods. Leaders can identify partners in consultation with others. Employees can 

conduct system mapping to identify unusual partners. The organization can hold 

planning circles where partners come and identify more partners, who identify more 

partners, etc. All of these strategies can be effective ways to identify important 

stakeholders in the change process. 

Internal Stakeholders: Internal stakeholders will be affected by organizational change, 

some more than others. It is important that 

those groups most affected have a voice in 

the process. Broad participation creates 

commitment. Leaders should consider the 

multiple levels of authority in the formal 

chain of command and classifications of 

employees, and then ensure that all of these 

groups understand the vision of change, 

have a voice, and a means to communicate 

their opinions. Diagonal slice work groups 

can help to achieve this goal by providing 

representation from throughout the 

organization. 

Questions to Ask 

 What diverse groups are represented in 

your organization? 

 Who are the natural leaders in the 

organization? 

 What groups are neglected or feel 

excluded? 

 Who can help to create a buzz about the 

change process in your organization? 

Leaders should also consider more informal networks as they identify internal partners. 

While the organizational chart of an organization may show a vertical hierarchy, 

organizations are rarely so cleanly defined. Instead, organizations are webs, with 

informal leaders and power brokers throughout the organization. Effective leaders think 

beyond the formal hierarchy to ensure they reach out to all key partners. 

Diagonal slice work groups can serve a variety of roles -- as sounding boards, transition 

monitoring teams, steering committees with decision-making power, and implementation 

- 37 - 
teams. Leadership must clearly define the roles and authority of each group, and charters 

should be developed upon convening work groups. 

Chartering will help guide the group’s efforts, provide structure, describe outcomes, 

clarify decision-making authority, and codify organizational and leadership support for 

the group’s work (see Chapter 6). Communication is a key function of these workgroups 

and should be highlighted in their charter. A large part of their responsibility is ongoing 

communication with the larger organization about the change process. To enhance 

productivity and efficiency, all groups should be provided with a trained facilitator or be 

trained in the basics of group process and facilitation prior to beginning work. 

External Stakeholders: The changes an organization undergoes will also affect external 

partners. Community corrections agencies are intertwined with a host of other criminal 

justice, social service, and community 

organizations and systems. This 

means that any significant, longlasting change in an organization 

requires the participation of and 

acceptance by external entities. These 

organizations will need to be 

collaborative participants in this 

process every step of the way. 

Questions to Ask 

 What partnerships currently exist in your system? 

 Where do new partnerships need to be forged? 

 How does participation in this change process 

assist partners in accomplishing their mission 

and/or vision?

Partner organizations need to understand the value that participation in this change 

process has for them. Their leaders should know how supporting change in community 

corrections aids them in accomplishing their organizational mission. The impact that 

specific changes will have on their service delivery must be completely clear. Leaders 

need to consider these issues and craft specific plans for engaging their partners. 

Developing Strategies for Achieving the Vision 

The development of strategies moves the vision from concept into action. While 

strategies must be broad enough to encompass the work of many parts of the 

organization, they must also be specific enough that objectives, outcomes, and work 

plans can be developed to achieve the strategies. Leaders can use many different 

processes to develop strategies. Tools for developing strategies must balance broad 

participation in decision-making with the creation of the most innovative strategies 

infused with best practice knowledge. The relative importance of these two issues in an 

organization’s change process will drive the selection of the tool for strategy 

development. 

Engaging the broadest number of internal and external partners in the development of the 

strategy is essential, and a system- or organization-wide development conference can be a 

helpful tool. This type of conference is a day- or more-long meeting where the 

participants gain understanding of the vision and then in smaller groups develop the 

strategies to accomplish this vision. (see Appendix B, the Search Conference, for one 

approach). Conference techniques often result in maximum participation and buy-in, and 

- 38 - 
allow participants opportunities to understand best practices and expand their thinking in 

order to create an innovative new direction for the organization. 

The diagonal slice group from the organization can also be charged with creating 

strategies. This method provides opportunities for input from a variety of levels and 

perspectives in a more controlled process. It also provides an opportunity for alternative 

perspectives to weigh more heavily in the process. In the conference model, minority 

voices may not be heard. 

In another method, the management team can use stakeholder groups to review and refine

strategies - including the diagonal slice group. This method does not allow for as much 

diverse input into the strategies. However, if the management team has been intensively 

schooled in innovative new practices, they can still create effective strategies that are 

informed by the literature. The strategies must be approved and supported by the policy 

makers in the jurisdiction, regardless of the method chosen. 

 

Questions to Ask 

 How much participation is required to build maximum trust in the organization? 

 How much do various stakeholders know about best practices in order to incorporate them 

into strategies? 

 How can you best incorporate diverse perspectives into the strategies? 

 How involved do policy makers wish to be in the strategy development process? 

Overcoming Resistance 

Leadership and work teams need to plan strategies for overcoming resistance to change. 

Resistance of employees may stem from the organization’s failure to consider and 

eliminate barriers with changing work conditions, a lack of tools to do the new job, poor 

communication across the organization, or an inadequate understanding of the need for 

change. Employees may also lack the sense of safety needed to master new ways of 

doing business, and to ask for support when they are struggling. Leadership must assess 

worker needs in relation to the strategic implementation of change, structure the work, 

and provide the tools and the information required for success. For example, if 

leadership asks officers to spend more time out in the field and less time in the office, 

providing tools such as laptops, personal data assistants, and cell phones will facilitate 

that transition. Leadership must be empathetic, provide opportunities for employees to 

voice options and concerns, and create a climate for success for workers to do their job. 

Culture changes are difficult for workers to accommodate but can be made easier with 

responsive, responsible leaders. 

Seeking agreement with partners about vision and strategy 

Relationships among partners must be based on mutual respect and understanding of the

opportunities and constraints each partner faces. One tool partners can use to work on 

their agreements is the Zone of Agreement model (Figure 5). Groups of internal and 

external partners can use this model to clarify their decision making process. Partners 

- 39 - 
must have a clear and common understanding of the decisions for which complete 

agreement is necessary; consultation with other partners is sufficient; and can be made 

solely by one organization, independent of their partners. 

Z one of 

A greement

Independent 

Actions 

Complete 

Autonomy 

Zone of 

Informing 

Zone of 

Consultation 

Zone of 

Consultation 

Zone of 

Informing 

Zones of Agreement

Partner 1 

Figure 5 

Partner 2 

Sustaining collaboration and agreement between partners 

The change process may be frustrating and slow and may alter direction mid-course. 

Given the importance of partnerships and the challenge of maintaining them, leadership 

must take specific steps to sustain collaborations. Some suggestions include: 

 

 Build upon and celebrate small victories 

Identify steps that a collaborative can take together. Seemingly minor change can 

reward partners and solidify their commitment to the process. These wins can also 

persuade other partners to join and support the change process. 

 Create incentives for collaboration and change 

Align rewards, including public recognition, with the collaboration. Take time to 

understand the needs of internal and external partners and develop ways to meet some 

of them. Recognize employees that bring new partners to the table. 

 Address leadership changes 

Leadership will change during the change process. It is important to bring new 

leaders into the change process, share the vision and the history of the change with 

them, and invite and incorporate their fresh perspectives. 

 Maintain the momentum for change 

Key players and/or groups may stall changes through diversions or suggesting farfetched scenarios. If changes can be institutionalized quickly, with some details 

worked out later, the system change can maintain momentum. 

Using different leadership styles 

It is also important to recognize that different styles of leadership are required to achieve 

successful change. Goleman (2000) has identified six distinct leadership styles, each one 

- 40 - 
coming from different components of emotional intelligence. Each style has a distinct 

effect on the working atmosphere of an organization and its results. 

Coercive leaders demand immediate compliance. Authoritative leaders mobilize people 

toward a vision. Affiliative leaders create emotional bonds and harmony. Democratic 

leaders build consensus through participation. Pacesetting leaders expect excellence and 

self-direction. And coaching leaders develop people for the future. 

The research indicates that leaders who get the best results do not rely on just one 

leadership style; they use most of the styles regularly. Goleman details the types of 

business situations for which each style is best suited, and explains how leaders who lack 

one or more of these styles can expand their repertoires. He maintains that with practice 

leaders can draw upon all leadership styles to produce powerful results. 

3. The Importance of a Healthy Organization 

A healthy organization forms the foundation for an effective change process. One of the

first steps in the change process – and one that must be maintained throughout the 

process – is ensuring the health of the organization. 

