Beyond Responsivity: Client Service Engagement in a Reentry Demonstration Program

Abstract

The specific responsivity principle advises us to provide offenders with treatment that takes into account their responsiveness to treatment, tied for example to their learning style, motivation, and gender. We examine challenges to service engagement and attendance in a community-based program in a reentry setting, and consider how far they correspond with these factors. Drawing on qualitative accounts of parolee engagement in services provided by parolees, service providers, case managers, and parole officers, we identify a number of difficulties faced by clients. These include logistical factors that affect clients’ physical ability to enroll in or attend programming (such as documentation, employment needs, and transportation problems) as well as elements of program and service delivery (such as client–provider matching, therapeutic style, and curriculum factors). We conclude that we should look beyond responsivity and consider logistical factors alongside the better-recognized psychological and dispositional factors, to understand client engagement in the context of reentry.

Keywords

reentry parole responsivity qualitative client engagement

Every year, more than 600,000 citizens return to the community after serving sentences in federal and state prisons (U.S. Department of Justice, 2016). Many of these individuals will subsequently return to prison, because of violations of parole conditions or because of new offenses they commit. Indeed, approximately 50% of people on parole will be returned to prison for either a parole violation or new arrest within 3 years (Durose, Cooper, & Snyder, 2014). These statistics reflect the significant challenges faced by prisoners returning to the community. These challenges include the presence of criminogenic needs, which contribute to the risk of their recidivism, and their likelihood of return to prison. Criminogenic risks include the “central eight”—history of antisocial behavior, antisocial personality, thoughts, and friends; family issues, poor school and/or work performance, low involvement in prosocial activities, and substance abuse problems—of which the former four are also known as the “big four” (though a history of antisocial behavior is not a criminogenic need because it cannot be not changed; Andrews & Bonta, 2010, p. 58). In addition, a broader set of difficulties threaten to derail peoples’ transition back to the community from prison. These may include housing restrictions (Clear, 2007; Fishman, 2003; Harding, Morenoff, & Herbert, 2013), limited finances, difficulty obtaining jobs, transportation (Sung, Mahoney, & Mellow, 2011), problems getting identification documents, family and relationship issues (Fishman, 2003; Pettit & Western, 2004; Siennick, Stewart, & Staff, 2014; Wakefield & Uggen, 2010), and poor physical and mental health (Travis, Western, & Redburn, 2014). Taxman and Caudy (2015) have described these factors as “destabilizers” (p. 71).

In this context, engaging former prisoners in appropriate services is critical. Yet, despite an increasing body of research identifying effective rehabilitative programming for people with offending histories (Bonta & Andrews, 2007; Craig, Gannon, & Dixon, 2013; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005; Petersilia, 2004; Seiter & Kadela, 2003), there is an increasing recognition that getting offenders to meaningfully engage with these services is not always easy (Cohen & Whetzel, 2014; Kirby, McSweeney, Turnbull, & Bhardwa, 2010; Taxman, 2014), and this is probably particularly the case for people returning to the community from prison given the obstacles they face (Begun, Early, & Hodge, 2016; Marlow, White, & Chesla, 2010).

The current article seeks to further explore this concept by examining the challenges of service engagement among a group of reentering prisoners participating in a reentry program. It takes as its theoretical starting point the concept of “responsivity,” a concept concerned with how the psychological and dispositional characteristics of potential program clients may affect their engagement with services. Our evidence suggests a multilayered model of client engagement is appropriate to fully understanding client commitment that takes account of logistical factors, alongside individual psychology and disposition.

Responsivity and Client Engagement

Developed by Bonta and Andrews (2007), the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model represents the dominant contemporary model in evidence-based corrections (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2011; Andrews & Dowden, 2006; Andrews et al., 1990; Dowden & Andrews, 2004). It indicates that level of service should be matched to the offender’s risk (the “risk principle”), and programming should target the specific needs of an offender that lead to criminal behavior (the “need principle”).

In addition, the RNR model incorporates the “responsivity principle,” differentiating between “general” and “specific” forms (Bonta & Andrews, 2007). General responsivity refers to the importance of employing cognitive-behavioral and social learning strategies known to be successful in altering offenders’ thinking, behavior, and skills (i.e., evidence-based practices; Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Kane, Bechtel, Revicki, McLaughlin, & McCall, 2011). Specific responsivity is concerned with matching service delivery to the specific characteristics of clients, including their learning style, motivation, strengths, and demographic characteristics (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Bonta & Andrews, 2007; Turner & Petersilia, 2012). Bourgon and Bonta (2014) suggest that a responsive environment is one in which clients are engaged in services, apparent, for example, in client program attendance, active participation, acknowledgment of a program’s benefits, less client drop out, and an overall desire to participate in services.

