a handbook to guide local policy development

DE

PA

RTMENT OF JUSTICE

NATIO

NAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIO

NS

U.S. Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections

A Handbook to Guide Local Policy Development

U.S. Department of JusticeNational Institute of Corrections

320 First Street N.W.Washington, DC 20534

Morris L. ThigpenDirector

Larry SolomonDeputy Director

George KeiserChief, Community Corrections Division

Kermit HumphriesProject Manager

National Institute of CorrectionsWorld Wide Web Site

http://www.nicic.org

Responding to Parole andProbation Violations

A Handbook to Guide Local Policy Development

Edited by Madeline M. Carter, Senior Associate

Center for Effective Public Policy, Silver Spring, Maryland

April 2001

This document was prepared under grant number C97CO4GIE2 from the National Institute ofCorrections, U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Copyright © 2001 Center for Effective Public Policy

The National Institute of Corrections reserves the right to reproduce, publish, translate, or other-wise use, and to authorize others to publish and use, all or any part of the copyrighted materialscontained in this publication.

The manner in which jurisdictions respond toparole and probation violations should bethoughtful and deliberate. Although each caserequires individual decisionmaking, the responseto a given violation should be consistent withpolicy developed by that jurisdiction. Agencyviolation policies should be built around suchconsiderations as assessment of risk posed bythe offender, case processing requirements,local resource availability, and outcomes desiredby the agency for certain types of violations.Agency violation policies guide line staff inmaking supervisory decisions and assist deci-sionmakers in reaching consistent and equitabledispositions.

During the past decade, the National Institute ofCorrections (NIC) helped 29 jurisdictions addressviolation issues by providing onsite technical assis-tance. Many other jurisdictions have expressedinterest in receiving such support. Among the les-sons learned is that goals, resources, and values

differ from one place to another. It is vital thatjurisdictions work through a process leading toinformed policy options that meet their particularneeds. This handbook is built around what wehave learned about how agencies effectivelyaddress violations policy. Expanding on informa-tion and examples from the 29 jurisdictions, thisdocument is designed to lead agency policy teamsthrough a series of activities to help them developtheir own set of violation policies.

This is a difficult initiative for agencies to takeon; however, it is important and essential work,and the resulting agency policy is worth thecommitment. I urge agency administrators touse the materials in this handbook to developprobation and parole violation policies that bestconform to the needs and resources of theirjurisdictions.

Morris L. Thigpen Director


iii

Foreword

This handbook is the culmination of the effortsof many individuals.

More than 12 years ago, the National Institute ofCorrections (NIC) drew attention to the issue ofprobation and parole violations by funding itsfirst national training and technical assistanceproject. This work began in 1988 with KermitHumphries, a NIC Program Manager, whoworked many years as a probation officer andadministrator prior to joining NIC. Kermit con-ceived of this work and provided guidance andsubstantive direction to the five subsequentnational training and technical assistance proj-ects. He has, in many ways, pioneered this work,provided the leadership for it to continue, andconsistently demonstrated an unending commit-ment to the development of sound policy toguide violation responses. Kermit has been apartner and friend to those of us who haveserved as project staff during the past 12 years.On behalf of all of us at the Center for EffectivePublic Policy, I thank you for your years of sup-port and the confidence you have shown in us.

Probably no single individual has had greater influ-ence on this aspect of offender supervision thanRichard Stroker. Richard currently serves as gener-al counsel to the South Carolina Department ofCorrections. He previously was deputy directorof the South Carolina Department of Probation,Parole, and Pardon Services when the departmentwas one of four sites that participated in the firstNIC technical assistance project. It was Richard’swork in South Carolina, beginning in the late1980s and continuing over the next decade, thatoffered some of the first examples of new thinkingin the field of parole and probation violationresponse. Richard helped frame the conceptualapproach to this issue and has provided some ofthe earliest examples of new methods to respondto violators, which he continues to improve.Richard has aided the field through a series of pub-lications on this issue, and he has served as both a

consultant and trainer to numerous sites acrossthe Nation. On a personal note, Richard hasbrought energy and creativity to those of us whohave had the pleasure to work with him. Hismotto, “Give me a helmet and put me in, coach,”carried us through many challenges and to newplateaus, always with excitement and joy.

In addition to Kermit and Richard, this hand-book is a testament to the work of the 29 juris-dictions that have struggled through this issuewith us. They have opened their agencies tous, shared their challenges and concerns, andallowed us to disseminate their work to theircolleagues across the country. It is their experi-ences that have culminated in the developmentof this document.

During the six technical assistance projects,many worked as staff and technical assistanceconsultants. All contributed their knowledgethrough the development of one or more chaptersin this handbook: Becki Ney, my colleague andpartner at the Center; Donna Reback, an adviserand technical assistance consultant; RichardStroker; and Ann Ley, Program Associate at theCenter, whom I would like to acknowledge forher support and invaluable assistance in bringingthis document to fruition.

This handbook is dedicated to Peggy Burke, mypartner and friend at the Center. Peggy served asProject Director for the first five NIC projectsand has continued to serve as an adviser andsupporter through this final project. It is Peggy’ssound thinking and reason that synthesized thelessons of these projects and moved them for-ward. She has taught me everything I knowabout this work.

Madeline M. CarterSenior Associate

Center for Effective Public Policy

v

Acknowledgments

vii

Contents

Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................iii

Acknowledgments ..........................................................................................................................................v

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................1Madeline M. Carter

Chapter One Probation and Parole Violations: An Overview of Critical Issues ..................................5Peggy Burke

Chapter Two The Importance of Vision, Mission, Goals, and Core Values ........................................13Richard Stroker

Chapter Three Collaboration: A Central Ingredient for Success ............................................................19Madeline M. Carter

Chapter Four Developing Baseline Information: Understanding Current Policy and Practice ..........25Becki Ney and Donna Reback

Chapter Five Supervision: What Are We Trying to Achieve? ................................................................43Richard Stroker

Chapter Six Making It Work: Developing Tools to Carry Out the Policy ........................................51Madeline M. Carter and Ann Ley

Chapter Seven Filling in the Gaps: Increasing the Available Range of Responses to Violations ..........73Peggy Burke

Chapter Eight Beyond the Continuum of Sanctions: A Menu of Outcome-Based Interventions ........77Peggy Burke

Chapter Nine Keeping It Alive: Monitoring the Impact of Violation Response Policy ........................83Donna Reback

Chapter Ten Results: What Are the Tangible Outcomes? ....................................................................93Madeline M. Carter

Appendix A Resource List ......................................................................................................................99

Appendix B User Feedback Form ........................................................................................................101

DiagramsDiagram I–1. Responding to Probation and Parole Violations: Recommended Process ........................3

Diagram 4–1. Advantages of Conducting an Analysis of Current Practice ..........................................26

Diagram 4–2. Getting Started: What Information Do I Need to Collect, Where Is It, and How Do I Get It? ........................................................................................................32

Diagram 4–3. Gathering Data on the Overall Criminal Justice Population of the Jurisdiction ..........35

Diagram 4–4. Gathering Data on Probation and Parole Populations Involved in Violation Actions ..........................................................................................38

Diagram 4–5. Gathering Data on the Level of Criminal Activity in the Jurisdiction............................38

Diagram 4–6. Gathering Data on the Impact of Criminal Justice Resources in the Jurisdiction..........39

Diagram 4–7. Gathering Qualitative Data: Suggested Interview Areas ..................................................39

Diagram 4–8. Understanding Probation and Parole Agents’ Decisionmaking ......................................42

Diagram 7–1. Illustrative Range of Intermediate Responses ..................................................................75

Diagram 8–1. Continuum of Sanctions ....................................................................................................77

Diagram 8–2. A Three-Dimensional Continuum of Responses to Violations ......................................80

Diagram 8–3. Menu of Violation Responses ............................................................................................81

Diagram 9–1. Suggested Data Collection Approach ................................................................................85

ExercisesExercise 2–1. What Are Your Goals for Supervision and for the Violation Process? ............................17

Exercise 3–1. Developing a Policy Framework to Guide the Violation Process ....................................23

Exercise 4–1. Developing Baseline Information: Summary of Information to Be Analyzed ................27

Exercise 4–2. How Complete Is Your Map?..............................................................................................30

Exercise 4–3. What Do You Know About Violations in Your Jurisdiction? ............................................30

Exercise 6–1. Examining Implementation ................................................................................................71

ExhibitsExhibit I–1. NIC-Sponsored Project Sites ................................................................................................2

Exhibit 1–1. Typical “New Generation” Policy Language Regarding Violations ..................................8

Exhibit 1–2. Violation of Probation Policy (City of New York Department of Probation) ..................9

Exhibit 2–1. Goal of the Violation Process (Maricopa County, Arizona, Adult Probation Department) ............................................................................................14

Exhibit 2–2. Sample Mission and Goals..................................................................................................15

Exhibit 2–3. Sample Policy Language ......................................................................................................16

Exhibit 4–1. Violation and Revocation Flowchart (Weld County, Colorado) ........................................28

Exhibit 4–2. Examples of Results of Statistical Analyses of Violation Practice ..................................33

Exhibit 4–3. Case Processing Time of Violations ..................................................................................34

Exhibit 4–4. Findings From Macomb County, Michigan, Data Analysis (Excerpt) ..............................35

Exhibit 4–5. Example of Baseline Analysis of Past Parole Violations in Utah ....................................37

Exhibit 4–6. Example of Findings From Supervision Staff Interviews ..................................................41

Exhibit 5–1. Risk Management Flowchart for Intensive Supervision Cases ........................................46

Exhibit 5–2. Attachment to Standard Conditions of Probation Allowing Impositionof Intermediate Responses for Certain Violations ............................................................49

Exhibit 6–1. Violation Log (Pima County, Arizona) ..............................................................................53

Exhibit 6–2. Violation Severity Scale (Pima County, Arizona) ..............................................................54

Exhibit 6–3. Decisionmaking Matrix (New Haven, Connecticut) ........................................................56

Exhibit 6–4. Probation Violation Matrix (Weld County, Colorado) ......................................................57

Exhibit 6–5. Violation Response Matrix (Sixth Judicial District, Iowa, Department of Correctional Services) ..........................................................................................................58

viii

Exhibit 6–6. Violation Response Matrix (Pima County, Arizona) ..........................................................58

Exhibit 6–7. Probation Violation Decision Guidelines (Macomb County, Michigan) ........................59

Exhibit 6–8. Sample Violation Response Worksheet ..............................................................................60

Exhibit 6–9. Available Community Sanctions and Consideration Criteria (Examples) ......................62

Exhibit 6–10. Sample Waiver......................................................................................................................64

Exhibit 6–11. Incentive List (Weld County, Colorado) ............................................................................65

Exhibit 6–12. Violation Staffing: Sample Policy and Procedure Definition............................................66

Exhibit 6–13. Sample Case Staffing Worksheet ........................................................................................66

Exhibit 6–14. Sample Policy: Philosophy and Departmental Expectations ............................................68

Exhibit 6–15. The Violation Review Board (Weld County, Colorado) ....................................................69

Exhibit 6–16. Sample Notice to the Court of a Violation and Imposition of an Intermediate Response ........................................................................................................70

Exhibit 6–17. Sample Hearing Notice ......................................................................................................70

Exhibit 8–1. Violation Policy (Sixth Judicial District, Iowa, Department of Correctional Services) ..........................................................................................................78

Exhibit 9–1. Sample Monitoring Protocol ..............................................................................................86

Exhibit 10–1. Violation Response: Sample Decision Tree ........................................................................94

Exhibit 10–2. Violation of Probation Protocol (New Haven, Connecticut) ............................................95

Exhibit 10–3. Tangible Outcomes: A View From the Bench ....................................................................96

Exhibit 10–4. Tangible Outcomes: A View From the Supervision Agency ............................................97

ix

1

IntroductionMadeline M. Carter

This handbook is the culmination of 12 yearsof work in 29 jurisdictions across the Nation.Beginning in 1988, the National Institute ofCorrections (NIC) sponsored its first trainingand technical assistance project to address theissue of parole violations. This project—andthe five that followed—assisted jurisdictions inexamining their violation practices and develop-ing policy to guide future responses to violationbehavior. The focus of the six efforts was oncreating explicit policy to guide the use of inter-mediate responses for some types of technicalviolations. The efforts soon grew beyond paroleto include probation.

During each of the six projects, jurisdictionswere invited to submit an application to partici-pate. In every instance, the projects were over-whelmed by the level of interest in the paroleand probation violation issue. For the six rounds,69 applications for assistance were received.Funding limited the final number of jurisdictionsthat were accepted; 29 State and local jurisdic-tions participated in the 6 NIC-sponsored proj-ects. These jurisdictions are listed in Exhibit I–1.

The work of these jurisdictions represents someof the most innovative in the field of violationresponses. NIC’s training and technical assis-tance offered jurisdictions support in formingand maintaining collaborative teams—whethersupervision based or systemwide policymaking—to manage the work and provided guidance asthey assessed current violation practices, draftednew policy, and developed tools to effectivelycarry out those policies.

No single solution emerged from this workbecause jurisdictions vary too widely. Rather,what developed was a framework on how toapproach this issue, a process for understandingit, and a variety of local responses to it.

This handbook documents that framework,along with the experiences of 29 participatingjurisdictions and the lessons that have emerged.It describes the processes they used to examinetheir own violation practices and includes thework products they developed. This handbook isdesigned to serve as a practical guide. We hope itwill be helpful to those who want to both under-stand and begin working on this important issue.

Over the years, we have witnessed an extraordi-nary depth of interest in this work. We havefielded numerous inquiries from supervisionagencies and others interested in learning more.At professional conferences, workshops onparole and probation violation responses oftengenerate standing-room-only audiences. Yet littlehas been written on this subject. A monograph,Policy-Driven Responses to Probation andParole Violations,1 published by NIC in 1997,is among the few sources available. The mono-graph describes the issues confronting agenciesas they grapple with this difficult work.

Without the persistent efforts of the dedicatedprofessionals in these communities, our under-standing of the impact of parole and probationviolations—and of the impact our responses tothem have on offender supervision and communi-ty safety—would be greatly diminished. We thankthem for their hard work and patience as we havestruggled through these issues with them.

The Goals of This HandbookThis handbook was developed to assist practi-tioners and policymakers in responding to viola-tions in ways that enhance the effectivenessof probation and parole supervision and improvecommunity safety. Chapter 1 presents an over-view of critical issues related to probation andparole violations. Each subsequent chapter

2

We would like to acknowledge the significant work of the 29 jurisdictions that participated in the six projects.