Mark Carey (2002) defines the characteristics of communities that are ready for 

significant change and community building. The components he describes are the same 

characteristics that mark a healthy organization and are critical to the success of any 

change effort. Leadership must foster these characteristics within the organization at all 

times. 

 Trust among diverse groups 

 Shared meaning 

 Meaningful work for members of the organization 

 Respect 

 Commitment to the change process 

 Clear communication 

 Social cohesion 

 Leadership and continually emerging new leadership 

 Widespread participation 

 Simultaneous focus on the purpose, process, and product 

 Building organizational development skills 

 Appropriate decision making 

- 41 - 
In addition to these characteristics, all employees must be empowered participants in the 

change process, and everyone must understand the mission and vision of the 

organization, and make decisions that support the mission and vision. 

As is the case with individuals, organizations require regular checkups to diagnose any 

issues and develop a plan for recovery. The assessment process provides the opportunity 

to take an organization’s temperature and prescribe appropriate remedies. Hopefully, this 

avoids more serious issues later in the process. 

4. Aligning Business Practices 

Advancing the implementation of evidence-based principles in the supervision of 

offenders requires contemporaneous changes in the structure of human resource 

management systems, policies and procedures, and operational standards. 

Combining this fundamental organizational change with the philosophy and policy shift 

of evidence-based principles enhances the opportunity to more effectively institutionalize 

changes. Managing this type of transition involves relentless attention to detail to 

advance implementation and prevent individuals and entire systems from backsliding 

into the comfort zone of the old ways. 

Achieving and sustaining organizational change requires the realignment of 

organizational infrastructure. All systems and policies, particularly those pertaining to 

the workforce, must be consistent with and supportive of the new way of doing business. 

Changes in hiring, training, and performance measurement will, over time, produce a 

critical mass of employees well-versed in the tenets of a non-traditional mindset, which 

will signal the change from the old dispensation to the new. Policies for recruitment and 

hiring, training, job descriptions, performance measurement, promotional decisions, and 

reward systems must be aligned with evidence-based approaches, and this alignment 

must be circulated throughout the organization in written documents and practice. 

Aligning the organization’s human resource system and other infrastructure systems 

clarifies the commitment to organizational change and facilitates implementation of 

evidence-based principles. 

The subsequent transformation of organizational culture relies upon the alignment 

of tasks, mission, and goals, and a clear nexus throughout the organization’s 

practices (Baron and Kreps, 1999). Failure to create this alignment can have a 

detrimental impact on the implementation of new operational philosophies. 

This alignment must also be promulgated throughout the organization in written 

documents and practice, and county or state support must be garnered when needed. 

Alignment in policy and practice must occur in the following areas: 

- 42 - 
Recruitment and Hiring– Organizations must rethink and revise recruitment efforts, 

candidate screening processes, minimum criteria, and other standards. All new 

employees must be knowledgeable about the new vision and have appropriate 

competencies for a changed work environment. 

Training –The importance of investing in training at all staff and management levels 

cannot be overestimated. Failure to provide comprehensive training can undermine even 

the most well conceived implementation plan. Throughout the implementation process, 

internal and external stakeholders should be apprised of the principles of evidence-based 

practices. New employee academies, orientations, and ongoing training curricula must be 

restructured and infused with the philosophies of evidence-based practices. Training 

supports the notion that change is warranted and desirable. Training on evidence-based 

practices, their efficacy, philosophy, and work expectations must be part of any ongoing 

training curriculum. Learning should become a daily expectation. 

Job descriptions – Workers’ tasks, required competencies, and responsibilities should be 

clearly linked with evidence-based practices and the organizational mission and goals. 

Performance appraisals – Individual performance plans, appraisals, and reviews should 

be informed by outcome data and connected to the mission, job description, 

competencies, and training. The use of technology to create automatic feedback systems 

facilitates this process by providing staff and supervisors with accurate performance 

measurement data. 

Promotional decisions – The promotional system must be structured to value 

organizational goals and reward desired performance. Promotion should occur when 

behavior is consistent with organizational goals; individual goals are achieved; and when 

evidence-based practices are embraced. 

Reward systems – Rewards can be separate or linked with promotions and appraisal 

systems. Publicly recognize and celebrate behavior that is desirable and refrain from the 

reverse. 

This alignment of HR systems with evidence-based practices will ease implementation, 

minimize pitfalls, and create a climate that supports the new philosophy and changes in 

worker behavior. Failure to create this alignment can have a detrimental impact on the 

implementation of new operational philosophies. 

5. Managing Transitions 

Changing an organization is complicated business, and understanding how transition 

occurs is critical to effectively implementing change. Leaders must understand the 

emotional process of change and must be comfortable with working through the various 

stages, including the end of the old, the chaos of transition, and the new beginnings. 

Moving through these stages often does not occur in a linear progression, and different 

- 43 - 
individuals may be at different stages at any given time. Guiding an organization through 

this process takes patience and perseverance. 

In Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change, William Bridges (1991) offers an 

excellent analysis of organizational change and provides concrete suggestions for helping 

people and the organization cope with change. Bridges describes the opportunities and 

challenges inherent in the change process and describes three zones of transition: 

endings; the neutral zone; and the new beginning. He offers the following strategies for 

moving through each zone. 

Endings: This stage is characterized by loss: loss of comfort and security in operations; 

loss of practices; and possibly loss of history. Leaders can effectively manage this 

transitional state by addressing the following issues:

 Identify who is experiencing loss and what they are losing;

 Accept the reality and importance of subjective losses;

 Do not be surprised at overreaction;

 Acknowledge the losses openly and sympathetically;

 Expect and accept the signs of grieving;

 Compensate for the losses;

 Give people information, and do it again and again;

 Define what is over and what is not over;

 Mark the endings; and

 Treat the past with respect; acknowledge the contribution of past efforts, and let 

people take a piece of the old way with them. 

The Neutral Zone: This stage follows the ending stage prior to the new beginning stage. 

It is in this stage when workers can slip back to the old ways or veer off the path of 

change. Relentless attention to details and ongoing feedback of data to management and 

those closest to the work can help prevent this tendency. Leaders can creatively manage 

the neutral zone by strengthening group connections, redefining the zone as a creative 

period, and focusing on the following issues: 

 “Normalize” the neutral zone; 

 Redefine the neutral zone;

 Create temporary systems for the neutral zone;

 Strengthen intra-group connections;

 Implement a transition monitoring team; and

 Support creativity in the neutral zone. 

New Beginnings: Finally, re-visiting the purpose, providing a clear vision of the

outcome, and making sure all players have a role consistent with the vision can ease the 

- 44 - 
transition to the new beginning. During this period of new beginning, leaders must focus 

on the following: 

 Clarify and communicate the purpose; 

 Provide a picture of the outcome; 

 Create a transition plan with specifics (a transition plan is different from a change 

plan – the transition plan focuses on the process of change, rather than the change 

itself); 

 Give people a part to play; 

 Reinforce the new beginning; and 

 Be consistent, ensure quick successes, symbolize the new identity, and celebrate 

success. 

6. Program Fidelity 

Successful organizational change also depends on effectively implementing evidencebased programs and working models to reduce the likelihood of implementation failure. 

It is critical to ensure that every effort is made to provide for program fidelity as research 

shows that only then will positive results be delivered. In fact studies have found that 

there is a relatively strong correlation between program integrity, i.e., quality 

implementation of program design, and reductions in recidivism (Lowenkamp at al, 

2006; Landenberger and Lipsey, 2005). 

Achieving quality implementation of program design depends upon achieving a 

successful organizational transition as well as implementing reforms in accordance with 

their design and principles. It is not just a case of ‘cherry picking’ an empirically tested 

method. There needs to be an organization-wide approach to reform that is evidence 

driven. Programs are more likely to fail if they are delivered within organizational 

cultures that fail to embody the principles of evidence-based change and effective 

correctional interventions (Gendreau, 1996). 

Furthermore, given that program integrity clearly matters, it is important that leaders 

ensure it is monitored and measured and informs further development and 

implementation. Assessing program integrity can facilitate change in the management 

and delivery of correctional programs. Assessment data can be used to identify areas of 

success and areas of improvement so that service delivery can be enhanced. Continuous 

quality improvement is a key element of becoming an evidence-based organization. 

- 45 - 
- 46 - 

Further Reading 

Beckland, R. & Pritchard, W. (1992). Changing the Essence, The Art of Creating and 

Leading Fundamental Change in Organizations. Jossey-Bass. 

Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders, The Strategies For Taking Charge. Harper and 

Row. 

