Using Action Research to Transform Probation
By Daphne Moraga, Research Analyst, and Victoria Lawson, Research Project Director
Since 2019, CUNY ISLG been working with counties across the country to identify, develop, and implement research-driven, practical strategies to increase successful probation outcomes. An important part of this was researcher-practitioner “Action Research Teams,” who worked together to ensure these practical solutions that could drive real change.
Though originally developed as an alternative to incarceration, people on community supervision—probation, in particular—account for the majority of adults in the correctional system. Supervision is also a primary funnel to jail and prison: nearly one in four people who enter prison is admitted due to a probation violation, which encompasses anything from not being able to afford a fee to failing a drug test.
Compounding this is the fact that historically, not much has been known about what drives these probation violations and the subsequent revocations to incarceration. Recognizing that better understanding drivers may beget better outcomes for individuals on probation, CUNY ISLG launched the Reducing Revocations Challenge (RRC) in 2019. The RRC set out to transform local probation departments through in-depth action research and implementation of targeted solutions in multiple diverse jurisdictions.
Action research is a form of inquiry that emphasizes collaboration between researchers and practitioners to solve real-world problems. It is collaborative, iterative, solution-focused, and timely. At its best, it elevates the importance of community voice and agency in practices, public discourse, and policymaking in ways that can transform the criminal legal system. CUNY ISLG intentionally chose this model for probation reform to maximize the relevance and applicability of RRC research to conditions on the ground, and ensure practical solutions that could drive real change.
What Did “Action Research” Mean in the RRC?
In the RRC, action research was characterized by:
Action Research Teams (ARTs): Partnerships between researchers and practitioners – in this case, probation departments – were pivotal to the initiative.
Guided Research Questions: A defined set of policy and practice questions directed research efforts.
Mixed-Methods Research: Employing diverse quantitative and qualitative sources informed a nuanced understanding of drivers.
Problem-Solving Approach: ARTs developed strategies to effectively target identified drivers, prioritizing whether/how they could realistically be implemented.
Operational Planning: A detailed planning phase created a clear implementation roadmap, defined roles, and evaluated potential outcomes and risks.
Collaborative Implementation: ARTs used a data-driven approach and engaged various stakeholders in strategy development, implementation, and impact evaluation, including those with lived experience.
Figure 1. Evolving Roles of the Practitioner and Researcher
Turning Research into Action
In Phase I, over the first two years of the initiative, Action Research Teams (ARTs) consisting of a local probation department and research organization in 10 jurisdictions across the country conducted in-depth research on local drivers of revocation to jail and prison, and developed targeted strategies to reduce them. Four of those jurisdictions—Monroe County, IN; Pima County, AZ; Ramsey County, MN; and Santa Cruz County, CA—were provided funding to implement their proposed strategies for improving probation outcomes in Phase II.
The outcomes of each site’s implementation strategies are ongoing and are being assessed by a diverse set of metrics unique to each jurisdiction, however some initial evidence of success at each of the four jurisdictions has been identified. For example:
In Monroe County, IN, targeted probation officer training to improve officers’ proficiency and use of skills with people on probation has led to increased self-reported proficiency in all intended target areas and increased use of learned skills. For example, the use of incentives for people on probation offered in appointments increased before and after trainings from 20 percent to 28 percent, and probation officers reported feeling more proficient in case management, motivational interviewing, and other skills.
In Pima County, AZ, the probation department has successfully reengaged 29 people in probation as part of their new warrant resolution program, which aims to bring people who had lost contract with their probation officers back under supervision without additional court hearings.
In Ramsey County, MN, a workgroup composed of probation stakeholders and community members focused on identifying groups of people who may be unnecessarily supervised. The group’s resulting recommendations for prioritizing diversion and removing key groups from probation supervision were all endorsed by an Advisory Committee, which originated in Phase I, and are being operationalized for implementation.
In Santa Cruz County, CA, the probation department set out to shift organizational culture to reach greater alignment on policies and purpose. In a retreat with system partners and people on probation, new policy and practice recommendations were developed to commit to an assistance-oriented approach to supervision.
As the field continues to search for ways to repair the criminal legal system and improve the outcomes of those it impacts, the innovative approaches and collaborative philosophy of the action research model offers a new standard for probation reform efforts. Through these concerted efforts, we do not merely seek to understand, but also ensure that our understanding penetrates the academic bubble, translates to realizable remedies, and addresses the most critical issues facing our communities.
Image by Henryk Sadura on Adobe Stock.