Program Profile: Motivational Interviewing (MI) Training for Parole Officers in Colorado

This is a client-centered counseling approach implemented as a job-training intervention for parole officers in Colorado. The intervention seeks to enhance parole officers’ communication skills to promote motivation for change and reduce recidivism among supervised people on probation. The program is rated Promising. People on probation in the intervention group showed a statistically significant reduction in recidivism outcomes, compared with people on probation in the comparison group.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals/Target Population

Motivational interviewing (MI) was developed and predominately used as a strategy for behavioral health practitioners to increase motivation for change of individuals with a substance abuse disorder (Lin 2018; Miller 1983). MI strategies were later adopted for use in criminal justice agencies, for example with parole officers who use MI as a client-centered counseling approach to encourage internal motivation for change of supervised people on probation by talking to them about the benefits of behavior change. MI is a method or strategy of communication used to engage and enhance their motivation to change, while also providing the parole officers with opportunities for modeling prosocial behaviors (English et al. 2012).

In 2010 the Colorado Department of Corrections implemented a MI training program for parole officers that emphasizes empathy, optimism, and respect for their choices. Overall, the use of MI techniques in parole supervision practices is designed to increase their awareness of the consequences and risks of their criminal behaviors. The goal of the MI training is to change parole officers’ response patterns to indicators of recidivism (for example, prioritizing their criminogenic needs such as alcohol or other drug problems), to ultimately reduce recidivism rates.

Program Components

In Colorado, the MI skills training is 2- to 3-day basic training classes, which can be followed by a 2- to 3-day advance training and coaching process. Coaching is provided by an MI trainer, who certifies whether parole officers achieve the foundational skills and can be considered an MI “change agent.” During training, fundamental MI principles are delivered in the first two trainings (MI 101 and MI 102). Following these classes, parole officers participate in a more individualized process of audio taping and coaching.

The training and coaching process ensures parole officer trainees reach the designated standard of competency in the following skills (Bogue and Nandi 2012a; Miller and Moyers 2007):

• Exploring and Developing the “MI–Spirit”: These skills involve interacting with the people on probation in a way that respects their autonomy and right to decide about personal change.
• Active Listening: These are basic active listening skills, such as open questions (O), providing affirmations (A), listening reflectively (R), and summarizing (S).
• Recognizing and Reinforcing Change Talk: These skills involve techniques such as importance ruler, query extremes, looking back/ahead, evocative questions, decisional balance, goals and value exploration, and elaboration.
• Rolling (or Responding) to Resistance: These skills focus on the ability to avoid getting “hooked” or caught up in a client’s demonstration of resistance, regardless of the modeled behavior (e.g., rebellious, rationalizing, reluctant, resigned).

Parole officers also participate in group training sessions called “communities of practice” to further strengthen MI skills, such as active listening skills.

Program Theory

A premise underlying MI (in the correctional setting) is that generating internal or intrinsic motivation for change will have more of an effect than using external pressures (Lin 2018). Thus, parole officers in Colorado are trained to help them explore the possible consequences of their decisions. Specifically, MI training operates on the idea that, if parole officers use MI strategies, they would be encouraged to initiate behavioral changes that reduce the likelihood of misconduct and criminal behavior.

Study

Lin (2018) conducted a quasi-experimental design involving Colorado parole officers who participated in a training program to use Motivational Interviewing (MI) during interactions with parolees (although MI was piloted in parole, probation, and community corrections, the study focused only on the use of MI in parole). In the state of Colorado, MI training was implemented in the beginning of 2010 as a supervision technique for parole officers to use as a strategy to increase motivational change and reduce parolee recidivism. The MI training intervention (which certified parole officers as MI “change agents”) occurred from August 2010 through July 2013 (i.e., the intervention period). Parole officers either volunteered or were nominated by their supervisor to participate in the MI training. Of the volunteered and nominated parole officers, there were 50 parole officers actively supervising parolees on their caseload who were certified as change agents and included in the study.

Using caseload data retrieved from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, the study author divided each of the 50 parole officers’ caseloads into two separate groups, which included 1) parolees whose supervision was completed before the parole officer certified as a change agent (the comparison group) and 2) parolees whose supervision began after the parole officer was certified as a change agent (the intervention group). Parolee supervision start dates ranged as early as August 13, 2001, and as late as October 9, 2014. Recidivism data for parolees were retrieved from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, which tracked parolee rearrest records in Colorado through February 2015. The intervention group (post–MI) included rearrest data of 2,323 parolees. The comparison group (pre–MI) included rearrest data of 5,320 parolees.

