Abstract
Because weak interagency coordination between community correctional agencies (e.g., probation and parole) and community-based treatment providers has been identified as a major barrier to the use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for treating drug-involved offenders, this study sought to examine how key organizational (e.g., leadership, support, staffing) and individual (e.g., burnout, satisfaction) factors influence interagency relationships between these agencies. At each of 20 sites, probation/parole officials (n = 366) and community treatment providers (n = 204) were surveyed about characteristics of their agencies, themselves, and interorganizational relationships with each other. Key organizational and individual correlates of interagency relationships were examined using hierarchical linear models (HLM) analyses, supplemented by interview data. The strongest correlates included Adaptability, Efficacy, and Burnout. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 483-505 |
| Number of pages | 23 |
| Journal | Criminal Justice and Behavior |
| Volume | 43 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Apr 1 2016 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:Laura Monico is now a research associate with Friends Research Institute, Inc. in Baltimore, MD. Peter D. Friedmann is now chief research officer at Baystate Health in Springfield, MA. This study was funded under a cooperative agreement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIH/NIDA), with support from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. The authors gratefully acknowledge the collaborative contributions by NIDA; the Coordinating Center, AMAR International, Inc.; and the Research Centers participating in CJ-DATS. The research centers include Arizona State University and Maricopa County Adult Probation (U01DA025307); University of Connecticut and the Connecticut Department of Correction (U01DA016194); University of Delaware and the Delaware Department of Correction (U01DA016230); Friends Research Institute and the Maryland Department of Public Safety Correctional Services’ Division of Parole and Probation (U01DA025233); University of Kentucky and the Kentucky Department of Corrections (U01DA016205); University of Rhode Island, Rhode Island Hospital and the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (U01DA016191); Texas Christian University, the Illinois Department of Corrections, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (U01DA016190); Temple University, Berks County (PA) Adult Probation, and Lancaster County (PA) Adult Probation (U01DA025284); and the University of California at Los Angeles, Bernalillo County (NM) Adult Probation, and Santa Fe County (NM) Adult Probation (U01DA016211). The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent the views of NIDA nor any of the sponsoring organizations, agencies, CJ-DATS partner sites, or the U.S. government.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015, © 2015 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology.
Keywords
- community corrections
- implementation
- interagency relationships
- interorganizational collaboration
- interorganizational relationships
- substance use
- treatment
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Pathology and Forensic Medicine
- Psychology (all)
- Law