Changing Attitudes and Motivation in Parolees (CHAMPS) Pilot Study in Dallas, Denver, and Des Moines, 2015-2016 (ICPSR 37091)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

Despite an increasing emphasis on reentry services for individuals leaving prison, recidivism rates remain high, and policymakers are searching for ways to help parolees make more successful transitions from prison. One strategy is to incorporate interventions into the parole supervision process. This study sought to examine the implementation of a pilot of one parole-based intervention, known as the Next Generation of Parole Supervision (NG). NG was intended to improve parolee outcomes by enhancing parole officers' knowledge and the strategies they used during their regular supervision meetings with parolees. Building on existing literature about best practices in parole supervision, the NG curriculum focused on desistance - a process through which individuals who have been involved in crime change their self-perceived identity and cease participating in crime - and helps parole officers to use parolee-centered conversations to identify and reinforce a parolee's strengths and to identify potential stabilizing and destabilizing influences in the individual's life.

The study focused on understanding how NG was implemented as it was piloted in the three study sites (Dallas, TX; Denver, CO; and Des Moines, IA) and assessed NG-trained parole officers' fidelity to the NG model. In order to better understand NG's implementation and the business as usual practices it was intended to replace, the study also included a second group of parole officers who were not trained in NG. The CHAMPS implementation study, therefore, was designed to address the following two key research questions:

1. Were parole officers in the three sites able to implement the NG intervention with fidelity to the curriculum? In other words, did the officers use NG techniques or strategies in their interactions with parolees?
2. Were there measurable differences in supervision knowledge, techniques, and practices of NG-trained parole officers compared with parole officers who were not trained in NG? In other words, how did NG practices compare with business as usual practices?

Study Design View help for Study Design

Before the Next Generation of Parole Supervision (NG) training took place, each of the three sites were asked to identify a subset of parole officers to participate in the study. Among the group of officers identified by each site, the study team selected a group of 20 officers (ranging from 6 to 8 in each site) to be trained in NG and receive ongoing coaching in the use of NG strategies. Other similar officers, representing "business as usual," were not trained in NG. A total of 11 officers (3 to 4 in each site) were in this group. Officers were not randomly assigned to be trained in NG. In selecting which officers would be trained, the study team sought to ensure that the trained and business-as-usual officers were as similar as possible on a few observable characteristics: age, gender, years of experience as a community supervision officer, and style of parole supervision.

The study team collected a range of qualitative and quantitative data to assess the implementation of NG. Data used in this study include:

• Parole Officer Questionnaires: Parole officers in the study sample filled out three questionnaires, including a pre-test collected from both NG-trained and business-as-usual officers before the NG training took place, a post-test collected from NG-trained officers on the last day of the NG training, and a follow-up questionnaire collected from NG-trained officers about 1 year after the training. The questionnaires included questions related to knowledge about concepts that are part of the NG curriculum and views of the appropriate role of a parole officer. The follow-up questionnaire also included questions about parole officers' experiences with coaching.
• Coaching Logs: The coach in each site kept activity logs, which provided measures of whether officers received coaching and the frequency with which this occurred. The study team collected the coaching logs for the 10 months following the NG training.
• Video Recordings of Parole Supervision Meetings: The study team recorded meetings between parolees and parole officers from both the NG trained officers and the officers not trained in NG at 3 points during the study period: Round 1 took place between 1-3 months after training, Round 2 took place 4-5 months after training, and Round 3 (in the Dallas and Denver sites only) took place 9 months after training. Using a fidelity rating tool that was created with input from the NG curriculum developers, the study team coded each of the video recordings to assess the presence and quality of NG skills used by the parole officers during the meetings.
• Parole Caseload Data: The study team collected administrative data from each parole agency's management information system. These data provided information about parole officers' caseloads and the frequency with which parole officers held supervision meetings.

Sample View help for Sample

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) selected parole agencies participating in CHAMPS through a competitive application process. The three sites were selected from among 6 finalists through an assessment involving site visits by a team consisting of staff from the evaluation team, National Institute of Corrections (NIC), and BJA. The assessment rated the sites on their capacity to implement the interventions demonstrated by strong existing reentry programs and prior experience implementing evidence-based practices. It also judged the sites on their capacity to participate in a research study. BJA used the results from these assessments to select the three sites that ultimately participated in the CHAMPS study: Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Des Moines, Iowa. The three study sites had either started to shift supervision practices from an enforcement-oriented approach, or had already undergone such a shift. Management staff at all three sites saw participation in CHAMPS as a way to support these efforts.

Sites were given a few criteria to use in selecting officers: Officers should be willing to participate in the study, not be about to retire, not be completely resistant to using new corrections strategies with their parolees, and not have specialized caseloads, such as mental health or intensive supervision caseloads. Each site selected 9 primary CHAMPS parole officers (6 NG-trained officers and 3 business-as-usual officers), and some sites also selected 1-2 additional "backup" parole officers who would be active in the study if a primary study officer left the position.

Before the study began, parole officers were already typically assigned to teams of a few officers who all had the same supervisor. Since the supervisors for the NG officers were also trained in NG, and the officers within a team worked more closely together than the officers across teams, the study team ensured that NG officers were placed together in teams with NG-trained supervisors. The study team attempted to keep officers in their pre-study teams as much as possible to avoid requiring officers to switch supervisors for the study. Random assignment was not used as there were not enough officers included in the study for random assignment to have resulted in equivalent groups. With such a small number of individuals, purposeful selection based on observed characteristics was more likely to lead to groups that were similar on key characteristics.

Time Method View help for Time Method

Universe View help for Universe

Parole officers willing to participate in the CHAMPS study, who were not about to retire, not completely resistant to using new corrections strategies with their parolees, and did not have specialized caseloads (e.g., mental health or intensive supervision) in any of the three study sites: Dallas, TX; Denver, CO; and Des Moines, IA during the study time period of 2015-2016.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

Parole officer-level data (archive_raf170831_po): This file contains baseline data on the study parole officers (including demographics and supervisor assessments of supervision style), data on parole officer caseload characteristics and frequency of meetings with parolees, and data on coaching received by the Next Generation (NG) trained parole officers. The file includes unique identifiers for each parole officer.

Video-level data (archive_raf170831_video): This file includes fidelity rating data, based on video recordings of parole officers' use of NG skills in meetings with parolees. The file includes unique identifiers for each video and each parole officer.

Questionnaire-level data (archive_raf180719_tests): This file contains data from pre- and post-NG training questionnaires. The file includes unique identifiers for each questionnaire and each parole officer.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

Not Available

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

Several Likert-Type Scales were used.

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2018-09-17

Weight View help for Weight

None