GENDER, REHABILITATION, AND PROBATION DECISIONS

GENDER, REHABILITATION, AND PROBATION DECISIONS*

EDNA ERE2 Kent State University

This article examines the structure of probation decision making on the perceived “need” level of probationers and the pursuant prescription of “treatment.” Although male and female probationers did not direr in their cumulative “need” level, significant differences by sex were found in the factors used by the probation officers to arrive at their decision or in the relative weights assigned to them. A multivariate analysis indicates that gender-role expectations and stereotypes weigh heavily in the officers’ decision making and guide the application of treatment. The implications of such gender-based rehabilitation are drawn and discussed.

Legal decision making has received increased attention in the past decade. The effect of gender on this process has been neglected in most studies, hew- ever. Efforts to model the dynamics of criminal justice decision making that included gender as a criterion have focused mostly on court outcomes, such as prosecution, conviction, and sentencing decisions (for a review, see Nagel and Hagan, 1983). Fewer studies have addressed the effect of gender on the structure of arrest decision making (e.g. Visher, 1983), and very little attention has been given to decision making in postsentencing stages, such as probation or parole.

The studies that did address the probation decision making process have focused mostly on one aspect of probation work, the presentence recommendation (e.g., Carter, 1967; Hagan, 1975), and few of those included gender as a variable (e.g., Drass and Spencer, 1987; Frazier et al., 1983). Virtually no research has addressed decision making in the other, more important part of probation work, the supervision and treatment role of probation officers. This omission is particularly surprising in light of the fact that probation is the type of disposition most commonly imposed in the United States (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1985), and proportionately more women than men receive probation as their sentence (Nagel and Hagan, 1983; Parisi, 1982). As several scholars have observed, the exclusion of women as research subjects is

A version of this paper was presented at the 1987 annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology in Montreal. The cooperation of the Ohio Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, particularly Steven Van Dyne, David Mickley and Ron Briggs, is appreciated. Volker Guhlke collected and processed the data. Daniel Glaser, Pamela Tontodonato, and Steven Webster provided helpful comments. The study was supported by a grant from the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, Kent State University.

CRIMINOLOGY VOLUME 27 NUMBER 2 1989 307

308 EREZ

most notable in the areas of probation and parole (Moyer, 1985; Nagel and Hagan, 1983; Whitehead, 1986).

This study addresses the structure of probation decision making in supervision and treatment. It examines the factors that influence treatment-related decisions of probation officers, and it evaluates the effect of gender on decisions made for the purpose of, and in the course of dispensing, “rehabilitation.” Specifically, it addresses determinants of the perceived level of “need” of probationers and the pursuant “prescription” of treatment. Although punishment goals have gained prominence in sentencing and prison management in recent decades, probation remains one area of correction in which concern with assisting the offender is routinely stated, and in which treatment is one of the manifest goals. 1

The question whether gender has an effect on probation decision making is important for several reasons. First, theoretical perspectives that address formal societal responses to offenders have by and large ignored the relationship between gender and response of social control agencies. Because characteristics of the individual offender are thought to influence the labeling process, failure to consider gender and its interaction with other ascribed or achieved statuses traditionally examined is a serious theoretical limitation. And with the lack of empirical research on this question, little is known about the influence of gender on societal reaction to crime and criminals.

Second, the decision on the “need” level of probationers is of strategic importance. It puts offenders at risk of classifications that require close scru- tiny or intensive supervision. This may increase the likelihood of failure and thus affect future decisions, such as eligibility for probation.

Finally, findings of differential assessments and gender-based inequality of treatment pose some policy questions. Areas of major concern are the rele- vance of gender for treatment-related decisions and the most effective ways to eliminate unjustified differential treatment.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Research on women in criminal justice suggests that women receive differ-

ential treatment in various components of the system (e.g., Nagel and Hagan, 1983; Parisi, 1982). Although some argue that this sex effect is an artifact of inadequate control variables (Steffensmeier, 1980), reviews of multivariate studies that control for relevant legal variables show a recurrent pattern of leniency for women. This differential treatment, however, arises in particular decision-making contexts. For instance, it is more often evident in pretrial

The official documentation of probation work in Ohio, the site of this study, uses exclusively such vocabulary as “need assessment treatment” or “treatment approach” to describe the various activities probation officers are expected to perform. It also consist- ently refers to probationers as “clients.”

1.

GENDER, REHABILITATION, AND PROBATION 309

release and sentencing decisions than in case dismissal or conviction (Nagel and Hagan, 1983; Parisi, 1982).

Several theories have been offered to explain these differences, the most frequent of which is paternalism, or chivalry (e.g. Moulds, 1980; Nagel and Hagan, 1983; Visher, 1983). Typically, this line of reasoning argues that criminal justice officials (predominantly men) try to protect women as the “weaker sex” from the harshness of any experience with the criminal justice system. Most often this explanation is offered when statistics indicate more favorable treatment of women compared with men, without the researchers examining the reasons behind the decisions, why such a notion arises in the criminal justice context, or whether criminal justice officials are actually concerned with protecting women (Daly, 1987b).

Critics of the paternalism thesis have argued that in the name of protection women actually receive harsher treatment than men (e.g., Armstrong, 1982; Chesney-Lind, 1981). And because some studies have indicated that prefer- ential treatment is not accorded all women, the “evil women” hypothesis has been offered to complement the chivalry or paternalism thesis (Nagel and Hagan, 1983).

