{"title":"Development of a testable logic model for community supervision home and field contacts","authors":"Holly Swan, W. Campbell, S. Karon, S. Jalbert","doi":"10.1080/10509674.2020.1827119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Field contacts are at the core of community supervision practice in nearly all community supervision agencies in the United States; however, the nature of field contacts varies widely across agencies. Without a standard definition, it is impossible to draw conclusions about the impact of field contacts on individual outcomes or public safety. Therefore, prior to conducting research to test the effectiveness of field contacts, it is critical to first establish an in-depth understanding of the nature and purpose of field work as part of community supervision and develop a theoretical framework for future testing. This study aimed to develop a logic model for community supervision field work by exploring and describing the nature and purpose of field contacts. We used qualitative methods of data collection including a field contact checklist completed by community supervision officers, focus groups with officers, and interviews with agency leaders, to unpack the various approaches to field work in two states and to identify patterns of reasoning behind the different approaches. The findings from this study can be used to design rigorous tests of field contact components on various outcomes in order to inform policymakers about the relative effectiveness of different approaches to field work.","PeriodicalId":46878,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Offender Rehabilitation","volume":"60 1","pages":"40 - 61"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10509674.2020.1827119","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Offender Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2020.1827119","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Abstract Field contacts are at the core of community supervision practice in nearly all community supervision agencies in the United States; however, the nature of field contacts varies widely across agencies. Without a standard definition, it is impossible to draw conclusions about the impact of field contacts on individual outcomes or public safety. Therefore, prior to conducting research to test the effectiveness of field contacts, it is critical to first establish an in-depth understanding of the nature and purpose of field work as part of community supervision and develop a theoretical framework for future testing. This study aimed to develop a logic model for community supervision field work by exploring and describing the nature and purpose of field contacts. We used qualitative methods of data collection including a field contact checklist completed by community supervision officers, focus groups with officers, and interviews with agency leaders, to unpack the various approaches to field work in two states and to identify patterns of reasoning behind the different approaches. The findings from this study can be used to design rigorous tests of field contact components on various outcomes in order to inform policymakers about the relative effectiveness of different approaches to field work.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Offender Rehabilitation is a multidisciplinary journal of innovation in research, services and programs in criminal justice and corrections. The journal is an essential professional resource for practitioners, educators and researchers who work with individuals involved in the criminal justice system and study the dynamics of rehabilitation and individual and system change. Original research using qualitative or quantitative methodology, theoretical discussions, evaluations of program outcomes, and state of the science reviews will be considered.