Correlates of Interorganizational Service Coordination in Community Corrections
| Author | Michael S. Shafer,Laura Monico,Hannah Knudsen,Kevin Knight,Julie Gray,Michael Prendergast,Nathan Link,Peter D. Friedmann,Leah Hamilton,Sami Abdel-Salam,Wayne N. Welsh,Shawna Malvini Redden |
| Published date | 01 April 2016 |
| Date | 01 April 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0093854815607306 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2015
Correlates of InterorganIzatIonal
servICe CoordInatIon In CommunIty
CorreCtIons
WAyNE N. WELSH
Temple University
MICHAEL PRENDERgAST
University of California, Los Angeles
KEVIN KNIgHT
Texas Christian University
HANNAH KNUDSEN
University of Kentucky
LAURA MONICO
University of Delaware
Friends Research Institute
JULIE gRAy
Texas Christian University
SAMI ABDEL-SALAM
West Chester University
SHAWNA MALVINI REDDEN
Arizona State University
NATHAN LINK
LEAH HAMILTON
Temple University
MICHAEL S. SHAFER
Arizona State University
PETER D. FRIEDMANN
Providence Veteran Affairs Medical Center
Brown University
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 drug-
involved 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, them-
selves, and interorganizational relationships with each other. Key organizational and individual correlates of interagency rela-
tionships 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.
Keywords: substance use; treatment; community corrections; interagency relationships; interorganizational relationships;
interorganizational collaboration; implementation
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2016, Vol. 43, No. 4, April 2016, 483 –505.
DOI: 10.1177/0093854815607306
© 2015 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
483
484 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
An estimated 4,751,400 adults were under probation or parole supervision at year end
2013 (Herberman & Bonczar, 2015). Drug abuse or dependence is a significant prob-
lem for this population with estimates indicating that at least 15% are opioid-dependent and
60% show signs of alcohol abuse (Polcin & greenfield, 2003). At the time of their arrest,
drug dependent or abusing State prisoners (48%) were also more likely than other inmates
(37%) to have been on probation or parole supervision (Mumola & Karberg, 2007).
Although the vast majority of criminal justice referrals to publicly funded drug abuse treat-
ment programs in the United States are through community corrections, linkages between
justice and treatment agencies are generally weak and referrals to EBPs are rare (Duffee &
Carlson, 1996; Taxman, Cropsey, young, & Wexler, 2007). Using an implementation sci-
ence framework, this article examines key organizational and individual factors that influ-
ence interagency coordination between community corrections agencies (probation and
parole) and community-based treatment providers.
ImplementatIon of ebps
Implementation can be characterized as specific and identifiable processes with the
explicit purpose of facilitating change in individual and/or collective behavior (Aarons,
Hurlburt, & Horwitz, 2011; Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005; Proctor
et al., 2009). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) identifies
five sets of factors that influence the degree to which EBPs are implemented and sustained
within organizations (Damschroder et al., 2009): the external environment (e.g., interagency
communication and service coordination), the internal organizational environment (e.g.,
organizational structure and climate), the characteristics of the EBP being implemented
(e.g., specific treatment services such as medication-assisted treatment [MAT]), the nature
and quality of the implementation processes (e.g., training, supervision, and monitoring),
authors’ note: Laura Monico is now a research associate with Friends Research Institute, Inc. in
Baltimore, MD. Peter D. Friedmann is now chief research officer at Baystate Health in Springfield, MA. This
study was funded under a cooperative agreement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIH/NIDA), with support from the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S.
Department of Justice. The authors gratefully acknowledge the collaborative contributions by NIDA; the
Coordinating Center, AMAR International, Inc.; and the Research Centers participating in CJ-DATS. The
research centers include Arizona State University and Maricopa County Adult Probation (U01DA025307);
University of Connecticut and the Connecticut Department of Correction (U01DA016194); University of
Delaware and the Delaware Department of Correction (U01DA016230); Friends Research Institute and the
Maryland Department of Public Safety Correctional Services’ Division of Parole and Probation (U01DA025233);
University of Kentucky and the Kentucky Department of Corrections (U01DA016205); University of Rhode
Island, Rhode Island Hospital and the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (U01DA016191); Texas
Christian University, the Illinois Department of Corrections, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (U01DA016190);
Temple University, Berks County (PA) Adult Probation, and Lancaster County (PA) Adult Probation
(U01DA025284); and the University of California at Los Angeles, Bernalillo County (NM) Adult Probation,
and Santa Fe County (NM) Adult Probation (U01DA016211). The views and opinions expressed in this report
are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent the views of NIDA nor any of the sponsoring
organizations, agencies, CJ-DATS partner sites, or the U.S. government. Correspondence concerning this
article should be addressed to Wayne N. Welsh, Department of Criminal Justice, 541 Gladfelter Hall (025-02),
1115 Polett Walk, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122; e-mail: wwelsh@temple.edu
Welsh et al. / INTERORgANIZATIONAL SERVICE COORDINATION 485
and the characteristics of the individuals (e.g., demographics, experience) involved in the
implementation process.
Extant studies have rarely tested entire conceptual models of implementation, such as the
CFIR, due to substantial resource, logistical and measurement challenges (Aarons et al., 2011;
Proctor et al., 2011). This article thus focused on three main components of the CFIR: the
external environment, the internal organizational environment, and individual background
characteristics. Although we do not examine the other two components (attitudes toward spe-
cific EBP and nature and quality of implementation processes) here, other studies suggest that
those components also provide potential barriers or facilitators of EBP implementation
(Friedmann et al., 2015; Roman, Abraham, & Knudsen, 2011) and are worthy of further study.
CJ-DATS (Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies) was a 5-year national multi-
site collaborative research project funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).
In CJ-DATS, the research studies examined implementation of EBPs for treating drug abuse
within criminal justice settings (Ducharme, Chandler, & Wiley, 2013). One of the CJ-DATS
studies, Medication-Assisted Treatment Implementation in Community Correctional
Environments (MATICCE), focused on improving linkages between community correc-
tional agencies and community-based treatment providers as a means of strengthening the
use of EBPs for treating alcohol- and opioid-involved offenders (Friedmann et al., 2013). In
this article, we examine how key organizational and individual factors influence inter-
agency relationships between probation/parole (P/P) agencies and community-based treat-
ment providers.
MAT is an EBP that refers to any treatment for a substance use disorder that includes a
pharmacologic intervention as part of a comprehensive substance abuse treatment plan with
the ultimate goal of patient recovery with full social function (SAMHSA, 2013). MAT has
been demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of alcohol dependence with Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) approved drugs such as disulfiram, naltrexone, and acampro-
sate (Johnson, 2008), and in opioid dependence with methadone, naltrexone, and buprenor-
phine (Amato et al., 2005). Although MAT has long been recommended for use in criminal
justice (CJ) and non-CJ involved populations (National Institutes of Health [NIH] Consensus
Development Panel on Effective Medical Treatment of Opiate Addiction, 1998), current
MAT availability in CJ settings is extremely limited (Pecoraro, Ma, & Woody, 2012).
Health service delivery for correctional clients often requires coordination between dis-
tinct agencies. Although many individuals with mental health needs or substance use disor-
ders are under the supervision of community corrections, treatment services are rarely
delivered by correctional staff (Duffee & Carlson, 1996; Friedmann et al., 2013; Friedmann
et al., 2012). Rather, receipt of treatment services typically requires that individuals be
referred to treatment providers in the community. Such referrals to care are dependent on
the...
To continue reading
Request your trial