Treatment Provider’s Perceived Effectiveness of Probation and Parole

Abstract

In the fall of 2005, the state of Missouri launched a three-prong assessment of the relationship between probation and parole and three of their stakeholders: police, courts, and treatment providers. The Division of Probation and Parole was interested in identifying these perceptions as they implement the Missouri Reentry Process (MRP). The MRP promotes the formation of interdependent working relationships between stakeholders and probation and parole. Before these relationships can be fostered or improved, an assessment of the current relationship was necessary. This article focuses on the 2nd year’s project that involved a web-based, statewide survey of treatment providers. The purpose of the study was to conduct a utilization-focused evaluation to ascertain treatment providers’ perceptions of probation and parole’s service delivery. The descriptive statistics examined and described broad perceptions of the relationship. Bivariate analysis was conducted to determine whether a relationship existed between different dimensions such as education level, facility staff size, and other variables such as perceived support for treatment and whether probation and parole officers participate in information-sharing meetings. An overall favorable perception of probation and parole was apparent from the survey results. Statistically significant results for several dimensions of the relationship between probation and parole officers and treatment providers were found. These statistically significant results provided insight into the effectiveness of probation and parole’s service delivery. The article concludes with a presentation of policy implications.

Keywords

probation and parole treatment providers interdependent relationships utilization-focused evaluations web-based survey

Introduction

The increasing population of those under supervision by the Missouri Department of Corrections places a large burden on correctional staff and taxpayers. According to the Missouri DOC, in December 2009, they were responsible for supervising 104,893 adults. The Division of Probation and Parole supervised 71,550 of these adults. Another 2,229 adults were confined to treatment facilities (DOC; 2010). Although the proportion of adults supervised by probation and parole constitute a majority of those assigned to the DOC, 97% of the approximately 31,000 incarcerated inmates will eventually return to the community.

Data presented by the U.S. Department of Justice indicated that Missouri had the eighth highest incarceration rate in the country (“Missouri’s high imprisonment”, 2005). However, this article’s focus is not on Missouri’s burgeoning prison population but rather centers on the community-based method of corrections. Community-based corrections can be defined as either a disposition or a process. The “disposition” is the aspect of community corrections “that leads to granting and revocation of probation and parole” (Alarid, Cromwell, & Del Carmen, 2007, p. 107). Conversely, the “process” of community corrections is the manner in which probation and parole services “are organized, administered, and delivered” (Alarid et al., 2007, p. 107). It is the second part of the community-based corrections definition that serves as the focus of this study, the aim of which is to determine the treatment provider’s perceived effectiveness of the delivery of probation and parole services.

The extraordinary growth and technological changes in community-based corrections has caused the Division of Probation and Parole to examine their methods of service delivery. The DOC began to address these concerns in 2005. In an effort to decrease the number of parole violators, Missouri established and implemented the Missouri Reentry Process (MRP).

The model used for the MRP was provided by the National Institute of Corrections. The National Institute of Corrections developed a philosophical framework to improve the reentry process for offenders through a teamwork approach utilizing stakeholders in the reentry process. Even though the MRP is establishing the groundwork for more effective delivery of services for probation and parole officers, its effectiveness still depends on the individual officer’s ability to operate within an organizational context. The officer must still be able to form interdependent relationships with those in other state departments and community agencies (Bolman & Deal, 2008).

Because of this focus on interagency collaboration provided by the MRP, the Missouri Division of Probation and Parole initiated a three-pronged study to assess law enforcement officers, treatment providers, and court personnel’s perceptions of probation and parole officers’ delivery of services (Keena, Mendenhall, & Wade, 2009). Each of these three segments of the criminal justice system plays an important role in a probation and parole officer’s daily activities. By assessing the current level of collaboration among these groups, probation and parole administrators can develop a strategic plan to increase collaboration and interagency cooperation, thereby fulfilling the goals set forth in the MRP.

The practice of requiring treatment for offenders on probation and parole is not new. However, the concept of probation and parole officers participating in an interdependent relationship with treatment providers is fairly recent. The following literature review provides a brief background of probation and parole supervision and organizational structure.

Literature Review

Probation and parole’s governing board creates community corrections programs that are designed to address a multitude of problems facing society. These programs serve a dual purpose of protecting the public while also attempting to effectively reintegrate offenders into society (Latessa & Allen, 2003). Because these community corrections programs directly impact the community at large, determining the effectiveness of these programs and the organization as a whole is not only very important but also a professional responsibility (Bass & Avolio, 2001).

