Views of Community Corrections Supervision and Their Predictors: An Officer and Offender Comparison

Abstract

Appropriate supervision strategies are the backbone of community corrections. The success of community supervision is dependent upon the attitudes of both officers and offenders. Despite this, research on offenders’ attitudes toward community corrections supervision is surprisingly very limited. The current study investigated attitudes of officers and offenders toward and predictors of four different community supervision strategies based on data collected in Hubei, China, in 2103 and 2016. The study found that among demographics, community variables, and value factor, the mutual trust value factor was the most important predictor of community supervision strategies by both officers and offenders. Additional findings and policy implications are discussed.

Keywords

china community corrections views toward community corrections community corrections supervision

Introduction

Supervision is commonly believed to be the backbone of community corrections (Taxman, 2008). However, community supervision's success is also affected by attitudes toward community supervision strategies and other factors (Dembo, 1972; Jiang et al., 2020; Ricks & Eno Louden, 2015; Steiner et al., 2011). Empirical studies have provided evidence for the attitudes-outcome linkage in community supervision (see Ricks & Eno Louden, 2015). Furthermore, both officers and offenders are major components of community supervision. Thus, in order to select an appropriate supervision strategy and have effective community corrections, understanding how both officers and offenders view supervision strategies is critical.

Research on attitudes toward supervision strategies first began with officers. In 1956, Ohlin, Piven, and Pappenfort initiated a pioneer study on probation and parole officer orientations, and they classified them as punitive, protective, and welfare. Other scholars followed suit and further refined these classifications. In 1969, Glaser researched parole officers’ attitudes toward law enforcement and rehabilitation models. Following Glaser's study, Clear and Latessa (1993) analyzed 31 officers from two intensive supervision sites in Ohio and Georgia. Their findings suggested that an authority orientation was linked to a surveillance approach, while an assistance orientation was associated with rehabilitation strategies. More recently, Schwalbe and Maschi (2009) found that officers with punishment orientations had an accountability approach in their interventions, while officers with treatment orientations had a rehabilitative approach to supervision. In their investigation of the relationship between parole officers’ attitudes toward supervision and their responses to offender behavior in Ohio, Steiner et al. (2011) reported that officers’ attitudes influenced their supervision responses. Based on a national survey of frontline community correctional staff in the U.S., Miller (2014) found that punishment orientations were positively related to officers’ crime-opportunity prevention and law enforcement strategies, while rehabilitation orientations were positively related to their use of therapeutic strategies. Jiang et al. (2019) examined the relationship between supervision views and supervision practices in Chinese community corrections, and found that supervision views predicted supervision strategies. In general, previous studies focused on whether officers’ views of supervision affected their supervision practices.

More recently, scholars have begun to focus on the attitudes of probationers and parolees toward community supervision. For example, Shapland et al. (2012) studied probationers’ views of the quality and effectiveness of community supervision. Chui and Chan (2014) explored male juvenile offenders’ perceptions of their probation officers in Hong Kong– authoritarian/punitive or supportive/rehabilitative. Jiang et al. (2020) investigated offenders’ views of supervision strategies and the predictors of these views in mainland China. There are, however, very few quantitative studies of offender attitudes toward community supervision models, such as law-enforcement, therapeutic, and crime-opportunity prevention (Jiang et al., 2020; Shapland et al., 2012). To the best of our knowledge, Chui and Chan (2014) and Jiang et al. (2020) are the only studies using multiple regression analyses to examine offenders’ attitudes toward these models and their predictors. Accordingly, the purposes of this study were 1) to determine the views of supervision by offenders and officers, 2) to compare and contrast the views, and 3) to investigate and compare the predictors of the views.

This study has both scholarly and practical significance. That is, this study can contribute to the research literature on correctional supervision strategies by comparing both offenders’ and officers’ views and the predictors of their views. This study's findings will also support future research in selecting independent variables and establishing a theoretical model of supervision views. Further, this investigation provides information on the views of supervision by offenders and officers so that correctional professionals and decision-makers can implement evidence-based supervision. It can also enhance our understanding of the predictors of supervision views so that these views can be improved, ultimately resulting in improved supervision practices.

Literature Review

Major Supervision Strategies in Community Corrections

While there are a variety of supervision strategies in community corrections, the three supervision strategies recognized by scholars are law-enforcement or surveillance-control, therapeutic or rehabilitative, and crime-opportunity prevention strategies (Jiang et al., 2019).

The law enforcement strategy emphasizes supervising offenders by law and legal authority. Law enforcers’ attention is on surveillance and control of offenders. In contrast, the therapeutic approach pays more attention to treatment and reform of offenders (Glaser, 1969; Klockars, 1972). These two traditional supervision strategies have long been used in community corrections. More recently, the crime-opportunity control approach applies ideas from environmental criminological theories (Clarke, 1997; Cullen, 2011; Miller, 2014), and aims to reduce “offenders’ exposure to crime opportunities” (Miller, 2014, p. 1236). Based on a self-report survey from 75 Australian probation and parole officers, Schaefer and Williamson (2017) discovered that surveillance, rehabilitation, and crime-opportunity prevention strategies were employed simultaneously.

Views of the Supervision Strategies and Their Predictors

Compared to research on supervision practices in community corrections, there are fewer studies on the views of the supervision strategies by officers and offenders, especially offenders. Most of the existing studies focus on whether the views of supervision are related to supervision practices. Fewer have examined the predictors of the views of community correctional supervision models from the perspective of officers (Jiang et al., 2016b; Payne et al., 2016; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1992) or the perspective of offenders (Chui & Chan, 2014; Jiang et al., 2020; Shapland et al., 2012).