Other theories explain gender differences in criminal justice outcomes by social control arguments (e.g., Kruttschnitt, 1982b, 1984; Kruttschnitt and Green, 1984). They assert that gender-related statuses (i.e., those aspects of social life that are particularly characteristic of one sex category) are the reasons for differential treatment, rather than sex per se, because those statuses are associated with different levels of informal social control. Control theory postulates an inverse relationship between informal and formal control (Black, 1976; Hagan et al., 1979). As applied to criminal justice, it states that the more a person is tied to others (e.g., family members) the more that person is subject to informal social control, and the less need there is for formal social control. Examples of gender-related statuses are dependency (Kruttschnitt, 1982b) and “respectability” (Black, 1976; Kruttschnitt, 1982a). But social control studies have also relied on statistical differences without inquiring into the meaning or importance that criminal justice per- sonnel attribute to those statuses.

Recent quantitative research findings that differential treatment exists not between but rather within sex categories (Farrington and Morris, 1983), and qualitative research concerning factors that affect decision making by probation officers, prosecutors, and judges (Daly, 1987b; Eaton, 1983, 1985) indicated a need to revise some of the social control and paternalism arguments. Familial paternalism has been offered as a replacement for female paternalism (Daly, 1987b), and having dependents, rather than being dependent, has been identified as the overriding criterion for leniency (Daly, 1987a, 1987b; see also Kruttschnitt, 1984). The dimension of “social costs of punishment” (Daly, 1987b) has supplanted arguments of social control. Other explanations

310 ERE2

offered for the differential treatment of women include differential social expectations concerning gender behavior and the impact of gender stereotyp- ing on the definitions of crime and criminals (Chesney-Lind, 1981), gender- based conceptions of the seriousness of crime (men are perceived as more dangerous), conceptions concerning the permanence of the behavior, or the potential for reform (women are perceived as more amenable to rehabilitation) (Armstrong, 1982), and practicality (Harris, 1977; Steffensmeier, 1980).

Another type of explanation offered reflects an interactionkt perspective, which argues that societal response to deviance is fluid and affected by the interaction between the parties involved (Lofland, 1969; for a relevant exam- ple of parole interviews, see Ruback and Hopper, 1986). Interactionists emphasize the importance of addressing the values, attitudes, and characteristics of people responding to deviants, or labels attached to them, when attempting to explain criminal justice processing decisions (Becker, 1963; Schur, 1971). One such characteristic is the sex of the social control agent (Kruttschnitt, 1985; see also Walsh, 1984), which is particularly important in light of the chivalry arguments attributed to a male-dominated criminal justice system. Another processual consideration is the label attached to deviants, such as “high risk” (Stryker et al., 1983).

Although most of the aforementioned research on the effect of gender on criminal justice outcomes was conducted in the context of courts (pretrial, prosecution, presentence recommendation, and reconviction) and concerned decisions of “desert” or punishment, rather than “need” or treatment, the findings and the emerging theoretical perspectives may be useful for examining probation decision making in its rehabilitative role. First, the explicit role of probation officers is a mixture of law enforcement (soft police) and quasi- judicial (Czajkoski, 1973) elements, together with casework or social work aspects (Eaton, 1985). The probation task has been described as “controlling, guiding and rehabilitating probationers” (Diana, 1960: 196).

Second, probation agencies are an integral part of the penal structure and their officers are in close contact with the courts. Research has shown that probation officers are particularly sensitive to evaluation by judges and prosecutors (Katz, 1982; Rosecrance, 1985). It is therefore reasonable to expect that the surrounding legal culture of probation officers permeates their views in all aspects of their work or decision making, that is, that the attitudes of judges and prosecutors relative to the role of gender in justice influence probation officers’ decision making.

Third, the presentence recommendation prepared by probation depart- ments is commonly viewed as a document that includes an analysis of the criminal offense and a presentation of the most effective treatment plan to prevent a repetition (Jacob, 1970; Orland, 1973). Thus, probation officers are presumed to express in it, consciously or unconsciously, their views and attitudes concerning gender relative to criminality and its rehabilitation.

GENDER, REHABILITATION, AND PROBATION 3 1 1

Although some quantitative research on presentence recommendations has concluded that judges usually follow probation officers’ recommendations, that probation officers serve as judges’ advisors in terms of meting out the appropriate punishment (Frazier et al., 1983; Hagan, 1975), more recent qualitative research indicates that probation officers actually operate within parameters and according to cues provided by judges and prosecuting attor- neys (Rosecrance, 1985; see also Katz, 1982). This anticipatory nature of probation recommendations actually questions traditional concepts that judges “follow” probation recommendations (Rosecrance, 1985). It makes it likely that opinions and attitudes held by the judiciary and the prosecution will be echoed by probation officers. Qualitative research concerning the con- tent of social inquiry reports supports this hypothesis (Eaton, 1985).

Finally, research on presentence recommendations reveals probation officers’ differential attitudes toward men and women, attitudes that are also held by prosecutors and judges (Simon, 1975; Steffensmeier, 1980). For instance, gender is associated with perception of risk (Drass and Spencer, 1987) and with explanations offered for criminality. Probation officers, it was found, use certain categories (such as problems related to marriage, family, or dependency) exclusively to explain the criminality of women, but explain male criminality by reference to the nature and dangerousness of their crimes or to their employment history (Frazier et al., 1983: 315).

HYPOTHESES

The preceding discussion of theoretical perspectives and related research findings suggests the general hypothesis that probation officers are differently oriented to male and female clients when pursuing their concern with rehabilitation. In agreement with Nagel (1983: 51 1-512) that “the presumption that societal responses to deviants, court responses to defendants or judicial decisions can be explained by one overarching theoretical model is likely to prove untenable,” this study tests several related hypotheses that are derived from the preceding theories.

