Supervision Strategies and Their Correlates: An Empirical Study of Chinese Community Correctional Staff

Abstract

While there are different approaches to dealing with offenders sentenced to community corrections, the three major ones are law enforcement (surveillance), therapeutic (rehabilitation), and crime opportunity prevention. Using the study of U.S. community corrections staff by Miller as a guide, the current study examined the supervision strategy used by Chinese community corrections staff in the Hubei province of China. Chinese community corrections staff were more likely to use the therapeutic and crime opportunity prevention approaches than the law enforcement model. Predictors of each of the three offender supervision approaches differed. The results from Chinese staff were similar in many ways to that found among U.S. staff reported by Miller but differed in some areas.

Keywords

community corrections law enforcement model therapeutic model crime opportunity prevention model China

Appropriate supervision by community correctional officers is the backbone of probation and parole (Taxman, 2008). In the United States, there are two traditional approaches/strategies for this supervision: law enforcement/surveillance-control and therapeutic/rehabilitative. Officers who use the former approach are referred to as law enforcers, while the officers who use the latter approach are referred to as therapeutic agents (Klockars, 1972). Law enforcers focus on supervising offenders through the law and their legal authority; they emphasize surveillance and control of offenders. Therapeutic agents focus on treating and reforming offenders. Some community correctional officers use both approaches and are referred to as synthetic or paternal officers (Glaser, 1969; Klockars, 1972). Recently, a different approach has been employed that aims to reduce “offenders’ exposure to crime opportunities” (Miller, 2014, p. 1236). Scholars have labeled this new approach “crime opportunity control” and have linked it to criminological theories and postulations about how and why people reoffend (Clarke, 1997; Clarke & Eck, 2005; Cozens, 2008; Cullen, 2011; Miller, 2014). Little research, however, has evaluated the approach of crime opportunity control in community correctional supervision until Miller’s (2014) recent work. Based on data from a national community correctional survey in the United States of America, Miller (2014) examined the supervision approach that focuses on the reduction of offenders’ exposure to crime opportunities. His research found that this form of supervision was commonly used by community correctional officers, and he found unique predictors of the practice. Using self-report survey data from 75 probation and parole officers in a large metropolitan area in Australia, Schaefer and Williamson (2017) found some factors that predict surveillance, rehabilitation, and crime opportunity prevention strategies.

The current study expands on the aforementioned two studies of community corrections in the West by examining community corrections in the People’s Republic of China (henceforth, China). This study first aimed to determine whether the crime opportunity prevention approach, the law enforcement approach, and the therapeutic approach are used in China, and then to identify whether a particular approach was used more frequently than the others or if the approaches were used jointly. Finally, the current study investigated the predictors of each approach and whether the predictors differed for each form of supervision.

This study can not only test the generality of supervision models from the West in China but also indicate the community corrections supervision strategies in China. It also expands the examination of supervision strategies predictors. As supervision strategies are related to the success of community corrections, such as decreased recidivism and increased community safety, identification of the use of supervision strategies and their predictors is imperative for decision makers in China to know what supervision models are used in practice. Finding predictors of a supervision model can help promote that model. For example, if concern for one’s safety on the job is negatively related to the use of law enforcement strategy, then decision makers or community correctional leaders can try to reduce perceived risks to promote that strategy. If caseload is negatively related to the use of the therapeutic approach, decision makers or leaders would need to reduce caseload to promote that strategy.

Three Supervision Strategies in the United States

Probation and parole emerged in the mid–19th century and became an essential part of the U.S. correctional system in the early 20th century (Wodahl & Garland, 2009). Prior to the 1970s, the typical community corrections supervision style was the medical or social work approach, which reflected the philosophy of rehabilitation and is “rooted in progressive justice ideals” (Schwalbe & Maschi, 2009, p. 358). This type of supervision strategy emphasized treatment and provided direct service to offenders.

From the 1970s through the 1990s, a “nothing works” approach regarding treatment interventions with offenders was the dominant theme in the United States (Cullen & Gendreau, 2001). During this time, law enforcement strategies replaced the social work approach and became the most common community supervision strategy. This approach, rooted in deterrence theory, was based on a punitive ideology (Schwalbe & Maschi, 2009). Under the law enforcement approach, community correctional officers function as law enforcers and focus on monitoring conditions of release, as well as adopting a rigorous law enforcement authority, retribution ideology, and threats of punishment for reoffending (Miller, 2014; Miller, Copeland, & Sullivan, 2015). The law enforcement strategy’s fundamental rationale was that “the officer’s main duty was as an enforcer and that the offender was responsible for independently determining how to fulfill the assigned supervision conditions” (Taxman, 2008, p. 277).

More recently, the crime opportunity control approach has become increasingly used in community corrections. This approach adopted ideas from environmental criminology theories, such as routine activities theory, offender search theory, and situational crime prevention theory, for dealing with offenders under community supervision (Cullen, Eck, & Lowenkamp, 2002). Although most criminological theories focus on offenders’ propensity to commit crime, environmental criminology focuses on an offender’s opportunity to commit a criminal act (Schaefer, Cullen, & Eck, 2016). For example, routine activities theory postulates that crime occurs when motivated offenders and attractive targets come together at the same time and place with a lack of capable guardians (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Cullen et al. (2002) advocated using environmental criminology to guide community corrections to focus on “the key components of opportunities—offender thinking, routines, handlers, place management, and so on” (p. 35) for formal and informal intervention. By doing so, offenders’ opportunities to commit crime can be curtailed by community correctional agents. Cullen et al. (2002) labeled this new approach environmental corrections. This new approach is also recommended by other scholars such as Dickey and Klingele (2004), Clear and Karp (1999), Schaefer et al. (2016), and Schaefer and Williamson (2017).

The environmental corrections approach for community supervision was also supported by the findings of a qualitative study by Miller et al. (2015). Based on interviews of 40 probation officers, Miller et al. found that officers, to varying degrees, focused on opportunity-based risks, such as probationers’ routine activities, leisure time, and delinquent peers, to reduce chances of recidivism. Officers gathered information on community risks and steered probationers away from these risks by (a) reducing their unstructured time, (b) restricting their time at places with high criminogenic risks, (c) limiting their contacts with problematic associates, and (d) coaching them to sidestep crime-inducing opportunities (Miller et al., 2015). These opportunity-focused supervision tactics also tended to be used in combination with law enforcement approach and rehabilitation practices.