Stojakovic and Lovell (1997) believed that the role the officer plays while implementing these programs is often overlooked in the literature assessing the effectiveness of community corrections programs. Commonly, the effectiveness of these programs is largely gauged through recidivism rates of offenders. Because an officer’s role in the supervision of these offenders cannot always be determined through such measures, Clear and Dammer (2000) recommended that the effectiveness of a community-based correctional organization should be evaluated by measurements other than recidivism.

Katzenback and Smith (2009) asserted that a key component of an effective organization is an organized, adept organizational structure. They believed that collaborative, mutually beneficial relationships are necessary to achieve common goals. Cervero and Wilson (2005) further asserted that a program’s effectiveness was contingent on intricate organizational and social relationships among people and groups of varying interests with regard to the program. For example, probation and parole officers cannot act on their own personal interests, independent of their department. Probation and parole officers commonly function within and among several relationships such as courts, law enforcement, or treatment providers. These competing interests, each with their own goals and agendas, invariably create problems. Although these individual problems are not the focus of this research, the nature of the relationship between probation and parole and treatment providers is. As probation and parole officers work within interdependent relationships with not only law enforcement and courts but also treatment providers, Bolman and Deal (2008) contended that an organization must be able to adapt its structure to accommodate the organization’s various goals and objectives.

The open systems approach presented by Morgan (2006) expands on the principle that organizations are “open” (p. 39) to their environment and therefore must achieve an effective relationship with that environment to exist. Morgan further explained that an organization must be in “constant exchange with the environment” (p. 67) to be effective.

The research presented in this study is predicated on Morgan’s findings that a learning organization will convert learned information into new concepts and procedures. Morgan also believed that for an organization to effectively maintain the delivery of services, it must conduct regular self-evaluations consisting of both positive and negative feedback. By regularly evaluating an organization’s effectiveness, problems and errors can be prevented or detected early and corrected.

The concept of interdependent relationships within the criminal justice system is further explained by Cox and Wade (1985). They presented the concept of a “criminal justice network” (p. 1). This network is defined as “a web of constantly changing relationships among individuals, some of whom are directly involved in criminal justice pursuits, others of whom are not” (Cox & Wade, 1985, p. 4). Treatment providers would be an example of a group of stakeholders that are directly involved with the criminal justice system without being a formal component. This network consists of all levels of the criminal justice system, including police, prosecutors, judges, and correctional staff. The relationships among all facets of the criminal justice system form the basis for this network. Although no one component of the criminal justice system is involved in all aspects of the network, each portion is, at a minimum, indirectly involved with the others. Because each component must interact with others, communication and cooperation are extremely important (Cox & Wade, 1985).

The relationship between treatment providers and probation as well as parole officers has been examined by several authors in North America and Europe. Although the nature of the relationship varied among situations, common issues and solutions to those issues were identified. Common issues identified by the literature were related to misperceptions, mistrust, and misunderstanding of each participant’s role in the treatment and supervision process, all of which contributed to strained relationships between probation and parole officers and treatment providers (Delany, Fletcher, & Shields, 2003; Lurigio, Rollins, & Fallon, 2004; Roberts, Hudson, & Cullen, 1995; Roskes & Feldman, 1999; Skeem, Encandela, & Eno Louden, 2003; Slate, Feldman, Roskes, & Baerga, 2004).

Some issues arose from the difference in the perceptions of the goals of both probation and parole officers and treatment providers. Probation officers often believed that treatment providers were lenient regarding criminal behavior, uninterested in public safety, and often tried to justify or explain away an offender’s actions. Conversely, treatment providers alleged that probation and parole officers did not understand the special treatment needs of the clients. Further compounding these issues were the treatment provider’s (a) fear of criminals, (b) belief that court-ordered treatment is unsuccessful, and (c) unwillingness to testify in court proceedings (Roskes & Feldman, 1999).

To address some of these issues, several solutions were presented in the literature. The first and most important solution was for treatment providers and probation as well as parole officers to develop and maintain a collaborative approach to treatment and supervision. One method that could be used to help develop collaboration between probation and parole officers and treatment providers was training (Lurigio et al., 2004; Roberts et al., 1995; Roskes & Feldman, 1999; Slate et al., 2004). Cross-training of probation and parole officers and treatment providers could alleviate misperceptions (Roskes & Feldman, 1999), facilitate an increased level of understanding for each other’s role in the treatment and supervision process (Roberts et al., 1995), and produce more consistent, collaborative goals for treatment and supervision (Lurigio et al., 2004; Roskes & Feldman, 1999).

