Substance Use and Peer Associations: How Relationships Between Women on Community Supervision and Their Supervising Officers Matter

Abstract

The growth in the population of women on probation and/or parole has prompted the need for research that examines static and dynamic risk predictors for recidivism among them, particularly substance use and negative peer associations. Using a longitudinal study of 402 drug-involved and justice-involved women on probation/parole in 16 Michigan counties, this study employed the Dual-Role Relationship Inventory—Short Form (DRI-SF) and personal characteristics to examine how the perceptions of women under community supervision regarding their supervising officers correlated to risks for substance use and negative peer associations. We found those perceptions to be robust predictors of substance use and negative peer associations among our sample. The dynamics of that correlation are discussed, as are implications for practice.

Keywords

substance use women community corrections probation parole

Community supervision is the most used sanction in US corrections (Morash et al., 2016), yet its clients often fail to complete their periods of supervision due to either a technical violation or because of committing a new offense. Approximately, 32% of clients on community supervision do not complete their terms successfully (Blasko & Taxman, 2018). While the success of clients on community supervision contributes to public safety and can improve the lives of the clientele themselves, failures contribute to problems of mass incarceration and can undermine the life chances of clients and their families. This is especially troubling from the standpoint of women on community supervision, a population that accounts for approximately 80% of all women involved in the criminal justice system (Wilfong et al., 2021). Furthermore, women on probation and/or parole comprise a large population of justice system clients, with more than 800,000 as of 2021 (Sawyer & Wagner, 2023).

Probation and parole are among the most prominent and common versions of community corrections and are therefore of enormous importance to justice-involved women in the U.S. Further, the operation of probation and parole is complicated by the special circumstances of women within systems that have been criticized as male-centric (Vasilescu, 2022). Such criticisms stem in large part from the suggestion that the pathways to crime and desistance of justice-involved women differ meaningfully from those of men in similar circumstances, and there is ample evidence to support this (Reisig et al., 2006). For example, women are more often abused, both sexually and otherwise, by family members, romantic partners, and acquaintances, and 90% of victims of sexual assault are women (Archer, 2019). This can lead to criminality stemming from flight away from that abuse, as well as leading women to becoming unhoused and turning to crime as a means of survival on the streets (Gottlieb & Mahabir, 2022). Women might also be more criminally influenced by romantic partners than are men, and this is one way in which social networks may operate uniquely for women (Welle & Falkin, 2000). If the antecedents to crime are different for women than for men, it stands to reason that best practices in community corrections might differ by gender as well (Fedock & Covington, 2017).

For example, gender-responsive programming has proliferated in recent years, notably including the development of risk assessment tools designed to be less male-centric and to account for the gendered pathways to crime that justice-involved women are thought by some to take (Kruttschnitt et al., 2019). This has potential implications for how best to serve women in community corrections, such as by prioritizing the building of better relationships and enhancing communication skills (Duwe & Clark, 2015). Some research also suggests that an emphasis on more conventional antecedents to crime such as finances might be more beneficial to women. This would make sense, owing in part to the often-diminished financial power of women relative to men in the United States (Gharehgozli & Atal, 2020) and elsewhere.

Relatedly, the current research seeks to inform practice in community corrections from the perspective of the relationships that supervising officers cultivate with women under their care, a body of research that has received substantial attention in recent years (Holmstrom et al., 2018; Roddy & Morash, 2020; Smith et al., 2016). Probation and parole officers are thought to occupy a “dual role,” which refers to the coexisting but potentially competing obligations to protect public safety (such as through client surveillance) and to provide care to their clients (Gochyyev & Skeem, 2019; Skeem et al., 2007). The duality inherent to the function of probation and parole officers also manifests in competing styles, roughly corresponding to authoritarian or rehabilitative tendencies (DeMichele & Payne, 2018). The more authoritarian approach has been described as a “law enforcer” style, whereas a rehabilitative bent is consistent with a “social worker” approach (Miller, 2015; Skeem & Manchak, 2008). There is a practical need for probation and parole officers to have a capacity for both, and officers who strike a balance between authoritarian and rehabilitative communication styles are described as “synthetic” (Miller, 2015; Skeem & Manchak, 2008).

Relationships Between Supervising Officers and Women on Probation and Parole

Because a large proportion of justice-involved women are on probation and/or parole, and because women are unique as a population of justice system clients, there is a need to understand how their supervising officers can promote better outcomes for women under community supervision (Morash et al., 2015). One plausible means by which this can be achieved is by exploring how relationships and communication between supervising officers and women on probation and parole impact supervisory outcomes, which is consistent with the goals of gender-responsive programming, and this study contributes to that purpose.

Though women under community supervision remain an underserved population from both a practitioner and scholarly standpoint (Morash et al., 2015; Mueller et al., 2022), a growing body of literature has emerged in recent years to remedy that deficiency. Particularly noteworthy in that effort has been data collected by Morash and colleagues on 402 women convicted of felonies and 73 probation/parole officers in 16 counties in Michigan between September 16, 2011 and September 15, 2014. Their project was supported by a National Science Foundation grant and has been used to generate substantial insight about the implications of relationship quality between women under supervision and their supervising officers (Morash et al., 2015).

Morash et al. (2015) examined supervising officer communication styles they classified as “supportiveness” and “punitiveness” and found that supportiveness was linked to lower anxiety and diminished noncompliance with directives, especially among clientele deemed to be at highest risk. Conversely, they discovered that more punitive communication approaches yielded unfavorable results and encouraged supervisees to assert their right to partake in forbidden activities (such as the use of drugs/alcohol). A subsequent study, also by Morash et al. (2016), found that while probation/parole officer behavior did not directly impact client recidivism, it did have indirect benefits as modified by measures of reactance (e.g., rebelliousness against conditions of probation) and anxiety. In other words, clients who had supportive communications with their supervising officers were less anxious and felt more positive about compliance, and those things conferred benefits with respect to recidivism.

Smith et al. (2016) built upon those findings by examining the same data through the lens of “conformity” and “conversational” communication styles between women under supervision and their supervising officers and how they were associated with reactance and self-efficacy to avoid drugs and alcohol. Their findings are especially germane to the current research, as they discovered that conversational communication styles (i.e., those most consistent with rehabilitative ideals) were positively linked to lower reactance (i.e., rebellion against supervisory expectations) and better self-efficacy in avoiding substances (Smith et al., 2016). Also in 2016, Cornacchione et al. (2016) revisited the Morash data to investigate the reception of memorable messages from supervising officers to clients and found that women on parole remembered receiving messages more often than those on probation, specifically behavioral advice, which they reported as helpful to them in navigating a law-abiding lifestyle.

