Correlates of Interorganizational Service Coordination in Community Corrections

Abstract

Because weak interagency coordination between community correctional agencies (e.g., probation and parole) and community-based treatment providers has been identified as a major barrier to the use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for treating druginvolved offenders, this study sought to examine how key organizational (e.g., leadership, support, staffing) and individual (e.g., burnout, satisfaction) factors influence interagency relationships between these agencies. At each of 20 sites, probation/parole officials (n = 366) and community treatment providers (n = 204) were surveyed about characteristics of their agencies, themselves, and interorganizational relationships with each other. Key organizational and individual correlates of interagency relationships were examined using hierarchical linear models (HLM) analyses, supplemented by interview data. The strongest correlates included Adaptability, Efficacy, and Burnout. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.

Examining the Personal and Perceived Organizational Characteristics Associated With Juvenile Probation Staff Job Satisfaction

“…Comprised of six Likert-type style questions, response options ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Prior research has documented the unidimensionality of these items (Broome et al, 2009), as well as their internal consistency (Welsh et al, 2016).…”

“…The internal reliability and unidimensionality of this measure are documented by Lehman et al (2002), as a subscale of organizational climate. In addition, scales from the ORC have demonstrated good reliability and validity across multiple studies (Lehman et al, 2012;Taxman et al, 2007;Welsh et al, 2016).…”

Sex Offender Supervision: Communication, Training, and Mutual Respect Are Necessary for Effective Collaboration Between Probation Officers and Therapists

“…Systems or protocols requiring regular communication and collaboration, as well as practices that help probation officers and therapists gain a better understanding and appreciation of each other’s roles, are essential to maintain and build strong relationships. Research examining “linkages” through both formal and informal means was an evidence-based method used to foster collaboration between probation officers and chemical dependency treatment providers; one successful “linkage” was the use of regular cross-trainings where probation officers and treatment providers attended drug court-related trainings together (Welsh et al, 2016). Additional “linkages” that could be borrowed from the drug court system and applied to the supervision of sex offenders include the following: using case management services, resource sharing, joint assessment of clients, joint planning of client service goals, mutual sensitivity to concerns of the other agency or program, sharing of information about clients, and staff meetings (Wenzel, Turner, & Ridgely, 2004).…”

Agency-level Perceptions of Monetary Sanctions: Current Landscape and Impediments to Reform

“…Probation and parole officers are nested within an organizational milieu that, through training and socialization, reinforces a professional role orientation, which, in turn, influences how officers view their duties and professional identities (Welsh et al 2016). This creates tension between the dual responsibilities of facilitating treatment and exercising control and surveillance (Clear and Latessa 1993).…”

“…On a practical level, these data inform an understanding of how the collection of monetary sanctions complicates questions about what a community supervision agent’s role should be (Clear and Latessa 1993; Petersilia 2003). This ideological tension, potentially translating into unclear and conflicting role orientations within organizational cultures and between individual probation officers likely, albeit indirectly, affects individuals under supervision (Hardiker and Webb 1979; Ruhland 2020; Welsh et al 2016).…”