Blake, R.R., Srygley Mouton, J. & Adams McCanse, A. (1989). Change by Design. 

Addison Wesley. 

Block, P. (1981). Flawless Consulting. University Associates. 

Block, P. (1988). The Empowered Manager. Jossey-Bass. 

Covey, S. R. (1990). Principle-Centered Leadership. Summit Books. 

Fuller, J. (2001). Organizational Change from a Leadership Perspective. Oregon: 

Multnomah County Department of Community Justice. 

Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M. &Somerville I. Editors. (1999). Leading Beyond the 

Walls. Drucker Foundation. 

Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary Leadership. Jossey-Bass. 

Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing Government. Addison Wesley. 

Rees, F. (1991). How to Lead Work Teams, Facilitation Skills. Pfeiffer and Co. 

Wheatley, M. J. & Kellner-Rogers, M. (1996). A Simpler Way. Berrett-Koehler. 
CHAPTER 6: COLLABORATION FOR SYSTEMIC 

CHANGE 

Collaboration can be defined as coming together to work toward a common vision. The 

collaborative process is intended to move participants away from the traditional 

definition of power as control or domination, and toward a definition that allows for 

shared authority. This results in greater achievements than would be attained by one 

organization working alone. Since no public safety agency operates in a vacuum, 

engaging system stakeholders in change efforts helps to eliminate barriers, increase 

opportunities for success, enrich the change process, educate stakeholders about the 

organization’s work, and create a shared vision that supports the systemic change efforts. 

Public safety system stakeholders include a wide range of entities, from prisons and law

enforcement agencies to victim advocates and faith-based community organizations. 

Working collaboratively with all stakeholders in the planning and implementation of 

systemic change can result in a more coherent continuum of care; one that uses evidencebased principles to reduce recidivism. By collaborating with each other, governmental 

agencies and community-based providers can jointly provide a comprehensive and 

integrated array of services that could not be provided by a single organization. Access to 

a well-organized network of services and pro-social community connections can greatly 

enhance an offender’s ability to succeed. Collaboration, in this context, is a constructive 

and useful tool of social action and recidivism reduction. 

Collaboration is a mutually beneficial and well-defined relationship entered into 

by two or more organizations to achieve common goals. The relationship includes 

a commitment to: a definition of mutual relationships and goals; a jointly 

developed structure and shared responsibility; mutual authority and 

accountability for success; and the sharing of resources and rewards. (Griffith, 

2000)

Collaboration and system change are very time consuming and resource intensive 

processes. They require constant attention and nurturing to maintain momentum. 

Acknowledging the inevitability of obstacles, admitting them when they reappear, 

developing collective strategies to overcome them, and having a sense of humor 

are all important in surviving the process. (Feely, 2000) 

Collaborative endeavors must develop a balance between broad participation and the 

need to make decisions and take action. 

The collaborative process has to be perceived as fair, not dominated by one 

interest group, and accessible to all stakeholders (Carter et al, 2005). 

Any process should ensure that the number of participants is small enough to allow for 

productivity, but broad enough to generate diverse ideas and yield widespread support. 

- 47 - 
Mutual respect and understanding is key to sustaining shared authority in collaborative 

relationships. Borrowing from a concept developed by Michael Hammer in Beyond

Reengineering, all partners are seen as Centers of Excellence, defined as a collective of 

professionals, led by a coach, who join together to learn and enhance their skills and 

abilities to contribute best to whatever processes are being developed. Each agency is an 

expert at performing its piece of the work of public safety (Carter et al, 2005). 

Working collaboratively with system partners provides a greater opportunity for 

successful implementation of true organizational change. Recognizing the inherent 

interdependence of justice organizations, and including it in the development of change 

implementation strategies, greatly enhances the chance of success. 

1. Who Should be Included? 

For collaboration to work, all relevant stakeholders must have a voice at the table. Since 

the actual number of participants must be somewhat limited to ensure efficiency, formal 

communication methods must be established to ensure that those unable to be at the table 

still have a mechanism to express their views. 

Leaders must assist stakeholders in understanding and appreciating the value of 

participation in the change. Involving external stakeholders not only increases their 

understanding of the system, but can also help to identify overlapping client populations 

and shared goals. For example, as community corrections agencies implement evidencebased principles, they will shift their resource focus to higher-risk offenders. This shift in 

focus often results in decreased access to treatment resources for low-risk/high-need 

offenders. Involving human services agencies in the change planning process can help 

identify alternative treatment resources for these offenders. 

The development of a policylevel committee is an essential 

component of implementing 

change in the public safety 

system. Members of the policy 

committee should include 

policy makers from key 

stakeholder organizations and 

community groups, including 

those supportive of the change 

and those who may pose 

potential barriers to 

implementation. Involving 

those who may not be entirely 

supportive of all planned 

changes ensures richer policy development, educates those policy makers more fully 

Questions to Ask 

 What partnerships currently exist in your system? 

 Where do new partnerships need to be forged? 

 How does participation in the change process assist 

partners in accomplishing their mission and vision? 

 Are key stakeholders / centers of expertise involved 

within each locus of collaborative work? 

 Do participants at all levels understand and buy in 

to the vision? 

 Do participants understand how collaboration 

works? 

- 48 - 
about the system, and may potentially alleviate future barriers. This policy committee 

should be charged with guiding system-wide policy initiatives, implementing 

corresponding policy and practice changes in their own organizations, and 

communicating with their own organizations and the public about the impact of system 

changes. 

2. The Need for Structure 

Every collaboration needs some structure, but the degree of structure varies for each 

collaboration. Collaboration participants should choose a structure that supports their 

endeavors and fits their desired level of joint activity and risk. 

Methods of developing structure, such as 

charters, memoranda of understanding, and 

partnering agreements fulfill multiple 

purposes. For example, they help to clarify 

the authority and expectations of the group, 

define the roles/functions of all participants, 

focus parties on their responsibilities, and 

eliminate miscommunication and 

backtracking when employee changes occur. 

These tools should clarify decision-making 

responsibility and emphasize the concept that 

no single organization or individual is in 

charge in the familiar sense. Instead, 

professionals from each center of expertise

are empowered to do what they do best to the 

enhancement of the collective goal. 

Questions to Ask: 

 What are we doing? Why are we 

doing it? 

 How are we going to get it done? 

Who is going to do what? 

 What are the communication 

pathways within our collaboration? 

 Who has authority to make specific 

decisions? 

 How do we consciously develop 

mutual respect within our 

collaboration?

Chartering 

Chartering is a technique used to guide the efforts of workgroups, providing structure and 

specifying outcomes, clarifying decision-making authority, and ensuring organizational 

and leadership support for the work of the group. The technique should be used for 

defining the work of all teams, especially those faced with long-term projects. Upon 

convening a workgroup, a charter document is written and approved by leadership. The 

charter document provides a road map for any work group, clearly identifying goals and 

guiding efforts to achieve those goals. Chartering is a helpful tool for both internal 

workgroups and system collaborations. 

Steps to developing a charter are as follows:

Background 

 Outline the problems and issues behind the organizational change effort. 

 Express the commitment of management to the change effort. 

 Clearly outline and communicate the purpose of the group. 

- 49 - 
Task 

 Describe the importance of the group’s work in relation to the organizational change 

effort. 

 Describe, in detail, the tasks the work group is directed to complete. 

Guidelines 

 Describe guidelines for how the group will complete its work; and clearly indicate 

any internal and/or external boundaries that restrict the group’s work. 

 Use ground rules to describe how the group will operate in terms of decision-making 

and group process. The following is a list of ground rule examples: 

o Decisions will be reached by consensus. 

o One person speaks at a time. 

o All group members are equal for the purposes of the chartered work and 

related group activities. 

o Confidentiality must be respected in the group, i.e., what is stated in the group 

remains in the group. 

o Share all relevant information. 

o Open disagreement is permissible and safe. 

 Guidelines should also outline how the group will interact with the rest of the 

organization: 

o What information should be shared with leadership and who will bring that 

information to them? 

o To what degree will the group engage stakeholders external to the 

organization?

o How will the group celebrate its progress? Celebrate those small steps! 

Chartered Work Group Membership 

Work group membership, while as inclusive as possible, should be limited to a workable 

number. For most purposes, groups should not exceed eight to twelve members. A 

specific listing of the group membership should be included in the chartering document. 

Group member roles should be clearly identified, including how the roles of facilitator 

and recorder will be managed. These roles may be assigned to one particular member or 

rotated among members. 