In 2019, Morash et al. (2018) found that conversational communication resulted in higher perceptions of a supportive relationship among both supervising officers and their clients. Morash et al. (2019) incorporated the same data into a study on recidivism and communication styles the following year, this time broken down by type of recidivism and risk designation of women under supervision. There, communication styles of supervising officers were designated as being “punitive” or “treatment” oriented, and findings were that treatment-oriented communication was effective at preventing recidivism for nondrug offenses for high-risk women, but that punitive communication accomplished the same result for low-risk women (Morash et al., 2019).

Holmstrom et al. (2018) investigated the types of support most often perceived by women under supervision to come from supervising officers regarding substance avoidance and found that officers provided informational and emotional support most often, while material/tangible support was less common. This means that supervising officers gave clients referrals and advice about problems, as well as expressions of care and interest in their lives, which were perceived positively by the clientele. Roddy et al. (2019) built on this messaging work to find that informational support regarding employment offered by supervising officers to women tended to be perceived negatively, with women under supervision feeling as though officers were being reductive about their life circumstances when giving information about jobs. However, Roddy et al. (2021) later suggested that supervising officers can assist their clients by recommending/facilitating meaningful projects to undertake, which might help them to lead conforming lives.

Most recently, Mueller et al. (2022) looked at the Morash data and found that the quality of relationships between supervising officers and women under supervision was a robust predictor of compliance and suggested that officers be mindful of the interpersonal characteristics of their job to facilitate positive outcomes. This is consistent with Lawrence and Yelderman’s (2022) analysis of the Morash data that found relationship quality between supervising officers and women under supervision to be predictive of clients having positive attitudes regarding desistance from substance use, and whose call for more work on substance use among women under community supervision this study helps to answer. Specifically, we build on and compliment the work discussed above to examine the qualities of supervising officer relationships with women on probation and parole, as well as the personal characteristics of the clients themselves to discover their impacts on three areas of importance regarding client substance use. Those areas are daily drug/alcohol use, associations with substance-involved peers, and the ability to stop using drugs/alcohol after starting.

Because most crimes committed by women under community supervision are precipitated by drug and/or alcohol use, avoidance of alcohol, drugs, and peers who are likely to encourage their use is prioritized by supervising officers (Morash, 2010). Scant research has explored how supervising officer/client relationships impact substance use and associations with substance-involved peers, both of which are potentially violations of probation or parole terms and could result in rearrest or supervisory revocation for those under supervision (Mueller et al., 2023). Research has found a significant positive association between perceptions of therapeutic alliance (meaning trust and confidence in common goals between therapists and clients) and levels of social support from family and friends (Connors et al., 2000); with substance use avoidance.

While supervision and enforcement are crucial aspects of the supervising officer role, those that are punitive or authoritarian can undermine the quality of their relationships with their clients, which can be counterproductive (Wodahl et al., 2021). Research suggests that strong communication between supervising officers and clients has the potential to positively influence interactions between the two (Smith et al., 2019), while sanctions and reprimands can lead to negative client perceptions of supervising officer conduct and thus poor relationship dynamics (Smith et al., 2019).

Current Study

The purpose of this study is to identify whether and to what extent relationship quality and personal characteristics are associated with the success or failure of women under community supervision (either on probation or parole), specifically as success pertains to drug and alcohol use. Degree of use, associations with drug/alcohol involved peers, and being able to stop use after starting are all relevant here, especially as those things relate to client perceptions of their relationships with their supervising officers, personal characteristics, and prior criminal records. Personal characteristic variables include age, race, marital status, employment status, diagnosis with a mental illness, residential instability, and educational background. Prior criminal record variables include prior arrests and/or dispositions, prior community supervision, prior substance use, prior prison sentence, and age of first arrest.

Substance use correlates to higher rates of offending and recidivism (Neupert et al., 2017). This is particularly relevant to women, as they are proportionately more substance-involved than are men in the justice system (Holmstrom et al., 2018). Women in state prison are more likely to be classified as drug dependent than men, for example (Salem et al., 2013). This is worrisome, as it is known that drinking alcohol more regularly and in greater quantities is associated with more antisocial behavior (Marzan et al., 2022), and illicit drugs may aggravate offending to an even greater degree than does alcohol. Furthermore, illicit drug use is labeled as effectively more deviant than alcohol use and may have accordingly greater impacts on generating a more nonconforming social network (Schroeder et al., 2007). Substance-involved peer associations relate to offending and recidivism, and the more substance-involved those peers become, the greater their potential negative influence. Finally, given that dosage matters, it is important that once abstinence has failed that someone can desist from further use, which is the third aspect of substance use that the present study examines.

Antisocial peer relationships are examined here as well, which are a well-established dynamic risk factor for antisocial behavior within juvenile populations, a connection that proceeds from differential association. Although some recent research suggests that protective factors against recidivism remain important across different age groups (Lloyd et al., 2020), the scholarship on how risk operates in adult populations is rarely studied, to the point that Wooditch et al. (2014) were unable to locate sufficient literature about social networks in adults impacting offending to include commentary on it in their review on the topic. Though Taxman and Caudy (2015) found a 49% prevalence of criminal peer associations in their sample of 17,252 adults on community supervision, little is known about how peer associations impact adult offending generally, and the extent and mechanisms about how and whether relationship strength between supervising officers and women on community supervision influences the peer networks of clients is even more obscure. This is a gap in the literature that the current work seeks to partially fill.

Women on probation and parole are an understudied group (Morash et al., 2016) and gender-specific policy and practice recommendations, including identifying the impacts of relationship strength between justice-involved women and supervising officers, are sorely needed. There are gaps in the literature on women under community supervision and how their relationships with their supervising officers affect their substance use, their ability to stop such use, and their associations with substance-involved peers (Lawrence & Yelderman, 2022). This study attempts to fill these gaps and reveal how relationships between supervising officers and women on probation and parole affect clients’ ability to abstain/refrain from substance use and avoid substance-involved peers. The following research questions pertinent to these purposes are examined here:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): Is relationship quality between supervising officers and women on probation and parole, as measured by the Dual-Role Relationship Inventory—Short Form (DRI-SF), related to reported daily substance use among clients?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): Is relationship quality between supervising officers and women on probation and parole, as measured by the DRI-SF, related to reported associations with substance-involved peers among clients?

