Come and Knock on Our Door: Offenders’ Perspectives on Home Visits Through Ecological Theory

Abstract

The use of home visits has a long and storied history in the United States from different disciplines, such as nursing, prenatal mothers, young families, health promotion, and community corrections. Ecological theory explains how formal actors play a role in the promotion in the health field through home visits, but does not address community corrections home visits. Through the use of 30 semi-structured interviews, this research seeks to expand the understanding of ecological theory by capturing the perceptions of offenders sentenced to home visits conducted by a sheriff’s office. The findings suggest the participants supported the home visits by formal agents and, in general, the home visits created an atmosphere of respect between the participants and sheriff’s office personnel. This study creates the context for future research to understand the role of formal agents in recidivism and evaluate the efficacy of home visits by community corrections agencies.

Keywords

home visits ecological theory

Introduction

Home visits have long been used by community corrections agencies as a method of supervising criminal offenders released into society (Lindner, 1992). Additional research has noted some of the difficulties of conducting home visits (DeMichele, Payne, & Matz, 2011) and has explored home visits from the practitioner point of view (Harris, 1984; Lindner, 1992). There is, however, no research that has attempted to understand how the criminal offenders themselves interpret the home visits or gauge the role of criminal justice agents in the rehabilitation process. This study is the first to interview offenders currently under home supervision and experiencing home visits.

Home visits are not only used by criminal justice agencies; the fields of prenatal nursing and early childhood have a significant history of utilizing home visits. Studies have found nursing and early childhood visits targeted homes in poor areas where there is little to no community support to help increase the health of the mother and child (Barnes-Boyd, Norr, & Nacion, 2001; McNaughton, 2004; Olds, 2002). Beginning in the late 1970s, ecological theory became a way of understanding the usefulness of these home visits (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979). Humans do not grow and develop in a vacuum, but are instead subject to the influences of their environment, even the local environment outside of the home. This study seeks to understand the home visits made to criminal offenders through the lens of ecological theory. How can home visits from criminal justice agencies, in concert with other community corrections treatments, help influence the environment of criminal offenders to boost the social support network?

The literature explains many components related to home visits, but no one has yet addressed how criminal offenders understand these visits, especially through the requirement of a court-sanctioned rehabilitative process. For example, Lindner and Koehler (1992) discussed the why of home visits, DeMichele and colleagues (2011) observed the technical concerns of home visits, and Harris (1984) and Lindner (1992) examined the officers’ perceptions of home visits. Previous research has also demonstrated an important goal of community corrections is to promote positive interpersonal relationships between probation officers and the offenders (Bonta, Rugge, Scott, Bourgon, & Yessine, 2008; Bourgon & Guiterrez, 2013), but do offenders perceive court-ordered, mandatory home visits as a foundation of prosocial development?

This study engages perhaps the most critical participant in criminal justice home visits: the offenders. In comprehending how offenders perceive and make use of the home visits, and the role of criminal justice agents in these visits, criminal justice agencies may be better able to craft their visits to maximize their usefulness. If the ultimate goal of home visits is part of a systematic and holistic approach to rehabilitate offenders, and not simply to supervise or control them, then understanding how offenders perceive and experience the home visits is vitally important.

The Ecological Theory of Human Development

The theoretical lens for examining home visits is the ecology of human development, more simply known as ecological theory. Ecological theory was established by Bronfenbrenner (1977, 1979), and its basic tenet posits human development is the outcome of the interactions between the person and its environment.

Bronfenbrenner (1977) describes four different types of ecological environments relating to human development: the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. The microsystem discusses how a person develops in one environment (e.g., school, work, home, and others). The mesosystem explains how major settings in one’s life combine to influence one’s development (e.g., the interactions of school, church, work, and home, as well as others). Bronfenbrenner continues noting the exosystem is an extension of the mesosystem to include formal and informal social structures that contain a developing person, but do not directly impose on the person (e.g., mass media, transportation networks, the neighborhood, and others). Finally, the macrosystem is defined as

the overarching institutional patterns of the culture or subculture, such as the economic, social educational, legal, and political systems, of which micro-, meso-, and exosystems are the concrete manifestations. Macrosystems are conceived and examined not only in ideology that, both explicitly and implicitly, endow meaning and motivation to particular agencies, social networks, roles, activities, and their interrelations. (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, p. 515)

Although all four of these systems are unique, combined, they create the broader ecological theory.

Although ecological theory was initially used to explain variances in young children, the theory applies to all humans at any stage in their lives. Wasik and Bryant (2000) provided a straightforward and more comprehensive explanation of ecological theory:

Each person is seen as nested within a set of increasingly complex environments, beginning with the family . . . in a community that includes a neighborhood, schools, religious institutions, businesses, employment opportunities, and social and health services . . . [e]cological theory . . . recognize[s] influences and resources beyond the immediate family. (p. 30)

For children, mothers, and families, when these community and social support systems fail, there is an increased likelihood of distress, depression, and illness within the family (Wasik, Bryant, & Lyons, 1990). At the individual level, Bronfenbrenner (1979) also noted how the environment and lack of social support can influence individual behaviors. Understanding the nexus of the human environment and decision making is how home-visiting programs have been modeled to help ameliorate concerns related to mothers’ prenatal health, and the health of young children and their families (Wasik et al., 1990).

Home-visiting programs in nursing, prenatal mothers, young families, and health promotion have utilized the ecological theory framework for decades (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979; McLeroy, Bibeau, Steckler, & Glanz, 1988; Stokols, 1992; St. Pierre & Layzer, 1999; Wasik & Bryant, 2000; Wasik et al., 1990). In general, when social support in a family is robust, individuals within the family and the family itself thrive, but when this support is deficient, illness and depression are more likely (Rees & Wilborn, 1983; Rutter, 1987). The goal of using official agents in the home-visiting programs in nursing, health promotion, young mothers, and to a certain extent in corrections is to augment the social support system. What pregnant women or offenders may be missing from their support system—both familial and social—the home visitors can help provide, or they may guide their clients to the appropriate assistance. Similarly, home visits of criminal offenders seek to provide prosocial guidance and advice, in the service of avoiding future criminal behavior. Ecological theory creates the most appropriate theoretical framework to understand the purpose of offenders’ perceptions of criminal justice agents and court-ordered home visits as part of the rehabilitative criminal justice process.