During the first funding cycle (1988–89), four parole boards examined the issue of parole violations:

• Board of Parole, New York.• Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services, South Carolina.• Board of Paroles, Tennessee.• Board of Pardons and Paroles, Utah.

During the second funding cycle (1989–91), two parole boards joined two sites from the first round to continuetheir work (with project assistance):

• Board of Parole, District of Columbia.• Board of Pardons and Paroles, Georgia.• Board of Parole, New York.• Board of Paroles, Tennessee.

During the third funding cycle (1991–93), four local jurisdictions were selected, and the focus shifted to probationviolations:

• Pima County Adult Probation, Superior Court, Arizona.• Office of Adult Probation, Judicial Department, Connecticut.• 6th Judicial District, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.• Macomb County Probation Department, Department of Corrections, Michigan.

In the fourth round (1993–95), five jurisdictions worked on probation violation issues:

• Maricopa County Adult Probation Department, Superior Court, Arizona.• City of New York Department of Probation, New York.• Multnomah County Department of Community Corrections, Oregon.• Virginia Beach Department of Corrections, Virginia.• Williamsburg Department of Corrections, Virginia.

In the fifth round (1994–96), State and local jurisdictions explored both probation and parole violations:

• Board of Parole, Connecticut.• Adult Probation Division, First Circuit Court, Honolulu, Hawaii.• Montgomery County Adult Probation, Ohio.• Division of Field Operations, Department of Corrections, Utah.• Milwaukee Probation and Parole, Department of Corrections, Wisconsin.

In the sixth and final round (1997–99), two States, represented by a number of local jurisdictions, were selected to participate:

• 1st Judicial District Probation Department, Jefferson County, Colorado.• 2nd Judicial District Probation Department, Denver County, Colorado.• 4th Judicial District Probation Department, El Paso County, Colorado.• 18th Judicial District Probation Department, Arapahoe County, Colorado.• 19th Judicial District Probation Department, Weld County, Colorado.• Dutchess County Office of Probation and Community Corrections, New York.• Nassau County Probation Department, New York.• Suffolk County Probation Department, New York.• Ulster County Probation Department, New York.

NIC-Sponsored Project SitesE X H I B I T I–1.

3

addresses a key step in understanding or address-ing different aspects of the issue. As a whole,this handbook will help guide interested jurisdic-tions in:

• Forming a team of key individuals to worktogether on probation and parole violationresponses.

• Examining the extent and impact of viola-tions on the criminal justice system and thecommunity.

• Understanding violations in the context of thegoals of supervision.

• Establishing clear goals for the violationsprocess.

• Formulating policy to guide the violationsprocess.

• Developing methods to carry out this policy.

• Examining the range of responses to violationbehavior and determining how best to useor expand that range when necessary andpractical.

• Monitoring the impact of these policies.

• Understanding the potential outcomes thatresult from clear, policy-driven responses toviolation behavior. (See diagram I–1.)

This handbook progresses through each of theseissues in a linear fashion. However, work of thisnature is seldom linear; rather, it is an iterativeprocess. In creating this handbook, we have rec-ognized this and the likelihood that readers maybegin work at different stages. It may be neces-sary and prudent to skip from one activity toanother. Thus, each chapter was developed tostand on its own. Together, the chapters canhelp jurisdictions implement clearer violationpolicy and be better equipped to successfullymanage this aspect of offender supervision.

Who Should Use This HandbookOne of the important lessons from our work onthe violation process is that it affects many partsof the criminal justice system. During the earlyrounds of the six projects, our work focused onteams established within the supervision agency.Although these teams were highly successful indeveloping violation policies, they often wereunable to fully implement those policies. Welearned—sometimes painfully—that other sys-tem actors who had not been included in thepolicy development process could serve as barri-ers to implementation. This lesson led NIC todirect its efforts during the final project towardteams of local policymakers, all of whom sharedan interest in developing violation policy. Theseteams represented criminal justice agencies, the

Establish/maintain policy team

Agree on goals

Explore policy options

Assess impact of options

Monitor and assess new

policies/practices (ongoing)

Assess current practice

Implement new policies/practices

Responding to Probation and Parole Violations: Recommended Process

D I A G R A M I–1.

local legislature, social service organizations,and, in some instances, the larger community;they were formed to collaboratively examineviolations and develop and implement new poli-cy. Thus, this handbook has been developed forthose individuals and agencies who will takeresponsibility for forming and supporting a localteam established to examine the parole and pro-bation violation process.

How to Use This HandbookStart by reading the entire handbook from begin-ning to end. This will provide both an overviewof the process and its intended outcomes and anunderstanding of the individual work activitiesand how they relate to one another.

Working through this issue requires a policyteam that is committed to engaging in a seriesof activities, described in succeeding chapters,that are designed to:

• Educate supervision staff and others about theviolation issue.

• Guide team members as they clarify theirgoals and desired outcomes.

• Assist the team in creating policies to addressviolation behavior and responses.

• Suggest strategies to design and implementpractices and programs to carry out thosepolicies.

This handbook takes a variety of approaches todetailing these activities. A few chapters discussparole and probation issues. These chapters high-light each issue’s importance, raise key con-cerns, and suggest fruitful approaches to makingdecisions. The majority of the chapters, howev-er, direct the reader through tasks and activitiesaimed at achieving a particular end. Each chap-ter begins with a diagram, identifying for thereader the stage of the overall process on whichthe content focuses. These are designed to helpthe reader navigate through the handbook. Manychapters also include examples of work by juris-dictions that participated in the six projects.

A Long-Term InvestmentIt has been our experience that work on paroleand probation violation response policies isa long-term investment of time and energy.Jurisdictions that joined the violation projectin 1991 continue to work on this issue today.Addressing violations is not a one-time effort.Rather, it is an important policy issue that has asignificant impact on the criminal justice systemthat, once you begin your work on the process,is likely to engage you for many years to come.

Note1. Burke, Peggy B., Center for Effective Public Policy, 1997,Policy-Driven Responses to Probation and Parole Violations,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Corrections.

4

5

Probation and Parole Violations: An Overview of Critical IssuesPeggy Burke

C H A P T E R O N E

When the NationalInstitute of Corrections(NIC) first began its seriesof technical assistance proj-ects addressing violationpractices for probation andparole in the late 1980s, theurgency of the issue arosefrom several concerns.Many of those concernsremain unaddressed today,while other issues haveemerged to make an inter-est in violation responsesmore critical than ever.

Violation Issuesin Context

The community corrections dilemmaAt the end of 1998, roughly 3.8 million individu-als in the United States were under some formof correctional supervision in the community—probation, parole, or other community correctionsprogram.1 That is a staggering number—morethan double the population of offenders inAmerican prisons and jails.

Probation and parole agencies are asked to super-vise and manage these individuals safely andeconomically. Every judge, prosecutor, paroleboard member, and probation and parole officerknows that, ultimately, the safety of our com-munities and the credibility of the criminal jus-tice system are at issue.

Because offenders under community supervisionvastly outnumber those already incarcerated inour prisons and jails, the task facing probation

and parole agencies is extremely challenging.The fiscal and operational reality is that notevery individual on probation or parole can—orshould—be removedfrom the communityat the first sign of aproblem. Rather, it isimportant to knowwho among thoseproblem probationersand parolees needs tobe removed quicklyfrom the community and who can be managedsafely in the community through some otherresponse. Unarguably, if our jails and prisons arefilled with offenders who are merely noncompli-ant, there will be no room for dangerous offend-ers. One can make the case that sensibleviolation policies are essential to the credibilityof the system. It is not surprising, then, thatparole and probation agencies recognize thatthey need to pay attention to the way in whichthey respond to violations of supervision, partic-ularly to technical violations that do not involvenew criminal behavior.

It is extremely troubling, then, that one of themost recent attempts to “reinvent probation,”spearheaded by the Center for Civic Innovationbased at the Manhattan Institute, has soundedthe alarm that “widespread political and publicdissatisfaction with community corrections hasoften been totally justified.”2 Further, authorsTerryl Arola and Richard Lawrence indicate thatonly one-fifth of those who violate the termsof their probation supervision go to jail. Theassumption seems to be that quick arrest is themost appropriate response for technical viola-tions. This contradicts the experiences of theNIC-sponsored violation projects.

If our jails and prisons arefilled with offenders whoare merely noncompliant,there will be no room forthe dangerous offender.

Components of the Process



Agree on goals




Monitor and assess newpolicies/practices (ongoing)

Prison and jail crowdingWith the growth in prison populations slowingsomewhat (during 1998, the prison populationnationwide grew at a rate of 4.8 percent over theprevious year, the smallest rate of growth since19793), there seems to be less concern over theimpact of violators on prison and jail popula-tions. However, roughly 172,600 admissions toprison in 1996 were probation or parole viola-tors—about one-third of the total. Of those viola-tors, about two-thirds—more than 114,000—hadno new sentence. Technical violations were mostlikely the reason for their incarceration.4 Somewould argue that the absence of a new sentencedoes not mean the absence of new criminalbehavior. It may simply indicate that revocationon technical grounds was pursued in lieu of anew criminal proceeding. This is undoubtedlytrue for some revocations. However, experienceon the NIC projects indicates that a significantnumber of such revocations are exclusively theresult of technical violations. This informationwould indicate that the concerns emerging in thelate 1980s about admissions to prison as a resultof violations—and their impact on the prisonpopulation—are still well founded.

The picture in jails issomewhat more diffi-cult to document. ABureau of JusticeStatistics (BJS) SpecialReport indicated thatalmost half of jailinmates were on eitherprobation or parolewhen they were admit-ted to jail.5 AlthoughBJS documents thatonly 3 percent of jailinmates were in cus-tody for a probation orparole violation, anec-dotal information fromjurisdictions participating in the NIC projectssuggests that this percentage is much higher.Parole and probation violators awaiting violationhearings or transfer to State institutions after rev-ocation hearings are likely a significant portionof our crowded jail populations—as well as asource of friction between local and State govern-ments and their respective correctional agencies.

WorkloadIn addition to the burden that parole and proba-tion violators place on crowded jail and prisonfacilities, the handling of violators by supervi-sion agencies, the courts, and parole boards

also has drawn attention. For example, probationviolators—who are processed through crowdedcourtrooms and, in some jurisdictions, mayrequire multiple appearances in court forarraignment, violation, and dispositional hear-ings—can consume a significant portion of thecourt’s time, energy, and resources. Often, viola-tion hearings are not scheduled but simply“worked into” an already crowded calendar,which requires that probation officers wait inthe courthouse for a hearing to be called. In onejurisdiction participating in a NIC project, it wasestimated that, in addition to the equivalent ofmore than two full-time probation officers, theequivalent of a full-time judge, prosecutor, andcourtroom staff was consumed by the variousstages of the probation violation process.

Responding to violations in atimely fashionGiven the due process requirements of handlingviolations, along with the general backlog foundin most courts and parole dockets, months oftenpass between a violation and formal disposition.A response several months after a violation isnot likely to achieve a specific result linked tothe violation behavior. For example, if the intentof dealing more effectively with a drug-usingoffender is to get him or her into a different ormore intensive treatment regime and provide jobplacement assistance, the current formal viola-tion process is a slow and ineffective tool.

Many agencies in the NIC-sponsored projectssought to either streamline or replace their for-mal hearing processes. The formal processeswere supplanted by more informal procedures

6

In one jurisdiction partici-pating in a NIC project, itwas estimated that, inaddition to the equivalentof more than two full-timeprobation officers, theequivalent of a full-timejudge, prosecutor, andcourtroom staff was con-sumed by the variousstages of the probationviolation process.

If we focus on the lessons emerging from the researchabout “what works” in managing offenders, we find thatit is the treatment and rehabilitative resources linked to probation or parole—rather than surveillance orenforcement—that have a demonstrable effect onreduced recidivism.

designed to intervene quickly and appropriatelyduring the course of an offender’s supervision.Indeed, if we focus on the lessons emerging fromthe research about “what works” in managingoffenders, we find that it is the treatment andrehabilitative resources linked to probation orparole—rather than surveillance or enforcementefforts alone—that have a demonstrable effect onreducing recidivism.

In her article “A Decade of Experimenting WithIntermediate Sanctions,” Joan Petersilia says:

[A]n important and tantalizing finding—consistent across all the evaluations regard-less of program design—points to theimportance of combining surveillanceand drug treatment program participation.In the RAND ISP [Intensive SupervisionProgram] demonstration, offenders who par-ticipated in treatment, community service,and employment programs—prosocialactivities—had recidivism rates 10 to 20percent below that of those who did notparticipate in such additional activities.6

Researchers havefound similar resultsin Massachusetts,Ohio, and Oregon, anda recent meta-analysisof 175 evaluations ofintermediate sanctionsprograms concludedthat the combinationof surveillance andtreatment is associatedwith reduced recidi-vism.7 Paul Gendreauand Tracy Little state:“In essence, the super-vision of high-risk pro-bationers and paroleesmust be structured,[be] intensive, main-tain firm accountability for program participa-tion, and connect the offenders with prosocialnetworks and activities.”8

The empirical evidence regarding intermediatesanctions is decisive: Without a rehabilitationcomponent, reductions in recidivism are elusive.

Consistency and equity in responding to violationsAnother reason often given for an interest inthe violation issue is the need and desire for acertain amount of consistency and equity inhandling violations. In an agency with manyprobation or parole officers, there is the possibil-ity that similar violations will be handled differ-ently, even when everyone is operating in goodfaith. Differences in personal philosophy, super-vision style, and interpretations of agency policycan generate unintentional disparities in viola-tion responses. This is one of the most frequentreasons agency policymakers become interestedin looking more closely at the violation process.

Indeed, among those jurisdictions that lookedempirically at the practice of responding to vio-lations, it is common to find considerable dispar-ity in their handling. One offender may have arecord of numerous technical violations and stillbe on supervision, while another may have hisor her parole or probation revoked after only oneminor technical violation. This raises questionsof fairness and, absent clear rationale for thesedifferences, can often undermine the credibilityof the supervising agency.

Defining success as a goal of supervisionWhat many agencies involved in the NIC projectsdiscovered is that a thorough review of how bestto respond to violations cannot be undertakenwithout also reexamining an agency’s approachto supervision and considering the followingquestions:

• Why do we supervise probationers andparolees?