Conducting information-sharing meetings was another proposed method to increase collaboration between probation and parole officers and treatment providers. These information-sharing meetings may include anyone involved with the supervision of the offender. During these meetings, the probation officer can provide pertinent information such as the client’s overall attitude toward supervision or their employment status, whereas the treatment provider could provide information concerning the status of the client’s treatment program (Roberts et al., 1995; Wilson, Stewart, Stirpe, Barrett, & Cripps, 2000). To increase the effectiveness of these information-sharing collaborations, Lurigio et al. (2004) proposed that the team assignments remain constant over a period of time.

An excellent example of a team approach to supervision that used information-sharing meetings was presented by Wilson et al. (2000). In this study, offenders were categorized according to their perceived risk level for recidivism. The higher risk group received more intensive treatment and supervision, which was overseen by a team that consisted of the parole officers, case manager, treatment staff, and director of the maintenance group. This group met regularly to discuss and share information pertinent to the offender’s supervision. The lower risk group was also supervised with a team approach but not as intensively. In this limited study, recidivism rates were lower for those who were supervised by the team approach, which suggests that a team approach to supervision was effective and beneficial to the offender (Wilson et al., 2000).

Although cross-training and information sharing can occur in a traditional probation and treatment setting, some agencies have created specialty probation officers who specialize in this team-centered approach to supervision. Although specialty officers are generally associated with mental health clients, the conceptualization of this type of officer could be extended to other forms of supervision. According to Stalans (2004), specialty probation programs are founded on the containment approach. The main objective of this approach is to reduce recidivism through a team effort of probation and parole officers, treatment providers, police, and polygraph professionals. Because of the team approach, the collaboration between treatment providers and probation and parole officers is extremely important. The team approach is further facilitated by the specialty probation officer’s reduced caseload. Because specialty officers have a reduced caseload, they have more flexibility and may devote more time to develop interdependent relationships with treatment providers. By working more closely with treatment providers, specialty officers can more readily modify their supervision strategy to accommodate need (Skeem & Emke-Francis, 2004; Skeem et al., 2003). Although more research should be conducted as to their effectiveness, evidence suggests that specialty supervision may reduce recidivism (Stalans, 2004).

Other forms of collaboration are also presented in the literature. Delany et al. (2003) suggested several strategies to increase collaboration. One suggestion was to share resources and activities between probation and parole and treatment providers. The example provided by the authors was to position drug-treatment counselors within a prerelease center. This type of cooperation would require formal agreements between the two agencies and increased training for the counselors in the policies and procedures of a prerelease center.

Another strategy presented by Delany et al. (2003) was the consolidation of treatment and supervision. Although this is similar to specialty probation officers who have received extensive training in mental illness issues, this proposal is much more wide ranging and would include probation and parole and treatment providers in the same agency but still maintain separate functions. A final proposal by Delany et al. was complete integration. Full integration would require a merger of all the organizational components of the treatment provider and probation and parole. Under this strategy, treatment providers could be hired and trained as probation and parole officers.

Although the focus of this article is the state of Missouri, examining programs in existence in other jurisdictions or countries can be informative. The United Kingdom has addressed the use of interdependent relationships between treatment providers and probation and parole officers for some time. The National Association for the Development of Work with Sex Offenders. (NOTA) conducted their first conference in 1991. This conference attracted probation officers, psychologists, social workers, psychiatrists, and other pertinent professionals who worked with sex offenders (Beckett, 1998). NOTA provided an avenue for those practitioners who worked with sex offenders to gain new knowledge and skills, including how to supervise sex offenders utilizing a multiagency approach (Beckett, 1998).

Another example of an interagency approach to supervising offenders is the Thames Valley Project (TVP; Beckett, 1998). Prior to the implementation of the TVP, special training sessions and meetings were conducted to allow probation officers to discuss cases with a psychologist and provide training in assessment and treatment of sex offenders. Because of the TVP’s team-centered approach, it consisted of several teams. The project team consisted of four full-time staff members. The staff members who comprised this team were a senior probation officer who doubled as the project coordinator, a forensic psychologist, a probation officer who received support from an administrator, and a clerical officer. In addition to the project team, a management team consisting of probation managers, a consultant forensic psychologist, a consultant child psychiatrist, and child-protection coordinators provided further support to the project team. Finally, the project was counseled by a multiagency advisory group that provided political support and guidance (Beckett, 1998). During the core treatment program, each group treatment session is led by two members of the project team, with a third acting as a consultant and debriefer (Beckett, 1998).