The treatment aspect of probation work has been defined as “helping indi- viduals to cope more effectively in social functioning” (Diana, 1960: 194). Granted the different social roles adopted by officers (e.g., Diana, 1960; Reed and King, 1966), it is suggested that differential definitions of “need” and proper social functioning or adjustment prevail in probation agencies for male and female clients, and consequently different “prescriptions” of activities to correct the maladjustment are made. These differences may be expressed by giving differential weights to the same “problems,” assessing the same problems differently for men and women (e.g., “out of character” for men but not for women), or selecting different criteria altogether for evaluating men’s needs compared with women’s needs.

312 EREZ

The rehabilitation aspect of probation work addresses both personal and social problems that are assumed to interfere with the client’s social functioning. Thus, individual personal characteristics (such as emotional and mental stability, alcohol and drug abuse, or attitudes) are considered together with indices of social integration, social standing, and performance of social roles (such as employment, associations, or domestic relations). Both personal attributes and social roles are evaluated differently for men and women and hence will be differentially assessed in the officers’ decision making concerning the “needs” of the client. For instance, because “normal” women are expected to be emotional (Broverman et al., 1970; see also Whitley, 1979), the presence of emotionality will not result in defining women as “needy,” but will be critical for evaluating needs of male probationers. On the other hand, as a woman’s identity is, to a large extent, relational and closely tied to her role in the family, it is expected that dysfunction in domestic relations will weigh more heavily in decisions concerning the needs of female probationers than of men. Likewise, because women are thought to be more dependent and easily influenced (Broverman et al., 1970; Klein, 1973; Shover and Nor- land, 1978) and because the reputation of women’s associates might affect their “respectability” (Kruttschnitt, 1982a), it is expected that disreputable associations of female probationers will be a greater source of concern in assessing women’s needs than men’s.

Two rival hypotheses are relevant to predicting the effect of crime-related variables-specifically the risk level and the type of offense committed (violent or nonviolent>--on the need determination. According to the “evil women” hypotheses, (e.g., Nagel et al., 1982: 262) women who commit “unlady-like” crimes or are heavily involved in criminality will be viewed as more needy than men. The paternalistic thesis (Simon, 1975), on the other hand, predicts that the criminality of women is more tolerated and less conse- quential in the need determination for women compared with men.

With regard to the prescription of “treatment”-activities or referrals that officers recommend for their clients’ ‘‘rehabilitation’’-according to both social control and familial paternalism theses, it is expected that officers will endorse and recommend conformity to the sexual division of labor as a form of rehabilitation. Thus, women will be more often required to improve domestic relations or engage in better child care, but men will more often be required to improve their employment situation, financial management, or other aspects of their “breadwinner” role.

DESIGN, METHODOLOGY, AND SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

A random sample, stratified by sex, of 500 probationers supervised between

GENDER, REHABILITATION, AND PROBATION 3 13

1983 and 1987 was selected from the files of the probation offices of northeastern Ohio. This region includes both rural and urban areas. The files of each probationer include Initial Assessment of Risk and Initial Assessment of Need forms and periodic Reassessment of Risk and Need.

The Initial Assessment instruments, which follow the Wisconsin classification system (Baird et al., 1979) are completed by an officer following a court disposition of probation. They are based on various information sources and on interviews of the client by an officer. The first instrument assesses the risk of the client, or his or her potential for future criminality, by giving points to such items as age at first arrest, number of prior felonies, incarcerations, probation and parole supervisions and revocations, percentage of time employed in the past year and substance abuse. This instrument is used by the officers mostly for administrative and management purposes (Kratcoski, 1985: 49). The second instrument is the need assessment, which evaluates the probationer’s deficiencies in such areas as family relations and support, employment, and personal or social attributes, such as emotional stability, sexual behavior, substance abuse,2 financial management, associations and criminal orientation, namely attitudes toward obeying the law. This instrument is designed to provide a basis for the treatment and rehabilitation of the offender (Kratcoski, 1985: 49-50).

The determination of the probationer’s “need” level is made on the basis of some objective information gathered by the officer on particular items or problem areas. For instance, violent fights with a spouse may indicate problems in domestic relations; continuously refusing to work without giving a reason may result in a high need level on the employment item. This proce- dure of using objective information to determine the level of need is followed for all the items on the need instrument, except for the last one, “officer impression of need,” which is totally subjective. The last item denotes the officer’s subjective evaluation of the client’s overall “need” level after all the previous items have been scored on the basis of more objective information. In both instruments the data are coded by the officers on at least an ordinal scale, and a cumulative risk score and a cumulative need score are calculated.

The risk and need scores are used separately to determine the level of supervision necessary for the probationer. A certain level of risk or need score will result in a corresponding level of classification: minimum, medium, or maximum. Thus, an officer’s subjective impression of need can have the effect of moving a probationer from one level of supervision to another (usually from a lower to higher level).

Attached to each Assessment of Need and Risk is an Action Plan form.

2. Substance abuse appears on both the Risk and Need Assessment instruments, but it has different scores or categories on each. For the Need Assessment the maximum score is higher than for Risk Assessment.

3 14 EREZ

On this form the officer indicates the area in which improvement is needed (e.g., association, employment, substance abuse) and “prescribes” the type of activities the client should get involved in for his or her adjustment, such as counseling, child care, or improving domestic relations.

Each form contains the name of the officer who prepared it, which allows collection of data about the sex of the officers. Because there is a tendency for sexual segregation in assigning probationers to officers (Stout, 1973), the sex of the officer making the decision is an important factor to consider in the analysis.

Additional data were extracted from Case Supervision Approach (CSA) forms, which include various behavioral and personality data obtained at the time of the first interview and are used to determine the type of approach and interaction suitable in handling or treating each probationer. Most of the demographic variables used in the analysis were gathered from these forms.

