Abstract
Community supervision programs are instrumental for reducing the prison population and successfully reintegrating offenders back into society. Prior literature suggests that supportive relationships between legal authorities and their clients may foster law-abiding behavior. Using data from the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) program (N = 781), the current study investigates whether fair (procedurally just) treatment by community supervision officers is associated with compliance and receiving a formal violation. Findings from multivariate analyses suggest that individuals who perceive their supervising officer as treating them procedurally just are more likely to comply with directives and less likely to receive formal violations. Such findings underscore the importance of legal authorities treating probationers with dignity and respect. Policy implications and limitations are discussed.
Introduction
In 2020, nearly 1.7 million people were incarcerated across America (Kluckow & Zeng, 2022), and 550,000 individuals were released from state and federal correctional institutions (Carson, 2021). As a result of mass incarceration in the United States, efforts to reduce jail and prison populations has led to increased rates of community supervision (Chamberlain et al., 2018). According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), in 2020, approximately 3.8 million adults were under community supervision (Kaeble, 2021). Individuals are under supervised community release for approximately 2 years on average; however, some may be under supervision for up to 20 years or more depending on state guidelines and offense type (Liu et al., 2020; Petersilia, 2003). Since community supervision has become an integral part of post-release, there have been questions regarding its effectiveness on preventing violations.
The impact of community corrections supervision on reentry success remains an essential topic for researchers and policymakers (Wikoff et al., 2012). For those reentering society, the challenges they face can often lead to re-incarceration. It is estimated that one-third of individuals released from correctional institutions will be re-incarcerated within 1 year (Durose et al., 2014). Research examining the relationship between reentry and recidivism suggests that community corrections officers (CCOs) may play an essential role in the outcomes of individuals under community supervision (Bares & Mowen, 2020; Chamberlain et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2020). 1 CCO’s serve two important roles: social worker and law enforcement officer (Andersen & Wildeman, 2015). More specifically, they assist offenders in reentering society while ensuring they follow their release guidelines (Andersen & Wildeman, 2015). To gain a better understanding of the relationship between officer and offender, prior research has used various perspectives such as general strain theory (Liu et al., 2020), social support (Bares & Mowen, 2020; Kennealy et al., 2012; Louden et al., 2012), and mechanisms of rapport (Chamberlain et al., 2018). Research suggests that individuals tend to perceive their relationship as positive when they view treatment from CCOs as procedurally just, share mutual trust with the officer, and remain in close and consistent contact with the officer (Chamberlain et al., 2018; Gladfelter et al., 2018). Additionally, individuals may be more willing to cooperate and abide by their terms of release when they perceive that CCOs are treating them fairly (see Blasko & Taxman, 2018).
To better understand how the officer—client relationship impacts reentry outcomes, scholars have recently applied a procedural justice framework to community supervision (see Blasko & Taxman, 2018; Williams & Schaefer, 2022). Procedural justice framework suggests that fair treatment increases legitimacy, and in turn, promotes cooperation and one’s willingness to comply with the law (Tyler, 2006). Findings from this line of research suggest that just treatment improves cooperation and attitudes among supervisees and reduces an offender’s likelihood of reoffending (Blasko & Taxman, 2018; Williams & Schaefer, 2022). While these studies advance our knowledge on procedural justice within community corrections, research has yet to examine how procedural justice practices impact outcomes among high-risk violent probationers/parolees.
To date, there is limited research investigating how CCO’s treatment impacts offenders’ likelihood of violating their terms of release (Andersen & Wildeman, 2015; Chamberlain et al., 2018). To address the limitations of prior research, the current study uses data from the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) to examine the following questions: Among a sample of high-risk offenders, (a) how does procedural justice strategies modeled by probation and parole officers impact compliance? and (b) how does procedural justice principles impact probation and parole violations? The following section discusses the purpose of community supervision, the challenges of reentry, the actors involved, and how procedural justice elements modeled my CCOs may impact the behavior of those under correctional supervision.
