Factors Associated with Probation Officers' Use of Criminal Justice Coercion to Mandate Alcohol Treatment

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE

Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 647–670, 2003

Factors Associated with Probation Officers’ Use

of Criminal Justice Coercion to Mandate

Alcohol Treatment

Douglas L. Polcin1,* and Thomas K. Greenfield2

1Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc., San Francisco, California, USA2Alcohol Research Group, Berkeley, California, USA

ABSTRACT

Alcohol problems are widespread among individuals in county criminal

justice probation systems. However, it is unclear why only a small

fraction of these problem drinkers receive treatment. In this study, self-

administered questionnaires were mailed to 145 probation officers in

nine California counties to identify factors that predicted probation

officers’ use of coercion to mandate alcohol treatment. The questionnaire

measured characteristics of probation officers, characteristics of their

caseloads, and perceptions about their departments. Principle compo-

nents analysis combined some of the items into six factor-based scales.

*Correspondence: Douglas L. Polcin, Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc., 612 Clayton

St., San Francisco, CA 94117, USA; E-mail: [email protected].

647

DOI: 10.1081/ADA-120023463 0095-2990 (Print); 1097-9891 (Online)

Copyright D 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. www.dekker.com

� �� !�"�

# �$ ��

B980

Multiple regression analyses identified two significant predictors of use

of coercion into treatment: a belief that treatment was effective and a

belief that one’s peers in the department were using coercion frequently.

Implications for increasing treatment entry of probationers with drinking

problems include educating probation officers about the effectiveness of

substance abuse treatment in general and about coerced treatment in

particular. Probation departments are encouraged to develop manage-

ment styles that facilitate shared normative beliefs about assessing and

managing alcohol problems among probationers.

Key Words: Coercion; Criminal justice; Alcohol; Probation; Mandated

treatment.

INTRODUCTION

Numerous studies indicate that alcohol problems are common among

individuals in the criminal justice system (1–12). For example, Greenfield

(2,3) investigated 413 California prison inmates using the Diagnostic

Interview Schedule (13) and found that 55% had a lifetime prevalence of

alcohol abuse or dependence. Similarly, proportions for lifetime alcohol

abuse or dependence among inmates in Michigan prisons were reported to be

47% (8). Kermani and Castaneda (5) reviewed the literature on psychoactive

substance use in forensic psychiatry and cited evidence from the National

Institute of Justice (7) that incarcerated inmates had a history of drinking

alcohol on a daily basis three times as frequently as the general population.

In a study specifically focused on adult probationers, Mumola and

Bonczar (6) surveyed a national representative sampled of 2000 individuals

and found that more than 20% were on probation for driving under the

influence (DUI), 25% of the non-DUI probationers had been drinking at the

time of their arrest, and 41% had received treatment for alcohol abuse. In

another study focused on probationers, Blevins, Morton, and McCabe (1)

used the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST) and found that

60% of a sample of 133 adult probationers had, at a minimum, problem

drinking tendencies.

The relationship between alcohol problems and crime is also evident

from general population surveys. For example, in a study that controlled

for demographic characteristics, Greenfield and Weisner (4) surveyed

county and national samples and found that lifetime drinking problems

strongly predicted current criminal behavior, arrests, and convictions. The

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism summarized the role

of alcohol in specific crimes and reported that the misuse of alcohol was

involved in a large proportion of illegal activities (9). Studies suggest that

648 Polcin and Greenfield

� �� !�"�

# �$ ��

alcohol plays a role in 50% of homicides, 52% of rapes and other sexual

assaults, 48% of robberies, 62% of assaults, and 39% of motor vehicle

deaths (9).

Despite the role of alcohol in illegal behavior and criminal justice

incarceration, few alcohol abusers in the criminal justice system receive

treatment. In the general U.S. population, only 1 in 10 individuals with

alcohol problems receives any form of treatment (9). Treatment entry rates

among individuals in criminal justice are also low. Tam, Schmidt, and

Weisner (11) studied a sample of one county’s criminal justice system and

found that only 12% of the problem drinkers reported any contact with an

alcohol treatment program over the past year.

Detecting those individuals most in need of services may be prob-

lematic as well. Polcin and Weisner (14) found that clients entering alcohol

treatment programs who reported receiving coercion from the criminal

justice system tended to have lower levels of alcohol problems than clients

who received coercion from family members, friends, work supervisors, or

health care professionals. This raises the question about whether clients in

the criminal justice system with the most serious alcohol problems are

being detected and referred. It could be that the social and legal context of

drinking (e.g., drinking while driving) rather than the severity of alcohol

problems is the critical variable in determining who is coerced into treat-

ment from the criminal justice system.

At the same time that studies are showing underutilization of treatment

among probationers, research has documented substantial reductions in cri-

minal justice costs when individuals use alcohol and drug abuse treatment

(e.g., Refs. (15,16)). In a comprehensive meta-analysis of the DUI lit-

erature, Wells-Parker and colleagues (17) documented an 8–9% reduction

rate in DUI recidivism as a result of mandated referral to treatment.