Despite the centrality of the responsivity principle to the RNR model, a surprisingly modest body of research has examined it, in particular the concept of specific responsivity. Notwithstanding, some of the factors affecting client engagement that are highlighted by recent empirical literature include low self-esteem, low intelligence and history of sexual abuse (Hubbard & Pealer, 2009), lack of motivation and denial (Beyko & Wong, 2005), staff characteristics (Dowden & Andrews, 2004), and staff use of motivational interviewing techniques (McMurran, 2009). However, as Polaschek (2012) argues, much remains to be learned about motivation and engagement of people in rehabilitative services.

Beyond limitations in empirical development of responsivity, we suggest it also has important theoretical limitations. Notably, the primary focus of responsivity is on how services meet the psychological and dispositional characteristics of clients, a product no doubt of the fact that the RNR model is rooted explicitly in a psychological theory of offending (namely, the General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning theory; Andrews & Bonta, 2010). However, a variety of obstacles to service engagement that clients can experience are not directly incorporated into this perspective. For example, Taxman (2014) identifies a host of “day-to-day” barriers to implementing evidence-based practices, including service providers’ focus on paperwork, limited time to assess offenders, and working with outdated tools and instruments. Hipp, Petersilia, and Turner (2010) highlight the importance of proximity to the effective engagement in services, showing that individuals who have more service providers within two miles of their home are less likely to recidivate than those who do not. Marlow and colleagues (2010) highlight the importance of financial and administrative barriers to accessing health care in a qualitative study of chronically ill, middle-aged male parolees. And Begun et al. (2016), surveying adults reentering the community, highlight service barriers such as knowledge of treatment, child care, shame, resources to pay, and transportation—alongside conventional responsivity factors based on individual psychology and disposition—as important factors relevant to service engagement. Some similar findings can be found outside of criminal justice, including, for example, effects on service engagement of distance from providers for veterans diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (McCarthy et al., 2007); time conflict and admission difficulty for substance abusers at an intake unit prior to treatment (Rapp et al., 2007); feelings of their condition not being serious enough and a desire to handle one’s problem on his or her own among problem drinkers with different help-seeking experiences (Tucker, Vuchinich, & Rippens, 2004); or the effects of trust in the service provider, and accessibility issues like transportation and cost for depressed or anxious clients of mental health services (Gulliver, Griffiths, & Christensen, 2010).

Perhaps recognizing the limitations of the conventional formulation, some justice scholars have recently used the term responsivity more loosely, to apply to some of these other kinds of barriers. Notably, Cohen and Whetzel (2014), examining a range of “responsivity” factors reported by federally supervised offenders in a survey, operationalized barriers to service engagement that included those relating to transport, housing, and child care, alongside psychological and dispositional factors. Taxman (2014), acknowledging the challenges faced by clients engaging in programming when relevant services are scarce, coined the idea of “systemic responsivity” to describe the extent to which appropriate services are available in a jurisdiction to match client population’s needs—speaking to the issue of resource availability as an obstacle to client engagement with them.

Overview of the Present Study

The present article considers the utility of the responsivity principle to a group of parolees returning to the community from prison or prison-like settings (e.g., halfway house) seeking to engage with community-based services, particularly bearing in mind the critique offered above. It asks the following three questions: (a) In a reentry context, what are some of the factors affecting engagement with services? (b) Do these factors fit within the conventional understanding of responsivity? (c) Should we look beyond responsivity to understand client engagement in a reentry context? To address these questions, we draw on the experiences of participants and stakeholders from a reentry program in a Northeastern state.

Study Setting

Study subjects were participants of a Second Chance Act Reentry Demonstration Program in a single county of a Northeastern state. The program recruited clients and began case planning with them typically a few weeks, and occasionally, a few days, prior to their release from a prison or residential facility. Intensive case management was conducted by two dedicated case managers who worked in collaboration with participants’ parole officers. Most participants reported to a dedicated program parole officer, though gang-involved or electronic monitoring participants reported to separate specialized parole officers.

Following release into the community, the reentry program provided services for approximately six months. It had dedicated funds and relationships with local organizations to provide for subsidized housing (up to three months for those who did not have a parole-approved address upon release), mental health treatment (individual and peer group), substance abuse treatment, educational courses, employment services, and incidental costs associated with reintegration. In addition, case managers would make referrals to a variety of other community-based resources that were otherwise available and, through relationships with faith-based groups, were also intended to provide some basic necessities to participants, such as clothing, transportation, or bed linens.

Importantly, the reentry program was a supplement to the existing supervision and services that parolees routinely receive. Many participants were mandated to attend a day reporting center as part of their parole supervision, which provided an array of services (e.g., anger management, substance abuse services, moral recognition therapy, employment training, life skills, and parenting courses) and other assistance in obtaining identification (e.g., birth certificate, state ID). In addition, clients had referrals through their parole officer or through the department of corrections prior to release, such as mandated substance abuse or mental health treatment.