Literature review
Community supervision
Most inmates will be released back into society. In the United States, it has been estimated that 1,600 inmates are being released daily (Bahr et al., 2010; Bouffard & Bergeron, 2006), some of which will be released under community supervision. The two most common types of community corrections supervision are probation and parole. Parole is typically granted by a parole board as a period of conditional release, which allows individuals to serve the remainder of their sentence in the community. Probation is a sentence administered by a judge permitting individuals to remain in the community in lieu of incarceration. At times, probation may be sentenced in addition to a period of incarceration (Kaeble & Alper, 2020). Under both monitoring methods, offenders must abide by their conditions of release determined by various criminal justice actors (Bosker et al., 2013). Community supervision is crucial to an offender’s reentry success as it provides the structure and assistance needed for a successful transition (Bouffard & Bergeron, 2006).
Reentering society may be challenging for some offenders, especially those returning to the same negative environment. Research has identified areas such as employment (Bushway, 2004; Visher et al., 2011), housing (Clear et al., 2001; Visher & Travis, 2003), education (Bushway, 2004), and social support (Bares & Mowen, 2020; Wodahl et al., 2021) as barriers to overcome. Additionally, offenders under community supervision are required to adhere to several conditions, which may include maintaining employment, submitting to drug screens, reporting to the supervising officer, paying fines and restitution, attending treatment and programs, and avoiding contact with other felons (Bahr et al., 2010; Chamberlain et al., 2018; Morash et al., 2015). Failure to abide by these requirements can result in a violation of supervision terms. According to Louden and Skeem (2013), offenders violating terms of release are a primary cause of rearrest. Moreover, Gray et al. (2001) found that technical violations accounted for most probation violations, and most of these violations occurred within the first 3 months of probation. When offenders violate any condition of their release, the officer may use discretion to recommit the offender (Blasko et al., 2015), which contributes to the importance of examining the relationship between community supervision and formal violations.
The role of community correction officers
A crucial component of community supervision is the supervising officers that assist in the reentry process. As previously mentioned, CCO’s serve dual roles as social workers that assist in reentry adjustment, and as law enforcement officers enforcing conditions of release (Chamberlain et al., 2018). However, as more individuals are released to community supervision, officers can quickly become overburdened with large caseloads. In turn, it can become more difficult to consistently engage with an offender to ensure successful reentry (Chamberlain et al., 2018).
CCO’s primary responsibilities include: (a) remaining in close contact with the offender, (b) assisting the offender in adjusting to society, and (c) enforcing release guidelines (Byrne & Hummer, 2004). It is the CCO’s responsibility to monitor clients’ adherence to release guidelines to ensure that they are not engaging in new delinquent activity. Failing to abide by release terms may result in violations, which can lead to reincarceration (Andersen & Wildeman, 2015). Since technical violations often result in an offender’s rearrest, it is vital to implement proactive methods and programs for prevention (Louden & Skeem, 2013). In addition to enforcing the terms of an offender’s release, officers also act as a social worker, specifically by discussing with their clients’ ways to reduce their risk of violating the terms of their release and by helping them find employment and housing opportunities (Andersen & Wildeman, 2015).
Due to the diverse responsibilities and flexibility needed, CCO’s also use great discretion, specifically when determining to submit violations to courts or to focus on rehabilitation approaches with their clients. If an offender continuously fails to meet expectations of release or engages in new crimes, the officer may pursue revoking that offender’s release (Bouffard & Bergeron, 2006). The amount of discretion given to CCO’s also influences how an officer chooses to execute their supervision style and methods. CCO’s use several styles of supervision. Some officers may be challenging and have strict expectations for their clients, while others take a shared responsibility approach (Kennealy et al., 2012).
Probation and parole officers are the initial and primary link between offenders and reentry. Therefore, the amount of discretion and various supervision styles used has promoted research on how this aspect of community supervision can be improved. This research has shown that the relationship between the CCO and offender can have positive or negative impact on future behavior. For example, J. Skeem et al. (2009) found that when probationers did not have support from their supervising officer and did not have a voice in their supervision, then violations were more likely to occur. A study conducted by Morash et al. (2015) found that officers who were supportive of their relationship with their clients yielded positive outcomes, lower anxiety, and higher self-efficacy from clients. The same study also found that officers who were more punitive with their clients indicated more negative outcomes related to anxiety and self-efficacy. Similarly, Kennealy et al. (2012) found that parolees were less likely to recidivate when they experienced a caring and fair relationship with their supervision officer.