Resources 

The charter should identify other individuals or groups that may act as resources to the 

group, such as an external consultant, clerical support or other workgroups. The group’s 

sponsor (management/leadership) should be clearly identified. This individual will act as 

a liaison for the group with organizational leadership and ideally will have the authority 

to allocate organizational resources that may be needed. 

Due Dates 

The charter should identify a timeline for the group’s work and interim status reports. 

The reporting format and audience should be clearly identified. 

- 50 - 
3. The Essential Ingredients 

Once a collaborative group has been chartered 

and is ready to begin its work, it must consider

the principles and tactics that will encourage 

success. There are a number of elements 

essential to creating and maintaining a successful 

collaboration. Those that follow are adapted from 

The Wilder Foundation and incorporate views 

from Feely (2000), Carter et al (2005) and 

Griffith (2000). 

The Essential 

Ingredients 

1. Common Vision 

2. Purpose 

3. Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities 

4. Healthy Communication Pathways 

5. Membership 

6. Respect and Integrity 

7. Accountability 

8. Data-Driven Process 

9. Effective Problem Solving 

10. Resources 

11. Environment 

1. Common Vision 

 Define a problem to be solved or task to be 

accomplished that will result in a mutually 

beneficial outcome. 

 Seek agreement regarding a shared vision to develop system-wide commitment. 

 Develop strategies for achieving the vision. 

 Ensure a safe environment for vocalizing differences. 

 Find a common ground and keep everyone engaged and at the table. 

2. Purpose 

 Develop a unique purpose and clarify the need for change. 

 Build concrete, attainable goals and objectives. 

 Seek agreement between partners regarding strategies. 

 Create incentives for collaboration and change. 

3. Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities 

 Value the unique strengths that each partner brings to the collaboration. 

 Clarify who does what, and create a sense of accountability. 

 Take time to develop principles defining how participants will work together and 

revisit them often. 

 Focus on strengths. 

 Listen to, acknowledge, and validate all ideas. Be inclusive. 

4. Healthy Communication Pathways 

 Ensure open and frequent communication. 

 Establish formal and informal communication links to strengthen team bonds and 

direct the process. 

5. Membership 

 Develop an atmosphere of mutual respect, understanding, and trust that is shared 

between participants. 

 Help participants to see that collaboration is in their self-interest. 

 Develop multiple layers of decision-making or consensus-based decision-making to 

create ownership of the project and maintain communication. 

- 51 - 
 Ensure that members share a stake in both the process and outcomes, have the ability 

to make compromises, and the authority to make decisions. 

6. Respect and Integrity 

 Ensure that respect and integrity are integral to the collaborative relationship. 

 View all partners as representatives of organizations and as Centers of Expertise. 

 Ensure that all partners offer each other procedural respect and role respect.

 Overcome feelings of skepticism and mistrust. If not, they will undermine 

achievements of the collaboration. 

7. Accountability

 In order to clarify mutual expectations, partners must explicitly understand the 

following: their accountability to each other, to the collaboration as a whole, and to 

his or her parent organization. 

 In order to create mutually agreed-upon expectations of accountability, each 

collaborative partner must understand the others’ accountability landscape (i.e., their 

organization’s history, successes, and challenges). 

 Once a common understanding is achieved, the modes of attaining accountability can 

be developed among the partners. 

8. Data-Driven Process 

 Focus on data. 

o The centerpiece of reform implementation is a data-driven, outcome 

oriented, strategic planning process and a cross-agency coordinated plan 

(Feely, 2002).

 Maintain a process that is flexible and adaptable to obstacles or barriers. 

 Develop clear roles and policy guidelines, and utilize process improvement strategies. 

 Identify and collect outcome data. 

o Identifying clear, measurable outcomes and charting progress toward 

their attainment is the most concrete and visible basis for accountability in 

complex change strategies (Feely, 2002).

 Utilize data to review and refine processes and outcomes. 

 Evaluate the process; self-assessment and data are essential tools for effective 

collaboration. The strength of the collaboration will grow as access and capacity to 

use data to inform policy and program decisions increases. 

9. Effective Problem Solving 

 Identify problems in a safe way before they become crises. 

 Offer collaboration participants an agreed-upon process to resolve problems 

effectively and efficiently. 

 Continually assess team effectiveness and take steps to strengthen their work together 

(Carter et al, 2005). 

 Build upon small wins. Celebrate and formalize changes quickly. 

10. Resources 

 Provide sufficient funds and staffing necessary to maintain momentum. 

- 52 - 
 Use skilled convener(s), as they can help to keep leadership and working groups on 

task and organized. 

11. Environment 

 Develop a reputation for collaborating with the community. 

 Be seen as a leader in collaborative work within the community. 

 Develop trust, as it is a critical element in a collaborative climate. 

 Develop a favorable political/social climate – a political climate that supports 

collaboration is one that recognizes what collaboration is, values it as a process for 

social action, and supports collaborative efforts. 

What are the Signs of Success? 

Once a collaboration process has begun, collaboration participants should ask themselves 

the following questions to determine their progress (Griffith, 2000). 

 Reliability – Does the collaboration consistently produce the desired substantive 

outcome (the work it intended to accomplish)? 

 Adaptability – Is the collaboration adaptive to changes in its environment, in the 

collaboration itself, and in the problem domain? Change is inevitable, and a 

successful collaboration will be on the lookout for change and respond to it 

appropriately. 

 Legitimacy – Do the collaboration members view each other as legitimate players in 

the problem domain? Do they view the collaboration as a legitimate player in the 

larger problem domain? How is the collaboration viewed by those not involved? 

 Efficiency – Is the work of the collaborative performed in an efficient and costeffective way? Is there sufficient structure to allow the members to communicate and 

accomplish necessary joint problem solving? 

 Accountability – Is the collaboration accountable to the “right” people in the “right” 

ways? 

 Sustainability – Is the collaborative work sustainable in the long term? Has the 

collaboration identified any of its vulnerabilities and/or adapted for them? Is its 

robustness tied to particular funding streams, people or organizations? 

4. Consensus Decision-Making 

Collaborations must determine how they make decisions that are inclusive of all 

participants and lead to effective outcomes. 

Decision-making by consensus allows all group members a voice and opinion. This 

discussion allows for compromise to reach consensus. Consensus occurs when all group 

members can honestly say: I am willing to support and implement the chosen direction. 

Although the ultimate decision may not be what all group members had personally hoped 

for, given their knowledge on the subject, the range of opinions in the group, and the time 

available to work the issues and personalities involved, the decision is one that they can

accept and implement. 

- 53 - 
Consensus decision-making involves a cooperative effort to find a sound solution 

acceptable to everyone rather than a competitive struggle in which an unacceptable 

solution is forced on the losers. With consensus as a pattern of decision-making and 

interaction, group members should not fear being outsmarted or outmaneuvered. They 

can be frank, candid, and authentic in their interaction at all steps in the decision-making 

process. 

Achieving real consensus requires skill in straight communication and working through 

differences. The following communication guidelines assist groups to reach consensus: 

 Each individual must take responsibility for what each wants and does not want, and 

what each is willing to support. 

 Each individual must make their position known. 

 Participants can make liberal use of the sentence structure: “I want/do not want x 

from y and I think/feel x.” 

 Do not hide behind questions. Make proposals instead. 

 Avoid “shoulds.” 

 Respond to others. Do not leave them hanging. 

 Talk to, not about, a person. 

 Listen for feelings and try feeding them back. 

 Check out assumptions, do not attempt to mind read or attribute motives to others. 

 Do not smooth over problems; address them. 

 Each individual must take control of their own feelings. 

 Offer solutions. 

Though consensus represents the ideal, it is not feasible to put every decision to a group, 

nor is it always possible to have every relevant stakeholder at the table. One the primary 

responsibilities of a collaborative’s leadership is to determine which decisions should go 

to the group and which decision making structure is most desirable. For decisions 

affecting many stakeholders, consensus is often the answer, especially when time allows 

for the group to work through a consensus process. However, when emergency action is 

required, or when one or two stakeholders are determined to impede the process, a more 

directive style may be required. 

Successful collaboration requires a thoughtful, sustained effort among partner 

organizations and/or internal stakeholders. Maintaining a productive collaboration that 

supports a shared vision is often challenging, but it yields great benefit when member 

organizations are collectively engaged in the change process and engaging in activities 

that are mutually reinforcing. 

- 54 - 
- 55 - 

Further Reading 

Sachwald, J and; Eley, E. (2008). The C-crets of Collaboration. Corrections Today, 

April 2007.

