Skip to main content

Table 1 Study sites & pre-implementation reactions to CM (n = 39 site participants)*

From: Implementation of contingency management in probation agencies using a case controlled longitudinal design: a PDSA study protocol

Site characteristics

Site one

Site two

Site Three

Site four

Site Five

Implementation setting

Problem solving court

Problem solving court

Problem solving courts (2)

General probation

Halfway house

Site participants involved

Judge

Judge

Judge

POs

Judge

AUSA

AUSA

AUSA

 

FPD

FPD

FPD

FPD

 

POs

POs

POs

POs

  

Treatment providers

    

n = 8

n = 5

n = 14

n = 5

n = 7

Used some type of incentives before JSTEPS

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Inter-organizational dynamics

Have worked together for 4 years, know each other well, but maintain adversarial legal process, team makes decisions via consensus; team defers to judge even on minor decisions

Have worked together for 2 years, maintain traditional adversarial rules when talking through most issues, try to come to group consensus

Just establishing one court with a second less than one year old, very focused on team work and consensus decision-making

Probation has autonomy when implementing new programs; PO Chief works to maintain relationships with key leaders in other agencies in the system.

Probation has autonomy when implementing programs in halfway house, does not include other organizational actors in the process

Initial acceptability of CM (within probation)

Dedicate a supervising and frontline PO to court. Both POs receptive to incentives. Has PO using workbooks to facilitate offender change. Will use CM in court process.

Dedicate 1 PO to the court. PO has social work background and is very receptive to the idea of using incentives. PO uses workbooks to facilitate offender change. Will use CM in court process.

Dedicate 2 POs to court; both have prior probation experience outside Federal system & hold sanctions-based (non-incentives) philosophy toward participants. Will use CM in court process.

No specialized court. Has behavioral modification program run by PO but using CM with general supervision. Chief & POs experienced w/EBP & receptive to CM as EBP.

Frontline PO working with halfway house will implement CM. Halfway House protocol is sanctions–focused; PO wants to keep that focus even with CM.

  1. Key
  2. AUSA: Assistant United States Attorney (prosecutor).
  3. FPD: Federal Public Defender (defense attorney).
  4. PO: Probation Officers.
  5. n = JSTEPS Team Members Per Site.
  6. *Table from Rudes et al. (Rudes et al. 2011).