The characteristics of the sample are as follows: 67% are males and 33% females; 36% are blacks, 63% whites, and 1% others. Nine percent were below age 20,4070 between 20 and 25,2070 between 26 and 30,20% between 31 and 40, and the remainder were over age 40. Sixty-four percent had no prior felonies, 18% had one prior felony, and 18% had two or more felonies. The education level of 64% of the subjects was less than high school; 26% graduated from high school, and 11% had some post high school training. Forty-two percent of the subjects were single, 27% divorced, separated or widowed, and 31% married. Fifty-eight percent were unemployed at the time of the interview, 23% were fully employed, and the rest had part-time or other employment status (students, housewives, etc.).

RESULTS

To examine the structure of decision making by probation officers, specifically the subjective determination of officers’ impressions of probationers’ “need” level, several preliminary analyses were conducted.

First, the means of the officers’ impressions of “need” for male and female probationers were compared for initial assessment. A t-test indicated that there were no significant differences between the officers’ impression of the “need” level of males and that of females (2 males = 15.7, 2 females = 15.2, t = .66, p < S1).

Second, the distributions by sex of the more objectively determined “need” variables that constitute the “need” instrument were examined (Table 1). Table 1 indicates that significant differences exist between the level of need of male and female probationers in the areas of employment, financial management, attitudes, association, and substance abuse. More females are defined

Tabl

e 1.

Fr

eque

ncy

Dis

tribu

tion

of I

tem

s C

ompo

sing

the

Initi

al N

eed

Ass

essm

ent,

by S

ex

Dom

estic

Em

ploy

men

t A

ssoc

iatio

n R

elat

ion

MF

MF

MF

-

-

-

- -

- Le

vel

Satis

fact

ory

31%

30

%

27%

36

%

64%

63%

Som

e Pr

oble

ms

58

46

50

36

32

34

Seve

re P

robl

ems

10

24

23

28

4 3

(105

) (5

0)

(89)

(5

9)

(211

) (1

05)

(193

) (7

7)

(166

) (5

9)

(108

) (5

6)

(34)

(3

9)

(77)

(4

8)

(13)

(5

)

Emot

iona

l St

abili

ty

MF

-

-

54%

60

%

(179

) (9

9)

33

29

(109

) (4

8)

13

14

(45)

(1

9)

Aca

dem

ic/

Substance

Voc

atio

nal

Fina

ncia

l

MF

MF

MF

-

39%

57

%

67%

60

%

28%

38

%

(130

) (9

5)

(221

) (1

00)

(94)

(6

3)

45

30

29

31

64

51

(150

) (5

0)

(98)

(5

2)

(212

) (8

5)

16

13

4 8

8 11

(5

2)

(21)

(1

3)

(14)

(2

6)

(18)

Abu

se

Skill

s M

anag

emen

t

-

-

-

-

-

Atti

tude

s M

F

-

-

65%

74

%

(214

) (1

22)

30

19

(101

) (3

2)

5 7

(17)

(1

2)

X2

P 16

.16

9.4

.30

1.47

14

.93

4.9

7.4

7.3

.ooo

3 .0

09

.86

.47

.000

6 .0

8 .0

2 .0

2

316 EREZ

as having severe employment problems3 compared with males. More males have some criminal associations, and more females have no associations that are disreputable. More females have no problems of substance abuse compared with males. More males have some problems of financial management, and more males have negative attitudes compared with females. On the other hand, in the areas of domestic relations, emotional stability, and adequacy of academic/vocational skills, there were no significant differences in the level of need between male and female probationers, as determined in the initial assessment.

To examine the structure of probation decision making concerning “need” level and the effect that gender has on this determination, the structure of officers’ impressions of “need” for females was compared with that for male clients. Such a comparative within-group analysis has the potential of identifying sex-specific determinants of “need” and providing a more complete pic- ture of the influence of gender-role stereotypes on probation officers’ “need” decisions. Although the dependent variable “officer impression of need” is on an ordinal level (low, medium, high), multiple regression techniques were applied given that regression may be used with an ordinal-level criterion without the variable confounding the analysis (Bohmstedt and Carter, 197 1; Labovitz, 1970, 1971).

Two separate multivariate regressions for male and female probationers were estimated using the stepwise method. The latter was used to identify the most salient variables that affect the “need” determination. The variables selected for inclusion as independent variables were all those problem areas that constitute items in the Need Assessment score and that had sufficient variation.4 Also, certain ascribed statuses or demographic attributes of the client that may influence the officers’ impression of “need,” such as age, race, and marital status were included. The risk score was also included, as was type of offense for which the probationer was sentenced (violent or nonviolent offense), because these are processual considerations assumed to be taken into account by social control agents in their decision making process (Stryker et al., 1983). Finally, the sex of the probation officer was included because there is still much sexual segregation in the assignment of cases to officers, despite attempts for reforms in probation (e.g., Stout, 1973). The tendency to assign officers of the same sex to clients was also evident in this study: 121 out of 166 (75%) female probationers were assigned to female officers. Tables 2 and 3 display the equations of the structure of the subjective decision of the “need” level for male and female probationers, respectively.

3.

4.

“Severe problems” means more than being unemployed. It usually refers to

The items in the need instrument that were excluded due to small variance were refusal, unwillingness, or lack of motivation to work.

health, mental ability, and sexual behavior.

Tabl

e 2.