Research Question 3 (RQ3): Is relationship quality between supervising officers and women on probation and parole, as measured by the DRI-SF, related to self-reported ability to desist from drinking/drug use among clients?

Method

Participants

Morash et al. (2017) collected longitudinal data via structured one-on-one interviews, which focused on the criminogenic needs of women on community supervision, and their data are analyzed here. The data set was available to download from the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) website and was collected on 402 substance-involved women on probation and parole in 16 anonymous Michigan counties (Morash et al., 2017). Clients were supervised by 73 supervising officers. During the study, there were three interviews with women under supervision and two surveys of their supervising officers. The clients were interviewed 2 to 3 months after beginning their community supervision (T1) about client needs and social networks, such as education, employment, and financial situation, perception of neighborhood, mental health-related issues, and criminal history. At month 5 (T2), agent-client relationship as measured by clients’ perceptions were reported (i.e., DRI-SF). At month 8 (T3), clients were asked whether they had a period when they used drugs and/or alcohol daily, associated with individuals who drank heavily or used drugs, and whether they had difficulty stopping after drinking or taking illegal drugs since the T1 interview. These three variables were dichotomously coded, and logistic regression was used as the multivariate analytical strategy. The independent and control variables were taken from T1 and T2 interviews prior to the dependent variables, which were taken at month 8 or (T3) interview.

Measures

Independent Variables

The independent variables include DRI-SF total score, age of first arrest, mental illness, prior community supervision, prior prison sentence, residential instability, prior substance use, and prior arrests/dispositions before the current community supervision conviction. The control variables are age, education, race, income, marital status, and employment. Only the DRI-SF total score and residential instability were extracted from the T2 data (at month 5). The remaining independent variables were taken from the T1 data (at 2-3 months).

First, the DRI-SF captures three components of a supervisory relationship as perceived by clients under community supervision, and its purpose is to quantify relationship quality (Gochyyev & Skeem, 2019; Mueller et al., 2022). The three specific components are: (a) caring and fairness, (b) trust, and (c) toughness. The DRI-SF is a nine-item relationship instrument with items rated on a 7-point Likert-type-scale: 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = occasionally, 4 = sometimes, 5 = often, 6 = very often, and 7 = always. For example, the original researchers asked respondents to rate these statements, which corresponded to categories A, B, and C: “[My supervising officer] cares about me as a person,” “[My supervising officer] trusts me to be honest with him or her,” and “[My supervising officer] talks down to me.” Once the researchers received the answers, they calculated the total scores for each client. A higher DRI-SF total score indicates a better quality of client-supervising officer relationship.

For control variables, age at first arrest is measured as a continuous variable. Mental illness, prior community supervision, residential instability, prior substance use, and prior prison sentenced are measured as dichotomized variables (1 = Yes; 0 = No). Prior arrests and/or dispositions were measured as an ordinal variable and were divided into three groups with low (one or two times), medium (three-five times), and high (six times or more). While many studies employ prior arrests/convictions as a dichotomous variable, this was impossible here because all sample participants had at least one prior arrest and/or disposition. Among the control variables, mental illness was captured by the self-reported survey such that clients were simply asked if they had been diagnosed with mental illness. For demographic variables, age is a continuous variable. Education is a dichotomized variable indicating whether the respondent has high school or higher educational background (1 = Yes; 0 = No). Race and marital status are also dichotomized (1 = White, 0 = Non-White and 1 = Married, 0 = Not married, respectively). Income is measured as earning less than US$10,000 per year (1 = Yes, 0 = No). Employment is measured as an ordinal variable indicating the status of their employment (2 = Full-time, 1 = Part-time or unable to work because of child/family care, 0 = Unemployed but able to work). Prior violations related to drug or alcohol use were categorized as dichotomous variable (1 = Yes; 0 = No).

Dependent Variables

The first dependent variable is daily alcohol/drug use, drawn from asking the clients at their T3 interview whether they had a period when they used drugs and/or alcohol daily during supervision. The second dependent variable is association with alcohol/drug involved peers, also drawn from the T3 interview asking if the clients associated with individuals who drank heavily or used drugs during their period of supervision. The last dependent variable is whether it was difficult for the client to stop using drugs/alcohol after starting while on supervision, also taken from the T3 interview. The response options were binary yes/no, so logistic regression was used to analyze the association between the independent and dependent variables.

Analyses

Binomial logistic regressions were employed here. Logistic regression estimates the relationship between at least one or more predictive indicator variables and a dichotomous dependent variable. The logistic regression models’ main controls were consistent with previous research conducted by Mueller et al. (2022), with the inclusion of a variable controlling for whether clients had any conduct violations in the prior 6 months since the base interview, including new offenses and technical violations related to drugs or alcohol use. All logistic regression models’ chi-square tests had an associated significance level p < .05. Postestimation effect sizes were also examined.

The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis postestimation technique quantifies the probability that a randomly selected client on supervision who used drugs and/or alcohol on a daily basis, associated with individuals who drank heavily or used drugs, or had difficulty stopping after drinking or taking illegal drugs will have a higher DRI-SF score than a randomly selected client who did not (Rice & Harris, 1995). This probability is constructed by measuring the area between the “true-positive rate” (the rate at which the DRI-SF accurately predicted the three individual outcome variables occurring) and that of the “false-positive rate” (the rate at which the DRI-SF predicted the three individual outcomes that did not occur), which is known as the area under the curve (AUC) (Mossman, 1994; Rice & Harris, 1995).

AUC findings on DRI-R and DRI-SF scores and their association with time to rearrest found AUC values of 0.63 (Gochyyev & Skeem, 2019), though they could theoretically cover a range from 0.0 (no predictive validity, the model is never correct) to 1.00 (perfect predictive validity, the model is never wrong). In short, larger AUC values correspond to more accurate model predictions (Mossman, 1994; Rice & Harris, 1995, 2005). Guidelines for establishing AUC cut points and interpreting these effect sizes say that an AUC value of 0.556 to 0.638 is small/weak, 0.639 to 0.713 is of medium/moderate strength, and 0.714 and above are large/strong effects (Rice & Harris, 2005).

