The Impact of Gender-Responsive Training on Parole Agentsucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/2016/06/The-Impact-of-Gender-Responsive-Training-on...INTRODUCTION 8 Gender responsivity

The Impact of Gender-Responsive Training on Parole Agents

Center for Evidence-Based CorrectionsUniversity of California, Irvine

November 12, 2015

Theresa LaveryHelen BraithwaiteSusan Turner

CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES 1

LIST OF FIGURES 2

GLOSSARY 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

INTRODUCTION 8

Gender responsivity and CDCR 8

CEBC evaluation of HEAL 9

The aim of this report 9

METHOD 10

Development of the survey 10

Survey administration and sample 11

PRE-TRAINING SURVEY RESULTS 12

Demographics and background characteristics of the sample 12

Agent attitudes about parole supervision of female offenders Pre-Training 13

Agent caseload preferences Pre-Training 14

Agentself-efficacysupervisingfemaleparoleesPre-Training 16

Agent knowledge and expertise about female offenders 17

Perception of criminogenic needs 18

Workload and service referrals 19

Awareness of services in the community for female offenders 20

Agent comments 22

POST-TRAINING SURVEY AND CHANGE OVER TIME 23

Change in attitudes about parole supervision of female offenders 23

Change in caseload preferences 24

Changeinself-efficacy 27

Change in agent knowledge and expertise about female offenders 28

Change in criminogenic needs over time 30

CONCLUSION 31

REFERENCES 33

APPENDIX A – PAROLE AGENT SURVEY 34

APPENDIX B – TABLES OF FIGURES 38

AUTHORS 44

ABOUT CENTER FOR EVIDENCE-BASED CORRECTIONS 45

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Demographic and background characteristics of

the training sample (N=38) 12

Table 2.AgentcaseloadpreferencesPre-Training(N=36)1 14

Table 3. Agent preferences for caseload gender – comparing

Pre- and Post-Training (N=33) 25

Table 4. Agent preferences for caseload size – comparing

Pre-andPost-Training(N=33)1 26

Table 5. Agent attitudes about parole supervision of female offenders

Pre-Training (N=38) 38

Table 6.Agentself-efficacysupervisingfemaleparoleesPre-Training(N=38) 38

Table 7. Agent expertise and knowledge about parole supervision

of female offenders Pre-Training (N=38). 39

Table 8. Criminogenic needs of female parolees compared to male

parolees Pre-Training (N=38) 39

Table 9. Workload for female parolees compared to male


Table 10. Number of service referrals for female parolees compared

to male parolees Pre-Training (N=38) 40

Table 11. Agent awareness of programs, services or treatment in

the community for female parolees Pre-Training (N=38) 40

Table 12. Agent named programs, services or treatment in

the community (N=37) 41

Table 13. Agent attitudes about parole supervision of female offenders

Pre- and Post-Training for agents who completed both surveys 42

Table 14.Self-efficacyPre-andPost-Trainingforagentswho completed both surveys 42

Table 15. Agent expertise and knowledge about parole supervision of

female offenders Pre- and Post-Training for agents who

completed both surveys 43

Table 16. Criminogenic needs of female parolees compared to male

parolees Pre- and Post-Training for agents who completed

bothsurveys(N=36) 43

1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Agent attitudes about parole supervision of female

offenders Pre-Training (N=38) 13


offenders Pre-Training (N=38) 13

Figure 3. Preferrednumberofparoleesongender-specific

caseloadsPre-Training(N=36)1 15

Figure 4.Agentself-efficacysupervisingfemaleparoleesPre-Training(N=38) 16

Figure 5. Agent knowledge and expertise about supervision

of female offenders Pre-Training (N=38) 17

Figure 6. Agent knowledge and expertise about supervision

of female offenders Pre-Training (N=38) 18

Figure 7. Criminogenic needs of female parolees compared


Figure 8. Workload for female parolees compared to male


Figure 9. Number of service referrals for female parolees compared


Figure 10. Agent awareness of programs, services or treatment

in the community for female parolees Pre-Training (N=38) 21

Figure 11. Agent attitudes about supervision of female offenders –

Comparing Pre- and Post-Training (N=38) 23


offenders – comparing Pre- and Post-Training (N=38) 24

Figure 13. Preferred gender of parolees to supervise – comparing

Pre- and Post-Training (N=33) 25

Figure 14.Preferrednumberofparoleesongender-specific

caseloads–comparingPre-andPost-Training(N=33) 26

Figure 15.Self-efficacyPre-andPost-Trainingforagentswhoc ompleted both surveys (N=38) 28

Figure 16. Agent knowledge and expertise about parole supervision

offemaleoffenders–comparingPre-andPost-Training(N=36) 28

Figure 17. Agent expertise and knowledge about female parolees

Pre-andPost-Trainingforagentswhocompletedbothsurveys(N=36) 29

Figure 18. Change in criminogenic needs Pre- and Post-Training for

agentswhocompletedbothsurveys(N=36) 30

2

GLOSSARY

ACA Affordable Care Act

CDCR California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

CEBC Center for Evidence-Based Corrections

DAPO Division of Adult Parole Operations

DRP Division of Rehabilitative Programs

FOPS Female Offender Programs and Services

FOTEP Female Offender Treatment and Employment Program

GRPPA Gender-Responsive Policy and Practice Assessment

GRSC Gender-Responsive Strategies Commission

HEAL Housing, Employment And Linking Services

PA1 Parole Agent 1

PA11 Parole Agent 11

SD Standard Deviation

UCI University of California, Irvine

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the parole agents who participated in the training and

completed surveys. Without their participation this study would not have been possible.

Many of the agents spoke to the researchers during training about the challenges they

face supervising female offenders and provided examples of innovative strategies

they use to address those challenges. Their enthusiasm was inspirational, and we look

forward to seeing their work in action.

We thank Dan Stone, Director of the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO),

recently retired, for his support of this project. We are also grateful to Jon Stern and

Helen Speed for their tireless responses to all of our questions and the input they

provided. A special thanks to Maritza Rodriguez, former Chief Deputy Administrator of

DAPO now retired, whose passion for female offenders and evidence-based research

was instrumental in the implementation of HEAL.

AttheDepartmentofCaliforniaCorrectionsandRehabilitation(CDCR)Officeof

Research, we appreciate the ongoing assistance and direction provided by Denise

Allen, Janice Russell, Veronica Parker, and Rebecca Thomas, particularly for their

valuable feedback and structure provided to the research.

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) recently introduced an initiative for female offenders known as the Housing, Employment, And Linking Services initiative, or HEAL. HEAL is a joint effort involving the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) and Department of Rehabilitative Programs (DRP). HEAL is a multi-faceted approach that incorporates a range of existing and new services for female offenders transitioning from prison back to the community, including DRP specialized program managers, pre-parole classes at re-entry hubs, prison-gate to program-door transportation, specialized caseloads for female parolees, Female Offender Treatment and Employment Programs (FOTEPs), employment PACTs, Affordable Care Act (ACA) links, efforts to eliminate female homelessness, and staff training in gender responsivity.

The Center for Evidence-Based Corrections (CEBC) at UC Irvine (UCI) is evaluating HEAL under its contractwithCDCR’sOfficeofResearch.Theevaluationinvolvesbothaprocessandoutcomeevaluation. The process evaluation will examine the impact of gender responsive training on agent attitudes and knowledge, the effect of specialized gender-responsive (i.e., female parolee only) caseloads on agent workload, and the relationship between transportation to residential programming and rates of successful program participation and completion. The outcome evaluation will examine the impact of specialized caseloads and other HEAL components on female offender recidivism.

As part of the process evaluation, the study presented in this report focuses on the impact of gender-responsive training on agent attitudes and knowledge. Parole agents and their supervisors who are currently working primarily with female parolees (for example, programming agents at FOTEPs) or are likely to do so in the near future (for example, as specialized caseloads areimplementedacrossthestate)wereselectedtoattenda16-hourgender-responsivitymaster training session. Three such master training sessions were conducted across the state between April and September, 2015. UCI researchers attended all three training sessions and administered surveys to parole agent participants.

Thisreportpresentsfindingsfromparoleagentsurveysconductedduringgenderresponsivitytraining. The sample includes 38 PAI and PAII caseload-carrying parole agents: supervisors and parole agents not carrying a full caseload were not invited to participate in the survey. Agents weresurveyedtwiceoverthecourseofthe16-hourtraining.Thesurveywasfirstadministeredat the start of day one prior to training commencing (pre-training), and then re-administered on day two at the conclusion of training in order to observe change over time (post-training). Although voluntary, there was a 100% participation rate from parole agents.

The survey included items measuring (a) agent demographics, (b) attitudes about parole supervision of female offenders, (c) agent preferences for caseload size and parolee gender, (d) agentsenseofcompetencesupervisingfemaleoffenders,knownasself-efficacy,(e)knowledgeandexpertise about female offenders, (f) perceptions of gender differences in criminogenic needs, (g) perceptions of gender differences in workload and service referrals, and (h) awareness of programs available to female parolees.

4

Keyfindingsfromthepre-andpost-trainingsurveyarepresentedbelow.

• Agent demographics. Themajorityofagentswerefemale(63.2%)andonlyasmallpercentage had received prior training in gender-responsivity (7.9%). In terms of the time worked in corrections, the majority of agents (73.7%) had over 15 years of experience.Most(67.6%)hadacollegedegree.Therewasafairlyevendistributionof female parolees on the agents’ current caseloads, ranging from zero females (21.1%) to over 50 females (18.4%).

• Attitudes about parole supervision of female offenders. The majority of agents (both pre- and post-training) supported the statement that female offenders should be supervised differently than male offenders. Support for DAPO implementing specialized caseloads for females rose over time, from 50% pre-training to 84% post-training.

• Preferences regarding caseload size and gender. Agent preferences for the type of caseload to supervise were impacted by training, in favor of supervising female parolees. Prior to training, about half of agents surveyed (55%) indicated a preference for a mixed gender caseload of males and females, while 27% preferred a female-only caseload (the remaining 18% preferred a male-only caseload). Post-training preference for a mixed gender caseload dropped slightly from 55% to 49% and preference for a female-only caseload rose from 27% to 42% (preference for a male-only caseload dropped from 18% to 9.1%).