Chinese Community Corrections

China enjoyed a relatively low crime rate and a relatively low level of recidivism for a long time. As an unintended product of China’s economic reform, crime has gradually become a serious problem.

Facing legal issues of traditional community-based or mass-based corrections, increasing crime, a large number of offenders in custody, costly incarceration, overcrowded prisons, and increasing numbers of offenders reentering the society, the Chinese government was pressured to take note of those offenders who served their sentences within the local community. (Jiang, Lambert, et al., 2016, p. 1452; also see Guo & Zheng, 2004; Jiang, Jin, et al., 2016; Jiang et al., 2014; Li, 2014)

In 2003, the Chinese government officially adopted community corrections as a formal mechanism to educate and reform probationers and parolees. Education includes the cultural, political, and vocational while reformation means eliminating antisocial attitudes and behavior and promoting prosocial attitudes and behavior through control and care (e.g., treatment and job placement).

Since 2003, Chinese community corrections has moved from informal to formal supervision of offenders. This formalization process has reflected in three aspects. Prior to 2003, China’s community-based corrections lacked written rules; no clear regulations guided community corrections. Starting in 2003, there have been numerous notices and regulations issued by the Chinese government (see Jiang et al., 2014 and D. Zhang, Irwin, Jiang, & Zhang, in press, for more information). The 2012 version of Community Corrections Implementation Measures provides details about what community corrections is, who should be supervised in the community, which organization is mostly responsible for community corrections, and it describes the community correctional process from entrance to exit, and more. In addition, China’s Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure Law, and Prison Law all provide some regulations on community corrections. At the same time, local governments have made progress in developing written rules or regulations (Jiang, Xiang, et al., 2015). The formalization of community corrections is also reflected in China’s organizational development. According to Jiang and his associates (Jiang, Xiang, et al., 2015; Jiang et al., 2014), prior to 2003, community-based corrections was carried out by the police; however, the local police department had many responsibilities other than community corrections. Ordinary offender supervision and reform was implemented by community leaders and volunteers, such as village leaders, retired workers, or respected citizens. Since 2003, the Ministry of Justice has been in charge of community corrections. Today, from the central government to the lowest government level (township or street), there is a vertical hierarchy of bureaus or departments that are responsible for implementing community corrections. The local justice office (司法所) is the lowest government level in charge of community corrections. The office leaders and/or staff are responsible for routine supervision and reform of offenders under community corrections. These leaders and staff are required to follow rules and procedures. Moving from a haphazard community corrections model staffed by volunteers to a model which is regulations based and staffed by full-time staff is an important step of formalization in the Chinese community corrections.

In addition to formalization, China’s community corrections has also moved towards professionalism. Starting in 2003, supervision of offenders moved from the police and community volunteers to the local justice office and its professional staff. Furthermore, at the same time, responsibilities of the local justice office and its staff composition changed. Prior to 2003, the local justice office was primarily responsible for promoting law and legal aid. Offices had very limited staff. Some offices had only one full-time officer or one part-time officer. Since 2003, China has made efforts to make sure that every local justice office has at least one full-time officer who has formal law training. In addition, local justice offices, especially in urban areas, have hired professional correctional staff, including hiring certified social workers as probation and parole officers. According to Jiang, Zhang, et al. (2015) and D. Zhang et al. (in press), a community correctional team in the local community including legal staff, correctional staff, certified social workers, and semiformal staff is established by the local justice office. The first category consists of office leaders who are official civil servants. Relative to the other three groups, civil servants usually have a law degree (college level) and have the best benefits, a more secure job, and higher social status (Jiang, Zhang, et al., 2015). Full-time community correctional staff are hired by local departments of justice through the mechanism of government contracts. They have some formal education in social work or other disciplines. They may be called social workers in the local justice office, but they are not certified, and most are 3-year college graduates. They are typically responsible for daily operations including collecting information from and filing information about offenders. Certified or professional social workers are hired through government contracting of social services from professional social work organizations. They have at least a 4-year college degree in social work and are paid more than the second group of community correctional staff. Semiformal staff refer to community or village committee members who assist the local justice offices in supervising and reforming offenders. They are labeled volunteers by the local justice offices in China, but they occupy a semiofficial status by Western standards because they receive stipends and other financial benefits. They are from the local community or village but given the authority to supervise and educate offenders. All four groups of staff are required to have some degree of on-the-job training in law and psychology.

Professionalization also refers to the usage of unified forms for community corrections procedures. Before 2003, the local police department’s major task in community-based corrections was to watch offenders and prevent offenders from committing new crimes. Today, community correctional officers and staff are required to follow governmental regulations and record their interactions with offenders. They must also complete a variety of forms or tables to assess the offender’s needs and progress, correctional process, and correctional outcome. It is worth noting that the Chinese government makes it clear that the goals of community corrections are not only to keep offenders aligned with law but also to educate and treat them. Previous studies (Jiang, Lambert, & Wang, 2007; Jiang et al., 2014) suggest that even though China is moving towards formalization and specialization, regular citizens as well as correctional officers still highly value rehabilitative approaches in reforming offenders. Bangjiao techniques, such as work experience sharing, morality education, and heart-to-heart persuasion, are still used today (Jiang et al., 2014; L. Zhang et al., 1996).

Chinese social crime control in general and community corrections in particular features the “total society strategy” (Jiang, 2014; Jiang, Wang, & Lambert, 2010; Jiang et al., 2014; Shaw, 1996). In social and crime control, it means that the government “mobilizes a variety of social forces, such as political, economic, cultural, judicial, educational, and the media, to prevent crime and keep social order” (Jiang et al., 2010, p. 461). In community corrections, it refers to local justice offices mobilizing a variety of criminal justice agencies and the local community to educate and reform offenders (i.e., the local justice office is legally in charge of community corrections); however, to better supervise offenders, the central government requires the office to work with the street- or township-level government, local court, police station, and other governmental agencies such as the department of civil affairs (民政局), China’s Communist Youth League, schools, and even a variety of business organizations. At the same time, because Chinese government is centralized and community corrections is a top-down program, local governmental agencies and criminal justice organizations are also required to do their best to lead and support the local justice office to implement community corrections. Schools, local communities, and relevant families are also encouraged to work with the local justice office to prevent offenders from risky places and people and eventually from committing crime again. All these factors above make the “total society strategy” workable in China’s community corrections.