Because the dependent variables were dichotomous and the DRI-SF measures were continuous, AUC analysis was performed in addition to the bivariate analysis. Pearson’s bivariate correlations that are r > .80, p < .001, and variance inflation factors (VIFs) that are > 4.00 indicate a violation of the lack of multicollinearity assumption (Field, 2013). There were no Pearson’s correlations that exceeded .80 and the largest VIF value for all three models was 2.20, meaning none of the VIF values exceeded the greater than four threshold, which would indicate issues with multicollinearity within the three models had it been crossed.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics of the variables. For the dichotomized independent variables, about 7% of clients in the sample had their community supervision revoked and about 11% committed a technical violation. Approximately, 59% had a diagnosed mental illness, 60% had been under community supervision in the past, 31% had one or more prior prison sentence, and 70% had moved out of their residence since the baseline interview. Nearly, 71% previously used drugs and/or alcohol daily. About 69% of the population had a high school or higher education background, about 47% were White, about 85% earned less than 10,000 dollars annually, and 87% were married. Roughly, 17% of the sample had a violation related to drugs or alcohol in the 6 months prior to the baseline survey.

Table 1:

Descriptive Statistics of Variables

Variable	N	n	%
Daily drug and/or alcohol^a	375	46	12.27
Associate with individuals who drink heavily or use drugs?^a	373	116	31.10
PR has difficulty stopping if you start drinking or taking illegal drugs^a	375	41	10.93
Mental illness^a	402	236	58.71
Prior community supervision^a	402	240	59.70
Prior prison sentence^a	402	126	31.34
Residential instability^a	386	269	69.69
Prior substance abuse^a	401	284	70.82
High school education^a	400	277	69.25
White^a	402	187	46.52
Income^b	384	327	85.16
Marital status^a	402	350	87.06
Technical violation related to drugs/alcohol^a	401	66	16.46
Employment^c	402	70	17.41
Part-time or unable to work because of child/family care	402	112	27.86
Unemployed but able to work	402	220	54.73
	N	n	%	Mean	SD	Cronbach’s alpha
DRI-SF	336	—	—	1.99	0.81	0.90
Age of first arrest	396	—	—	22.71	8.40
Prior arrests/dispositions	402	—	—	1.86	0.87
Age	402	—	—	33.87	10.53
Employment	402	—	—	1.37	0.76

Note. Based on the differences in valid sample sizes of the key independent variables of interest there was a need to conduct missing data comparisons. For all the independent variables of interest, there was not a statistically significant chi-square or Fisher exact test value at the p <. 05 level of statistical significance when comparing all of the independent variables to the three outcomes of interest.

Reflects the number and percentage of participants answering “Yes” to this question. ^bIncome less than US$10,000 per year. ^cFull time.

For the dichotomized dependent variables, about 12% of the sample had a period when they used drugs and/or alcohol daily, about 31% associated with individuals who drank heavily or used drugs, and about 11% had difficulty stopping drinking or taking illegal drugs after starting. The sample was first arrested at an average age of 23 years old, and their average age during the study period was 34 years old. On average, they had been arrested and set on disposition more than two times in the past. Finally, about half of them had either full-time or part-time jobs while on probation/parole.

The results of Cronbach’s alpha for testing internal consistency of the DRI-SF subscale items from the sample. The average Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90 indicates a high level of internal consistency among the items of the DRI-SF; the questions on the DRI-SF have shared covariance and measure the same underlying concept. The average DRI-SF total score was 52. The sampled clients were first arrested at an average age of 23 years old, although their average age was 34 years old. On average, they had been arrested and set on disposition more than two times in the past. Finally, about 17% of the clients had full-time jobs, about 28% had part-time jobs, and roughly 55% were unemployed but able to work while on probation/parole.

AUC Analyses

Table 2 shows the effect sizes across all three dependent variables (i.e., did the client have a period when they used drugs or alcohol daily?; did they associate with individuals who drank heavily or used drugs?; and did they have difficulty stopping if they started drinking or taking illegal drugs?), along with the DRI-SF total scores.

Table 2:

Results of AUC Between Outcome Variables of Interest and the Continuous DRI-SF Short Form Total Score

Variables	N	AUC	95% CI
DRI-SF predicts drug/alcohol daily	354	0.70	(0.62, 0.77)
DRI-SF predicts associating with peers who drink heavily	352	0.59	(0.52, 0.65)
DRI-SF predicts difficulty stopping if they start drinking or taking illegal drugs	354	0.64	(0.52, 0.65)

Note. AUC = area under the curve; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are shown in parentheses.

As displayed in Table 2, the effect sizes were categorized as weak to moderate. First, daily drug or alcohol use reported since the subjects’ T1 baseline survey had an AUC of 0.7 (moderate effect) and an n of 354. Second, subjects reported association with individuals who drink heavily or use drugs since the T1 baseline survey had an AUC of 0.59 (weak effect) and an n of 352. Finally, a subject having had difficulty stopping after drinking or taking illegal drugs had an AUC of 0.64 (moderate effect) and an n of 354. Though not directly comparable, the effect sizes resemble the DRI-SF AUC value of 0.63, which was found by research conducted by Gochyyev and Skeem (2019).

DRI-SF as a Predictor of Daily Substance Use

Table 3 pertains to the first research question of whether relationship quality between supervising officers and women under their supervision as measured by the DRI-SF was associated with reported daily substance use among clients. It shows the effect of the DRI-SF on community supervision revocation with two different models. In Model 1, the DRI-SF score is calculated as a total score to examine its effect on the likelihood of a client on supervision having a period of using drugs and/or alcohol daily. The DRI-SF total score has a negative, statistically significant effect on daily substance use (b = −0.06, p < .001). As the DRI-SF total score increases by one unit, the odds of a client having a period when they used drugs and/or alcohol daily changed by a factor of 0.94 on average (OR = 0.94, p < .001). The clients who had a positive relationship with their supervising officers were less likely to have a period while under community supervision when they used drugs and/or alcohol daily. For clients who had prior substance use issues, there was a positive, statistically significant effect of daily drug and or alcohol use compared to those who did not have prior substance use issues (b = 1.71, p = .010). Illicit drug users were also 5.55 times more likely to have used drugs and or alcohol daily (OR = 5.55, p = .010).