Valentine, K. (2001). How to Make Partnerships Work: Suggestions from the Field. 

National Institute of Corrections: Topics in Community Corrections.

Woodward, W. (2001). Collaboration: What It Takes. National Institute of Corrections: 

Topics in Community Corrections. 

Collaborative Justice Website. http://www.collaborativejustice.org/corrections/main.htm
 
CONCLUSION 

To improve supervision effectiveness and enhance the safety of our communities, 

agencies must adopt evidence-based principles in service delivery and commit resources 

to organizational development and collaboration. Organizational budgets can no longer 

support programs and practices that are not proven effective in reducing new crime. 

This report provides a guide for agencies to transform themselves into evidence-based 

organizations. By providing an integrated model it maps out the essential ingredients for 

a successful transition. It is vital that each ingredient is given equal weight and 

importance. Simply implementing one without the others is not sufficient to achieve 

positive results. 

The scale of the task should not be underestimated. It is not about implementing a few 

evidence-based programs or taking greater interest in the research literature. It requires a 

wide-ranging reform initiative. A fundamental change in direction is necessary, supported 

by visionary leadership that has the ability to deliver lasting structural and cultural 

reform. 

There are great benefits to be reaped from implementing the integrated model. It has the 

potential to significantly impact public safety by substantially reducing re-offending and 

preventing new victimization. It also can result in a more efficient use of resources by 

investing limited funds wisely in interventions and practices that bring the greatest 

returns. In the long term, correctional agencies, and ultimately taxpayers, will get the 

most “bang for their buck.” What’s more, by ensuring that agencies become learning 

organizations, employees will be in a position to continually benefit from implementing 

the latest research findings on what works in reducing recidivism. 

The introduction of evidence-based policies and practices will not solve all future 

problems, but it does provide solutions to many of the current challenges facing states 

that continue to see offender populations rise while budgets shrink. The stakes for not 

practicing what the evidence tells us are too high for the criminal justice system to simply 

continue on its current path without radically rethinking its approach. 

- 57 - 
 
Appendix A 

- 59 - 

RESE ARCH SUPPO RT G RADIENT

INCONC LUSIVE

(IRO N)

P rom is in g W h a t W o rk s

(BRO NZ E)

Wh at W orks

(S ILV E R)

Wh at W orks

(G O LD )

C ONCLU SIVE 

D OESN’T W ORK (DIRT)

APPENDIX A: RESEARCH SUPPORT GRADIENT 

Evidence-based practice is not simply the replication of a static group of practice. It is the 

ongoing critical review of the latest research and determination as to whether policy and practice 

needs to be updated based on new information. However, not all research is created equal, and 

each new study does not necessarily represent an improvement on past research. When 

evaluating practices for their basis in research, the level of rigor of the research design must be 

considered in addition to the reported efficacy of the intervention. The more rigorous the 

research design, i.e., the closer to a “gold standard” of research, the more likely the results will 

be replicable. 

Figure 6 

GOLD 

 Experimental/control research design with controls for attrition 

 Significant sustained reductions in recidivism obtained 

 Multiple site replications 

 Preponderance of all evidence supports effectiveness 

SILVER 

 Quasi-experimental control research with appropriate statistical controls for comparison 

group 

 Significant sustained reductions in recidivism obtained 

 Multiple site replications 

 Preponderance of all evidence supports effectiveness 

BRONZE 

 Matched comparison group without complete statistical controls 
Appendix A 

- 60 - 

 Significant sustained reductions in recidivism obtained 

 Multiple site replications 

 Preponderance of all evidence supports effectiveness 

IRON 

 Conflicting findings and/or inadequate research designs 

DIRT 

 Silver and Gold research showing negative outcomes 

 Conclusively doesn’t work 

DIRT 

The five criteria listed above are similar to what has already been employed in a number of 

nationally recognized projects such as the Blueprints for Violence Prevention (Mihalic et al, 

2001) and the National Institute of Justice's independent review of crime prevention programs 

(Sherman et al, 1998). 

The highest quality research support depicted in this schema (gold level) reflects interventions 

and practices that have been evaluated with experimental/control design and with multiple site 

replications that concluded significant sustained reductions in recidivism were associated with 

the intervention. The criteria for the next levels of support progressively decrease in terms of 

research rigor requirements (silver and bronze) but all the top three levels require that a 

preponderance of all evidence supports effectiveness. The next rung lower in support (iron) is 

reserved for programs that have inconclusive support regarding their efficacy or suspect 

evaluation methodology. Finally, the lowest level designation (dirt) is reserved for those 

programs that have been evaluated (utilizing methods and criteria associated with gold and silver 

levels) but the findings were negative and the programs were determined not effective. 
Appendix B 

APPENDIX B: THE SEARCH CONFERENCE 

Organizational change in public safety organizations requires a complex systemic 

transformation. No organization operates in isolation; therefore, the inclusion of system 

stakeholders is critical to the success of any such change effort. The organizational change 

process model in Figure 7 assumes that all stakeholders have a voice in the change process. It is 

based heavily on the Future Search model of Marvin Weisbord and Sandra Janoff (Weisbord, 

1987; Weisbord and Janoff, 1995) and is based on the notion that assessment, intervention, and 

monitoring/ measurement are all required as separate logical stages. The model uses a large 

group planning meeting that brings together all stakeholders to work on a task-focused agenda. 

This is just one of many potential planning methods, but is provides a roadmap for assessing a 

system’s needs and developing a strategic plan to address them. The description below refers to 

organizational stakeholders, but the process is also relevant to system-level planning. 

In a future search, people have a chance to take ownership of their past, present, and future, 

confirm their mutual values, and commit to action plans grounded in reality. Organizations 

implementing significant systemic change will benefit from considering each of the phases set 

out in the model (see Figure 7) and by asking themselves a series of related questions prior to 

and throughout the implementation process. 

 Recognize History 

Organizational members must reflect on where 

they come from as an organization, where they 

have been, and what they have experienced 

during that journey. This reflection enables 

organizations to clarify and articulate a 

collective narrative and shared vision of history. 

This shared history can then become a 

launching pad for change rather than a 

warehouse for an incoherent array of artifacts 

and anecdotes. 

Questions to Ask: 

 How did we, as an organization, arrive 

at our current structure, technologies, 

and culture? 

 What do we value? 

 How do we operate? 

 Assess Current Condition

Assessment and documentation of the present condition assists the organizational members 

in determining where they are at the current 

time and what gaps remain. Participants must 

assess the degree to which the organization’s 

beliefs, operational systems, technologies, 

policies, and practices are consistent with, and 

supportive of, evidence-based practices. 

Participants must pay attention to the 

organizational culture, as well as the quality 

and types of existing collaborations and 

partnerships with internal and external 

stakeholders. 

Questions to Ask:

 What is our organization’s level of 

change readiness? 

 How well are evidence-based practices 

understood and implemented in our 

system? 

 Who are our partners? How well are we 

working with them? 

- 61 - 
Appendix B 

 Describe the Desired Future: 

In expressing a vision for the future, the organizational members describe their ideal picture 

of the changed organization. The participants, along with leadership, articulate a vision for 

organizational change at all levels. By creating a vision of a learning organization, members 

become committed to the journey of change that provides value to employees, clients, and 

stakeholders. 

 Develop Strategies to Achieve the Desired Future: 

Build collaborations of mutual interest. Correctional organizations relate to and are 

dependent on many partners throughout the public, private, and community-based sectors 

who share a commitment to achieving the outcomes of reduced recidivism and increased 

public safety (see Chapter Six for more on Collaboration). 

Plan for effective action to reach the desired future. Develop a detailed, concrete plan of 

action that is time phased, measurable, politically and culturally competent, and includes 

effective, sustainable accountability and feedback loops. Clearly define the multiple roles of 

participants. 

Questions to Ask: 

 With whom does the organization partner and collaborate? 

 How do partnerships and collaborations help members successfully achieve their goals and 

further their unique corporate mission? 

 What are the strengths of our collaborations? What needs improvement? 

Questions to Ask: 

 What steps does the organization need to attain its goals? 

 What are the specific activities needed to ensure an equal focus on evidence-based practices, 

organizational development and capacity building, and collaborative relationships? 

Questions to Ask: 

 What do we want our organizational future to look like? 

 What is our organizational vision and mission? 

 At what level do we envision the implementation of evidence-based practices? 

 What type of organizational structure is needed to best support evidence-based practices? 

 What collaborative relationships need to be developed to strengthen implementation? 