Research Hypotheses and Methods

Based on the aforementioned context, this study hypothesized that Chinese community correctional officers would use all these strategies: law enforcement, therapeutic, and crime opportunity prevention.

To the best of our knowledge, Miller (2014) and Schaefer and Williamson (2017) are the only two quantitative investigations of the predictors of law enforcement, therapeutic, and crime opportunity prevention strategies to date. Using nationwide data on community corrections, Miller (2014) found that environmental corrections supervision strategies or opportunity-focused supervision practices were commonly used by probation officers in the United States. Although the study did not make a conclusive statement about why probation officers embrace the practices, it did reveal predictors of the practices. The study reported that low caseloads, juvenile supervision (i.e., probation officers who were primarily working with juveniles), and agency coverage in rural areas correlated to officers’ opportunity-focused supervision strategy. Based on survey data, Schaefer and Williamson (2017) explored the effects of job factors, professional views, and personal characteristics on the law enforcement, therapeutic, and crime opportunity prevention strategies. They found that job characteristics are the strongest predictors of the supervision strategies that officers used.

Based on previous studies, the current study included four types of predictors in regression models: supervision view variables, job characteristics, agency predictors, and personal characteristics. Past studies of the attitude–behavior relationship among community correctional officers are mixed. Some studies reveal that the relationship exists while the others do not (see Steiner, Travis, Makarios, & Brickley, 2011, for more information on these studies). Miller (2014) found that punishment views affected officers’ crime opportunity prevention practices and law enforcement (surveillance-control) strategies, while a rehabilitation orientation affected officers’ use of therapeutic (rehabilitation) approach in their supervision. The current study, therefore, expected that each supervision practice-based view would positively affect the relevant supervision strategy practice. For example, ranking the importance of the law enforcement (surveillance-control) practice higher would result in a higher use of the law enforcement practices. This expectation also applies for the rehabilitation views and therapeutic (rehabilitation) practices, and the crime opportunity prevention views and practices.

Job characteristics included job safety and caseload. There is no previous research to guide the development of the expected relationship between job safety views and supervision practices. Nevertheless, the authors felt that those who expressed concern for their safety would be more control oriented to reduce their chances of victimization. Accordingly, we hypothesized that Chinese community correctional officers who reported greater concern over job safety would be more likely to use the law enforcement strategy and less likely to use the therapeutic and crime opportunity prevention strategies. Miller (2014) found that caseload was negatively related to the use of crime opportunity prevention strategy, and caseload was not associated with use of either the rehabilitation or law enforcement strategies. The current study did not have information to hypothesize the caseload-supervision strategy relationship, so it tested whether Miller’s findings applied in China.

Agency characteristics included a dichotomous variable measuring whether the area covered by the local justice office was either urban or rural. A rural justice office usually has one or two staff members, including the office leader working for community corrections, while an urban justice office usually has between two and four correctional staff, including the office leader. Relative to rural justice offices, urban ones are more formal and professional and have more technical support in terms of GPS monitoring equipment, cell phones, and computers. Community correctional staff in rural offices, therefore, were hypothesized to be more likely than those in urban areas to use the therapeutic strategy and would be less likely to employ technology-dependent law enforcement strategies. On one hand, community correctional staff in rural areas are more likely to know and be knowledgeable about offenders in their areas than their urban counterparts, so they might be more likely to use the crime opportunity prevention approach. On the other hand, offenders in rural areas tend to be more spread out, so it may be more difficult for community correctional staff to keep offenders away from risky places and activities. As such, the current study did not assume whether office location was positively or negatively related to the use of the crime opportunity prevention strategy. Finally, demographic characteristics of age, gender, education, tenure, and position (i.e., supervisor of other staff or not) included more as control variables than explanatory ones in this study.

Participants

The current study was based on a data set collected in 2013 from 225 community correctional staff from 15 counties (or equivalents) in Hubei province in China. As this study examined the supervision strategies used by correctional officers, we excluded 26 respondents who had limited direct interactions with offenders. Among the 199 selected respondents, there were two types of community correctional officers: the heads of local justice office and social workers. The heads of the local justice office were the first category of correctional staff noted before. The local justice offices and their heads had multiple responsibilities. Although the head of the local justice office was the leader of community corrections, it was just one of his or her many duties. At one-person offices, typically in rural areas, the office head did everything to supervise and reform offenders. At multiple person offices, the office head had direct interactions with offenders but usually let social workers to do secretarial or assistant work such as checking-in, note-taking, and bookkeeping. Social workers were primarily responsible for the implementation of community corrections. Social workers in this study were the second category of correctional staff, not including certified social workers. At the survey time, there were very few certified social workers in Hubei province. Social workers are not governmental officials. They are hired for community corrections and supervised by the head of the local justice office; however, as a member of the local justice office, social workers can sometimes be asked to carry out other duties than those directly connected with community corrections.

Data Collection

The data used in the current study were collected by a research team that was composed of professors and graduate students from China and the United States. The professors had expertise in corrections and community governance, as well as survey experience in China and the United States. Questionnaires were used to collect data, in addition to unstructured field interviews. The first draft of the questionnaire was developed based on the literature review and the field observations. The questionnaire was then revised several times using the information from the pilot tests. The participants in the pilot tests include college students, faculty, community correctional officers, and members of the research team.

To collect survey data from correctional staff in Hubei, official permission by the government was required. With the permission from the government, the research team first selected 15 counties or equivalents based on location (urban vs. rural) and economic development levels and then selected local justice offices at the township/street level. From these local justice offices, the research team conducted face-to-face surveys with all correctional officers with the exception of those who were ill or out of town. Individuals who conducted the surveys received training on how to conduct in-person surveys. For every survey, the following purposes of the study were made clear to the participants: (a) the survey was for academic research, (b) the data from the survey would be confidential and no individual respondent would be identified in publications or reports, and (c) the survey was voluntary and no one would be forced to complete an interview. All of the completed surveys were checked by the interviewers at the survey site to ensure that information was properly recorded.