Comparisons of voluntary vs. coerced outcomes are more common among

drug than alcohol treatment studies (18). However, research that has exam-

ined outcomes for heterogonous groups of drug and alcohol clients suggests

that coerced treatment is about as effective as voluntary treatment (16,19).

Thus it is important to identify the mechanisms by which treatment uti-

lization might be increased among the probation population, such as the

role of coercion in facilitating treatment entry.

In the current literature on criminal justice coercion to alcohol treat-

ment, most studies have examined the role of alcohol in illegal activities,

the prevalence of alcohol problems among the criminal justice population,

or the effectiveness of various treatment efforts. Few studies have examined

why individuals with alcohol problems in the criminal justice system re-

ceive little or no treatment. In particular, the existing literature has not

addressed how characteristics of criminal justice personnel or the institutions

Coercion to Mandate Alcohol Treatment 649

� �� !�"�

# �$ ��

in which they work affect referral practices or the use of coercion to

facilitate treatment utilization.

The primary purpose of this study was to examine probation officers’ use

of coercion when referring individuals to alcohol treatment and to assess how

individual probation officer characteristics, caseload characteristics (i.e.,

prevalence of alcohol problems and alcohol-related arrests), and perception

about organizational factors in the probation departments predict the use of

coercion. Our study was conceptually rooted in previous alcohol treatment

entry studies conducted at the Alcohol Research Group (e.g., Refs. (14,20)).

Coercion to treatment for drug problems was not assessed and is an area in

need of further study. Coercion was defined as using threats of legal

consequences if individuals refused to comply with a referral to treatment.

METHODS

Procedures

Sixteen chief probation officers in California were contacted and in-

vited to take part in the study. The selection of departments that we

contacted was based on geographic proximity to the San Francisco Bay

Area and the number of potential subjects in them. Nine departments in

Northern California agreed to participate and the officers in these de-

partments were mailed a 13-page self-administered questionnaire, along

with a self-addressed stamped envelope to return it. The survey took ap-

proximately 20–30 minutes to complete. A follow-up reminder letter was

mailed in approximately 2 weeks that encouraged officers to complete the

questionnaire if they had not yet returned it. Two subsequent remailings of

the questionnaire to nonrespondents were conducted.

As an incentive to participate, probation officers were paid $20 for

completing the survey. Most departments required them to complete the

survey on their own time, outside of work. One department prohibited ac-

ceptance of any incentive. In that department, probation officers who com-

pleted the survey indicated a charity, to which the $20 incentive was donated.

Sample

Self-administered surveys were mailed to 226 probation officers in 9

Northern California county probation departments. The counties varied in

size and included a mix of urban (n = 2) and suburban or rural (n = 7) areas.

To be included in the study, officers needed to be adult probation officers

and carry an active caseload of probationers whom they monitored. After

follow-up efforts (see Procedures) 145 surveys were returned for a response


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13188879_Factors_Associated_with_Coercion_in_Entering_Treatment_for_Alcohol_Problems?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-dfcdbf2e-7cdf-4d9d-b2c0-99addefe43b9&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzkwODAxMjg7QVM6MTI3NjQ3MjMzMzUxNjgwQDE0MDc0NDQ4ODA5NjQ=

rate of 64%. Fifty-three percent of the sample were women and the racial

distribution consisted of 54% white, 21% Hispanic, 13% African-American,

and 11% other. The mean age was 40, and 43% of the respondents in-

dicated they were married.

Self-Administered Survey

The questionnaire consisted of 62 items, which were divided into four

sections (see Appendix A). Most of the items were rated on 5-point Likert

scale, although a number were categorical. Many items were taken or adapted

from previous surveys used at the Alcohol Research Group (e.g., Ref. (20)).

The first section of the survey addressed caseload characteristics, the

practice of coercion to mandate treatment (which specified that the

probation officer used the threat of legal consequences if the probationer

did not comply with the referral), and referral to treatment (which omitted

the threat of legal sanctions for noncompliance). Examples of coercion

items included asking respondents how often during the last 12-month they

had used coercion 1) for probationers who were arrested for offenses where

alcohol played a role and 2) when the probationer had not been arrested for

an offense where alcohol played a role, but whom the probation officer

believed had a drinking problem. These same questions were also presented

using the term ‘‘referral’’ in place of ‘‘coercion’’ (for verbatim wording,

see Appendix).

We also presented respondents four brief vignettes in which the

probation officers were asked how often they would mandate alcohol

treatment for the probationer described in the vignette. Vignettes varied

along three dimensions: 1) whether the offender was arrested for an offense

in which alcohol played a role, 2) the offender’s level of motivation for

treatment, and 3) the severity of the alcohol problem. We also presented

probationers the same vignettes and asked them how often they would

‘‘refer’’ the probationer for treatment. (These items omitted the term

coercion [i.e., the threat of legal consequences]).