Research Subjects

The primary research data used in this article were qualitative interviews with program participants and program “stakeholders”—namely, staff from agencies and organizations providing services to the clients. Some broader aggregate statistics are also used to provide some descriptive context, for both the full cohort of reentry program clients and for the sample interviewed.

Parolee sample

Seventy-six parolees were enrolled in the program. Participants were recruited using an institutional review board (IRB)–approved “informed consent” process. Primary criteria for inclusion in the program were as follows: within a few weeks (or days) of release, moderate risk to high risk of recidivism as represented by a Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) score of 20 or above, a return address of the county under study on a prerelease plan, not a sex offender, mentally competent, and voluntary agreement to participate.

Beyond descriptive statistics for the full 76 subjects, this article focuses primarily on 19 clients who participated in semi-structured interviews. Interview participants were intentionally selected by the researchers to ensure variability of age, race, criminal history (using the LSI-R criminal history subscale), time on case management, and level of program engagement. Recruitment to participate in interviews relied on contacts made through the program case managers who, after approaching clients and seeking their permission, provided their contact details to the research interviewer (also the lead author) to schedule a date and time to be interviewed. Interviewees gave additional informed consent to participate in this round of data collection, and also received an incentive of US$30 for their participation. Interviews were conducted face-to-face and lasted approximately one hour and took place in offices and meeting rooms of community-based providers. Respondents were asked about the challenges they faced upon reentering their communities, their decision to join the reentry program, their relationship with the case managers and parole officer, and their participation in services. We also asked about the positives, negatives, and suggested changes (if any) to the reentry program.¹ During all interviews, the first author typed responses on her laptop; every attempt was made to record responses verbatim, though this was not possible for the entirety of the interviews. She continued recording notes following the conclusion of each interview.

Table 1 presents descriptive information on the 76 program participants and the focused 19 clients interviewed. Of the 19 parolees interviewed, 18 were male (M_age = 33.58 years, SD = 11.84, age range: 20-55). Eighty-four percent of interviewees were African American, 11% were White, and 5% were Hispanic. The average LSI-R score for the sample was 28 (range: 21-39). Only two of the participants were considered high risk (i.e., LSI-R score of 31 or above); all others were rated moderate to medium risk of recidivism.

Table 1.

Comparison of Demographic Characteristics Between Interviewed Parolee Sample and Overall Parolee Sample.

	All participants (N = 76)	Participants interviewed (N = 19)
	n (%) or M	n (%) or M
Male	73 (96.0)	18 (94.7)
Race/ethnicity
African American	62 (81.6)	16 (84.2)
White	6 (7.9)	2 (10.5)
Hispanic	8 (10.5)	1 (5.3)
Age (M)	34.6	32.7
Education level^a
Eighth grade	1 (1.8)	0 (0)
High school, not completed	16 (28.1)	4 (30.8)
GED	7 (12.3)	1 (7.7)
Completed high school	25 (43.9)	6 (46.1)
College, 1 Year	5 (8.8)	2 (15.4)
College, 2 Years	2 (3.5)	0 (0)
Total LSI-R Score (M)	27.6	28.1
Placement case (i.e., needed housing)	29 (38.2)	5 (26.3)
Prior convictions (M)	6.4	4.4
Mandated to day reporting center during follow-up	45 (59.2)	15 (78.9)
Gang member	18 (23.7)	4 (21.0)
Level of engagement in reentry program (M)^b	3.2	4.3

Note. LSI-R = Level of Service Inventory–Revised.

Reduced sample for which data were available (n = 57 participants, and n = 13 interviewees).

Level of Engagement was scored 0 (not at all engaged) to 5 (highly engaged), based on the assessment of the case managers.

Recruitment challenges

Though great efforts were made to recruit the researchers’ “preferred” parolees and though no clients outright declined to be interviewed, case managers experienced some difficulty scheduling interviews and contacting targeted subjects. Specifically, eight clients we selected to be interviewed either (a) did not answer their phones when case managers attempted to contact them or (b) were interested in being interviewed but were unable to meet during the hours a conference room was available (during normal working hours, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). Therefore, we had to consult our sampling tables several times and reselect potential subjects to participate in the interviews. This created an initial setback in the interviewing schedule, such that the target number of interviews to be completed each month was not being met. Table 1 also shows that our sample shows some differences, compared with the overall client group (e.g., displaying a higher level of program engagement, and less need of housing). However, a statistically “representative” sample is not necessary for our purposes because we are not assessing the prevalence of traits or experiences. More important is that we seemed to have obtained a sufficiently large and diverse interview sample to capture core client insights into the program, evidenced by the fact that many of the same issues were repeatedly brought up among the clients interviewed.