• Caseload sizes. Agents reported smaller average caseload sizes for female-only caseloads compared to male-only caseloads, both pre- and post-training. The average preferred caseload size post-training for a female-only caseload was 35 parolees, and 47 parolees for a male-only caseload. Note that preferred caseload size for either gender was substantially lower than the 53 parolees funded under the current CPSRM policy.

• Self-efficacy.Traininghadasignificantimpactonagentself-efficacy, with agents’ perceived ability to successfully supervise female offenders improving markedly over time.Self-efficacyincreasedoneverysurveyquestion,withthelargestincreasesobserved in questions relating to understanding and application of relational theory, trauma, and female offender pathways to offending. However, at the conclusion of the16-hourtrainingsessiononlyhalfthesample(50%)indicatedtheyhadreceivedsufficienttrainingingender-responsiveapproaches;morethanaquarter(28%)wereneutral;and22%ofagentsindicatedtheyneededadditionaltrainingingender-responsivity.Thiswasasomewhatsurprisingfindingandhighlightstheneedforcomprehensive training in this area.

• Knowledge and expertise. Agent knowledge concerning the frequency and reasons that female offenders violate parole compared to male offenders improved post-training, demonstrating that agents did learn new information about female

5

offending behavior during training. Two survey items were related to agent expertise (i.e., how to make a case plan, and relationships with service agencies) and these remained fairly stable over time. This result was as expected since training was unlikely toimpactthesespecificareasofagentexpertise.

• Criminogenic needs. Agents had a good understanding of the differences between maleandfemalecriminogenicneeds;theirknowledgeinthisareaisconsistentwith the research literature and did not change substantially over time as a result of training. Agents recognized that female offenders have higher needs than males in some areas (e.g., family/marital and education/work) and lower needs in other areas (e.g., antisocial personality criminality and antisocial behavior).

• Workload and service referrals. Agents reported that female offenders require more time and more resources than male offenders. In terms of the amount of time required for each contact, the majority of agents (70%) reported that contacts with female offenders are longer. Asked to report on the number of contacts required for male or female offenders, slightly more than half (53%) of agents surveyed reported that females require morecontacts;morethanathird(36%)ofagentsthoughtfemalesrequiredthesamenumber of contacts as males, and 11% thought that females required fewer contacts than males. Consequently, the anecdotal evidence suggesting that supervising female offenders is “more work” than supervising males appears to be driven by agents perceiving that they spend more time on average speaking with female offenders during contacts, than needing more contacts with females. In addition, we asked agents to report whether the number of service referrals for female offenders was higher, about the same, lower compared to male offenders (or whether they did not know) for six service areas: family/parenting, employment/education, health/dental, mental health, substance abuse, and housing. Results showed that agents reported female offenders require more service referrals than males across all six categories (particularly family/parenting).

Insummary,theseresultsdemonstratethattrainingwaseffectiveinincreasingagentself-efficacyandknowledgeaboutgender-responsivesupervision.Self-efficacyimprovedconsistentlyacrossevery survey item. Training also shifted the attitudes of some agents toward supervising female parolees, with more agents receptive to supervising female-only caseloads after training than before, and a greater percentage of agents supporting specialized female caseloads after training thanbefore.Underlyingtheimportanceoftraininginthisareawasthefindingthat-after16-hoursoftraining-onlyhalfoftheagentsindicatedtheyhadreceivedsufficienttrainingingender-responsiveapproaches. We are unsure whether this level of training need is comparable to other DAPO training contentareasorspecifictogender-responsivity.

Thesurveyfindingsareusefulinbenchmarkingtheidealpreferredcaseloadsizeforsupervisingfemale parolees at 35 on a caseload. Agents indicated that female parolees are “more work” than males largely due to agents spending a greater amount of time with female offender during contacts and the perception that female offenders require more service referrals across all areas. There may be additional factors contributing to agents’ perceptions that we did not measure.

6

There are several limitations to the current results that should be considered. First, the sample size of 38 agents in attendance at master training is small, which limits the generalizability of results. The sample will be expanded as further DAPO gender responsivity training is conducted andUCIisabletoadministersurveystomoreagents.Wearealsoadministering6-monthfollow-up surveys to the current sample of agents to examine whether the information learned in training is retained over time and what impact on-the-job experience supervising specializedfemalecaseloadshasonattitudes,knowledgeandself-efficacy.Finally,inordertocomplementthefindingspresentedinthisreportregardingagentworkloadUCIisconductingaworkloadstudyinearly2016aspartoftheHEALprocessevaluation.Theworkloadstudywillexamine the time that agents allocate to particular activities and the nature of contacts with female and male parolees over a six-week data collection period. The workload study will compare an experimental group of agents who are supervising female-only parolees with a control group of agents supervising primarily male parolees. Further HEAL evaluation reports will be disseminated as research components are completed.

7

INTRODUCTION

GENDER RESPONSIVITY AND CDCROver the last decade, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) have implemented a number of policies and programs to help female offenders successfully reintegrate into the community upon release from prison. In 2005, CDCR established the Female Offender Programs and Services (FOPS) to manage and provide oversight for female offender programs. Also in 2005, a Gender-Responsive Strategies Commission (GRSC) was formed with representatives from CDCR, community partners, nationally recognized experts on female offenders, legislative representatives, families of offenders, and formerly incarcerated individuals. Collaboratively, FOPS and the GRSC created a female offender master plan, which provided a blueprint for implementing a comprehensive set of gender-responsive policies and programs for female offenders in California (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2008).

California’s master plan for female offenders is based on a rehabilitative model rather than a punitive model. It is intended to help offenders successfully transition back to the community, reduce recidivism, and reduce the associated costs of offenders repeatedly cycling through the system. The plan recognizes that female offenders have distinct challenges and distinct rehabilitative needs. For example, compared to male offenders female offenders have higher rates of substance abuse, past trauma and mental health issues. They have different patterns of offending, are more likely to be the primary caregiver of minor-aged children, and are often under-educated and unemployed (VanVoorhis, et al, 2008). Taken together, these differences between male and female offenders suggest that a gender-responsive approach to supervision could improve outcomes and improve the lives of the women themselves.

The shift towards a more gender-responsive approach for female offenders is a national trend that began in the late 1980’s as the number of women in state prisons began to rise. Historically, female offenders have always represented a small portion of the incarcerated population. However, between 1990 and 2010 the number of women incarcerated in state prisons across thecountryincreasedfromabout39,000toover99,000,anincreaseof156%(Cohen,1991;Guerino, Harrison, & Sabol, 2011). During the same period, the number of men incarcerated in state prisons rose from about 595,000 to 1.3 million, an increase of 119%.

In California, the rise in female imprisonment has been somewhat less pronounced than the national average. Between 1990 and 2010 the female prison population in California increased fromabout6,500toalmost10,000(anincreaseof53%).Thenumberofmalesimprisonedin California increased 71% during the same period from about 90,800 to about 155,100 (Cohen,1991;Guerino,Harrison,&Sabol,2011).SincethepassageofCalifornia’sPublicSafetyRealignment Act in 2011, which shifted non-serious, non-violent, and non-sexual offenders to county jails, the number of females imprisoned in California has declined even further. By year end2013,Californiaprisonshousedapproximately6,300femaleoffenders,or4.7%ofthestateprison population (Carson, 2014).

8

DAPO and the Division of Rehabilitative Programs (DRP) recently introduced an initiative for female offenders known as the Housing, Employment, And Linking Services initiative, or HEAL. HEAL is a multi-faceted initiative that incorporates a range of services and strategies into a coordinated and targeted approach for female offenders. HEAL was created through a partnership between DAPO and DRP in an effort to better support female parolees in their efforts to not return to prison. Components of HEAL include specialized caseloads for female offenders, pre-parole classes at re-entry hubs, Female Offender Treatment and Employment Programs (FOTEPs), prison-gate to program-door transportation, employment PACTs, Affordable Care Act (ACA) links, efforts to eliminate female homelessness, DRP specialized program managers, and mandated staff training in gender responsivity.

CEBC EVALUATION OF HEALThe Center for Evidence-Base Corrections (CEBC) at the University of California, Irvine (UCI) has a research contract with the CDCR and in 2014 was asked to partner with DAPO and CDCR in evaluating HEAL. The evaluation will include both a process and outcome evaluation. The process evaluation will include (a) the impact of parole agent training on agent attitudes and perceptions, (b) the impact of transportation to programs on completion rates, and (c) the implementation of specialized caseloads and impact on agent workload. The outcome evaluation will measure the impact of HEAL on recidivism.

THE AIM OF THIS REPORT Thisreportpresentsinitialfindingsfromonecomponentoftheprocessevaluation-theimpactofgender-responsivitytrainingonparoleagentattitudesandperceptions.Wepresentfindingsfrom the baseline surveys that were conducted during the training of a small number of parole agent “master trainers”. In the near future these master trainers will conduct further gender-responsivity training for all parole agents in a statewide rollout, following the “train the trainer” (T4T) model. The CEBC agent surveys presented in this report will be expanded in two ways overthecoming6-12months.First,thissampleofmastertrainerswillcompletefollow-upsurveys4-6monthsfollowingbaseline,toexaminechangeinagentattitudesovertime.Second,thesample will be expanded to include approximately 400 additional agents during the statewide rollouttraining.Separatereportswillpresentthesefindingsastheycometohand.

9

METHOD

DEVELOPMENT OF THE SURVEYThe parole agent survey was developed by CEBC in collaboration with DAPO and CDCR’s OfficeofResearch.ThissurveyisincludedasAppendixA.Theprimaryaimofthesurveywasto measure the extent to which parole agents feel competent in their ability to supervise femaleoffenders,referredtoasself-efficacy.Thesurveyalsomeasuredagentattitudesaboutparole supervision of female offenders, agent knowledge and expertise, agent demographics, caseload preferences, perceptions of criminogenic needs, perceived workload and service referrals. Each of these will be presented below.

Demographic and background characteristicsAgents were asked eight questions related to their demographic and background characteristics, including gender, education, prior work experience, prior training in gender responsivity, the number of females on their current caseload, and their knowledge of community programs, services, and treatment for female parolees. We asked these questions in order to describe the sample of agents.

Attitudes about parole supervision of female offendersThree questions measured agent attitudes related to parole supervision of female offenders. Agents indicated the extent to which (1) they enjoy supervising female offenders, (2) whether females should be supervised differently, and (3) whether DAPO should have specialized caseloads for female offenders. Items were rated on a Likert scale from one (strongly agree) to five(stronglydisagree).Aratingofthreereflectedaneutralopinion.Weaskedthesequestionsto understand whether training impacted any of these attitudes.