For officers’ views of supervision, the vast majority of past research has concentrated on the two traditional models: surveillance-control and rehabilitative (Fulton et al., 1997). As previously noted, a new approach in supervision is “aimed at reducing offenders’ exposure to crime opportunities” (Miller, 2014, p. 1236). Jiang et al. (2019) was the only published study located that investigated views of crime-opportunity prevention strategy and how it related to the views of the other community supervision strategies. Further, no published research on the predictors of the views of crime-opportunity prevention strategy was found. In order to fill this void, this study attempted to identify the predictors of the views of crime-opportunity prevention strategy. To this end, the literature on the sources of officer attitudes was surveyed. Among the few studies on the predictors of officer attitudes toward probation and parole, demographics, individual feelings/perceptions/values, and organizational factors have often been examined (Farkas, 2001; Lambert et al., 2009; Payne et al., 2016; Viglione & Blasko, 2018).

For offender views of supervision, Jiang et al. (2020) recently surveyed the views of supervision strategies by community corrections probationers in China, and examined their correlates. According to their comprehensive literature review, no theory was found to guide variable selection. Theirs was the first quantitative study that simultaneously examined offenders’ attitudes toward surveillance-control, rehabilitative and environmental supervision models. Drawing on previous research, their study chose four groups of predictors of the offender views of supervision: criminal experience factors, social factors, institutional/community correctional factors, and individual characteristics.

As officers and offenders in community corrections have different backgrounds, past research has included a variety of factors to explore the predictors of supervision views. The current study included the three previously examined types of predictors possibly correlated to the supervision views of both officers and offenders: demographic factors, individual feelings and values, and organizational variables. The rest of the literature review focuses on these three groups of predictors.

Predictors of the Supervision Views for Both Officers and Offenders

Value factor

The current study includes one value factor: mutual trust between officer and offender. Chinese people pay attention to guanxi (interpersonal relationships) and reciprocity (Jiang et al., 2018b; Wong et al., 2003). Individual relationships and mutual trust are imperative for organizational success in general and for positive correctional outcomes specifically (Lambert et al., 2018a). A recent study of Chinese prison staff (Jiang et al., 2018c) suggested that the individual relationship and mutual trust between superior and subordinate may mediate the relationship between supervision and job satisfaction. So, is mutual trust between officer and offender in community corrections important in predicting the views of supervision among officers and offenders? No investigation of this topic was found to exist.

Research in Western societies suggests that community corrections success depends upon the quality of the officer-offender relationships (Labrecque et al., 2014; Manchak et al., 2014; Shapland et al., 2012). Officers have dual roles, referred to as caring and control. Empirical studies revealed that, in the community supervision process, allowing offenders to have a voice, treating them with respect, and solving problems in a firm-but-fair authoritative manner is the key to maintaining the high quality of the officer-offender relationships (Manchak et al., 2014). Mutual trust is one of the key components for dual-role relationships. “A high quality alliance characterized by a strong bond, a sense of trust” (Manchak et al., 2014, p. 58) can engage offenders and facilitate their psychological and behavioral changes (Skeem et al., 2007). In contrast, a poor alliance is more likely to lead to a punitive supervision relationship (Labrecque et al., 2014). Based on the above findings, the current study assumed that mutual trust would be positively related to attitudes toward rehabilitative strategies and crime-opportunity prevention strategies and negatively related to attitudes toward the punitive strategies.

Institutional or Social Factors

Location of supervision agencies

Rural and urban areas are generally more different in China than in the West in terms of economic development, cultural tradition, etc. For example, a rural local justice office, which is in charge of community corrections among its other duties, usually has one or two staff members, including the head of the office. In contrast, urban justice offices typically have one office leader and several staff members (Jiang et al., 2019). Rural residents in a village often have lived the same place for generations and know each other well. A village is still more likely to be managed by families or informal norms and rules.

Compared to rural residents, urban residents move more frequently and often live in multi-story apartment buildings. They are more likely to have limited knowledge about the people living in the same community, especially in large cities, which makes formal control more likely in urban communities. In addition, the urban populace is generally more educated, more skilled, and wealthier than the rural population, facilitating the use of technology in urban areas.

Given differences in residential stability, traditional norms, and control mechanisms, officers and offenders in rural areas are expected to value rehabilitation more than their urban counterparts. In contrast, officers and offenders in urban areas are expected to value a more punitive approach. As noted above, no study to date has tested these relationships directly; however, there are a few relevant examples. One on officer attitudes toward offenders by Jiang et al. (2015) revealed that, compared to rural officers, urban community corrections staff in China were more punitive and less rehabilitative towards offenders in supervision. Jiang et al. (2019) found that urban Chinese officers were more likely than their rural counterparts to use both the law enforcement strategy and the therapeutic approach. Miller (2014) found that U.S. officers in rural areas used the crime-opportunity prevention strategy more than their urban counterparts. Miller suggested that rural communities “may be more conducive to family and community engagement” (p. 1250); however, Miller's study did not find that the location-crime-opportunity prevention strategy was associated with the rehabilitation model or the punishment model.

Based on differences between Chinese urban and rural areas and these relevant findings, this study assumed that officers and offenders in rural China were more likely than their urban counterparts to value the rehabilitation strategy and less likely to value the punishment approach in community supervision. With regard to the location-crime-opportunity prevention strategy relationship, Miller (2014) suggested that rural families and communities may be more likely to participate in crime-opportunity prevention than in the U.S. This study assumed that officers and offenders in rural China were more likely than their urban counterparts to value the crime-opportunity prevention strategies in community corrections.