Uns

tand

ardi

zed

(b)

and

Stan

dard

ized

(Bet

a) R

egre

ssio

n C

oeff

icie

nts a

nd R

elat

ed S

tatis

tics f

or E

stim

atin

g Eq

uatio

n of

D

ecis

ion-

Mak

ing

Stru

ctur

e by

Pro

batio

n O

ffic

ers f

or M

ale

Prob

atio

ners

in t

he I

nitia

l Nee

d A

sses

smen

t

b B

eta

Var

iabl

e C

odin

g (S.E. b)

(S.E. B

eta)

R'

C

hang

e T

2 =se

vere

pro

blem

(.O

S)

(.W

(.09

(.W

(.W

3 =se

vere

pro

blem

(W

.I

S 3 =

seve

re p

robl

em

(.W

(.05

) O=

no

prob

lem

.I6

.I6

.02

(.05

) .I

6 2 =

seve

re p

robl

em

(.W

O=n

o pr

oble

m

.I0

(.05

) .I

1 4=

seve

re p

robl

em

(.03)

O

=no

prob

lem

.I

3 (.W

2 =se

vere

pro

blem

(W

2 =

seve

re p

robl

em

(.W

(.05

) 0 =

nonw

hite

.0

9 .0

6 1 =

whi

te

(W

(W

.04

(W

0 =un

mar

ried

-.01

- .0

2 .oo

(.W

.07

inte

rval

.oo

.oo

.oo

Age

.oo

.01

(JW

(5

05)

Offe

nse

Type

O

=non

viol

ent

.oo

.oo

I =vi

olen

t ~

07

) C

43)

Sex

of P

roba

tion

Offi

cer

0 =m

ale

.oo

.oo

.00

.oo

(0-1)

1 =fe

mal

e (.08)

(9

(0-1

) C

onst

ant

R2 =

.49

(.I91

p

< .0

1

Fina

ncia

l Man

agem

ent

0 =no

pro

blem

.3

7 .3

1 .I

9 6.

86'.

inte

rval

.0

1 .IS

.IS

2.99..

Total Risk S

core

Emot

iona

l Sta

bilit

y 0 =

no p

robl

em

.IS

.I6

.os

3.65

**

.04

3.61..

A

ssoc

iatio

ns

O=n

o pr

oble

m

3.52

.. Su

bsta

nce

Abu

se

.02

3.28

.. Em

ploy

men

t

.01

2.53

. D

omes

tic R

elat

ions

(0-2

)

.I7

(0-3

)

(0-3)

(0-2

)

(0-4

)

(0-2

)

(0-2

)

(0-1

)

(0-2

)

(0-1

)

1.78

.oo

1.41

.oo

1 .oo

- .46

Aca

dem

icfl

ocat

iona

l Sk

ills

O=n

o pr

oble

m

.I0

.08

.01

Rac

e

Add

itude

s O

=no

prob

lem

.os

2 =

seve

re p

robl

em

~0

5)

1 =m

arri

ed

~0

3)

Mar

ital

Stat

us

5.21..

.9

8

+* p

< ,0

01

Q

m z U "g R 2 X

? E G 2 Z 0

P

Z U

0

w 4

L

w c

Tabl

e 3.

U

nsta

ndar

dize

d (b

) an

d St

anda

rdiz

ed (B

eta)

Reg

ress

ion

Coe

ffic

ient

s and

Rel

ated

Sta

tistic

s for

Est

imat

ing

Equa

tion

of

Dec

isio

n-M

akin

g St

ruct

ure

by P

roba

tion

Off

icer

s for

Fem

ale

Prob

atio

ners

in t

he I

nitia

l Ass

essm

ent

O0

Var

iabl

e

Ass

ocia

tions

(0

-3)

Empl

oym

ent

(0-4

) D

omes

tic R

elat

ions

(0

-2)

Sex

of P

roba

tion

Offi

cer

(0-1)

Total Risk S

core

Mar

ital

Stat

us

Emot

iona

l Sta

bilit

y (0-1)

(0-3

) A

ttitu

des

offe

nse Type

Race

Aca

dem

icfl

ocat

iona

l Ski

lls

Age

(0-2

)

(0-1)

(0-1)

(0-2

)

Cod

ing

0 =no

pro

blem

3 =

seve

re p

robl

em

O=n

o pr

oble

m

4=se

vere

pro

blem

0 =

no p

robl

em

2 =se

vere

pro

blem

O

=mal

e 1 =

fem

ale

inte

rval

0 =un

mar

ried

1 =

mar

ried

O

=no

prob

lem

3 =

seve

re p

robl

em

O=n

o pr

oble

m

2 =se

vere

pro

blem

0 =

nonv

iole

nt

1 =vi

olen

t O

=non

whi

te

1 =w

hite

O

=no

prob

lem

2 =

seve

re p

robl

em

inte

rval

b (S.E. b

) B

eta

(S.E

. Bet

a)

.18

.21

(.08

)

R’ C

hang

e

.ll

.07

.05

.02

.02 .o 1 .oo

.01

.01 .oo

.oo

.oo

T 2.

08.

2.50

.

2.39

.

2.63

.

2.08

1.48

1.60

E

-1.2

7

- 1

.19

- .4

8

.28

.05

.26

(.01)

(.08)

Fina

ncia

l Man

agem

ent

O=n

o pr

oble

m

.02

.02

.oo

Subs

tanc

e A

buse

O

=no

prob

lem

- .0

2 - .0

1 .oo

-.

21

(0-2

) 2 =

seve

re p

robl

em

(.W

~0

7)

(0-2

) 2 =

seve

re p

robl

em

(.W

(.08)

Con

stan

t .9

4 1.

94.

R’ =

.30

p

< .0

5

(.49)


Tables 2 and 3 show that the factors that influence probation decisions concerning the level of need or their respective weights differ substantially for male and female probationers. Need determination for males is mostly influenced by ability to manage their finances (19% o f t ) , followed by their risk score (1 5%), emotional stability (5%), associations (4%), substance abuse (2%), employment (2%), and domestic relations (1%). On the other hand, decisions concerning the level of “need” of female probationers are influenced by their associations (1 1% of r’), employment (7%), domestic relations (5%), and sex of the probation officer (2%).