Caseload preferences Agents were asked whether they would prefer to supervise male parolees, female parolees, or both, and also the “ideal number” of parolees on each of these caseloads.

Self-efficacyWemeasuredself-efficacytodetermineiftheknowledgeandconceptslearnedduringtraining would translate into an increased sense of competency for staff, a key component in implementing effective correctional programs (Gendreau, Goggin, & Smith, 1999). The areas of competence were drawn from the Gender-Responsive Policy and Practice Assessment (GRPPA) developed by Bloom, Covington, Messina, Selvaggi, and Owen (2014) and published by the National Institute of Corrections. The GRPPA is designed to help correctional agencies self-assess their policies and programs to determine if they adhere to gender-responsive practices.

Todevelopself-efficacyitems,wereviewedDomainII(Staffing)oftheGRPPAtodeterminetheskills, knowledge, and attitudes recommended for staff who work with female offenders. Based upon the GRPPA recommendations, we prepared statements to measure how competent the agent feels in these areas. For example, we asked whether agents had the ability to handle situations that may arise from past trauma, whether they know how to draw upon a female offender’s strengths to enhance their success on supervision, and whether they could set appropriate boundaries with female offenders. Items were rated on a Likert scale from one (stronglyagree)tofive(stronglydisagree).Aratingofthreereflectedaneutralopinion.Twelvesurveyitemsintotaladdressedself-efficacy.Fourquestionswerereverse-scoredtominimize

10

acquiescence bias in responses. Items were rated on a Likert scale from one (strongly agree) tofive(stronglydisagree).Aratingofthreereflectedaneutralopinion.

Agent knowledge and expertiseFour additional questions measured agent knowledge and expertise regarding female offenders, for example, whether they violate parole more often than male offenders and whether the agent has good relationships with service agencies that provide support to female offenders.

Criminogenic needs Agents were asked their perceptions about the criminogenic needs of female offenders compared to male offenders. We asked these questions to determine whether agent perceptions were consistent with criminal justice research literature in this area and the extent to which perceptions changed over time. Agents were asked to indicate whether female parolees have higher, about the same, or lower criminogenic needs in each of the eight areas, or whether they did not know.

Workload and service referralsAgents were asked their perceptions about the workload required for female offenders compared to male offenders in terms of (a) the number of contacts, and (b) the average time spent on each contact. Agents were asked to indicate whether they female parolees have higher, about the same, or lower workload in these areas, or whether they did not know. Agents were also asked whether the number of service referrals for female offenders compared to male offenders was higher, about the same, lower, or whether they did not know. Perceptions about service referrals were measured for six service areas: family/parenting, employment/education, health/dental, mental health, substance abuse, and housing.

SURVEY ADMINISTRATION AND SAMPLETheparoleagentsurveywasadministeredduringDAPO’s16-hourgender-responsivitytrainingconducted on three occasions - once in the north of the State for agents located in this area, andtwiceinthesouthforsouthern-basedagents.Thefirstgroupofagents(N=25)completedtraininginApril,2015,inSacramento;thesecondgroup(N=9)completedidenticaltraininginMay, 2015, in Chula Vista, and the third group (N=4) completed training in September, 2015, also in Chula Vista. The total sample size was 38 agents. Parole supervisors (e.g., Unit Supervisors andDivisionAdministrators)alsoattendedthetraining;however,onlyPA1andPA2agentswith full caseloads participated in the surveys. The parole supervisors were not in the room at the time that surveys were administered. Surveys were voluntary, although 100% of agents completed surveys, and anonymous (agents were asked to include their parole unit and email address to enable matching of surveys pre- and post-training, and to provide contact informationforafollow-upsurveyin4-6months).

Agents completed the survey twice – once prior to the start of training on day one (which we call pre-training), and once at the conclusion of training at the end of day two (which we call post-training). The Pre-Training survey included all items described above. The Post-Training survey was identical except for the deletion of items to measure workload and service referrals, demographics, comments about supervising female offenders, and knowledge of community treatment, services and programs.

11

PRE-TRAINING SURVEY RESULTS

In this section we present results of the pre-training survey that was administered prior to training at the start of day one. This captures the baseline views of agents prior to gender-responsivity training. Later in this report we present results from the post-training survey completed at the end of day two at the conclusion of training, and discuss the extent to which agent attitudes changed over the course of the two days.

DEMOGRAPHICS AND BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLEAtotalof38agentscompletedsurveysonthefirstdayoftraining.Theirdemographicandback-ground characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic and background characteristics of the training sample (N=38)

Variable N %

Gender Female 24 63.2 Male 14 36.8

Prior training in gender responsivity Had prior gender-responsive training 3 7.9 No prior training 35 92.1

Time worked for DAPO1 ≤5years 2 5.4 6-10years 10 27.0 11-15years 16 43.2 16-20years 4 10.8 21+ years 5 13.5

Time worked for CDCR1 ≤5years 0 0.0 6-10years 6 16.2 11-15 years 9 24.3 16-20years 10 27.0 21+ years 12 32.4

Time worked in Corrections ≤5years 0 0.0 6-10years 2 5.3 11-15 years 8 21.1 16-20years 12 31.6 21+years 16 42.1

Prior Work Experience 2 Socialcasework/welfare 4 5.6 Parole agent in another jurisdiction 7 9.9 Probation 10 14.1 Law enforcement 5 7.0 State corrections counselor 13 18.3 Statecorrectionsofficer 22 31.0 Other 10 14.1

Highest education level 1 Some college but no degree 2 5.4 Completed a 2-year college degree 5 13.5 Completeda4-yearcollegedegree 25 67.6 Completed graduate/prof degree 5 13.5

Number of female parolees on current caseload 0 females 8 21.1 1-10females 6 15.8 11-30 females 9 23.7 31-50 females 8 21.1 51+ females 7 18.4

1 Total N for these questions is 37 due to missing responses.2 Total is greater than N=38 since it includes multiple responses for several individuals.

12

Themajorityofagentswerefemale(63.2%)andasmallpercentageofagentshadreceivedprior training in gender-responsivity (7.9%). In terms of the time worked in corrections, the majorityofagents(73.7%)hadover15yearsofexperience.Most(67.6%)hadacollegedegree.There was a fairly even distribution of female parolees on the agents’ current caseloads, ranging from zero females (21.1%) to over 50 females (18.4%).

AGENT ATTITUDES ABOUT PAROLE SUPERVISION OF FEMALE OFFENDERS PRE-TRAININGResults from the items measuring agent attitudes about parole supervision of female offenders are presented in Figure 1 (see Table 5 in Appendix B for detailed results). This chart shows the mean score for the group for each question, with higher scores (above three) indicating agree-ment for the statement, lower scores (below three) indicating disagreement, and scores of three being neutral. Prior to training, agents were most supportive of the statement that female parolees should be supervised differently than male parolees. Agents held somewhat positive attitudes about supervising female offenders and whether DAPO should have specialized case-loads for females.

Figure 1. Agent attitudes about parole supervision of female offenders Pre-Training (N=38)

Mean scores are a measure of the group average, but it can sometimes be informative to examine the distribution of responses because strong beliefs on either end of the scale may be masked when they are averaged across the group. Figure 2 shows the distribution of responses made by agents for each of the questions related to agent attitudes about parole supervision of female offenders. The dark green areas of the bars (toward the bottom) indicate thepercentageofagentswhoagreedwiththestatement;themossgreenareaofthebarsshowthepercentageofagentswhowereneutral;andtheyellowareaofthebars(atthetop)indicate agents who disagreed with the statement.

Figure 2. Agent attitudes about parole supervision of female offenders Pre-Training (N=38)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

DAPO should have specialized caseloads

for females

Enjoys supervising female offenders

Females should be supervised differentlyPe

rce

nt o

f ag

ent

s re

spo

ndin

g

Strongly Agree Strongly DisagreeAgree Neutral Disagree

131 2 3 4 5

Rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)

3.42

3.58

3.95

1 2 3 4 5

DAPO should have specialized caseloads for females


Females should be supervised differently

Looking more closely at agent pre-training responses, we see that attitudes about whether DAPO should have specialized caseloads for females were mixed. Half of agents (50%) weresupportive(eitheragreedorstronglyagreed),34%wereneutral,and16%didnotendorsespecialized caseloads (disagreed or strongly disagreed). The majority of agents (58%) indicated they enjoy supervising female offenders, 32% were neutral and 11% indicated they do not enjoy supervising female offenders. Most agents endorsed the idea that female offenders should be superviseddifferentlythanmaleoffenders(81%eitheragreedorstronglyagreed;13%wereneutral;and only 5% disagreed).

We examined whether these attitudes were related to background factors (e.g., gender and education)andfoundnosignificantrelationships.Wealsoexaminedtheassociationamongthesesurveyitemsandfoundasignificantrelationshipbetweenwhethertheagentenjoyssupervising female offenders and attitudes about whether DAPO should have specialized caseloads for females (r=.628,p < .01), such that agents who enjoy supervising female offenders were more likely to endorse specialized caseloads. Agents who endorsed specialized caseloads were more likely to indicate that females should be supervised differently (r=.463,p < .01).

AGENT CASELOAD PREFERENCES PRE-TRAININGAgents were asked to indicate whether they prefer to supervise male parolees only, female parolees only, or both male and female parolees. They were also asked to state the ideal number of parolees on each of these caseloads. Two agents did not respond to these questions and were excluded from the analysis. Results are presented in Table 2. Prior to training, the majorityoftheagents(56%)indicatedtheypreferamixed-gendercaseload,25%preferredto supervise females only and 19% indicated they preferred a male-only caseload. In terms of caseloadsize,themeannumberofparoleeswas42.4foramale-onlycaseloadand36.5forafemale-only caseload. On a mixed-gender caseload, the mean number of males preferred was 27.8andthemeannumberoffemalespreferredwas16.7.