The findings from this line of research suggest that to increase the quality of the relationship between CCO’s and clients, there must be openness, mutual respect, fairness, trust, professionalism, and communication (Chamberlain et al., 2018; Morash et al., 2015; Skeem et al., 2007). Not only will a better relationship likely influence violations, but it may also impact an offender’s success of reentry into society and improve their quality of life (Kennealy et al., 2012). One such concept that considers these traits, but has been recently applied to community supervision is procedural justice (see Blasko & Taxman, 2018). The following section will introduce this perspective and what current research has found within community corrections settings.
Officer-offender relationship: A procedural justice perspective
Procedural justice has gained popularity among criminal justice practitioners and policymakers. Tyler (2006) contends that people obey the law when they perceive it as procedurally fair. Scholars argue that individuals’ perception of procedural fairness is often determined by the following four factors: (a) one’s ability to have a voice in the decision-making process, such as the opportunity to share their side of the story; (b) being treated with dignity and respect; (c) neutral decision-making, which are unbiased and transparent decisions; and (d) honest and trustworthy motives conveyed by decision-makers (see Hollander-Blumoff & Tyler, 2008; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). When citizens perceive that they have been treated in a procedurally just manner by legal authorities, then legitimacy is enhanced (see Mazerolle et al., 2013; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). As a result, they are more likely to cooperate voluntarily and comply with the directives of officers (see Dai et al., 2011; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Fagan, 2008). Conversely, when individuals experience procedural injustice (i.e., unfair treatment) they report lower levels of perceived legitimacy (Brown & Reisig, 2019), and are less likely to comply with the directives of legal authorities (Brown et al., 2022; Reisig et al., 2018). Procedural justice has been applied to research within various settings including, but not limited to, court proceedings, victimization, and policing. This research has shown that treatment administered in a procedurally just manner by criminal justice officials leads to law-conforming behavior (Casper et al., 1988; Miller & Hefner, 2015; Paternoster et al., 1997; Tyler & Fagan, 2008).
While factors related to procedural justice have been examined within community corrections, the application of procedural justice to the offender-community supervision relationship is relatively new. One of the earlier studies exploring this relationship was conducted by Blasko and Taxman (2018), which examined the psychometrics of a procedural justice measure within two separate samples of individuals entering community supervision. Their findings showed that violations of community supervision and criminal behavior were less likely to occur when CCO’s used processes that were perceived as procedurally fair (Blasko & Taxman, 2018). Additionally, in a qualitative study of 53 probationers and parolees, Williams and Schaefer (2022) found that procedural justice practices influenced behavior and was associated with their subsequent engagement with supervision. While these studies advance our knowledge on procedural justice within community corrections, research has yet to examine how procedural justice operates using high-risk violent probationers/parolees.
Recently, scholars have also proposed a procedural injustice approach to the study of reentry (Liu et al., 2020, 2021). Specifically, Liu et al. (2020) examined procedural injustice in parole as a strain using a sample of newly released prisoners. Findings revealed that procedural injustice was associated with increases in criminal propensity but was partially mediated by depression. To expand on this, Liu et al. (2021) examined the effects of procedural injustice as a strain on criminal propensity and substance use in males and females. Consistent with their previous findings, procedural injustice was associated with an increased criminal propensity but was mediated by depression. However, procedural injustice did not affect substance use. While this research expands procedural justice into prisoner reentry and community supervision, further research is needed. Notably, the outcome variable examined was a self-reported measure of criminal propensity, asking respondents to report their likelihood of engaging in various deviant acts (e.g., crime and substance use). Moreover, data on violations of supervision terms were not investigated. If offenders view relationships with officers as procedurally just, they may be more willing to communicate with them (e.g., discuss their reentry challenges), comply with their release terms, and complete their time supervised with greater outcomes (Blasko & Taxman, 2018; Blasko et al., 2015; Chamberlain et al., 2018).
