Study 1
Lin (2018) conducted a quasi-experimental design involving Colorado parole officers who participated in a training program to use Motivational Interviewing (MI) during interactions with parolees (although MI was piloted in parole, probation, and community corrections, the study focused only on the use of MI in parole). In the state of Colorado, MI training was implemented in the beginning of 2010 as a supervision technique for parole officers to use as a strategy to increase motivational change and reduce parolee recidivism. The MI training intervention (which certified parole officers as MI “change agents”) occurred from August 2010 through July 2013 (i.e., the intervention period). Parole officers either volunteered or were nominated by their supervisor to participate in the MI training. Of the volunteered and nominated parole officers, there were 50 parole officers actively supervising parolees on their caseload who were certified as change agents and included in the study.
Using caseload data retrieved from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, the study author divided each of the 50 parole officers’ caseloads into two separate groups, which included 1) parolees whose supervision was completed before the parole officer certified as a change agent (the comparison group) and 2) parolees whose supervision began after the parole officer was certified as a change agent (the intervention group). Parolee supervision start dates ranged as early as August 13, 2001, and as late as October 9, 2014. Recidivism data for parolees were retrieved from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, which tracked parolee rearrest records in Colorado through February 2015. The intervention group (post–MI) included rearrest data of 2,323 parolees. The comparison group (pre–MI) included rearrest data of 5,320 parolees.
The age range of the entire study sample (n = 7,643 parolees) was 19 to 76 years. The study sample was 87 percent male. In terms of race/ethnicity, 54 percent of the sample was White, 10 percent was Black, 33 percent were of Hispanic ethnicity, and 3 percent were another race/ethnicity. The study author did not state whether the intervention and comparison groups had any statistically significant differences in demographic and other characteristics at baseline.
Data were collected within 18 months from the start of parole. Recidivism outcomes of interest included being rearrested for 1) any offense (except sexual assault), 2) violent crime, 3) property crime, 4) drug crime, and 5) a technical parole violation. A technical violation was calculated from the Department of Corrections administrative records. A rearrest for a technical violation would be defined as the parolee starting parole and then becoming incarcerated for a technical violation (but not for any other outcome). Multivariate regression analyses were used to determine differences between parolees whose parolee terms ended before their parole officers achieved MI change agent status (comparison group) and those parolees who were supervised after their parole officers were certified as change agents (intervention group). The study author did not conduct subgroup analyses.
Notably, the study author advised caution when interpreting recidivism outcomes, as parolees could have been supervised by multiple officers during their parole terms; however, parolees in the study during the intervention period (post–MI training) were all supervised by MI–trained parole officers for some portion of their parole, but not necessarily for their entire parole period. In addition, recidivism outcomes may be affected by the historical event that occurred in Colorado during the intervention period. On March 19, 2013, the Executive Director (at the time) of the Colorado Department of Corrections was shot and killed at his home by a parolee. Because of this event, public attention was focused on the policies and practices of the Department of Corrections. This incident prompted the Department of Corrections to execute formal and informal changes to policies and practices that dramatically increased parolee rearrest and violation rates. Ultimately, this event altered parole officers’ tolerance for parolee misconduct and for parolees who absconded. Thus, the death of the Executive Director may have influenced recidivism outcomes of parolee records in the intervention group, compared with parolee records in the comparison group. However, an exposure to a lower tolerance supervision regime variable was created (by a simple count of the number of days that any parolee was supervised after the date of the Executive Director’s death) and controlled for in the analysis of the outcomes by the study author.