Table 2. Agent caseload preferences Pre-Training (N=36)1

Pre-TrainingItem N %

Gender preference Male parolees only 7 19.4 Female parolees only 9 25.0 Bothmaleandfemaleparolees 20 55.6

Item Mean SD*

Ideal caseload size Gender-specificcaseloads Male-onlycaseload 42.4 9.4 Female-onlycaseload 36.5 8.8Mixed-gender caseloads Ideal number of males 27.8 8.7 Idealnumberoffemales 16.7 6.0

1 Total N for these questions is 36 due to missing responses.

* SD=standard deviation. Standard deviation is a measure of variability that indicates how closely the responses are clustered around the mean. A higher SD indicates greater variability.

14

InFigure3,weexamineagentpreferencesforcaseloadsizesforgender-specificcaseloadsinmoredetail.Thechartshowsthepercentageofagentswhopreferredagender-specific(male-only or female-only) caseload size less than 31 parolees, 31-40 parolees, 41-50 parolees, or over 50 parolees.

For a male-only caseload, the most preferred caseload range was 31-40 parolees with 39% of agents indicating a caseload size in this range. Another 31% of agents indicated they would prefer a male caseload in the range of 41-50 parolees, meaning that 70% of agents indicated that an ideal caseload size for a male-only caseload would be between 31 and 50 parolees.

For a female-only caseload, the most preferred caseload range was also 31-40 parolees (44% ofagents);thesecondmostpreferredcaseloadrangewasfewerthan31parolees,with36%of agents indicating this range was ideal. This means that 80% of agents reported that the ideal caseload size for a female-only caseload would be fewer than 41 parolees.

Figure3.Preferrednumberofparoleesongender-specificcaseloadsPre-Training(N=36)1


Again, we examined whether any background factors were related to caseload preferences. Therewasnosignificantrelationshipbetweencaseloadpreferencespre-trainingandanybackgroundfactors.However,whilenotstatisticallysignificant,maleagentsstronglypreferredmixed-gender caseloads (71%) over female-only caseloads (14%) or male-only caseloads (14%);femaleagentspreferredmixed-gendercaseloads(45%)somewhatmorethanfemale-only caseloads (32%) or male-only caseloads (23%). We caution interpretation of these results due to the low sample size.

15

0%

10%

30%

40%

50%

20%

39%

31%

14%

44%

3%

Female-only caseloadMale-only caseload

<=30 31-40 41-50 >50 <=30 31-40 41-50 >50Perc

ent

of a

ge

nts

resp

ond

ing

17%

36%

17%

AGENT SELF-EFFICACY SUPERVISING FEMALE PAROLEES PRE-TRAININGResultsfromtheagentself-efficacyitemsarepresentedinFigure4(seeTable6inAppendixB for detailed results). The chart shows the mean score for the group for each question, with higherscoresindicatinghigherself-efficacyandlowerscoresindicatinglowerself-efficacy.Priortotraining,agentsshowedthestrongestself-efficacyintheirabilitytosetboundarieswithfemaleoffenders (M = 4.43, SD=0.87),butperhapsmorenotableisthefindingthatagentsshowedthelowest average score in the question that measured whether they have enough training in gender-responsive approaches (M =2.26,SD = 0.95), indicating they were aware of their lack of knowledge inthisarea.Agentsalsoshowedlowself-efficacyscoresintheirknowledgeofhowtoapplyrelational theory (M = 2.34, SD = 1.12), and the meaning of relational theory (M = 2.34, SD = 1.07). This result was not surprising, given that most agents had no prior training in gender-responsivity.

Figure4.Agentself-efficacysupervisingfemaleparoleesPre-Training(N=38)

* In the original survey, these questions were reverse-coded. In this chart, all questions have been worded and coded such that higher scores reflect higher self-efficacy.


Wecalculatedatotalself-efficacyscoreforeachagentbysummingscoresonallself-efficacyitems.Totalscores(outofamaximumof60)rangedfrom22to56,withameanof39.0.Wethenexaminedwhetheranybackgroundfactorswererelatedtotheagent’stotalself-efficacyscorepre-training.Wefoundasignificantrelationshipbetweentotalself-efficacypre-trainingandwhether the agent had received prior training in gender responsivity (r=.286,p = .09), such that agentswhohadreceivedpriortrainingshowedhigherself-efficacy.Therewasnosignificantrelationshipbetweentotalself-efficacypre-trainingandanyotherbackgroundfactor.

16

1 2 3 4 5

Has enough training in gender responsivity

Can apply relational theory

Understands relational theory

Knows women’s pathways to prison (1)

Knows trauma triggers

Feels knowledgable about services for women

Can draw on women’s strengths

Understands parenting issues

Can handle trauma triggers

Understands trauma impact

Canhandledifficultemotions*

Can set appropriate boundaries (1)*

1 2 3 4 5


AGENT KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE ABOUT FEMALE OFFENDERSWe measured agent knowledge about female parole violations and their expertise in two key areas recommended by GRPPA, (1) whether they understand how to develop a case plan from the output of an assessment, and (2) their relationships with service agencies that provide support to offenders. Figure 5 (see Table 7 in Appendix B for detailed results) shows the mean values for the survey items measuring agent knowledge and expertise. For the knowledge questions, agents were slightly less than neutral (M = 2.84, SD = 1.20) in their support of the statementthatfemalesviolateparolelessfrequentlythanmales;agentswereslightlymorethan neutral (M = 3.37, SD = 1.13) of the statement that females violate for different reasons. In terms of the expertise questions, agents on average were neutral (M = 3.08, SD = 0.91) about whethertheycanuseanassessmenttoformacaseplan;agentsweresupportive(M = 3.79, SD = 0.87) of the statement that they have good relationships with service agencies.

Figure 5. Agent knowledge and expertise about supervision of female offenders Pre-Training (N=38)

* In the original survey, this question was reverse-coded. In this chart, all questions have been worded and coded such that higher scores reflect higher knowledge or expertise.

InFigure6welookmorecloselyatthepre-trainingresponsestotheknowledgeandexpertisequestions.Accordingtoareportissuedin2014byCDCROfficeofResearch,femaleparoleesinCaliforniareturntoprisonlessfrequentlythanmaleparolees(49%vs.62%).However,lessthan one-third of the agents (32%) agreed that females violate parole less often than males, while 21% were neutral, and 47% did not support this statement (either disagreed or strongly disagreed). In terms of reasons for violating, over half of agents (53%) agreed that females violate for different reasons than males (which is consistent with research in this area), 18% were neutral, and 29% did not support this statement (either disagreed or strongly disagreed).

Regarding agent expertise, agents were mixed in their perceived ability to use the output of an assessment to form a case plan. About 37% of agents supported this statement (agreed or strongly agreed), 34% were neutral, and 29% did not support this statement (either disagreed or strongly disagreed). As to their relationships with service agencies, most agents (74%) indicated they had good relationships with service agencies (either agreed or strongly agreed), 18% were neutral, and 8% indicated they did not have good relationships with service agencies.

17

Females violate parole less often than males

Femalesviolatefordifferentreasonsthanmales*

Can use an assessment to form a case plan

Good relationships with service agencies


1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

Figure 6. Agent knowledge and expertise about supervision of female offenders Pre-Training (N=38)

* In the original survey, this question was reverse-coded. In this chart, all questions have been worded and coded such that higher scores reflect higher knowledge or expertise.

PERCEPTION OF CRIMINOGENIC NEEDS Agents were asked their perception of female offender criminogenic needs compared to the needs of male offenders for eight criminogenic need domains. Agents indicated whether they thought female parolees (compared to male parolees) had higher, lower, about the same needs, or whether they did not know. Results from the perception of criminogenic needs are presented in Figure 7 (see Table 8 in Appendix B for detailed results).

Reading from the left of the chart, in the family/marital domain, most agents (87%) reported that females had higher needs, while only 5% of agents thought that females had lower needs in this domain. For the education/work domain, exactly one-half of the agents (50%) indicated that females had higher needs, 34% thought females were about the same as males, and 11% thought that females had lower needs in this domain. In the substance abuse domain, 34% of agents indicated that females had higher needs in this area, while 55% indicated males and females had about the same level of need. Agents reported that females and males had fairly similar needs in the leisure/recreation domain. Agents indicated that females had lower needs than males for antisocial peers, antisocial behavior, and antisocial attitudes. The domain with the lowest perceived needs for females was the domain of antisocial personality (50% of agents indicated females had lower needs, 24% indicated females were about the same, and 21% indicated females had higher needs in this area).

18

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Females violate parole less often

than males

Perc

ent

of a

ge

nts


Females violate for different

reasons than males*

Can use an assessment to

form a case plan

Good relationships with service

agencies

Figure 7. Criminogenic needs of female parolees compared to male parolees Pre-Training (N=38)

* Total N for this question is 37 due to a missing response.

WORKLOAD AND SERVICE REFERRALS Anecdotal evidence suggests that female offenders may be “more work” than male offenders because they are more verbal and spend more time conversing with agents. To measure this, agents were asked their perception of the workload required for female offenders compared to male offenders in terms of (a) the average time spent on each contact, and (b) the number of contacts. Agents indicated whether female parolees (compared to male parolees) were higher, lower, about the same, or whether they did not know for these items. Results regarding perception of workload are presented in Figure 8 (see Table 9 in Appendix B for detailed results).

Figure 8. Workload for female parolees compared to male parolees Pre-Training (N=37)

* Total N for this question is 36 due to missing responses

Lookingfirstattheaveragelengthoftimespentoneachcontact,themajorityofagents(70%)indicated the average length of time required for each contact made with a female parolee was higher than for a male parolee. Twenty-two percent of agents reported that the average timepercontactwasthesameforfemalesandmales;8%respondedthatfemaleoffendersrequired less time per contact on average.

19

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Perc

ent

of a

ge

nts

Females Higher About the same Females Lower Does not know

Family / Marital

Education / Work

Substance Abuse

Leisure / Recreation

Antisocial peers

Antisocial behavior*

Antisocial personality

Antisocial attitudes

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Perc

ent

of a

ge

nts

resp

ond

ing

Females Higher About the same Females Lower

Average Contact Time Number of Contacts*

In terms of the number of contacts required, 53% of agents indicated that females required morecontacts,36%indicatedfemalesneededaboutthesamenumberofcontactsasmales,and 11% indicated that females required fewer contacts.