Variables

Dependent variables

The dependent variables were the law enforcement, therapeutic, and crime opportunity prevention strategies. The items used to measure these strategies were adapted from Miller (2014) with modifications for responses from Chinese community correctional staff. The items to measure the three strategies are presented in Table 1, and all the items were answered using a 5-point Likert-type scale from never (coded as 1) to always (coded as 5).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Dependent Variable Items on Supervision Strategies Actually Used.

Items	Minimum	Maximum	Median	M	SD
How much do you rely on the following strategies? (1 = never to 5 = always)
Law enforcement (α = .70)
Remind probationer of legal consequences of behaviors (1, 3, 13, 55, 28)^a	1	5	4	4.07	0.79
Emphasize authority of probation officer (8, 19, 34, 30, 9)	1	5	3	3.13	1.08
Ensure the probationer understands that they risk detention or incarceration (0, 2, 20, 48, 31)	1	5	4	4.07	0.76
Closely monitor behaviors (3, 7, 19, 38, 35)	1	5	4	3.95	1.01
Fully enforce rules when any transgressions occur (2, 9, 17, 38, 35)	1	5	4	3.97	1.00
Therapy (α = .47)
Work to establish trust and rapport with probationer (0, 2, 8, 46, 44)	1	5	4	4.33	0.70
Work with probationers to establish rehabilitative goals and strategies (1, 1, 12, 42, 45)	1	5	4	4.30	0.75
Connect probationers with appropriate therapeutic services (e.g., substance use, mental health) (13, 14, 33, 28, 14)	1	5	3	3.16	1.20
Connect probationers with family-based services to improve the quality of home life (4, 15, 39, 33, 10)	1	5	3	3.31	0.95
Offender-focused crime opportunity prevention (α = .89)
Help probationers recognize places where they are at risk of offending (3, 10, 36, 36, 15)	1	5	4	3.50	0.97
Help probationers avoid places where they are at risk of offending (4, 9, 34, 38, 15)	1	5	4	3.52	0.97
Help probationers recognize activities that put them at risk of offending (2, 5, 24, 49, 23)	1	5	4	3.89	0.84
Help probationers avoid activities that put them at risk of offending (2, 6, 30, 45, 18)	1	5	4	3.71	0.89
Community-based crime opportunity prevention (α = .88)
Seek support from family members to supervise and monitor daily activities of probationers (1, 2, 14, 49, 35)	1	5	4	4.15	0.78
Seek support from family members to help probationers avoid risky places and activities (1, 5, 32, 46, 17)	1	5	4	3.73	0.83
Seek support from community members (e.g., friends, neighbors, teachers, class mates, comrade-in-arms) to supervise and monitor daily activities of probationers (2, 6, 21, 50, 22)	1	5	4	3.84	0.88
Seek support from community members (e.g., friends, neighbors, teachers, class mates, comrade-in-arms) to help probationers avoid risky places and activities (1, 9, 36, 40, 14)	1	5	4	3.57	0.88
Seek support from township government and community committees to supervise and monitor daily activities of probationers (0, 3, 10, 55, 33)	1	5	4	4.19	0.70
Seek support from township government and community committees to help probationers avoid risky places and activities (1, 5, 21, 49, 26)	1	5	4	3.94	0.83
Seek support from police officers to supervise and monitor daily activities of probationers (3, 11, 34, 34, 19)	1	5	4	3.55	1.01
Seek support from police officers to help probationers avoid risky places and activities (4, 12, 37, 32, 16)	1	5	3	3.46	1.01

Numbers in parentheses are percentages of responses for the five answering categories: never, rarely, sometimes, often, and always.

Five items were used to measure the law enforcement strategy. The Cronbach’s alpha value for the five items was .70. Factor analysis was conducted, and all five items loaded on a single factor. Regression-based factor scores were created from the estimated factor loadings and were used to construct the index measuring the law enforcement strategy.

Four items were used to measure the therapeutic strategy, and factor analysis was conducted, accounting for 66% of the common variance in the items. While the items had a low alpha value of .47, the four items loaded on one factor with acceptable loading scores. To compare the results of the current study with those from Miller (2014), all four items were kept. Regression-based factor scores were created from the estimated factor loadings to create an index measuring the therapeutic strategy.

Twelve items were used to measure the crime opportunity control strategy. The results of factor analysis indicated that the 12 items loaded on two factors rather than one. A further examination of the 12 items showed that first four items in Table 1 reflected a supervision strategy to focus on risky places and activities and help offenders avoid them. The four-item factor analysis–created variable was labeled as the offender-focused crime opportunity prevention strategy. The other eight items reflect a crime prevention supervision strategy to seek support from family members, community members, local government, and police officers to help offenders avoid risky places and activities. Relative to the first four items, these eight items highlight support from the community. It also reflects China’s total society approach in crime control in general and in community correctional supervision in particular. Accordingly, this eight-item based variable is called the community-based crime opportunity prevention strategy. As both factors focus on crime opportunity prevention, the current study included two indexes to measure this strategy. The items that were offender-focused had a Cronbach alpha value of .89, and the eight items that were community-based had a Cronbach’s alpha of .88. Regression-based factor scores were used to create the indexes for two indexes measuring the crime opportunity reduction strategy.