More recently, the National Offender Management Model (NOMM) was implemented (Maguire & Raynor, 2010). The NOMM is a team-oriented approach to offender management. It consists of an offender manager, an offender supervisor, case administrator, and key workers. For purposes of this article, the key workers of the team will be the focus. The key workers are those who are given the task of providing interventions to the offender (Maguire & Raynor, 2010). These interventions could take many different forms, such as basic skills training or, for the purposes of this paper, treatment. The NOMM collaborative approach requires the four parts of a management team to work together to implement mandated supervision and interventions (Maguire & Raynor, 2010). The United Kingdom has been actively working to implement a more team-oriented approach to offender management and should continue to do so.

The aforementioned research determined that a strong, interdependent relationship between probation and parole officers and treatment providers was essential to more effectively supervise their clients. The only way to gauge the effectiveness of an organization’s relationships is to survey those stakeholders who participate in those relationships. The focus of this research is to determine treatment provider’s perceptions of probation and parole officers in Missouri. By determining the perceptions of the treatment providers, Missouri probation and parole officers can evaluate the nature of their relationship.

Method

This study was conducted by a research team from Southeast Missouri State University’s Criminal Justice Department. The study was organized into stages and used solid organizational learning principles. Preskill and Torres (1999), evaluative inquiry experts, explain that evaluations begin with wanting to “explore the need for a particular program, or a desire to understand the effects or impact of an important process or program” (p. 76). Because of this belief, the first step in this evaluation required the probation and parole administrators to determine the reasons for the evaluation. The research team asked them, “Tell us what you want to know? What are you interested in evaluating? What would you like to know about your agency that would make a difference in what you do?” The final question was important in determining the utility of the findings, how the evaluation may be useful. These questions were asked of the probation and parole administrators at the beginning of the three-part study that involved law enforcement, treatment providers, and the courts.

Determining who would benefit from this evaluation was the second stage. Mendelow (1997) referred to these people as “stakeholders” (p. 177) or those who have a stake in the evaluation findings (Patton, 2008). Agency administrators at the state, regional, and district levels, field probation and parole officers, and treatment providers were identified as critical stakeholders.

After identifying the stakeholders, the next stage involved the development of a set of evaluative questions. To develop the questions for this evaluative study, probation and parole agency administrators considered which questions they wanted to ask and why certain questions were important to study. Patton (2008) explained that by involving primary stakeholders in the development of the questions, opposing views can be considered and evaluated. By including opposing viewpoints, the probability of considering all possible viewpoints is increased, which leads to improved utilization of the findings.

The primary stakeholders were also involved in creating the survey. The intended users were informed of and asked to evaluate various design options. An online survey that primarily used Likert-type scale items was chosen as the means of determining treatment provider’s perceived effectiveness of probation and parole’s delivery of services. With increased computer usage, web surveys have continually grown more popular (Dillman, 2000; Porter & Whitcomb, 2003). A web survey was chosen to gain data from treatment providers because it provided a time and cost saving option for data collection and was more convenient for the respondents (Dillman, 2000; Sax, Gilmartin, & Bryant, 2003).

The survey consisted of a variety of questions. The first section of the survey was comprised of a series of background questions to determine not only demographic characteristics of the respondents but also possible characteristics that potentially explain particular patterns of response. These questions examined each respondent’s education level, years of experience, number of clinical staff in their facility, and current age. In addition to the background questions, other questions were included in an attempt to ascertain the treatment provider’s overall perceptions of probation and parole. The remainder of the survey contained questions measuring the perceived effectiveness of probation and parole officers in specific job-related categories.

After the web-based survey was completed and functional, each probation and parole district administrator was asked to send an endorsement letter to the treatment providers in his or her district explaining the nature of the survey and providing the web address in which the survey could be accessed. Respondents were recruited from the Department of Mental Health, private- and public-funded groups, and individual, inpatient, and outpatient treatment providers who were known to be assisting offenders during the study time frame. The type of respondents included mental health, substance abuse, sex offender, gambling, and anger management treatment providers.

The survey was activated on March 1, 2008, and district administrators were encouraged to forward the cover letter to the respective treatment providers at that time. As response rates are traditionally lower for online surveys than for paper surveys (Porter & Whitcomb, 2003; Sax et al., 2003), the research team provided probation and parole with updates regarding survey response totals from each of the six regions throughout the survey period. Probation and parole administrators then contacted the treatment providers in their district to further encourage participation. On March 15, 2008, data collection closed. At that time, 127 treatment providers had responded. Calculating a response rate was not possible because the exact number of clinical staff in Missouri was unknown. Computer availability was not considered to be a limiting factor initially, but two respondents faxed their responses to the survey team as a result of computer-access problems. These surveys were coded and included in the response data.