• What is “successful” supervision?

• What is “unsuccessful” supervision?

• Where is the line drawn between the two?

• When is a violation serious enough to warrantrevocation?

• When are responses other than revocationappropriate?

This reexamination of violation responses fitswell with the work that many parole and proba-tion agencies began during the 1990s. As one

7

“Make sure your philoso-phy is clear. Understandwhat you want to do insupervision and what youwant to achieve. This formsthe basis for going forward.The rest of it is just strategy.People have to knowwhere they’re goingand what they want asoutcomes.”

—Supervision agency supervisor

8

The purpose of the “new generation” policy is to provide a framework to guide officer decisionmaking when aviolation of probation occurs. A clear, consistent understanding of the steps to be taken when responding toviolation behavior should increase officer autonomy and reduce the filing of petitions to revoke probation incases in which a response short of revocation and incarceration is appropriate.

Administrative violations of the conditions of probation are inevitable. It is unrealistic to believe that offenders,even if they sincerely desire to develop drug-free, prosocial lifestyles, will immediately have the skills or abili-ties to meet their goals. The issues and forces that brought them into the system will most likely continue toinfluence their behavior to some extent until they learn new coping skills.

All responses to violation behavior should consider the agency’s mission and philosophy as well as the goalsof the supervision process. Although protection of the community should be the primary consideration, it doesnot follow that revocation is always, or even usually, the most effective or efficient way of achieving this goal.

The goal of community supervision is to intervene selectively and proactively with offenders to reduce the like-lihood of future criminal activity and promote compliance with the supervision strategy. Strategies involveholding offenders accountable for their actions, monitoring and controlling offender behavior, and developingrehabilitation programs specific to offender needs. Another significant goal of the supervision strategy is toensure an appropriate and proportionate departmental response to all violations of the conditions of probation,taking into account offender risk, the nature of the violation, and the objective of offender accountability.

The basic expectations underlying the department’s policy regarding probation violations are:

• There will be a response to every detected violation.

• The response to a violation will be proportional to the risk to the community posed by the offender, theseverity of the violation, and the current situational risk.

• The least restrictive response that is necessary to respond to the behavior will be used.

• There will be consistency in handling similar violation behavior given similar risk factors.

• The response to a violation should hold some potential for long-term positive outcomes in the context ofthe supervision strategy.

• Although response to violation behavior is determined by considering both risk and need, risk to the community is the overriding consideration.

• A probationer or parolee who demonstrates a general unwillingness to abide by supervision requirements or who poses undue risk to the community should be subject to a Petition to Revoke Probation or Parole.

Typical “New Generation” Policy Language Regarding Violations

E X H I B I T 1–1.

agency administrator advises, prior to revampingviolation practice: “Make sure your philosophyis clear. Understand what you want to do insupervision and what you want to achieve. Thisforms the basis for going forward. The rest ofit is just strategy. People have to know wherethey’re going and what they want as outcomes.”Exhibits 1–1 and 1–2 provide examples of the“new generation” policy developed by manyjurisdictions. This policy articulates both thegoal of supervision and the department’s policyregarding violation responses.

A reemerging interest in treatmentMotivated by a primary concern for public safe-ty and discouraged by the constant recyclingof offenders through the system, many proba-tion and parole policymakers are looking for

better answers to the question of what works.Policymakers need to know whether revocationof probation will make it less likely that offend-ers will reoffend in the future or whether anoth-er intervention will be more effective. Indeed,many probation and parole agencies are begin-ning to question the assumption that revocationwill “get the offender’s attention” and result inbetter performance.

What these policymakers are seeing is echoed inthe research by Don Andrews, James Bonta, PaulGendreau, and others. Often referred to as the“what works” literature, this research highlightsthe results of hundreds of studies produced dur-ing the past few decades that conclude that offi-cial punishment without treatment has not beenshown to be a specific deterrent to future crimi-nal behavior. The same literature suggests that

The Department of Probation, in response to probationer misconduct, promotes public safetyby supervising offenders in the community through monitoring and enforcing probationercompliance with the conditions of probation and responding to misconduct in a consistentand proportional manner that takes into account:

• The severity of the misconduct.

• The risk posed by the offender.

• The threat to community safety posed by the misconduct.

The Department, by filing a Violation of Probation (VOP), seeks to remove from the communi-ty those probationers whose breaches of conduct pose undue threat to the safety of the com-munity and/or who significantly violate the terms of their probation or continually fail tocomply with supervision requirements despite corrective interventions.

The law defines VOP as:

• The commission of any crime or offense.

• Failure to comply with any condition of probation.

• Absconding by remaining away from the jurisdiction of the Court or by keeping one’s whereabouts hidden.

The law does not require, however, that every violation be brought before the Court for adjudication. Violations may be handled on two levels:

• By appearance before the Court.

• Administratively.

VOPs may be handled administratively to:

• Determine if the breach of conduct is so severe as to require Court action.

• Reach an acceptable understanding with the probationer as to his or her future conduct.

The policy guidelines and principles that follow represent the department’s attempt to struc-ture the decisionmaking process and provide a rationale for determining, in response to pro-bationer misconduct, when or whether to file a VOP, refer the matter to a newly constitutedMisconduct Review Board (MRB) for strategy and review and/or for an administrative hearing,or conduct an administrative hearing at the unit level.

Principle 1

Probation officers shall initiate a VOP only when the objective is to seek revocation and incarceration.

Principle 2

Absent significant risk to community safety, a recommendation to revoke probation and resentence to incarceration shall be made only when:

• Alternative, less restrictive intermediate sanctions are not deemed sufficient or proportionalto the misconduct that has occurred, and/or

• The graduated responses or interventions fashioned to deal with the probationer’s mis-conduct have not been successful in effecting the probationer’s compliance with the con-ditions of probation and/or are not likely to deter the probationer from future misconduct.

Violation of Probation Policy (City of New York Department of Probation)

Mission

Definition of VOP

Handling ofViolations

Purpose ofAdministra-tive VOP

PolicyGuidelines

GuidingPrinciples

9

E X H I B I T 1–2.

Principle 3

Only technical violations that constitute the most serious misbehavior will result in animmediate VOP. Otherwise, MRB will review all nonviolent technical violations of probation.To ensure consistency and uniformity in terms of these decisions, both the severity of themisconduct and the degree of risk posed by the probationer shall be considered and ana-lyzed; that is, whether the probationer is violence prone, whether the misconduct resultedin a rearrest or is a technical violation, and whether the misconduct represents a threat tocommunity safety. Confirmed reports of assault of or threats against another person and/orthreats of harm to oneself constitute community danger, whether or not the misconductcauses actual hurt or is an attempt or threat to hurt another.

Generally speaking, rearrests are considered more serious than technical violations, andrearrests for violent offenses are considered more serious than rearrests for nonviolentoffenses. Any offense in which a potential for violence exists constitutes a violent offense.This includes possession of a weapon, violation of any Order of Protection reported by thecomplainant, child or sexual abuse, and/or a threat to carry out a violent act. A violence-prone probationer who threatens violence or harm may, by such threat, increase the dan-gerousness/seriousness quotient even if no arrest has been effected.

A violence-prone probationer who is AWOL (absent without leave) and/or fails to make hisor her whereabouts known may, because he or she prevents us from performing our minis-terial functions, presents a potential danger.

Principle 4

How one responds to absconders will vary according to the track to which the probationeris assigned. All violent track cases who abscond require a VOP. A VOP is likewise requiredwhen a probationer fails to report to the Intake and Assessment Unit after sentencing andsubsequently fails to respond to a maximum of three rescheduled appointments and/orother efforts expended to get the probationer to report.

Principle 5

While a VOP requires the approval of a supervising probation officer (SPO), a request for aforthwith warrant requires the approval of the SPO and the branch chief. An assessmentthat the probationer’s behavior poses significant and imminent risk to community safetymay provide sufficient cause to seek to expedite the VOP.

Principle 6

Excepting absconders and excepting those situations in which an expedited VOP and/orforthwith warrant is (are) deemed necessary, an administrative hearing at the unit level willbe a precursor to an MRB referral. The presumption is that for every technical violation,there will be a reasoned and proportionate response from the repertory or arsenal ofresponses that are at a probation officer’s disposal, and that before reaching the decisionwhether to file a VOP or refer to MRB, appropriate and graduated responses will have beenmade, including an administrative hearing, if indicated, at the corresponding special unitlevel. If these interventions do not succeed in getting the probationer to modify negativebehavior, then a VOP or referral to MRB may be required.

Other Principles

Other broad principles that may apply in determining responses to failures to report orother technical violations follow:

• To ensure that our efforts and resources are reserved for those at high risk for recidivismand violence, responses to low-level transgressions committed by nonviolence-prone,noncrime-prone probationers should, to the extent possible, be automatic and sequentialor graduated but limited in option or scope, particularly if there exists a need to conserve

10


E X H I B I T 1–2.continued


11

department resources. Responses, even if limited, should not, however, be guided purelyby resources and cost-effectiveness; rather, the focus shall be on responses that areappropriate and proportionate to the misconduct.

• Not all misconduct requires formal processing of a VOP and revocation and imprison-ment. Some violators may be able to remain in the community with corrective interven-tions that are measured and reasoned and meet identified rehabilitative needs.

• Individuals who are unwilling to abide by supervision requirements but who do not poseundue risk to the safety of the community may, in order to conserve department andcourt resources, be allowed to max out [complete their entire term] from probation, butnot without [a written] record of their performance [while on probation] so as to guidefuture recommendations.

• With certain exceptions, we should never proceed with a VOP simply because we arefrustrated that our supervision efforts have been thwarted, unless we have concludedthat the individual poses a significant risk to community safety; whenever possible, weshould use administrative and internal measures to deal with probationer intransigenceand his or her failure to meet probation supervision standards.

• Sanctions should not be driven by anger or vengeance or be so emotionally laden aswith angry, empty threats that cannot be carried out (without undermining the probationprocess).

• Sanctions should be:

— Objective. — Specific. — Realistic.

— Clear. — Appropriate. — Enforceable.

Sanctions should also be enforceable and achievable by the probationer.

• Interventions should be matched to the particular offender, realistically address the par-ticular misconduct, and be considered necessary and appropriate to bring about positiveor sufficient change to alter/modify/control the behavior or to encourage/assist/enable theprobationer to successfully complete the probation sentence.


appropriate correctional treatment can be effec-tive in reducing future recidivism with certaintypes of offenders.9 Given this insight, policy-makers are asking, “What interventions will bemost effective in reducing future crime?” and“How can we make sure that our agency policiessupport these kinds of interventions as responsesto technical violations of parole and probation?”

Redefining the Vision of CommunityCorrectionsPerhaps it is because dissatisfaction with pastperformance has become so much a part of theconventional wisdom that one cannot open aprofessional journal or attend a professional con-ference in corrections today without coming faceto face with “paradigm shifts,” “redefining pro-bation,” or “visioning.” A sea change is occur-ring in the field. Regardless of the particularmanifestation of this change, it has three com-mon themes.

• The system can no longer focus exclusively onprocessing cases.

• The paradigm selected to replace the “process-ing cases” approach must include such out-comes as greater safety, greater responsivenessto victims, and reduced future criminal behav-ior. Those outcomes must be defined andmeasured, and parole and probation agenciesmust be held accountable to them.

• Police, prosecutors, judges, correctional offi-cials, probation and parole officers, and com-munity members can no longer continue tooperate as if their roles, responsibilities, andperspectives are unrelated. Collaborationacross traditional boundaries—agencies,branches of government, and public and private arenas—is essential.

Debate and innovation continue to reflect thesethemes. Discussion surrounds the concepts ofrestorative and community justice. The reality

12

is, however, that a careful reassessment ofresponses to violation behavior becomes evenmore critical as these changes take place, for thisis an arena through which supervision agenciescan carefully define and carry out their vision insignificant ways.

In the course of reworking violation policy, agen-cies have begun to rethink supervision and, insome instances, to “reinvent” themselves. In thesame way that law enforcement agencies havebegun to redefine their work as “community”or “problem oriented” policing, probation andparole agencies are beginning to see themselvesas more in the business of “community justice.”10

Innovative responses to violation behavior con-tain the seeds of such a revolution in communitycorrections. Some agencies make every effort toensure the success of probationers. This includesnot simply responding to noncompliance but alsoworking to ensure community safety, mobilizingcommunity resources to break the cycle of addic-tion and violence, facilitating restoration of thecommunity through community service and vic-tim restitution, and partnering with law enforce-ment and community agencies to respond to thedemands of the community for a greater sense ofsecurity.

Thus, what began as a modest attempt to finetune violation policy may prove to be a criticallyimportant step for probation and parole agenciesas they strive to reinvent a supervision systemto effectively manage offender behavior.

Notes1. Beck, Allen J., and Christopher J. Mumola, 1999, Prisonersin 1998, Bulletin, NCJ 175687, Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1.

2. Arola, Terryl, and Richard Lawrence, 2000, “BrokenWindows Probation: The Next Step in Fighting Crime,”Perspectives (Winter): 27.

3. Beck and Mumola, Prisoners in 1998, 2.

4. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999, Sourcebook of CriminalJustice Statistics, 1998, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 521, table 6.74.

5. Harlow, Caroline Wolf, 1998, Profile of Jail Inmates,1996, Special Report, NCJ 164620, Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1.

6. Petersilia, Joan, 1999, “A Decade of ExperimentingWith Intermediate Sanctions: What Have We Learned,”Perspectives, (Winter): 42.

7. Ibid., 39–44.

8. Gendreau, Paul, and Tracy Little, 1993, “A Meta-analysisof the Effectiveness of Sanctions on Offender Recidivism,”unpublished manuscript, University of New Brunswick,Saint John.

9. Andrews, Don, James Bonta, and Paul Gendreau, 1994,The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, Cincinnati: AndersonPublishing Company.

10. Joyce, Nola M., 1996, “Bringing the Community intoCommunity Corrections: The Role of Risk Assessment,”in Community Justice: Striving for Safe, Secure, and JustCommunities, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Corrections, 36–40; and Dickey,Walter J., 1996, “Why Neighborhood Supervision?” inCommunity Justice: Striving for Safe, Secure, and JustCommunities, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Corrections, 41–44.

13

The most important thinglies not in knowing whereyou are, but in where youare going.

—Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Why Start With aVision?The notion of a “visionstatement” or a “goal state-ment” may cause some tothink of a collection ofwords that gives little guid-ance to staff and may seemto have little connection today-to-day work responsi-bilities. But without a clearidea of where you are goingand where you want to be, the day-to-day workbecomes filled with unfocused activities that aredone for undeterminable reasons and mayinvolve acts or processes by some employeesthat are contrary to those being performed byothers. The truth is, as hard as it may be tospend time focusing on critical goals, values, anda mission, little is more important to an agencythan having a clearly articulated vision of whatyou ultimately want to accomplish.

Most agencies seem to focus a great deal ofattention on their work processes. Rules or pro-cedures usually outline in detail what actionsmust be taken, when they must be done, whatforms to use, who to notify, and so forth.Because detailed instructions are developed overa substantial period of time, most of the proce-dures are layered with old and new ideas thatstem from both old and new insights or issues.The result is often a complex collection of meth-ods and responsibilities. Perhaps the size and

depth of your procedures make it difficult foryou to view the whole of your efforts. But toengage in the best possible analysis of your vio-lation process, you have to be willing to thinkbeyond what you currently do and focus on whatyou ultimately want your work to look like.

As an analogy, assume you want to take a muchdeserved vacation. Before you leave, it is helpfulto know your ultimate destination and deter-mine the best way to get there. The procedureswe develop in our everyday work are roads thattake us somewhere. Unless you understandwhere you want your work efforts to take you,it is difficult to understand which roads youshould take. As Alice found out in Wonderland,if you don’t know where you’re going, then anyroad will do.

To develop your vision, start withthe end in mindWhen thinking about your agency’s goals for itsviolation process, try to avoid focusing on yourcurrent situation and its limitations. Exploringthis area should start with the end in mind. Ifyou can envision the best violation practicesworking in conjunction with the best policiesand direction that can be developed, what wouldthat system look like? What kind of resultswould you be trying to achieve? How would peo-ple be investing their time or energies? If youfocus on your best line officers and how theyrespond to a particular violation, what types ofpractices would you find? The picture you devel-op in response to such questions reflects, in part,your vision of what you want your violationprocess to become.

Such a system may include the following:

• Offenders clearly understand their supervisionrequirements.

The Importance of Vision, Mission,Goals, and Core ValuesRichard Stroker

C H A P T E R T W O




Agree on goals





Goal of the Violation Process (Maricopa County, Arizona, Adult Probation Department)

E X H I B I T 2–1.

The goal of the violation process is to respond to violation behavior in order to achieve successful adjustmentto supervision and compliance with the terms of probation to reduce the likelihood of future criminal activity.This goal is met by:

• Responding immediately to all violation behavior in a proportional and least restrictive manner at the lowestpossible level within the agency.

• Employing effective, meaningful interventions as responses to offender needs that may be contributing factors to their violation behavior.

• Identifying nonresponsive and/or high-risk/dangerous individuals who have exhausted all appropriate interventions and judicially remove them from the community.

• Returning to court only those individuals who have failed to respond to all appropriate intervention optionsand for whom additional judicial sanctions will be recommended.

• Offenders believe there will be appropriateconsequences for misbehavior.

• Staff have a clear picture of how best to man-age offenders and affect behavior.

• Policies and procedures give clear guidance tostaff about the agency’s expectations.

• Every violation is responded to in a promptand appropriate fashion.

• A range of violation responses is availableand used wisely.

• Staff respond to violations with flexibilityand consistency.

• The system is designed to be efficient andnot waste staff time.

• Offenders receive appropriate dispositionsfor their violations.

• Other appropriate entities understand theagency’s violation system and its purposes.

• The violation system assists staff to reachsupervision goals.

It is not impossible to imagine such a system.The development of improved violation process-es begins with these types of ambitious ideas. Avision statement does not specify precisely howyou will carry out tasks or overcome obstacles.It simply identifies where you want to go withyour violation system. Exhibits 2–1 through 2–3are examples of some of the goal statementsdeveloped by NIC’s project participants. Exercise2–1 is designed to help your team develop goals.

To initiate dialogue about your agency’s visionfor its violation process, ask staff members fromvarious offices and levels of your agency to worktogether to articulate a specific vision. It is impor-tant to realize that this vision does not have tocome from the top of the agency. People whowork most closely with the violation processmay have the best ideas about what your viola-tion process should be trying to achieve. Thisgroup should have access to all the data, flow-charts, and other information that has been col-lected to date about the violation process (seechapter 4 for a detailed discussion of the types ofinformation to be collected), but the group shouldnot be asked to focus on the best way to realizethe vision. The group should concentrate onwhere your agency wants to go, then decide ifconsensus can be developed for this destination.

It is difficult to build upward withouta solid foundationIn looking at the abovementioned list, the visionof your violation process will have a distinctimpact on your supervision practices. This con-nection between offender supervision and yourviolation process is deep and complex. Indeed,it will probably not be possible for your agencyto realize the vision you have for the violationprocess without also making significant changesin the way that offender supervision is performed.

Perhaps the single most critical question youmust answer in developing your violation visionconcerns your purpose or goals of offender super-vision. For example, if your primary supervisiongoal is to assist offenders in successfully com-pleting supervision, your violation practices

14

15

The mission of the Office of Adult Probation is to control the behavior of offenders in thecommunity and use suitable methods to aid and encourage improvement in their conductand condition.

The goal of supervision is to reduce the likelihood of future criminal behavior. This will beaccomplished by intervening in proportion to an offender’s risk and need.

The Office of Adult Probation will use all available, relevant resources in the supervision ofan offender until the offender reaches an unacceptable level of risk in the community orsuccessfully completes the period of probation.

The goal of the violation process is to respond to the offender’s violation behavior in away that is consistent, timely, and proportionate to safely maintain the probationer onsupervision.

Sample Mission and Goals

MissionStatement

Goal ofSupervision

Goal of theViolationProcess

E X H I B I T 2–2.

should reflect this aspect. If the purpose ofsupervision is to identify individuals who posethe greatest risk to the community and monitortheir activities closely, your violation practicesshould reflect this goal. Offender supervision andviolation practices are parts of the same puzzle,and, if you treat them as separate and distinctactivities, you may have difficulty making senseof your everyday work. Considering this issuefrom another perspective, your present violationsystem is a window into your philosophy andgoals about offender supervision. The way a vio-lation is currently handled indicates preferences,attitudes, and beliefs about your jurisdiction’soffender supervision.

Appreciating the critical connection betweensupervision goals and the violation processmight be easier if you reflect on your experiencewith other supervision-related matters. Often,a new program or initiative may be undertakenbecause it sounds attractive, has imagined posi-tive outcomes, or seems to have been successfulin another location. When you try to replicatethis program or idea, the original jurisdiction’svision, goals, and beliefs about the supervisionof offenders may not transfer. Jurisdictions thatare not pleased with their transplanted intensivesupervision programs, home detention efforts, orresidential or day reporting programs might findthat the root of the problem is their difficultyin clearly indicating how these activities areintended to fit with their system of supervision

goals and beliefs. Programs and efforts that oper-ate apart from, and not as a part of, your primarysupervision efforts often will fail because thevision and goals for the new program have notbeen integrated into your vision and goals foroffender supervision. The same issue is presentwhen a jurisdiction starts work on its violationprocess. You should determine how this effortwill fit within your beliefs, goals, and visionregarding the supervision of offenders.

Turning this issue around, it is also improbablethat you can achieve your supervision goalswithout having in place an effective violationsystem. For example, if one of your supervisiongoals is to protect public safety, how can this beaccomplished if your violation system fails toidentify and respond promptly and effectively tooffenders who require additional sanctions orservices? If one of your supervision goals is toencourage offenders to become law-abiding citi-zens, how can you accomplish this without aneffective violation system that identifies offend-er problems and promotes swift and meaningfuloutcomes?

As you explore the violation area, it is importantto appreciate that the articulation of your viola-tion goals may also require a full examination ofyour vision and beliefs about offender supervi-sion. For this reason, working on your violationprocess will prompt an examination—and poten-tially a clarification—of the very foundation ofyour agency: your goals for supervision.

The first steps of a journey alwaysseem the longestOften, when someone presents a new vision ormethod of working, he or she is greeted immedi-ately with a laundry list of why this vision can-not be realized. The urge to tell someone elsewhy his or her vision is simply not possible toaccomplish can be overwhelming. Perhaps this isbecause it is easier for someone to identify whatcannot be done than to understand different andpossibly better ways of working. The weight ofhistory (“We’ve always done it this way,” or “Wetried that once and it didn’t work”) can be per-suasive. The reasons offered on why things can-not be done or changed might involve some orall of the following:

• It is too expensive, and there are limited orno resources.

• It will never be accepted by an importantmanager or judge.

• It will not do any good because people (staffor offenders) do not change.

• It is too hard to figure out and will take toomuch work.

• It is not consistent with another vision ormission.

• It will take too much time to implement.

• It will increase the agency’s liability.

• It is not legal.

It is important to recognize that new ideas for theviolation process may have some initial detrac-tors. However, it is essential to this process thatyou not abandon developing a vision becauseof current limitations, restrictions, or a lack ofunderstanding about current practices. In govern-ment, almost everything can (and often does)change. Instead of being the recipient of change,become an advocate for the change you want toimplement. The key is to focus on what you wantto do and use your staff talent, resources, andimagination to make it happen. If your agency’svision reflects its intentions for the violationprocess, and if these intentions are consistentwith your agency’s beliefs about offender supervi-sion, then you can find and develop ways to movetowards that vision.

Once you overcome the substantial mental hur-dles and articulate a new vision to guide youin this work, new doors and avenues will open.You may find it easier to justify requests fornew resources or make better decisions aboutallocating your existing resources. The abilityto place your violation process goals into clearfocus will also help you to distinguish realobstacles from long-held, and sometimes inac-curate, assumptions.

16

Personnel will respond to all violations in an appropriate manner, taking into account theseverity of the violation and the risk posed by the offender. The purpose of the responsewill be to selectively intervene with the offender to reduce the likelihood of future criminalactivity.

A violation is a willful action or inaction on the part of the offender that is contrary to theconditions of supervision established by the court, board, hearing officer, or agent.

In responding to a violation, the agent or supervisor should:

• Select a response that is proportional to the severity of the violation.

• Be proactive in responding to every violation.

• Select the least onerous response necessary to address the particular violation.

• Be consistent in handling similar violations in a similar way.

• Select a response that takes into account the severity of the violation and the risk posedby the offender.

Sample Policy Language

ViolationsPolicy

Definition ofa Violation

Response toViolations

E X H I B I T 2–3.

Many line staff worry about their potential lia-bilities in conducting offender supervision andresponding to violations. This may be truebecause of the absence of a clear vision, policy,or explanation of their agency’s expectations.Having a clear policy and following it reducespotential liabilities. By having an explicit visionof where you want to go, these liability issuescan be better analyzed and addressed. As is oftenthe case, once you make some positive firststeps, you may find your next steps often areeasier to see and to take.

You Can Get There From HereOnce you have developed a vision of what youwant to accomplish in the violation area, youshould compare it with your current circum-stances. The gaps that exist between whereyou want to be and where you are highlight theissues on which you should focus. The areasyou select to pursue to work toward your visionwill represent the first specific goals for yourviolation process.

The goals of your agency concerning the violationprocess should be consistent with your visionstatement. For example, if your vision statementincludes language about how to respond quicklyto violations and this is not currently part of yourpractices, you should develop specific goals relat-ed to this vision. Such goals might include devel-oping better means to identify that violationshave occurred, creating new methods to respondto minor violations, and creating specific time-frames to respond to violations.

Many agencies that have worked on their viola-tion process have identified particular goalsthat have some common elements. These goalsinclude:

• Holding offenders accountable by respondingmore swiftly to all violations.

• Considering the risk posed by the offenderin developing a violation response.

• Considering the severity of the offense indeveloping a violation response.

17

Developing clarity in purpose for the goals of supervision is an essential step towardestablishing a rational system of violation responses. Equally, articulating goals for theviolation process serves as an important reference point in developing policy to guideits implementation. The goals of this team work session are (1) to assess what (if any)language already exists regarding the goals of supervision and of the violation process,and (2) to modify or craft new language where needed.

• Review existing statements that describe your jurisdiction’s goals for the supervision ofoffenders. How effectively (fully, specifically) does this statement describe the currentgoals of your agency? To help with this exercise, imagine that this statement is the onlyguidance new agents have to help them determine the focus and purpose of their work.Can your statement effectively guide these new employees?

• If an effective goal statement does not currently exist, discuss what the elements of sucha statement should be. What are the goals of your agency? What do you hope to accom-plish through the supervision of probationers? What words or phrases describe these?(Remember your new employees. What are the essential ideas you want to communi-cate to them?)

• Review existing statements that describe your jurisdiction’s goals for the violationprocess. How effectively (fully, specifically) do these statements describe these goals?(Again, use the analogy of the new employees to consider this question.)

• If an effective goal statement does not currently exist, discuss what the elements of sucha statement should contain. What are the goals of the violation process? What should itaccomplish? What words or phrases describe these goals? (What more should your newemployees know about responding to violations, other than how to fill out the formswhen a probationer or parolee commits one?)

What Are Your Goals for Supervision and for the Violation Process?

WorkSessionActivities

E X E R C I S E 2–1.

• Encouraging consistency among staff in for-mulating responses.

• Using the least onerous response necessaryto address the violation.

• Developing alternative violation responses.

• Increasing or improving staff training aboutthe violation process.

• Making the best use of automated technologies.

• Streamlining the violation process to makethe best use of staff time.

Other goals that emerged from some of the juris-dictions include:

• Empowering staff to respond directly to cer-tain types of violations.

• Developing an alternative hearing process forcertain offenses.

• Developing better court or parole board sched-uling procedures.

• Improving coordination and information shar-ing with local law enforcement.

• Improving dialogue with courts and prosecu-tors about violations.

• Improving offenders’ understanding of super-vision conditions.

• Improving responses available to addressoffender needs (e.g., drug use) that fuel violations.

• Developing “paperless” systems or reducingpaperwork.

• Creating summonses as alternatives to warrants.

Establishing specific goals will allow a jurisdic-tion to determine which activities or “roads” itwishes to explore. Articulating these goals willhelp your jurisdiction focus on the rest of thework it will perform in the violation area.