The second section of the survey addressed probation officer per-

ceptions about a variety of characteristics of their department and the larger

criminal justice system. For example, subjects were asked about the

adequacy of treatment resources, whether they felt supported by judges and

state laws, their views about the disposition of probationers who were

noncompliant with coerced treatment, their views about whether their peers

used coercion, and whether their peers supported using coercion.

The third section addressed probation officers’ beliefs about proba-

tioner resistance to addressing alcohol problems, the effectiveness of

treatment, the effectiveness of coerced treatment, and their own sense of

self-efficacy in dealing with alcohol problems among probationers.


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��

The final section assessed demographic characteristics of probation

officers, their own drinking during the past year, their experience with

recovery services (e.g., attended Alcoholics Anonymous, received treatment

for an alcohol problem, worked in a substance abuse treatment program),

whether they and whether anyone in their current family or family of origin

had experienced a drinking problem, and the degree of effect that drinking

problems in the family had on them. Principal components analyses were

used to identify factor-scales such as coercion, used as the dependent

variable in the regression analyses (see Results).

Data Analysis

Principle components analysis (PCA) was used to combine items into

common constructs being measured (Table 1). Bivariate analysis included

t-tests to assess the relationship between coercion and categorical variables

and Pearson correlations to assess the relationship between coercion and

continuous variables. Two multiple regression models taking coercion as the

dependent variable were estimated to investigate the predictive utility of a

number of variables, others controlled. The first multiple regression assessed

probation officer and caseload characteristics and the second assessed

variables related to probation officer perceptions about their departments.

Bivariate analysis (t-tests and Pearson correlations) did not result in signi-

ficant relationships between coercion and demographic characteristics; there-

fore, demographics were not entered into the regression models (see results

in the following section). Two separate regressions were conducted because

we were interested in a variety of probation officer and departmental factors

among a limited sample size.

Table 1. Principle components analysis combining items into scales.

Scale name Items Cronbach’s alpha

Coercion Part 1, 7 items

(6, 8, 10, 12a, 12b, 12c, 12d)

0.77

Referral Part 1, 7 items

(5, 7, 9, 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d)

0.64

Family drinking problems Part 4, 3 items (13–15) 0.59

Recovery experience

(AA or treatment)

Part 4, 2 items (8, 9) 0.59

Belief about treatment

effectiveness

Part 3, 7 items (10–16) 0.73

Self-efficacy Part 3, 4 items (1–3, 5) 0.55


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��

RESULTS

Caseload Characteristics

Probationer caseload characteristic varied considerably. Responses to

questions on probation officer perceptions of caseload size, percent of

caseload having a drinking problem, percent arrested for offenses where

alcohol played a role, and percent arrested for driving under the influence

all had broad distributions. Because of these ranges, medians are reported:

caseload size, 74 probationers; percent of caseload having a drinking

problem, 27%; percent of caseload arrested for an offense in which alcohol

played a role, 19%; and percent arrested for driving under the influence, 5%.

Measures

Table 1 shows characteristics of the factor-based scales derived from the

principle components analysis. The table indicates the scale name (selected

based on conceptual content) and gives the number of items loading on the

scale, which questions loaded on each scale (Appendix A provides specific

questions), and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each scale. The six scales

had adequate internal reliability for research purposes, especially three of the

scales each with seven items—coercion with an alpha of 0.77, referral with

an alpha of 0.64, and beliefs about the effectiveness of treatment at 0.73.

Other scales showed only marginal reliability because, in part, of their

smaller number of items (e.g., self-efficacy with four items and an alpha of

0.55). In no case did removal of an item increase internal reliability.

In general, the specific items that loaded on the coercion scale tended

to support the probation officer’s use of the construct ‘‘coercion to or

mandating treatment.’’ The level of support for coercion, though fairly

high, varied based on the specifics of the situation that probation officers

were presented with in the questions. For example, when simply asked how

often they used coercion for individuals arrested for an offense where

alcohol played a role, 51% indicated they used coercion to mandate

treatment all or most of the time. However, when additional information

was added in vignettes presented to them, the result differed. An example is

an item asking the respondent how often they would mandate treatment for

a person who was arrested for an offense where alcohol played a role, there

appeared to be a serious drinking problem, and the person was highly

resistant to treatment, 89% indicated they would coerce such a person to

treatment all or most of the time.

Probation officers also often made referrals to treatment without the

threat of legal coercion. For example, when asked how often they referred

individuals to treatment who were arrested for an offense in which alcohol


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��

played a role, 93% indicated they made a referral to treatment all or most

of the time, contrasting with 51% using coercion to mandate treatment on

the equivalent item. In response to the vignette in which the probationer is

described as requesting alcohol treatment, when not arrested for an alcohol

offense and not appearing to have an alcohol problem, 79% of the re-

spondents indicated they would refer such a person to treatment all or most

of the time, whereas only 25% indicated they would use coercion all or

most of the time. Table 2 summarizes the comparison of probation officers

preferences regarding ‘‘referral’’ vs. ‘‘coercion’’ to treatment on the four

vignettes presented to probation officers. It can be seen that in every

vignette the likelihood of referring probationers to treatment was higher

than using coercion to mandate treatment.