Residential stability

The authors found no empirical research on the relationship between residential stability and views of community corrections supervision strategy. According to social disorganization theory, residential stability can increase social ties and mutual trust, and, in turn, lead to high levels of informal control and collective efficacy. Applying this concept to community corrections supervision, the current study expected that the longer officers or offenders lived in a community, the more likely they would value the rehabilitation approach and crime-opportunity prevention, and the less likely they would value the punishment model.

Individual Factors

Gender

Due to socialization, gender may affect views of corrections (Lambert et al., 2007). Gilligan (1982) proposed two moral reasoning models to explain gender differences in crime and punishment views. Women are more likely to use a “care voice” for moral reasoning and are concerned with “maintaining relationships and responding compassionately” (Lambert et al., 2007, p. 109). Women are more likely to advocate an empathic, caring approach in criminal justice issues. In contrast, men are more likely to use a “justice voice” model of moral reasoning for their criminal justice views, emphasizing individual rights, accountability, and equal law enforcement. Thus, women tend to be more supportive of rehabilitation and less punitive than men in dealing with offenders. Most empirical studies in the West provide support for the two reasoning models (Farkas, 2001; Lambert et al., 2007, 2009; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1992).

Conversely, due to gendered socialization, a patriarchal culture, collectivism, and a one-party political system, women in China tend to be more similar to their male counterparts in their views of criminal justice issues (Lambert et al., 2007). Findings regarding gender as a predictor of correctional issues in China are mixed. Most studies have reported that gender was not associated with work attitudes or supervision practices in community corrections (Jiang et al., 2015, 2016a, 2018a, 2019, 2020; Jin et al., 2018a) or prisons (Jiang et al., 2018b; Lambert et al., 2018a, 2018b). Other studies have noted that gender was a predictor of work attitudes or supervision practices in Chinese corrections (Jiang et al., 2020; Jin et al., 2018b). This study further examines the correlation between gender and work attitudes in corrections.

Age

The association of age with attitudes toward punishment in general may be different from the age connection with work attitudes found in corrections. For example, older people often tend to be more punitive in death penalty views. The general public does not have much personal interaction with offenders sentenced to death; however, in corrections, settings are different, and officers and offenders have frequent interactions. Age-related maturity, tolerance, and life experience may play an important role in officers’ attitudes toward offenders and supervision strategies. Older and more experienced officers may have a better understanding of the correctional setting and have more patience and higher levels of tolerance toward offenders. Research on prison staff has uncovered that younger officers were more control-oriented and less interested in a therapeutic role with offenders (Farkas, 2001; Jurik, 1985; Klofas & Toch, 1982). Empirical research has yielded conflicting results. Some studies showed that age is positively related to rehabilitation and negatively with punishment; others reported no association between age and the views of correctional supervision strategies (Farkas, 2001; Lambert et al., 2009; Payne et al., 2016; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1992).

Only two studies empirically examined the relationship between age and correctional supervision orientation in China. Jiang et al. (2016a) discovered that older community correctional officers were less punitive toward offenders, but age was not connected to rehabilitative views. However, Jiang et al. (2020) found no connections between age and views of supervision. Further research is warranted.

Education

Education is believed to contribute to the development of professionalism, including people skills (Williamson, 1990) and the ability to understand offender behavior (Farkas, 2001). Lambert et al. (2009) conducted a comprehensive review of the education-supervision orientation relationship and found that it was mixed. Although most research has revealed a positive connection between education and rehabilitation views and a negative association between education and punitive supervision orientation (Payne et al., 2016; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1992), some studies found no relationship (Farkas, 2001).

Jiang et al. (2020) uncovered no relationship between education and offender views of community supervision strategies in China. Several other studies on officer attitudes and community corrections included education. In most cases, education was not related to officer's attitudes toward community corrections issues (Jiang et al., 2016a, 2018a, 2019; Jin et al., 2018a, 2018b). As education is likely to contribute to the development of people skills, people with more education were hypothesized to be more supportive of rehabilitation and less supportive of punishment. Also, more educated individuals are likely to value cooperation with offender's family and community (Jiang et al., 2018a). Thus, more educated respondents were hypothesized to be more supportive of crime-opportunity prevention strategies.

Marital Status

Married officers and offenders tend to be older and more experienced in the correctional system. They are also more likely to have loved ones under their care. Thus, a general assumption has been that married people are more supportive of educating and reforming offenders and less supportive of punitive approach to offenders. However, the connection between marital status and correctional orientation has been studied to a much lesser degree compared to gender, age, and education. Based on a study of 319 correctional officers in Texas, Paboojian and Teske (1997) found no correlation between marital status and attitudes toward treatment programs in the prison system.

There are only two studies on marital status and views of supervision strategies in China. One (Jiang et al., 2016a) was based on the survey of officers, while the other (Jiang et al., 2020) surveyed offenders. Neither reported a significant relationship between marital status and views. This study included marital status as a control variable.

Method

Data Sources

This study's data were collected in Hubei province. Correctional staff were surveyed in 2013, while offenders were surveyed in 2016.

The 2013 survey of community correctional staff

The 2013 data were from 199 community correctional staff from 15 counties (or equivalents). The 15 counties were chosen based on location (urban vs. rural). Local justice offices at the township/street level were selected from the sampled counties.

Two types of correctional staff were sampled for the survey: the heads of local justice office and social workers. Local justice office heads have multiple responsibilities; community corrections is just one of many. The typical rural local justice office at the time of the survey had just one staff member who took all responsibilities for supervising any probationers or parolees. At multi-person offices, typically in urban areas, social workers often performed secretarial or assistant work tasks, such as checking-in clients, note taking, and bookkeeping, although the office head might have direct interactions with offenders. The job focus of social workers was on community corrections, but they were sometimes asked to carry out other duties.

The survey used structured questionnaires which the research team first drafted based on the literature review and field observations. These were revised several times using the information from pretests on college students, faculty, community correctional officers, and members of the research team.

