Vocational Psychology with Criminal Justice Populations

Vocational Psychology and Illegal Work

Vocational psychology offers several vocational theories that may recognize crime as a form of work and explain how this form of work might develop. Just as the vocational theories explain how legal careers develop, many of their predictive constructs may be relevant to illegal career development. Utilizing a vocational psychology perspective in understanding crime as a form of work is a paradigm shift from the traditional way of examining crime. Yet, such a paradigm shift to vocational psychology appears relevant to intervening at earlier stages to change the individual’s behavior from a lifestyle of antisocial work to prosocial, gainful employment. As McWhirter (2013) states,

understanding self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and personal goals in the context of interests, goals, and actions related to income-generating criminal behavior may be quite salient to the development of SCCT-based interventions designed to prevent initial offenses, reduce recidivism, and support the pursuit of legal vocational pathways. (p. 1045)

Brown et al. (2013) offer a way to understand illegal behavior in terms of “context-specific” (p. 1058) social-cognitive factors. Therefore, a benefit of understanding crime from a vocational psychology standpoint is that vocational psychological factors, personal and contextual, can be examined.

The criminological and sociological paradigm has often been criticized for overlooking psychological factors such as attitudes and beliefs (see Laub & Sampson, 2001; Petersilia, 2004). A paradigm shift would allow illegal work to be examined using career constructs from a vocational psychological standpoint. Such constructs could include barriers, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, or even employment willingness as a type of goal within SCCT (see Brown et al., 2013). Other vocational constructs could also be applied from other theories. Such vocational psychological frameworks may also consider a social justice perspective and comprehend that from an offender’s perspective, illegal means of obtaining basic needs such as housing and food may still be a source of “self-sufficiency and dignity” (McWhirter, 2013, p. 1043).

Understanding crime from an SCCT framework may provide information to answer McWhirter’s (2013) questions about how immediate contextual factors, such as early release, influence goal planning and crime pursuit. From such a framework, one might see that contextual factors may make crime more appealing as barriers related to punishment are removed. McWhirter’s (2013) assertion that adult vocational interventions cannot change distal/background factors (e.g., poverty, poor education) speaks to the need for earlier, preventive interventions, including vocational interventions.

Desistance

The importance of investigating desistance in offenders is mentioned in Morgan (2013), but not defined, perhaps because “desistance” is a term that is difficult to define (Laub & Sampson, 2001). Although desistance is often referred to as the ceasing of criminal behavior, questions remain on whether it is an event or a process, and the time span needed for determining desistance (Laub & Sampson, 2001). Thus, measuring desistance is difficult, as it is a nonevent—something (i.e., crime) that is not happening, and may differ between official records and self-report (Laub & Sampson, 2001).

Although the definition and measurement of desistance lacks clarity, what is clear is that positive career development has been found to be associated with desistance (Devers, 2011; Laub & Sampson, 2001). Age, marriage, employment/education, and gender have been noted as main factors related to desistance (Devers, 2011). Of these, clearly employment and education are the most promising in responsiveness to interventions. Therefore, vocational interventions based on career theory and criminal justice research can promote desistance. The SCCT–Risk, Need, and Responsivity (RNR) model (Varghese, 2012) for developing effective vocational intervention helps promote desistance because it focuses on positive career development so that offenders can become gainfully employed and not reoffend. Brown et al. (2013) assert that the SCCT-RNR model reveals a “multifaceted approach to vocational and pro-social behavior and, in particular, avoidance of criminal activity” (p. 1053).

OPTIONS

All reactants saw the value and potential of the OPTIONS intervention. We agree with McWhirter (2013) that for the OPTIONS intervention to demonstrate utility in corrections, behavioral indicators (e.g., number of job applications, number of job interviews attended) need to be assessed. We also agree with Morgan (2013) that to measure intervention effectiveness, longitudinal data need to be collected.

All reactants acknowledge the challenge associated with conducting research in prison settings, particularly intervention research, and the greater challenge of obtaining longitudinal data once offenders leave prisons. Notably, such challenges include gaining access to inmates, which may require developing trusting relationships with administration and other prison personnel. In addition, offenders are considered a special population because their incarceration limits their ability to freely consent to participate. To conduct research with this population, full board approval from institutional research boards (IRBs) is required. Finally, collecting accurate follow-up data once offenders are released from prison is difficult depending on the level of supervision required post release. Offenders vary in the number of times they are required to meet with their parole/probation officers, the length of their supervision status, and whether they are released onto parole/probation. Variability can occur among parole/probation officers following up with offenders. Such variability creates reliability and validity issues and undermines the quality of the longitudinal data.

It is still important to overcome these challenges to obtain accurate follow-up data to assess whether interventions are effective in reducing recidivism and enhancing positive vocational outcomes. Securing grant-funding that allows for distribution of financial incentives and pays personnel to follow-up with offenders once they are released may assist with such challenges. Considering the potential benefits of effective interventions, grant agencies should consider prioritizing intervention research funding. Furthermore, McWhirter’s (2013) calculations provide a very strong statement about how cost-effective the OPTIONS intervention could be. Her initial calculations highlight the need for accurate data on cost-effectiveness, employment, and recidivism.

