Probation/Parole Officer Interactions with Women Offenders, Michigan, 2011-2014 Version 1
The purpose of the Probation/Parole Officer Interactions with Women Offenders project was to better understand the nature of probation/parole agent interactions with substance-involved women offenders and the degree to which these interactions predict women's recidivism, rules violation, and changes in their crime-related needs. Other purposes were to examine whether (1) women's feelings of self-efficacy, anxiety, and reactance that may be elicited by the agent-offender interactions explained (i.e., mediated) the link between the nature of these interactions and women's outcomes; (2) the amount of communication about needs predicted outcomes; (3) initial levels of needs and quality of women's social networks moderated the relationship between agent-offender interactions and outcomes; (4) agents' and women's experience of their relationship were similar, and whose perspective (agent or offender) best predicted offender outcomes; and (5) particular agent attributes (e.g., years of experience, self-reported typical style of interacting with clients) predicted agents' average effectiveness across clients. Seventy-three probation and parole agents with women-specific caseloads were sampled and recruited from 16 Michigan counties; and then 402 offenders meeting participant criteria were recruited from the caseloads. At recruitment of agents, a survey collected information about their characteristics. Two or three months later, client needs and social networks were measured in an interview with the offenders. At month 5, agent and woman reports of relationship and communication were measured, and woman reports of reactions to these were measured. A survey was used to collect agent data, and an interview was used to collect offender data. At month 8, psychosocial outcomes, treatment engagement, crime-causing needs, and official outcomes (e.g., arrest) were measured. For the 24 months from the start of supervision, official data were collected on arrests and convictions.
77 agents were identified in 16 counties (a mix of suburban and rural areas and the state's largest cities) within a 1.5 hour drive from the research office in East Lansing, MI. The proportion of agents recruited in each county corresponded to the proportion of women supervised in each county. To increase parolees to almost 25% of the total, parole agents were over-sampled in relation to probation agents. In private meetings, 73 of the 77 agents were recruited to take part in the study. Of the four who did not take part, one withdrew, one refused, one was reassigned to supervise men, and one took a medical leave. To identify eligible women offenders, a principal investigator reviewed the current caseload list with each agent. Criteria for eligibility were a felony conviction, substance involvement, and supervision for approximately 3 months. Agents facilitated recruiting women by (a) giving out project contact cards and flyers so interested women could arrange a time to hear about the study, (b) introducing women to onsite project interviewers, or (c) obtaining women's permission to share contact information with interviewers who explained the study. Consistent with institutional review board approved protocol, interviewers hired and trained for the project directly recruited participants in private meetings. Not all 846 women identified as eligible for the study took part; some eligible women reported to the office when research staff were not on site, and they neither responded to flyers nor gave agents permission to share contact information. A comparison of available data on participants and nonparticipants revealed no statistically significant differences in official records of substance use, violations, arrests, misdemeanor convictions, and felony convictions in a 12-month period. Nonparticipants were slightly but significantly more likely to be in jail or prison, suggesting a small bias toward including women who were not incarcerated at 12 months.
ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Created variable labels and/or value labels.; Standardized missing values.; Created online analysis version with question text.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
Presence of Common Scales:
Scales Used for PO Survey 1 and T1 Interview with Women Offenders The Big Five Inventory: Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness John, O. P. and Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives. In L. A. Pervin and O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed.), pages 102-139, New York: Guilford Press.; Scales Adapted or Used for the PO Survey 1, PO Survey 2, and T2 Interview with Women Offenders The Dual Role Relationship Inventory-Revised (DRI-R): Skeem, J. L., Encandela, J., and Eno Louden, J. (2003). Perspectives on probation and mandated mental health treatment in specialized and traditional probation departments. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 429-458. Skeem, J. L., Eno Louden, J., Polaschek, D. L., and Camp, J. (2007). Assessing relationship quality in mandated community treatment: Blending care with control. Psychological Assessment, 19(4), 397-410.; Probation/Parole Officer Communication Style (conformity and conversational): Adapted from the Revised Family Communication Patterns Scale Ritchie, L. D., and Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17(4), 523-544.; Scales Adapted or Used for the T2 Interview with Women Offenders Anxiety Elicited by Interaction with the Agent: Adapted from the short version of the Brief Symptom Inventory Derogitas, L. R., and Melisarotos, N. (1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory: An introductory report. Psychological Medicine, 13, 595-605.; Psychological Reactance: Hong Psychological Reactance Scale Hong, S., and Faedda, S. (1996). Refinement of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 173-182.; Emotional Reactance: Ratings of the experience of five emotions (guilty, ashamed, annoyed, irritated, and angry) after talking to the agent on a 5-point scale with 1=not at all and 5=very much.; Restoration of Freedom: Therapeutic Reactance Scale Dowd, E. T., Milne, C. R., and Wise, S. L. (1991). The therapeutic reactance scale: A measure of psychological reactance. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 541-545.; Elicited Self Efficacy to Avoid Criminal Lifestyle: Adapted from scales used by Campbell, 2004 and Martin et al., 1995 Campbell, M. H. (2004). Review of the drug-taking confidence questionnaire. Mental measurements yearbook. Download from from the Buros Center for Testing Web Site. Martin, G. W., Wilkinson, D. A., and Poulos, C. X. (1995). The drug avoidance self-efficacy scale. Journal of Substance Abuse, 7(2), 151-163.; Elicited Self Efficacy to Find and Keep a Job and Advance in Career: Adapted from scales by Fletcher et al., 1992, Kanfer and Hulin, 1985, Mosley et al., 2008 Fletcher, W. L., Hansson, R. O., and Bailey, L. (1992). Assessing occupational self-efficacy among middle-aged and older adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 11(4), 489-501. Kanfer, R., and Hulin, C. L. (1985). Individual differences in successful job searches following lay-off. Personnel Psychology, 38, 835-839. Mosley, D. C., Boyar, S. L., Carson, C. M., and Pearson, A. W. (2008). A production self-efficacy scale: An exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Issues (Summer), 272-285.; Scales Adapted or Used for the T1 and T3 Interviews with Women Offenders, The Women's Risk/Needs Assessment: The following needs and strengths were measured with the Women's Risk/Needs Assessment (WRNA) (Van Voorhis et al., 2010, 2012, 2013). These include: criminal history, antisocial attitudes, financial/ employment problems, educational challenges, antisocial peers, current substance abuse, history of substance abuse, housing safety, mental illness symptoms, PTSD symptoms, family conflict, family support, educational strengths, self-efficacy, anger, parental stress, victimization, adult abuse, history of child abuse, and dysfunctional relationships. Variable names for WRNA scales include the letters, WRNA. Syntax for T1 and T3 Interviews indicate which items are included in the WRNA scales. The codebooks and interview schedules also include indicators of where a sequence of WRNA items begin and end. Sources of information on the WRNA: Van Voorhis, P., Bauman, A., and Brushett, R. (2012). Revalidation of the Women's Risk Needs Assessment: Pre-release results. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati. Van Voorhis, P., Bauman, A., and Brushett, R. (2013). Revalidation of the Women's Risk Needs Assessment: Probation Results. Cincinnati, Ohio: University of Cincinnati. Van Voorhis, P., Wright, E. M., Salisbury, E., and Bauman, A. (2010). Women's risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment: The current status of a gender-responsive supplement Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(3), 261-288. ; The Social Network Inventory: Questions about social network and the support members provide Estroff, S., and Zimmer, C. (1994). Social networks, social support, and violence among persons with severe, persistent mental illness. In J. Monahan and H. Steadman (Eds.), Violence and Mental Disorder: Developments in Risk Assessment (pp. 259-295). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.; Scales Adapted or Used for the T3 Interview with Women Offenders Substance Abuse Treatment Engagement: Client Evaluation of Self and Treatment Subscales: treatment satisfaction, counseling rapport, treatment participation, peer support. Garner, B. R., Knight, K., Flynn, P. M., Morey, J. T., and Simpson, D. D. (2007). Measuring offender attributes and engagement in treatment using the Client Evaluation of Self and Treatment (CJ CEST). Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1113-1130.;
Response Rates: Probation and parole officers (PO): 94.8% completed the first interview. Probation and parole officer retention: 70.4% of women had the same PO at all three face-to-face interviews. Probation and parole officers who completed the T2 interview: 78.9% of women had a PO who completed the T2 interview. Women on probation and parole: 47.5% recruited from a sampling frame. Of those who completed the first interview, 94.3% retained through three interviews.
Datasets:DS0: Study-Level FilesDS1: ID and Recidivism DatasetDS2: T1 Parole and Probation Officer DatasetDS3: T2 Parole and Probation Officer DatasetDS4: T1 Women Offenders DatasetDS5: T2 Women Offenders DatasetDS6: T3 Women Offenders Dataset
Women offenders with a felony conviction, substance involvement, and supervision for approximately 3 months, and their probation and parole agents. Smallest Geographic Unit: None
Two target groups were identified: Mostly female parole and probation officers (n=73) from 16 suburban and rural counties within a 1.5 hour drive from East Lansing, Michigan and women offenders (n=317) who are supervised by these parole and probation officers.
computer-assisted self interview (CASI)
|Creator||Morash, Merry; Smith, Sandi W.; Kashy, Deborah A.; Cobbina, Jennifer E.|
|Publisher||Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research|
|Contributor||National Science Foundation. Law and Social Sciences Program; Michigan State University Foundation|
|Rights||Download; This study is freely available to ICPSR member institutions via web download.|
|Contact||Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research|
|Resource Type||Dataset; survey data|