The statistical tests for equality of slopes5 indicate significant differences between male and female probationers in the effect of financial management (t = 5.017, p < .001), substance abuse (t = 2.743, p < .Ol), domestic relations (t = 1.762, p < .05), and sex of the officer (t = 3.62, p < .001) on the officers’ impression of need. There were no significant differences between the groups in the magnitude of the associations and employment effects (t = .0275, p < .39 and t = .143, p < .14, respectively).

Another aspect of the treatment process that was addressed is the “prescriptions” that officers made for the probationers. One of the purposes for which the assessment and reassessment of probationers’ needs are made is to arrive at an “Action Plan” concerning the types of problems to be addressed by the probationers during the supervision period. These “Action Plans” usually include such activities as participation in community treatment programs (e.g., detoxication centers for substance abuse), seeking employment, referral to counseling, or making behavioral changes in other problem areas. The frequency distribution of these prescriptions by sex (Table 4) indicates that although probation officers more often make recommendations for change concerning associations, domestic relations, and financial management to female probationers, the differences by sex are not statistically significant.

DISCUSSION On the surface, the officers’ subjectively perceived overall “need” level and

the more objective assessments of “need” level in the various areas of concern to probation seem to be similar for male and female probationers. There were no significant differences between the mean scores of the officers’ impression of “need” level of male and female clients, nor in their more objectively determined need scores. The multivariate model of the decision making structure underlying the subjective determination of “need” indicates, however, that

Statistical significance of unstandardized coefficients across equations was mea- sured by t = (bl-b2)/[VI(SEb12) +V2(SEb;)/VI+ V2]1’2, where b = unstandardized coefficient for population 1 , SEb, = standard error of unstandardized coefficient for population 1 , V I = N-K- 1 for population 1 with N = sample size, K = number of regressors.

5 .

Tabl

e 4.

Fr

eque

ncy

Dis

tribu

tion

of A

ctio

n Pl

an, b

y Se

x

Subs

tanc

e C

ouns

elin

g A

ssoc

iatio

ns

Abu

se

Leve

l g

F

M

F M

F

No

90%

88

%

73%

66

%

70%

74

%

- -

-

-

- -

(297

) (1

46)

(241

) (1

10)

(233

) (1

22)

(35)

(2

0)

(91)

(5

6)

(99)

(44)

Yes

10

12

27

34

30

26

Dom

estic

R

elat

ions

hip F

M

- - 91

%

86%

(3

01)

(142

)

9 14

(3

1)

(24)

Aca

dem

ic/

Voc

atio

nal

Empl

oym

ent

Skill

s A

ttitu

des

Oth

er

-

MF

M

- -

- FM

-

- FM

F

-

-

49%

45

%

91%

87

%

97%

95

%

95%

96

%

(162

) (7

4)

(302

) (1

45)

(322

) (1

57)

(316

) (1

59)

51

55

9 13

3

5 5

4 (1

70)

(92)

(30)

(21)

(1

0)

(9)

(16)

(7

)

m E

X*

.13

1.84

.8

6 1.

02

3.62

.6

3 1.

20

1.16

.o

I P

.72

.18

.65

.31

.14

.43

.27

.28

.94

N


probation officers use different criteria to determine the level of “need” for male and female probationers or assign those criteria different weights. In accordance with gender-role expectations and gender-based stereotypes concerning appropriate personal attributes and social roles, men’s needs are perceived as related to their ability to be responsible breadwinners and to exhibit the socially approved characteristics of a “man.” For instance, ability to manage their finances and not allowing substance abuse to interfere with their work weigh heavily in the officers’ determination of men’s needs. These factors were significant in predicting men’s level of need but not women’s, and they were significantly larger for male than for the female probationers.

Women’s needs are also determined by reference to gender-role expectations and gender-based notions of normalcy and health. Because the female identity, or social standing, is largely relational, and because women’s social role is mostly tied to the family, their domestic relations weigh substantially in the perception of their needs. This factor had a significantly larger effect for women than for men.

Emotional stability was statistically significant in the prediction of men’s need level, but not of women, despite the fact that the magnitude of this effect did not differ significantly between the two genders. Because emotional insta- bility is incompatible with the male gender-role, its manifestation in men leads officers to perceive them as “needy.” On the other hand, because women are expected to be emotional, this attribute in female probationers is not a source of concern for officers in determining women’s “need” level (although women’s emotional problems may cause officers difficulties in man- aging them or in relating to their problems while they are supervised; see Norland and Mann, 1984).

With regard to crime-related variables, the label “high risk,” a processual consideration, emerges as an important determinant of the need level for men but not for women. Although it is not clear whether the label is causally related to the need-level outcome or whether label and outcome are functions of the same considerations, the interaction of this label with gender does not support the “evil women” hypothesis. The paternalistic thesis suggesting tol- erance for women’s criminality is more consistent with these results. The latter explanation is also in accord with research on probation work, which found that the criminality of women is perceived as related to situational difficulties or dysfunction in their familial role, while men’s criminality is commonly explained by their dangerousness, as evidenced by their criminal record (Frazier et al., 1983: 315).

Probation decision making process guided by gender stereotypes, as dis- cerned in these data, cannot be attributed to a male-dominated deviance processing agency. The majority of female probationers were assigned to female officers, and the sex of the probation officer was significant in determining the “need” level of female probationers only. These results do not

322 EREZ

resolve the issue whether female officers are overcompensating for their gender in a male-dominated system by being plus royaliste que le roi (Walsh, 1984: 384) or whether the probation staffing process screens out female officers whose views deviate from the mainstream. However, the finding that gender bias also characterizes female officers, that both male and female officers adhere to, and act on the basis of, sex-role stereotypes, is consistent with other studies addressing this issue (e.g., Kruttschnitt, 1985; Walsh, 1984).

