Summary:
In 2013, The Utah Sentencing Commission appointed a committee to research and develop an incentive matrix for Utah probationers and parolees. Members participating in this committee included representatives of the Utah Sentencing Commission, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), Utah Department of Corrections (UDC), specifically the Adult Probation and Parole (APP) division, and the Board of Pardons and Parole (BPP).
The resulting tool, called the Response and Incentive Matrix (RIM), integrates behavioral principles into a graduated response tool for responding to both compliance with, and violations of, the conditions of supervision. RIM was piloted in APP offices in the Northern Region from April through June 2015. At the end of the pilot period, the Utah Criminal Justice Center (UCJC) conducted a survey with APP staff, offenders on supervision, and community stakeholders in order to provide feedback on the tool prior to statewide implementation.
Method
Underlying goals of the RIM include: 1) standardizing AP&P’s response to offender violations; 2) giving agents the latitude to respond immediately to more violations; and 3) incorporating the principles of behavior modification, including a structured response to both negative and positive behavior, into the goals and practices of supervision. Given these changes, survey questions were designed to identify barriers to implementation, including those related to resources, training, and support for the philosophical orientation of RIM. Survey questions were developed by the UCJC research team in conjunction with representatives from the Sentencing Commission, CCJJ, AOC, UDC, and AP&P. Feedback on RIM was sought from a range of stakeholders who may be impacted by RIM; giving differing roles and perspectives with respect to the tool, however, four separate surveys were developed (see Appendix A; surveys were created for offenders, criminal justice stakeholders, and AP&P staff).
Surveys were converted to an online format to facilitate distribution and participation. Representatives from AP&P Northern Region provided an email distribution list for each survey; an email explaining the purpose of the research, as well as a link to the survey, was sent to all addresses on the distribution list. To increase participation, offenders were emailed an invitation and also invited by their supervising agent to complete the survey in-person, using an AP&P computer. Respondents were given nine days to complete the survey, and a reminder email was sent four days prior to the survey closing.
Results
In total, 211 emails inviting participation were sent, and 51 individuals completed the survey, for an overall response rate of 24%. Response rate by respondent type is presented in Table 1; judges and AP&P staff had the highest response rates (50% and 35%, respectively).
Discussion
RIM had been piloted for approximately two months at the time of the surveys. As such, this report is not intended as an assessment of RIM, but as a means of providing feedback to stakeholders prior to statewide implementation. The results presented here suggest several possible barriers to successful implementation of RIM, which can broadly be classified into two categories: 1) resistance to the philosophical underpinnings of RIM, and 2) systemic issues, such as a lack of sufficient resources to implement the tool as designed.
With respect to the former, a portion of AP&P respondents expressed some resistance to the principles of behavior modification upon which RIM is based. In part, this is an issue of training and supervision. For example, many respondents expressed the belief that incentives would not have a positive impact on offenders’ behavior, despite research indicating that sanctions are more effective when used in conjunction with incentives. Agents’ perceptions about the impact of incentives are further contradicted by the opinions of offenders who completed the survey, many of whom indicated that the incentives they had received had motivated them to do better. AP&P conducted training on RIM prior to its implementation, but additional and ongoing training may enhance the effectiveness of the program. Research on effective correctional programs indicates that interventions have a bigger impact on offenders’ behavior when staff receives regular and ongoing training, supervision, and feedback regarding staff’s skills when interacting with offenders.
With respect to systemic issues, AP&P respondents indicated that, at least in the beginning, RIM took longer than previous methods for supervising offenders. While some of the additional time spent responding to offender behavior may be a product of the newness of the instrument, respondents also indicated that RIM was simply too large and unwieldy to use easily. AP&P is currently making modifications to RIM, including attempts to automate the instrument, which may facilitate ease of use. Future evaluations should continue to monitor the impact of RIM on agents’ workload.
Both AP&P respondents and other stakeholders articulated some concern related to communication between criminal justice entities when responding to offenders’ behavior. Results from this survey suggest that judges are supportive of the principles of RIM, which is important in terms of the courts’ response to violations and accomplishments. Respondents expressed concern, however, that there was no clear mechanism for communicating how a defendant had performed under supervision to the court or other relevant stakeholders.
Read the full report:
Piloting Utah’s Response and Incentive Matrix