Items loading on the family drinking problems scale asked whether

anyone in the respondents current or family of origin had a drinking problem,

how many such family members were (measured as a count), and the impact

that these relative’s drinking had on the probation officer’s life (measured on

a 4-point scale from none to great). Seventy-nine percent of the respondents

indicated that they had at least one problem drinker in their family and 48%

indicated that the drinking had a moderate or great impact on their life. This

scale had a negative correlation with the probation officer’s frequency of

drinking over the past year (r = –0.21, P < 0.05), a positive correlation with a

scale measuring the respondent’s experience with recovery services (as a

client, staff, or member of Alcoholics Anonymous) (r = 0.28, P < 0.01), and a

positive correlation with the belief that treatment is effective (r = 0.22,

P < 0.05). Although a variety of explanations are possible, these findings no

doubt reflect the influence of family of origin on probation officers’ personal

histories with alcohol use, dependence, and treatment. Those in recovery

from alcohol problems may come from more alcohol-involved families or at

least be more aware of family members’ alcohol problems, and maybe more

likely to score higher on this measure than others. Their own efforts to

establish and sustain recovery would result in more experience with recovery

services as well as less frequent drinking over the past year.

A factor-based scale measuring beliefs about treatment effectiveness

comprised seven items. Taken together, these items revealed a moderate

belief that treatment is effective. For example, 71% indicated that treatment

for alcohol problems was effective ‘‘some of the time,’’ and 61% believed

that coerced treatment was effective ‘‘some of the time.’’ Similarly, 68%

indicated that coerced treatment was effective in reducing criminal behavior

‘‘some of the time.’’ Despite mixed views about the effectiveness of

treatment, a majority of respondents indicated that treatment was worth

trying. For example, 70% indicated that treatment was valuable even for

highly resistant clients, and 63% indicated that coerced treatment helped

facilitate probationers’ entry into alcohol treatment ‘‘all’’ or ‘‘most’’ of the


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��

time. Sixty-two percent indicated that coercion improved client attendance

‘‘all’’ or ‘‘most’’ of the time and 92% indicated that that coercion helped

avoid treatment dropout at least ‘‘some of the time.’’

A final scale loaded four items into a measure of self-efficacy. In

general, respondents felt confident in their abilities to deal with alcohol

problems. For example, 65% agreed with a statement that ‘‘probation

officers can help probationers reduce alcohol consumption.’’ Seventy-nine

percent disagreed with the statement, ‘‘I feel I do not have much to offer

when working with problem drinkers.’’

Several variables measuring probation officer views and personal char-

acteristics used single items rather than scales for measurement. Examples

include items measuring perceptions of client resistance and frequency of

alcohol consumption during the past year. On the measure of client

resistance, 63% of the respondents disagreed with a statement that dis-

cussing alcohol problems with probationers increases resistance. On the

Table 2. Comparison of probation officers’ referral vs. coercion of probationers to

treatment on four case vignettes that differed by motivation, level of alcohol problem,

and whether alcohol played a role in the offense (means and standard deviations based

on a 5-point likert scale).

Characteristics of the

vignette and items used Referral to treatment Coercion to treatment

Highly motivated

not perceived a problem

drinker alcohol did not play

a role in arrest (Part 1,

items 11a and 12a)

1.72 (1.15) 3.72 (1.54)

Resistant to treatment not

perceived a problem

drinker serious offense,

alcohol played a role

(Part 1, items 11b and 12b)

1.94 (1.15) 2.58 (1.32)

Highly resistant to treatment

perceived to have a moderate

drinking problem alcohol

did not play a role in arrest

(Part 1, items 11c and 12c)

2.53 (1.06) 2.89 (1.23)

Highly resistant to treatment

perceived to have serious

drinking problem alcohol

played a role in arrest

(Part 1, items 11d and 12d)

1.39 (0.82) 1.61 (1.01)

Note: Lower scores reflect more referral and coercion.


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��

frequency of alcohol consumption during the past year, nearly half (49%)

indicating they drank 2–3 times per month or less.

Perceptions About Probation Departments and

Criminal Justice Systems

The variables in this section assessed a range of issues relevant to

respondents’ views about their department and the larger criminal justice

system. Unlike some of the measures described previously, which combined

items into scales, variables here were assessed using single items. Included

were issues such as assessment procedures, adequacy of treatment resources,

the extent to which their peers parole officers use and support coercion, and the

extent to which they feel supported by judges’ rulings, state laws, and sanctions

for probationer noncompliance when they use coercion to mandate treatment.