Although we agree with Brown et al. (2013) that measuring problem solving and hopefulness are not optimally linked to SCCT, these constructs were chosen to measure offender perspectives about themselves and their reentry process, and not exclusively to test SCCT. Future research should include measures of SCCT variables specifically. This requires the creation of measures specific to offenders and SCCT variables.

We appreciate Morgan’s (2013) comment on the need for OPTIONS to be longer in duration and more comprehensive. The four to five sessions were chosen based on extant research with adult populations, although not specifically offenders. A meta-analysis of career intervention outcome research conducted during the past 40 years with adults (Brown & Ryan-Krane, 2000) showed maximum intervention effectiveness for career attitudes and outcomes (e.g., career choice) at four to five sessions. Whether additional OPTIONS sessions would improve intervention results and reduce recidivism is an empirical question, yet to be explored. Considering that one of the limitations of conducting research with criminal justice populations is gaining access to the population, we conceptualized entry into prison settings for research purposes as an incremental process. If a brief intervention showed positive results, prison administrators might agree to take greater risks and consider longer interventions. We see such incremental steps are desirable in an effort to build collaborative, trusting relationships between prison administrators, staff, and researchers.

As McWhirter (2013) mentions, the OPTIONS program addressed several RNR components. Although the intervention itself was not specifically tailored to each inmate’s particular risk factors, freedom existed within the group structure to respond to unique concerns raised by individuals. As mentioned, the group format allowed for the possibility of increasing self-awareness, developing prosocial supports, and enhancing interpersonal skills. The OPTIONS intervention emphasizes strengths and abilities, and utilizes a cognitive behavioral approach.

Counseling Psychology and Corrections

McWhirter (2013) inquires about ways that more counseling psychologists can become involved in the field of criminal justice. Specifically, McWhirter (2013) asks about the differences between local, state, and federal prisons and how this may influence “possibilities for vocational interventions” (p. 1043). She also asks about skills and training helpful for preparation for such fields, and ways to overcome barriers to obtain such training. Considering the value of counseling psychologists to the field of corrections, we give these questions further attention.

Because correctional facilities vary at the federal, state, and local level, possibilities for vocational interventions vary across settings. One area of variation is funding. For the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), staff training is a priority and funding is provided (P. Magaletta, personal communication, March 1, 2013). Furthermore, at the federal level, funding for programs is likely to be uniform to maintain similarity across all institutions. Such uniformity in funding is not the case at local and state levels. For example, as McWhirter (2013) mentions, Oregon has progressive data-based policies that influence the interventions and programs available to offenders. Because each state is different in regard to political and legislative priorities, funding or implementation for such progressive policies is not likely to translate directly across state lines nationally (C. Giles, personal communication, March 7, 2013). Thus, due to the greater consistency at the federal level, the federal level may be the best opportunity to present an innovative and effective vocational program because it has a better opportunity to be applied nationally (C. Giles, personal communication, March 7, 2013). At the local level, one might be able to apply interventions after forming relationships with correctional staff and offering quality, innovative services, perhaps at a lower cost, which offenders otherwise would not have (C. Giles, personal communication, March 7, 2013).

McWhirter (2013) further inquires about possible pathways for a career in corrections. An important step in beginning a career path in corrections is to gain experience with criminal justice populations in the form of practica and internships as a doctoral student (Magaletta et al., 2013). One study found that 82.7% of the 2006-2010 cohort of Federal BOP predoctoral interns had criminal justice experience (Magaletta, Patry, & Norcross, 2012), suggesting the importance of such experience for BOP internship placement. Criminal justice settings included juvenile settings, county jails, state hospitals, community corrections, and federal and state prisons (Magaletta et al., 2012).

Gaining experience in a criminal justice setting allows for the development of relevant correctional skills. For example, learning how to communicate with interdisciplinary staff, such as correctional officers, is likely to be learned only in the correctional setting. “Unquestionably the central competency sought by correctional psychologists is interdisciplinary written and verbal communication skills to communicate with custody staff, case management, executive staff and other health care providers” (P. Magaletta, personal communication, March 1, 2013). This ability for effective interdisciplinary communication facilitates the interdisciplinary collaboration expected of a correctional psychologist (Aufderheide & Baxter, 2011). Magaletta, Patry, Dietz, and Ax (2007) found nine “core bodies of knowledge” (p. 11) desirable for working in a correctional setting, including (a) psychopathology, (b) suicide prevention, (c) environmental issues/special housing unit (SHU), (d) interdepartmental communications/relations, (e) safety, (f) confrontation avoidance, (g) ethics, (h) medical/psychopharmacology, and (i) psychopathy. Although several of these skills can be learned from other settings, some are best learned in the prison setting (Magaletta et al., 2007). For example, SHU may involve management of mentally ill offenders in segregated environments within a prison setting (Magaletta et al., 2007). Similarly, confrontation avoidance includes “knowing how to intervene with an inmate to avoid further confrontation” (Magaletta et al., 2007, p. 18).

