Investigating Therapeutic Strategies for Post Release Supervision of Individuals with Serious Mental Illness: Parole Officers Weigh in

Background and Purpose: Reducing the high rates of people with serious mental illness (SMI) in jails and prisons is a national priority. One of the major drivers of incarceration for this population is probation/parole violations. The use of specially trained probation/parole officers (STOs) to employ more therapeutic supervision approaches has been suggested as a way to reduce recidivism of individuals with SMI. Many of these therapeutic approaches incorporate features of mental health practices shown to be effective at promoting service engagement (e.g., shared decision-making) but that have not typically been utilized by probation/parole officers who are not specially trained (i.e., non-STOs). This study explored how STOs may differ from non-STOs in their knowledge and beliefs about therapeutic approach options for community supervision of adults with SMI. It was expected that STOs would report more knowledge of and support for therapeutic approaches than would non-STOs.

Methods: An online survey was used to question members of a national organization of parole and probation authorities about their knowledge and beliefs regarding various supervision practices. Respondents worked as parole and probation officers in 43 states and the District of Columbia. Data reported here reflect the 222 respondents who indicated that they currently work directly with adults released from custody under supervision who have an SMI.  Among these 222 respondents, 90 indicated that they currently work on a specialized team for supervising SMI offenders (i.e., were STOs). Bivariate tests compared the 90 STOs to the 132 non-STOs on their beliefs about using therapeutic approaches, including shared decision-making, in their practice. Multivariable tests examined the relationship between being an STO and these beliefs while controlling for demographic and agency variables.

Results: STOs were employed in their agencies for a shorter period of time, had smaller caseloads, and worked more often in urban locations than non-STOs. STOs, compared to non-STOs, expressed more familiarity with and belief in the effectiveness of the predominant criminal justice and mental health approaches taken to reduce criminal behaviors of adults with SMI. STOs also believed a higher and substantial portion of their caseload was “too sick” to be involved in their own service planning. While being an STO was associated with beliefs that probation/parole officers should be involved in enhancing offenders’ range of prosocial capabilities, it was not associated with greater support for shared decision-making with offenders.

Conclusions and Implications: STO knowledge and the supervision approaches they support are influenced both by criminal justice and mental health service philosophies. Lack of a relationship between being an STO and support for shared decision-making may stem from a belief that many SMI offenders are incapable of contributing meaningfully to their service planning or it may reflect their criminal justice setting which has typically taken an authoritative approach to supervision. Therapeutic approaches that include shared decision-making can facilitate the development of collaborative bonds that promote service engagement and retention. Future research should examine methods for overcoming barriers to implementing such approaches in parole/probation settings. Doing so may help reduce returns to incarceration among those supervised.