Independent variables

The independent variables were the five personal characteristic measures (i.e., age, gender, education, tenure, and administrator status), one agency measure (i.e., location), the two job characteristic measures (i.e., caseload and safety views), and the four measures of attitudes towards offender supervision (i.e., surveillance-control, rehabilitation, offender-focused crime opportunity prevention, and community-based crime opportunity prevention). See Table 2 for the specific items. Items for rehabilitation and crime opportunity prevention views in the current study are similar to those used by Miller (2014). Items for punishment views in the survey instrument are the same as those used by Miller (2014) and asked whether the justice system in China should “make punishment its main goal,” “ensure that offenders are adequately punished,” and “prosecute offenders to the full extent of the law.” The factor analysis, however, indicated that these three items did not load on one factor for the Chinese participants. Based upon input from Chinese community correctional officers and Chinese researchers, it was determined that the item “make punishment its main goal” focuses on a punishment orientation and the items “ensure that offenders are adequately punished” and “prosecute offenders to the full extent of the law” measure the law enforcement orientation. In China, law enforcement refers to the rule of law and is not an indicator of a punishment orientation. Accordingly, the current study used the first item to measure punishment views. Like Miller (2014), the current study measured rehabilitation views using four items. The four items loaded on a single factor in factor analysis, and the regression-based factor scores were used to create the views on rehabilitation index. For crime opportunity prevention views, two variables were created, one for the offender-focused crime opportunity prevention views and the other for the community-based crime opportunity prevention views (labeled as community-based prevention views in Table 2).

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of Independent Variables.

Items	Minimum	Maximum	Median	M	SD
Personal characteristics
Age (in continuous years)	20	58	40	38.97	9.99
Gender (male = 1)	0	1	1	0.67	0.47
Education	0	1	1	0.51	0.50
Tenure (in continuous years with the agency)	1	10	4	4.17	2.66
Administrator (administrator = 1)	0	1	1	0.63	0.48
Agency
Office location (urban = 1)	0	1	0	0.49	0.50
Job characteristics
Caseload	1	77	19	22.08	15.95
Safety (α = .80)	−2.31	2.77	0	0.02	1.01
In my job, a person stands a good chance of getting hurt (8, 41, 25, 23, 4)^a	1	5	3	2.73	1.01
There is really not much chance of getting hurt in my job (reverse coded) (1, 37, 24, 32, 7)^a	1	5	3	3.07	1.00
A lot of people I work with get physically injured in the line of duty (8, 41, 29, 20, 2)^a	1	5	3	2.67	0.95
My job is a lot more dangerous than other kinds of jobs (7, 30, 32, 28, 3)^a	1	5	3	2.89	0.99
Punishment views
The justice system in China should make punishment its main goals (6, 52, 24, 15, 4)^a	1	5	2	2.59	0.94
Rehabilitation views (α = .72)	−3.13	1.45	−0.05	−0.04	0.98
Work to establish trust and rapport with probationer (0, 0, 5, 47, 48)^b	1	5	4	4.44	0.58
Work with probationers to establish rehabilitative goals and strategies (0, 1, 7, 40, 53)^b	1	5	5	4.45	0.64
Connect probationers with appropriate therapeutic services (e.g., substance use, mental health) (1, 0, 16, 58, 25)^b	1	5	4	4.06	0.71
Connect probationers with family-based services to improve the quality of home life (0, 2, 15, 60, 23)^b	1	5	4	4.04	0.68
Offender-focused prevention views (α = .92)	−2.88	1.16	−0.43	−0.04	0.99
Help probationers recognize places where they are at risk of offending (0, 0, 17, 50, 33)^b	1	5	4	4.16	0.69
Help probationers avoid places where they are at risk of offending (0, 1, 14, 49, 36)^b	1	5	4	4.22	0.69
Help probationers recognize activities that put them at risk of offending (0, 1, 10, 48, 42)^b	1	5	4	4.32	0.66
Help probationers avoid activities that put them at risk of offending (0, 1, 11, 45, 43)^b	1	5	4	4.30	0.70
Community-based prevention views (α = .91)	−3.13	1.38	−0.25	−0.04	0.97
Seek support from family members to supervise and monitor daily activities of probationers (0, 1, 8, 50, 42)^b	1	5	4	4.34	0.64
Seek support from family members to help probationers avoid risky places and activities (0, 0, 8, 56, 35)^b	1	5	4	4.27	0.61
Seek support from community members (e.g., friends, neighbors, teachers, class mates, comrade-in-arms) to supervise and monitor daily activities of probationers (0, 1, 12, 54, 34)^b	1	5	4	4.20	0.67
Seek support from community members (e.g., friends, neighbors, teachers, class mates, comrade-in-arms) to help probationers avoid risky places and activities (0, 2, 13, 56, 30)^b	1	5	4	4.14	0.68
Seek support from township government and community committees to supervise and monitor daily activities of probationers (0, 0, 9, 51, 40)^b	1	5	4	4.31	0.63
Seek support from township government and community committees to help probationers avoid risky places and activities (0, 0, 10, 49, 41)^b	1	5	4	4.32	0.64
Seek support from police officers to supervise and monitor daily activities of probationers (1, 2, 15, 50, 33)^b	1	5	4	4.41	0.76
Seek support from police officers to help probationers avoid risky places and activities (1, 2, 15, 52, 31)^b	1	5	4	4.12	0.75
Seek support from police officers to help probationers avoid risky places and activities (1, 2, 15, 52, 31)^b	1	5	4	4.12	0.75

Note. α = Cronbach alpha value. Numbers in parentheses after index view items are the percentages of responses for the five answering categories.

Strongly disagree, disagree, uncertain, agree, and strongly agree.

Not important at all, not important, uncertain, important, and very important. Percentage for the highest degree completed or studying was 1 for junior high or less, 2 for high school, 3 for technical school, 4 for 3-year college, 5 for bachelor, and 6 for graduate school.

The job characteristics of safety and caseload were included. Four items asked about perceptions of being hurt on the job and were used to measure perceptions of workplace safety (see Table 2 for the items). The Cronbach’s alpha value for the four safety items was .80. The four items loaded on a single factor in factor analysis, and the regression-based factor scores were used to create the safety index. Caseload was measured by the number of offenders supervised by a respondent. Location was an agency characteristics used and was coded as 1 if the office was located in an urban area or 0 if in a rural area.

Finally, the personal characteristics of age, gender, education, tenure, and position were included as control variables. Age was measured in continuous years. Gender was measured with female being coded as 0 and male coded as 1. Education was measured by a dummy variable with 3-year college and below (=0) and bachelor and higher (=1). Tenure was measured by the number of years working in community corrections. Finally, position was classified based on the respondents’ major job responsibilities in community corrections. It was coded as administrator (including office director and assistant director) being 1 and non-administrator being 0.

Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive results of the dependent variables (i.e., the self-reported supervision strategies the surveyed Chinese community correctional staff actually use). Among the five items measuring the law enforcement strategy, the vast majority of the respondents used four of the five items in their supervision practices. A much lower proportion of the respondents emphasized the authority of probation officers. For the items measuring the therapeutic strategy, most respondents worked to establish trust and rehabilitative goals with offenders, and slightly more than 40% of the respondents undertook efforts to connect offenders to therapeutic services and family-based services. Most Chinese respondents reported using the crime opportunity prevention strategy items (i.e., items used for the variables offender-focused crime opportunity prevention and community-based crime opportunity prevention). An ANOVA (analysis of variance) test for the means of the three supervision strategies of law enforcement, therapeutic, and crime opportunity prevention was conducted, and the results indicated that the three supervision strategies were equally used by the community correctional staff (p < .39).¹

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for the independent variables. The majority of the respondents did not feel that punishment should be the main goal of the Chinese justice system. Each of the rehabilitation views and crime opportunity prevention views were marked as either important or very important by the vast majority of Chinese community correctional staff. The average caseload for the responding Chinese staff was 22 offenders. Approximately half of the Chinese participants worked in urban offices and the other half in rural offices. The mean age was 39 years old. In terms of gender, 67% of the Chinese staff were male. In education, 49% of the respondents went to school for a 3-year college degree or low, while 51% for bachelor’s degree or more (1% for a graduate degree). The average tenure working in Chinese community corrections was 4.2 years. Finally, 63% of Chinese respondents reported administrative (supervisory) status, which is likely the result of many offices having one or two community correctional staff.

The correlations between the dependent variables of community supervision strategy are reported in Table 3. The four supervision strategies were moderately and positively correlated with one another, suggesting that they were often used in conjunction with one another.

Table 3.

Correlations Between the Dependent Variables of Supervision Strategies.

Variable	1	2	3
1. Law enforcement	1.00
2. Therapeutic	.448**	1.00
3. Offender-focused crime opportunity prevention	.465**	.504**	1.00
4. Community-based crime opportunity prevention	.491**	.568**	.599**

p < .01.

Ordinary least squares regression equations were run with the four supervision strategies (presented in Table 1) as the dependent variables and the demographic variables, the job characteristics, the agency measure, and the views (presented in Table 2) as the independent variables. The regression results for the law enforcement strategy are presented in Model 1 in Table 4. The R-squared value was .217, which means that the independent variables accounted for approximately 22% of the observed variance in the dependent variable. Age, administrator status, urban office location, and community-based prevention views were statistically significant predictors. Increases in age were associated with a lower use of the law enforcement approach to community supervision. Those with administrative status and those working in an urban office were more likely to use this community supervision strategy. A higher view on the need for community-based crime opportunity prevention was associated with higher use of the law enforcement strategy. The magnitude of the effect can be arranged based on the size of the standardized regression coefficient (i.e., β). The community-based prevention views had the largest sized effect, followed by administrative status, then location of office, and then age.

Table 4.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression Results With Law Enforcement Strategy as the Dependent Variable.

	Model 1(Law enforcement strategy)		Model 2(Therapeutic strategy)		Model 3(Offender-focused crime opportunity prevention strategy)		Model 4(Community-based crime opportunity prevention strategy)
	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE
Age	−.020*	.009	−.001	.009	.013	.009	.001	.008
Gender (male = 1)	.074	.183	−.220	.175	−.302	.178	−.408**	.162
Education	−.047	.145	−.195	.139	.067	.141	−.115	.128
Tenure	.036	.031	.036	.030	−.024	.030	.047	.027
Administrator	.575**	.184	.233	.177	.009	.180	.221	.163
Caseload	−.001	.004	−.001	.004	.008	.004	.001	.004
Safety views	.027	.069	.038	.066	.058	.068	.123*	.061
Urban (office location)	.399*	.185	.488**	.177	.028	.180	.312	.163
Punishment views	.171	.144	.164	.138	.022	.141	.016	.127
Rehabilitation views	.111	.091	.398***	.087	.131	.088	.211**	.080
Offender-focused prevention views	−.023	.095	.040	.091	.410***	.093	.082	.084
Community-based prevention views	.285**	.099	−.067	.094	.043	.096	.291**	.087
R ²	.217		.312		.318		.430

Note. B represents the unstandardized regression coefficient, and numbers in parentheses are the SE of the slope. Model 1 was law enforcement strategy as the dependent variable; Model 2 was therapeutic strategy as the dependent variable; Model 3 was offender-focused crime opportunity prevention strategy as the dependent variable; Model 4 was community-based crime opportunity prevention strategy as the dependent variable.

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

The results of the second regression for the dependent variable use of the therapeutic strategy are presented in Model 2 in Table 4. The independent variables explained about 31% of the variance in the dependent variable (i.e., R² = .31). Location of the office and rehabilitation views were significant predictors of the use of the therapeutic strategy for supervision of offenders by Chinese community correctional staff. Staff located in an urban office and those who had higher views of the need to rehabilitate offenders were more likely to report using the therapeutic supervision strategy in dealing with offenders assigned to their caseload. Rehabilitation views had a larger sized effect than did office location.

The regression results for the equation with the offender-focused crime opportunity prevention strategy are presented in Model 3 in Table 4. The independent variables accounted for about 32% of the variance in the dependent variable. Offender-focused prevention views were the only variable to have a significant relationship with use of the offender-focused crime opportunity prevention supervision approach, and it was a positive association. That is, higher ranking of the importance of offender-focused crime opportunity prevention led to more frequently use of the offender-focused crime opportunity prevention strategy.

The results of the regression equation for use of the community-based crime opportunity prevention strategy are presented in Model 4 in Table 4. The independent variables explained about 43% of the variance observed in the dependent variable. Gender, safety views (perceptions of workplace safety), rehabilitation views, and the community-based prevention views were significant predictors of the use of this supervision practice. As compared with female staff, male Chinese community correctional staff were less likely to use the community-based crime opportunity prevention strategies to supervise offenders. Staff who felt safer at their work were more likely to use the community-based crime opportunity prevention strategies. Increases in rehabilitation views were associated with greater use of the community-based crime prevention strategy. Likewise, increases in community-based prevention views were associated with greater use of the community-based crime opportunity prevention supervision strategy. Finally, community-based prevention views had the largest sized effect, followed by rehabilitation views, and then gender.