The survey data were compiled in a Microsoft Excel file and then imported and analyzed utilizing the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Statistical analysis of the data was conducted through the use of descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis.

Results

A series of background questions was included in the survey to determine possible characteristics that potentially explain particular patterns of response. These questions examined each respondent’s education level, years of experience, number of clinical staff in their facility, and current age. Generally, respondents were well educated, with 77.2% indicating a bachelor’s degree or higher education. Of the 98 college-educated respondents, 65.3% held a graduate degree. Ratio-level statistics, including years of experience, number of clinical staff, and current age were also analyzed. The data on years of experience ranged from 1 to 30 years. The mean number of years of experience was 11.35 with a median of 10 meaning that generally respondents were experienced but did not show longevity.

The results for staff size provided a mean of 16.98 and a median of 8. Although many of the agencies (90%) employed 25 or less clinicians, 8 respondents worked for agencies that employed 50 or more employees. Two respondents reported working for an agency that employed 300 clinicians. Because those two responses were much greater than the other responses, they skewed the mean results. As a result, the median is a more accurate indicator for staff size. The youngest age reported was 24 and the oldest was 65, which provided an even distribution among ages. Because of this wide range of ages, a mean of 45.71 and a median of 47 were calculated showing a balance of younger and older clinical staff.

In addition to the background questions, two questions ascertained the overall perceptions of not only the probation and parole officers but also identified the perceived role of probation and parole officers in Missouri. Sixty percent of the respondents rated probation and parole officers as “very good” or “superior.” An additional 26% of respondents rated the officers as “good.” The perceived role of probation and parole officers by treatment providers can influence the working relationship between the two agencies. A 5-point Likert-type scale question was devised to test this inquiry. The large majority of respondents answered utilizing two main categories. Fifty percent of the respondents reported that they perceived the officer’s role to be equally rehabilitation and public safety. An additional 37.8% responded that they perceived the role to be more public safety than rehabilitation. Eight percent perceived the role to be more rehabilitation than public safety or exclusively rehabilitation. The remaining 4.7% perceived the officer’s role to be exclusively public safety oriented.

Additional questions asked responding treatment providers their perceptions of probation and parole officers in their district in specific job-related qualities and characteristics utilizing a 4-point Likert-type scale. An overall assessment of the survey responses projected a positive perception of probation and parole officers. Responses of “frequently” or “always” are considered to be positive responses, whereas a response of “seldom” or “never” is a negative response.

As part of the MRP, treatment providers should be receiving the treatment referral and guidelines from the probation and parole officers for each client they admit into treatment. The MRP also encourages probation and parole officers to participate in formal information-sharing meetings with treatment providers to discuss information such as discharge planning. These meetings, which should begin before the offender is released from prison and continue throughout the course of their treatment, allow all interested parties to collaborate and discuss the proper course of treatment and supervision for the offender. As new issues arise, the supervision and treatment strategy can be modified. Even though the treatment referral and guidelines are an important aspect of treatment, only 45.1% of survey participants are currently receiving them. Even fewer treatment providers (33.3%) are currently participating in information-sharing meetings. Of those providers who are not participating in meetings, 80.4% believe that having these meetings would be helpful in the treatment process. Of those few who are participating, 80.4% believe the meetings to be productive.

Because of the focus on interdependent relationships between treatment providers and probation and parole officers in the MRP, a question specifically polled respondents to identify how frequently they interacted with probation and parole officers. The amount and quality of interaction is important if interdependent working relationships are to be forged. Of all, 61% of the respondents indicated at least a “weekly” interaction with a probation and parole officer. In addition, 19% reported “monthly” interaction. The remaining 19.9% indicated an interaction rate of yearly or never. In addition, respondents were asked whether they personally know a probation and parole officer. For this, 70% indicated they did personally know a probation and parole officer, whereas 30.7% indicated they did not personally know a probation and parole officer.

The final question on the survey inquired how many respondents work for an agency that currently was under DOC contract to provide treatment services. Forty-four percent of the respondents reported that they were under a DOC contract, whereas 56.1% reported they were not under contract.

Bivariate analysis was conducted to determine whether a relationship existed between different dimensions such as education level, facility staff size, and so on, and other variables such as perceived support for treatment and whether probation and parole officers participate in information-sharing meetings, and so on. Identifiable dependent variables provided general observations about probation and parole and identified the perceived role of probation and parole. Education level, amount of interaction, staff size, regional affiliation, years of experience, and funding type served as independent variables and cross-tabulations were performed between both sets of variables.