Wefoundnosignificantrelationshipbetweenperceptionofworkloadandanybackgroundfactors. In order to further explore workload issues agents were asked to compare female and male parolees on the number of service referrals required in six different areas (family/parenting, mental health, housing, health/dental, employment/education, and substance abuse). Agents indicated whether female parolees (compared to male parolees) had higher, lower, about the same service requirements, or whether they did not know for each of these items. Results regarding the number of service referrals are presented in Figure 9 (see Table 10 in Appendix B for detailed results).

Figure 9. Number of service referrals for female parolees compared to male parolees

Pre-Training (N=38)

Overall, agents reported that females require more service referrals than males. In fact, there was no area in which the majority of agents indicated that females require fewer service referrals than males. For family/parenting services, the overwhelming majority of agents (90%) indicated that females require more service referrals in this area. The majority of agents (55%) reported that females require more service referrals than males for both mental health and housing. For substance abuse services, agents reported the most similar requirements for females and males, with 29% indicating females needed more substance abuse services, 58% indicating males and females were about the same and 13% indicating females needed fewer referrals for substance abuse services.

20

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Perc

ent

of a

ge

nts

Females Higher About the same Females Lower Does not know

Family/ Parenting

Mental Health

Housing Health/ Dental

Employment/ Education

Substance Abuse

AWARENESS OF SERVICES IN THE COMMUNITY FOR FEMALE OFFENDERSOne of the key components of HEAL is linking female parolees to programs, services and treatment in their community, which we collectively refer to here as services. In order to measure agent awareness of services, agents were asked to name the programs, services or treatment in the community (such as FOTEP) of which they are aware. Figure 10 below (see Table 11 in Appendix B for detailed results) shows the percentage of agents by the number of services named, which ranged from zero to eight or more services. Note that in instances where agents named different locations of the same service (e.g., FOTEP Beaumont and FOTEP Santa Ana), the service was counted only once.

Figure 10. Agent awareness of programs, services or treatment in the community for female

parolees Pre-Training (N=38)

Intermsofthespecificservicesnamed,theDAPOservicesthatwerenamedmostfrequentlywere Day Reporting Centers (DRC), named by 18% of agents, and Specialized Treatment for Optimized Programming (STOP), named by 21% of agents. The most frequently named community service was the Female Offender Treatment and Employment Program (FOTEP) which was named by 84% of agents. This is not surprising since FOTEP was mentioned as an example in the survey question. Other frequently mentioned community services (each mentionedby16%ofagents)includedChapmanHouse,HealthRight360andWaldenHouse.See Table 12 in Appendix B for a detailed table of services named.

21

0%

5%

15%

20%

25%

10%

Number of programs, services or treatments named

zero one two three four five six seven

Perc

ent

of a

ge

nts

eight or more

AGENT COMMENTSAgents were given an opportunity to provide additional comments about supervising female parolees. Of the 38 agents surveyed, 15 agents provided comments. Nearly half of the agents who commented (N = 7) said that female offenders are more challenging to supervise because they require more time, are more emotional or they tend to be more “needy”. Three agents said that additional community resources are necessary for female offenders with mental health issues, two agents suggested additional incentives (such as food vouchers) and more housing options would be helpful, and two agents commented that more services and programs in the community are needed for female offenders. Overall, agents indicated that female offenders require more attention and greater services. As one agent commented, “Female supervision goes beyond the required contact visits. I have to build a trust. My intentions are always put to the test. At times I could spend my entire day on one person and resolving one problem because you have to produce now so as not to lose what I have gained. These women are needy; they have both substance abuse and mental health issues... all that has to be considered.”

22

POST-TRAINING SURVEY AND CHANGE OVER TIME

Recall that for the post-training survey the following items were included: (a) caseload preferences,(b)expertiseandknowledge,(c)self-efficacy,and(d)perceptionsofcriminogenic needs. The post-training survey did not include the workload and service referrals items since we did not expect to see change of time in this area.

In this section of the report we compare agent responses from day one (pre-training) to day two (post-training) to examine the extent to which agent attitudes were impacted by training and changed over time. Note that while 38 agents completed surveys, and all agents completed surveys on both days, there was a small number of missing responses for some items. In the analysis presented in this section agents were only included if they had no missing items across pre- and post-surveys. That is, we excluded some agents for some components of the analysis if they had missing data for that particular survey item. Consequently, scores on the pre-training survey may vary slightly in this section compared with the previous section of the report due to this analysis being based on a slightly smaller sample size of agents with complete responses across both surveys.

CHANGE IN ATTITUDES ABOUT PAROLE SUPERVISION OF FEMALE OFFENDERSIn this section, we present pre- and post-training results for the questions measuring agent attitudes about parole supervision of female offenders. Agents were included in the analysis if they answered the question in both the pre-training and post-training surveys. For two questions (i.e., DAPO should have specialized caseloads and female parolees should be supervised differently), two agents had missing responses and were excluded from the analysis.

Figure 11 (see Table 13 in Appendix B for detailed results) shows the mean score for the group for each question pre- and post-training, with higher scores indicating attitudes more favorableoffemaleoffendersorgender-specificsupervision.Themeanscoreforthequestionabout whether DAPO should have specialized caseloads for females showed the largest increase over time (from 3.44 to 4.28), indicating stronger support for specialized caseloads post-training. Agent attitudes about whether they enjoy supervising female offenders remained stable, with a pre-trainingmeanof3.58andapost-trainingmeanof3.61.Agentsweremoresupportiveofthestatement that females should be supervised differently post-training (4.31) than pre-training (3.94).

Figure 11. Agent attitudes about supervision of female offenders – Comparing Pre- and

Post-Training (N=38)

* Total N for these questions is 36 due to missing responses.

23

Post-Training meanPre-Training Mean

DAPOshouldhavespecializedcaseloadsforfemales*


Femalesshouldbesuperviseddifferently*


1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

Figure 12 shows the distribution of responses pre- and post-training for each of the questions related to agent attitudes about parole supervision of female offenders. Agents showed the greatest shift in their attitudes about whether DAPO should have specialized caseloads for females. Prior to training, agents were mixed in their support of specialized caseloads, but after training more than 80% of agents supported DAPO having specialized caseloads (31% agreed and 53% strongly agreed). More agents supported the statement that female offenders should besuperviseddifferentlypost-training(92%)thanpre-training(81%).Asreflectedinthemeanscore, there was no change over time in whether agents enjoy supervising female offenders.

Figure 12. Agent attitudes about parole supervision of female offenders – comparing Pre- and


* Total N for these questions is 36 due to missing responses.

CHANGE IN CASELOAD PREFERENCESWe now present pre- and post-training results for the questions measuring agent attitudes about parole supervision of female offenders. Agents were included in the analysis if they completed these questions on both surveys.

Table 3 shows the pre- and post-training preferences for caseload type (males only, females only, mixed-gender). Here, we see the largest shift in the percentage of agents who indicated a preference for a female-only caseload. Prior to training, only 27% of agents indicated a preference for a female-only caseload, but after training 42% of agents indicated they would prefer to supervise a caseload of females only. In contrast, preference for a male-only caseload decreased from 18% pre-training to 9% post-training. Preference for a mixed-gender caseload decreased slightly from 54% to 48%.

24

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Specialized caseloads* Enjoys supervisingfemales

Supervise differently*

Perc

ent

of a

ge

nts

resp

ond

ing


Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Table 3. Agent preferences for caseload gender – comparing Pre- and Post-Training (N=33) Pre-Training Post-TrainingItem N % N %

Genderpreference Malesonly 6 18.2 3 9.1 Females only 9 27.3 14 42.4 Bothmalesandfemales 18 54.5 16 48.5

In Figure 13 below, we present a graphical view of caseload preferences pre- and post-training. A total of 33 agents answered the caseload preference question on both surveys, and 8 of these agents (24%) changed their preference post-training. We examined changes in preferenceusingFisher’sExacttestandfoundasignificantdifferencebetweenthepre-trainingand post-training preferences (two-sided p < .10). Results showed that for every agent whose caseload preference changed, the change indicated an increased preference for females ontheircaseload.Morespecifically,forthe8agentswhochangedtheircaseloadpreference,5 preferred a mixed-gender caseload pre-training but indicated a preference for a female-onlycaseloadpost-training;3preferredamale-onlycaseloadpre-trainingbutindicatedapreference for a mixed-gender caseload post-training. None of the agents who indicated a preference for a female-only caseload pre-training changed their preference post-training.

Figure 13. Preferred gender of parolees to supervise – comparing Pre- and Post-Training (N=33)

Table 4 shows the pre- and post-training preferences for caseload size. The mean preferred caseloadsizeforamale-onlycaseloadincreasedslightlyfrom43.2to46.8post-training,whilethemeancaseloadsizeforafemale-onlycaseloaddecreasedfrom36.9to35.3post-training.On a mixed-gender caseload, the mean caseload size remained stable (44.5 pre-training versus44.9post-training),howevertheidealnumberofmalesincreasedfrom28.6to30.5,whiletheidealnumberoffemalesdecreasedfrom16.4to14.8.Thismeansthatovertime,agentsindicated fewer female parolees would be preferred on both female-only and mixed-gender

25

0%

10%

30%

40%

50%

20%

Female onlyMale only

Perc

ent

of a

ge

nts

Both males and females

60%

Pre-training Post-training

caseloads, but a higher number of male parolees would be preferred on a male-only or mixed-gendercaseload.Oneexplanationforthefindingthatagentspreferredfewerfemalesontheircaseload post-training is that training increased agent awareness that supervision of female offenders may require more time if gender-responsive practices are employed. For example, agents learned the importance of building relationships with female offenders to increase their success on supervision. It is unclear, however, why the average number of male parolees preferred on a male-only caseload and mixed-gender caseload increased over time.

Table 4. Agent preferences for caseload size – comparing Pre- and Post-Training (N=33)1

Pre-Training Post-TrainingItem Mean Mean

Ideal caseload size Gender-specificcaseloads Male-onlycaseload 43.2 46.8 Female-onlycaseload 36.9 35.3 Mixed-gender caseloads1 Idealnumberofmales 28.6 30.5 Idealnumberoffemales 16.4 14.8

1 Total N for this question is 32 due to missing responses.

In Figure 14 we present a graphical view of the change in preferred caseload sizes pre- and post-training. Recall that we included only those agents who answered the question on both surveys therefore pre-training results presented here will vary slightly from those reported earlier in this report. The chart shows the percentage of agents who preferred a gender-specific(male-onlyorfemale-only)caseloadsizefewerthan31parolees,31-40parolees,41-50parolees, or over 50 parolees.