Eighty-three percent of the respondents indicated that their departments

did not use structured questionnaires to assess substance abuse problems.

However, 71% of the respondents felt that outside programs that assess

alcohol problems among their probationers were accurate at least most of

the time.

There were mixed views about the adequacy of treatment resources and

the spectrum of service levels available. Fifty-six percent disagreed or were

undecided in response to an item stating the department had adequate al-

cohol treatment resources available to probationers. Similarly, 54% dis-

agreed or were undecided about whether the resources available represented

an adequate mix of inpatient, residential, and outpatient services. Probation

officers indicated that the most common sources for coerced referrals were

to outpatient programs (43% of coerced referrals) and specialty driving

under the influence programs (24% of coerced referrals).

Probation officers tended to feel supported by others in the criminal

justice system for using coercion (e.g., expressing the view that their peers

supported the use of coercion to get probationers into treatment [71%

agreement]). They also felt that their peers used coercion a moderate

amount to coerce probationers into treatment, with 88% indicating their

peers used coercion to mandate treatment at least some of the time. Sixty-

four percent felt that judges’ rulings and 59% felt that state laws either

supported or strongly supported their ability to coerce probationers into

treatment. When probationers failed to comply with mandated treatment,

61% felt the sanctions were about right.

Bivariate Analysis

For dichotomous variables, we used t-tests to assess whether there were

differences in use of coercion to mandate treatment. No significant differences


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��

were found by gender, race (dichotomized as white vs. other), marital status

(married vs. other), or department use of formal screening instruments (yes/

no). Pearson correlation did not find a relationship between coercion and age.

To assess whether there were differences in how these variables were

associated with ‘‘referral’’ to treatment as opposed to the use of coercion, we

ran the same analyses using the ‘‘referral score’’ as the dependent variable

measure. No significant differences were found. To assess whether the nine

different departments differed in their use of coercion, an analysis of variance

F-test was conducted assessing differences in the coercion score. No

differences in use of coercion were found among the nine departments.

The relationship between coercion and other continuous variables were

assessed using Pearson correlations. Not surprisingly, there was a sig-

nificant relationship between coercion scores and referral scores (r = 0.34,

P < 0.001). In terms of individual probation officer and caseload

characteristics, there was a significant correlation between the beliefs about

treatment effectiveness score and coercion (r = 0.37, P < 0.001). In terms of

perceptions about the probation department and larger criminal justice

system, there was a significant correlation between use of coercion and the

belief that ones peers used coercion (r = 0.37, P < 0.001).

Multivariate Analysis

To assess whether the above correlations could predict coercion, con-

trolling for the influence of other variables, two multiple regression

analyses were conducted. The first assessed whether probation officer and

caseload characteristics could predict the use of coercion. Table 3 indicates

the variables entered into model and the results.

The overall model entering all seven variables resulted in an F = 2.44,

P < 0.05, and adjusted R-square = 0.083. Examination of the influence of

individual variables shows that the strongest predictor was the belief about

treatment effectiveness variable (t = 3.74, P < 0.001), R-square = 0.116. Al-

though beliefs about treatment effectiveness accounted for nearly 12% of

the variance of coercion, caseload and other probation officer characteristics

were not significant.

The second multiple regression analysis assessed variables related to

probation officer perceptions about their departments and the larger

criminal justice system. The overall model with seven variables entered

resulted in an F = 2.34, P < 0.05, and R-square = 0.077. The belief that

one’s peers used coercion was the strongest predictor, accounting for 9% of

the variance in the model (Table 4).

To assess whether different factors might predict referral to treatment

as opposed to coercion, we ran the same regressions using the referral to

treatment score as the dependent variable (not shown). The overall model in


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��

the first regression, which assessed caseload and individual probation

officer characteristics, resulted in a very modest trend: F = 1.80, P = 0.096,

adjusted R-square = 0.05. Beliefs about the effectiveness of treatment was

again the only significant predictor, accounting for 6% or the variance

(t = 2.64, P < 0.01). The second regression, assessing probation officer

views about their department and the larger criminal justice system, was

Table 3. Multiple regression analysis of probation officer and caseload

characteristics predicting use of coercion to treatment.

Variable

Parameter

estimate

Standard

error t-value P R-square

% Problem drinkers –0.007 0.009 –0.77 0.442

% Arrested for

alcohol offenses

0.006 0.008 0.80 0.423

Beliefs about resistance 0.042 0.175 0.24 0.811

PO drinking past 12 months 0.012 0.083 0.14 0.886

Family drinking problems 0.025 0.131 0.19 0.857

Experience with

recovery services

0.042 0.136 0.31 0.758

Beliefs about

treatment effectiveness

0.375 0.100 3.74 0.0003 0.116

Note: The model with all seven variables entered resulted in F = 2.44, (P < 0.05),

adjusted R-square = 0.083.