A statistically significant relationship was determined by the cross-tabulation of interaction level and perceived support for treatment, χ²(6, n = 125) = 31.826, p < .05. Of those respondents who interacted with probation and parole officers on a “daily” basis, 87.9% reported that probation and parole officers were always or frequently supportive of the treatment process. Those who interacted on a weekly or monthly basis also reported high levels of support from probation and parole officers (93.2% and 83.3%, respectively). However, those who interacted on a yearly basis reported that only 50% of the probation and parole officers showed support for the treatment process. Although these associations were significant, the Cramer’s V value of .357 indicated a moderately weak association between interaction level and perceived support for treatment.

The cross-tabulation results for interaction level and the amount of participation of probation and parole officers in intake and planning meetings also produced a statistically significant relationship, χ²(6, n = 124) = 28.381, p < .05. Those clinicians who interacted with probation and parole officers on a daily or weekly basis reported participation rates of always or frequently slightly more than 90% of the time. However, meeting participation decreased dramatically when interaction levels were monthly (70.9%) or yearly/never (46.8%). Although the association measured by Cramer’s V (.338) indicated a statistically significant relationship, the association is moderately weak.

Similarly, the cross-tabulation of interaction level and how frequently probation and parole officers responded to treatment provider inquiries in a timely manner produced statistically significant results, χ²(6, n = 121) = 12.981, p < .05. Those clinicians who interacted with probation and parole officers on a daily or weekly basis reported similar results. Those who interacted on a daily basis with officers reported that 80.7% of the time officers responded to inquiries in a timely manner always or frequently. Those who interacted on a weekly basis reported 79.0%. However, these favorable results diminished when providers interacted on a monthly (58.4%) or yearly/never (47.8%) basis. The Cramer’s V (.232) results indicated a moderately weak association between these two variables.

Cross-tabulation results for interaction level and how receptive probation and parole officers are to suggestions from treatment providers also provided statistically significant results, χ²(6, n = 123) = 19.987, p < .05. Similar to previous results, treatment providers who interacted with probation and parole officers either daily or weekly reported very positive perceptions as to how receptive officers were to suggestions from providers (87.9% and 81.0%, respectively). Also similar to prior results, those who interacted on a monthly or yearly/never basis reported much lower levels of receptivity (58.3% and 54.2%, respectively). A moderately weak association between these variables was indicated by the Cramer’s V (.285) results.

The final relationship associated with interaction level that produced a statistically significant relationship was how willing probation and parole officers are to maintain open lines of communication with treatment providers, χ²(6, n = 125) = 28.852, p < .05. Those providers who interacted with officers on a daily or weekly basis identified high levels of their willingness to maintain open lines of communication (90.9% and 88.7%, respectively). However, similar to prior reported results, those who interacted on a monthly or yearly/never basis reported much lower levels of willingness (66.6% and 50.0%, respectively). Even though a statistically significant association was identified by Cramer’s V (.340), the association was moderately weak.

Discussion

The overall perceptions of treatment providers were that, in general, probation and parole officers are performing their basic duties in an exemplary manner. They perceived officers to be professional, courteous, and open to communication with treatment providers. Although the overall perceptions of probation and parole officers were positive, several dimensions produced results where changes are warranted.

Treatment Referral and Guidelines

As part of the MRP, treatment providers should be receiving the treatment referral and guidelines from probation and parole officers prior to commencement of treatment for each offender. According to the survey, only 45.1% of the treatment providers are receiving these guidelines. Roskes and Feldman (1999) and Slate et al. (2004) identified the contracting of treatment services as an important step to maintain consistency among providers and to allow interdependent working relationships to be more easily formed.

Information-Sharing Meetings

Treatment providers and probation and parole officers should be conducting information-sharing meetings and participating in intake and discharge planning sessions to not only determine the appropriate course of supervision and treatment initially but also to evaluate the progress of the offender and modify the treatment and supervision protocols if necessary (Delany et al., 2003; Lurigio, 2001; Lurigio et al., 2004; Roberts et al., 1995; Roskes & Feldman, 1999; Skeem et al., 2003; Slate et al., 2004; Stalans, 2004; Vandevelde, Palmans, Broekaert, Rousseau, & Vanderstraeten, 2006; Wilson et al., 2000). Only 33.3% of responding treatment providers reported that they have information-sharing meetings with probation and parole officers. Of the 41 providers attending meetings, more than 80% report that the meetings are productive. Of the remaining 82 providers who are not having the meetings, 80.4% report that they believe the meetings would be helpful.