- 62 - 
Appendix B 

 Implement, Monitor, and Provide Feedback: 

Carry out the implementation: Planning without action often leads to desperation and 

hopelessness for employees and stakeholders. Successful implementation results from a 

broad and deep commitment throughout the organization, relentless attention to the vision, 

support for the change process, removal of barriers, and careful monitoring and adjustment of 

the change process. 

Feedback: Gathering, sharing, assessing, and constructing a valid and share interpretation of

the information. Successful implementation results from the availability and management of 

information that is meaningful, timely, and accurately represents the progress made on the 

change plan within the unique cultural and political context of the participating site. 

Questions to Ask:

 How will we gather data? 

 What types of feedback are needed by which groups? 

 How will we monitor progress and make adjustments when necessary? 

The results of this process can provide the foundation of a strategic plan and/or workplan for the 

implementation of evidence-based practices. This plan may stand alone or as a component of a 

larger strategic plan for an organization, or it can be incorporated into the plan for all 

organizations in a collaborative. 

- 63 - 
Appendix B 

Figure 7: Future Search Model 

- 64 - 
Appendix C 

APPENDIX C: KEY CONCEPTS IN ORGANIZATIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT 

The organizational development component of this report (Chapter 5) relies heavily on Peter 

Senge’s The Fifth Discipline (1990) and Mark Moore’s Creating Public Value (1995). Senge’s 

and Moore’s models provide a framework upon which organizations can begin their internal 

work to transition to evidence-based organizations. While this represents a very small segment 

of relevant organizational literature in business and the social sciences, these two frameworks 

provide a useful starting point. 

The Fifth Discipline: Peter Senge

In Senge’s The Fifth Discipline, he introduces the concept of a Learning Organization – an 

organization that is continually aware of and working to implement effective change, develop 

corresponding organizational capacity, and develop collaborative relationships with partners. 

When applied to the arena of community corrections, the learning organization strives for 

alignment and parallel development in all three areas to better achieve the outcome of reduced 

recidivism. The alignment or intersection of these three components is the creative zone where it 

is most possible to reduce the recidivism of offenders and minimize the number of new or repeat 

victims in our communities. 

Senge highlights five disciplines as the keys to achieving the capacity of a learning organization, 

emphasizing the fifth discipline, systems thinking, as the most important: 

1. Personal Mastery: Continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision, 

focusing our energies, developing patience, and seeing reality objectively;

2. Mental Models: Understanding the deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or 

mental images that influence how individuals and groups understand the world and 

take action (manage offenders); 

3. Building a Shared Vision: Collaborative creation of organizational goals, identity, 

visions, and actions shared by members; 

4. Team Learning: Creation of opportunities for individuals to work and learn together 

(collaboratively) in a community where it is safe to innovate, learn, and try anew; and 

5. Systems Thinking: View of the system as a whole (integrated) conceptual framework 

providing connections between units and members; the shared process of reflection, 

reevaluation, action, and reward. 

A Learning Organization is continually aware of and working to implement evidencebased principles, develop corresponding organizational capacity, and develop collaborative 

relationships with public safety and community partners.

- 65 - 
Appendix C 

Creating Public Value: Mark Moore

Also emphasizing the importance of systems thinking, Mark Moore focuses on the leader’s

ability to identify, create, and show value internally and externally. A key assumption for any 

service provided by the public sector is that the service or product provides value for the variety 

of constituents. Just as in the private sector, where the goal is to provide value to the 

shareholder, the public sector attempts to provide value to its stakeholders. The concept of 

providing value should drive decision-making in the public sector. 

The question that then arises is what do citizens want or value of the services corrections has to 

offer? Citizens often see the value of corrections systems as limited, confined to those convicted 

of a crime. Many citizens are not familiar with the complexity of corrections systems or the 

various options available for supervision. While it is clear that some offenders must be 

incarcerated based on the seriousness of the crime, in the interest of public safety, and as a 

consequence for their behavior, research indicates that most offenders can be more effectively 

and efficiently managed in the community. Clearly citizens want recidivism reduction, but they 

often do not understand how best to achieve this goal. 

What would it take for citizens to see community-based corrections as the preferred option for 

the rehabilitation of many offenders? To be taken seriously, the field must measure results in a 

way that helps citizens to understand the value of the service. Community-based corrections 

agencies must operate as learning organizations, constantly measuring themselves and their 

ability to enhance public safety and reduce recidivism. They must measure how well they are 

assessing and delivering what works, how productive the organization is, and how well it is 

collaborating with stakeholders. 

In his book, Creating Public Value, Mark Moore’s Strategic Management Triangle (Figure 8) 

provides a simple yet powerful framework that helps leaders ensure that their organizations are 

creating public value. Public sector leaders must focus on defining public value, building 

support for the organization and its services as they align with that value, and ensuring the 

necessary organizational capacity exists to achieve that value. 

- 66 - 
Appendix C 

Figure 8 

Moore argues that the first job of any public sector leader is to define the value of the services 

provided to key stakeholders. Unless authorizing bodies, i.e., legislative and judicial bodies, 

funding entities, and citizens, see the value in the services provided, they will not support the 

organization’s efforts to acquire the resources and/or the legislative or executive mandates 

necessary to deliver the services. This means it is important to define for authorizing bodies why 

a service should be provided and funded. Collaboration and partnership building with 

stakeholders ensure that those entities understand and support the organization’s vision and 

incremental efforts. 

Secondly, the organization must produce the services in a way that builds political and legal 

support for the service. The service must be evaluated to ensure that it meets the interests and 

concerns of the citizens and their representatives. The strategic manager is adept at developing 

an organizational strategy that addresses the often conflicting concerns of many stakeholders. 

The leader must build political support for the service. 

Finally, the strategy must be one that is administratively and operationally feasible. The 

organization must be capable of executing the strategy. For example, if a leader proposes a new 

service, but fails to either reduce existing workload or provide new resources, employees are 

unlikely to be able to deliver that service well. The organization must be capable of delivering 

all of its services in the most effective and efficient way. 

- 67 - 
Appendix C 

- 68 - 

The Strategic Management Triangle framework reminds practitioners that to achieve the goal of 

reduced recidivism requires not only the implementation of evidence-based practices, but also 

the ability to develop the requisite organizational capacity, to build and maintain collaborative 

relationships with stakeholders, and to demonstrate the value of evidence-based practices to 

those stakeholders. 
REFERENCES 

Agostinelli, G., Brown, J.M. and Miller, W.R.. (1995) Effects of normative feedback on Consumption among heavy 

drinking college students. Journal of Drug Education 25: 31-40. 

Allen, L.C., MacKenzie, D.L., & Hickman, L.J. (2001). The effectiveness of cognitive behavioral treatment for adult 

offenders: A methodological, quality-based review. International Journal of Offender and Comparative 

Criminology, 45, 498-514. 

Alvero, A.M., Bucklin, B.R. & Austin, J. (2001) An objective review of the effectiveness and essential 

characteristics of performance feedback in organizational settings. Journal of Organizational Behavior 

Management 21(1): 3-29. 

AMA. (1992) Users' Guides to Evidence-based Medicine. Nov 4; 268(17):2420-5. Copyright 1992, American 

Medical Association. or http://www.cche.net/usersguides/ebm.asp. 

Andrews, D.A. (1989). “Personality and Crime: Knowledge Destruction and Construction in Criminology." Justice 

Quarterly 6:291-309. 

Andrews, D.A, J. Bonta, and R. Hoge. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. 

Criminal Justice and Behavior 17:19-52. 

Andrews, D.A. and Bonta, J. (2006) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct.(4th edition) Cincinnati: Anderson. 

Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (2001). LSI-R user’s manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems, Inc. 

Andrews, D.A, & Dowden, C. (2006). Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment: A metaanalytic investigation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 88-

100. 

Andrews, D.A., & Kiessling, J.J. (1980). Program structure and effective correctional practices: A summary of the 

CaVIC research. In R.R. Ross and P. Gendreau (eds.) Effective Correctional Treatment. Toronto, 

Butterworth. 

Aos, S. (1998) Watching the bottom line: Cost-effective interventions for reducing crime in Washington. 

Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Olympia, WA. 

Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidenced-based adult corrections programs: What works and what does 

not. Washington State Institute for Public Policy Bulletin, January, 1-20. 

Azrin, N. H., Sisson, R. W., Meyers, R. & Godley, M. (1982). Alcoholism treatment by disulfiram and community 

reinforcement therapy. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Psychiatry 13(2): 105-112. 