Table 4. Multiple regression analysis of probation officer perceptions of probation

departments and criminal justice systems predicting use of coercion to treatment.

Variable

Parameter

estimate

Standard

error t-value P R-square

Department uses

assessment instruments

0.196 0.407 0.48 0.631

Peers support coercion 0.056 0.158 0.35 0.724

Peers use coercion 0.629 0.191 3.30 0.001 0.089

Judges effect 0.007 0.184 0.04 0.969

State law effects 0.139 0.207 0.67 0.504

% Noncompliant 0.002 0.004 0.60 0.549

Severity of sanctions 0.130 0.269 0.48 0.630

Note: The model with all seven variables entered resulted in F = 2.34, (P < 0.05),

adjusted R-square = 0.077.


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��

not significant with all variable entered and did not have any individual

variables that predicted referral.

DISCUSSION

The results of the study suggest that probation officers in general

support the use of coercion to mandate treatment for alcohol problems.

However, they seem to weigh a number of factors when judging whether to

make a coerced referral. These include: 1) whether the offender was arrested

for an offense where alcohol played a role, 2) the offender’s level of

motivation for treatment, and 3) the severity of the alcohol problem.

The results suggest that probation officers frequently refer probationers

to treatment without coercion. Although coercion and referral scores

were highly correlated, there were important differences. In some vignettes

where probation officers were unlikely to coerce probationers to treatment,

they were quite likely to make a referral. Making referrals to treatment that

are not relevant to the probationer’s legal status suggests that probation

officers often take a human services view of their work, trying connect

probationers with services that they need irrespective of the relevance to

probation status.

Probation officers were also moderate in their beliefs that probationers

could be helped in treatment. Very likely they have some subjective sense

of when and for whom treatment is effective. Although our study did not

access the conditions under which probation officers believed that treatment

could be effective, this may be an interesting area for further study.

Findings suggest that probation officers generally feel pleased with the

response that their departments and the larger criminal justice system has in

regards to their use of coercion to mandate treatment. More often than not,

they report feeling support for their use of coercion from judges, peers, and

state laws. They were also generally pleased with the quality of assessments

made by programs in their communities. However, there appeared to be

some concern about the availability of treatment resources and the level of

services offered.

The majority of potential predictors of coercion were markedly un-

related to it. Predictors of referral were even weaker. This serves to

highlight the two predictors that were significant: beliefs that treatment is

effective and perception of peers use of coercion. The former is clearly not

surprising; probation officers who believe treatment is effective are more

likely to mandate it, especially if they believe mandated treatment is

effective, which is one of the items that loaded on the beliefs about treat-

ment effectiveness score. The second predictor is more complicated. It is a


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��

bit like the adolescent finding that teenagers who believe their peers are

using drugs are more likely to use drugs themselves, irrespective of the

accuracy of their belief. Here, probation officers who believe their peers are

using coercion are more likely to use it themselves.

Because probation officers were asked about ‘‘their peers in the de-

partment’’ and the nine departments did not differ in their use of coercion,

it appears that the perception about use of coercion is key, whether or not

the perception is accurate, rather than perceptions of actual differences in

use of coercion. If departments actually differed in their use of coercion it

would make sense that respondents from higher use of coercion

departments would report more frequent practice of coercion among their

peers. This was not the case in our study.

However, one limitation relevant to this finding is that respondents may

not have actually thought about the overall department when asked about

‘‘peers in the department.’’ Instead, they may have thought about those

probation officers whom they worked closest with on a daily basis and

disregarded the overall department. In this scenario, there may be subgroups

within departments that actually differ in their use of coercion. Respondents

may have been reporting these real subgroup differences rather than un-

substantiated normative beliefs. Disentangling these differences more def-

initively would require additional research.

Other limitations of the study include the limited geographical area and

the lack of assurance that our sample was representative of probation

officers in California. However, as we noted in the results, use of coercion

and referral to treatment did not differ among demographic subgroups or

different departments, some of which were urban (n = 2), whereas others

were suburban or rural (n = 7). It should be remembered that our study

focused on coercion to treatment for alcohol problems and coercion to

treatment for drug problems could yield different results.

There are two implications from our findings for increasing the pro-

vision of services to the large number of probationers who have alcohol

problems. First, facilitating the belief that treatment is effective may help to

increase coercion to treatment. Several strategies are suggested.

First, managers of probation departments should expose probation of-

ficers to the extensive literature documenting the effectiveness of alcohol

treatment in general and coerced treatment in particular (e.g., Refs. (15–

17,21–26)). The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

publishes treatment reviews regularly in provider friendly publications such

as ‘‘Alcohol Alert.’’ Publications within the probation field should make

dissemination of alcohol treatment outcome findings a top priority.

Managers could also facilitate presentation of successful cases in pro-

bation officer meetings to expose officers to real successes within the


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��

department. An excellent suggestion would be for managers to support

long-term follow-up of coerced referrals to document successes and make

modifications to improve outcome.