Stakeholder sample

In addition to parolees, we conducted phone or in-person interviews with 12 program stakeholders. Stakeholders were selected based on their involvement in the program; those most involved in program design, service provision, and leadership were chosen. We reached out to each person individually, having already established a relationship with the stakeholders, through e-mail and requested, if willing, a time, date, and preference for an interview. Three interviews were conducted face-to-face; nine interviews were conducted over the phone. Interviews ranged in length from 19 minutes to 147 minutes, with an average time of 56 minutes. Respondents were asked about program implementation, implementation challenges, their participation in the leadership group and case conferencing meetings, organizational aspects of the program, service provision, strengths and weaknesses of services and program design, agency collaboration, and recommendations for the future.² Again, the first author typed responses on her laptop; every attempt was made to record responses verbatim, though this was not possible for the entirety of the interview. The researcher continued recording notes following the conclusion of each interview.

In addition, we sent 10 peripheral stakeholders a link to an online survey, which asked similar questions as the above primary stakeholder interviews. A reminder email was sent to the stakeholders after two weeks of nonresponse. Of the 10 stakeholders e-mailed, seven completed the survey. Survey questions allowed for open-ended responses, with no character or word limit.

Data Analysis

The first author initially read through all 38 interviews and survey responses in their entirety, and jotted down memos and possible patterns of barriers to service engagement on a separate piece of paper. After reading through the interviews initially, we created a series of coding schemes and programmed them into NVivo 10 software. The coding scheme was developed so that responses were separated by either step in the program (e.g., recruitment, case planning) or service (e.g., housing, mental health counseling), and within each service its strengths and weaknesses as reported by parolees and stakeholders. All interviews were then uploaded to NVivo and coded. Narratives related to satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the program, recruitment into the program, case planning, relationship with the case managers, reason for lack of service engagement, referrals and services, challenges to reentry and implementation, and agency collaboration were examples of topics identified in all interviews. We used the inductive analytic techniques of revisiting interviews and constant comparison to identify patterns and initial hypotheses, all of which were recorded as memos on a separate sheet of paper (Charmaz, 2014). Interviews were revisited following the initial coding in NVivo and again when a clear pattern was found among responses (to check for deviant cases). Also, given the two distinct data sources (parolees and stakeholders), we were often able to triangulate conclusions drawing on complementary insights from both clients and program stakeholders (Carter, Bryant-Lukosius, DiCenso, Blythe, & Neville, 2014).

Results

The challenges faced by program clients could be divided into approximately two broad categories: first were logistical issues that interfered with clients’ abilities to enroll in and attend services; second were challenges that related to program and service delivery, which may have undermined their commitment to the service received. Below we outline our results in more detail, according to these categories.

Logistical Factors

A variety of challenges to engaging in services could be described as “logistical.” These were practical, external obstacles that the clients experienced that seemed to prevent them either enrolling in the first place, or being able to attend services once they had enrolled. There were a number of reasons in particular why this could occur.

Documentation

The process of seeking out services for clients typically began when parolees met with their case manager(s) on the day of, or within days of, their release (though housing was typically arranged prerelease). Case plans were developed based on client needs and were used to identify appropriate services for clients. At this point, the case managers and service providers would aim to work together to enroll clients in services. The most immediate challenge clients often faced upon release from facilities was not having appropriate documentation—birth certificates, social security cards, State ID, and/or licenses—to obtain assistance like housing aid, health care (i.e., Medicaid), and employment. Indeed, one stakeholder noted, “Trying to obtain licenses, identification, birth certificates and other documents may hamper success of finding housing, jobs and cooperation for agencies.” This problem occurred despite state laws requiring prisoners upon release to be provided with a number of documents, including (where this was not already available) a birth certificate, a nondriver identification card, and aid in obtaining a social security card and medical records; these stipulations were not borne out in practice.

Among the participants interviewed, nine indicated that they did not have identification documents upon release. Although in many cases, these documents were subsequently obtained (often with help from the case managers of the program), their absence at least for a period presented a barrier to enrolling in services. Focus on these (and other) short-term needs sometimes took one or two months to accomplish, which in some cases delayed enrollment in services. For example, State IDs, driver’s licenses, and birth certificates are typically required for individuals applying for Medicaid benefits. Many mental health treatment programs, including those offered by the program or ones to which case managers referred program clients, require clients to have Medicaid (or other health insurance) prior to enrolling. A delay in applying for Medicaid, as a result of lack of documentation, can result in a delay of treatment and, worse, an increased risk of recidivism. Moreover, on a practical level, not having the appropriate identifying documentation can delay individuals from receiving benefits, such as food stamps and general assistance. For those seeking a State ID or driver’s license through the department of motor vehicles, six points of identification (including birth certificates, social security cards, health insurance cards, Social Services ID cards) are required to confirm one’s identity; prison identification cards do not count toward the six points. Thus, without identifying documentation, obtaining a valid State ID or license can prove difficult.