Previous studies have found that better relationship quality between officers and offenders was associated with fewer technical violations, lesser substance use, and reduced recidivism (Blasko & Taxman, 2018; Blasko et al., 2015; Kennealy et al., 2012). While procedural injustice in not necessarily orthogonal with procedural justice, these findings further underscore the importance of administering fair treatment and the need for research on procedural justice in community settings. From a community supervision perspective, if CCO’s model the principles of procedural justice, violent offenders may be more likely to view their officer as legitimate and less likely to violate the terms of release.
Current Focus
The purpose of this study is to explore how community supervision officers’ relationship with those on community supervision impacts reentry outcomes. While literature examines the success of community supervision methods and the effectiveness of the relationship between an officer and offender, there is a lack of literature investigating how procedurally just methods applied to supervision impacts violations for those who were convicted of a violent offense. Previous literature includes social and environmental factors among offenders, such as employment, reliable housing, and close family contacts; however, few studies include offenders’ perceptions of procedural justice, trust, and overall relationship with their officer (Bonta et al., 2008; Trotter, 2013). Based on the four principles of procedural justice (respect, neutrality, voice, and fairness), this study will seek to determine if procedural justice methods utilized by CCO’s impact the likelihood of violation of probationers and parolees.
Data and Method
This study uses data from the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI), multi-site impact evaluation conducted from 2004 to 2011. This government-funded initiative was created to assist with the funding and development of programs and practices that assist prisoner reentry (Bouffard & Bergeron, 2006). Information was collected from 2,391 participants, comprised of 1,697 adult males, 357 females, and 337 male juveniles. The data collection process consisted of interviewing offenders at the initial point of release and then in increments of 3, 9, and 15 months after release. The information gained from offenders consists of factors that may impact reentry, such as information regarding employment, family dynamics, assistance/treatment that has been requested or offered, and their contact with and perception of their supervising officer. For this study, we limited our sample to adult males only. After further narrowing the responses to those who participated in the three-month follow-up interview, the number of participants decreased from 1,697 to 982. Participants who had missing responses on key dependent and independent variables were removed using list wise deletion. The final sample size consists of 781 adult males that were on probation.
Dependent Variables
The relationship between CCO’s and offenders is critical to successful reentry. This study focuses on characteristics and perceptions of procedural justice strategies and their effect on compliance and legal violations. Therefore, our dependent variables are compliance and formal violation, captured during the respondents’ 3-month interviews.
Compliance was measured using an item that asked probationers/parolees: since released, have he or she failed to comply with the conditions of supervision. This variable is a binary indicator, which was originally coded as 0 = No and 1 = Yes. However, to capture compliance the measure was reverse coded (0 = Noncompliance, 1 = Compliance).
Formal violation. Our second dependent variable is formal violation. Probationers or parolees were asked, since released have you received a formal violation. This variable was coded dichotomously (0 = No, 1 = Yes).
Independent variables
Procedural justice was the primary independent variable to assess the relationship quality between probation officers and probationers. We measure procedural justice using the following indicators: voice, respectful, trustworthy, attentive, and professional. The items were assessed using a 4-point scale (0 = strongly agree, 1 = agree, 2 = disagree, 3 = strongly disagree).
Voice
The ability for clients to share their side of the story is a key element of procedural justice. To assess voice, we used a single-item indicator that asked respondents how much they agreed with the following statement: “probation officer does not listen to you.”
Respectful
Respect is an important and desired element in most relationships. This variable was measured by asking respondents their level of agreeance with the statement: “probation officer treats you with respect.”
Trustworthy
Trust fosters clear communication and respect, especially in probation officer and probationer relationships (Trotter, 2013). When working with probationers, it is important for decision-makers (or CCOs) to convey honest and trustworthy motives. Trustworthy was captured using the following statement: “probation officer seems trustworthy.”
Attentive
To capture attentive, participants were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: “probation officer acts too busy to help you.”
Professional
Officers’ professionalism may be beneficial in the promotion of compliance with directives. A professional relationship where the offender feels valued and treated fairly contributes to neutrality. Professionalism was evaluated by respondents expressing their level of agreeance with the following statement: “probation officer acts in a professional way.” Respectful, trustworthy, and professional were recoded so that higher values indicate procedurally just treatment.