Home Visits

One of the first types of home-visit programs in the United States was the initial form of kindergarten, where immigrant children went to school in the morning, and then the teachers worked to assimilate the mothers, in their homes, in the afternoons (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Another early form of home-visiting programs related to upper class women assisting poor women and families on topics related to morals, sobriety, and budgeting (Dolgoff & Feldstein, 1980). The eventual hope was to create self-sufficiency over the long term and teach poor families how to rise above poverty. Over time, these home-visiting programs branched out into other areas such as nursing (Hancock & Pelton, 1989; Nievar, Van Egeren, & Pollard, 2010) and probation (DeMichele et al., 2011; Harris, 1984; Lindner, 1992).

Most research on home-visiting programs relates to nursing, specifically nursing programs attempting to provide assistance to low-income, prenatal, and infant mothers and families (Nievar et al., 2010). The three most common types of nurse home-visiting programs are aimed at the health of the mother, promoting the child’s health, and early childhood education (Durlak & Wells, 1997; Gomby, Culross, & Behrman, 1999). By connecting these caregivers with the appropriate economic and social support, the home-visiting programs are trying to improve the life trajectories of the children and their families (Olds & Kitzman, 1993; Olds, Kitzman, Cole, & Robinson, 1997).

Home-visiting programs have been favored because, once identified, the nurse and his or her supporters are able to tailor the home visits to each individual woman and family (Nievar et al., 2010). In addition, the programs meet the women and their families at home, so concerns related to transportation or motivation to receive the assistance are minimized. Research has consistently demonstrated these home-visiting programs have improved the health of prenatal women and their offspring (Barnes-Boyd et al., 2001; McNaughton, 2004; Olds, 2002; Olds et al., 1998), and the more frequent the visits with well-trained professionals, the better the results (Nievar et al., 2010; Olds & Kitzman, 1993). As an example, home-visiting programs targeting intellectual stimulation of young children demonstrated long-term productive behavioral gains (Schweinhart et al., 2005). More recent research has found when the clinician and the mother had a strong bond, the mother had a better experience on the program (Mills et al., 2013; Myors, Schmied, Johnson, & Cleary, 2014).

Understanding the visitor/recipient bond, and the relationship between the supervisor and supervisee, might provide unique insights into correctional home visits where the visitor/recipient connection is typically the product of a legal sanction and involuntary. The main difference between nursing, prenatal, and health promotion home visits compared with correctional home visits is the mandatory and supervisory nature of the latter. Someone in a health promotion home visit might be receiving voluntary assistance that can be ignored or even refused. A correctional home visit, however, is involuntary for the offender and is likely investigative and/or supervisory in nature. This explicit investigative and/or supervisory tone of correctional home visits might make the offenders resent the experience, criminal justice agents, and their agencies, as well as resist the creation or expansion of prosocial development, which would undermine the purpose of the visits.

Correctional Home Visits

Since the early 20th century, probation personnel have utilized home visits (Chute, 1922; Ferris, 1933). There were two broad principles related to the home visit: investigatory and supervisory (Lindner & Koehler, 1992). Within these two broad principles, there were some targeted goals: to check up on the offender and provide some sort of deterrent, provide any necessary social services, and allow the probation officer to evaluate the family as well (Chute, 1922; Harris, 1984; Lindner, 1992). Now, in the early 21st century, home visits are still utilized by community corrections officers. According to DeMichele and Payne (2012), supervisors of these agencies deem home visits as the most important task of the agency.

Home visits, however, create many problems for the personnel conducting them. There is a long history of role conflict for community corrections officers regarding whether they are social workers or law enforcers (Glaser, 1969; McCleary, 1978; Ohlin, Piven, & Pappenfort, 1956; Studt, 1978). As might be expected, officers struggle between providing assistance and enforcing the law to the same offender, or shifting roles among different offenders. Although the role conflict does create strain for the officers, most are able to find a balance between the tasks (Clear & Latessa, 1993; Crews & Seiter, 2004), but there are also other concerns with home visits.

Obviously, to conduct a home visit at an offender’s residence, the community corrections officer must travel to that location. These travel times can be lengthy in rural areas where officers cover long distances (DeMichele et al., 2011). In addition, these homes can come with their own distinct troubles, including aggressive dogs, lack of parking, absent offenders, and other concerns that add to the time and danger associated with home visits. Always looming in the community correctional world is the problem with caseloads. Officers have too many cases to provide consistent and thorough supervision to their charges. One of the first accounts of caseload issues came from Young (1937), and extensive caseloads have been noted in the literature for decades (Lindner & Koehler, 1992; Petersilia, 1985; Rothman, 1980; Tappan, 1960; White, Gasperin, Nystrom, Ambrose, & Esarey, 2005).

The Relationship Between Probation Officers and Offenders

Not only are the nuances of the correctional home visit important, but the relationship between the probation officer and the offender is also significant. Bonta et al. (2008) noted an effective method for probation officers to alter interpersonal relationships with their supervisees is to reward good and punish bad behavior, and the most effective technique for doing so is to create a respectful relationship between the two parties. Previous research has also indicated an effective method for decreasing criminal behavior is to intervene at the human service level, especially when the offender is in the community (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bonta et al., 2008; Lipsey, 1995).

How probation officers create their relationships with their clients has also been the subject of significant research. Klockars (1972) introduced the idea of the synthetic probation officer. A synthetic officer is someone who adapts to meet the needs of his client, adopting a punitive or welfare approach on a case-by-case basis or even alternating between the two strategies depending on the needs of the client at each interaction. Future scholars supported Klockars’ idea finding synthetic or balanced probation officers were viewed more fairly by their clients (Skeem, Encandela, & Louden, 2003), worked effectively with mental health supervisees (Skeem, Louden, Polaschek, & Camp, 2007), were more effective at reducing recidivism than other types of probation officers (Paparozzi & Gendreau, 2005), and, perhaps more importantly, that synthetic officers fostered positive relationships with their charges and those relationships might, in and of themselves, be a net positive for all involved (Skeem & Manchak, 2008). Furthermore, in Taxman’s (2008) analysis of synthetic officers in Maryland, substantial recidivism reduction was gained in part through the use of supervision strategies, which promoted prosocial learning and control strategies that were respectful of the offenders. More recently, through the use of a national survey, Miller (2015) noted the more blended approach of a synthetic probation officer was increasingly becoming the norm.

