Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 32 - Probation Decision-Making

  • from Part IV - Postconviction Phase Decisions
  • Edited by Monica K. Miller, University of Nevada, Reno, Logan A. Yelderman, Prairie View A & M University, Texas, Matthew T. Huss, Creighton University, Omaha, Jason A. Cantone, George Mason University, Virginia
  • Book:
    The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
    Published online:
    22 February 2024
    Print publication:
    29 February 2024, pp 496-509

  • Summary

    Despite increasing evidence regarding the efficacy of risk assessment and intervention in community supervision, there continues to be relatively weak adherence to such evidence in its application to decision-making. Regarding assessment, such a lack of fidelity purportedly leads to higher rates of overrides, degraded accuracy, and inefficiency in resource allocation. Regarding intervention, failure to implement evidence-based practice and recognize the role of probation officers as agents of change further diminishes supervision effectiveness. With probation populations at an all-time high and a burgeoning violation rate, this chapter summarizes the emerging probation research to situate the need for clarity of purpose and improved decision-making to maintain public confidence in probation. The chapter presents a decision framework utilizing empirically informed domains as a logic model to ensure probation officer decisions are fair, transparent, and defensible. This framework incorporates both static and dynamic information to ensure decisions are accurate and contextual.