Parolee–Parole Officer Rapport: Does It Impact Recidivism?

• Date: 01 August 2018
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X17741593
• Published date: 01 August 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17741593

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2018, Vol. 62(11) 3581 –3602

© The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X17741593

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Parolee–Parole Officer

Rapport: Does It Impact

Recidivism?

Alyssa W. Chamberlain1, Matthew Gricius1,

Danielle M. Wallace1, Diana Borjas1,

and Vincent M. Ware1

Abstract

Parole officers are an integral part of parolees’ reentry process and success. Few

studies, however, have examined whether the quality of the relationship between

parolees and their parole officer influences outcomes such as recidivism. This study

assesses how recidivism is affected by the quality of the relationship that parolees

have with their parole officers. Using the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry

Initiative (SVORI) dataset, we use parolees’ perceptions of their relationship with

their parole officer to determine whether they have established a positive or negative

relationship, and whether these types of relationships differentially affect recidivism.

Results show that parolees who have a negative relationship with their parole officer

have higher rates of recidivism, while a positive relationship lowers parolees’ likelihood

of recidivating. An implication of this study emphasizes parole officer training that

develops positive, high-quality relationships with parolees. Further implications are

discussed below.

Keywords

parole supervision, recidivism, rapport, serious or violent offenders

Introduction

Since 1980, the United States has experienced a dramatic increase in its corrections

population. Imprisonment rates have risen from just over 300,000 in 1980 to more

than 1.5 million in 2014, representing an increase of more than 400% (Carson, 2015).

1Arizona State University, Phoenix, USA

Corresponding Author:

Alyssa W. Chamberlain, Assistant Professor, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State

University, 411 N. Central Ave. Suite 600, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA.

Email: Alyssa.Chamberlain@asu.edu

741593IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X17741593International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyChamberlain et al.

research-article2017

3582 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(11)

A consequence of this prison growth is the increasing number of individuals returning

to the community. More than 4 million individuals are supervised in the community,

800,000 of which are supervised on parole (Kaeble, Maruschak, & Bonczar, 2015).

The large number of individuals under community supervision has also diminished the

capacity of parole officers to develop meaningful relationships with the parolees they

supervise. Moreover, the increase in the parolee population has burdened a dwindling

number of caseworkers: In some states, an increase in the size of parolee caseloads has

translated to an average contact time of 10 min a month between parole officer and

offender (Edgemon, 2013). Parole officers serve as a critical link to parolees for suc-

cessful reintegration; consequently, a reduced capacity among parole officers to mean-

ingfully engage with parolees might hinder successful reentry.

The quality of the parolee–parole officer relationship might play a pivotal role in

the likelihood of recidivism in both positive and negative ways. For instance, when

offenders perceive positive relationships with their parole officers, they report feeling

personal loyalty and accountability toward them (Robinson, 2005), which bodes well

for future client outcomes. Within the context of a perceived positive relationship, a

parolee might be more willing to confide in an officer and communicate treatment and

service needs. In contrast, parolees who perceive a negative or ambivalent relationship

might be less likely to share challenges they encounter; this may put parolees at a dis-

advantage in terms of referrals and other assistance an officer might be able to offer.

Furthermore, a negative relationship might render certain supervision techniques inef-

fective (Orlinsky, Grawe, & Parks, 1994), and does not provide a solid foundation to

affect behavioral changes. This is particularly important for serious and violent offend-

ers, who are likely to be under more intense community supervision and for longer

periods of time. As such, the dynamic between officer and parolee is instrumental in

facilitating positive reentry outcomes.

Prior research examining the relationship between rapport and offender outcomes

has largely combined measures of a positive and negative relationship onto a single

scale (Horvath & Greenberg, 1986; Skeem, Eno Louden, Polaschek, & Camp, 2007).

However, given that a positive or negative relationship would likely yield distinct

effects on recidivism, analyzing their effects separately may provide important insights

regarding what aspects of the parolee–officer relationship matter most and in what

ways. As such, we expand on prior research by specifically examining the type of rela-

tionship, which we term supportive or non-supportive, independently on recidivism.

Little research has examined how parolee–parole officer relationships can result in

positive community supervision outcomes. More specifically, we examine whether a

supportive parolee–officer relationship from the parolees’ perspective reduces the

likelihood of recidivism. We employ a unique dataset that follows serious and violent

offenders over the initial 15 months following their release from prison. We ask (a)

how does the parolees’ perception of the quality of their relationship—both supportive

and nonsupportive—with their officer predict recidivism? and (b) do levels of contact

(i.e., how often) and type of contact (i.e., face to face over the phone) differentially

impact the relationship between levels of rapport and recidivism? In the coming sec-

tions, we discuss the role of parole officers and their importance for successful reentry