DOI: 10.3886/e100410v1
title: Probation/Parole Officer Interactions with Women Offenders: Do Relationship Style and Communication Pattern Predict Outcomes?

description: The project
purpose was to better understand the nature of probation/parole agent interactions
with substance-involved women offenders and the degree to which these
interactions predict women’s recidivism, rules violation, and changes in their
crime-related needs.  Other purposes were
to examine whether (1) women’s
feelings of self-efficacy, anxiety, and reactance that may be elicited by the agent-offender
interactions explained (i.e., mediated) the link between the nature of these
interactions and women’s outcomes; (2) the amount of communication about needs
predicted outcomes; (3) initial levels of needs and quality of women’s social
networks moderated the relationship between agent-offender interactions and
outcomes; (4) agents’ and women’s experience of their relationship were similar,
and whose perspective (agent or offender) best predicted offender outcomes; and
(5) particular agent attributes (e.g., years of experience, self-reported
typical style of interacting with clients) predicted agents’ average
effectiveness across clients.  Seventy-three
probation and parole agents with women-specific caseloads were sampled and
recruited from 16 Michigan counties; and then 402 offenders meeting participant
criteria were recruited from the caseloads. 
At recruitment of agents, a survey collected information about their characteristics.  Two or 3 months later, client needs and
social networks were measured in an interview with the offenders.  At month 5, agent and woman reports of
relationship and communication were measured, and woman reports of reactions to
these were measured.  A survey was used
to collect agent data, and an interview was used to collect offender data.  At month 8, psychosocial outcomes, treatment
engagement, crime-causing needs, and official outcomes (e.g., arrest) were
measured.  For the 24 months from the
start of supervision, official data were collected on arrests and
convictions.  

<br><br><br><br>
description: Weights: none<br>
description: Response Rates: Probation and parole officers :  94.8 % completed the first interview.  <br>Probation and parole officer retention:  70.4% of women had the same PO at all three face-to-face interviews<br>78.9% of women had a PO who completed the T2 interview.  Be sure it is also the same PO the woman had for time period of interest.<br><br>Women on probation and parole:  47.5% recruited from a sampling frame.  Very few turndowns.<br>Of those who completed the first interview, 94.3% retained through three interviews.<br><br>
description: Presence of Common Scales: Scales
Used for PO Survey 1 and T1 Interview with Women Offenders

 

<br>The Big
Five Inventory

Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness

John, O. P. & Srivastava, S. (1999).
The Big-Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical
Perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (2nd
ed.), pages 102-139, New York: Guilford Press.

<br><br>Scales
Adapted or Used for the PO Survey 1, PO Survey 2, and 

T2
Interview with Women Offenders

 

The Dual Role Relationship
Inventory-Revised (DRI-R)

Skeem,
J. L., Encandela, J., & Eno Louden, J. (2003). Perspectives on probation
and mandated mental health treatment in specialized and traditional probation
departments. Behavioral Sciences &
the Law, 21, 429-458. 

Skeem,
J. L., Eno Louden, J., Polaschek, D. L., & Camp, J. (2007). Assessing
relationship quality in mandated community treatment:  Blending care with control. Psychological Assessment, 19(4),
397-410. 

<br>Probation/Parole
Officer Communication Style (conformity and conversational)

Adapted from the Revised Family Communication Patterns
Scale

Ritchie, L. D.,
& Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring
intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17(4), 523-544. 

 

<br>Scales
Adapted or Used for the T2 Interview with Women Offenders

 

Anxiety Elicited by Interaction with the Agent 

Adapted
from the short version of the Brief Symptom Inventory

Derogitas,
L. R., & Melisarotos, N. (1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory:  An introductory report.  Psychological
Medicine, 13, 595-605. 

<br>Psychological Reactance

Hong
Psychological Reactance Scale 

Hong,
S., & Faedda, S. (1996). Refinement of the Hong Psychological Reactance
Scale. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 56, 173-182. 

<br>Emotional Reactance

Ratings
of the experience of five emotions (guilty, ashamed, annoyed, irritated, and
angry) after talking to the agent on a 5-point scale with 1=not at all and 5=very much. 

<br>Restoration of Freedom


Therapeutic Reactance Scale 

Dowd,
E. T., Milne, C. R., & Wise, S. L. (1991). The therapeutic reactance
scale:  A measure of psychological
reactance. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 69, 541-545. 

<br>Elicited
Self Efficacy to Avoid Criminal Lifestyle 

Adapted from scales used by
Campbell, 2004 and Martin et al., 1995

Campbell, M. H. (2004). Review of the drug-taking confidence
questionnaire. Mental measurements               yearbook.  Download from http://www.unl.edu/buros/bimm/html/catalog.html#mmy.

Martin, G. W., Wilkinson, D. A., & Poulos, C. X. (1995). The drug
avoidance self-efficacy scale. Journal of
Substance Abuse, 7(2), 151-163. <br>

Elicited
Self Efficacy to Find and Keep a Job and Advance in Career

Adapted from scales by
Fletcher et al., 1992, Kanfer and Hulin, 1985, Mosley et al., 2008  

Fletcher,
W. L., Hansson, R. O., & Bailey, L. (1992). Assessing occupational
self-efficacy among middle-aged and older adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 11(4), 489-501. 