Although practica are the most frequently available means for students to gain criminal justices experience (Magaletta et al., 2013), other ways that training programs can prepare their students include offering classes on forensic or correctional psychology and providing mentorship by faculty with such expertise (Magaletta, 2011). Faculty mentors can be beneficial, as students may have unique opportunities to participate in criminal justice research and mentors can facilitate connections to professional organizations and other relevant professionals. Other ways to gain mentoring might be through practicum supervisors in criminal justice settings, joining professional organizations to gain access to mentors, or attending criminal justice conferences to meet scholars in the field.

Vocational Psychology with Offenders: Aim High

Undoubtedly, there are challenges in gaining access to criminal justice populations for research, training, and intervention purposes. Yet, such difficulties should not deter one from pursuing this work. Fouad (2001) encourages the field of vocational psychology to aim high, which means embracing such challenges, thus inspiring the title of this section.

All reactants acknowledge the importance of the application of vocational psychology to criminal justice populations. Morgan (2013) recommends requiring comprehensive vocational programming for all inmates prior to release, even involuntarily. We appreciate his assertion about the value of such programming, and perhaps an approach more consistent with counseling psychology would be to encourage offenders to enroll in such vocational programs by preparing them—for example using effective psychological techniques such as motivational interviewing (see Dvoskin, Skeem, Novaco, & Douglas, 2012). Dvoskin et al. (2012) suggest that motivational interviewing may be helpful because offenders are not so much resistant to programs but may not be ready for such change.

Varghese’s (2012) SCCT-RNR model suggests developing comprehensive vocational intervention that follow the recommendations of Andrews and Bonta (2010), including targeting appropriate criminogenic needs based on assessments of risk. Morgan (2013) suggests developing a vocational intervention in the form of a module that does not attempt to target all criminogenic needs. He states that there are already established programs that target criminogenic needs such as antisocial attitudes and criminal peers and those programs could be used to target those factors. We agree that developing a vocational intervention that does not target all criminogenic needs is less ambitious. Yet, Varghese (2012) does not suggest that a vocational intervention target all criminogenic needs, only those that are indicated as relevant for the offender following a risk assessment (see Andrews & Bonta, 2010). We agree that established and effective programs are valuable for use. Yet, developing a vocational intervention as a separate module not specifically targeting criminogenic needs such as peers and antisocial attitudes may risk missing the relevance and value of integrating such criminogenic needs within a vocational psychological paradigm for effective intervention.

Criminogenic needs are relevant from a vocational psychology perspective. Antisocial attitudes, antisocial personality, criminal peers, and family, among other risk factors influence employment success (Varghese, 2012). For example, Bucklen and Zajac (2009) found that those who violated parole held more entitlement attitudes toward work and were less likely to keep jobs compared with those who did not violate parole. Therefore, vocational interventions that integrate criminogenic needs are appropriate and likely more realistic in helping offenders obtain and maintain employment and not reoffend than those that do not integrate such criminogenic needs. Brown et al. (2013) confirm that SCCT can incorporate such criminogenic needs and that “counseling/vocational psychology seems uniquely positioned to attend to the frequent vocational and non-vocational needs (e.g., substance abuse) of this population” (p. 1053). Therefore, the SCCT-RNR model proposed by Varghese (2012) that encourages targeting appropriate criminogenic needs appears relevant in promoting positive career development and reducing recidivism.

Dvoskin et al. (2012) acknowledge that following best practices for offenders may appear more difficult initially, yet are far more effective than the status quo. McWhirter (2013) asserts that the status quo that subjects offenders to interventions of lesser quality needs to be challenged. Fouad (2001) urges the field of vocational psychology to pursue quality by incorporating information from interdisciplinary fields. Considering this, Varghese’s SCCT-RNR model is needed because it encourages counseling and vocational psychologists to develop quality and comprehensive vocational programs that utilize interdisciplinary findings and follows best practices. We hope that counseling and vocational psychologists would apply their skills to promote such best practices for the offender population.

Conclusion

There are very few things more important than work in the lives of people. Offenders are no exception, especially considering the conceptualization of crime as a form of work and the role of legal employment in desistance. Counseling psychology, and vocational psychology specifically, can offer a valuable paradigm shift that may better explain the motivation toward crime as illegal work and offer effective interventions to help offenders alter this trajectory to move toward a prosocial life of gainful employment. Gaining access and working with offender populations is challenging, yet these individuals need our expertise. Therefore, we hope that despite the challenges and complexities in working with offender populations, counseling psychologists will persist in receiving appropriate training and applying their knowledge. We hope that the articles in this major contribution are a further step toward developing effective vocational interventions that integrate best practices for these and other marginalized groups.