Table 3:

Results of Logistic Regression on Since the First Interview for This Study, Did You Have a Period Where You Used Drugs and/or Alcohol on a Daily Basis?

Variable	B	Model 1
Variable	B	SE (b)	OR	95% CI of OR
DRI-SF-total	−0.06	0.02	0.94***	(0.91, 0.97)
Age of first arrest	0.02	0.04	1.02	(0.95, 1.08)
Mental illness^d	0.20	0.40	1.22	(0.55, 2.69)
Prior community supervision^d	0.38	0.43	1.46	(0.62, 3.42)
Prior prison sentence^b	0.44	0.45	1.55	(0.65, 3.73)
Residential instability^d	0.04	0.42	1.04	(0.45, 2.38)
Prior substance abuse^d	1.71	0.67	5.55*	(1.50, 20.52)
Age	−0.02	0.03	0.98	(0.93, 1.03)
High school education^d	−0.27	0.43	0.77	(0.33, 1.79)
White^d	0.53	0.42	1.69	(0.75, 3.82)
Income^c	−0.61	0.55	0.54	(0.19, 1.58)
Marital status^d	0.75	0.71	2.11	(0.53, 8.44)
Employment^a	—	—	—	—
Part-time or unable to work because of child/family care	0.01	0.59	1.01	(0.32, 3.19)
Unemployed but able to work	−0.11	0.55	0.89	(0.30, 2.62)
Previous technical violations related to drug/alcohol	−0.54	0.55	0.58	(0.20, 1.73)
Constant	−0.89	1.46	0.41	(0.02, 7.14)

Note. N = 327. (b) = unstandardized coefficients; SE = standard error; OR = odds ratio; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are shown in parentheses. Goodness-of-fit χ²(15) = 33.87**; Negelkerke’s R² = 0.15.

Reference group = full time. ^bReference group = one or two times. ^cReference group = income less than US$10,000 per year. ^dReference group = reflects the participants answering “Yes” to this question.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

DRI-SF as a Predictor of Substance-Involved Peer Associations

Table 4 pertains to the second research question of whether relationship quality between supervising officers and women under their supervision as measured by the DRI-SF was related to reported associations with substance-involved peers among the sample. It shows the effect of the DRI-SF on clients who report associating with people who drank heavily or used drugs. In Model 2, the DRI-SF score is calculated as a total score to examine its effect on the likelihood of a client associating with individuals who drank heavily or used drugs. The DRI-SF total score has a negative, statistically significant effect on such associations (b = −0.02, p = .041). As the DRI-SF total score increases by one unit, the odds of a client associating with people who drank heavily or used drugs changed by a factor of 0.98 on average (OR = 0.98, p = .041). The clients who had a positive relationship with their supervising officers were less likely to have a period while under community supervision when they associated with individuals who drank heavily or used drugs.

Table 4:

Results of Logistic Regression on Since the First Interview for This Study, Do You Associate With Individuals Who Drink Heavily or Use Drugs?

Variable	b	Model 2
Variable	b	SE (b)	OR	95% CI of OR
DRI-SF-total	−0.02	0.01	0.98*	(0.96, 1.00)
Age of first arrest	−0.02	0.02	0.98	(0.94, 1.03)
Mental illness^d	0.15	0.27	1.17	(0.69, 1.97)
Prior community supervision^d	0.20	0.28	1.22	(0.70, 2.11)
Prior prison sentence^b	−0.61	0.31	0.54*	(0.29, 1.00)
Residential instability^d	−0.08	0.28	0.93	(0.53, 1.60)
Prior substance abuse^d	0.85	0.33	2.35*	(1.23, 4.50)
Age	−0.02	0.02	0.98	(0.95, 1.02)
High school education^d	0.10	0.28	1.10	(0.62, 1.90)
White^d	0.15	0.27	1.16	(0.68, 1.99)
Income^c	0.08	0.38	1.08	(0.51, 2.27)
Marital status^d	−0.19	0.39	0.83	(0.39, 1.76)
Employment^a	—	—	—	—
Part-time or unable to work because of child/family care	0.27	0.40	1.31	(0.60, 2.88)
Unemployed but able to work	0.10	0.37	1.10	(0.53, 2.30)
Previous technical violations related to drug/alcohol	0.21	0.34	1.24	(0.64, 2.41)
Constant	0.39	0.97	1.47	(0.22, 9.90)

Note. N = 326. (b) = unstandardized coefficients; SE = standard error; OR = odds ratio; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are shown in parentheses. Goodness-of-fit χ²(15) = 26.56*; Negelkerke’s R² = 0.07.

p < .05.

Prior prison sentence and prior substance use were statistically significant predictors of substance-involved peer associations (b = −0.61, p = .045; and b = 0.85, p = .010, respectively). Clients who had a prior prison sentence were less likely to associate with individuals who drank heavily or used drugs than those who did not (OR = 0.54, p = .045), and those who had greater substance use issues were more likely to associate with individuals who drink heavily or use drugs than those with less (OR = 2.35, p = .010).

DRI-SF as a Predictor of Substance Use Desistance

Table 5 pertains to the third research question of whether relationship quality between women on probation and parole and their supervising officers related to reported ability to desist from drinking/drug use after starting. In Model 3, the DRI-SF score is calculated as a total score to examine its effect on the likelihood of a client having difficulty stopping if they start drinking or taking illegal drugs. The DRI-SF total score has a negative, statistically significant effect on whether a client had difficulty stopping if they start drinking or taking illegal drugs (b = −0.04, p = .015). As the DRI-SF total score increases by one unit, the odds of a client having difficulty stopping if they start drinking or taking illegal drugs changed by a factor of 0.96 on average (OR = 0.96, p =.015). The clients who had a positive relationship with their supervising officers were less likely to have difficulty stopping if they started drinking or taking illegal drugs while under community supervision.

Table 5:

Results of Logistic Regression Results on Since the First Interview for This Study, Do You Have Difficulty Stopping If You Start Drinking or Taking Illegal Drugs?