Figure14.Preferrednumberofparoleesongender-specificcaseloads–comparingPre-and


26


0%

10%

30%

40%

50%

20%

Male-only caseload

Perc

ent

of a

ge

nts

<= 30 31-40 41-50 > 50

Female-only caseload


<= 30 31-40 41-50 > 50

60%

70%

For a male-only caseload, caseload size preferences were somewhat higher post-training than pre-training. Prior to training, the most preferred caseload range was 31-40 parolees (37% of agents). After training, the most preferred caseload range for a male-only caseload was 41-50 parolees (39% of agents), and the second most preferred caseload size was over 50 parolees (33% of agents). This means that 72% of agents post-training indicated the ideal caseload size for a male-only caseload was more than 40 parolees.

Looking next at the caseload size preferences for a female-only caseload, we see that the preferred range pre- and post-training remained the same (31-40 parolees). The percentage of agents who endorsedthisrangerosefrom42%to64%.Thesecondmostpreferredcaseloadrange(bothpre-andpost-training)wasfewerthan31parolees,with36%supportpre-trainingand30%supportpost-training. This means that 94% of agents post-training (compared to 79% pre-training) indicated the ideal caseload size for a female-only caseload would be fewer than 41 parolees.

CHANGE IN SELF-EFFICACYWenowpresentthepre-andpost-trainingresultsfromtheagentself-efficacyitems.(Again,agents were included in the analysis only if they completed the question on both surveys). Figure 15 (see Table 14 in Appendix B for detailed results) shows the mean values pre- and post-trainingforeachquestion.Thepost-trainingmeansshowthatagentself-efficacyimprovedoneveryitem.Thelargestincreaseinself-efficacywasseeninquestionsthatmeasured understanding of relational theory, women’s pathways to offending and trauma. Areasinwhichself-efficacyimprovedtheleast(i.e.,handlingdifficultemotionsandsettingboundaries) at the bottom of the chart were areas where agents already had high self-efficacypriortotraining.Afindingofnoteconcernsthequestionthatmeasuredwhetheragentshaveenoughtrainingingenderresponsivity.Althoughself-efficacyimprovedconsiderably on this item (from a mean of 2.3 pre-training to a mean of 3.4 post-training), the post-training results indicate that agents overall were slightly more than neutral about whether theyhaveenoughtraining.Specifically,onlyhalf(50%)oftheagentswhorespondedtothisquestionpost-trainingreportedthattheyhadenoughtrainingingenderresponsivity;28%wereneutral;and22%indicatedtheyneededadditionaltraining.

27

FIGURE 15. SELF-EFFICACY PRE- AND POST-TRAINING FOR AGENTS WHO COMPLETED BOTH SURVEYS (N=38)

* In the original survey, these questions were reverse-coded. In this chart, all questions have been worded and coded such that higher scores reflect higher self-efficacy.

1 N=37 for these questions due to missing responses. 2 N=36 for these questions due to missing responses.

CHANGE IN AGENT KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE ABOUT FEMALE OFFENDERSWe look next at the pre- and post-training results from the questions measuring agent knowledge about female parole violations and agent supervision expertise. Again, agents wereincludedintheanalysisiftheycompletedthequestiononbothsurveys.Figure16(seeTable 15 in Appendix B for detailed results) shows the mean values pre- and post-training for each question. The post-training means show that agent knowledge and expertise improved in every area, particularly in the items measuring knowledge about female parole violations.

Figure 16. Agent knowledge and expertise about parole supervision of female offenders –

comparing Pre- and Post-Training (N=36)

* In the original survey, this question was reverse-coded. In this chart, this question has been worded and coded such that higher scores reflect increased knowledge.

28

Post-Training Mean

Pre-Training Mean


Has enough gender-responsivity training (2)*

Can apply relational theory

Understands relational theory (2)

Knows women’s pathways to prison

Feels knowledgable about services for women

Knows trauma triggers (1)

Can draw on women’s strengths

Understands parenting issues

Understands trauma impact

Can handle trauma triggers

Canhandledifficultemotions*

Can set appropriate boundaries(1)*

1 2 3 4 5

Post-Training Mean

Pre-Training Mean


1 2 3 4

Females violate parole less often than males

Femalesviolateparolefordifferentreasons*

Can make a case plan from an assessment

Has good relationships with service agencies

5

In Figure 17, we examine more closely the change in responses to the questions measuring knowledge and expertise. Agent knowledge that female offenders often violate parole for different reasons than male offenders increased the most. Regarding the frequency of female parole violations compared to males, prior to training only 33% of agents supported the statement (agreed or strongly agreed) that females violate parole less frequently than males, but post-training support of this statement increased to 78%. The statement that females violatefordifferentreasonsthanmaleswassupportedby56%ofagentspriortotrainingbutpost-trainingsupportroseto86%.Theothertwoquestionsmeasuredagentexpertise.Priorto training, 33% of agents indicated they could make a case plan from the output of an assessment (either agreed or strongly agreed), but post-training agreement of this statement roseto56%.Thisincreaseincaseplanningexpertisewassomewhatunexpectedsincetrainingdidnotspecificallyaddresshowtomakeacaseplan,howeveritmaybethattheinformation about female criminogenic needs presented during training helped agents to better understand how to use the information they currently receive from an assessment. There was little change in item that measured whether agents had good service relationships with agencies that provide support to female offenders, which was expected since training was not expected to affect this item.

Figure 17. Agent expertise and knowledge about female parolees Pre- and Post-Training for

agents who completed both surveys (N=36)

* In the original survey, this question was reverse-coded. In this chart, this question has been worded and coded such that higher scores reflect increased knowledge.

29


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Females violate less Females violate for different reasons*

Can make case plan from assessment

Perc

ent

of a

ge

nts

resp

ond

ing

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Has good relationships with service agencies

CHANGE IN CRIMINOGENIC NEEDS OVER TIMEInFigure18(seeTable16inAppendixBfordetailedresults),weexaminethechangein perception of criminogenic needs pre- and post-training for agents who completed these questions on both surveys. Overall, training appeared to have little impact on agent perception of the criminogenic needs of females. In the leisure/recreation domain, more agents thought female offenders had higher needs in this area post-training than pre-training (53% versus 31%). More agents also indicated that female offenders had higher needs post-training than pre-training in the areas of antisocial personality (31% versus 22%) and antisocial attitudes (28% versus 17%). Agents seemed to be less neutral about their perceptions at follow-up. Fewer agents rated females as having “about the same” needs post-training than pre-training in the areas of antisocial peers (39% versus 22%), antisocial behavior (40% versus 23%), and antisocial attitudes (39% versus 28%).

Figure 18. Change in criminogenic needs Pre- and Post-Training for agents who completed

both surveys (N=36)

* N=35 for this question due to missing responses.

30

Leisure / RecreationFamily / Marital Education / Work Substance Abuse

Perc

ent

of a

ge

nts

resp

ond

ing

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Females Higher Does not knowAbout the same Females Lower

Antisocial AttitudesAntisocial Peers Antisocial Behavior* Antisocial Personality

Females Higher Does not knowAbout the same Females Lower

Perc

ent

of a

ge

nts

resp

ond

ing

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


CONCLUSION

These survey results are encouraging and informative for several reasons.

Agent knowledge and understanding regarding female offenders improved over the course of training,whichservedtoincreaseagentself-efficacy.Self-efficacyisameasureofanagent’sperception of competence and is a key component in implementing effective correctional programs. Second, training shifted the attitudes of some agents regarding the supervision of female offenders, with more agents after training reporting that female offenders should be supervised differently and that DAPO should implement specialized female-only caseloads. Thus, it appeared that training also improved agent “buy in” concerning supervising female offenders: information provided during training improved knowledge, which in turn improved self-efficacyandresultedinsomeagentsbeingmorewillingtosupervisefemalesthemselvesand recognize that DAPO should supervise female offenders differently.

Aninterestingfindingwasthefactthatfewoftheagentsinthesamplehadreceivedpriortrainingingender-responsivityandthat–evenaftercompletinga16-hourtrainingsession–halfthe agents reported that they needed additional training in gender-responsive approaches. Specifically,someagentswerenotclearaboutthedifferencesbetweenmaleandfemaleoffender pathways to prison, and did not understand how to apply the principles of relational theory. This result highlights the importance of comprehensive training in this area for all agents. We are unsure whether this level of training need is comparable to other DAPO training content areasorspecifictogender-responsivity.

The results regarding caseload gender and size preferences were helpful in understanding that agents differ considerably in the type of caseload they prefer, whether that be male-only, female-only, or mixed gender. There was general consensus that the number of females on a caseload should be fewer than the number of males on a caseload, regardless of whether thatcaseloadwasgender-specificoramixtureofmalesandfemales.Thesurveysprovidedabenchmark that the ideal female-only caseload size was 35 parolees. Training slightly shifted the attitudes of agents, with the average number of females preferred on a caseload declining slightly over time and the average number of males preferred on a caseload increasing slightly.

Survey results also help to quantify anecdotal evidence that supervising female parolees is “more work” than supervising male parolees. Agents reported that female offenders require moretimeandmoreresourcesthanmaleoffenders.Specifically,theamountoftimerequiredfor each contact was reported to be greater for females than for males. Agents also indicated that the number of service referrals required for female offenders was greater than the number required for male offenders, especially in the areas of family and parenting, mental health and housing. There may be additional factors contributing to agents’ perceptions of workload that we did not measure, but from these results it appears that perceptions of increased workload are largely driven by longer contact times and more service referrals for female offenders.

31

There are several limitations to the current results that should be considered. First, the sample size of 38 agents in attendance at master training is small, which limits the generalizability of results. The sample will be expanded as further DAPO gender responsivity training is conducted andUCIisabletoadministersurveystomoreagents.Wearealsoadministering6-monthfollow-up surveys to the current sample of agents to examine whether the information learned in training is retained over time and what impact on-the-job experience supervising specialized femalecaseloadshasonattitudes,knowledgeandself-efficacy.Finally,thissurveystudypresents self-report data on agent workload that may not be a reliable measure of actual workload.UCIisconductingaworkloadstudyinearly2016aspartoftheHEALprocessevaluation to examine the time that agents allocate to particular activities and the nature of contacts with female and male parolees over a six-week data collection period. The workload study will compare an experimental group of agents who are supervising female-only parolees with a control group of agents supervising primarily male parolees. Further HEAL evaluation reports will be disseminated as research components are completed.