Information-sharing meetings potentially help to establish the interdependent working relationship outlined in the MRP. Based on the responses of the treatment providers, they appear willing to participate in these meetings with probation and parole. These meetings could also facilitate the opportunity for some cross-training among probation and parole officers and treatment providers because some treatment providers commented that they do not believe that probation and parole officers have a working knowledge of treatment issues. Providers wrote the following comments: “I also think that there are times when probation and parole have limited understanding/knowledge of treatment” and “Many probation and parole officers do not understand methadone maintenance treatment program.” One final comment provided by a treatment provider relative to this issue was as follows:

Probation officers have the mindset that THEY [emphasis added] know what is needed in the way of treatment, and that THEY [emphasis added] can mandate to the treatment center what treatment their clients should have. For some reason, they feel they have a better knowledge of treatment.

The cross-training of officers and treatment providers is a recommendation of many of the researchers. Cross-training provides the opportunity to learn more about supervision or treatment, thereby gaining a better understanding of issues pertinent to each (Delany et al., 2003; Lurigio, 2001; Lurigio et al., 2004; Roberts et al., 1995; Roskes & Feldman, 1999; Skeem, Emke-Francis, & Eno Loudon, 2006; Skeem et al., 2003; Slate et al., 2004; Stalans, 2004). Mistrust between treatment providers and probation and parole officers is common and can cause problems with not only effective supervision but also effective treatment (Roskes & Feldman, 1999; Skeem et al., 2003; Slate et al., 2004). Regularly scheduling these meetings provides the opportunity for exchange of pertinent supervision and treatment information between officers and clinicians.

Interaction Level

The frequency of interaction also significantly affected respondents’ perceptions of probation and parole officers. Those treatment providers who indicated a daily interaction with probation and parole officers reported a more favorable perception of probation and parole officers than those providers who reported a yearly or never level of interaction. These results are not surprising. A probation and parole officer who interacts on a regular basis with treatment providers will likely be perceived as more supportive of treatment and more willing to maintain open lines of communication. Similarly, providers reporting frequent interaction also reported that officers responded more quickly to treatment provider requests and were more receptive of suggestions from providers. This lack of interaction caused those providers at larger facilities to perceive that probation and parole offices are not as willing to maintain open communication, respond to treatment provider requests, or entertain suggestions from treatment providers.

Perceived Role

Treatment providers were asked to identify their perception of probation and parole’s main role. Respondents were given five choices: “exclusively rehabilitation,” “more rehabilitation than public safety,” “equally rehabilitation and public safety,” “more public safety than rehabilitation,” and “exclusively public safety.” The largest percentage (49.6%) of the respondents identified equally rehabilitation and public safety as probation and parole’s main role. However, only 7.9% perceived probation and parole’s role as exclusively rehabilitation or more rehabilitation than public safety. The remaining 42.5% of the respondents favored a response focused more on public safety than rehabilitation. This perception was also identified in the following comment. “There needs to be more rehabilitative efforts. Probation and Parole officers should be able to refer people to services that will help them become independent instead of focusing on ‘trying to catch them doing something wrong’.” This perception is not uncommon, Roskes and Feldman (1999) reported that oftentimes treatment providers believed that probation and parole officers were only trying to find ways to revoke an offender’s probation rather than provide them the support needed to be successful.

Although the majority of respondents perceived probation and parole to be equally rehabilitation and public safety oriented, the remaining respondents (42.5%) favored the view that probation and parole was more public safety oriented. This evaluation is specific to treatment providers. In comparison, Keena et al. (2009), in their evaluation of law enforcement officers’ perceived role of probation and parole officers, observed that although the majority of law enforcement officers perceived probation and parole to be equally rehabilitation and public safety oriented, the next highest category reported “more rehabilitation than public safety oriented” (p. 12).

Future Research

This study has raised awareness of some areas that merit future research. The study should be replicated in 3 years to determine whether any departmental changes, as a result of this utilization-focused evaluation, have impacted treatment provider perceptions.

As this study was limited to only examining treatment provider perceptions, an offender perspective was intentionally omitted. An evaluation of the offender’s perspective relative to the effectiveness of probation and parole and the interdependent relationship between treatment providers and probation and parole may provide some valuable insights into community corrections.