The urgency of employment

A common preoccupation of clients as they reentered the community was finding a job: Of the 12 clients who were asked to describe their goals upon release, eight described employment as their primary goal. Beyond this, almost all the clients in the reentry demonstration program identified employment as their greatest challenge in conversations with the researcher and/or case managers (and therefore reflected in our interviews with these stakeholders). Clients’ heavy focus on employment often served to pull clients’ attention away from enrolling in the services that had been prioritized for them, based on their conversations with case managers. One stakeholder described this dynamic: “ . . . we may think [based on the LSI-R] education or a GED is important, while the client may think ‘I have to work now.’” In addition, Bradley, when asked why he did not enroll in most of the program’s services, answered “Probably because I got a job.”

Scheduling difficulties

If clients were to enroll in a service, they inevitably expected either to schedule individual appointments with service providers, such as with mental health providers or substance use counselors, or to attend group services at set times (e.g., when scheduling a class through the community college, or attending a peer support group). Managing this process could present challenges. One difficulty was that clients often experienced conflicts between the time slots available from service providers and a variety of other obligations they had as parolees under supervision, or people with family obligations. For example, among those mandated to the day reporting program (which included more than half of all 76 participants), it was not uncommon for clients to have to be present for several hours per day, five days per week, often reporting in the morning and not leaving until into the afternoon. As stated by Irvin,

Right now there’s not a lot of things I can do because I’m mandated by parole that I be in that [day reporting center].

At least one client interviewed, Casey, also reported having to be home to pick up his children from school:

[The case manager] offered me all courses and things of that nature. But with my schedule things are hectic. I have kids and try to work. I want to go [to college]. I have two different kids’ mothers so if they work I’ll take the kids.

Not only did time conflicts affect service enrollment; they also affected attendance once enrolled. Some clients who found work often had jobs with antisocial hours. For example, Corneil, who eventually had to quit his job due to transportation issues, described, “I started work 4:30 in the afternoon and got home at 2:00 a.m.” Similarly, Ontrell, who worked as a driver’s assistant, said his hours varied, “From six in the morning ’til . . . you never know when you’re coming home. The latest I stayed was ten at night.” Other clients held jobs at warehouses that usually began in the evening and ended in the early morning hours, and some worked for temporary employment agencies that required them to report before 5:00 a.m. These commitments often clashed with the timing of services with which they were enrolled. For example, the mental health support group offered by the reentry demonstration program was particularly affected by this problem because it was run during business hours, apparently on Tuesdays, in the early morning or late afternoon. Similarly, a number of employment services (e.g., meeting with a career specialist, job fairs, resume writing, employment workshops) were held during normal business hours which clashed with people’s availability. Reginald, a young client, recalled the difficulty of attending the peer support group and employment services given his work schedule and other commitments:

With time I be busy . . . [the service] does not work with work . . . I just be busy so I never make it. Support group’s during the afternoon.

Transportation

Although many clients lived close to services, this was not consistently the case, and some clients were required to travel distances from home to get access to their services. The reentry program provided some bus passes to help alleviate the challenges for some clients, but some clients nonetheless described challenges getting to the services in which they were enrolled. This was a particular problem for education services because the local county college was located in a different city to the core services (and where most clients lived), approximately 6.5 miles away. As reported by Bradley, a middle-aged client,

[My case manager] recommended school . . . I wanted to maybe take up solar panels, it’s the new technology now. But it was far away to school, I think [X town] or something. So I couldn’t go because I didn’t have a ride. I need my license to get around. One baby step at a time.

This sentiment was confirmed by one stakeholder who explained, “The biggest issue for folks that didn’t complete [school] was attendance and transportation” and another, who echoed, “If they can’t get here, they can’t take the class.”

Program and Service Delivery Issues

Aside from the logistical challenges described above, a number of factors tied more closely to program and service delivery. These were more akin to responsivity-related challenges.

Client–therapist matching

Our findings regarding mental health counseling echo the concern with client–therapist matching articulated in some discussions of specific responsivity (Bourgon & Bonta, 2014). Eighty-one percent of the reentry program’s clients were African American, yet the mental health providers, and the peer group leader, tended to be White. This mismatch between clients and mental health providers sometimes led to feelings of discomfort, as related by Charlie:

It’s difficult picking out a therapist because you have to find someone who understands and who can relate. You don’t pick a White guy with glasses who went to Harvard. These guys are not gonna feel comfortable going to him.

Similarly, Andre described the peer support group facilitator as “different.”

Therapeutic style

A different kind of mismatch was also identified by at least four stakeholders relating to the style or culture of service provision, which apparently alienated some clients. This concern focused on the overly clinical character of the peer support group. Specifically, there appeared to be a disjuncture between the delivery model and therapist style on one hand, and the expectation that clients had about their involvement in the group on the other. Parolees who participated in the peer support group first received a brief evaluation by a mental health counselor. Another mental health counselor led the support group in a hospital setting. One stakeholder reported,

With the mental health piece, trying to label people and going to [service provider] is like, “Oh my God, I’m not like this.” And I think that scared people and made people think we’re trying to diagnose them.