32

REFERENCES

Bloom, Barbara, Stephanie S. Covington, Nena Messina, Kimberly Selvaggi, and Barbara Owen. 2014. Gender-Responsive Policy and Practice Assessment Manual.

Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2008). The Master Plan For Female Offenders: A Blueprint for Gender-Responsive Rehabilition.

Carson, A. (2014). Prisoners in 2013. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.

CDCROfficeofResearch(2014).California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: 2013 Outcome Evaluation Report. Sacramento: CA.

Cohen, R. L. (1991). Prisoners in 1990. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (1999). The forgotten issue in effective correctional treatment: Program implementation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43(2), 180-187.

Guerino, P., Harrison, P. M., & Sabol, W. J. (2011). Prisoners in 2010. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.

Van Voorhis, P., Salisbury, E., Wright, E., & Bauman, A. (2008). Achieving accurate pictures of risk and identifying gender responsive needs: Two new assessments for women offenders. University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research, National Institute of Corrections, Washington DC.

33

APPENDIX A – PAROLE AGENT SURVEY

The following section is about parole supervision of female offenders. Some of the statements addresshowconfidentyoufeelinyourknowledgeandabilitytosupervisefemaleoffenders,whileotherstatementsreflectyourpersonalorientationorbeliefsregardingfemaleoffenders.For each of the statements below, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement using the following scale (circle your answer)

Rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree

I feel well-informed about the different pathways females have to offending. 1 2 3 4 5

I understand how to draw upon a female offender’s strengths in order to enhance her success on supervision. 1 2 3 4 5

I feel unsure about how to respond when afemaleoffenderexperiencesdifficultfeelings, emotions, and/or triggers. 1 2 3 4 5

I have a clear understanding of the issues that female offenders face with parenting. 1 2 3 4 5

I know what is meant by relational theory. 1 2 3 4 5

I am clear about how to apply the principles of relational theory in my work with female offenders. 1 2 3 4 5

Itisdifficultformetosetclearandappropriateboundaries with female offenders. 1 2 3 4 5

I understand the impact of trauma on female offenders. 1 2 3 4 5

I am clear about the typical triggers and responses to trauma that female offenders may have. 1 2 3 4 5

I feel I have the ability to handle situations that may arise from a female offender’s past trauma. 1 2 3 4 5

I enjoy working with female offenders. 1 2 3 4 5

I feel knowledgeable about the services and supports that are often helpful for female offenders. 1 2 3 4 5

I believe I need additional training in gender-responsive approaches. 1 2 3 4 5

I have good working relationships with agencies that provide services and support to offenders. 1 2 3 4 5

I understand how to use the output of the assessment process to inform the development of a case plan. 1 2 3 4 5

Female parolees should be supervised differently than male parolees. 1 2 3 4 5

Female parolees violate parole less often than male parolees. 1 2 3 4 5

In general, female parolees violate parole for the same sort of reasons as male parolees. 1 2 3 4 5

DAPO should have specialized female-only caseloads, similar to sex offender/GPS caseloads. 1 2 3 4 5

34

35

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT PAROLE CASELOADS.1. I would prefer to supervise (circle one answer)

Male parolees only Female parolees only Both male and female parolees

2. On a male-only caseload, the ideal number of parolees would be (enter number) ______

3. On a female-only caseload, the ideal number of parolees would be (enter number) ______

4. On a mixed-gender caseload, the ideal mix of male and female parolees would be (enter number)

Number of male parolees ______ Number of female parolees ______

THE FOLLOWING QUESTION IS ABOUT CRIMINOGENIC NEEDS.

For each of the needs listed below, please indicate whether you think female parolees have higher, about the same, or lower level of needs compared to male parolees (circle your answer)

Compared to male parolees, female parolees have

Needs Higher About the same Lower Don’t know

Antisocial peers 1 2 3 4Antisocial attitudes 1 2 3 4Antisocial behavior 1 2 3 4Antisocial personality 1 2 3 4Substance Abuse 1 2 3 4Family/Marital 1 2 3 4Leisure Activities/Recreation 1 2 3 4Education/Work 1 2 3 4

THE FOLLOWING QUESTION IS ABOUT YOUR WORKLOAD AND REFERRALS TO PROGRAMS/SERVICES.

For each of the headings listed below, please indicate whether you think female parolees have higher, about the same, or lower level of service requirements compared to male parolees (circle your answer)

Compared to male parolees, female parolees require

Higher About the same Lower Don’t know

Number of contacts 1 2 3 4Average time spent on each contact 1 2 3 4Family / parenting services 1 2 3 4Employment / education services 1 2 3 4Health / dental services 1 2 3 4Mental health services 1 2 3 4Substance abuse services 1 2 3 4Housing services 1 2 3 4

YOUR CONTACT DETAILS ARE NEEDED FOR A FOLLOW-UP SURVEY IN 3-6 MONTHS FROM NOW. YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION WILL BE REPLACED WITH A UNIQUE IDENTIFYING NUMBER AND KEPT CONFIDENTIAL BY RESEARCH STAFF. (please print clearly)

Your parole unit __________________________________________________________

Your email address __________________________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT YOU.

1. Your gender (circle) Male Female 2. Your education (check one)

___ High school/GED or equivalent ___ Some college but no degree ___ Completed a 2-year college degree ___ Completed a 4-year college degree ___ Trade/Technical ___ Completed a graduate degree/professional degree

3. Prior work experience (check all that apply)

___ Social casework/welfare ___ Parole agent in another jurisdiction ___ Probation ___ Law enforcement ___ State corrections: counselor ___Statecorrections:officer ___ Other: __________________________________

4. How long have you worked for the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO)? ___ Years ___ months 5. How long have you worked for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)? ___ Years ___ months

6.Whatisthetotallengthoftimeyouhaveworkedincorrections(includingjurisdictions outside of California)? ___ Years ___ months

7. Approximately how many female parolees are on your caseload right now?

______________ (enter number)

36

8. At any time in your career, have you ever received gender-responsive training? (circle) Yes / No

If no: Please skip to the next question (question 9)

If yes: Approximately when did you last receive gender-responsive training? _____/______ Don’t know Month / Year Who provided this training? (please circle) DAPO / Don’t know /Other:________

9. Please name the programs, services or treatment in the community (such as FOTEP) for female parolees of which you are aware (fill in responses)

___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________

___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________

10. Do you have any other comments you would like to make about supervising female parolees?

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.

37

APPENDIX B – TABLES OF FIGURES

TABLE 5. AGENT ATTITUDES ABOUT PAROLE SUPERVISION OF FEMALE OFFENDERS PRE-TRAINING (N=38) Rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)

Pre-TrainingQuestion Mean SD

1. I enjoy working with female offenders. 3.58 1.082. Female parolees should be supervised differently than male parolees. 3.95 0.843. DAPO should have specialized female-only caseloads, similar to sex offender/GPS caseloads. 3.42 1.11

TABLE 6. AGENT SELF-EFFICACY SUPERVISING FEMALE PAROLEES PRE-TRAINING (N=38)Rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)

Pre-Training

Question Mean SD

1. I feel well-informed about the different pathways females have to offending.1 2.97 1.17

2. I understand how to draw upon a female offender’s strengths in order to enhance her success on supervision. 3.39 1.15

3. I feel unsure about how to respond when a female offender experiencesdifficultfeelings,emotions,and/ortriggers. 2.16 0.89

4. I have a clear understanding of the issues that female offendersfacewithparenting. 3.53 1.06

5. I know what is meant by relational theory. 2.34 1.07

6.Iamclearabouthowtoapplytheprinciplesofrelational theory in my work with female offenders. 2.34 1.12

7.Itisdifficultformetosetclearandappropriateboundaries with female offenders.1 1.57 0.87

8.Iunderstandtheimpactoftraumaonfemaleoffenders. 3.61 1.10

9. I am clear about the typical triggers and responses to traumathatfemaleoffendersmayhave. 3.26 1.20

10. I feel I have the ability to handle situations that may arise fromafemaleoffender’spasttrauma. 3.61 0.92

11. I feel knowledgeable about the services and supports that are often helpful for female offenders. 3.29 0.90

12. I believe I need additional training in gender-responsive approaches. 3.74 0.95


38

TABLE 7. AGENT EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT PAROLE SUPERVISION OF FEMALE OFFENDERS PRE-TRAINING (N=38) Rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)

Pre-Training Question Mean SD

1. I have good working relationships with agencies that provide services and support to offenders. 3.79 0.87

2. I understand how to use the output of the assessment process to inform the development of a case plan. 3.08 0.91

3. Female parolees violate parole less often than male parolees. 2.84 1.20

4. In general, female parolees violate parole for the same sort ofreasonsasmaleparolees. 2.63 1.13

TABLE 8. CRIMINOGENIC NEEDS OF FEMALE PAROLEES COMPARED TO MALE PAROLEES PRE-TRAINING (N=38)

Percent of agents by response

Compared to male parolees, Females About the Females Does notfemale parolees have needs Higher Same Lower Know

Family/Marital 86.8 5.3 5.3 2.6Education / Work 50.0 34.2 10.5 5.3Substance Abuse 34.2 55.3 10.5 0.0Leisure/Recreation 28.9 26.3 36.8 7.9Antisocialpeers 26.3 36.8 34.2 2.6Antisocialbehavior* 18.9 40.5 37.8 2.7Antisocial personality 21.1 23.7 50.0 5.3Antisocialattitudes 15.8 39.5 42.1 2.6

* Total N for this question is 37 due to a missing response.

TABLE 9. WORKLOAD FOR FEMALE PAROLEES COMPARED TO MALE PAROLEES PRE-TRAINING (N=37)

Percent of agents by response

Females About the Females Does not Higher Same Lower Know

NumberofContacts* 52.8 36.1 11.1 0.0AverageContactTime 70.3 21.6 8.1 0.0

* Total N for this question is 36 due to missing responses.