Procedural Justice
To capture procedurally just treatment, a scale was created using the items previously mentioned (i.e., voice, respectful, trustworthy, attentive, and professional). Responses were summed so that higher values indicated procedurally fair treatment (Cronbach α = .88).
Control variables
Control variables for this study include officer contact, age, race/ethnicity, marital status, and education. Officer contact was measured by asking probationers, “how often have you met the officer in person since release.” This item was coded as 0 = not at all, 1 = once or twice, 2 = once a month, 3 = two or three times a month, 4 = once a week, 5 = several times a week, and 6 = every day or almost every day. Age is a continuous variable measured in years (18–69 years). Race/ethnicity was measured using a host of binary variables: Black, Hispanic, and Other (0 = no, 1 = yes). Non-Hispanic, Whites was used as the reference group. Marital status was dichotomized (0 = not married, 1 = married). Education was categorical, in which 1 = less than a high school diploma, 2 = GED or high school diploma, 3 = some college or vocational training, and 4 = college degree.
Analytic Strategy
The analyses proceed in several stages. First, descriptive statistics are presented summarizing the variables under investigation. Second, bivariate correlation estimates are presented to analyze the relationship between the dependent (i.e., compliance and formal violation) and independent variables at the zero-order correlation, and to assess multicollinearity issues. A multicollinearity test was conducted, revealing no problems (mean VIF = 1.61). Due to the binary nature of the dependent variables, several binary logistic regression models were estimated. We assess the relationship between procedural justice (scale) and law-abiding behavior (i.e., compliance and formal violations). Next, we investigate the independent effects of procedural justice strategies on law-abiding behaviors. Odds ratios were presented for binary logistic regression models. All analyses were estimated in STATA 16 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).
Results
For the all-male sample, Table 1 summarizes descriptive statistics for study variables (N = 781). Respondents’ ages ranged from 18 to 69 years old (mean = 29.42, standard deviation = 7.03). Regarding race/ethnicity, 53% of respondents were Black, 36% White, 4% Hispanic, and 7% reported Other racial group. Regarding marital status, 10% (or n = 97) of the respondents reported being married. Most respondents had less than a high school diploma (50%), approximately 35% had a GED or high school diploma, 13% reported having some college or vocational training, and less than 2% had a college degree.
Summary Statistics for Study Variables (N = 781).
Note. M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation.
To determine whether significant relationships exist between the dependent variables (i.e., compliance and formal violation) and variables of interest, Table 2 presents Pearson correlation coefficients. Regarding compliance, procedural justice (r = 0.13, p < .05) and most of its elements (i.e., voice, respectful, trustworthy, and attentive) were positive and significantly associated with compliance. Regarding control variables, officer contact (r = −0.15, p < .05), age (r = 0.11, p < .05), and Black (r = 0.09, p < .05) were significantly associated with compliance. There were several significant correlations between the independent variables and the second dependent variable, formal violation. Procedural justice was negative and significantly associated with formal violations (r = −0.20, p < .05). Other study variables, such as voice (r = −0.20, p < .05), respectful (r = −0.17, p < .05), trustworthy (r = −0.19, p < .05), attentive (r = −0.13, p < .05), and professional (r = −0.13, p < .05) were also significantly correlated with a formal violation. Lastly, age (r = −0.10, p < .05) and other race (r = 0.07, p < .05) were correlated with receiving a formal violation. The significant and positive correlations between procedural justice and its elements on compliance, as well as the negative correlations between the factors of procedural justice and formal violation, is consistent with the procedural justice theory in that perceptions could impact law-abiding behavior (Tyler, 2006; Tyler et al., 2015).
Pearson Correlations for Study Variables (N = 781).
Note. Bold values are significant (p < .05).
Table 3 presents logistic regression estimates investigating the relationship between procedural justice on law-abiding behavior. Model 1 assesses the relationship between procedural justice and compliance. Procedural justice was positive and significantly associated with compliance (OR = 1.12, p < .001), specifically ex-offenders who reported higher levels of procedurally just treatment were 1.12 times more likely to comply with the conditions of their supervision. Regarding control variables, officer contact (OR = 0.68, p < .001), age (OR = 1.04, p < 0.01), and black (OR = 1.65, p < .05) were significantly associated with compliance.
