{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010660980810234541, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.3710407239819, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Development of a testable logic model for community supervision home and field contacts

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.