Variable	B	Model 3
Variable	B	SE (b)	OR	95% CI of OR
DRI-SF-total	−0.04	0.02	0.96*	(0.93, 1.00)
Age of first arrest	0.03	0.03	1.03	(0.96, 1.10)
Mental illness^d	0.93	0.45	2.53*	(1.05, 6.12)
Prior community supervision^d	0.98	0.45	2.67*	(1.10, 6.47)
Prior prison sentence^b	0.40	0.46	1.50	(0.61, 3.65)
Residential instability^d	−0.33	0.41	0.72	(0.32, 1.60)
Prior substance abuse^d	1.45	0.67	4.28*	(1.16, 15.57)
Age	−0.04	0.03	0.96	(0.91, 1.01)
High school education^d	−0.56	0.43	0.57	(0.25, 1.31)
White^d	0.25	0.42	1.29	(0.57, 2.93)
Income^c	−1.23	0.53	0.29*	(0.10, 0.83)
Marital status^d	0.46	0.64	1.58	(0.45, 5.52)
Employment^a	—	—	—	—
Part-time or unable to work because of child/family care	−0.82	0.68	0.44	(0.12, 1.66)
Unemployed but able to work	0.22	0.55	1.25	(0.42, 3.70)
Previous technical violations related to drug/alcohol	0.46	0.46	1.58	(0.64, 3.92)
Constant	−1.06	1.45	0.35	(0.02, 5.96)

Note. N = 327. (b) = unstandardized coefficients; SE = standard error; OR = odds ratio; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are shown in parentheses. Goodness-of-fit χ²(14) = 40.41***; Negelkerke’s R²=0.18.

Reference group = full time. ^bReference group = one or two times. ^cReference group = income less than US$10,000 per year. ^dReference group = Reflects the participants answering “yes” to this question.

p < .05. ***p < .001.

Mental illness is also a statistically significant predictor of clients having difficulty with substance use desistance (b = 0.93, p = .039). Women on community supervision who had a diagnosed mental illness were 2.53 times more likely to have difficulty stopping if they start drinking or taking illegal drugs than were those without one (OR = 2.53, p =.039). This might be due to a variety of factors, including a tendency to use substances to self-medicate among those who suffer from poor mental health, as reported elsewhere in the literature (Rhodes et al., 2018). In addition, prior community supervision, prior substance use, and income were statistically significant predictors of client ease of desistance (b = 0.98, p = .030; b = 1.45, p = .029 and b = −1.23, p = .021, respectively). Clients who were previously under community supervision were 2.67 times more likely to have difficulty stopping if they start drinking or using illegal drugs (OR = 2.67, p = .030). Illicit drug users were also 4.28 times more likely to have difficulty (OR = 4.28, p = .029), and those who made less than US$10,000 a year had 0.29 times less likelihood of having difficulty stopping if they start drinking or taking illegal drugs than those who made more than US$10,000 a year (OR = 0.29, p = .021).

Discussion

This study has three main findings, which are that the quality of relationships between women on probation and parole and their supervising officers affect daily substance use, associating with individuals who have substance use issues, and having difficulty stopping if the client starts using substances. Specifically, clients with high quality relationships as measured by the DRI-SF were less likely to have a period of daily substance use while under supervision, associate with individuals who have substance use issues, and have difficulty stopping using substances after starting. These results support previous findings on compliance with conditions of probation/parole and its associations with supervising officer relationship strength (Gochyyev & Skeem, 2019), mental health (Porporino & Motiuk, 1995), and previous criminal history (Olson & Lurigio, 2000; Olson et al., 2000).

This study is part of an emerging effort to examine DRI-SF scores and their effect on mandated rule compliance among women on community supervision (Mueller et al., 2022). The DRI-SF may link directly to client rule compliance, as interpersonal procedural justice plays an important role in the criminal justice system (Gochyyev & Skeem, 2019). In this sample, the more the clients perceived their supervising officer as synthetic (i.e., higher DRI scores), the more likely the relationship protected them against negative substance or alcohol use related outcomes. This finding demonstrates the value of client/officer relationship strength as an important predictor of daily substance use, associating with individuals who use substances, and being able to stop using substances while on parole or probation.

Limitations

It is important to address a limitation inherent to longitudinal design, which is that it is non-experimental and thus does not allow for the establishment of causality. Therefore, a measured interpretation of the findings is necessary. For example, the effect of mental illness on probation and parole outcomes was restrictive in some ways, and no interaction term existed between mental illness and substance use that would allow for examination of moderating effects on community supervision outcomes. Furthermore, there was no information available on specialty caseloads, meaning caseloads comprised clients with specific needs, such as mental health diagnoses or substance use disorders (Louden et al., 2008), in the original data. Despite this, it may be beneficial to place women on community supervision who have a diagnosed mental illness on specialty caseloads and follow up to see if doing so improves their relationships with their supervising officers, since some evidence suggests that specialty caseloads reduce client risks for short-term violations (Manchak et al., 2014).

This sample provided a substantial number of women on probation and parole for analysis. However, focusing on substance-involved women limits the generalizability of the findings, most notably in that it is not possible to make comparisons or inferences to men in similar circumstances or those with other offense characteristics based on this sample. The sample consisted of women convicted of felonies, and it is necessary to expand this research to other populations of justice system clients (Morash, 2010; Reisig et al., 2006).

There is also a need to study clients on probation/parole in other locations and with other demographic characteristics. Indeed, the large preponderance of scholarship on relationships between supervising officers and women under their supervision for the last several years has depended on the data set used here, and while those data have much to reveal, there remains a dire need to collect and test other data sources within the literature on probation/parole officers and their relationships with clients of all kinds. Without such work, the importance of relationships between clients and supervising officers will remain limited, and comparisons between how important such relationships are between different kinds of clients will be difficult to make.

Conclusion

Despite these limitations, results here demonstrate the value of training probation and parole officers to understand how interpersonal encounters can impact their clients’ outcomes related to substance use. Showing supervising officers that different levels of DRI-SF scores can affect client outcomes can help them to understand the value of one-on-one communication with clients in cultivating rule compliance. Prior findings have supported training priorities along these lines (Blasko et al., 2015).

In addition, Bachman et al. (2016) suggest that shifts in cognition are necessary as antecedents to behavioral change, and women on community supervision taking up a prosocial role with respect to relationships might also be important. While such contentions have often focused on romantic partners (Bachman et al., 2016), it is not unreasonable to suggest that nonromantic relationships, such as those between supervising officers and clients might function in a similar manner to encourage desistance from crime.