The type of contact between probation officers and their supervisees is important. Past studies have shown community corrections sanctions are not just about control, but nurturing prosocial relationships and growth with the offenders (Bourgon & Guiterrez, 2013). One method of fostering these relationships is through the use of home visits, and although the probation officer might think the relationship is positive, it is really the perception of the offender—the individual who has to change and adopt different behaviors—that is the most crucial.

The Current Study

As discussed, previous research has addressed home visits from probation and parole officers’ perspectives (Harris, 1984; Lindner, 1992). This study analyzes home visits of the Foothill County Sheriff’s Office (FCSO)¹ Electronic Custody Supervision (ECS) program through ecological theory, specifically from the offenders’ point of view. Are community correctional home visits altering the offenders’ home environment? Are these visits changing the offenders’ perceptions of the criminal justice system that is attempting to use community resources to rehabilitate them? Because home visits are such an integral component of community corrections, how offenders perceive these visits is important.

Method

The Setting

To fully understand the context of this study, it is important to comprehend the complexity of the setting. On April 5, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109), which dramatically affected the state and local criminal justice systems. The major legislative impact was to realign convicted criminals, currently held in state prison, to county jails.² The legislation’s genesis arose from a threefold set of problems: California’s finances, California’s prison spending, and the high recidivism rate in the state. California provided its 58 counties with additional funds to address the returning inmates, but each county was able to spend the money based on its preferences.

Foothill County is located in Northern California, and the sheriff operates the county jail and oversees the patrol deputies. Post AB 109, the FCSO immediately brainstormed how to manage a large influx of inmates into the already crowded county jail. The administrative staff made the decision to expand on a previously used home arrest supervision system by also including a rehabilitative component to augment the home confinement strategy. The name of the reengineered rehabilitative and supervision idea was the ECS program.

Inmates eligible for ECS were first assessed by deputies in the Foothill County Jail for their suitability and risk. A mandatory condition for inmates being placed in the ECS program was a suitable residence (their home, a family member or friend’s home, or a sober living environment). After screening, select inmates were provided an ankle monitor with global positioning system capabilities, a primary and secondary ECS deputy as supervisors, and a list of therapy courses to be completed at the Day Training Center (DTC), which was specifically used to assist all ECS inmates. The DTC was modeled more like a work training center where inmates received cognitive based therapy tailored to their needs and provided by independent contractors not affiliated with FCSO. ECS deputies were selected from all available personnel and were screened in an interview process highlighting their desire to work in an alternative criminal justice program focused on rehabilitation. Of the eight ECS deputies, six were formerly jail deputies and two were sworn road deputies. The jail deputies received more than 40 hours of training specific to their role on ECS. In addition, the deputies were also shadowed in a traditional field officer training program by a more experienced deputy. Although the official title of the law enforcement personnel is “ECS deputy,” in reality, the training and function of the position are more similar to a probation officer than a correctional or sheriff’s deputy.

A key component to ECS was the home-visit program utilized by the deputies to both monitor and assist their offenders. When not attending training seminars at the DTC, working, or away from home on an authorized pass, the offenders were required to be at their place of residence. To ensure offenders were at home, the ECS deputies made unannounced visits to the inmates’ homes. These visits occurred on a weekly, bi-monthly, or monthly basis depending on the inmates’ risk classification, progress at the DTC, the results of urinalyses, and/or other behavioral concerns. In common practice, at the beginning of their program, offenders were subject to several home visits per week regardless of their risk assessment. As offenders made satisfactory progress through the ECS program, their level of supervision decreased. Conversely, offenders not making suitable progress experienced a high volume of visits until the unacceptable behaviors were corrected or they were reincarcerated. Offenders never received warnings of an impending visit. At times, home visits were made when the offender was known not to be at home so the deputy could discuss the offender’s progress and home environment with roommates, family, and neighbors. The ultimate goal of the home visits was to assist inmates and ensure satisfactory progress and completion of the ECS program.

The Sample

The two most significant factors the FCSO weighs when evaluating offender participation in the ECS program is the offender’s risk categorization and sex.³ Naturally, the FCSO needs to balance the perceived risk of the offenders on the program and associated risk to public safety, so the population represents a mix of high-, medium-, and low-risk offenders. In addition, the participants for the ECS program are drawn from the FCSO Jail. At the time of the study, the FCSO Jail was at maximum capacity, and there was the need to release more male than female offenders, so there were more male than female offenders on ECS.

The research participants were selected to mirror the population of ECS offenders as closely as possible through stratified random sampling. At the time of the interview selection process, of the 100 ECS offenders, 65 were male and 35 were female (51% high-risk; 27% medium-risk; 22% low-risk). Of the 65 men, 39 were considered high-risk (60%), 16 were medium-risk (25%), and 10 were low-risk (15%). Of the 35 women, 12 were considered high-risk (35%), 11 were medium-risk (30%), and 12 were low-risk (35%).

The 65 male names and the 35 female names were divided into their three risk categories. Eleven male names were drawn from the high-risk group, five from the medium-risk group, and four from the low-risk group. The 20 male participants in the study (67%) closely matched the 65% of male offenders on ECS. Three female names were drawn from the high-risk group, three from the medium-risk group, and four from the low-risk group. The 10 female participants in the study (33%) were consistent with the 35% of female offenders on ECS. The risk assessment of the sample population was also very close to the total ECS population, with a slight skew toward the low-risk group (47% high, 27% medium, and 27% low—with a rounding error). A total of five replacement names were necessary due to various reasons: incarceration (the offender had recently failed ECS and been sentenced to state prison), end of life sickness, and the inability of the participant to travel (she was allowed to complete her ECS program at home). Each replacement name was drawn from the appropriate sex and risk category group (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Risk Level of Total Electronic Custody Supervision Population and Study Participants.