There were significant differences in several areas of functioning between males and females: in employment (more women had severe problems of employment), in substance abuse (more men had problems), in kind of associations (more men had criminal associations), and in attitudes (more men had negative attitudes or criminal orientations). There were no corresponding differences, however, between the sexes in the frequency with which officers mentioned these areas as requiring some change in the Action Plan. This gap between identifying an existent problem and requiring some action to alleviate it may be explained by the perceived importance of a particular problem for a probationer of a certain gender category, perception that is guided by gender-based stereotypes and expectations. For instance, although officers noted the employment problem of women, they did not view it as significant enough to require a change in it. Because women are not expected to be breadwinners, their employment problem is not as crucial for their reintegration into society as it is for men. Similarly, the higher proportion of criminal associations or criminal orientations and attitudes among male probationers did not lead officers to make more recommendations for change in these areas to their male clients. Men are perceived as being less influenced by others and their reputation is not linked to that of their associations. Thus, criminal associations for men are not viewed as being as threatening as they are for women. With respect to attitudes, women, unlike men, are not expected to be hostile or belligerent or to display criminal orientations. Thus, requiring a change in negative attitudes for men is not as important as it is for women.

The data indicate, however, that employment is considered to the same extent in the officers’ subjective determination of the “need” level of women and men. It may be the case (and official statistics of crime, or prison com- mitments, support such an interpretation) that economic hardships or lack of earnings have been the reason for the involvement of many of these women in crime. (The employment records of the women in this sample differed significantly from those of their male counterparts.) This could have resulted in officers’ unconsciously considering this factor in their subjective “need” determination for women. However, when it came to making a more con- scious decision, such as recommending a change, this item did not stand out


in the mind of the officers as one that needed to be addressed by the female client.

Finally, while it is a source of concern to find a differential decision making structure by gender, it is comforting to note that other ascribed attributes, particularly race, did not influence the determination of need level.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The structure of probation decision making on the perceived “need” level

of probationers and the pursuant prescription of “treatment” were examined. Although male and female probationers did not differ in the cumulative scores of their more objectively determined “need” level, nor in the officers’ subjective impression of their overall level of “need,” there were significant differences in the factors that helped officers arrive at their decisions, or the relative weights assigned to them. The analysis indicates that gender-role expectations and sex stereotypes guide and weigh considerably in probation officers’ decision making. The “treatment” prescribed by probation officers to their clients is also guided by traditional notions of the sexual division of labor and differential areas of responsibility assigned to men and women.

It seems that the conception of rehabilitation underlying probation work is the acquisition or restoration of personal attitudes and social functioning, which are defined by traditional sex-roles and stereotypes. This conception can have far-reaching consequences in the context of justice, for it may result in increased legal intervention, closer or more intensive supervision, and puni- tive sanctions (e.g., revocation). Probation agencies apply gender-based social control and standards of normalcy with the backing and sanctioning of the legal system.

Whereas in the presentencing stages familial justice and differential treatment by sex are applied for reasons of practicality or to reduce the social costs of punishment (Daly, 1987b), in the postsentencing stage traditional notions of the sexual division of labor seem to become an integral part of rehabilitative practice. The message sent by this correctional system to its clients is that the only acceptable mode of reintegration into society is through conformity to gender stereotypes and traditional sex-roles. Moreover, increasing the proportion of women workers in the probation system does not seem to produce much change in this gender-based differential treatment. Other mechanisms and actions are necessary to bring about reform in this mode of thinking and practice. It seems, however, that as long as this value system prevails in the larger society and asymmetry exists with respect to primary responsibilities and personal attributes, equal and “gender neutral” rehabilitation may be premature.

3 24 EREZ

REFERENCES

Armstrong, Gail 1982 Females under the law: “Protected” but unequal. In Barbara Raffel Price

and Natalie J. Sokoloff (eds.), The Criminal Justice System and Women. New York: Clark Boardman.

Baird, S. Christopher, Richard C. Heinz, and Brian J. Bemus

Wisc.: Department of Health and Social Services.

Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press.

1979 The Wisconsin Case Classification/Staff Deployment Project. Madison,

Becker, Howard J.

Black, Donald

Bohrnstedt, George W., and T. Michael Carter

1963

1976 The Behavior of Law. New York: Academic Press.

1971 Robustness in regression analysis. In Herbert C. Costner (ed.), Sociological Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Broverman, Inge K., Donald M. Broverman, Frank E. Clarkson, Paul S. Rosenkrantz, and Susan R. Vogel 1970 Sex role stereotypes and clinical judgments of mental health. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology 34: 1-7.

Crime and Justice Facts. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

The presentence report and decision-making process. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 4(2): 203-2 1 1.

Judicial paternalism and female status offender: Training women to know their place. In Lee H. Bowker (ed.), Women and Crime in America. New York: Macmillan.

Exposing the quasi-judicial role of the probation officer. Federal Probation

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Carter, Robert

1985

1967

Chesney-Lind, Meda 198 1

Czajkoski, Eugene 1973

37: 9-13.

Daly, Kathleen 1987a

1987b

Discrimination in the criminal courts: Family, gender, and the problem of equal treatment. Social Forces 66( 1): 152-175. Structure and practice of familial-based justice in a criminal court. Law and Society Review 21(2): 267-290.

What is probation? Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 5 1: 189-208.

Accounting for presentencing recommendation: Typologies and probation officers’ theory of office. Social Problems 34(3): 277-293.

Mitigating circumstances: Familiar rhetoric. International Journal of the Sociology of Law 11: 385-400.