Discussion and Conclusion

Among the surveyed Chinese community correctional staff, the vast majority reported incorporating different supervision strategies in working with their assigned clients. Specifically, Chinese community correctional staff used four of the five law enforcement approaches, with the least likely to be used was emphasizing the authority as a probation officer; stressing legal consequences of behaviors, risk of being imprisoned for failure to comply, close monitoring, and enforcing rules were the most common approaches. With regard to rehabilitative practice, relative to their American counterparts, Chinese correctional staff were more likely to establish a rapport/trust with clients and were less likely to seek to connect offenders with therapeutic services or with family-based services. These differences may be associated with cultures and service availability between the two countries. Relative to Americans, Chinese generally pay more attention to interpersonal relations (“guanxi” in Chinese and trust). In addition, China has much fewer professional treatment and consulting agencies for offenders than the United States has.

Most of the Chinese community correctional staff used all the offender-focused crime preventions approaches with offenders by helping offenders recognize risky locations and activities and helping them avoid these risks. Similarly, the majority of Chinese staff used the community-based crime opportunity prevention efforts, such as seeking support from family, community members, government committees, and the police, to monitor the activities of offenders and to help them avoid risk locations/activities. In the United States, police and community corrections agencies tend to operate independent of one another. In China, social control by local government committees and the police, along with community, has a long history. As mentioned earlier in this article, the Chinese government emphasizes the total society approach and requests the police work with the local justice office in community corrections and, as such, it makes sense that community correctional staff would involve these groups in helping monitor and control offenders in the community.

Results from Table 4 not only reveal the predictors for different supervision strategies but also address another focus of the current study that different supervision strategies had different predictors. Gender, education, caseload, office coverage area, and rehabilitation views were not significant predictors of use of the law enforcement strategy. Age was a significant predictor. Older staff were less likely to use this community control strategy. Older Chinese staff could be influenced in past government efforts to control the population by local government committees and the police, and as such are less likely to support the strategy of surveillance and control solely by a community correctional officer. Older Chinese staff could have had more experience in dealing with offenders and have come to the conclusion that this approach is not an effective response in dealing with clients in the community. Holding a punishment view for offenders was not linked to level of support for the law enforcement strategy. Holding punitive views for nonviolent offenders is not a common public viewpoint because Chinese believe that most offenders are malleable and can be changed into law-abiding citizens (Jiang et al., 2007). Finally, holding high safety views was predicted to increase the use of the law enforcement strategy but this hypothesis was not supported by the current results. Our finding suggests that concern for safety might be based on subjective (e.g., personal dispositions, previous experiences, gender, age) or objective factors (e.g., safety measures, type of offenders they supervise). Part of the current findings may be the concern for safety but may not relate to a law enforcement orientation.² More research on safety concerns and law enforcement strategies relationship is needed.

For Chinese correctional staff, greater support for treatment of offenders was associated with greater use of the therapeutic (rehabilitative) strategy of dealing with clients. It makes sense that those who support treatment of offenders would be more likely to use the therapeutic strategy. Neither measure of offender-focused nor community-based crime opportunity prevention views was a significant predictor for use of this approach. Chinese staff could feel that making offenders aware of risky locations and activities or having family, governmental committees, or the police help them avoid risky situations may not be useful in helping rehabilitate the offender. Crime prevention efforts can help an offender avoid situations that result in recidivism but do not address the underlying criminological needs. Treatment is needed to deal with the underlying criminological needs. Office coverage was a significant predictor among Chinese staff. Staff assigned to an urban office were more likely to use the therapeutic approach in dealing with clients. This makes sense in light most of the treatment programs in China are located in urban areas and transportation from rural to urban areas is not convenient or even possible for many offenders.

Staff, age, gender, education, and support for rehabilitation of offenders were not significant predictors of use of the offender-focused crime opportunity prevention strategy among Chinese staff. In addition, caseload, location, and support of punishment of offenders had nonsignificant associations with use of the offender-focused crime opportunity prevention. In China, community corrections caseloads tend to be smaller than those in the United States. Higher caseloads might result in greater use of the offender-focused crime opportunity prevention strategy, which involves greater participation by the offender to avoid situations which increase the likelihood of recidivism. Community corrections in the United States is fractionalized and overseen by different agencies rather than one national centralized organization. In China, there is a more uniform approach to community corrections. As such, the centralized push to use the offender-focused crime opportunity prevention strategy could be why location was not a significant predictor. Finally, support for helping offenders avoid situations which increase chances of reoffending was positively associated with use of the offender-focused crime opportunity prevention strategy. This makes sense in light of the offender-focused crime opportunity prevention strategy is based on environmental criminology, which advocates that reducing crime opportunities is important (Cullen et al., 2002). As such, Chinese staff who have positive views of environmental criminology would be more likely to use the offender-focused crime opportunity prevention in dealing with offenders.

Compared with other three dependent variables, the largest percent (43%) of the observed variance in the community-based crime opportunity prevention strategy variable was explained by independent variables. Community-based prevention views had the largest effect on the use of the community-based crime opportunity prevention strategy for Chinese respondents. Rehabilitation views was the second strongest predictor.

Caution is needed for assuming findings from the current study due to its limitations. It was a single exploratory study among Chinese community correctional staff in the Hubei providence of China. The findings might differ among community correctional staff in other provinces in China. There is the need to replicate the findings to reduce the likelihood the current results were due entirely or partially to random chance. In the current study, the amount of variance for the four models in Table 4 ranged from 22% to 43%. This means that 78% to 57% of the observed variance in the community supervision strategies is accounted for by other variables. Future research needs to identify the other predictors of the three community supervision strategies. In addition, this is a cross-sectional study. Longitudinal research is required to demonstrate the causal relationships between the variables empirically. Although the questionnaire in the current study adopted multiple questions concerning punishment views, they did not load on one factor. Thus, punishment views was measured by a single question. Future study in China should seek more questions to measure the views. Finally, surveys may capture officers’ attitudes and thoughts about supervision, but they are not the best method to capture their actual practice. Future study needs to use field observations and in-depth interviews to reveal supervision process and style.