Using the finalized questionnaire, the research team conducted face-to-face surveys with all correctional officers from the selected local justice offices with the exception of those who were ill or out of town at the survey time. All interviewers had previous survey experience, but prior to the interviews, they also received training on how to conduct in-person surveys. During the survey, they made clear to the interviewees the following purposes of the study: 1) the survey was for scholarly work; 2) the data collected from participants would be confidential and no individual respondent would be identified in any report; and 3) the interview was voluntary. In order to improve the response rate, the interviewers were asked to check all of the completed surveys at the survey site. The estimated response rate was 96%.

The 2016 survey of offenders

The 2016 survey of offenders was conducted in a city, part of the Hubei province. The area had approximately 10.6 million permanent residents, 13 districts, 162 local justice offices, and 3,307 offenders at the time of the survey.

It was not feasible to randomly select a large group of offenders under community corrections for a research project in China. The research team followed the typical process to request permission and support from the relevant Chinese government authority. Using “connections” with the community corrections authority in the city, the Chinese professor on the research team received approval to survey offenders under community corrections. The steps for selecting participants were: first, 4 districts were selected from the 13 city districts based on their location and accessibility; next, the local justice offices, and, then, offenders were selected. These districts and offices were widely distributed across the survey area. During August and September 2016, two selected districts arranged meetings or trainings for all offenders so that the interviewers were able to distribute questionnaires to them. For the other two districts, the authorities did not arrange such meetings or trainings. The survey organizer sent interviewers to local justice offices in these two districts.

The same research team leaders organized both the 2013 and 2016 surveys. The team composition, steps in the questionnaire development, the interviewer training for the two surveys were very similar. As in other countries, offenders in China are generally difficult to survey. In order to increase survey validity and reliability, the research team used a face-to-face survey model to collect offenders' information. As in the 2013 survey, all the participants in 2016 were informed on the purposes of the survey, survey confidentiality, and its voluntary nature.

It is worth noting that the research team was very aware of the dilemma of utilizing governmental agencies. On the one hand, the team had to obtain permission and support from government officials in order to access offenders. On the other hand, the interviewers had to limit the officials’ interference with offenders’ responses. Thus, for a one-to-one interview, only the interviewer and the respondent were in the room. For group interviews of offenders, one interviewer read the questionnaire to offenders, and a group of the interviewers walked around the survey room in case a particular offender needed assistance to complete the survey. With the support of the correctional agencies, 370 offenders were approached, and 351 successfully completed the survey for a 95% response rate.

Measures

Although the two data sources from two different surveys had different foci, they did include some identical questions that were used as the dependent and independent variables. The following sections present the dependent and independent variables.

Dependent variables

The dependent variables measured the attitudes toward the punishment, rehabilitation, and crime-opportunity prevention strategies. Like Miller (2014), attitudes toward punishment were measured by three items (see Table 1). Applying factor analysis, the three items were loaded on a single factor. The factor for the views of punishment index was created based on the regression-based factor scores. The factor accounted for 48% and 60% of the common variance in the three items between officers and offenders, respectively.

Table 1.

The Views of Supervision Strategies by Officers and Offenders.

Item	Officers (n = 199)						Offenders (n = 351)
Item	1	2	3	4	5	Mean	1	2	3	4	5	Mean
Punishment
The justice system should:
Make punishment its main goal	6	52	22	16	4	2.60	15	34	22	20	10	2.77
Ensure that offenders are adequately punished	0	10	8	66	16	3.86*	4	8	18	55	16	3.70*
Prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law	1	12	19	53	16	3.72	3	9	24	47	18	3.67
Rehabilitation
The justice system should:
Provide counseling or therapy to offenders with mental health problems	1	8	8	60	24	3.98	1	1	13	60	26	4.09
Provide treatment for offenders with substance abuse problems	2	17	16	48	16	3.59*	1	2	14	57	26	4.04*
Improve the educational involvement and attainment of offenders	0	2	6	67	25	4.15	1	1	10	56	33	4.20
Promote employment opportunities for offenders	0	9	15	54	21	3.86*	1	1	12	53	34	4.18*
Views of Offender-Focused Crime-Opportunity Prevention
Help probationers recognize places where they are at risk of offending	0	0	16	48	36	4.20	4	2	10	41	43	4.16
Help probationers avoid places where they are at risk of offending	0	0	14	47	39	4.24	4	3	8	37	48	4.24
Help probationers recognize activities that put them at risk of offending	0	0	9	46	44	4.34	3	2	8	37	50	4.29
Help probationers avoid activities that put them at risk of offending	0	1	11	44	44	4.32	3	1	10	38	49	4.27
Views of Community-Based Crime-Opportunity Prevention
Seek support from family members to supervise and monitor daily activities of probationers	0	0	7	48	45	4.37*	4	6	14	36	40	4.02*
Seek support from family members to help probationers avoid risky places and activities	0	0	9	53	38	4.29*	4	4	12	39	41	4.09*
Seek support from community members (e.g., friends, neighbors, teachers, class mates, comrade-in-arms) to supervise and monitor daily activities of probationers	0	1	13	53	33	4.17*	5	6	12	38	39	4.01*
Seek support from community members (e.g., friends, neighbors, teachers, class mates, comrade-in-arms) to help probationers avoid risky places and activities	0	1	12	52	36	4.21*	6	8	14	36	37	3.91*
Seek support from township government and community committees to supervise and monitor daily activities of probationers	0	0	8	48	43	4.33*	4	6	14	37	38	3.99*
Seek support from township government and community committees to help probationers avoid risky places and activities	0	0	9	48	43	4.33*	4	5	13	40	39	4.04*
Seek support from police officers to supervise and monitor daily activities of probationers	0	2	14	51	33	4.15*	5	6	16	35	38	3.94*
Seek support from police officers to help probationers avoid risky places and activities	0	2	14	52	32	4.12	5	6	13	36	41	4.01

* Based on the independent t-test, there was a statistically significant difference at p ≤ .05 between officers and offenders on the variable.