An effective system requires the harmony of its partsThe particular goals selected by a jurisdictiongenerally reflect its vision for the violationprocess and its core values about the supervisionof offenders. These core values are critical to theultimate development of offender supervisionpolicies and procedures. At the heart of many

jurisdictions’ violation practices is the belief thatan offender’s behavior can be affected by theactions taken by the supervising entity. Therealso seems to be considerable consensus that thepurpose of supervision is to encourage or aid theoffender in successfully completing his or hersupervision. When these powerful concepts arelinked to a particular violation goal, the result-ing policies and the work of staff can fit within aconsistent conceptual framework. It is the har-mony of these beliefs and goals that makes effec-tive work possible.

For example, a jurisdiction believes that the pur-pose of supervision is to encourage the offenderto complete supervision successfully and that itsactions can directly affect the behavior of theoffender in accomplishing this. If one of thejurisdiction’s visions is to respond to all viola-tions swiftly, and the jurisdiction creates a viola-tion goal of responding to each discoveredviolation within 7 working days, it is developinga specific means for accomplishing its broaderpurpose. That is, an offender who knows that heor she will be held accountable for every viola-tion may change or modify his or her behavior ina way that increases the likelihood of his or hersuccessful completion of supervision.

Another example presents a jurisdiction thatholds as one of its core values the belief that itsstaff are capable individuals who can engage incomplex decisionmaking if given proper guidance.This jurisdiction’s vision also includes that allviolations should be responded to in a consistentmanner, so it might establish a violation goal thatthe offender’s risk and the severity of the offenseshould be taken into account when imposingsanctions for a violation. If this jurisdiction devel-ops a decisionmaking tool or matrix to aid staffin determining the types of sanctions that can beimposed for different violations, this would be alogical extension of the values, vision, and goalsof the agency. However, when any of these ele-ments are not in accord with the others, it isdifficult to make sense of the work.

It is also difficult to harmonize visions, goals,and values that are unstated. Your work on theviolation process gives you the opportunity toexplore your vision and goals and clearly articu-late them for your agency. When you attempt toharmonize your core values, vision, and the spe-cific goals of your violation system, you createthe opportunity to harness the true potential ofyour agency.

18

19

Collaboration: A Central Ingredientfor SuccessMadeline M. Carter

C H A P T E R T H R E E

The management of offend-ers who violate the condi-tions of their supervisionmay appear to be an issueof interest to only thosein a supervision agency.Indeed, during the first fiveNIC technical assistanceprojects, the focus of workwas within the supervisionagency. It was evident thatcollaboration within thoseagencies was essential todeveloping and implement-ing meaningful violationpolicy that could beembraced at all levels ofthe supervision agency.However, as the projectscontinued and expanded, itbecame increasingly clearthat internal support is not all that is needed tosuccessfully implement new policies: Equallyimportant is external support.

The Need for External CollaborationViolation policy, although primarily carried outwithin the supervision agency, affects those out-side the agency as well. For example, an agencydevelops new policy to revoke to court alloffenders who fail to participate in court-orderedtreatment. If the judge presiding over these casesagrees with the policy, there will be no friction.But if the court disagrees, the judge can contra-dict the agency’s recommendation by indicatingit is the supervision agency’s responsibility toensure that offenders go to treatment. Theagency’s new policy is called into question, as isits reputation. Consider another scenario: Theprobation agency implements a new response

policy when offenders test positive for drugs.The district attorney, who sharply disagrees withthe approach, is con-vinced that supervi-sion is too lax andargues against proba-tion as a sentencingoption.

Those extreme exam-ples illustrate a point.But consider the fol-lowing situation,which occurred during a visit to one of the NICproject sites. Staff, visiting a jurisdiction new tothe project, were given the opportunity toobserve parole hearings. During one case, theparole officer requested that the board revoke anoffender’s supervision because of a technical vio-lation. Project staff, who were interested in thiscase because the violation seemed relativelyminor, interviewed the parole officer and asked,“What were the factors that led you to bring thiscase forward for a hearing?” The parole officerreplied, “Whenever I bring cases like this to theboard, they always revoke. So I know that this isthe kind of case they don’t want continued onsupervision.” Project staff then interviewed boardmembers and asked a similar question, to whichthey replied, “When officers bring us cases, weknow it is because they feel these offenders areno longer appropriate for community supervi-sion. We demonstrate our support for theirunderstanding of the individual and the caseby granting revocation.”

These examples illustrate the reasons it isimportant to develop violation policy—so thatwe are not doing what we think others wantdone but are doing what we have agreed to do.However, such policy can be developed onlywhen all those affected work together to craft it.

“Whenever I bring caseslike this to the board, theyalways revoke. So I knowthat this is the kind of casethey don’t want continuedon supervision.”

—Parole agent




Agree on goals





Key Stakeholders and Their Interestsin the Violation ProcessWho to involve in the evaluation of existing vio-lation policy—as well as the formation of newpolicy—will depend on the type of jurisdictionand the nature of the offender population. In gen-eral, however, jurisdictions should form a policyteam that includes the head of the supervisionagency and key actors from other agencies thatinfluence or are influenced by violation cases. Forprobation violations, other key officials includethe chief judge or his or her representative, thecourt administrator, the prosecutor, the publicdefender, a county commissioner, and the jailadministrator, and mental health and substanceabuse treatment administrators. For parole viola-tions, key officials include the chair or membersof the paroling authority and top staff, even if theauthority itself is not responsible for supervision.Local jurisdictions working on this issue maywant to consider including key State agency per-sonnel whose assistance and support may be nec-essary to ensure the successful implementationof new policies and practices.

Why include such a broad group? The case forparole board members, judges, and prosecutorswas illustrated in the preceding section. Someof the other stakeholders may seem less obviousbut nonetheless hold equal interest in the viola-tion process. The reasons each stakeholder isimportant follow:

Judges and parole officialsJudges and parole officials have ultimate deci-sionmaking authority over the outcome of a vio-lation. They also express deep concern for thesecases, both because of the harm an offender onsupervision can cause and because of the extremeburden these cases can place on their workload.Their involvement and support are critical to thesuccess of a policy development effort.

ProsecutorsThe participation of prosecutors in the violationprocess varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.In some communities, prosecutors fully partici-pate in violation hearings as they would in anyother criminal matter. In other communities,prosecutors play no visible role in the process.Even in those communities where the prosecu-tor plays a diminished role, his or her participa-tion can help ensure that the work of the teamis a success.

The defense barA number of jurisdictions have developed alter-native methods to respond to technical viola-tions, such as administrative hearing boards andspecial violators’ courts. These responses gener-ally require the violator to waive his or herrights to a due process hearing. It has beenimportant, therefore, to include representativesfrom the local public defender’s office or defensebar on these policy teams. When these membersare part of the development process, the poten-tial for distrust and concern with the resultantstrategies is reduced.

Court administrators and paroleboard staffCourt administrators and parole board staff playa key role in processing violation cases. Theirparticipation will provide valuable insights intothe existing process and better equip jurisdic-tions to consider methods to streamline it.

Mental health staff and substanceabuse treatment providersMental health staff, substance abuse treatmentproviders, and others who provide services tooffenders under supervision can assist the teamin understanding how their services and resourcescan be used as effective interventions withoffenders.

Jail administratorsLocal jail administrators can be extremely help-ful in identifying the number of violators enter-ing the jail during a given period of time and inexplaining the impact of these cases on localresources.

The External Collaboration TeamThe role of the external collaboration team isto assess current violation practices and developand implement, if necessary, new violation poli-cy. To accomplish this, the policy team must:

• Learn about the current violation process.

• Participate in discussions about the strengthsand weaknesses of the current system.

• Discuss and articulate the goals of supervisionand the outcomes to be achieved through theviolation process.

20

• Examine the ways in which the current sys-tem can be strengthened to best meet thosegoals and outcomes.

• Create new policy that explains how to achievethe violation process goals and outcomes.

• Represent the interests of individual con-stituencies throughout this process by periodi-cally updating members on the policy team’swork, soliciting input and feedback at key junc-tures, and ultimately ensuring adequate train-ing of constituency members in the new policyto maximize their support and investment.

• Participate in ongoing efforts to monitor theimpact of the new policy and assess its effec-tiveness in achieving the intended outcomes.

Engaging the participation of key individualsOne of the challenges jurisdictions have facedis gaining the involvement of those outside thesupervision arena. In some cases, supervisionagency administrators have approached prosecu-tors, judges, and others to gain their commit-ment to address this issue collectively. Manyhave found that those policymakers are equallyconcerned about violations. In these cases, anexternal collaboration team can be assembledquite effortlessly.

However, in other instances, this has not beenthe case. The mere mention of “violations”does not always bring policymakers to the tableimmediately. In these situations, the supervisionagency administrator must lay important ground-work to elicit the commitment of other key lead-ers. It is important to consider the concerns ofeach individual being approached. For example,before discussing with the chief judge the needto identify a member of the judiciary to sit onan external collaboration team, gather informa-tion—such as the number of revocations filed ina year, the average length of time from filing tofinal disposition, the number of violators await-ing these hearings who are in jail and how longthey spend in custody, and the average amountof time any single judge spends managing thesecases—that will highlight the importance of thisissue to the bench.

Be prepared to discuss not only the ultimate goalof the effort but also how this issue affects eachagency and what each stands to gain by partici-pating. Depending on the level of resistanceanticipated, you may want to first assemble the

internal collaboration team to gather key infor-mation before approaching external agencies(see chapter 4 about the types of information tocollect and how to gather it).

The Internal Collaboration TeamAn internal collaboration team has two districtroles.

In addition to the external policy team, jurisdic-tions may find it helpful to establish an internalteam in the supervision agency to work in con-junction with the external team. The internalteam can help develop an understanding of thecurrent violation process among administratorsand staff, build support for change within thesupervision agency, and assist the external poli-cy team with its work.

In some jurisdictions, it may not be possible toassemble an external collaboration team. Forexample, key leadership roles are vacant, exter-nal agencies are grappling with other problemsthat divert their attention, or, the issue of proba-tion and parole violations is not a significantenough concern to draw together a policy team.In those cases, the internal collaboration teamplays an even more important role.

MembershipThe internal collaboration team should bechaired by the head of the supervision agency (ora designee in the case of extremely large agen-cies), who should also be a full member of theexternal collaboration team. The internal collab-oration team should be composed of individualswho represent all levels of the agency’s hierarchyand its significant specialized units. The sameselection rule applies to this group as to theexternal team: those individuals or units whoaffect or are affected by violations should be rep-resented. In addition, it is best that this groupinclude newer and more senior staff, as well asthose with different philosophies of the supervi-sion of offenders. The diversity of the teamshould represent the diversity of the overall staffto enable the internal collaboration team mem-bers to quickly surface the interests and con-cerns of their colleagues.

RoleThe role of the internal collaboration team willvary depending on the existence of an externalteam. In the absence of an external team, the

21

internal collaboration team must assume the“visioning” role described previously. Becausethe buy-in of key external leaders is usuallyessential to the successful implementation ofnew policy, it is moredesirable to have theexternal group in placeearly on in the process.When this is not possi-ble, the internal col-laboration team needsto assume responsibili-ty for developing policy. However, the teammust build into its workplan strategies to elicitthe support of the external agencies prior to thepolicy’s implementation.

Whether or not an external collaboration team isin place, the internal team’s goals—developing aninternal understanding of the current violationprocess, building support for change, and assistingthe policy team with its work—can be accom-plished through the following work activities:

• Developing baseline information about thecurrent violation process, including:

— Assisting the policy team to develop a map or flowchart of the violation process.

— Gathering data on those who violate theconditions of their supervision and theresponses to those violations.

— Collecting data on those who do not violatethe conditions of their supervision.

• Reviewing existing policy on responding toviolations.

• Determining how officers are trained to man-age violations, including conducting inter-views with staff (personally or by supportingthe work of an objective outsider) and review-ing training curriculums.

• Assisting in the development of new policyand tools to carry it out.

• Keeping supervision agency staff informed ofthe overall process, garnering input at appropri-ate times, and addressing colleagues’ concerns.

• Developing systems to monitor the impact ofthe new policy.

• Assisting in the development and delivery ofstaff training programs on the new policies.

• Participating in the ongoing monitoring of theviolation policy to determine its effectivenessin achieving the stated outcomes.

LeadershipArguably the single most important ingredientto the success of this effort is leadership. Fromwhere will it come? Occasionally, it comes froma judge or prosecutor who is particularly interest-ed in the violation response issue. Jurisdictionsthat have had the greatest impact in this area,however, found that leadership most often comesfrom within the supervision agency. For reasonsthat will become clear in this handbook, how anagency responds to violations has everything todo with how the agency views its role and itsvision.

Leadership from the agency’s midlevel managersis also essential. Those individuals—the supervi-sors who oversee, guide, and monitor the lineofficers’ work—can singlehandedly make orbreak this effort. Without support and commit-ment from midlevel managers, officers will notbe encouraged to behave or think differentlyabout how they respond to violations. Agencyadministrators need to work closely with thiskey internal group and make every effort toensure their buy-in and support.

Critically important to this work as well is thesupport and investment of line staff, who ulti-mately will be the key to change in the agency.Vision, goals, and external support will createthe framework for the work, and clear policywill explain how it is to be implemented.However, staff support or resistance ultimatelywill determine the extent to which implementa-tion is successful. During the NIC-sponsoredprojects, we repeatedly observed line staff whowere heavily invested in their work and whokeenly understood what was not working effec-tively. Line staff often can offer creative andpractical solutions that policymakers cannot see.Although line staff may at first be reluctant,their reaction is generally the result of uncleardirection or fear of increasing work demands.However, as line staff become involved in identi-fying the goals to be addressed and crafting themethods to achieve them, resistance will bereplaced by shared vision and investment.

22

How an agency respondsto violations has every-thing to do with how theagency views its role andits vision.

An Inclusive Process: The SingleMost Important Ingredient forSuccessThe process of understanding current violationpractice and developing new goal-driven policyshould be highly inclusive. Beginning withstrong leadership from the administrator andmanagers of the supervision agency, guided byan external stakeholder group that represents

those who affect or are affected by the violationprocess, and supported by an internal collabora-tion team, a jurisdiction should be well posi-tioned to make significant and long-lastingprogress in this area. Exercise 3–1 has beendeveloped to guide teams through the types ofwork activities that might be undertaken andthe support and stakeholder involvement it willbe important to secure to ensure success.

23

The goal of this work session is to identify the scope of work your jurisdiction will under-take and the individuals who are essential to make your effort a success.