Although the current study has limitations, it contributes to the literature on offender supervision strategies. The current study is the first known to explore empirically offender supervision strategies in Chinese community corrections. Findings from the study show that the law enforcement, therapeutic, and crime opportunity prevention strategies are all used by Chinese community correctional staff to supervise offenders. These strategies were often used together, although not always. Regression models show that different supervision strategies had different predictors. From a cross-cultural perspective, this study expanded Miller’s (2014, 2015) studies to the conclusion that the law enforcement (surveillance-control), therapeutic (rehabilitation), and crime opportunity prevention strategies are not only used by United States community correctional staff but also by their Chinese counterparts; however, these supervision strategies are more likely to be used together and equally (or in a similar frequency) in China than in the United States. The current study also extended Miller’s (2014) study via adding the views of the importance of crime opportunity prevention practices and examining its impact on supervision strategies. The current study revealed that attitudes to supervision are significant predictors of supervision practices. Although attitudes may be an important predictor of behavior, there were very few studies examining community correctional officers’ attitude–behavior relationship (Steiner et al., 2011). The current study provided further evidence that attitudes towards supervision affect actual supervision practice among probation/parole officers. In closing, this was a single exploratory study on the supervision approaches of Chinese community correctional staff in the Hubei province of China. There is a need for far more research among not only Chinese community correctional staff but also staff from other nations across the globe, including in the United States.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Janet Lambert for proofreading the article. The authors also thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Notes

References

Clarke

R. V.

(1997). Introduction. In Clarke

R. V.

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

Clarke

R. V.

Eck

(2005). How to become a problem solving analyst in 60 small steps. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Clear

T. R.

Karp

D. R.

(1999). The community justice ideal: Preventing crime and achieving justice. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Cohen

L. E.

Felson

(1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608.

Cozens

(2008). Crime prevention through environmental design. In Wortley

Mazerolle

(Eds.), Environmental criminology and crime analysis (pp. 21-47). London, England: Willan.

Cullen

F. T.

(2011). Beyond adolescence-limited criminology: Choosing our future—The American Society of Criminology 2010 Sutherland Address. Criminology, 49, 287-330.

Cullen

F. T.

Eck

Lowenkamp

(2002). Environmental corrections: A new paradigm for effective supervision. Federal Probation, 66, 28-37.

Cullen

F. T.

Gendreau

(2001). From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st century. The Prison Journal, 81, 313-338.

Dickey

Klingele

(2004). Promoting public safety: A problem oriented approach to prisoner reentry—Written for the Fifth Annual Reentry Roundtable. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

10.

Glaser

(1969). The effectiveness of a prison and parole system. New York, NY: Bobbs-Merrill.

11.

Guo

Zheng

(Eds.). (2004). Introduction to community corrections in China. Beijing, China: Law Press.

12.

Jiang

(2014). Social and crime control with Chinese characteristics. In Cao

Sun

Hebenton

(Eds.), The handbook of Chinese criminology (pp. 27-36). New York, NY: Routledge.

13.

Jiang

Jin

Xiang

Goodlin-Fahncke

Zhang

Yang

(2016). Punitive and rehabilitative orientations toward offenders among community correctional officers in China. The Prison Journal, 96, 771-792.

14.

Jiang

Lambert

Wang

(2007). Correlates of formal and informal social/crime control in China: An exploratory study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 261-271.

15.

Jiang

Lambert

Zhang

Jin

Shi

Xiang

(2016). Effects of work environment variables on job satisfaction among community correctional staff in China. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 1450-1470.

16.

Jiang

Wang

Lambert

(2010). Correlates of informal social control in Guangzhou, China neighborhoods. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 460-469.

17.

Jiang

Xiang

Chen

Goodlin-Fahncke

Huang

Yang

Zhao

(2015). Public support for community corrections in China. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59, 772-789.

18.

Jiang

Xiang

Chen

Huang

Zhang

Zhao

Yang

(2014). Community corrections in China: Development and challenges. The Prison Journal, 94, 75-96.

19.

Jiang

Zhang

Jin

Xiang

Greenleaf

Liu

(2015). Semiformal crime control and semiformal organizations in China: An empirical demonstration from Chinese community corrections. Asian Journal of Criminology, 10, 287-302.

20.

Klockars

(1972). A theory of probation supervision. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 64, 549-557.

21.

S. D.

(2014). Toward a cost-effective correctional system: New developments in community-based corrections in China. Victims and Offender, 9, 120-125.

22.

Miller

(2014). Probation supervision and the control of crime opportunities: An empirical assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 60, 1235-1257.

23.

Miller

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

24.

Miller

Copeland

Sullivan

(2015). Keeping them off the corner: How probation officers steer offenders away from crime opportunities. The Prison Journal, 95, 178-198.

25.

Schaefer

Cullen

F. T.

Eck

J. E.

(2016). Environmental corrections: A new paradigm for supervising offenders in the community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

Schaefer

Williamson

(2017). Probation and parole case management as opportunity-reduction supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 56, 452-472.

27.

Schwalbe

C. S.

Maschi

(2009). Investigating probation strategies with juvenile offenders: The influence of officers’ attitudes and youth characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 357-367.

28.

Shaw

V. N.

(1996). Social control in China: A study of Chinese work units. Westport, CT: Praeger.

29.

Steiner

Travis

L. F.

Makarios

M. D.

Brickley

(2011). The influence of parole officers’ attitudes on supervision practices. Justice Quarterly, 28, 903-927.

30.

Taxman

F. S.

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

31.

Wodahl

E. J.

Garland

(2009). The evolution of community corrections: The enduring influence of the prison. The Prison Journal, 89, 81S-104S.

32.

Zhang

Irwin

D. D.

Jiang

Zhang

(in press). Staffing composition, offender profiles and supervision in China’s community corrections. The Prison Journal.

33.

Zhang

Zhou

Messner

S. F.

Liska

A. E.

Krohn

Liu

Zhou

L. D.

(1996). Crime prevention in a communitarian society: Bang-jiao and tiao-jie in the People’s Republic of China. Justice Quarterly, 13, 199-222.