Kanfer,
R., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). Individual differences in successful job
searches following lay-off. Personnel
Psychology, 38, 835-839. 

Mosley,
D. C., Boyar, S. L., Carson, C. M., & Pearson, A. W. (2008). A production
self-efficacy scale:  An exploratory
study. Journal of Managerial Issues(Summer),
272-285. <br><br>

Scales
Adapted or Used for the T1 and T3 Interviews with Women Offenders

 

The
Women’s Risk/Needs Assessment

The following needs and strengths
were measured with the Women’s Risk/Needs Assessment (WRNA) (Van Voorhis et
al., 2010, 2012, 2013).  These
include:  criminal history, antisocial
attitudes, financial/ employment problems, educational challenges, antisocial
peers, current substance abuse, history of substance abuse, housing safety,
mental illness symptoms, PTSD symptoms, family conflict, family support,
educational strengths, self-efficacy, anger, parental stress, victimization, adult
abuse, history of child abuse, and dysfunctional relationships.  Variable names for WRNA scales include the
letters, WRNA.  Syntax for T1 and T3 Interviews indicate
which items are included in the WRNA scales. 
The codebooks and interview schedules also include indicators of where a
sequence of WRNA items begin and end.

The WRNA measures are Copyrighted. Reproductions
of the questions used in the instruments are provided as documentation for the
analysis of the data associated with this collection. Restrictions on
"fair use" apply to all copyrighted content. More information about
the reproduction of copyrighted works by educators and librarians is available
from the United States Copyright Office. More information about the WRNA
is available on the website  https://www.uc.edu/
womenoffenders.html or by contacting staff listed on the website.

<br><br>NOTICE WARNING CONCERNING COPYRIGHT
RESTRICTIONS The copyright law of the United States (Title17, United States
Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted
material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives
are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these
specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be
"used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or
research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or
reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be
liable for copyright infringement.

Sources
of information on the WRNA:

Van
Voorhis, P., Bauman, A., & Brushett, R. (2012). Revalidation of the Women's
Risk Needs Assessment:  Pre-release
results. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati.

Van
Voorhis, P., Bauman, A., & Brushett, R. (2013). Revalidation of the Women's
Risk Needs Assessment:  Probation
Results. Cincinnati, Ohio: University of Cincinnati.

Van
Voorhis, P., Wright, E. M., Salisbury, E., & Bauman, A. (2010). Women's
risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment:  The current status of a gender-responsive
supplement Criminal Justice &
Behavior, 37(3), 261-288. 

 

<br><br>The
Social Network Inventory

Questions about social network and
the support members provide

Estroff, S., & Zimmer, C. (1994). Social networks,
social support, and violence among persons with severe, persistent mental
illness. In J. Monahan & H. Steadman (Eds.), Violence and Mental Disorder: Developments in Risk Assessment (pp.
259-295). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

 

 

<br><br>Scales
Adapted or Used for the T3 Interview with Women Offenders

 

Substance
Abuse Treatment Engagement

Client
Evaluation of Self & Treatment Subscales: 
treatment satisfaction, counseling rapport, treatment
participation, peer support.

Garner, B. R.,
Knight, K., Flynn, P. M., Morey, J. T., & Simpson, D. D. (2007). Measuring
offender attributes and engagement in treatment using the Client Evaluation of
Self and Treatment (CJ CEST). Criminal
Justice & Behavior, 34, 1113-1130. 

<br><br><br><br>
description: Surveys of probation and parole officers and face to face interviews of women.<br>
description: women on probation and parole<br>
description: THE FOLLOWING IS FROM THE ARTICLE:
Morash, M., Kashy, D. A., Smith, S. W. and Cobbina, J. E.  Is the Nature of Communication Relevant to
the Supportiveness of Women’s Relationships with Probation and Parole Agents?  In press with the International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 


 

“To sample women offenders, first 77
agents were identified in 16 counties (a mix of suburban and rural areas and
the state’s largest cities) within 1 ½ hr drive from the research office in
East Lansing, MI. The proportion of agents recruited in each county
corresponded to the proportion of women supervised in each county. To increase
parolees to almost 25% of the total, parole agents were oversampled in relation
to probation agents. In private meetings, 73 of the 77 agents were recruited to
take part in the study. Of the four who did not take part, one withdrew, one
refused, one was reassigned to supervise men, and one took a medical leave.

 

To identify eligible
women offenders, a principal investigator reviewed the current caseload list
with each agent. Criteria for eligibility were a felony conviction, substance
involvement, and supervision for approximately 3 months. Agents facilitated
recruiting women by (a) giving out project contact cards and flyers so
interested women could arrange a time to hear about the study, (b) introducing
women to onsite project interviewers, or (c) obtaining women’s permission to
share contact information with interviewers who explained the study. Consistent
with institutional review board approved protocol, interviewers hired and
trained for the project directly recruited participants in private meetings.
Not all 846 women identified as eligible for the study took part, because they
reported to the office when research staff was not on site and they neither
responded to flyers nor gave agents permission to share contact information. A
comparison of available data on participants and nonparticipants revealed no
statistically significant differences in official records of substance use,
violations, arrests, misdemeanor convictions, and felony convictions in a
12-month period. Nonparticipants were slightly but significantly more likely to
be in jail or prison, suggesting a small bias toward including women who were
not incarcerated at 12 months.

<br><br><br><br>