	High		Medium		Low		Total
	f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%
Total population
Sex
Male	39	60	16	25	10	15	65	100
Female	12	35	11	30	12	35	35	100
Total	51	51	27	27	22	22	100	100
Study participants
Sex
Male	11	55	5	25	4	20	20	100
Female	3	30	3	30	4	40	10	100
Total	14	47	8	27	8	27	30	101^a

Rounding error.

The average age of the participants was 32 years. A majority of the sample was White (63%), although the entirety of the sample was more racially balanced than the general population of Foothill County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010) and the total ECS population (see Table 2). On average, the participants had been subject to ECS programming for about the same length of time (M = 5.58 months) as the total population (M = 6.21 months).

Table 2.

Demographics of Total ECS Population and Study Participants.

	f	%
Total population
Age ( $\bar{x}$ , σ)	36.01	9.98
Sex
Male	65	65
Female	35	35
Race
White	79	79
Native American	7	7
Hispanic	8	8
African American	6	6
Time in months spent on ECS ( $\bar{x}$ , σ)	5.58	4.16
Study participants
Age ( $\bar{x}$ , σ)	32.47	8.77
Sex
Male	20	67
Female	10	33
Race
White	19	63
Native American	5	17
Hispanic	3	10
African American	3	10
Time in months spent on ECS ( $\bar{x}$ , σ)	6.21	4.01

Note. ECS = Electronic Custody Supervision.

The Data

The data for this study originated from 30 semi-structured interviews with offenders on the Foothill County ECS program. The interviews were conducted in spring 2013 at the DTC. The participants were compensated for their time with a US$ 20 gift card to a local fast food restaurant. Each interview was approximately 25 min in length with the longest being 42 min and the shortest being 19 min. The interviews were recorded with a digital recorder and later transcribed. The data for this study come from the following questions: How have the home visits affected your experience on ECS, if at all? Do you think the deputies are interested in you completing ECS? These questions elicited passionate replies and stories replete with examples for support.

Content analysis was conducted to better understand the participants’ answers and group their responses into appropriate categories. The content analysis followed the recommendation by Berg (2001) and involved manifest and latent analyses of the data. Manifest coding was completed by providing counts of cases and examples for predetermined categories (Neuman, 2003). Then, latent coding was used to uncover the meaning of the vignettes provided by the participants (Payne, Berg, & Sun, 2005). Coding of the data required different rounds of coding or coding frames. First, each participants’ responses about the general impact of home visits were coded. Second, any additional reactions were coded favorable, unfavorable, or neutral. Finally, the vignettes were subcategorized into smaller, overlapping groups.

Findings

When replying to the researchers’ question whether home visits have affected the participants’ experience on ECS, if at all, the participants typically responded with a short answer and then provided a personal story as justification. Table 3 provides a breakdown of participants’ answers to the usefulness of home visits by sex and risk-assessment level.

Table 3.

Home Visits Are Helpful (Before and After Their Stories Are Interpreted).

	High		Medium		Low		Total
	f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%
Before
Sex
Male	2	18	2	40	2	50	6	30
Female	3	100	0	0	2	50	5	50
Total	5	36	2	25	4	50	11	55
After
Sex
Male	8	73	5	100	4	100	17	85
Female	3	100	2	66	4	100	9	90
Total	11	79	7	88	8	100	26	87

Surprisingly, although half of the participants stated the home visits were not helpful, their stories belied their initial responses. Although the participants might have stated the home visits did not assist them, they immediately launched into a vignette about how the home visits built relationships with the deputies, created a level of trust and respect with the deputies, and even altered their decision-making behaviors for the positive. When relying on the participants’ stories to categorize whether they found the home visits useful, the findings are greatly altered. Table 3 was also recalculated using participant stories to determine whether they found home visits helpful. Both men and women overwhelmingly favor the visits, and although all risk-assessment levels support the home visits, the high-risk category is the lowest at 79% (88% support from medium-risk and 100% from low-risk). The length of time spent on ECS had minimal impact on the participants’ perceptions of the home visits (after the stories were interpreted). Those unsupportive of the home visits averaged 4.5 months on ECS compared with 6.2 months of those favoring the home visits.

As mentioned, quite often, the participants’ initial answers to the questions asked did not match their explanations or expanded answers. Overall, 11 participants (37%) immediately and initially responded affirmatively that the home visits were helpful and provided accounts to support their answers. One of the most consistent themes emanating from the participants’ stories of the home visits was the sense of respect they received from the deputies in charge and how the respect made positive impacts on their lives. This increased respect from the deputies, and the deputies’ willingness to engage and help the participants, was part of the increased social support network for the offenders. Instead of trying to subvert or work against the formal criminal justice agents, the deputies could be viewed and utilized as assets.

When [the deputies] come by they show that they care. They want you to do good and they give me all the leeway they could and helped me when I was [struggling in the program]. [The deputies] are trying to help you so much and I want to do what’s right. (33-year-old female, medium risk, 4.1 months on ECS)

Echoing the theme of respect, another remarked,

I live above my work. I have a loft built above the shops so [the deputy] knows I’m either there or not. He is respectful enough to come by when I am not open for business and I will say that is the most respectful thing that I could ever get. (33-year-old male, high risk, 5.8 months on ECS)

A total of 19 participants (63%) stated the home visits were not useful or were unsure of the value of the home visits. Ironically, although 19 responses were dubious about the home visits, when describing their home-visit experiences, 15 of the 19 (79%) had positive stories and interactions.