Managers could also adopt strategies to facilitate normative beliefs

that probation officers’ peers in the department frequently practice

coercion to treatment. Many modern theories of management in general

(e.g., Ref. (27)) and management of human service organizations in

particular (28) suggest that developing shared views of the department

among all personnel and shared responsibility for operations is critical.

The theory is that the nature of current organizational environments

necessitates that workers be empowered to help develop policies based on

a shared understanding of their organization. In this management style,

leaders of probation departments would involve probation officers in

developing normative beliefs and practices in regards to the use of

coercion. To the extent that these norms and practices supported coercion,

mandated referrals would increase.

There are a number of suggestions for further research. Although few

of the individual probation officer characteristics, caseload characteristics,

or views about probation departments and criminal justice systems were

associated with the practice of coercion or referral to treatment, these

factors may be associated with other factors relevant to coerced treatment.

For example, it would be interesting to assess whether the variables used

here were associated with probationers compliance with coerced referrals or

their success in treatment.

Because family drinking problems were so prominent among re-

spondents and apparently had a substantial impact on the lives of probation

officers, this variable deserves closer scrutiny. Family drinking problems

correlated with less frequency of drinking over the past year, a belief the

treatment was effective, and more experience with recovery services. It is

likely that many of these individuals are in recovery themselves. It would

be interesting to assess whether their work with problem drinkers differs

from other probation officers in respects other than use of coercion.

Finally, a variety of human services, medical, and legal professionals

have contact with individuals who have alcohol problems (14,20). Mea-

surement of their referral practices and use of coercion deserves more

attention in the literature. The scales that were developed to measure

coercion and referral in this study resulted in strong alpha coefficients.

They could be used to measure the disposition of problem drinking cases

from the perspective of other criminal justice personnel, such as judges

or parole officers. They might also be modified to measure the responses

to alcohol problems from social workers, health care professionals, or

work supervisors.


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��

APPENDIX A


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work is supported by NIAAA R03 AA12692-02.

REFERENCES

1. Blevins LD, Morton JB, McCabe KA. Using the Michigan alcoholism

screening test to identify problem drinkers under federal supervision.

Fed Probat 1996; 60(2):38–44.

2. Greenfield TK. A study of major mental disorders in California prisons:

survey methodology and preliminary estimates. In: Paper Presented at

the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law,

San Francisco, CA, October, 1988.

3. Greenfield TK. Voices from California state prisons: utilization of and

amenability to treatment. In: Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of

the Society for the Study of Social Problems, Washington, D.C, August,

1990.

4. Greenfield TK, Weisner C. Drinking problems and self reported

criminal behavior, arrests, and convictions: 1990 US alcohol and 1989

county surveys. Addiction 1995; 90:361–373.

5. Kermani EJ, Castaneda R. Psychoactive use in forensic psychiatry. Am

J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1996; 22(1):1–27.

6. Mumola CJ, Bonczar TP. Substance Abuse and Treatment of Adults on

Probation. Special Report. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Washington,

D.C., 1998.


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14549704_Psychoactive_Substance_Use_in_Forensic_Psychiatry?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-dfcdbf2e-7cdf-4d9d-b2c0-99addefe43b9&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzkwODAxMjg7QVM6MTI3NjQ3MjMzMzUxNjgwQDE0MDc0NDQ4ODA5NjQ=

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14549704_Psychoactive_Substance_Use_in_Forensic_Psychiatry?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-dfcdbf2e-7cdf-4d9d-b2c0-99addefe43b9&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzkwODAxMjg7QVM6MTI3NjQ3MjMzMzUxNjgwQDE0MDc0NDQ4ODA5NjQ=

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15464210_Drinking_problems_and_self-reported_criminal_behavior_arrests_and_convictions_1990_US_Alcohol_and_1989_County_Surveys?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-dfcdbf2e-7cdf-4d9d-b2c0-99addefe43b9&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzkwODAxMjg7QVM6MTI3NjQ3MjMzMzUxNjgwQDE0MDc0NDQ4ODA5NjQ=



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295565910_Using_the_Michigan_alcoholism_screening_test_to_identify_problem_drinkers_under_federal_supervision?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-dfcdbf2e-7cdf-4d9d-b2c0-99addefe43b9&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzkwODAxMjg7QVM6MTI3NjQ3MjMzMzUxNjgwQDE0MDc0NDQ4ODA5NjQ=



7. National Institute of Justice. Research in Action: Drug Use Forecasting.

United States Department of Justice: Washington, D.C., 1988.

8. Neighbors HJ, Williams DH, Gunnings TS, Lipscomb WD, Broman C,

Lepkowski J. The Prevalence of Mental Disorders in Michigan Prisons

(Final Report to the Michigan Department of Corrections). Institute for

Survey Research: Ann Arbor, Michigan: July, 1987.