Diana, Lewis 1960

Drass, Kriss A,, and J. William Spencer 1987

Eaton, Mary 1983


1985 Documenting the defendant: Placing women in social inquiry reports. In J. Brophy and C. Smart (eds.), Women-in-Law: Exploration in Law, Family and Sexuality. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Sex, sentencing, and reconviction. British Journal of Criminology 23(2): Farrington, David, and Allison Morris

1983 229-249,

Frazier, Charles E., Wilbur E. Bock, and John C. Henretta 1983 The role of probation officers’ in determining gender differences in

sentencing severity. Sociological Quarterly 24(2): 305-3 18.

The social and legal construction of criminal justice: A study of the presentencing process. Social Problems 22: 629-637.

The sexual stratification of social control: A gender-based perspective on crime and delinquency. British Journal of Sociology 30: 25-38.

Sex and theories of deviance. American Sociological Review 42: 3-16.

Trials, negotiations and settlements. In M. Summers and T. Barth (eds.), Law and Order in a Democratic Society. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill.

Hagan, John 1975

Hagan, John, John H. Simpson, and A.R. Gillis 1979

Harris, Anthony R. 1977

Jacob, H. 1970

Katz, Janet 1982 The Attitudes and Decisions of Probation Officers. Criminal Justice and

Behavior 9: 455-475.

Klein, Dorie 1973 The etiology of female crime: A review of literature. Crime and Social

Justice (Issues in Criminology) 8(2): 3-30.

The functions of classification models in probation and parole: Control or treatment-rehabilitation? Federal Probation 48(4): 49-56.

Respectable women and the law. Sociological Quarterly 23: 221-234. Women, crime and dependency. Criminology 19: 495-513. Sex and criminal court dispositions: The unresolved controversy. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 21(3): 215-232. Legal outcomes and legal agents: Adding another dimension to the sex- sentencing controversy. Law and Human Behavior 9: 287-303.

The sex-sanctioning issue: Is it history? American Sociological Review 49:

Kratcoski, Peter C. 1985

Kruttschnitt, Candace 1982a 1982b 1984

1985

Kruttschnitt, Candace, and Donald Green 1984

541-55 1.

Labovitz, Sanford 1970

1971

The assignment of numbers to ranks. American Sociological Review 35:

In defense of assignment of numbers to ranks. American Sociological Review 36: 521-522.

5 15-524.

326

Lofland, John 1969 Deviance and Identity. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall

Chivalry and paternalism: Disparities of treatment in the criminal justice system. In Susan Datesman and Frank Scarpitti (eds.), Women, Crime and Justice. New York: Oxford University Press.

The Changing Roles of Women in the Criminal Justice System. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press.

The IegaVextra legal controversy: Judicial decisions in pretrial release. Law and Society Review 17: 481-575.

Moulds, Elizabeth 1980

Moyer, Imogene (ed.) 1985

Nagel, Ilene 1983

Nagel, Ilene, and John Hagan 1983 Gender and crime: Offense patterns and criminal court sanctions. In

Michael Tonry and Norval Morns (eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. Vol. 4. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Nagel, Ilene, John Cardascia, and Catherine E. Ross 1982 Sex differences in the processing of criminal defendants. In D. Kelley

Weisberg (ed.), Women and the Law: A Social Historical Perspective. Vol. I. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman.

Being troublesome: Women on probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior Norland, Stephen, and Priscilla J. Mann

1984 11: 115-135.

Orland, Leonard 1973 Justice, Punishment, Treatment: The Correctional Process. New York:

Free Press.

Parisi, Nicolette 1982 Are females treated differently? A review of the theories and evidence on

sentencing and parole decisions. In Nicole Hahn Rafter and Elizabeth A. Stanko (eds.), Judge, Lawyer, Victim, Thief: Women, Gender Roles and Criminal Justice. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Factors in the decision-making of North Carolina probation officers. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 3: 120-128.

The probation officers’ search for credibility: Ball park recommendations. Crime and Delinquency 3 1 : 539-554.

Decision-making by parole interviewers: The effect of case and interview factors. Law and Human Behavior 10 203-214.

Reed, John, and Charles King 1966

Rosecrance, John 1985

Ruback, Barry R., and Charles H. Hooper 1986

Schur, Edwin J.

Shover, Neal and Stephen Norland

1971 Labelling Deviant Behavior. New York: Harper & Row.

1978 Sex roles and criminality: Science or conventional wisdom. Sex Roles 4: 11 1-125.


Simon, Rita

Steffensmeier, Darrell

1975 Women and Crime. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

Assessing the impact of the women’s movement on sex-based differences in the handling of adult criminal defendants. Crime and Delinquency 26: 344-357.

Methodological issues in court research. Sociological Methods and Research

1980

Stryker, Robin, Ilene H. Nagel, and John Hagan 1983

Stout, Ellis 1973

Visher, Christy A. 1983

1 l(4): 469-500.

Women in probation and parole. Crime and Delinquency 19: 62-66.

Gender, police arrest decisions, and notions of chivalry. Criminology 21: 5-28.

Walsh, Anthony 1984 Gender-based differences: A study of probation officers’ attitudes about, and

recommendation for, felony sexual assault cases. Criminology 22: 37 1-387.

Sex role and psychotherapy: A current appraisal. Psychological Bulletin 86: Whitley, Bernard E.J. 1979

1,309-1,321. Whitehead, John T. 1986 Gender differences in probation: A case of no differences. Justice Quarterly 3:

51-65.

Edna Erez, lawyer and sociologist, is Associate Professor of Criminal Justice Studies at Kent State University.

GENDER, REHABILITATION, AND PROBATION DECISIONS

Documents

Transcript of GENDER, REHABILITATION, AND PROBATION DECISIONS