How important are the following supervision strategies? (1 = not important at all to 5 = very important).

Also following Miller (2014), the current study measured rehabilitation views using four items (see Table 1), which loaded on a single factor. The factor accounted for 59% and 79% of the common variance in the four items between officers and offenders, respectively. The factor for the views of rehabilitation index was formed based on the regression-based factor scores.

Twelve items were used to measure the perceived importance of the crime-opportunity control strategies (see Table 1). Factor analysis produced two factors. The first four items for crime-opportunity control strategies listed in Table 1 loaded on one factor. These items focused on places and activities with known risks to offenders and ways to help offenders avoid them. Accordingly, a variable labeled offender-focused crime-opportunity prevention strategies was created using the regression-based factor scores. The remaining eight items loaded on the other factor and represented support from family, peer, community, local government and police to help offenders avoid risky places and activities. These eight items focused on community resources and support. Thus, a variable labeled community-based crime-opportunity prevention strategies was created using the regression-based factor scores. The two factors explained 73% and 87% of the common variance in the twelve items between officers and offenders, respectively.

Independent variables

Independent variables included values, community factors, and individual characteristics. The value variable mutual trust was measured by this question: “How important is the development of mutual trust between officer and offender in community supervision?” The response option for this question ranged from not important at all ( = 1) to very important ( = 5). The organizational variable location was measured by the location of the local justice office at where officers worked or offenders received supervision (rural = 1 and urban = 0). The respondent's residential stability was measured by the length (months) they lived at their current home address. There are several individual factors. Gender was coded as male = 1 and female = 0. Age was measured in years. Education was measured as an ordinal variable with following categories: elementary or below ( = 1), middle school ( = 2), high school or the equivalent ( = 3), associate degree or bachelor's degree ( = 4) and higher than bachelor's degree ( = 5). Marital status was measured by asking whether the respondent was married at the survey time with yes = 1 and no = 0.

Results

Table 1 presents the questions for the views of the four supervision strategies by officers and offenders. It includes percentages of answer categories for all questions, which serve the first purpose: to reveal the respondents’ views of supervision. According to the table, the majority of officers and offenders believed that the justice system should ensure that offenders were adequately punished and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but most did not support making punishment the main goal of justice system. For rehabilitation, the vast majority of officers and offenders believed that the justice system should: (1) provide counseling or therapy to offenders with mental health problems, (2) provide treatment for offenders with substance abuse problems, (3) improve the educational involvement and attainment of offenders, and (4) promote employment opportunities for offenders.

For the importance of the offender-focused crime-opportunity prevention model, most officers and offenders viewed all four items described in Table 1 as important or very important. They believed it is important or very important to help offenders recognize and avoid places where they are at risk of offending and activities that put them at risk of offending. The eight items of the views of community-based crime-opportunity prevention were also considered important or very important by the vast majority of officers and offenders. In other words, offenders’ family members, friends, neighbors and other community members, local government agencies, community organizations, and police were viewed as important resources to monitor and supervise offenders and help them avoid risky places and activities.

Table 1 also presents the data and t tests to assess whether officers differed from offenders in the views of the above four supervision models. These tests serve the second purpose: to compare and contrast the views of supervision between officers and offenders. Among three questions of the punishment strategies, officers and offenders did not have different views about whether the justice system should: (1) make punishment its main goal, and (2) prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law. However, they did differ on whether the justice system should ensure that offenders are adequately punished. Officers scored higher than offenders on this question, indicating that officers might be more punitive than offenders in this regard, or that officers might pay more attention to the adequacy of punishment.

For the four questions on the rehabilitation model, officers and offenders did not differ about whether the justice system should provide counseling or therapy to offenders with mental health problems and improve offender educational involvement and attainment. They did differ on two questions. Offenders were more likely than officers to believe that the justice system should provide treatment for offenders with substance abuse problems and promote employment opportunities for offenders.

There were no significant differences between officers and offenders regarding the perceived importance of offender-focused crime-opportunity prevention approaches. Among the eight questions measuring the views of community-based crime-opportunity prevention strategy, officers rated the all approaches higher than offenders, although the last item was not statistically significant at p ≤ .05. These findings suggest that relative to offenders, officers were more likely to believe that community resources, including the formal ones (such as local government and the police), the semiformal (such as community committees), and the informal (such as offenders’ family members, neighbors and other community members) are important to help reduce crime opportunities and prevent offenders from reoffending.

Table 2 presents the ordinary least square regression results for the four dependent variables (the views of the four supervision models) for officers and offenders, which serves the third purpose: to investigate and compare the predictors of the views between officers and offenders.

Table 2.

Ordinary Least Square Regression Results with Four Dependent Variables for Officers and Offenders.

