DOI: 10.3886/icpsr37944.v1
title: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Probationer Decision Making: A Social Cognitive Model, Nebraska, 2015-2019
title: Version 1

description: This project analyzed the influence of a therapeutic jurisprudence model on the probation process in the state of Nebraska. Therapeutic jurisprudence is defined as an approach to law and legal processes that states the way agents of the law (judges, attorneys, and officers) play their roles imposes inevitable consequences on the psychological well-being of those affected. To measure this phenomenon, 509 probationers and 75 probation officers were surveyed in Nebraska. Variables collected by the researchers included probationers perceptions of justice, anticipated emotion, relationships with officers, and motivation.
description: The purpose of this project was to apply a therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) model to supervision meetings, where probation officers are the supervising authorities charged with the task of changing offenders' decision-making strategies. With this in mind, the study attempted to show how probationers' perceptions of fairness, anticipated emotions, experienced emotions, and motivation to change influence their decision making to either comply with probation requirements, or return to a life of criminality. It has been hypothesized that in the TJ model the quality of interactions between supervising agents and offenders plays a major role in offenders' future decisions. This is based on the belief that offenders are active processors who can adjust their responses to the supervision according to their 1) perceptions of the fairness of treatment at the hands of the authorities, 2) motivational states induced during supervision sessions and 3) anticipated emotions about future encounters. The role of authorities is to create an environment that motivates, encourages and reinforces offenders to choose to engage in therapeutic services and to seek positive outcomes. In the TJ model, supervising officers provide for probationers a source of perceptions of fairness, emotions, and motivations. This environment allows offenders to examine their own behaviors and confront the discrepancies between their values and actions as officers help probationers to 1) think about their antisocial and unhealthy behaviors, 2) focus attention on choices to engage in antisocial behavior, 3) develop plans to replace unhealthy behaviors with healthy ones 4) and bolster their self-efficacy so that they will be willing to choose to take on treatment goals. The researchers proposed four hypotheses: If probation officers treat probationers with respect and sensitivity and make clear the reasons for decisions, offenders will experience interactional justice or fairness, and thus will decide to comply with court orders and choose healthier behaviors. The extent to which probation officers are successful at empowering offenders and reconnecting them to their bases of support, the more probationers show specific motivational strategies to choose healthy behavior, the more they will anticipate positive emotions for succeeding at their rehabilitative work, and negative emotions for failing. Through the measurement of anticipated emotions and actual experienced emotions, forecasted affect can predict positive outcomes among probationers. Some offenders' attributes (such as demographics and criminal history) may facilitate or impede the psychological processes within TJ.
description: The research team, based out of the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, in collaboration with the Nebraska Office of Probation Administration (NOPA), collected data from 509 probationers, 75 probation officers, from 18 reporting centers across the state of Nebraska. Data was collected over a three and a half year period. Researchers attempted to collect data from each probationer through all supervision sessions or until they finished probation. However, not all data was able to be secured because some participants either absconded, were revoked, or quit the project. After each supervision session, staff members administered measurement instruments to offenders willing to participate. The probation officers did not have access to the data and the team assured each probationer that only the research team and not any officers would review the information that they provided. The surveys required 30 minutes of the participant's time and the clients received $15.00 gift cards at the end of each data collection session. Officers also completed surveys at the end of each session rating the session that the clients had also evaluated. The research team entered data into secure computer files maintained at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln.
description: The researchers broke down their measures into seven broad categories: risk level, justice measures, reintegration scales, legal legitimization scale, promotion and prevention focus, affective measures, and outcome measures. Nebraska probation officers assessed risk level through the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI), a common case management tool to assess risk levels of offenders. The research team recorded the LS/CMI risk levels for all probationers in the sample. Justice measures included client perceptions of procedural justice (fairness of supervision procedures), distributive justice (whether the supervision session outcomes were justified in light of client conduct), and interactive justice (whether the sessions produced a sense that the community values the offender). Each justice measure was asked to probationers in the form of a Likert scale, where respondents rated the extent to which supervisors achieved these, ranging from 1) a small extent, to 5) a large extent. Reporting center staff administered four reintegration scales: reintegration (reconnecting with family and friends), stigmatization (others found the offender undesirable because of prior conduct), shame (feeling shame because of anti-social conduct), and the impact of recidivism (engaging in continued bad behavior would be a problem for the offender) after each supervision session. Using the same Likert scale, probationers rated the extent to which the session influenced them in these ways. Legal legitimization scales were used by probationers to assess their perceived legitimacy of the law after supervision sessions, again using the same Likert scale. Promotion and prevention focus measures asked probationers to list and rate the importance of the goals that they need to accomplish after each supervision session and asked them to provide specific activities to accomplish to meet those goals. Promotion focus looks at how probationers seek accomplishment and advancement by obtaining matches to a desired end state and they avoid errors of omission. Prevention focus is concerned with vigilant action and avoidance of errors of commission. Affective measures looks at probationers anticipated emotional measures after each supervision session about how strongly they expect to experience pleasant emotions if they succeed, or fail to meet the expectations laid out by their probation officer. These were also placed on the same Likert scale. Outcome measures were taken after six supervision sessions, where the team recorded factors related to healthy choices and decision making on the part of probationers. This data came from official probation records, including violations, sanctions, and probation outcomes. Then at the last (seventh) probation session, probationer's objective and subjective account of life changes in living situation, leisure activities, general functioning, social and family relations, finances, work and school, legal and safety issues, health, and general satisfaction as the result of probationers' life choices were recorded.
description: Not available
description: Response Rates: Not available
description: Presence of Common Scales: Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI)
description: The sample consisted of 509 probationers and 75 probation officers collected with the assistance of the NOPA. Probationers included English speakers from 18 reporting centers across the state of Nebraska.
description: Datasets: DS1: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Probationer Decision Making: A Social Cognitive Model, Nebraska, 2015-2019
description: Probationers and probation officers in Nebraska from 2015 to 2019. Smallest Geographic Unit: None
description: on-site questionnaire