9. National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Improving the

Delivery of Alcohol Treatment and Prevention Services: Executive

Summary. NIH Publication No. 97-4224, Bethesda, MD, 1997.

10. Schmidt L, Weisner C. Developments in alcoholism treatment. In:

Galanter M, ed. Recent Developments in Alcoholism (Vol. 11). New

York: Plenum, 1993.

11. Tam TW, Schmidt L, Weisner C. Patterns in the institutional encounters

of problem drinkers in a community human services network. Addiction

1996; 91(5):657–669.

12. Weisner C. Coercion in alcohol treatment. In: Institute of Medicine,

Broadening the Base of Treatment for Alcohol Problems. Washington,

D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990.

13. Robbins L, Helzer JE, Orvaschel H, Anthony J, Blazer D, Burnam MA,

Burke JD. The diagnostic interview schedule. In: Eaton WW, Kessler L,

eds. Epidemiology Field Methods in Psychiatry: The NIMH Epidemi-

ological Catchment Area Program. New York: Academic Press, 1985,

143–170.

14. Polcin DL, Weisner C. Factors associated with coercion in entering

treatment for alcohol problems. J Drug Alcohol Depend 1999; 54:63–

68.

15. Gerstein DR, Johnson RA, Harwood HJ, Fountain D, Suter N,

Malloy K. Evaluating Recovery Services: The California Drug and

Alcohol Treatment Assessment (Contract’ No. 92-001100). Califor-

nia Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs: Sacramento, CA,

1994.

16. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. National Treatment Improve-

ment Evaluation Study (NTIES). US Department of Health and

Human Services: Washington, D.C., 1996.

17. Wells-Parker E, Bangert-Drowns R, McMillen R, Williams M. Final

results from a meta-analysis of remedial interventions with drink/drive

offenders. Addiction 1995; 9(7):907–926.

18. Polcin DL. Criminal justice coercion in the treatment of alcohol

problems: an examination of two client subgroups. J Psychoact Drugs

1999; 31(2):137–143.

19. American Society of Addictive Medicine (ASAM). Alcohol, illicit

drugs both factor in criminal activity. ASAM News 1999; 14:2.


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12861781_Criminal_Justice_Coercion_in_the_Treatment_of_Alcohol_Problems_An_Examination_of_Two_Client_Subgroups?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-dfcdbf2e-7cdf-4d9d-b2c0-99addefe43b9&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzkwODAxMjg7QVM6MTI3NjQ3MjMzMzUxNjgwQDE0MDc0NDQ4ODA5NjQ=






https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15536471_Final_results_from_a_meta-analysis_of_remedial_interventions_with_drinkdrive_offenders?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-dfcdbf2e-7cdf-4d9d-b2c0-99addefe43b9&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzkwODAxMjg7QVM6MTI3NjQ3MjMzMzUxNjgwQDE0MDc0NDQ4ODA5NjQ=



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14272430_Patterns_in_the_institutional_encounters_of_problem_drinkers_in_a_community_human_services_network?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-dfcdbf2e-7cdf-4d9d-b2c0-99addefe43b9&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzkwODAxMjg7QVM6MTI3NjQ3MjMzMzUxNjgwQDE0MDc0NDQ4ODA5NjQ=



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14964221_Recent_Developments_in_Alcoholism_Treatment?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-dfcdbf2e-7cdf-4d9d-b2c0-99addefe43b9&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzkwODAxMjg7QVM6MTI3NjQ3MjMzMzUxNjgwQDE0MDc0NDQ4ODA5NjQ=



20. Weisner C, Schmidt LA. The community epidemiology laboratory:

studying alcohol problems in community and agency based populations.

Addiction 1995; 90:329–341.

21. Doyle H, Tobin J, Delaney W. A study of the legal involvement of new

patient attenders at a Dublin alcohol treatment unit. Ir J Psychol Med

1992; 9(2):93–95.

22. Institute of Medicine. Broadening the Base of Treatment for Alcohol

Problems. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 1990.

23. Institute of Medicine. Managing Managed Care: Quality Improvements

in Behavioral Health. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.,

1997.

24. Polcin DL. The etiology and diagnosis of alcohol dependence: differ-

ences in the professional literature. Psychotherapy 1997; 34(3):297–

306.

25. Polcin DL. Professional therapy versus specialized programs for alco-

hol and drug abuse treatment. J Addict Offender Couns 2000; 21(1):2–

11.

26. Project MATCH Research Group. Matching alcoholism treatments to

client heterogeneity: project MATCH posttreatment outcomes. J Stud

Alcohol 1997; 58:7–29.

27. Bradford DL, Cohen AR. Managing for Excellence. Wiley and Sons:

New York, 1984.

28. Polcin DL. Administrative planning in community mental health.

Community Ment Health J 1990; 26(2):181–192.


� �� !�"�

# �$ ��

Factors Associated with Probation Officers' Use of Criminal Justice Coercion to Mandate Alcohol Treatment

Documents