Effect of Procedural Justice on Law-Abiding Behavior (N = 781).
Note. Entries are estimated logistic regression coefficients (b), robust standard errors (SE), and odds ratios (OR).
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Model 2 of Table 3 displays logistic regression estimates examining the relationship between procedural justice and formal violations. Procedural justice was negative and significantly associated with formal violations (OR = 0.79, p < .001), suggesting that perceiving CCOs as procedurally just was associated with a 21% decrease in the odds of receiving a formal violation. This finding suggests that formal violations are less likely to occur when CCOs incorporate elements of procedural justice during interactions with probationers/parolees.
Model 1 of Table 4 presents logistic regression coefficients assessing the relationship between procedural justice elements and compliance. Regarding procedural justice elements, the officer’s trustworthiness was the only significant predictor of compliance (OR = 1.47, p < .01). More specifically, ex-offenders who perceived their CCO as trustworthy were 1.47 times more likely to comply with officers’ directives. Regrading control variables, officer contact (OR = 0.67, p < .001), age (OR = 1.04, p < .01), and black (OR = 1.67, p < .05) were significantly associated with ex-offenders complying with the conditions of their supervision.
Effect of Procedural Justice Principles on Law-Abiding Behavior (N = 781).
Note. Entries are estimated logistic regression coefficients (b), robust standard errors (SE), and odds ratios (OR).
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Model 2 of Table 4 presents a logistic regression model investigating whether certain procedural justice factors are more impactful than others in predicting formal violation. Both voice (OR = 0.50, p < .05) and trustworthy (OR = 0.61, p < .05) were negatively and significantly associated with formal violations. More specifically, agreeing that CCO’s listen to the concerns of ex-offenders was associated with a 50% decrease in the odds of receiving a formal violation, while perceiving CCOs as trustworthy was associated with a 39% decrease in the odds of receiving a formal violation. These findings are important to consider because formal violations are less likely to occur if offenders’ view their CCO as trustworthy and feel that the officer is listening and understanding them. Additionally, there is a positive and significant relationship between the amount of contact with a CCO and formal violations (OR = 1.61, p < .01).
Discussion
Traditionally, procedural justice research has focused on police organizations. More recently, it has been applied to community corrections (Blasko & Taxman, 2018; Williams & Schaefer, 2022). Contributing to this literature, the current study examined whether procedurally just treatment impacts law-abiding behavior for a high-risk group of men under community supervision, specifically compliance with their terms of supervision and receiving formal violations. Procedural justice literature suggests that when authority figures allow citizens to have a voice in the decision-making process and are respectful, unbiased, and trustworthy, then legitimacy is enhanced (see Mazerolle et al., 2013; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2006). In turn, individuals are more likely to cooperate voluntarily and comply with officers’ directives (see Dai et al. 2011; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Fagan, 2008). Our analyses revealed several notable findings in assessing the impact of CCO’s treatment on ex-offenders’ law-abiding behavior.
At the bivariate level, procedural justice was significantly correlated with law-abiding behaviors (i.e., compliance and formal violation). Consistent with the procedural justice framework, multivariate analyses revealed that procedurally just treatment significantly increased compliance and reduced formal violations among a sample of high-risk offenders. This suggests that when CCOs model procedural justice techniques, compliance increases and the risk of receiving a formal violation decreases. We also conducted multivariate analyses to assess the individual effects of procedurally justice factors on law-abiding behavior. Trustworthiness was favorable and significantly associated with ex-offenders complying with the terms of their supervision.
Regarding the risk of receiving a formal violation, our analyses revealed that trust and voice were most influential in reducing violations. Kennealy et al. (2012) indicate that trust and voice are intertwined. They argue that as an officer gains an offender’s trust, the offender may view the officer’s actions as just and more open to communicating wrongdoing. This would likely lead to participation in decisions, allowing the offender to feel more responsible for adhering to their terms of release. These findings suggest that the supportive role of a probation officer modeling procedurally just methods would increase compliance and reduce formal violations received and, overall, offending.