39

TABLE 10. NUMBER OF SERVICE REFERRALS FOR FEMALE PAROLEES COMPARED TO MALE PAROLEES PRE-TRAINING (N=38)

Females About the Females Does not Higher Same Lower Know

Family/Parenting 89.5 5.3 2.6 2.6MentalHealth 55.3 36.8 7.9 0.0Housing 55.3 18.4 26.3 0.0Health/Dental 50.0 44.7 2.6 2.6Employment/Education 47.4 39.5 10.5 2.6Substance Abuse 28.9 57.9 13.2 0.0

TABLE 11. AGENT AWARENESS OF PROGRAMS, SERVICES OR TREATMENT IN THE COMMUNITY FOR FEMALE PAROLEES PRE-TRAINING (N=38)

Number of different programs, % of services or treatments named Agents

Zero 2.6One 15.8Two 13.2Three 21.1Four 13.2Five 10.5Six 5.3Seven 2.6Eight or more 15.8 Average 4.4StdDeviation 2.6Minimum 1.0Maximum 9.0

40

TABLE 12. AGENT NAMED PROGRAMS, SERVICES OR TREATMENT IN THE COMMUNITY (N=37)

PAROLE SERVICES, PROGRAMS AND TREATMENT Number of Agents

Alternative Custody Program (ACP) 1 Community Education Center (CEC) 3 Custody to Community Transitional Reentry Program (CCTRP) 2 Day Reporting Center (DRC) 7 Femaleworkgroupmeetingsatparoleoffice 1Literacy Lab 1Mother/Infant 1Parole Outpatient Clinic (POC) 1Parole Service Center (PSC) 4ResidentialMulti-ServiceCenter(RMSC) 6San Diego Reentry RT 1Specialized Treatment for Optimized Programming (STOP) 8Substance Abuse Services Coordinating Agency (SASCA) 1 Substance Abuse Treatment and Recovery Program (STAR) 1

COUNTY AND STATE SERVICES

Number of Agents

WIC 3County Mental Health 1General Assistance 1Behavioral Health Services 1

COMMUNITY SERVICES, PROGRAMS AND TREATMENT Number of Agents

Adam & Eve’s Transitional Housing 1Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous 1American Recovery 1Amistad/Amity Foundation 2ChapmanHouse 6Cooper Fellowship 1Courage House 1East Bay Recovery 1El Concilio 1EPIC 1Family Ties 1FOTEP 32Friends Outside 3HealthRight360 6Hoffman House 1Holt Counseling 1Hope House 1Jelani House 1Johnstad Group 1KIVA Program (women and children) 1Lighthouse 1Lincoln Park SRP 1McAllister House 1New Way of Life 1PacificaHouse 2Pat Moore 1Phoenix House 3Prototypes 3Recovery House 1Salvation Army 2SCBC 1Second Chance 1Spirit of Women 1Stockton Women’s Center 1Telecare 2Valley Community Counseling 1Valley Sober Living 1Victory Outreach 1WaldenHouse 6Walden/Infant Program 1WEAVE 2Weingart 3Women on Their Way 1

41

TABLE 13. AGENT ATTITUDES ABOUT PAROLE SUPERVISION OF FEMALE OFFENDERS PRE- AND POST-TRAINING FOR AGENTS WHO COMPLETED BOTH SURVEYS Rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)

Pre-training Post-training Question Mean Mean N

1.Ienjoyworkingwithfemaleoffenders. 3.58 3.61 38

2. Female parolees should be supervised differentlythanmaleparolees. 3.94 4.31 36

3. DAPO should have specialized female-only caseloads,similartosexoffender/GPScaseloads. 3.44 4.28 36

TABLE 14. SELF-EFFICACY PRE- AND POST-TRAINING FOR AGENTS WHO COMPLETED BOTH SURVEYS Rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)


1. I feel well-informed about the different pathways females have to offending. 2.97 4.41 37

2. I understand how to draw upon a female offender’s strengthsinordertoenhancehersuccessonsupervision. 3.39 4.26 38

3. I feel unsure about how to respond when a female offender experiencesdifficultfeelings,emotions,and/ortriggers. 2.16 2.08 38

4. I have a clear understanding of the issues that female offenders face with parenting. 3.53 4.18 38

5. I know what is meant by relational theory. 2.34 4.03 38

6.Iamclearabouthowtoapplytheprinciplesofrelational theory in my work with female offenders. 2.34 3.95 38

7.Itisdifficultformetosetclearandappropriate boundaries with female offenders. 1.57 1.51 37

8.Iunderstandtheimpactoftraumaonfemaleoffenders. 3.60 4.45 38

9. I am clear about the typical triggers and responses to traumathatfemaleoffendersmayhave. 3.26 4.39 38

10. I feel I have the ability to handle situations that may arisefromafemaleoffender’spasttrauma. 3.61 4.16 38

11. I feel knowledgeable about the services and supports thatareoftenhelpfulforfemaleoffenders. 3.22 3.97 36

12. I believe I need additional training in gender-responsiveapproaches. 3.72 2.65 36

Note: Questions 3, 7, and 12 are worded such that lower scores indicate higher self-efficacy.

42

TABLE 15. AGENT EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT PAROLE SUPERVISION OF FEMALE OFFENDERS PRE- AND POST-TRAINING FOR AGENTS WHO COMPLETED BOTH SURVEYS Rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)


1. I have good working relationships with agencies thatprovideservicesandsupporttooffenders. 3.75 3.92 36

2. I understand how to use the output of the assessment processtoinformthedevelopmentofacaseplan. 3.03 3.47 36

3. Female parolees violate parole less oftenthanmaleparolees. 2.86 3.89 36

4. In general, female parolees violate parole for thesamesortofreasonsasmaleparolees. 2.58 1.97 36

Note: Question 4 is worded such that lower scores indicate increased knowledge.

TABLE 16. CRIMINOGENIC NEEDS OF FEMALE PAROLEES COMPARED TO MALE PAROLEES PRE- AND POST-TRAINING FOR AGENTS WHO COMPLETED BOTH SURVEYS (N=36) Rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)

PRE-TRAINING POST-TRAINING

Percent of agents by response Percent of agents by response

Compared to male About Does About Doesparolees, female Females the Females not Females the Females not parolees have Higher same Lower know Higher same Lower know

Family/Marital 88.9 5.6 5.6 0.0 94.4 5.6 0.0 0.0Education / Work 52.8 33.3 11.1 2.8 50.0 25.0 25.0 0.0SubstanceAbuse 36.1 52.8 11.1 0.0 38.9 50.0 11.1 0.0Leisure/Recreation 30.6 25.0 38.9 5.6 52.8 22.2 25.0 0.0Antisocial peers 25.0 38.9 33.3 2.8 33.3 22.2 41.7 2.8Antisocial behavior 20.0 40.0 37.1 2.9 25.7 22.9 51.4 0.0Antisocialpersonality 22.2 25.0 47.2 5.6 30.6 33.3 36.1 0.0Antisocialattitudes 16.7 38.9 41.7 2.8 27.8 27.8 44.4 0.0

43

AUTHORS

44

Susan Turner is a Professor in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society at the University of California’s Irvine campus. She also serves as Director of the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, and is a board member of the newly created California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB). She received her Ph.D. in Social Psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has lead a variety of research projects, including studies on racialdisparity,fieldexperimentsofprivatesectoralternativesforseriousjuvenileoffenders,workrelease,dayfinesanda14-siteevaluationofintensivesupervisionprobation.Dr.Turner’sareasofexpertiseincludethedesignandimplementationofrandomizedfieldexperimentsand research collaborations with state and local justice agencies. Dr. Turner has conducted a number of evaluations of drug courts, including a nationwide implementation study. Her article, “A Decade of Drug Treatment Court Research” (2002) appeared in Substance Use and Misuse, summarizing over 10 years of drug court research conducted while she was at RAND Corporation. Dr. Turner is a member of the American Society of Criminology, the American Probation and Parole Association, and is a Fellow of the Academy of Experimental Criminology.

Helen Braithwaite is a Research Specialist and Associate Director at the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections at the University of California, Irvine. She received her Ph.D. in Psychology from Flinders University of South Australia in 1998. Her dissertation research examinedthetacticsusedbypoliceofficerstoresolveconflictonpatrol,andherbookConflictmanagementinpolice-citizeninteractions(McGrawHill,1998)isusedinpolicetraining in Australia. Prior to moving to the United States, Dr Braithwaite worked as a Research Scientist at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), conducting research and evaluation for the Australian Army in the areas of training simulation, and principles of feedback. Her previous employment also includes time spent as a lab manager and organized crime intelligence analyst. In her current position at CEBC, Dr Braithwaite is interested in the effects of non-revocable parole on public safety and prisoner re-entry, and the development of methods for evaluating the impact of parole policies.

Theresa Lavery is a Research Associate at the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections at the University of California, Irvine. She received her B.A. in Psychology and Social Behavior from theUniversityofCalifornia,Irvine.Ms.Laveryenteredthefieldofcriminaljusticeresearchafteran extensive career as a software developer creating innovative solutions for private and governmentorganizationsincludingtheL.A.CountyDistrictAttorney’sofficeandtheDept.of Health and Human Services. Ms. Lavery is interested in advancing research of evidence-based programs for offenders reentering society, particularly programs for female offenders and offenders with substance abuse and mental health issues.

ABOUT CENTER FOR EVIDENCE-BASED CORRECTIONS

45

In an effort to put science before politics when managing state correctional populations, the UC Irvine Center for Evidence-Based Corrections taps the research power of the University of California to evaluate juvenile and adult prison programs – including rehabilitation, parole and reentry programs – and provide information that helps correctionsofficialsmakepolicydecisionsbasedonscientificevidence.

THE CENTER’S MISSION IS THREEFOLD:

Toidentifypromisingprogramsandevidence-basedpracticesfromthescientificcriminological literature;

To initiate and execute original research that addresses criminal justice policy questions relevant to California;

To assist The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation agencies to implement and evaluate these practices.

Evidence-based policy is an approach that helps people make well-informed decisions about policies and programs by putting the best available evidence from research at the heart of policy development and implementation. This approach stands in contrast to opinion-based policy, which relies heavily on either the selective use of evidence (e.g., on single studies irrespective of quality) or on the untested views of individuals or groups, often inspired by ideological views and speculative conjecture.

To contact the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, please call 949-824-7372, fax 949-824-0302, or e-mail [email protected].

ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu

The opinions expressed herein represent those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu

Documents

The Impact of Gender-Responsive Training on Parole Agentsucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/2016/06/The-Impact-of-Gender-Responsive-Training-on...INTRODUCTION 8 Gender responsivity