I think having [the deputies] just swing by and be like “hey, the visit is part of the support thing I was telling you about,” shows they are heartfelt. [The deputies] really mean it when they come in, “how are you? Personally what’s going on in your life? Do you want to talk? Hey gimme a call if something’s wrong.” The visits are good. (27-year-old female, low risk, 6.0 months on ECS)

Another participant also expanded on how the official home visits by the deputies were viewed as a form of support and not a sanction:

Honestly, the visits are like having a friend coming over. I look at [the deputies] like my friends. I do. I mean they’re looking out for me. They really are [looking out for me] and I’m giving them my best and they’re there to help. They’re just trying to help. (27-year-old male, high risk, 11.4 months on ECS)

As previously mentioned, the main thrust of ecological theory is how home, neighborhood, and community affect human development and how home visits by formal agents can help augment homes and neighborhoods with low social support. Eight of the respondents (27%) also described how the home visits affected their immediate living environment, their neighborhood, their ability to seek medical treatment, being able to access education, navigate the criminal justice system, and many other basic necessities of daily life in the 21st century. Below are some comments that elucidate this idea:

The [deputies] are good guys, I don’t mind [the visits] at all. In fact they’ve helped clear a little bit of the crime out of my neighborhood. [The deputies] had a guy they were searching for that took his ankle monitor off and there were little scandalous people running around out [in the neighborhood]. [The deputies] presence was known so I don’t mind it. Come by more. (42-year-old male, high risk, 3.1 months on ECS)

One participant noted how the deputies took an increased interest in her well-being after she was diagnosed with cancer:

I’m sick and [the deputies] have been out to my place a lot just to check on me. Like the sergeant, he came out to my house with my deputy to see if I needed to go to San Francisco to do my cancer treatment and it made me really emotional because I never had a cop care like that but they do. (52-year-old female, high risk, 12.1 months on ECS)

Another participant noted how he viewed the visits as somewhat perfunctory in the beginning to more thorough and purposeful after trust had been established. According to the participant, the deputy went out of his way to assist him with the application process for an early release from the ECS program:

At first, [the visits] were just a typical stop in and check. After a few months in the program during one visit I told [my deputy] I was going to apply for an early release [from ECS]. My application was denied due to a warrant, but I had cleared that warrant. [My deputy] fixed the error for me and fought for my early release. (22-year-old male, medium risk, 8.1 months on ECS)

A final participant noted how the relationship formed with his deputy during the home visit led to a stronger bond between the two, which helped facilitate the offender’s goal of furthering his education:

[The visits] have made me closer with the deputy. Now if I need to change [my schedule] to go to school . . . I just call him in the morning and it’s all good. He knows I’m not going to be doing nothing wrong. (54-year-old male, high risk, 4.6 months)

In addition, seven participants (23%) discussed how the home visits were directly responsible in changing their actions, which also correlates to a key component of ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The participants on the ECS program are well aware any involvement in criminal activity or transgressions of ECS rules can lead to program failure and a reinstatement of their jail sentence. The random nature of the deputy home visits made some participants consider their decisions.

I find [the home visits] remind me, that I’m still on [ECS] . . . if I was doing something or there were drugs in the house or something like that, then I would’ve not really liked the whole visit thing. (23-year-old female, medium risk, 6 months on ECS)

Another described the strong deterrence value of home visits:

I think that it’s a good thing [the deputies] show up. It’s probably better that they do . . . I guess now that I think about it, [the home visits] keep me from doing things I probably shouldn’t be doing. [The visits] keep me from having people around that shouldn’t be [at my home]. (42-year-old female, high risk, 1.3 months on ECS)

Ultimately, the goal of community corrections is to end criminogenic actions. Based on these last few testimonials, the use of official home visits by formal, criminal justice agents made some participants rethink their actions and choose lawful behavior. Although the home visits were not conducive for all participants, it is clear others received a benefit.

Counter to the participants’ initial impressions on the usefulness of the home visits, when responding to the researchers’ question about whether the participants thought the deputy was interested in them completing ECS, there were almost universal positive experiences. Again, there was typically a subtle shock articulated by many of the participants that formal agents of the criminal justice system were in support of them and interested in the participants’ programmatic success.

I’ve had support the whole time. When I [failed my urine test], I’d been on the program for 13 months and you could see the disappointment in everybody and people don’t get disappointed in you unless they care. I’ve had [all the deputies] here tell me “you’re young, you have so much potential.” (27-year-old, female, low risk, 13 months on ECS)

In the general theme of “cops v. robbers” or “good v. bad,” many participants have experienced tumultuous and negative interactions with law enforcement, the criminal justice system, and in certain cases, the actual supervising deputies themselves. Only four participants did not think the deputies were supportive: two men (both high-risk) and two women (one medium- and one low-risk).

I think the deputies have plenty to do besides worry about if somebody’s gonna complete [ECS] or not . . . They see someone promise to not do this or that and every day they have to arrest somebody. I either am [going to complete ECS] or I’m not. It’s up to me. (33-year-old, male, high risk, 7.6 months on ECS)

Discussion

Many of the participants noted the respect coming from the deputies was unfamiliar, especially because many of the participants have had long histories of conflict with law enforcement and correctional personnel. As described above, the home visits and the interactions with the deputies have changed many participants’ opinions of formal, criminal justice agents and the system in general. What is not captured by the quotations is the shock in the voices of the offenders when recalling their stories. Countless offenders noted the irony of people sentenced to home supervision providing accolades to the deputies sent to supervise them. Several offenders expressed tense histories with the deputies on ECS in previous jail encounters, but those concerns dissipated on the ECS program. Once the offenders recognized the ECS deputies were not out to “trap” them, rapport and trust could emerge.

As discussed with ecological theory, helping build a home support structure is crucial in human development and official agents can help facilitate that development (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979; Wasik & Bryant, 2000; Wasik et al., 1990). In addition, as noted in the home visits with young mothers, when the clinician and the mother had a strong bond, the mother had a better experience on the program (Mills et al., 2013; Myors et al., 2014). Furthermore, recall that the nature of the relationship between probation officer and probationer has been found to be an important step in establishing prosocial growth (Bourgon & Guiterrez, 2013). Similarly, in this study, the trust developed between the offenders and the deputies was often the first step in altering the offenders’ environment and creating a stronger social network. As one of the main goals of the ECS program is to provide criminal offenders the means and opportunity to create a life lived within social norms, the home visits by the deputies appear to build trust and a caring relationship with the offenders.