Baer, J.S., Marlatt, A.G., Kivlanhan, D.R., Fromme, K., Larimer, M.E. & Williams, E. (1992) An experimental test 

of three methods of alcohol risk reduction with young adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 

Psychology 60(6): 974-979. 

Baer, J.S., D.R. Kivlahan, and D.M. Donovan. (1999). Integrating Skills Training and Motivational Therapies: 

Implications for the Treatment of Substance Dependence. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 17:15-23. 

Baron, J., and Kreps, D. (1999). Strategic Human Resources: Frameworks for General Managers. New York: John 

Wiley & Sons. 

Bernstein, G.A., Farrington, D.P., & Leschied, A.W. (2001). Offender rehabilitation in practice: Implementing and 

evaluating effective programs. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 

Bigelow, G., E. & Silverman, K. (1999). “Theoretical and empirical foundations of contingency management 

treatments for drug abuse.” Pp. 15-31 in Motivating Behavior Change Among Illicit-Drug Abusers, edited 

by Stephen T. Higgins & Kenneth Silverman. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 

Birgden, A. (2004). Therapeutic jurisprudence and responsivity: Finding the will and the way in offender 

rehabilitation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 283-295. 

Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and treatment. In A. Harland’s (ed.) Choosing Correctional Options that 

Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage. 

Bonta, James A., Tanya Rugge, Terry Scott, Guy Bourgon, and Annie Yessine (2008). Exploring the black box of 

community supervision, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation Vol. 47(3), 248–270. 

Bogue, B. (2002). An evolutionary model for examining community corrections. Report to CT Judicial Branch 

Court Support Services Division, November, 2002. 

Bourgon, G. and Armstrong, B. (2005) Transferring the Principles of Effective Treatment into a "Real World" 

Prison Setting Criminal Justice and Behavior 32; 3: 3-25 

Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. New York: Press Syndicate of the University of 

Cambridge. 

Bridges, W. (1991). Managing Transitions, Making the Most of Change. Cambridge, M.A.: Perseus Books. 

- 69 - 
Burnett, R. (2004) ‘To reoffend or not to reoffend? The ambivalence of convicted property offenders’ in S. Maruna 

and R. Immarigeon (eds) After Crime and Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration. Cullompton, 

Devon: Willan. 

Burns, J. (1982). Leadership. London: Harpercollins. 

Burrell, W. (1998). Probation and Public Safety: Using Performance Measures to Demonstrate Public Value. 

Corrections Management Quarterly 2:61-69. 

Burrell, W.D. (2000). Reinventing probation: Organizational culture and change. Community Corrections Report

7:49-64. 

Burke, B., Arkowitz, H., & Menchola, H. (2003). The efficacy of motivational interviewing: A meta-analysis of 

controlled clinical trials. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 843-861. 

Burke, P.B. (2008) TPC Reentry Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community 

Model. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. 

Carey, M. (2002). Social learning, social capital and correctional theories: Seeking an integrated model. Paper 

presented at International Community Corrections Association conference, November, 2002. 

Carter, M., Bumby, K., Gavin, F., Stroker, R., & Woodward, W. (2005). Collaboration: A Training Curriculum to 

Enhance the Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Teams. Washington, D.C.: State Justice Institute. 

Clark, M.D., Walters, S.T., Gingerich, R., Meltzer, M. (2006). Motivational interviewing for probation officers: 

Tipping the balance towards change. Federal Probation, 70, 38-44. 

Clear, T.R. (1981). Objectives-Based Case Planning. NIC, Monograph 1981. 

Corbett, R.P., D.R. Beto, B. Coen, J.J. DiIulio, B.L. Fitzgerald, I. Gregg, N. Helber, G.R. Hinzman, R. Malvestuto, 

M. Paparozzi, J. Perry, R. Pozzi, and E.E. Rhine. (2000). Transforming Probation Through Leadership: The 

“Broken Windows” Model. Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute, New York. Available 

at: www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/broken_windows.pdf. 

Currie, E. (1998). Crime and punishment in America. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books. 

Decker, P.J. (1983) The effects of rehearsal group size and video feedback in behavior modeling training. Personnel 

Training 36: 763-773. 

Dilulio, J., Alpert, G., Moore, M., Cole, G., Petersilia, J., Logan, C., & Wilson, J.Q. 

(1993). Performance measures for the criminal justice system. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice. Available at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/pmcjs.htm. 

Durlak, J. A. (1998). Why program implementation is important. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the 

community 17: 5-18. 

Ellickson, P., Petersilia, J., Caggiano, M. & Polin, S. (1983). Implementing new ideas in criminal justice. Santa 

Monica, CA, The Rand Corporation. 

Farrall, S. (2002) Rethinking What Works with Offenders. Cullompton, Devon: Willan. 

Feely, K. (2000). Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform: Collaboration and 

Leadership. Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation. Available at: 

http://www.aecf.org/KnowledgeCenter/Publications.aspx?pubguid={07A5FB2B-6399-40EA-A0EF889A328B7EA8}. 

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M. & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation Research: A 

Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental 

Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231). 

Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. 

Harland’s (ed.) Choosing Correctional Options that Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the 

Supply (pp.117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (2001). Correctional Program Assessment Inventory— 

2000 (CPAI-2000). Saint John, Canada: University of New Brunswick. 

Gendreau P., French S.A., and A. Taylor (2002). What Works (What Doesn’t Work) Revised 2002 Invited 

Submission to the International Community Corrections Association Monograph Series Project. 

Gendreau, P., M. Paparozzi, et al. (1993). Does "Punishing Smarter" Work? An Assessment of the New Generation 

of Alternative Sanctions in Probation. Forum On Corrections Research 5: 31-34. 

Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What 

works. Criminology, 34, 575-607. 

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. & Smith, P. (1999). The forgotten issue in effective correctional treatment: Program 

implementation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 43(2): 180-

187. 

Goleman, D., (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review March-April 2000. Available at: 

- 70 - 
 www.anderson-sabourin.com/Leadership_That_Gets_Results.pdf 

Gottredson, D. C. & Gottfredson, G.D. (2002) Quality of school-based prevention programs: Results from a national 

survey. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 39: 3-35. 

Gray, J.A. (2001) Evidence based health care: how to make health policy and management decisions. 2nd Edition. 

London: Churchill Livingstone. 

Griffith, G. (2000). Report to Planning Committee on Study of Three Collaboratives. Oregon: Department of 

Corrections. 

Hanson, R. K. & Harris, A. (1998). Triggers of sexual offense recidivism. Research Summary: Corrections 

Research and Development 3(4): 1-2. 

Harland, A. T. (1996). Choosing Correctional Options that Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the 

Supply. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Harris, P. M. & Smith, S. (1996). Developing community corrections: An implementation perspective. pp. 183-

221, in Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply. Edited 

by A. Harland. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications. 

Henggeler, S. W., Melton, G. B., Brondino, M.J., Scherer, D.G. & Hanley, J.H. (1997). Multisystemic therapy with 

violent and chronic juvenile offenders and their families: The role of treatment fidelity in successful 

dissemination. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 65: 000-0013. 

Higgins, S. T. and K. Silverman, Eds. (1999). Motivating behavior change among illicit-drug abusers: Research on 

contingency management interventions. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association. 

Hollin, C.R. (2002). Risk-needs assessment and allocation to offender programs. In J. McGuire’s (ed.) Offender 

Rehabilitation and Treatment: Effective Programmes and Policies to Reduce Re-offending (pp.309-332). 

Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons. 

Hubbard, D.J., Travis, L.F., & Latessa, E.J. (2001). Case classification in community corrections: A national survey 

of the state of art. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 

Klein, M and Teilmann, K. (1980). Handbook of Criminal Justice Evaluation, Sage: Thousand Oaks, C.A. 

Kouzes, J. and Posner, B., (2007) The Leadership Challenge, Fourth Edition, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Landenberger, N.A., & Lipsey, M.W., (2005). The positive effects of cognitivebehavioral programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal 

of Experimental Criminology, 1 (4), 451-476. 

Latessa, E., F. Cullen and Gendreau, P. (2002). Beyond correctional quackery: Professionalism and the possibility of 

professional treatment. Federal Probation, 66(2), 43-49.. 

Latessa, E.J. (2004). The challenge of change: Correctional programs and evidenced-based practices. Criminology 

& Public Policy, 3, 547-560. 

Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. 

The Prison Journal, 85, 127-144. 

Lipsey, M.W, Chapman, G., & Landenberger, N.A. (2001). Cognitive-behavioral 

programs for offenders. The annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 578, 144-

157. 