Another stakeholder said,

[The] staff is mental health. So they wanted to do a bit more mental health stuff. And the parolees seemed to just want to vent. So I think we were coming from two different angles.

Curriculum relevance

Of the services offered, especially employment and education, the content of the curriculum could be a source of alienation for clients, in particular where these were not kept up-to-date with technology or lacked relevance to clients’ needs and skill-sets. In one example, the reentry demonstration program’s employment service provider relied on outdated materials during their employment training sessions. One stakeholder described,

[The employment service provider] put in a VHS with stuff from the 80s. And I kept apologizing [to the clients]. I’m still apologizing. It was embarrassing.

In addition, the educational and vocational services offered to clients of the reentry program were limited (in part as a product of the fact the reentry program lasted just for six months). The brochure for the local community college provided to clients outlined short-term courses, allowing participants to quickly obtain a certification in those courses. Examples of courses included electronics, flower arrangement, and photography. Sixteen (21%) parolees actually enrolled in education services. Of these, 14 enrolled in the electronics certification course. Seven of the 16 parolees (43.7%) received a certificate of course completion. A primary reason for noncompletion of education courses was transportation (see above, Transportation). Reflecting on shortcomings of this provision, Charlie indicated,

I would like to see better education opportunities. I looked at the list: photography, floral arrangements; it’s cute but there are no practical applications. Expand it. Make more classes available for a technical trade or route.

Several clients were interested in heating, ventilation and air conditioning, or commercial driver’s license courses; however, these classes were not offered by the program’s education advisor, and clients had to find other programs that offered such courses.

Program content overlap

In the context of the reentry program, clients who were enrolled in the day reporting center often routinely received a variety of programming, including life skills, parenting skills, anger management, substance abuse services, and employment training. This meant that for some similar services being directly offered by the reentry demonstration program, parolees were reluctant to enroll because they felt they were already receiving a version of these services elsewhere—affecting their motivation to attend. From the point of view of stakeholders, parolees may still have benefited from additional services, but from the point of view of clients, additional services seemed like duplication. This was expressed by one stakeholder who spoke to why the program was having difficulty engaging clients in the employment service,

I think they were getting a [employment] workshop at the [day reporting center], so we had to convince them that more help is better.

Case Management and Client Engagement

In the context of the obstacles to engagement described above, it is worth noting some of the positive impacts that case managers seemed to have, in some cases, on clients’ engagement with services. This apparently could help overcome some of the structural problems faced by clients described.

Case managers met with clients during their involvement to guide them through the reentry process. As part of this role, they would have some relationships with service providers, including meeting or talking with service providers to track progress of individual clients and to facilitate communication between clients and service providers. In this role, they were often instrumental in getting clients to engage with services provided by the reentry program. Terrell’s case manager told him, “ . . . if you’re trying to take advantage of the program, go to the support group.” Darnell described how his case manager reminded him of peer support group meetings:

“Every time there’s a group [case manager] acknowledges me and lets me know what is going on so I can attend.” He also stated, “I chose to take part in everything. There’s nothing I don’t want to be in. I’m sure [case manager] is telling me things that are helpful to me.”

Because of the strong bond developed between clients and case managers, some clients, like Irvin, would participate in services as a way to show appreciation to the case managers and the program more generally:

They’ve been keeping me on the right track. Program or whatever they ask, I come. It’s keeping me out of trouble.

Case managers also got involved in some direct forms of support that may have displaced some of the need for clients to become enrolled in and attend regular services. For example, Andre, Navier, Sofia, and Terrell noted that their respective case manager assisted them with job searches and online employment applications. Indeed, Terrell said, “[Case manager] was just so on point, I didn’t really need [employment service].” This would have been a service provided through the program’s employment piece, but instead it was handled by case managers.

Discussion

At the beginning of this article, we posed some key questions about barriers to service engagement in a reentry context that we would attempt to answer based on the experiences of clients and stakeholders in a reentry program in a northeastern state. We first asked what factors were relevant to clients engaging in services. We learned that there were a variety, mentioned either by clients or stakeholders involved in running the reentry program. These fell into two broad groups. First, logistical factors affected clients’ physical ability to enroll in or attend programming, and included factors such as having documentation, an urgent need to find employment, scheduling difficulties—owing to work schedules, criminal justice commitments or family obligations, and transportation. Second, program and service delivery issues were relevant to client engagement. These included client–provider matching, therapeutic style, curriculum relevance, and program content overlap. It is notable that the presence of case management services could, meanwhile, have a positive effect on program engagement because of the motivation generated by relationships with case managers.

A second question we asked was whether the factors identified fit within our conventional understanding of responsivity, given their particular focus on client psychological and dispositional factors. The simple answer is that while some do (notably factors related to program and service delivery), others do not. In particular, the logistical factors identified have not formed a part of mainstream responsivity discussions.

