Probation/Parole Officer Interactions with Women Offenders: Do Relationship Style and Communication Pattern Predict Outcomes?
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Merry Morash, Michigan State University, School of Criminal Justice; Sandi W. Smith, Michigan State University, Dept. of Communication; Deborah A. Kashy, Michigan State University Dept Pscyology; Jennifer E. Cobbina, Michigan State University, School of Criminal Justice
Version: View help for Version V1
| Name | File Type | Size | Last Modified |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
application/x-spss-sav | 7.2 KB | 01/30/2017 12:58:PM |
|
|
application/zip | 613.9 KB | 01/29/2017 12:06:PM |
Project Citation:
Morash, Merry, Smith, Sandi W., Kashy, Deborah A., and Cobbina, Jennifer E. Probation/Parole Officer Interactions with Women Offenders: Do Relationship Style and Communication Pattern Predict Outcomes? . Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2017-01-30. https://doi.org/10.3886/E100410V1
Project Description
Summary:
View help for Summary
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.
Funding Sources:
View help for Funding Sources
Michigan State University Foundation;
National Science Foundation. Law and Social Sciences Program (1126162)
Scope of Project
Subject Terms:
View help for Subject Terms
Community Supervision Women
Geographic Coverage:
View help for Geographic Coverage
16 Michigan Counties
Time Period(s):
View help for Time Period(s)
9/16/2011 – 9/15/2014
Collection Date(s):
View help for Collection Date(s)
9/16/2011 – 9/15/2014
Universe:
View help for Universe
women on probation and parole
Data Type(s):
View help for Data Type(s)
other;
survey data
Collection Notes:
View help for Collection Notes
Surveys of probation and parole officers and face to face interviews of women.
Methodology
Response Rate:
View help for Response Rate
Probation and parole officers : 94.8 % completed the first interview.
Probation and parole officer retention: 70.4% of women had the same PO at all three face-to-face interviews
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.
Women on probation and parole: 47.5% recruited from a sampling frame. Very few turndowns.
Of those who completed the first interview, 94.3% retained through three interviews.
Probation and parole officer retention: 70.4% of women had the same PO at all three face-to-face interviews
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.
Women on probation and parole: 47.5% recruited from a sampling frame. Very few turndowns.
Of those who completed the first interview, 94.3% retained through three interviews.
Sampling:
View help for Sampling
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.
Data Source:
View help for Data Source
Computer surveys with probation and parole officers and face-to-face interviews with women on probation and parole.
Scales:
View help for Scales
Scales
Used for PO Survey 1 and T1 Interview with Women Offenders
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Weights:
View help for Weights
none
Unit(s) of Observation:
View help for Unit(s) of Observation
individuals
Related Publications
Published Versions
Report a Problem
Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.
This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.