Antisocial associates are known to be highly relevant to behavior, including in terms of involvement with substances, and reductions in alcohol use are associated with reductions in criminal behavior. While most research on deviant peers focuses on minors and adolescents, findings often report that having nonconforming peer associations is a powerful predictor of deviant behavior and that strong family and working relationships are important counterbalances (Wooditch et al., 2014), which many justice-involved women lack. A focus on strong relationships between women on community supervision and their supervising officers might contribute to combating some of the criminogenic influences in their lives, as suggested by the findings here.

Based on this and other research, there is reason to believe that supervising officers who receive relationship-oriented training can improve both client perceptions of interpersonal procedural justice and their supervisory outcomes. Supervising officers are a vital component in community supervision, and the way that they communicate with their clients can be just as important as the rehabilitative resources available to them. Finally, since the times immediately following the beginning of probation (Mueller et al., 2023) and release from incarceration are known to be of particular importance with respect to reentry and recidivism (Vasiljevic et al., 2020), it is advisable to improve client experiences on community supervision, which a focus on relationships between supervising officers and their clients might help achieve.

Footnotes

Authors’ note:

This was a secondary data analysis, the data for which were originally funded by a National Science Foundation grant. These data were then made publicly available on ICPSR, which was how we acquired it. Portions of the findings were presented at the 2023 American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting in Philadelphia, PA, United States. We do not have any conflicts of interest.

ORCID iDs

Marcus Tyler Carey

Kyle Curtis Mueller

Marcus Tyler Carey’s background is in environmental criminology and risk reduction, and his areas of specialization include juvenile rehabilitation, community corrections, and perceptions of police. His work has recently appeared in Crime & Delinquency, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, International Criminology, Child Abuse & Neglect, and elsewhere. He is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Texas A&M International University.

Kyle Mueller is a research analyst at the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department (HCJPD). His research interests focus on evidence-informed best practices in community corrections, for both justice-involved juveniles and adults. His research uses methodologies from criminology to address practitioner-based problems within community corrections. He has published in Women & Criminal Justice, Crime & Delinquency, Child Abuse & Neglect, and Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice.

References

Archer

R. J. L.

(2019). Sexual assault victimization, fear of sexual assault, and self-protective behaviors: A test of general strain theory. Victims & Offenders, 14(4), 387–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2019.1608882

Bachman

Kerrison

Paternoster

O’Connell

Smith

(2016). Desistance for a long-term drug-involved sample of adult offenders: The importance of identity transformation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(2), 164–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815604012

Blasko

B. L.

Friedmann

P. D.

Rhodes

A. G.

Taxman

F. S.

(2015). The parolee-parole officer relationship as a mediator of criminal justice outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(7), 722–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814562642

Blasko

B. L.

Taxman

F. S.

(2018). Are supervision practices procedurally fair? Development and predictive utility of a procedural justice measure for use in community corrections settings. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(3), 402–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817749255

Connors

G. J.

DiClemente

C. C.

Dermen

K. H.

Kadden

Carroll

K. M.

Frone

M. R.

(2000). Predicting the therapeutic alliance in alcoholism treatment. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61(1), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2000.61.139

Cornacchione

Smith

S. W.

Morash

Bohmert

M. N.

Cobbina

J. E.

Kashy

D. A.

(2016). An exploration of female offenders’ memorable messages from probation and parole officers on the self-assessment of behavior from a control theory perspective. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 44(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2015.1116705

DeMichele

Payne

(2018). Exploring probation officer styles and goals with individual, organizational, and social characteristics. European Journal of Probation, 10(3), 232–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/2066220318822845

Duwe

Clark

(2015). Importance of program integrity: Outcome evaluation of a gender-responsive, cognitive-behavioral program for female offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(2), 301–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12123

Fedock

Covington

S. S.

(2017). Correctional programming and gender. In Pontell

(Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice. (pp. 1–30). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.89

10.

Field

(2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.

11.

Gharehgozli

Atal

(2020). Revisiting the gender wage gap in the United States. Economic Analysis and Policy, 66, 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2020.04.008

12.

Gochyyev

Skeem

J. L.

(2019). Efficiently assessing firm, fair, and caring relationships: Short form of the Dual Role Relationship Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 31(3), 352. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000672

13.

Gottlieb

Mahabir

(2022). Women and incarceration: Introducing a gendered lens into smart decarceration. Social Work, 67(2), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swac012

14.

Holmstrom

A. J.

Adams

E. A.

Morash

Smith

S. W.

Cobbina

J. E.

(2018). Supportive messages female offenders receive from probation and parole officers about substance avoidance: Message perceptions and effects. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(11), 1496–1517. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817723395

15.

Kruttschnitt

Joosen

Bijleveld

(2019). Research note: Re-examining the gender responsive approach to female offending and its basis in the pathways literature. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 58(6), 485–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2019.1621415

16.

Lawrence

T. I.

Yelderman

L. A.

(2022). Attitudes toward substance use among females on parole: The effects of relationship quality between parole/probation officers and female offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2155649

17.

Lloyd

C. D.

Perley-Robertson

Serin

R. C.

(2020). Age and strengths in a community corrections sample. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 19(3), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2019.1684404

18.

Louden

J. E.

Skeem

J. L.

Camp

Christensen

(2008). Supervising probationers with mental disorder: How do agencies respond to violations? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(7), 832–847. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808319042

19.

Manchak

S. M.

Skeem

J. L.

Kennealy

P. J.

Louden

J. E.

(2014). High-fidelity specialty mental health probation improves officer practices, treatment access, and rule compliance. Law and Human Behavior, 38(5), 450–461. http://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000076

20.

Marzan

Callinan

Livingston

Jiang

(2022). Alcohol consumption, heavy episodic drinking and the perpetration of antisocial behaviours in Australia. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 235, 109432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109432

21.

Miller

(2015). Contemporary modes of probation officer supervision: The triumph of the “synthetic” officer? Justice Quarterly, 32(2), 314–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2013.770546

22.

Morash

(2010). Women on probation and parole: A feminist critique of community programs & services. Northeastern University Press.

23.