Our final question is whether we should look beyond responsivity to understand client engagement in the context of reentry. Our findings suggest we should, in particular to take account of the logistical factors that affect a client’s ability to engage with services. Because documentation problems, the pressing need to find a job, scheduling challenges, and transport difficulties are all fundamental to client engagement, it seems important to consider them alongside clients’ psychological and dispositional characteristics. With this in mind, we propose an initial, tentative, model that could be used to provide the basis for further theorization of client engagement. Figure 1 outlines the process of service enrollment through attendance and affinity with the program content, highlighting which barriers can impact each step. We include our findings in the list of barriers here as an extension to the barriers already identified in the criminal justice and other literatures, including existing literature on responsivity.

Figure 1.

Responsivity and barriers to service model.

Our findings suggest that policy makers and practitioners can modify current practices to better accommodate clients in ways that may increase their service attendance and engagement. For example, practitioners may consider offering counseling and substance abuse treatment at different hours of the day, or on weekends, to better serve clients who work during normal business hours. In addition, employment service providers could work with community members to identify the types of jobs needed in their local areas, and design their training programs in ways that prepare clients for those specific jobs. Indeed, similar recommendations have been made by past researchers (e.g., Mears & Cochran, 2015).

In designing similar programs to that of Second Chance, developers might also consider engaging the county’s Social Services and Social Security agencies. Having a more direct line to these agencies can facilitate the process of obtaining important documents and benefits that parolees often rely on when first released (Petersilia, 2003). Finally, when considering budgeting, developers may also usefully set aside a petty cash fund for bus passes, so that programs can assist clients with transportation, which may encourage clients to attend services. Although some of these logistical challenges may be difficult to implement, our findings suggest that addressing these challenges may result in increased client service engagement and attendance, which may also affect their success on parole.

Conclusion

Bourgon, Bonta, Rugge, Scott, and Yessine (2009) tell us that “real world” programs are less effective than demonstration programs given the everyday stressors practitioners face, and programs’ lack of attention to RNR principles. Our analysis suggests that classical conceptions of the RNR model, and in particular the concept of “responsivity,” could usefully be enhanced by incorporating some of the logistical challenges that interfere with client engagement. These relate, in particular, to clients’ enrollment in and attendance at services.

Our research represents only a starting point, and we are not alone in highlighting challenges to service engagement that lie beyond responsivity (for other examples, see Cohen & Whetzel, 2014; Taxman, 2014). This area, like responsivity in general (Bonta & Andrews, 2007), would benefit from further research. No doubt, further qualitative explorations of clients in programs could help elucidate further factors and dynamics that interfere with program engagement. In addition, more formal quantitative operationalization and hypothesis testing relating to the kind of factors detailed here would also help develop the knowledge-base in this area. Even in the absence of such developments, we would strongly encourage program designers and practitioners to pay explicit attention to these considerations in the design and execution of programs for offenders.

In sum, we hope the insights presented help provide an impetus to further research and theorizing on the topic of client engagement, with positive practical applications for the design of reentry and other criminal justice programs.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to members of Parole for their thoughtful comments on this article.

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: This research was supported by a subcontract as part of the Bureau of Justice Assistance Second Chance Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Program Grant 4-36765.

Notes

References

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(Eds.). (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: Matthew Bender & Company.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

Wormith

J. S.

(2011). The risk-need-responsivity model: Does adding the good lives model contribute to effective crime prevention? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 735-755.

Andrews

D. A.

Dowden

(2006). Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment: A meta-analytic investigation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 88-100.

Andrews

D. A.

Zinger

Hoge

R. D.

Bonta

Gendreau

Cullen

F. T.

(1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.

Begun

A. L.

Early

T. J.

Hodge

(2016). Mental health and substance abuse service engagement by men and women during community reentry following incarceration. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 43, 207-218.

Beyko

M. J.

Wong

S. C.

(2005). Predictors of treatment attrition as indicators for program improvement not offender shortcomings: A study of sex offender treatment attrition. Sex Abuse, 17, 375-389.

Bonta

Andrews

D. A.

(2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, 6(1), 1-22.

Bourgon

Bonta

(2014). Reconsidering the responsivity principle: A way to move forward. Federal Probation, 78(2), 3-10.

Bourgon

Bonta

Rugge

Scott

T. L.

Yessine

A. K.

(2009). Translating “what works” into everyday practice: Program design, implementation, and evaluation. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.

10.

Carter

Bryant-Lukosius

DiCenso

Blythe

Neville

A. J.

(2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41, 545-547.

11.

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

12.

Clear

T. R.

(2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

13.

Cohen

T. H.

Whetzel

(2014). The neglected “R”—Responsivity and the federal offender. Federal Probation, 78(2), 11-18.

14.