	Officers
Views	Punishment				Rehabilitation				Offender Focused Control				Community Based Control
Views	b	se	beta	t	b	se	beta	t	b	se	beta	t	b	se	beta	t
Gender (m = 1)	0.19	0.17	0.09	1.17	−0.22	0.16	−0.10	−1.35	−0.07	0.15	−0.03	−0.45	−0.28	0.15	−0.13	−1.93*
Age	−0.01	0.01	−0.08	−0.88	−0.01	0.01	−0.13	−1.52	−0.01	0.01	−0.08	−0.96	0.00	0.01	−0.02	−0.28
Education	0.28	0.21	0.09	1.30	−0.01	0.21	0.00	−0.04	−0.06	0.19	−0.02	−0.30	−0.45	0.19	−0.14	−2.41**
Marriage (m = 1)	−0.11	0.21	−0.04	−0.52	−0.25	0.20	−0.10	−1.25	−0.01	0.19	0.00	−0.05	−0.03	0.18	−0.01	−0.15
Location (rural = 1)	−0.30	0.16	−0.15	−1.92*	0.47	0.15	0.24	3.08**	0.23	0.14	0.11	1.57	0.06	0.14	0.03	0.46
R_stability	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.06	0.00	0.00	0.11	1.53	0.00	0.00	−0.09	−1.28	0.00	0.00	0.03	0.50
Mutual trust	0.22	0.12	0.13	1.88*	0.38	0.11	0.22	3.36**	0.81	0.11	0.47	7.62**	0.80	0.10	0.47	7.79**
R²				0.06				0.12				0.22				0.27
	Offenders
Views	Punishment				Rehabilitation				Offender Focused Control				Community Based Control
	b	se	beta	t	b	se	beta	t	b	se	beta	t	b	se	beta	t
Gender (m = 1)	−0.05	0.16	−0.02	−0.29	0.29	0.16	0.10	1.78*	0.02	0.16	0.01	0.13	0.00	0.14	0.00	0.01
Age	0.00	0.01	0.02	0.27	0.00	0.01	−0.02	−0.27	−0.01	0.01	−0.06	−0.95	−0.01	0.01	−0.12	−2.33**
Education	0.05	0.06	0.05	0.85	0.06	0.06	0.06	1.08	−0.10	0.06	−0.10	−1.77*	0.03	0.05	0.03	0.70
Marriage (m = 1)	0.13	0.13	0.06	1.00	0.25	0.13	0.11	1.924*	−0.23	0.13	−0.10	−1.79*	0.13	0.11	0.06	1.15
Location (rural = 1)	0.29	0.25	0.07	1.16	0.23	0.24	0.06	0.95	0.14	0.24	0.03	0.59	−0.06	0.21	−0.01	−0.28
R_stability	0.00	0.00	0.08	1.41	0.00	0.00	0.04	0.71	0.00	0.00	−0.07	−1.28	0.00	0.00	0.03	0.57
Mutual trust	0.04	0.06	0.04	0.77	0.18	0.06	0.19	3.33**	0.17	0.06	0.17	3.00**	0.55	0.05	0.55	11.48**
R²				0.02				0.07				0.06				0.33

Note: b represents the unstandardized regression coefficient, and se the standard error of the slope. Punishment was the views of punishment as the dependent variable (DV); rehab the views of rehabilitation as DV; control1 the views community-based crime-opportunity prevention strategy as DV; control2 the views of community-based crime-opportunity prevention strategy as DV. R_stability stands for residential stability.

* p < .05, ** p < .01.

When the views of punishment were used as a dependent variable, two independent variables were significant for officers, while none of the independent variables were significant for offenders. First, the location of the community corrections agencies affected officers’ views of punishment. That is, officers in urban areas were more punitive than those in rural areas. Second, mutual trust was positively related to the views of punishment.

When attitudes toward rehabilitation are used as a dependent variable, predictors also differed between officers and offenders. For officers, location and mutual trust were statistically significant. Officers from rural correctional agencies were more supportive of rehabilitation than those from urban areas. Officers who ranked the importance of mutual trust between officers and offenders more highly were likely to support rehabilitation.

For offenders, three variables significantly predicted views of rehabilitation: gender, marital status, and mutual trust. Male and married offenders were more supportive of rehabilitation. The perceived importance of mutual trust between officers and offenders led to higher support for rehabilitation.

Officers and offenders also had different predictors of the views of offender-focused crime-opportunity prevention strategy: one (mutual trust) for officers, and three (education, marital status, and mutual trust) for offenders. Mutual trust was a significant variable for officers to predict their views of the offender-focused crime-opportunity prevention strategy, and the relationship was positive. The same relationship also existed for offenders. In addition, more educated and married offenders ranked the importance of the offender-focused crime-opportunity prevention strategies lower.

With regard to the predictors of attitudes toward the importance of the community-based crime-opportunity prevention model, Table 2 reveals three significant ones (gender, education, and mutual trust) for officers, and two (age and mutual trust) for offenders. Male and more educated officers valued the importance of the community-based crime-opportunity prevention model lower. Officers’ perceived importance of mutual trust between officers and offenders was positively related to views on community-based crime-opportunity prevention. For offenders, age was negatively related to the perceived importance of the community-based crime-opportunity prevention model (i.e., younger offenders tended to rank it more highly). The perceived importance of mutual trust between officers and offenders led to a higher evaluation of the importance of the community-based crime-opportunity prevention model.

Discussion and Conclusion

There are several points that deserve highlighting or further discussion. First, the variable mutual trust is the most important predictor for the views of seven of the eight supervision models. For officers, the variable was significant for all the four dependent variables, while for offenders it is significant for three of the four dependent variables. Furthermore, mutual trust had the largest explanatory power, with both statistical and substantive significance. This finding suggests that attitude variables may be more important than demographic, societal, or institutional variables in predicting the views of supervision strategies in community corrections. This finding is consistent with previous research, in which a high quality relationship between officers and offenders is essential for community correctional supervision and success (Manchak et al., 2014; Shapland et al., 2012; Skeem et al., 2007). It may also reflect the Chinese culture's stressing guanxi and reciprocity (Jiang et al., 2018b; Wong et al., 2003).

Second, except for mutual trust, there were different predictors of the views of supervision models for officers and offenders. Also, significant predictors vary from model to model for both officers and offenders. Their correlations with the dependent variables are much weaker than those for mutual trust.