1. Many agencies have all or some of the following: an agency mission statement; a state-ment of supervision philosophy; a statement of values and principles underlying super-vision and violation practices; a list of specific procedures; a delineation of roles (whatthe supervisor does, what a line agent does, etc.); operating principles; training curricu-lums that introduce staff to policy and practice; and a set of tools, forms, or instrumentsthat assist staff in effectively carrying out the policy. List those you need to develop tocreate a structure for practice in your jurisdiction.

2. What policies and/or tools does your jurisdiction need to put into place to ensure that violations are responded to more effectively?

A. If policy is needed, outline what the policy should contain.

B. If tools (e.g., decisionmaking matrixes, violation response guidelines) are needed, describe their purpose and what they should contain.

3. Outline the content of each element. Answer the following questions for each: Forwhich audience is this intended? For what will it be used? What major content itemsshould it include?

4. Who has to be “on board” to make this work? List the essential agencies and the levelsof hierarchy from those agencies that are important to the development and implemen-tation of the noted items.

5. Consider those who could present obstacles to your efforts. Are all of these individualsincluded on your list under number 4?

6. Consider how best to engage these critical individuals and agencies in your work.

Developing a Policy Framework to Guide the Violation Process



The Importanceof BaselineInformation to thePolicy DevelopmentProcess1

Baseline information aboutthe violation and revoca-tion process is critical tounderstanding how viola-tions currently are handledin a jurisdiction. The infor-mation can help a policyteam formulate questionsabout the violation and rev-ocation process and arriveat answers. Because of theirday-to-day familiarity withthe system, policymakersoften believe they knoweverything they need to know to affect decision-making. However, policymakers repeatedly havebeen surprised by what these data reveal—resultsthat often differ from their perceptions or beliefsabout what is happening. Without solid data,jurisdictions are forced to make best guesses onchange strategies and, therefore, cannot developthe informed policies and practices that areessential for achieving the outcomes and goalsthey envision for their criminal justice system.

Additional reasons for establishing baseline datainclude the following:

Information and data are critical to effectiveproblem solving. Policymakers generally do nothave occasion to examine violation and revoca-tion practices, and, therefore, these practices areoften not understood by those in the criminaljustice system.

Policymakers often have a limited view of thesystem and those affected by it. For example, inone jurisdiction, the prosecutor did not realizethat the way he scheduled violation cases creat-ed conflicts with other agencies’ schedules,which in turn created bottlenecks in the process-ing of violation cases. Once the policy teambegan reviewing data from a systemwide per-spective, the prosecutor was able to see howsomething as simple as scheduling cases couldaffect everyone else in the system.

To match responses to violation behavior andhold offenders accountable for their behavior,policymakers must understand the type ofoffenders in their system as well as the capacityand purposes of the existing range of optionsavailable to respond to offenders’ violationbehavior. Policymakers often make assumptionsabout the offender population and the range ofoptions available for responding to violationbehavior.

To understand the impact of new policies andpractices and to monitor progress toward achiev-ing specific goals, policymakers must have bothbefore (baseline) and after information. This chap-ter addresses the before picture; see chapter 9 fora discussion on monitoring, the after picture.

Baseline data can provide a clear understandingof what is currently happening with respect toviolation policies and practices and can help toform a vision for how such policies and practicesmight work differently in the future. A basicassumption of this approach is that, to makerational, informed policy decisions, a detailedexamination of current practice is necessary.Developing a complete picture of current prac-tice requires more than simply compiling a listof responses available or documenting the writ-ten policy of a probation agency. Developing thatpicture also involves understanding supervision

Developing Baseline Information:Understanding Current Policy and PracticeBecki Ney and Donna Reback

C H A P T E R F O U R

25




Agree on goals





practices and gathering information that mayexist only in the individual experiences of staffoccupying different roles at different levels inthe agency (see diagram 4–1).

Understanding baseline dataThe problem with understanding violation prac-tices is that no single person usually sees orunderstands the process in its entirety. Criminaljustice decisionmakers come in contact withand experience different parts of the violationprocess and see those separate parts from theirown unique perspectives. Baseline data, if it is tobe used to improve the system, must paint a pic-ture that is understood as a system—the entirecollaboration team. That is, it is not enough tosimply collect information; it must be synthe-sized and understood by everyone involved tounderstand the picture as a whole.

The process of gathering information and dataabout current violation policies and practicesshould be viewed as a collaborative endeavorto synthesize individuals’ experiences and quan-titative information into a shared understandingof how things currently work. This provides acommon base on which to evaluate the present,shape a common vision for the future, and makethat vision a reality.

How do I begin?The most effective strategy for gaining a sharedunderstanding of the entire violation and revoca-tion picture is to complete a map or flowchart ofthe violation process. This map documents allthe decision points in the violation process, thedecisionmakers at each of those points, and theflow of offenders through the process. The mapincludes statistics in every decision box (such asthe number of offenders for whom citations areused and the number receiving warrants, and the

number of revocations filed and the number offilings resulting in each potential disposition)and depicts the amount of time from one step tothe next. Exercises 4–1 through 4–3 offer guid-ance on how to do this. Exhibit 4–1 presents aprocess flowchart containing these critical piecesof information.

Mapping the violation process as a team canaccomplish the following.

• It brings criminal justice system policymakersand agency staff together to articulate whatdecisions they make, how they arrive at thosedecisions, and the points in time throughoutthe violation process that these decisions aremade.

• It quickly points out what is known and notknown about the violation process and canhelp establish research priorities for the team.

• It educates policy team members about the vio-lation process as a whole and the impact eachindividual team member has on the others.

If used as a planning framework, mapping canprovide a complete picture of the violationprocess—one that is understood by the entireteam rather than by a single agency or a fewindividuals.

The initial development of a map can take froma few hours to several days to complete, depend-ing on how much information needs to be gath-ered or discussed and how complex the violationprocess is in that jurisdiction. The mappingprocess itself is highly instructive, but the prod-uct is also a useful tool. Consider the map asan aid to future policy discussions and identifi-cation of needed work activities. Discussionsabout the map may result in additional data col-lection, a change in procedure, or a new sanction.

26

Advantages of Conducting an Analysis of Current Practice

D I A G R A M 4–1.

Understanding current practice provides an appreciation of the complexity of the process and the time invest-ed in it by probation and parole officers, prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, and other court officials.Understanding the duration of the process is important to assessing its efficiency.

Examining options currently available to probation and parole officers is an important step in ensuring thatsupervision staff have adequate resources to respond to violations.

Understanding key decision points and who the decisionmakers are is important to determine who is manag-ing the current process and the information available to them as key decisions are made.

As an initial set of activities, jurisdictions should develop baseline information reflectingthe current process of managing violations and the impact of those violations on the localcommunity. The items below detail the work activities involved in developing this baselinepicture.

1. Document existing policies guiding responses to probation and/or parole violations.Review and summarize policies and procedures, memorandums of understanding, etc.,from all relevant agencies.

2. Document existing practices that shape the ultimate responses to probation and/orparole violations. Examine informal decisionmaking processes and their roots, and ana-lyze the practices of each relevant agency (e.g.: How do supervising agents determinewhen a probation or parole officer has responded to a violation? Does the prosecutor’soffice participate in some violation hearings but not others? Have system actors devel-oped a practice of punishing violators with a set number of days in the local jail undercertain circumstances?).

3. Document the existing violations process. Develop a flowchart reflecting each decisionpoint in the process and the decisionmakers involved at each point. Reflect the time-span from point to point on the flowchart as well as the volume of cases that flowthrough each point over a given period of time.

4. Document the use of system resources on violators. Measure the use of jail bed days,the types of admissions, and the lengths of stay for all violators and for select sub-groups of violators. Measure the use of personnel resources invested in the violationsprocess.

5. Document violation and revocation rates. Determine the number of offenders whocommitted violations in a given period of time, the actual revocation rates and theconcurrence rates between revocations recommended to the court or parole boardby probation or parole staff and those actually revoked.

6. Document existing data collection systems to monitor probation or parole violationactivity and impact. Identify and describe the extent to which the criminal justice systemcan capture and analyze information on the violator population and the impact of thispopulation on the system.

7. Document the range of sanctions available to respond to violations. Identify andsummarize each violation response and intermediate sanction available to criminaljustice actors as they attempt to respond effectively to probation or parole violations.Document the extent to which these responses and sanctions are used for violators.

Developing Baseline Information: Summary of Information to Be Analyzed



27

Reflect back on the map to determine, for exam-ple, how the addition of a new sanction or themodification of current practice will affect theprocess. View the map as an ongoing planningtool, a benchmark against which progress towardspecific goals can be measured (e.g., creating amore efficient process). It often is easier to effec-tively plan new processes when it is possible tovisualize their integration with, and impact on,the rest of the system.

A second strategy for beginning the process ofestablishing baseline data is to engage the policyteam members in a discussion about their beliefs

and perceptions about the violation process. Dopolicymakers feel overwhelmed by the volumeof violation cases flowing through the system? Isthe revocation rate, according to policymakers’opinions, too high or too low? How adequateis the range of available responses to violationbehavior? Providing data and information tofacilitate these discussions can confirm view-points or suggest new areas of needed work.Data and information that inform policymakers’views about the process can immediately engagethem in understanding the violation process andcan help focus efforts on those issues that aremost important to those affected by the process.

28

DA District attorneyDef. DefendantDef. Atty. Defense attorneyLE Law enforcement officerMag. MagistratePO Probation officerSup. Supervisor

KEY

* Per statute** If this is a new offense, revocation trails the new case. If defendant is in custody, hearing is within 15 days. If defendant is not in custody, hearing is within an average of 6 months.

SupervisionViolationoccurs

2

24 hrs

48 hrs

48 hrs

5 days*

1–3 days

Newoffense

3

PO detects technical violation

via collateral

information 4

PO learnsof newoffense

DA learns of violation via victim,

etc. 6

PO handlescase

10

Summons/complaint (PO, Sup.)

7

Booked in jail(LE)

8

Bond hearing before

magistrate(Mag., DA, Def.,

PO, LE) 11

PO gathers information, reviews and

analyzes (PO, Sup.)

9

Staff case with

supervisor

12

5

1

Release

Probation hold

placed (PO) 14

Decision: file complaint (PO, Sup.): Violation Review Board

15

Decision: warrant

(PO, Sup.)

Decision: summons (PO, Sup.)

Notice to appear

before Violation Review Board

18

Review with supervisor or

delegate (PO, Sup., or other)

Violation Review Board

decision 20

1–3 days

5 days*

5 days*

13

16

17

19

Violation and Revocation Flowchart (Weld County, Colorado)E X H I B I T 4–1.

29

Back to supervision

File complaint

2–6 weeks

1–3 days

5 days

2–6 weeks

Impose administrative

sanctions 22

File reviews and request for warrant/summons or bond

set without hearing (Mag.,

PO, Sup.)

Issue summons (PO, Court)

24

Issue warrant: bond set (Court)

Arrest (LE)

26

Bonded/not bonded

(Mag., Def., or Judge)

27

First appearance

hearing set in original court (Judge, Mag.,

DA, Def. Atty., Def.)** 28

21

23

25

Hearing on revocation (Judge, DA, Def. Atty., PO, Def.,

Mag.)

Violation admitted (PO, Def. Atty., DA,

Def.)

30

Outcome found

(Judge)

Outcome not found

(Judge)

32

Terminate the case

Immediate sentencing (Judge, DA, Def. Atty., Def., PO)

Alternative program (Judge)

Update presentence investigation

(all above) 36

Back to court for

sentencing (Judge, DA,

Def Atty., Def., PO)

37

Specialized programs

38

Probation 39

Community corrections

40

Department of Corrections

41

Private probation

42

Fine 43

Jail 44

6 weeksSameday

Useful public service

Electronic home monitoring

46

3129

33

34

35

45

30

The goal of this work session is to provide teams with a framework for reviewing theirviolation flowchart—both to assess its completeness and to explore its implications.

1. Review the violations flowchart; as a group, answer the following questions:

• Stages of the process. How effectively does the flowchart capture the stages of the violation process? Are all of the steps accounted for?

• Time elapse of the process. Does the flowchart reflect the time it takes to pass from one stage to the next? Is the time elapse based on an estimation or a more objective measure?

• Decisionmakers and influencers of the process. Does the flowchart reflect the individuals who are key decisionmakers and influencers at each stage in the process?

• Volume of cases. Does the flowchart reflect the volume of cases that move through each stage of the process?

2. Review the questions and discuss the implications of each of these items. For example,does the flowchart help to identify any points that could be streamlined or otherwisemade more efficient? Do the data reflect a large number of cases following a particularpath that should be altered (e.g., in the majority of cases, a warrant is used when asummons might work as effectively)? Are there long time delays that could be reduced?Are many violators moving through the violation process, only to be returned to super-vision with no change in their conditions? Make a list of the issues you identify throughyour discussions as well as their implications.

How Complete Is Your Map?



The goal of this work session is to provide jurisdictions with a framework for reviewing thedata they have collected about the violation process as well as the policies and informalpractices that guide the process. In addition, this exercise includes questions teams shouldanswer about the range of violation behavior responses available in their communities.

1. Your team has undertaken a process to collect data about the violation process in yourjurisdiction. Briefly review the findings of these data collection efforts. What are themajor conclusions, and what are their implications? What additional information needsto be collected to provide an accurate picture of the violation process?

2. On close examination, many jurisdictions find little in the way of formal policy to guidethe violation process. Discuss the formal policies in place in your jurisdiction. What ismissing?

3. What have you learned about the informal practices that have developed in youragency with regard to responding to violations? What are their implications?

4. To respond effectively to violations, supervision staff need “tools” in their “toolbox” torespond to the variety of needs and noncompliant behaviors of offenders under super-vision. Has your team developed a comprehensive inventory of the resources availableto officers to respond to violation behaviors? (If not, begin to do so.) What distinguishesone type of response from another? How can guidance be provided to staff on whichresponse is appropriate under a particular set of circumstances?

What Do You Know About Violations in Your Jurisdiction?



A third strategy is to review existing data. Whatdata currently are in automated information sys-tems? Are these data local or State level? Whatdata are produced on a regular basis that can befound in agency annual reports? An initial teammeeting devoted to reviewing existing data mayhelp identify gaps in the data and whether thecurrently available information can answer teammembers’ questions. It will likely produce addi-tional research questions that respond to theteam’s immediate concerns about violations.