This study’s findings are correlated to the success of nursing and prenatal home visits. The formal role of criminal justice agents in the home visits was viewed as a positive change by most of the offenders. As the offenders began to trust the deputies, made progress through the ECS program, made more prosocial decisions, and were receiving greater assistance from a broad, social support network, the fewer home visits were made as deputies focused their energies on offenders needing greater assistance. As mentioned previously, home visits have been used in nursing to augment the social support structure to positively influence human development, which is the main tenet of ecological theory (Barnes-Boyd et al., 2001; McNaughton, 2004; Olds, 2002; Olds et al., 1998). Through the lens of ecological theory, one can see how the home visits used in the Foothill County ECS program have been able to stimulate the prosocial development for many offenders on the program. First, home visits have altered the microsystem by reducing drug possession and the visitation by friends and family that may be a negative influence. Second, the home visits have changed the mesosystem by establishing greater offender accountability through the use of urine tests and checking adherence to the established schedule, which ensures the offenders are at work, school, training, or some other approved activity. Third, home visits have improved the exosystem through the general police presence required by the home visits, which can reduce suspicious or criminal activity in the neighborhood. Last, home visits have augmented the macrosystem through a general overall increase of the social support system beyond immediate family members. Trust created in criminal justice agents and agencies, as well as relationships gained through the home-visiting program, led to improvements in access to or completion of work, schooling, medicine, and others. Home visits have been utilized through the ECS program to positively influence many of the offenders’ prosocial development. In addition, as discussed earlier, some visits occurred when the offender was known to not be at home. These visits with roommates, family, and neighbors served to strengthen the offender’s living environment and expand the immediate social structure network.

Recall, in a nursing-home-visiting program, when the clinician and the mother had a strong bond, the mother had a better experience on the program (Mills et al., 2013). In addition, substantial criminal research has pointed to the importance of the relationship between probation officers and their offenders and building prosocial behavior for the offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bonta et al., 2008). This study combines the two spheres of research by highlighting the official role of the criminal justice agent and its importance in shaping the offenders’ perceptions of the home visit. Home visits are part in parcel of a comprehensive rehabilitative program, and building trust and rapport with the criminal justice agent is one step toward reducing recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2006).

The initial reluctance of the offenders to trust the deputies or their surprise that the deputies were supporting them likely comes from the involuntary nature of the home visits. These offenders are sanctioned to home visits, which is a stark contrast to the home visits in nursing and prenatal health care where participation is voluntary. It is clear in the words of the offenders they first consider the home visits as a punishment. Recall one offender’s words: “[The home visits] don’t affect me that much cause [the deputies] are pretty cool.” The direct implication is the home visits are supposed to be an obstacle, and the deputies are supposed to be a hurdle to be negotiated, not an ally to be used for support.

This suspicion of the home visits was most noticeable in the offenders in the high- and medium-risk categories. Although half of the low-risk offenders immediately replied the home visits were helpful, less than 40% of both the high- and medium-risk participants agreed. In general, the high- and medium-risk offenders had more serious and longer criminal histories than the low-risk participants. It is likely the person with the lengthier and more advanced criminal past would be more suspicious of law enforcement deputies, even if the deputies are supposed to be helping. Part of this suspicion could be related to how the deputies interact with the high-risk offenders compared with the low-risk offenders or that low-risk offenders inherently pose less risk and greater appreciation for the help provided. It might be the deputies are initially skeptical of the high-risk offenders and treat them more brusquely until the high-risk offenders demonstrate their commitment to the ECS program. The stories provided by the apprehensive participants, however, demonstrated they viewed the visits as supportive, regardless of their initial response.

Female offenders were more inclined to favor the visits both before (50% to 30%) and after the stories (90% to 85%) were interpreted, although the medium-risk female group was less inclined to support the visits compared with their male counterparts (0% to 40% and 66% to 100%). Gender norms could account for some of the explanation of why women were generally more favorable to the home visits. Popular culture stereotypes men as less likely to ask for or seek help whether men need directions or a medical diagnosis. Studies have also shown men are less likely to seek help for a variety of concerns, including, but not limited to stress, substance abuse, and psychological problems (McKay, Rutherford, Cacciola, & Kabasakalian-McKay, 1996; Vogel, Wade, & Hackler, 2007; Weisner & Schmidt, 1992). Women might have favored the home visits more than men because men do not want or do not think they need outside help.

In addition, because only four participants disliked the home visits, it is difficult to reach any firm conclusions on the length of time spent on ECS and the participants’ assessments on the program. It should be noted, however, in general, those with a longer tenure on ECS had a more favorable opinion of the home visits, which would support the notion that increased home visits led to greater feelings of trust and respect between the deputies and participants.

The quality and tenor of these home visits in stimulating trust between offender and criminal justice agent cannot be understated. Many participants discussed how the deputies were helpful in providing bus passes, assisting filling out paperwork to receive state and federal benefits, as well as allowing for participants to leave their home during unscheduled times to acquire medicine and treatment. It is imperative these visits, although court-sanctioned, begin or continue to create and expand prosocial bonds. These trust-building relationships between offender and probation officer have been found to reduce recidivism, which is the goal of these programs (Skeem & Manchak, 2008; Taxman, 2008).

It was interesting to hear so many participants be unsure of whether the home visits helped, but then immediately launch into a remembrance about how much the visits were beneficial in one way or another. Once offenders came to understand the deputies could be viewed as allies, the perceptions of the home visits began to change. From ecological theory perspective, even those participants who initially had negative or neutral responses about the home visits eventually came to the understanding that these visits had a useful impact. By viewing the deputies as a resource or an ally, the home visits appear to be strengthening the offenders’ environment, which, others have found, is partially responsible in reducing recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Paparozzi & Gendreau, 2005; Skeem et al., 2003).

If criminality can be influenced by the environment (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1981) and ecological theory notes human development can be altered by the environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979), home visits by the deputies appear to be making a positive impact by augmenting the social support network and altering the decision-making process for many offenders. The comments by the participants demonstrate, in their collective experiences, the deputies’ home visits are indirectly influencing their neighborhood. One of the main goals of community corrections home visits is to alter behavior for the better. The omnipresent threat of a home visit may help limit offenders’ cycle of poor choices that lead to incarceration. As stated by some of the offenders, the home visits are aiding in a social support network (better access to school, medicine, building trust and rapport), and this finding is an extension of ecological theory.