Third, the highest coefficient of determination or the percentage of variance in the dependent variables explained by the independent variables is .33 and the lowest is .02. These results indicate that there are more variables not currently in the models that are needed to explain the remainder of the variance in the dependent variables. Model specification for the punishment views needs special attention. For both officers and offenders, independent variables in this model explained less than 6% of the variance of the dependent variable. Future research should include more predictors. Another issue related to the punishment model may be its measurement. The questions used to measure the view of punishment in the current study were adopted from the West (Miller, 2014). Prospective research in China needs to modify questions based on community corrections in the country and improve the consistency among questions measuring the view of punishment strategy.

Fourth, some findings are different from what was hypothesized. For example, mutual trust was expected to be negatively related to the attitudes toward punitive strategy, but findings for officers indicate that the two variables are positively related. This unexpected result may reflect officers’ understanding of the three questions measuring punishment. For Chinese officers, the first question about making punishment its main goal may reflect their punitive approach, while the other questions about ensuring that offenders are adequately punished and prosecuted to the full the extent of the law may reflect their rule of law views rather than punitive views. As noted above, the wording of questions measuring the punitive views from the U.S. may need o be modified specific to community corrections operations in China.

The current study has limitations. In addition to the limited variables included in the regression models, the nature of a non-random sample is another limitation. Specifically, findings from this study cannot be used to infer about the population of officers and the population of offenders with a known error. Also, the samples used were selected from one province; therefore, the findings are not necessarily applicable to other provinces in China. Additionally, the geographical coverage of offenders is different from that of officers. The differences between them may reflect geographical variations. In addition, due to the data limitation from two separate surveys and the quite different status and backgrounds of officers and offenders, the current study included only two organizational and societal variables and one attitude variable. Future research should improve the survey design and add more organizational, societal, and attitude variables. Finally, this is a cross-sectional study. Thus, the reported relationships are functional and not necessarily causal.

Although this investigation is not without limitations, there are several noteworthy contributions. This is the first study to investigate the predictors of the views of punishment, rehabilitation, and environmental supervision strategies in community corrections simultaneously. It is also the first to compare the views of community correctional supervision and the predictors of these views between officers and offenders. The study found that the value variable (i.e., mutual trust) is more important than demographics and societal/institutional factors in predicting the views of community correctional supervision. This finding is helpful in guiding future research efforts to build a theoretical model that predicts attitudes toward community corrections supervision and selects key independent variables in the model specification.

Notably, the results of this study have multiple implications. Both officers and offenders strongly supported rehabilitative and environmental supervision strategies, but they did not believe the justice system should make punishment its main goal. This is a clear message that Chinese community corrections should enforce the law but should not consider punishment as its end. The criminal justice system should provide offenders with more resources and support in education, employment, treatment, and housing as well as assist them in recognizing and avoiding places where they are at risk of offending. Discovering that attitudes are more important than demographics in explaining the views of supervision strategies is “good news” for criminal justice professionals and decision-makers, as attitudes can be changed. Increasing mutual trust between officers and offenders will improve the prediction of the views of supervision and, in turn, advance the quality of supervision.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Shanhe Jiang, PhD, is professor of criminology, Wayne State University. His recent research focuses on institutional community corrections and poverty, place, and crime. He is the author or co-author of more than 120 articles, books, and book chapters.

Dawei Zhang, PhD, is a professor in the Institute for China Rural Studies, Central China Normal University. His recent research includes comparative politics and community governance. He is the author or co-author of more than 60 articles, chapters, and books.

Eric G. Lambert, PhD, is a faculty member in the Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nevada, Reno. His research interests include organizational issues, job and organization effects on attitudes, intentions, and behaviors of criminal justice employees and international perceptions, attitudes, and views on criminal justice issues.

References

Chui

W. H.

Chan

H. C

. (2014). Juvenile offenders’ perceptions of probation officers as social workers in Hong Kong. Journal of Social Work, 14(4), 398–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017313478291

Clarke

R. V.

(1997). Introduction. In Clarke

R. V.

(Eds.), Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (2nd ed., pp. 1–43). Harrow and Heston.

Clear

T. R.

Latessa

E. J

. (1993). Probation officer roles in intensive supervision: Surveillance versus treatment. Justice Quarterly, 10(3), 441–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829300091921

Cullen

F. T

. (2011). Beyond adolescence-limited criminology: Choosing our future –The American society of criminology 2010 sutherland address. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 49(2), 287–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00224.x

Dembo

. (1972). Orientation and activities of the parole officer. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10(2), 193–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1972.tb00554.x

Farkas

M. A

. (2001). Correctional officers: What factors influence work attitudes? Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(2), 20–26. https://www.ojp/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstract/correctional-officers-what-factors-influence-work-attitudes

Fulton

Stichman

Travis

Latessa

(1997). Moderating probation and parole officer attitudes to achieve desired outcomes. The Prison Journal, 77(3), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032855597077003005

Gilligan

(1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.

Glaser

(1969). The effectiveness of a prison and parole system. Bobbs-Merrill Company.

10.

Jiang

Jin

Xiang

Goodlin-Fahncke

Yang

Zhang

(2016a). Punitive and rehabilitative orientations toward offenders among community correctional officers in China. The Prison Journal, 96(6), 771–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885516671867

11.

Jiang

Lambert

E. G.

Jin

Xiang

Shi

Zhang

(2018a). Correlates of organizational commitment among community correctional officers in China. The Prison Journal, 98(1), 60–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885517743706

12.

Jiang

Lambert

E. G.

Liu

Kelley

Zhang

(2018b). Effects of work environment variables on Chinese prison staff organizational commitment. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 51(2), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865817720628

13.