Morash

Kashy

D. A.

Smith

S. W.

Cobbina

J. E.

(2015). The effects of probation or parole agent relationship style and women offenders’ criminogenic needs on offenders’ responses to supervision interactions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(4), 412–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814551602

24.

Morash

Kashy

D. A.

Smith

S. W.

Cobbina

J. E.

(2016). The connection of probation/parole officer actions to women offenders’ recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(4), 506–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815626490

25.

Morash

Kashy

D. A.

Smith

S. W.

Cobbina

J. E.

(2018). Is the nature of communication relevant to the supportiveness of women’s relationships with probation and parole agents? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(6), 1629–1647. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16689832

26.

Morash

Kashy

D. A.

Smith

S. W.

Cobbina

J. E.

(2019). Technical violations, treatment and punishment responses, and recidivism of women on probation and parole. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(5), 788–810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417723425

27.

Morash

Smith

S. W.

Kashy

D. A.

Cobbina

J. E.

(2017). Probation/parole officer interactions with women offenders: Do relationship style and communication pattern predict outcomes? Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [Distributor]. https://doi.org/10.3886/E100410V1

28.

Mossman

(1994). Assessing predictions of violence: Being accurate about accuracy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(4), 783–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.62.4.783

29.

Mueller

K. C.

Carey

M. T.

Noh

(2023). Revalidating the Positive Achievement Change Tool (PACT) in a major city: A survival analysis. Crime & Delinquency, 69(13–14), 2678–2698. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221087949

30.

Mueller

K. C.

Noh

Carey

M. T.

(2022). The impact of fair relationships on rule compliance for women under community supervision. Women & Criminal Justice, 32(4), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2021.1900992

31.

Neupert

S. D.

Desmarais

S. L.

Gray

J. S.

Cohn

A. M.

Doherty

Knight

(2017). Daily stressors as antecedents, correlates, and consequences of alcohol and drug use and cravings in community-based offenders. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 31(3), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000276

32.

Olson

D. E.

Lurigio

A. J.

(2000). Predicting probation outcomes: Factors associated with probation rearrest, revocations, and technical violations during supervision. Justice Research and Policy, 2(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.3818/JRP.2.1.2000.73

33.

Olson

D. E.

Lurigio

A. J.

Seng

(2000). A comparison of female and male probationers: Characteristics and case outcomes. Women & Criminal Justice, 11(4), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v11n04_05

34.

Porporino

F. J.

Motiuk

L. L.

(1995). The prison careers of mentally disordered offenders. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 18, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2527(94)00025-5

35.

Reisig

M. D.

Holtfreter

Morash

(2006). Assessing recidivism risk across female pathways to crime. Justice Quarterly, 23(3), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820600869152

36.

Rhodes

B. E.

Gottfredson

N. C.

Hill

L. M.

(2018). Desistance and treatment seeking among women with substance use disorders. Qualitative Health Research, 28(8), 1330–1341. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318767637

37.

Rice

M. E.

Harris

G. T.

(1995). Violent recidivism: Assessing predictive validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(5), 737–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.63.5.737

38.

Rice

M. E.

Harris

G. T.

(2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29(5), 615–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7

39.

Roddy

A. L.

Morash

(2020). The connections of parole and probation agent communication patterns with female offenders’ job-seeking self-efficacy. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64(8), 774–790. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X19895963

40.

Roddy

A. L.

Morash

Adams

E. A.

Holmstrom

A. J.

Smith

S. W.

Cobbina

J. E.

(2019). The nature and effects of messages that women receive from probation and parole agents in conversations about employment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(4), 550–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818811385

41.

Roddy

A. L.

Morash

Hoskins

K. M.

(2021). An exploration of employment-related personal projects undertaken by women on probation and parole. Feminist Criminology, 16(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085120951843

42.

Salem

B. E.

Nyamathi

Idemundia

Slaughter

Ames

(2013). At a crossroads: Reentry challenges and healthcare needs among homeless female ex-offenders. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 9(1), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1097%2Fjfn.0b013e31827a1e9d

43.

Sawyer

Wagner

(2023, March 14). Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2023. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html

44.

Schroeder

R. D.

Giordano

P. C.

Cernkovich

S. A.

(2007). Drug use and desistance processes. Criminology, 45(1), 191–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2007.00076.x

45.

Skeem

J. L.

Louden

J. E.

Polaschek

Camp

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

46.

Skeem

J. L.

Manchak

(2008). Back to the future: From Klockars’ model of effective supervision to evidence-based practice in probation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47(3), 220–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509670802134069

47.

Smith

S. W.

Cornacchione

J. J.

Morash

Kashy

Cobbina

(2016). Communication style as an antecedent to reactance, self-efficacy, and restoration of freedom for drug-and alcohol-involved women on probation and parole. Journal of Health Communication, 21(5), 504–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1103329

48.

Smith

S. W.

Morash

Walling

Adams

E. A.

Holmstrom

A. J.

(2019). Precursors to probation and parole agent intent to send informational, emotional, and esteem social support messages to female clients. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 47, 344–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2019.1615632

49.

Taxman

F. S.

Caudy

M. S.

(2015). Risk tells us who, but not what or how: Empirical assessment of the complexity of criminogenic needs to inform correctional programming. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(1), 71–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12116

50.

Vasilescu

(2022). Probation officers working with women offenders in the community: Evidence from Catalonia. Probation Journal, 69(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505211070087

51.

Vasiljevic

Öjehagen

Andersson

(2020). Incremental validity of ambulatory assessment of acute dynamic risk in predicting time to recidivism among prisoners on parole. Psychology, Crime & Law, 26(6), 614–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2019.1708356

52.

Welle

Falkin

(2000). The everyday policing of women with romantic codefendants: An ethnographic perspective. Women & Criminal Justice, 11(2), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v11n02_03

53.

Wilfong

Golder

Logan

T. K.

Higgins

(2021). Examining the influence of financial assistance and employment services on the criminal justice outcomes of women on probation. Affilia, 36(2), 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109920919180

54.

Wodahl

E. J.

Mowen

T. J.

Garland

B. E.

(2021). The effect of individual characteristics and supervision experiences on the perceived quality of the supervision relationship. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 32(5), 523–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403420967070

55.

Wooditch

Tang

L. L.

Taxman

F. S.

(2014). Which criminogenic need changes are most important in promoting desistance from crime and substance use? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(3), 276–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813503543