Conclusion

The use of home visits as a method to provide a broader sense of community support has long been part of the nursing and health professions (Barnes-Boyd et al., 2001; McNaughton, 2004; Nievar et al., 2010; Olds, 2002). In poor neighborhoods, nurses would visit expectant and new mothers to aid in proper health and nutrition choices for the mothers and the children (Nievar et al., 2010; Olds & Kitzman, 1993). These types of home visits are steeped in ecological theory. Ecological theory, in part, explains how the environment affects human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979). An environment that lacks in proper neighborhood and/or community support may harm human development (Wasik & Bryant, 2000). The home visits used by the FCSO can be viewed as a new extension of ecological theory; deputies help directly and indirectly influence the offenders’ environment leading to greater prosocial development. Through the use of the home visits, many of the offenders were able to gain trust in formal, criminal justice agents; make positive decisions related to drugs and alcohol; be held more accountable; witness suspected criminal activity in their neighborhoods decrease; and increase access to school, medicine, and work.

Through the use of semi-structured interviews with 30 participants, the findings show the offenders largely believed the home visits to be constructive and a benefit to their development. The findings also add support to, and broaden the understanding of, ecological theory. In this study, formal, criminal justice agents utilized home visits to alter the offenders’ environment to promote prosocial development. Although the participants might not have immediately articulated the home visits were helpful, when recalling their experiences with the home visits, 26 participants (87%) recounted how the visits were supportive. The most persistent theme emanating from the interviews was the respect demonstrated by the deputies toward the offenders (53%). The notion that law enforcement would attempt to help offenders on home detention and not merely try to catch them in illegal activity was consistently mentioned by the participants as positive and supportive. This finding matches previous research noting the relationship between probation officers and their supervisees is important for increasing prosocial behaviors and limiting criminogenic actions, but adds depth to the literature by interviewing the offenders experiencing the home visits (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bonta et al., 2008; Lipsey, 1995).

The respect given by the deputies toward the offenders helps augment the living environment, supporting the case for a broader understanding of ecological theory. As mentioned earlier, through the ECS program, the deputies help manage the offenders’ concerns related to transportation, health and medicine, employment, and others. Instead of seeing law enforcement as an obstacle, the offenders are able to see the deputies as allies working to help them complete ECS. By building a positive image of community support, many offenders may have a better chance at reducing their recidivism. More directly, some of the offenders noted the deputies’ home visits seemed to be making their neighbors more aware of the police presence and altering their own decision making for the better. This result obviously has a direct impact on the local environment.

There are, however, several limitations with this research. Although the sample and the study have strong internal validity, the external validity is weaker. The interview participants represent a stratified random sample but only come from one county in rural, Northern California. In addition, the participants are from the AB 109 population supervised by the local sheriff’s office, not probation or parole. With that understanding, most of these participants had lengthy criminal careers with several stints in county jails or state prison, which are typical of offenders supervised by probation and parole offices. Overall, the ECS program, its deputies, their training, and offenders are more similar than different compared with traditional probation departments, their officers, their training, and their offenders (Annison, Eadie, & Knight, 2008; Bonta et al., 2011), so concerns with external validity are muted.

What is missing from the home visit literature is the efficacy of the visits from a program completion perspective. Do increased home visits lead to program completion and/or lower recidivism? Is there a difference between the number of visits for high-, medium-, and low-risk offenders and program completion? Does the length of the home visit matter? A systematic study of these questions might provide more insight into the efficacy of the home visits.

Finally, California’s significant devolution of offender supervision—from the state-level to the county-level—has led each of the state’s 58 counties to reassess how they supervise criminal offenders. The impetus for the devolution—escalating prison costs combined with serious prison overcrowding—however, is not limited to California. Many U.S. states struggle with increases in correctional costs. Finding lower cost programs such as the ECS program, ones that provide effective results, is one way to reverse the trend of ever-increasing correctional spending, while still providing for the safety of the general public.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors are eternally grateful for the cooperation and assistance of the Foothill County Sheriff’s Office and the deputies affiliated with the Electronic Custody Supervision program, as well as the participants of this research study. This article was greatly improved by the wisdom and insight of three anonymous reviewers.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for the participants’ gift cards was provided by the Dean of the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences at the California State University, Chico.

Notes

References

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis/Matthew Bender.

Annison

Eadie

Knight

(2008). People first: Probation officer perspectives on probation work. Probation Journal: The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice, 55, 259-271.

Barnes-Boyd

Norr

K. F.

Nacion

K. W.

(2001). Promoting infant health through home visiting by a nurse-managed community worker team. Public Health Nursing, 18, 225-235.

Berg

(2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bonta

Bourgon

Rugge

Scott

T. L.

Yessine

A. K.

Gutierrez

(2011). An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1127-1148.

Bonta

Rugge

Scott

T. L.

Bourgon

Yessine

A. K.

(2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 248-270.

Bourgon

Guiterrez

(2013). The importance of building good relationships in community corrections: Evidence, theory, and practice of the therapeutic alliance. In Ugwudike

Raynor

(Eds.), What works in offender compliance: International perspectives and evidence-based practice (pp. 256-275). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Brantingham

P. J.

Brantingham

P. L.

(1981). Environmental criminology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bronfenbrenner

(1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-531.

10.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American Psychologist, 34, 844-850.

11.

Chute

C. L.

(1922, March). The development of probation. Paper presented at the 51st Congress of the American Prison Association, Jacksonville, FL.

12.

Clear

Latessa

E. J.

(1993). Probation officers’ roles in intensive supervision: Surveillance versus treatment. Justice Quarterly, 10, 441-462.

13.

Crews

A. D.

Seiter

(2004). Social worker or cop? Measuring the supervision styles of probation & parole officers in Kentucky and Missouri. Journal of Crime & Justice, 27, 27-67.

14.

DeMichele

M. T.

Payne

B. K.

(2012). Measuring community corrections’ officials perceptions of goals, strategies, and workload from a systems perspective: Differences between directors and nondirectors. The Prison Journal, 92, 388-410.

15.

DeMichele

M. T.

Payne

B. K.

Matz

A. K.

(2011). Community supervision workload considerations for public safety. Washington, D.C: Bureau of Justice Assistance. Bureau of Justice Associates.

16.

Dolgoff

Feldstein

(1980). Understanding social welfare. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

17.

Durlak

J. A.

Wells

A. M.

(1997). Primary prevention mental health programs for children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 115-152.