Across all models, the relationship between officer contact and law-abiding behavior (i.e., compliance and formal violation) was significant. In other words, the more contact offenders reported having with their CCO, the less likely they were to comply with officers’ directives and more likely to receive a formal violation. While it was expected that more contact between the CCO and the offender could indicate a supportive relationship, the positive relationship could be attributed to the fact that the more violations an offender commits, the more contact would be required. In short, these offenders may be high-risk and in need of more contact.
Policy and practice implications
The findings from this research have important implications for policy and practice. While aspects of procedural justice have been investigated in prior criminal justice research (Bosker et al., 2013; Chamberlain et al., 2018; Morash et al., 2015; Skeem et al., 2007), there has been a recent push to implement procedural justice measures within community corrections supervision. Based on our finding that procedural justice is associated with increased compliance and a decrease in receiving a formal violation for high-risk offenders, community correction agencies should strive to implement and model procedural justice strategies when interacting with their probationer/parolees. Positive interactions between the supervisee—supervisor may be instrumental in combating high recidivism rates in America.
In an effort to increase compliance and reduce future violations, frequently surveying probationers/parolees to assess their challenges and perceptions of community corrections supervision may be beneficial. Individuals have unique personalities and needs. By surveying supervisees, CCOs may have a better understanding of the needs of their clients and may adjust their behavior and performance accordingly to address clients’ concerns. For example, data from a survey tool may suggest that one client may be concerned with wanting to be heard (or have a voice in decision-making), while another client may place an emphasis on wanting to be treated with respect.
Additionally, a procedural justice model may arguably complement curriculums that are currently used to improve supervision effectiveness. For example, Core Correctional Practices (CCPs) are commonly used in supervision training and have been shown to improve supervision outcomes (Bonta et al., 2008; Jannetta et al., 2021; Lowenkamp et al., 2014). By implementing procedural justice practices into CCPs, supervising officers may be able to better balance the enforcement and therapeutic approaches needed when working with probationers/parolees (Kennealy et al., 2012).
Legitimacy is instrumental in determining an individual’s willingness to cooperate and obey the law (Tyler, 2006). To improve an agency’s legitimacy, fair treatment is a requirement. Therefore, agencies should monitor and evaluate their officers’ performance to make sure they are consistently providing fair treatment to those under community supervision. This can also be accomplished through client satisfaction surveys.
Limitations and future research
While the current study contributes to the understanding of procedural justice within community supervision, there are also limitations to note. First, this study uses an all-male adult sample to assess the relationship between procedurally just treatment and law-abiding behavior. Future research should incorporate a more diverse sample (e.g., females and juveniles) to assess how procedural justice impacts other vulnerable populations. Second, this study does not indicate the type of violation. Significant differences may emerge when considering the type of violation and its impact on the officer and offenders’ relationship. Future research should assess whether procedurally just treatment impacts various law-abiding behaviors. Third, the measure used to capture procedural justice was limited, given the dataset. Specifically, to assess the four key principles of procedural justice, single-item indicators were used. Although our results are consistent with prior research on procedural justice in community supervision (Blasko & Taxman, 2018), this measure has not been previously evaluated. Arguably, the single-item indicators used in this study may be a more direct measure of the concepts within the procedural justice framework, and would allow for easier implementation in current training practices. However, future research should consider adapting alternative measures that have been psychometrically evaluated in exploring how procedurally just treatment impacts law-abiding behaviors, such as the Procedural Justice Measure (PJM; see Blasko & Taxman, 2018). Additionally, compliance was captured using a binary indicator (0 = noncompliance, 1 = compliance), which hinders our ability to assess frequency and extent of noncompliance. To the contrary, a major strength of using this measure is that it allows us to capture behavior that may not come to the attention of community correctional officers. Future research should consider using a self-reported, Likert-scale item that captures the level of compliance. Lastly, there is the potential for omitted variable bias. When examining CCO and offender relationship as it relates law abiding behavior and compliance, future work in this area should incorporate other covariates (e.g., familial/peer association and social support mechanisms).
Continued research is needed on the application of procedural justice within community supervision. In order to move toward implementation within community supervision training and practices, significant adjustments would need to be made in the goals, responsibilities, and values of agencies (see Williams & Schaefer, 2022). To do this, support for wide-range adaptation will require replication and evidence-based research across diverse samples and geographic locations.
Footnotes
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.