Methods of Capturing BaselineInformationMapping the violation process can help policy-makers understand the stages of the process, thevolume of cases that flow through the system,and the time span between decision points. Itcan also identify bottlenecks in the system, deci-sion points where information is critical, andstrategies for making the process more efficient.Policymakers should also consider collecting andanalyzing other categories of baseline informa-tion when developing new policies (see diagram4–2 for a more detailed discussion of the key cat-egories of information).

Document existing policies that guideviolation responsesFirst, gather the formal policy—including writ-ten procedures, memorandums, and other mate-rials—that exists within agencies on how andwhen they respond to violations. Look for train-ing materials that are provided to new staff todetermine whether they contain guidance onhandling these cases. This type of information istypically found within the supervision agency,but the prosecutor’s office and others may alsohave documented guidance for staff. These docu-ments will offer an excellent understanding ofthe formal direction provided to staff regardinghow to respond to violation cases.

Document existing practices and atti-tudes that shape violation responsesConsider the informal decisionmaking processesthat exist in each agency. For example, how dosupervising officers determine when to respondto a violation? Do they make this decision inde-pendently, consult a peer, or seek approval froma supervisor? If officers deviate from official poli-cy, are they consistent? That is, are all officersfollowing the same practice, or is each officer

acting independently? Does the prosecutor’soffice participate in some violation hearings butnot others? Do judges generally agree with thesupervision officers’ recommendations forresponding to violations, or do they frequentlyreturn revokees with no change in the terms oftheir supervision?

Document the offender populationToo often, policymakers do not have offenderprofiling data available on which to make sen-tencing and sanctioning decisions.2 What are therates of revocation and the characteristics of thispopulation? How does this population comparewith the population of offenders whose proba-tion or parole is not revoked? What are the num-ber and types of violations? Are there any trendsor patterns that can be noted about the violatorpopulation?

Document the range of options avail-able to respond to violation behaviorsThe full range of options available to respond toviolation behavior is often not known by allcriminal justice system actors. What is the fullrange of options available, and are they used?Are some options more fully used than others?Are there significant gaps in the range ofresponses that is available?

Document the impact of violations andrevocations on criminal justice systemresourcesWhat is the impact of current responses to viola-tions and revocations on the rest of the criminaljustice system? How much time do probation offi-cers spend “making the case” for a revocation?Are disproportionate resources spent on violators?For example, offender population analyses con-ducted in Macomb County, Michigan,3 and SuffolkCounty, New York, revealed that a significantnumber of jail bed days were consumed by viola-tors detained awaiting court hearings. Both juris-dictions were able to take actions that resulted ina reduced use of jail beds for violators. Exhibits 4–2and 4–3 provide types of information that can begathered through these documentation efforts.

Assess the supports to the criminaljustice system that affect the policyteams’ ability to effect changeAdequate staff, training, and research and infor-mation system capacities are necessary to

31

32

Category What Is It? Where Is It? How Do I Get It?

Current Written policies and Agency operating • Make a list of all the agencies and statutes policies procedures, legislation, manuals, staff training that guide violation and revocation

court decisions curriculums, State statutes, decisionmaking. State sentencing policies • Compile written documents from each.

• Note all policies that affect the violation process.

Current Perceptions and attitudes Qualitative information • Make a list of the agency personnel and practices of staff, decisionmakers, to be collected through decisionmakers who make violation and and policymakers interviews, focus groups, revocation decisions. attitudes surveys • Determine the questions and information to

be ascertained from them.• Conduct focus groups, interviews, or mail

questionnaires.• Summarize information.

Offender Statistical and Automated information • Make a list of the questions and/or types population quantitative information systems in the court, of information desired about the offender profiling about the offender probation, parole, population.

population corrections; manual records • Develop a data collection instrument and/or such as offender files or list of variables to be collected. court records • Determine a strategy for collecting and

analyzing the data.

Range of All of the violation Embedded in agency • Develop a list of all available responses options responses currently policy, statutes to violation behavior.

available and the extent • Determine what is known about each to which they are used response and develop a strategy for

compiling this information.• Consider developing a directory for super-

vising agents that documents the range of available responses and the types of violationbehavior that might warrant the use of each response.

• Consider whether there are gaps in the existing range of options.

Impact on Behaviors, resource Agencies, governments, • Make a list of all the agencies affectedresources implications, impacts of and communities that are by the violation process.

the violation process on affected by the violation • Determine how they are affected. Whatother parts of the system process impact do violations have on jail beds, for

example? Are there costly bottlenecks in the violation process? What is the impact of the process on the court? What is the impact on supervision and agency workload?

Supports Staffing, information Data processing, court • Catalog the list of data variables, routineto the system capacity, and corrections’ information reports, and data collected from all relevant system operating support systems, staffing information systems.

complements, budgets • Match this list (of what is in place) against what information and data is needed about the offender population, flow, and sanctions (what should be in place).

• Identify the gaps in the information system capacity and what stopgaps and long-term measures will be required to address the deficiencies.

• Assess adequacy of staffing and budget resources.

Other Additional information Perceptions and attitudes, • Determine if there are critical issues about types of that will enhance what attitudes, possibly which more information is needed to enhance information is known about the information systems (or even challenge) current policy or practice.

current violation process • Determine a strategy for collecting the information.

Getting Started: What Information Do I Need to Collect, Where Is It, and How Do I Get It?

D I A G R A M 4–2.

33

How long does it take to move from detection of a violation through court disposition?The estimated average ranges from 44 to 64 days.

Who is involved in the process?Probation, prosecution, courts, law enforcement, jail administration, service providers.

What mechanism is used to bring a probationer into the violation process?Eighteen percent receive summonses.Eighty-two percent have warrants issued against them.

Length andComplexityof theRevocationProcess

Dispositionof Motionsto Revoke

For WhatViolationsDo ProbationOfficers FileMotions toRevoke?

Examples of Results of Statistical Analyses of Violation Practice

E X H I B I T 4–2.

undertake these data collection activities and,ultimately, to achieve the types of outcomes andlong-lasting policy changes envisioned by crimi-nal justice policymakers. In most jurisdictions,staff are not available to undertake researchefforts, and few probation officers have the tech-nical skills necessary to conduct an analysis ofthe offender population or the jurisdiction’s revo-cation rate. In addition, automated informationthat can inform policymaking may be limited,not retrievable in a form that can be understoodand used by policymakers, or, worse, absent alto-gether. Many agencies lack the supports needed

to aid informed decisionmaking. By workingtogether, agencies can pool resources to createthese supports or identify new resources for them.

Document other types of informationas appropriateBased on a jurisdiction’s circumstances and poli-cymaking environment, other types of informa-tion may be important to collect as well. Forexample, some probation agencies are surveyingcommunity members about their perceptions ofthe criminal justice system.

Prisona 94 36.0 2.50Jaila 8 3.0 0.21Jail with probationa 56 21.0 1.50Probation with conditionsb 4 1.5 0.10Probationb 100 38.0 2.60

a. Incarcerative sanctions 158 60.0 4.21b. Nonincarcerative sanctions 104 39.5 2.70

Percent of Percent of Total Disposition Number Dispositions Probation Population

Positive urinalysis 27.0Failure to participate in treatment 20.0Absconding 18.5New felony 12.0Failure to report 10.0New misdemeanor 4.0All other technical 8.5

Types Percent

34

E X H I B I T 4–3.

Violation Type

Absconder Technical Cases With No New Arrests

All Cases Violations Only New Arrests OnlyTimeframe (N=177) (n=56) (n=18) (n=12)

Average time from sentence date to rearrest date (new arrest cases) N/A N/A N/A 471 days

Average time from rearrest date to VOP filing date (new arrests only) N/A N/A N/A 53 days

Average time from sentence date to VOP filing date 539 days 523 days 595 days N/A

Average time from VOP filing date to VOP disposition date 176 days 173 days 131 days 198 days

Percent of cases taking longer than 6 months from VOP filing to disposition 40% 35% 19% 42%

Percent of cases taking longer than 1 year from VOP filing to disposition 12% 12% 13% 17%

VOP = violation of probationN/A = not applicable

Case Processing Time of Violations

Diagram 4–2 provides a summary of each of thecategories of baseline data to consider collecting,potential locations of the data, and some sugges-tions for how to begin collecting them. Theinformation, which is illustrative only and notinclusive, is an overview of how to begin collect-ing baseline information and developing a viola-tions map.

Collecting Baseline InformationCollecting baseline information involves bothquantitative and qualitative information gather-ing. The following describes the kinds of quanti-tative, or statistical, information a jurisdictionmay consider collecting and the qualitativeinformation that will also inform this process.

Gathering quantitative informationDeveloping a quantitative understanding of thecharacteristics related to the volume and typesof cases processed within a certain timeframe isimportant for gathering baseline information.Access to an automated information system willfacilitate the collection and analyses of this

information, but it is not essential. There aremultiple ways to collect the needed information.

Once a jurisdiction elects to undertake a data-building effort, the mechanics of data collectionand analysis will depend on the technical capaci-ty of local information systems. No jurisdictionhas the ideal data collection technology; in fact,many find their systems provide little, if any,valuable information effortlessly. Thus, a lack ofautomated technology should not deter yourefforts. A jurisdiction undertaking this type ofeffort must find ways to collect, aggregate, andanalyze data on a periodic basis.4

To understand more about the offender popula-tion, the impact of violations on resources, andthe violation process, consider the data ele-ments listed in diagram 4–3. A jurisdictionneeds to know how many offenders it is serving,what level of seriousness and risk these offend-ers represent, and how they are being sanc-tioned. Exhibits 4–4 and 4–5 provide examplesof findings from two jurisdictions following thecompletion of their baseline data analyses.

35

The purpose of the Macomb County Probation Violation Project was to study agent/judicialresponses to technical rule violation behavior. To that end, all formal probation violationsand 50 informal violations occurring in 1991 were reviewed. Violations in which the offendercommitted a new felony were included in data collection but separated for analysis. Thedata that remained represented the "technical rule violator population" in Macomb Countyin 1991. Some highlights are noted below, followed by what we feel are the most significantfindings.

• 40 percent of formal cases resulted in revocation.

• 54 percent of all cases received some jail or prison time as a response to the violation. Ofthose receiving incarceration, 40 percent were revoked, and 14 percent were continued.

• 60 percent of formal probation violations were continued on probation with the followingoutcomes:

— 1 percent received new or modified conditions of probation.— 33 percent received extended terms.— 24 percent received jail time.— 22 percent had other actions.— 5 percent had no changes made to their probation.— 5 percent of the outcomes were unknown due to missing data.

• Four probation agents, representing 17 percent of the agent workforce, brought 32 percentof all formal violations before the court but accounted for 45 percent of the cases thatended in revocation.

• Five other agents, representing 21 percent of the agent workforce, were responsible for 33percent of all formal violation activity but only 23 percent of all cases in which revocationoccurred.

• Three judges, or 19 percent of all the judges, accounted for 48 percent of all cases involv-ing revocation.

• Three other judges were responsible for only 17 percent of all revocations.

Findings From Macomb County, Michigan, Data Analysis (Excerpt)

Findings

E X H I B I T 4–4.

Gathering Data on the Overall Criminal Justice Population of the Jurisdiction

D I A G R A M 4–3.

How many violators are incarcerated in jail orprison? Of these, identify:

• The number of felony convictions.

• The percentage of felony convictions.

• The number of misdemeanor convictions.

• The percentage of misdemeanor convictions.

What is the criminal history for those incarceratedin jail or prison? Of these, identify:

• The number with prior felony convictions.

• The number with prior misdemeanor convictions.

How many offenders are under community supervi-sion (probation or parole)? Of these, identify:

• The number of felony convictions.

• The percentage of felony convictions.

• The number of misdemeanor convictions.

• The percentage of misdemeanor convictions.

What is the criminal history for those on probationor parole? Of these, identify:

• The number with prior felony convictions.

• The number with prior misdemeanor convictions.

continued

36


• The three major reasons for technical violations, in order of frequency, were:

— Failure to report.— Nonpayment of fines, costs, restitution, etc.— Misdemeanor behavior.

• Probationers whose probation was revoked were similar to those whose probation wascontinued, although three characteristics of those whose probation was revoked werefound to have been statistically significant. Those with revoked probation were morelikely to:

— Have a history of substance abuse.— Have committed a misdemeanor behavior as a violation.— Have been arrested at a younger age.

• Of the 54 percent of cases in which incarceration was an outcome of the petition to revoke,22 percent were sent to prison, 43 percent received more than 90 days in jail, and theremaining 35 percent received less than 90 days in jail. Thus, when incarceration was anoutcome of the violation, 65 percent of cases received 90 days or more.

• Of the 54 percent receiving incarceration, 74 percent also had their probation revoked.

• Individual decisionmaking by agents and judges is highly significant in the violation procedure.

• The purpose of the violation process is not consistent among agents or judges, based ontheir differing rates of revocation.

• The general risk of the offender does not appear to be an explicit factor in the violationprocess.

• The violation process is not systematic.

• Agent responses to violations are more likely based on individual values rather thandepartment objectives and expectations.

• Use of jail tended to be linked to revocation of probation.

• When incarceration was used in disposition, terms tended to be lengthy (65 percentreceived more than 90 days), and the term of probation was generally revoked (74 per-cent). Short jail terms (less than 90 days) were used in only 35 percent of the casesreceiving incarceration and only 14 percent were continued on probation.

Findings From Macomb County, Michigan, Data Analysis (Excerpt)

SomeConclusions

the rate of new criminal activity over time and,through cross-tabulations, associate different vio-lation behaviors with these changes. If rates ofnew arrests and convictions decrease over a peri-od after the policy is implemented, the implica-tion is that the policy is having a positive effecton public safety and, concurrently, the ability ofoffenders to successfully fulfill probation andsentence conditions.

The data described in diagram 4–6 can be usefulfor a jurisdiction’s budget and resource planningwork. Clearly, if revocations to incarcerationdecrease as a result of a new violation policy,investments in incarcerative space may decrease.At the same time, although there may be a

The information described in diagram 4–4 specifi-cally addresses probationers and parolees. Withthis type of information, a jurisdiction can identifythe percentage of offenders by their risk categoriesand cross-tabulate this with the circumstancesof their violations. By monitoring over time, pol-icymakers can assess what affect new violationpractices are having on offender behavior, thesystem’s response to violations, and the degreeto which policies manage different levels of riskamong the offender population.