The age range of the entire study sample (n = 7,643 parolees) was 19 to 76 years. The study sample was 87 percent male. In terms of race/ethnicity, 54 percent of the sample was White, 10 percent was Black, 33 percent were of Hispanic ethnicity, and 3 percent were another race/ethnicity. The study author did not state whether the intervention and comparison groups had any statistically significant differences in demographic and other characteristics at baseline.

Data were collected within 18 months from the start of parole. Recidivism outcomes of interest included being rearrested for 1) any offense (except sexual assault), 2) violent crime, 3) property crime, 4) drug crime, and 5) a technical parole violation. A technical violation was calculated from the Department of Corrections administrative records. A rearrest for a technical violation would be defined as the parolee starting parole and then becoming incarcerated for a technical violation (but not for any other outcome). Multivariate regression analyses were used to determine differences between parolees whose parolee terms ended before their parole officers achieved MI change agent status (comparison group) and those parolees who were supervised after their parole officers were certified as change agents (intervention group). The study author did not conduct subgroup analyses.

Notably, the study author advised caution when interpreting recidivism outcomes, as parolees could have been supervised by multiple officers during their parole terms; however, parolees in the study during the intervention period (post–MI training) were all supervised by MI–trained parole officers for some portion of their parole, but not necessarily for their entire parole period. In addition, recidivism outcomes may be affected by the historical event that occurred in Colorado during the intervention period. On March 19, 2013, the Executive Director (at the time) of the Colorado Department of Corrections was shot and killed at his home by a parolee. Because of this event, public attention was focused on the policies and practices of the Department of Corrections. This incident prompted the Department of Corrections to execute formal and informal changes to policies and practices that dramatically increased parolee rearrest and violation rates. Ultimately, this event altered parole officers’ tolerance for parolee misconduct and for parolees who absconded. Thus, the death of the Executive Director may have influenced recidivism outcomes of parolee records in the intervention group, compared with parolee records in the comparison group. However, an exposure to a lower tolerance supervision regime variable was created (by a simple count of the number of days that any parolee was supervised after the date of the Executive Director’s death) and controlled for in the analysis of the outcomes by the study author.

The Motivational Interviewing (MI) strategy in corrections is an approach used to increase internal or intrinsic motivation for change, to ultimately reduce parolees’ recidivism rates (Lin 2018). MI training emphasizes teaching parole officers how to communicate in a style that influences parolees to explore and resolve ambivalences, bringing awareness to the consequences, problems, and risks of behaviors—specifically of criminal behavior.

In Colorado, parole officers were audiotaped during a supervision meeting before MI training to establish baseline levels of MI skills. Audiotaping continued throughout the MI intervention, through a more individualized process of audiotaping and MI coaching by an MI trainer. MI trainers reviewed tapes and provided coaching to parole officers on MI skill acquisition and practices. Parole officers were certified as "change agents" when their taped supervision sessions displayed sufficient integration of MI practices, determined by a MI trainer. Parole officers typically display competency of MI principles after four to five sessions of taping and coaching (Lin 2018).

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Austin, Kevin P., Mei Wah M. Williams, and Glen Kilgour. 2011. “The Effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing With Offenders: An Outcome Evaluation.” New Zealand Journal of Psychology 40(1):55–67.

Bogue, Bradford. 2012. “Strategies for Improving Corrections’ Capacity for Implementing EBPs: The Colorado EBP Project for Implementation Capacity (EPIC) Staff Development System.” Perspectives 31(3):46–63.

Bogue, Bradford, and Anjali Nandi. 2012a. Exercises for Developing MI Skills in Corrections. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.

Bogue, Bradford, and Anjali Nandi. 2012b. Motivational Interviewing in Corrections: A Comprehensive Guide to Implementing MI in Corrections. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.

Bogue, Brad, Fred Pampel, and Diane Pasini–Hill. 2013. “Progress Toward Motivational Interviewing Proficiency in Corrections: Results of a Colorado Staff Development Program.” Justice Research and Policy 15(1):37–66.

English, Kim, Diane Pasini–Hill, and David Bonaiuto. 2012. “Evidence-Based Practices Implementation for Capacity (EPIC).” Elements of Change 16(1):1–12.

Miller, William R. 1983. “Motivational Interviewing With Problem Drinkers.” Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 11(2): 147–72.

Miller, William R., and Theresa B. Moyers. 2007. “Eight Stages in Learning Motivational Interviewing.” Journal of Teaching in the Addictions 5(1):3–17.