Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., & Amador, M. (1989). Field
test of the cognitive interview: Enhancing the recollection
of actual victims and witnesses of crime. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74,722–727.
Fisher, R. P., & Schreiber, N. (2007). Interviewing protocols
to improve eyewitness memory. In M. Toglia, R. Lindsay,
D. Ross, & J. Reed (Eds.),The handbook of eyewitness
psychology: Vol. 1. Memory for events(pp. 53–80).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Geiselman, R. E., & Fisher, R. P. (1997). Ten years of
cognitive interviewing. In D. G. Payne & R. G. Conrad
(Eds.),A synthesis of basic and applied approaches to
human memory(pp. 291–310). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Kebbell, M.-R., Milne, R., & Wagstaff, G.-F. (1999). The
cognitive interview: A survey of its forensic effectiveness.
Psychology, Crime and Law, 5(1–2), 101–115.
Koehnken, G., Milne, R., Memon, A., & Bull, R. (1999). The
cognitive interview: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Crime
and Law, 5,3–27.COMMUNITYCORRECTIONS
Over the past 15 years, the number of people under
correctional supervision in the United States has more
than doubled. Most of this growth is attributable to the
rapidly expanding probation population, which recently
reached an all-time high of more than 4 million
offenders. In fact, the vast majority of all offenders
under correctional supervision are supervised in the
community on probation (58%) or parole (11%).
Despite their rehabilitative roots, community correc-
tions have been heavily oriented toward surveillance
over the past quarter-century. However, high rates of
recidivism among supervisees have prompted calls for
accountability and use of evidence-based supervision.
Substantial evidence indicates that surveillance mod-
els that focus exclusively on offender control are less
effective than hybrid models that focus on both
offender control and offender rehabilitation. For the
at-risk population of supervisees with mental disorder,
evidence suggests that specialty caseloads are a
promising practice. Despite these clearly defined con-
tours of evidence-based practice, most agencies are
merely at the cusp of reintroducing rehabilitation in
supervision. The process of doing so is likely to be
slow but will be facilitated by (a) the use of new risk
management technology and (b) gradual shifts in
organizational values, hiring practices, and training, tocreate a significant cadre of officers with hybrid orien-
tations. Officers influence outcomes more powerfully
than the programs they ostensibly apply.Developing Community
Corrections and Questioning Its
Performance
The roots of probation and parole lie more in social
casework than law enforcement. Probation began in
1841, when John Augustus posted bail to release a
“drunkard” from a Boston jail, worked with the man for
3 weeks toward rehabilitation, and convinced a judge
that the man had reformed his ways and should be set
free. He went on to bail more than 2,000 offenders and
assist them with employment,housing, and other issues.
Parole began in 1840, when Alexander Maconochie
developed a “mark system” by which prisoners at
Norfolk Island could earn early release for good behav-
ior. By the 1860s, this precursor to modern parole
had been adopted in the United States. Over the past
150 years, community corrections have traveled a great
distance from their rehabilitative roots to embrace the
“tough on crime” stance that prevails today.
In modern probation and parole, an officer is tasked
with (a) protecting community safety by monitoring
and enforcing an offender’s compliance with the rules
of conditional release from incarceration and, often to
a lesser extent, (b) promoting the offender’s rehabilita-
tion with social service referrals such as substance
abuse counseling and vocational support. Despite this
commonality, probation and parole differ in terms of
who is supervised. A probationer is an offender who,
on conviction, is typically sentenced directly to a term
of community supervision (although a minority of pro-
bationers are granted a conditional suspended sentence
to incarceration). In contrast, a parolee is convicted of
a relatively serious offense, serves a portion of his or
her sentence in prison, and is then granted conditional
early release to serve the remainder of his or her sen-
tence in the community. Although probation is applied
in the federal system and all 50 states, the federal sys-
tem and at least 15 states have abolished parole in
favor of determinant sentencing.
The assumption underpinning both probation and
parole is that some offenders can be safely maintained
in the community and will respond well to the avail-
able services. Community supervision is viewed as a
cost-effective alternative to incarceration for these100 ———Community CorrectionsC-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 100