18.

Ferris

R. H.

(1933). Case history in probation service. In Glueck

(Ed.), Probation and criminal justice (pp. 135-164). New York, NY: Macmillan.

19.

Glaser

(1969). Effectiveness of a prison parole system. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

20.

Gomby

D. S.

Culross

P. L.

Behrman

R. E.

(1999). Home visiting: Recent program evaluations: Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 9, 4-26.

21.

Hancock

Pelton

L. H.

(1989). Home visits: History and functions. Social Casework, 70, 21-27.

22.

Harris

M. K.

(1984). Rethinking probation in the context of the justice model. In McAnany

P. D.

Thomson

Fogel

(Eds.), Probation and justice: Reconsideration of mission (pp. 15-37). Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.

23.

Klockars

C. B.

(1972). A theory of probation supervision. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, & Police Science, 63, 550-557.

24.

Lindner

(1992). The probation field visit and office report in New York State: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Criminal Justice Review, 17, 44-60.

25.

Lindner

Koehler

(1992). Probation officer victimization: An emerging concern. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 53-62.

26.

Lipsey

M. W.

(1995). What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquency. In McGuire

(Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending (pp. 63-78). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

27.

McCleary

(1978). Dangerous men: The sociology of parole. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

28.

McKay

J. R.

Rutherford

M. J.

Cacciola

J. S.

Kabasakalian-McKay

(1996). Gender differences in the relapse experiences of cocaine patients. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 184, 616-622.

29.

McLeroy

K. R.

Bibeau

Steckler

Glanz

(1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15, 351-377.

30.

McNaughton

D. B.

(2004). Nurse home visits to maternal-child clients: A review of intervention research. Public Health Nursing, 21, 207-219.

31.

Miller

(2015). Contemporary modes of probation officer supervision: The triumph of the “synthetic” officer? Justice Quarterly, 32, 314-336.

32.

Mills

Schmied

Taylor

Dahlen

Shuiringa

Hudson

M. E.

(2013). Someone to talk to: Young mothers’ experiences of participating in a young parents support programme. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 27, 551-559.

33.

Myors

K. A.

Schmied

Johnson

Cleary

(2014). “My special time”: Australian women’s experiences of accessing a specialist perinatal and infant mental health. Health and Social Care in the Community, 22, 268-277.

34.

Neuman

W. L.

(2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

35.

Nievar

M. A.

Van Egeren

L. A.

Pollard

(2010). A meta-analysis of home visiting programs: Moderators of improvements in maternal behavior. Infant Mental Health Journal, 31, 499-520.

36.

Ohlin

Piven

Pappenfort

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

37.

Olds

D. L.

(2002). Prenatal and infancy home visiting by nurses: From randomized trials to community replication. Prevention Science, 3, 153-172.

38.

Olds

D. L.

Henderson

Cole

Eckenrode

Kitzman

Luckey

. . . Powers

(1998). Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children’s criminal and antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 1238-1244.

39.

Olds

D. L.

Kitzman

(1993). Review of research on home visiting for pregnant women and parents of young children. The Future of Children Home Visiting, 3, 53-92.

40.

Olds

D. L.

Kitzman

Cole

Robinson

(1997). Theoretical foundations of a program of home visitation for pregnant women and parents of young children. Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 9-25.

41.

Paparozzi

M. A.

Gendreau

(2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85, 445-466.

42.

Payne

B. K.

Berg

B. L.

Sun

I. Y.

(2005). Policing in small town America: Dogs, drunks, disorder and dysfunction. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 31-41.

43.

Petersilia

(1985). Research in Brief: Probation and felony offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Government Printing Office.

44.

Rees

C. D.

Wilborn

(1983). Correlates of drug abuse in adolescents: A comparison of families of drug abusers with families of nondrug abusers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12, 55-63.

45.

Rothman

D. J.

(1980). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its alternatives in progressive America. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

46.

Rutter

(1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316-331.

47.

Schweinhart

L. J.

Monte

Zongping

Barnett

W. S.

Belfield

C. R.

Nores

(2005). Lifetime cost-benefit analysis. Lifetime Effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age, 40, 130-157.

48.

Skeem

Encandela

Louden

J. E.

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

49.

Skeem

Louden

J. E.

Polaschek

Camp

(2007). Assessing relationship quality in mandated community treatment: Blending care with control. Psychological Assessment, 19, 397-410.

50.

Skeem

Manchak

(2008). Back to the future: From Klockars’ model of effectiveness to evidence-based practice in probation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 220-247.

51.

Stokols

(1992). Establishing and maintaining healthy environments: Toward a social ecology of health promotion. American Psychologist, 47, 6-22.

52.

St. Pierre

Layzer

J. I

. (1999). Using home visits for multiple purposes: The comprehensive child development program. The Future of Children, 9, 134-151.

53.

Studt

(1978). Surveillance and service to parole. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.

54.

Tappan

P. W.

(1960). Crime, justice and correction. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

55.

Taxman

F. S.

(2008). No illusions: Offender and organizational change in Maryland’s proactive community supervision efforts. Criminology & Public Policy, 7, 275-302.

56.

Tyack

Cuban

(1995). Tinkering towards utopia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

57.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). 2010 Census. Washington, DC: Author.

58.

Vogel

D. L.

Wade

N. G.

Hackler

A. H.

(2007). Perceived public stigma and the willingness to seek counseling: The mediating roles of self-stigma and attitudes toward counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 40-50.

59.

Wasik

B. H.

Bryant

D. M.

(2000). Home visiting: Procedures for helping families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

60.

Wasik

B. H.

Bryant

D. M.

Lyons

C. M.

(1990). Home visiting: Procedures for helping families. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

61.

Weisner

Schmidt

(1992). Gender disparities in treatment of alcohol problems. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 268, 1872-1876.

62.

White

W. L.

Gasperin

D. L.

Nystrom

J. L.

Ambrose

C. T.

Esarey

C. N.

(2005). The other side of burnout: An ethnographic study of exemplary performance and health among probation officers supervising high-risk offenders. Journal of the American Probation and Parole Association, 29, 26-31.

63.

Young

(1937). Social treatment in probation and delinquency. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.