Lipton, D. S., D. Thornton, et al. (2000). Program accreditation and correctional 

treatment. Substance Use & Misuse 35(12-14): 1705-1734. 

Lowenkamp, C.T., Latessa, E.J., & Holsinger, A.M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 

13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime & Delinquency, 52, 77-93. Available at: 

http://www.nicic.org/Library/021069. 

Ludeman, K. (1991) Measuring skills and behavior. Training & Development Nov.:61-66. 

MacKenzie, Doris L. 2006. What Works in Corrections. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Maple, J. (1999). Crime Fighter. NY:NY, Doubleday Publishing. 

Maruna, S. (2000) Making Good. Washington: American Psychological Association. 

McDonald, C. (2003) Forward via the Past? Evidence-Based Practice as Strategy in Social Work, The Drawing 

Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs. March. Vol. 3(3): 123-142. or 

http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/drawingboard/journal/0303/mcdonald.pdf

McGuire, J. (2001). What works in correctional intervention? Evidence and practical implications. Pp. 25-43 in 

Offender rehabilitation in practice: Implementing and evaluating effective programs., edited by D. F. Gary 

Bernfeld, Alan Leschied. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, LTD. 

McGuire, J. (ed.) (2002) Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment: Effective Programmes and Policies to Reduce Reoffending. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons. 

McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. McGraw-Hill/Irwin. 

- 71 - 
McNeil, F., Batchelor, S., Burnett, R. and Knox, J. (2005) 21st Century Social Work, Reducing Re-offending Key 

Practice Skills, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive 

Mee-Lee, D., L. Gartner, et al. (1996). Patient Placement Criteria for the Treatment of Substance-Related Disorders, 

Second Edition. American Society of Addiction Medicine PPC-2. 

Meyers, R.J., Miller, W.R., Smith, J.E., & Tonnigan, S. (2002). A randomized trial of two methods for engaging 

treatment-refusing drug users through concerned significant others. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 

Psychology, 70, 1182-1185. 

Meyers, R.J., Villanueva, M., & Smith, J.E. (2005). The community reinforcement 

approach: History and new directions. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 19, 247-260. 

Milkman H. and Wanberg, K. (2007) Cognitive Behaviour Treatment: A review and Discussion for Corrections 

Professionals, Washington: National Institute of Corrections. Available at: 

http://www.nicic.org/Library/021657 

Mihalic, S., K. Irwin, D. Elliott, A. Fagan, and D. Hansen. (2001). Blueprints for Violence Prevention. Juvenile 

Justice Bulletin, July 2001. Available at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/jjbul2001_7_3/contents.html 

Mihalic, S., K. Irwin, D. Elliott, A. Fagan, and D. Hansen. (2004). Successful Program Implementation: Lessons 

from Blueprints: Juvenile Justice Bulletin, July 2004. Available at: 

www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/204273.pdf 

Mihalic, S. & Irwin, K. (2003). Blueprints for violence prevention: From research to real world settings - factors 

influencing the successful replication of model programs. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, Vol. 1, No. 

4, 307-329. 

Miller, W. R. and K. A. Mount (2001). A small study of training in Motivational Interviewing: Does one workshop 

change clinician and client behavior? Albuquerque, NM 

Miller, W.R., Sovereign, G.R. & Krege, B. (1988) Motivational interviewing with problem drinkers: II. The 

drinker's check up as a preventive intervention. Behavioral Psychotherapy 16: 251-268. 

Miller, W. and S. Rollnick. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change. New York, NY: 

Guilford Press. 

Moore, M. (1995). Creating Public Value. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 

O’Connor, T. & Perryclear, M. (2002) Prison religion in action and its influence on offender rehabilitation. 

O’Leary, V. & Clear, T. (1997). Community corrections: Approaching the 21st century. National Institute of 

Corrections, Washington, DC, 1-60. 

Palmer, T. (1995). Programmatic and non-programmatic aspects of successful intervention: New directions for 

research. Crime & Delinquency, 41(1): 100-131. 

Paparozzi, M.A. & Gendreau, P. (2005) An Intensive Supervision Program That Worked: Service Delivery, 

Professional Orientation, and Organizational Supportiveness . The Prison Journal, Vol. 85, No. 4, 445-466 

Petersilia, J. (1997). Probation in the United States: Practices and Challenges. National Institute of Justice Journal: 

2-8. 

Project Match Research Group (1997) Therapist effects in three treatments for alcohol problems. 

Psychotherapy Research 8(4):455-474. 

Pew Center on the States (2008). Policy Framework to Strengthen Community Corrections. Public Safety 

Performance Project. Available online at 

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Policy%20Framework.pdf 

Prochaska J.O., & DiClemente C.C. (1984) The transtheoretical approach: crossing traditional boundaries of 

therapy. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin. 

Quay, H.C. (1977) The Three Faces of Evaluation, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 4 (4), 341-354. 

Ratcliffe, M.R., Collins, S., Leach, J., Millar, R.H. and Osborne, J.F. (2000). Towards Evidence- based Practice in 

Science Education (EPSE) - an ESRC funded Teaching and Learning Research Network. Paper presented 

to the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Cardiff, 7-9 September. 

Or http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/educ/projs/publications.html

Ryan, R.M. and E.L. Deci. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social 

development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55:68-78. 

Sachwald, Judith, Ernest Eley, Jr., and Faye S. Taxman (2006) An ounce of prevention: Proactive community 

supervision reduces violation behavior. Topics in Community Corrections 31–38. Available online at: 

http://www.nicic.org/Downloads/PDF/Library/period307.pdf

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Currency 

Doubleday. 

Sundel, M., & Sundel, S.S. (2005). Behavior change in the human services (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

- 72 - 
- 73 - 

Sherman, L.W., D.C. Gottfredson, D.L. Mackenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S.D. Bushway. (1998). Preventing 

Crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. National Institute of Justice. 

Skeem, Jennifer L. and Sarah Manchak (2008) Back to the future: From Klockars’ model of effective supervision to 

evidence-based practice in probation, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, Vol. 47(3), 220–247. 

Smith, J.E., & Meyers, R.J. (2004). Motivating substance abusers to enter treatment: Working with family members. 

New York: Guilford Press.

Springer, D.W.; McNeece, C.A.; and Arnold, E.M. (2003) Substance Abuse Treatment for Criminal Offenders: An 

Evidence-Based Guide for Practitioners. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. (RC 564 

S585 2003). 

Taxman, F. (2002). Supervision: Exploring the dimensions of effectiveness. Federal Probation, September-Special 

Issue: 14-27. 

Taxman, F. S., & Thanner, M. (2004). Probation from a therapeutic perspective: Results from the field. 

Contemporary Issues in Law, 7(1), 39-63. 

Taxman 2008; No Illusions: Offender and Organizational Change In Maryland’s Proactive Community Supervision 

Efforts. Criminology and Public Policy, Vol. 7(2),275-302. 

Taxman, F. and J. Byrne. (2001). Fixing broken windows probation together. Perspectives Spring: 23-29. 

Boulder, Colorado, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence: 1-20. 

Tilley, N. and G. Laycock (2001) Working Out What To Do: Evidence-based Crime Reduction. Crime Reduction 

Series Paper 11, London: Home Office ISSN: 1468-5205, ISBN 1-84082-792-0 Or 

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/skills14.htm

Trotter, C. (1996). The impact of different supervision practices in community corrections: Cause for optimism. 

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 29, 1–18. 

Trotter, C. (1999) Working with Involuntary Clients: A guide to practice. London: Sage. 

Trotter, C. (2000) ‘Social Work Education, Pro-Social Orientation and Effective Probation Practice’, Probation 

Journal, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp256-261. 

Ward, T., & Stewart, C. (2003). Criminogenic needs and human needs: A theoretical model. Psychology, Law, & 

Crime, 9, 125-143.

Waltz, J., Addis, M. E., Koerner, K. & Jacobson, N.S. (1993). Testing the integrity of a psychotherapy protocol: 

Adherence and competence ratings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61: 620-630. 

Wanberg, K. and H. Milkman. (1998). Criminal conduct and substance abuse treatment: Strategies for selfimprovement and change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of 

Health & Human Service: 1-176. 

Weisbord, M. R. (1987). Productive Workplaces. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Weisebord, M. R. & Janoff, S. (1995). Future Search. Berrett-Koehler. 

Zemke, R. (2001) Systems Thinking. Training February, 39-46