Skip to main content

Table 1 Barriers and facilitators to EBP implementation

From: Building effective service delivery mechanisms for justice-involved individuals: an under-researched area

EBP Area Findings Recent advancements
Risk and needs assessment Officer skills and attitudes are not consistent with the use of the tools (Farrell et al. 2011) Management and organizational support for validated risk and need assessment tool
  POs do not use assessment results to determine risk level or frequency of contact (Bonta et al. 2008; Miller and Maloney 2013) Use of officer skill development curriculum to advance focus on problem solving (STICS curriculum (Bonta et al. 2011 2008; Bourgon et al. 2010; Bourgon and Gutierrez, 2012; EPICS curriculum (Smith et al. 2012); STARR curriculum (Robinson et al. 2011); PCS curriculum (Taxman 2002 2008); SOARING2 curriculum (Taxman, et al. 2013; Maass, 2013)
  Officers do not use the instruments and do not comply with assessment (Miller and Maloney 2013) External facilitators (Taxman, et al. 2012)
  Lack of trust in assessment tool (Krysik and LeCroy 2002; Miller and Maloney 2013) Coaching (Baer 2006; Young et al. 2013)
  Prefer their own judgment (Hilton and Simmons 2001) and loss of discretion (Ferguson 2002) Address staff concerns specifically in training (Ferguson 2002)
  Many agencies do not assess offenders due to lack of time (Latessa et al. 2002) Make sure training covers how the tools help POs to do their job more effectively (Ferguson 2002)
  Use of outdated, poorly designed and/or empirically unvalidated classification instruments (Latessa et al. 2002; Matthews et al. 2001; Latessa 2002) Work on value clarification to advance use of tools (Miller and Maloney 2013)
Offender engagement Lack of offender participation in the process and overall buy-in Effective use of MI (McMurran 2009) and other communication tools (Taxman 2008)
  Staff training and skills in areas of engagement (Taxman 2002; McMurran 2009) Organizational goals that reflect values associated with using behavioral management strategies (Taxman 2008)
  Authoritarian (legal) vs. shared decision-making (Taxman 2006) Build rapport early in the supervision process between PO and offender (Taxman 2002; Robinson et al. 2011)
  Assessment and supervision process is focused on “paperwork” and not client centered (Taxman 2002) Increasing the number of individual counseling sessions during the first month of treatment (De Leon 1991)
  Offender not ready for change (Prochaska et al. 1992; Simpson 2004)  
Case planning and supervision plans Probation staff feel they do enough paperwork and the case plan is just the same as the court-ordered conditions; Specialized curriculum work on tailoring case plans to RNA and also focusing on problem solving (STICS curriculum --Bonta et al. 2011; Bonta et al. 2008; Bourgon et al. 2010; Bourgon and Gutierrez 2012; EPICS curriculum --Smith et al. 2012; Starr curriculum --Robinson et al. 2011; PCS curriculum-- Taxman et al. 2004; Taxman 2008)
  Offender is often not involved in the case planning process; don’t use risk assessment information to inform the case plan (Taxman 2006) Use of performance measures for supervision staff, offenders, and organizations (review case plan monthly and base review on case plan accomplishments) (Taxman 2008)
  Link between risk and need assessment and case planning is difficult (Miller and Maloney 2013)  
Treatment programs Overall resistance to treatment programming since they are considered “extra”, “an opportunity” (Paparozzi and Gendreau 2005; Taxman and Bouffard 2002; Thanner and Taxman 2003) Organizational culture that fosters performance achievement and backs it up with training and internal support for its employees will likely value and seek to implement higher quality programming, including EBPs (Friedmann et al. 2007)
  Belief that high-risk offenders will not respond to treatment (Thanner and Taxman 2003) Administrators with a background in human services, knowledge about EBPs and a favorable attitude toward rehabilitation have the opportunity and power to set informed priorities and policies to improve services for drug-involved offenders (Friedmann et al. 2007)
  Rejection of research/Ignorance of crime and its cures (Latessa et al. 2002) Organizations better integrated with community-based service providers (Taxman et al. 2009)
  Do not use treatment models that are proven effective (Latessa 2002; Matthews et al. 2001) Lower levels of cynicism for change (Farrell et al. 2011)
  Interventions often do not conform to the principles of effective intervention – only in 13% of the time (Andrews et al. 1999; Friedmann et al. 2007) Positive perceptions of leadership (Farrell et al. 2011)
  Correctional agencies traditionally do not require systematic evaluate effectiveness (Gendreau et al. 2001) Include intent of reform in training (Steiner et al. 2011)
   Increase involvement of line-staff in change process (Steiner et al. 2011)
   Focus on fidelity to the key treatment principles
Supervision (required conditions) Lack of understanding of what is quality supervision (Taxman 2012) New mission, values, and goals (Taxman 2012)
  Organizational culture affects the professional identity which is compliance and management of risk behaviors (Durnescu 2013) Organizational culture that fosters performance achievement and backs it up with training and internal support for its employees will likely value and seek to implement higher quality programming, including EBPs (Friedmann et al. 2007)
  Still focusing on face-to-face contacts as “check-ins” as compared to behavioral management Administrators with a background in human services, knowledge about EBPs and a favorable attitude toward rehabilitation have the opportunity and power to set informed priorities and policies to improve services for drug-involved offenders (Friedmann et al. 2007)
  POs pay little attention to criminogenic needs (Bonta et al. 2008)  
   Organizations better integrated with community-based service providers (Taxman et al. 2009)
   Lower levels of cynicism for change (Farrell et al. 2011)
   Positive perceptions of leadership (Farrell et al. 2011)
   Include intent of reform in training (Steiner et al. 2011)
   Increase involvement of line-staff in change process (Steiner et al. 2011)
Problem solving Lack of skill development by POs (Pullen 1996; Bonta, et al. et al. 2008; Taxman 2002) Various new curriculums work on these problem solving skills
  Lack of PO buy-in (Pullen 1996) Reduction of caseload size and attention to outcomes
  Lack of analytical framework in terms of understanding patterns and trends  
  Professional socialization and culture reinforce compliance issues (Durnescu 2013)  
Rewards Punitive/control environment (Rudes et al. 2012) Quality improvement and PDSA process to identify system issues to support the use of rewards (Rudes et al. 2012)
  Emphasis on sanctions (California Association of Drug Court Professionals 1997; Cooper 1995; Goldkamp 1994; Lindquist et al. 2006; Rudes et al. 2012; Terry 1999)—drives the environment Management endorsement of rewards, and focusing on outcomes (Friedmann et al. 2007)
  Generally can not deliver sanctions in swift, certain pattern (Rossman, et al. 2011; Rudes, et al. et al. 2012) Use of simple strategies (such as fishbowls) over more complex strategies (Stitzer et al. (2010)
  Generally support the use of rewards (Murphy et al. 2012) but attitudes toward rewards depends on perception of offender(Rudes et al. 2012)  
  Lack of predetermined reward schedule (Miethe et al. 2000)  
  Rewards less specific, less swiftly applied, more subjective than application of sanctions (Lindquist et al. 2006)