Craig

L. A.

Gannon

T. A.

Dixon

(2013). What works in offender rehabilitation: An evidence-based approach to assessment and treatment. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley

15.

Dowden

Andrews

D. A.

(2004). The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 203-214.

16.

Durose

M. R.

Cooper

A. D.

Snyder

H. N.

(2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

17.

Fishman

(2003). Briefing paper: Legal barriers to prisoner reentry in New Jersey. Newark: New Jersey Institute for Social Justice.

18.

Gulliver

Griffiths

K. M.

Christensen

(2010). Perceived barriers and facilitators to mental health help-seeking in young people: A systematic review. BMC Psychiatry, 10, 113-121.

19.

Harding

D. J.

Morenoff

J. D.

Herbert

C. W.

(2013). Home is hard to find: Neighborhoods, institutions, and the residential trajectories of returning prisoners. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 647, 214-236.

20.

Hipp

J. R.

Petersilia

Turner

(2010). Parolee recidivism in California: The effect of neighborhood context and social service agency characteristics. Criminology, 48, 947-979.

21.

Hubbard

D. J.

Pealer

(2009). The importance of responsivity factors in predicting reductions in antisocial attitudes and cognitive distortions among adult male offenders. The Prison Journal, 89, 79-98.

22.

Kane

Bechtel

Revicki

McLaughlin

McCall

(2011). Exploring the role of responsivity and assessment with Hispanic and American Indian offenders. Boston, MA: Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice.

23.

Kirby

McSweeney

Turnbull

Bhardwa

(2010). Engaging substance misusing offenders: A rapid review of the substance misuse treatment literature. London, England: Institute for Criminal Policy Research.

24.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Latessa

E. J.

(2005). Developing successful reentry programs: Lessons learned from the “what works” research. Corrections Today, 67(2), 72-77.

25.

Marlow

White

M. C.

Chesla

C. A.

(2010). Barriers and facilitators: Parolees’ perceptions of community health care. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 16, 17-26.

26.

McCarthy

J. F.

Blow

F. C.

Valenstein

Fischer

E. P.

Owen

R. R.

Barry

K. L.

. . . Ignacio

R. V.

(2007). Veterans Affairs health system and mental health treatment retention among patients with serious mental illness: Evaluating accessibility and availability barriers. Health Research and Educational Trust, 42, 1042-1060.

27.

McMurran

(2009). Motivational interviewing with offenders: A systematic review. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 83-100.

28.

Mears

D. P.

Cochran

J. C.

(2015). Prisoner reentry in the era of mass incarceration. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

29.

Petersilia

(2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

30.

Petersilia

(2004). What works in prisoner reentry? Reviewing and questioning the evidence. Federal Probation, 68(2), 4-8.

31.

Pettit

Western

(2004). Mass imprisonment and the life course: Race and class inequality in U.S. incarceration. American Sociological Review, 69, 151-169.

32.

Polaschek

L. L.

(2012). An appraisal of the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation and its application in correctional treatment. Legal and Criminal Psychology, 17, 1-17.

33.

Rapp

R. C.

Carr

C. A.

Lane

D. T.

Wang

Carlson

(2007). Treatment barriers identified by substance abusers assessed at a centralized intake unit. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 30, 227-235.

34.

Seiter

R. P.

Kadela

K. R.

(2003). Prisoner reentry: What works, what does not, and what is promising. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 360-388.

35.

Siennick

S. E.

Stewart

E. A.

Staff

(2014). Explaining the association between incarceration and divorce. Criminology, 52, 371-398.

36.

Sung

Mahoney

A. M.

Mellow

(2011). Substance abuse treatment gap among adult parolees: Prevalence, correlates, and barriers. Criminal Justice Review, 36, 40-57.

37.

Taxman

F. S.

(2014). Building effective service delivery mechanisms for justice-involved individuals: An under-researched area. Health & Justice, 2(2), 1-12.

38.

Taxman

F. S.

Caudy

M. S.

(2015). Risk tells us who, but not what or how: Empirical assessment of the complexity of criminogenic needs to inform correctional programming. Criminology and Public Policy, 14, 71-103.

39.

Travis

Western

Redburn

(Eds.). (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

40.

Tucker

J. A.

Vuchinich

R. E.

Rippens

P. D.

(2004). A factor analytic study of influences on patterns of help-seeking among treated and untreated alcohol dependent persons. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 26, 237-242.

41.

Turner

Petersilia

(2012). Putting science to work: How the principles of risk, need, and responsivity apply to reentry. In Dvoskin

J. A.

Skeem

J. L.

Novaco

Douglas

K. S.

(Eds.), Using social science to reduce violent offending (pp. 179-198). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

42.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2016). Roadmap to reentry: Reducing recidivism through reentry reforms at the federal bureau of prisons. Washington, DC: Author.

43.

Wakefield

Uggen

(2010). Incarceration and stratification. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 387-406.