Jiang

Lambert

E. G.

Liu

Zhang

(2018c). An exploratory study of the effects of work environment variables on job satisfaction among Chinese prison staff. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(6), 1694–1719. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17691533

14.

Jiang

Lambert

E. G.

Zhang

Jin

Shi

Xiang

(2016b). Effects of work environment variables on job satisfaction among community correctional staff in China. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(10), 1450–1470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816633493

15.

Jiang

Lambert

E. G.

Zhang

Jin

(2019). Supervision strategies and their correlates: An empirical study of Chinese community correctional staff. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(7), 1100–1123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18812047

16.

Jiang

Xiang

Chen

Goodlin-Fahncke

Huang

Yang

Zhang

Zhao

(2015). Public support for community corrections in China. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(7), 772–789. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X13518381

17.

Jiang

Zhang

Irwin

D. D.

Yang

Xing

. (2020). An exploratory study of the views of supervision strategies by community corrections probationers in China. The Prison Journal, 100(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885519882040

18.

Jin

Sun

I. Y.

Jiang

Wang

Wen

. (2018b). The impact of job characteristics on burnout among Chinese correctional workers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(2), 551–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16648419

19.

Jin

Sun

I. Y.

Jiang

Wang

Wen

. (2018a). The relationships between job and organizational characteristics and role and job stress amongChinese community correctional workers. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 52(March), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2017.09.002

20.

Jurik

N. C

. (1985). Individual and organizational determinations of correctional officer attitudes towards inmates. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23(3), 523–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1985.tb00352.x

21.

Klockars

. (1972). A theory of probation supervision. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 64(4), 549–557. https://doi.org/10.2307/1141809.

22.

Klofas

Toch

. (1982). The guard subculture myth. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 19(2), 238–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/002242788201900207

23.

Labrecque

R. M.

Schweitzer

Smith

(2014). Exploring the perceptions of the offender-officer relationship in a community supervision setting. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/121424.pdf.

24.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Barton

S. M.

Elechi

O.O

. (2009).The impact of job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment on correctional staff support for rehabilitation and punishment. Criminal Justice Studies, 22(2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786010902975374

25.

Lambert

E. G.

Jiang

Wang

Tucker

K. A

. (2007). A preliminary study of gender differences on views of crime and punishment among Chinese college students. International Criminal Justice Review, 17(2), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567707302537

26.

Lambert

E. G.

Liu

Jiang

. (2018a). Organizational justice and work attitudes among Chinese prison staff. The Prison Journal, 98(3), 314–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885518764919

27.

Lambert

E. G.

Liu

Jiang

Zhang

Kelley

T. M

. (2018b). The antecedents of job involvement: An exploratory study among Chinese prison staff. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 54(September), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2018.06.002

28.

Manchak

S. M.

Kennealy

P. J.

Skeem

J. L

. (2014). Officer-offender relationship quality matters: Supervision process as evidence-based practice. Perspectives, 38(2), 56–70.

29.

Miller

. (2014). Probation supervision and the control of crime opportunities: An empirical assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 60(8), 1235–1257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128712443186

30.

Ohlin

L. E.

Piven

Pappenfort

D. M

. (1956). Major dilemmas of the social worker in probation and parole. Crime & Delinquency, 2(2), 211–225.

31.

Paboojian

Teske

R. H. C

Jr. . (1997). Pre-service correctional officers: What do they think about treatment? Journal of Criminal Justice, 25(5), 425–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(97)00025-1

32.

Payne

B. K.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

E. E

. (2016). Identifying the sources of community corrections professionals’ attitudes about sex offender residence restrictions: The impact of demographics and perceptions. Crime & Delinquency, 62(2), 143–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128712470993

33.

Ricks

E. P.

Eno Louden

. (2015). The relationship between officer orientation and supervision strategies in community corrections. Law and Human Behavior, 39(2), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000098

34.

Schaefer

Williamson

. (2017). Probation and parole case management as opportunity-reduction supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 56(7), 452–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2017.1359225

35.

Schwalbe

C. S.

Maschi

. (2009). Investigating probation strategies with juvenile offenders: The influence of officers’ attitudes and youth characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 33(October), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9158-4

36.

Shapland

Bottoms

Farrall

McNeill

Priede

Robinson

(2012). The quality of probation supervision – a literature view. Center for Criminological Research, University of Sheffield and University of Glasgow. Retrieved from https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.159010!/file/Qualityof probationSupervision.pdf.

37.

Skeem

J. L.

Eno Louden

Polaschek

Camp

. (2007). Assessing relationship quality in mandated community treatment: Blending care with control. Psychological Assessment, 19(4), 397–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.19.4.397

38.

Steiner

Travis

L. F.

Makarios

M. D.

Brickley

(2011). The influence of parole officers’ attitudes on supervision practices. Justice Quarterly, 28(6), 903–927. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2010.539246

39.

Taxman

F. S

. (2008). No illusions: Offender and organizational change in Maryland’s proactive community supervision efforts. Criminology & Public Policy, 7(2), 275–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2008.00508.x

40.

Viglione

Blasko

B. L

. (2018). The differential impacts of probation staff attitudes on use of evidence-based practices. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(4), 449–458. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000180

41.

Whitehead

J. T.

Lindquist

C. A

. (1992). Determinants of probation and parole officer professional orientation. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(92)90031-4

42.

Williamson

H. E.

(1990). The corrections profession. Sage Publications.

43.

Wong

Y.-T.

Ngo

H.-Y

Wong

C.S

. (2003). Antecedents and outcomes of employees’ trust in Chinese joint ventures. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 20(December), 481–499. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026391009543