Conclusion

According to this study, probation and parole officers in Missouri are effective in their current service delivery. However, this study revealed some areas that warrant attention. Two central issues surround these issues: interpersonal interaction and communication. If probation and parole officers increase their interpersonal interaction and communication levels with treatment providers, issues such as the receipt of the treatment referral and guidelines and conducting information-sharing meetings will be resolved. Increased interaction and communication will also benefit probation and parole officers with their relationship with treatment providers by showing increased support for treatment.

Footnotes

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Alarid

L. F.

Cromwell

P. F.

Del Carmen

R. V.

(2007). Community-based corrections (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(2001). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Beckett

(1998). Community treatment in the United Kingdom. In Marshall

W. L.

Fernandez

Y. M.

Hudson

S. M.

Ward

(Eds.), Sourcebook of treatment programs for sexual offenders (pp. 133-152). New York, NY: Plenum.

Bolman

L. G.

Deal

T. E.

(2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cervero

R. M.

Wilson

A. L.

(2005). Working the planning table: Negotiating democratically for adult, continuing and workplace education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Clear

Dammer

(2000). The offender in the community. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Cox

S. M.

Wade

J. W.

(1985). The criminal justice network: An introduction. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.

Delany

P. J.

Fletcher

B. W.

Shields

J. J.

(2003). Reorganizing care for the substance using offender. Federal Probation, 9, 64-68.

Dillman

D. A.

(2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY: John Wiley.

10.

Katzenback

J. R.

Smith

D. K.

(2009). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, 71, 110-121.

11.

Keena

L. D.

Mendenhall

Wade

J. E.

(2009). The police perspective of probation and parole: A case study. Professional Studies Review, 4(2), 51-63.

12.

Latessa

E. J.

Allen

H. E.

(2003). Corrections in the community (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

13.

Lurigio

A. J.

(2001). Effective services for parolees with mental illnesses. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 446-461.

14.

Lurigio

A. J.

Rollins

Fallon

(2004). The effects of serious mental illness on offender reentry. Federal Probation, 9, 45-52.

15.

Maguire

Raynor

(2010). Putting the OM into NOMS: Problems and possibilities for offender management. In Brayford

Cowe

Deering

(Eds.), What else works? Creative work with offenders (pp. 236-253). Portland, OR: Willian.

16.

Mendelow

A. L.

(1997). Stakeholder analysis for strategic planning and implementation. In King

W. R.

Cleland

D. I.

(Eds.), Strategic planning and implementation (pp. 176-191). New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

17.

Missouri Department of Corrections. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.doc.missouri.gov

18.

Missouri’s high imprisonment rate costs taxpayers. (2005, January 10). Southeast Missourian, p. B6.

19.

Morgan

(2006). Images of organizations (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

20.

Patton

M. Q.

(2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

21.

Porter

S. R.

Whitcomb

M. E.

(2003). The impact of contact type on web survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 570-588.

22.

Preskill

Torres

(1999). Evaluative inquiry for learning in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

23.

Roberts

Hudson

B. L.

Cullen

(1995). The supervision of mentally disordered offenders: The work of probation officers and their relationship with psychiatrists in England and Wales. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 5, 75-84.

24.

Roskes

Feldman

(1999). A collaborative community-based treatment program for offenders with mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 50, 1614-1619.

25.

Sax

L. J.

Gilmartin

S. K.

Bryant

A. N.

(2003). Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44, 409-423.

26.

Skeem

J. L.

Emke-Francis

(2004). Probation and mental health: Defining and responding to the challenges. Perspectives, 28, 23-26.

27.

Skeem

J. L.

Emke-Francis

Eno Loudon

(2006). Probation, mental health and mandated treatment: A national survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 158-184.

28.

Skeem

J. L.

Encandela

Eno Louden

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

29.

Slate

R. N.

Feldman

Roskes

Baerga

(2004). Training federal probation officers as mental health specialists. Federal Probation, 12, 9-15.

30.

Stalans

L. J.

(2004). Adult sex offenders on community supervision: A review of recent assessment strategies and treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 564-608.

31.

Stojakovic

Lovell

(1997). Corrections: An introduction (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

32.

Vandevelde

Palmans

Broekaert

Rousseau

Vanderstraeten

(2006). How do drug-involved incarcerated and recently released offenders and correctional treatment staff perceive treatment? A qualitative study on treatment needs and motivation in Belgian prisons. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 287-305.

33.

Wilson

R. J.

Stewart

Stirpe

Barrett

Cripps

J. E.

(2000). Community-based sex offender management: Combining parole supervision and treatment to reduce recidivism. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 177-188.