The information described in diagram 4–5 isrelated to the impact of policies on offenderrecidivism and public safety. With this type ofinformation, a jurisdiction can track changes in

37

• 28.7 percent of parolesended in a parole viola-tion.

• 4.0 percent had a newcommitment for a newoffense.

• 23.5 percent had a viola-tion for conditions.

• 1.1 percent were contin-ued on parole afterbeing admitted toprison for a violationof conditions.

A random sample of 115 parole violations from 1994 provided the following reasons:

Number of Percent ofViolation Occurrences Total Comments

New crime 33 28.7%

Arrest 1 0.9 52.5% included only a single allegation

Absconding 20 17.4 47.5% included multiple allegations

Alcohol or drug violation 38 33.0

Failing a program 16 13.9

Changing residence 5 4.3

Failure to report 2 1.7

• In 1982, 8 percent of parolees went to prison for a new commitment, and 11 percent went toprison for a violation of parole conditions.

• By 1986, this had increased to 15 percent for new commitments and 19 percent for conditionviolations.

• Violations of conditions reached a high point in 1991 (44 percent). This was reduced to 40percent in 1995.

• The rate of prison admissions for violations of conditions has increased dramatically since1986, while the rate of new commitments has decreased.

Source: UtahDepartment of

Corrections, 1996.

Example of Baseline Analysis of Past Parole Violations in Utah

1995 ParoleViolations

E X H I B I T 4–5.

Reasons for ParoleViolationsin 1994

181 new commitments

1,055 conditions violations only

50 continued on parole after

prison admission

4,485 total parole population

1,286 parole violation

admissions to prison

Rates of New PrisonCommitmentsfor ParoleesandViolations of ParoleConditions

50

40

30

20

10

01982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994

New commitment rate

Condition violations rate

Year

Per

cen

t

38

Gathering Data on Probation and Parole Populations Involved in Violation Actions

D I A G R A M 4–4.

What number and type of original conviction offenses within the pool of violators result in:

• A technical violation with a return to supervision?

• A new law violation with a return to supervision?

• A technical violation with a revocation to incarceration?

• A new law violation with a revocation to incarceration?

What number of lower risk offenders commit:

• A technical violation with a return to supervision with new conditions?

• A new law violation with a return to supervision with new conditions?



What number of higher risk offenders commit:

• A technical violation with a return to supervision with new conditions?

• A new law violation with a return to supervision with new conditions?



Gathering Data on the Level of Criminal Activity in the Jurisdiction

D I A G R A M 4–5.

• Number of new felony arrests for pro-bationers or parolees.

• Number of new misdemeanor arrestsfor probationers or parolees.

• Number of new felony convictions forprobationers or parolees.

• Number of new misdemeanor convic-tions for probationers or parolees.

• Types of circumstances prompting tech-nical violations, for both complianceviolations and new law violations.

Criminal activity is measured by the:

perceived cost savings based on a reduced needfor jail or prison beds, this data will help targetthe additional resources the jurisdiction willneed to invest in nonincarcerative interventions(e.g., additional probation staff, additional treat-ment, surveillance technology, employment andskill-building services) to maintain violators inintermediate sanctions.

Gathering qualitative information

Interviewing as an information-gathering activity

Too often, policies are developed without inputfrom the people charged with implementingthem; it is vitally important to talk with system

players who are responsible for carrying out thesepolicies. Key policymakers—such as judges, pros-ecutors, defense attorneys, probation and paroleadministrators, and, potentially most important,line staff who supervise offenders and are respon-sible for filing violation motions—are amongthose who must be interviewed.

Why gather information from those responsiblefor implementing these policies? Understandinghow and why individuals are making decisions;developing a sense of appreciation for the level ofconsistency among the approaches to violationsacross and within agencies; gathering from theseindividuals their thoughts regarding challenges,potentials, and suggestions for improvement; and

39

Gathering Qualitative Data: Suggested Interview Areas

D I A G R A M 4–7.

• How do judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys view the probation or parole authori-ty’s decisionmaking practices?

• To what extent is there clarity about the circumstances that prompt the filing of a violation?

• Is violation policy in a written form that everyone has seen, or is it implicitly understoodthrough a pattern of practices that has evolved over time?

• Is there a common understanding of the policy that guides violation decisionmaking?

• To what extent are the recommendations from the probation or parole agency generallyaccepted?

• To what extent are recommendations rejected?

• Under what circumstances are violation recommendations made by probation or parolestaff not accepted?

• What is the quality of working relationships between the probation or parole agency andthe courts, the prosecutor, and the defense?

• How do each of these constituencies describe the purpose of the violation process?

• What outcomes do judges and prosecutors seek through a technical violation?

• What changes in policy would be desirable?

• What changes in practice and procedure would be desirable?

Gathering Data on the Impact of Criminal Justice Resources in the Jurisdiction

D I A G R A M 4–6.

• Range of intermediate sanctions used tosupervise technical violators.

• Range of intermediate sanctions used tosupervise new law violators.

• Length of supervision for technical viola-tors returned to supervision.

• Length of supervision for new law viola-tors returned to supervision.

• Length of stay for technical violatorsrevoked to incarceration.

• Length of stay for new law violatorsrevoked to incarceration.

Use of criminal justice resources can be measured by the:

Interviewing probation and parole line staff.Ultimately, probation and parole line staff,including supervisors, have substantial influenceon how violation policies are implemented intheir agencies. Policymakers should understandhow well judges, prosecutors, and defense attor-neys understand, agree with, and adhere to poli-cies; it is imperative to determine the same offield staff. Because probation and parole staff areresponsible for the supervision of offenders, theirfamiliarity with the individual circumstances ofeach case can greatly affect their responses totechnical and new law violations. For staff work-ing in an environment in which policy has beenimplicit, the opportunity to exercise discretionis considerable. But, even with explicit policy

knowing what it would take to gain widespreadsupport for policy changes are all essential piecesof information and equally as valuable as the quan-titative data that have been described previously.

Interviewing judges, prosecutors, and defenseattorneys. Because probation and parole agentsmost commonly initiate motions to revoke, it isvital to gauge the level of confidence that judges,prosecutors, and defense attorneys have in theseagents. It is also critical to pinpoint where con-sensus exists around violation policy and wherethere is disagreement. Diagram 4–7 identifiesqualitative information that should be collectedthrough an interview process.

40

guided by assessment tools and decision matri-ces, discretion must be available. The questionis, how widely does its exercise lead to or divertfrom the achievement of the policy’s goals?Because of this, it is important to explore theattitudes and beliefs that underlie the agents’decisions. Exhibit 4–6, an excerpt from a report,is an example of what one jurisdiction learnedfrom these kinds of interviews.

Interviewing methods

There are several approaches for collecting thisqualitative information.

One-on-one interviews. One-on-one interviewsprovide an excellent means for eliciting answersto specific questions and gaining knowledgeabout how the system as a whole responds toviolation decisionmaking. Although individualinterviews are time consuming, their value issignificant. It is important to consider a numberof factors in identifying who should conductthese interviews.

Interviewing judges, prosecutors, and defenseattorneys while developing violation policy willgreatly benefit the efforts of the supervisionagency initiating this work. However, their posi-tions and status within individual jurisdictionsmay require careful thinking about who is in thebest position to gather honest information fromthem. The interviewer should be someone whois able to elicit information without feelingdefensive about what is being said. If the proba-tion or parole agency lacks someone who isappropriate for this role, it is advisable to lookto members of the policy group for assistance.Some of the members may be willing to divideinterview assignments—for example, the judgemight speak with other judges, the prosecutorwith his or her peers, and so forth. In addition toconsidering who will conduct these interviews,also consider how they will be conducted.Develop an interview protocol in advance toensure that the right questions are asked andomissions are not made. Inform interviewees inadvance of the purpose of the interview and itsoutcomes. Follow up with all who were inter-viewed with a brief summary of who was inter-viewed, some of the issues identified, and whatwill be done as a result. These interviewswill elicit extraordinarily useful information.Thoughtful planning will ensure that the juris-diction takes full advantage of this opportunity.

Focus group interviews. If time is an issue, con-duct interviews using a “focus group” approach.Invite judges to one group, prosecutors to anoth-er, and defense attorneys to a third to elicit thesame type of information as would be discussedin one-on-one interviews. This format allows forsignificant feedback in a short timeframe andalso can serve to begin developing a commonunderstanding of issues among a group of indi-viduals. Identifying an appropriate individual tofacilitate this dialogue is critical to ensuring thatthe conversation is focused and productive.

Interviewing probation and parole staff.Considering the size and complexity of theagency, plan to interview all members of a smallagency or representatives from each level andspecialty area of a larger agency. As with inter-viewing external stakeholders, give considera-tion to those who are in the best position toconduct these interviews. Because the goal is togather information, it is important to use asinterviewers those who can collect the testimo-ny and report it in a nonjudgmental fashion.Consider whether individuals from other agenciesmight conduct these interviews. At one NIC proj-ect site, probation agency staff in two contiguousjurisdictions worked together to conduct thiswork, each interviewing the other’s staff. Again,preparation and thoughtful planning are key. Besure to explain thoroughly the intention of theproject. Diagram 4–8 identifies the types of infor-mation to seek from supervision agency staff.

Interviewing skills

In an interview scenario, it is critical that inter-viewers are skilled in the art of open-ended ques-tioning, interested in hearing what is being said,and clear that it is their task only to elicit infor-mation, not to debate or defend. Each interview-er should have a prepared set of questions andguidelines for conducting the interview thatmeet the informational objectives driving thistask. If the designated interview team is not con-fident in its skill level, it may be worthwhile tocontract with a skilled interviewer who can bol-ster this activity by:

• Reviewing and refining the interview ques-tions and guidelines.

• Attending the first round of interviews.

• Modeling good interview skills.

• Critiquing the overall interview process.

41

E X H I B I T 4–6.

Chief Probation OfficerConsultantSummary of Interviews on the Violation Process

What follows is a summary of key findings from a series of interviews with 15 probationstaff from your department. The background, responsibilities, and philosophies of thoseprobation officers interviewed were diverse and, thus, intended to be representative ofmultiple perspectives and realms of experience within the department. Each participantwas asked the same questions during an interview that took an average of 45 minutes.The topics as they related to probation violations sought to gather answers to the follow-ing questions:

• How do officers learn to do their jobs—what kind of training is available?

• What policy exists, both in substance and form, to guide violation decisionmaking?

• How do officers actually carry out the policy—what drives their decisions to violate?

• To what extent and under what conditions is discretion exercised in violation decision-making?

• Are existing responses sufficient for enhancing overall practice?

• What is most frustrating about the violation process?

• What changes are needed to enhance an officer’s ability to do her or his job as it pertainsto both violations and regular supervision?

For the most part, people expressed similar understandings of the issues they were askedto consider. The key findings are noted below.

• No written or unwritten policies guide the violation decisionmaking process.

• No formal training curriculum exists to help officers make and record the rationale fortheir decisions to charge an offender with a violation.

• Violation decisions are not monitored in a consistent manner.

• Discretion is widespread.

• Individual officer experience and philosophy drive violation decisionmaking.

• Deciding if an offender violated probation depends on the individual officer.

• There is general consensus that violations are a last resort, used only after all otheravenues are exhausted.

• There is no consistency in judicial response to violation recommendations.

• There is widespread support of probation recommendations by courts and prosecutors.

• Adjournments and other court processing mechanisms slow down the violation process.

• Existing responses seem adequate, although officers are unaware of what lies outsidethe county.

Example of Findings From Supervision Staff Interviews

Summary

TO:FR:RE:

42

Understanding Probation and Parole Agents’ Decisionmaking

D I A G R A M 4–8.

• How agents learn to do their jobs (for-mal training versus peer training) andthe extent of ongoing training andsupervision available.

• What policy exists, both in substance andform, to guide violation decisionmaking.

• How agents carry out the policy and whatdrives their decisions to charge an offend-er with a violation.

• The extent to which discretion is exer-cised in the violation decision and underwhat conditions.

• The extent to which existing responses aresufficient for enhancing overall practice.

• The aspects of the violation processthat are perceived as most frustrating.

• The changes that are needed to enhancean agent’s ability to do her or his job as itpertains to both supervising offendersand responding to violations.

Understanding how agents formulate violation response decisions requires an under-standing of:

The use of a skilled interviewer at the beginningof the policy development effort can result inboth good baseline information and the skills toapply these techniques later in the process.

Choosing who should be interviewed

In relatively small jurisdictions, it may be possi-ble to interview all of the key actors in each con-stituency group. However, in larger jurisdictions,it may be necessary to identify a subset of eachgroup in which the following characteristics arerepresented:

• Geographic and demographic factors (e.g., ruralcourts, towns, suburban areas, urban courts).

• Legal jurisdiction (e.g., misdemeanor cases,felony cases).

• Perceived philosophic viewpoint (e.g., “toughon crime,” “liberal,” attentive to politics,attentive to policy).

• Pattern of practice (e.g., revokes to incarcera-tion often, generally accepts probation andparole recommendations, always overridesrecommendations, supports use of range ofcommunity responses).

How Often Information Should BeCollectedJurisdictions entering into these endeavorsshould consider how they can develop mecha-

nisms to gather information on an ongoing basis.The collection of this information provides thepolicy team with the ability to compare pre-policyand post-policy conditions and draw conclusionsabout the relationship between policy, practice,culture, and outcomes. This would imply thatinformation gathering is not a one-time venture.In fact, the ongoing collection of data is themeans of determining whether progress is beingachieved over time. Chapter 9 of this handbookdescribes the importance of revisiting baselinedata time and again.

Notes1. For additional discussion of this issue, see McGarry,Peggy, and Madeline M. Carter, eds., 1993, The IntermediateSanctions Handbook: Experiences and Tools for Policymakers,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Corrections, and Alexandria, Virginia: StateJustice Institute, ch. 9 and 10.

2. For more information on how to develop offender profiles,see McGarry and Carter, The Intermediate SanctionsHandbook, 101–113.

3. For a discussion of the Macomb County effort, see Burke,Peggy, Center for Effective Public Policy, 1997, Policy-DrivenResponses to Probation and Parole Violations, Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute ofCorrections, 30–31.

4. For more information on how to build the capacity tocollect and analyze data, see McGarry and Carter, TheIntermediate Sanctions Handbook, ch. 10.

We may be lost but we’remaking good time.

—Yogi Berra, lost whiledriving his car in

Upstate New York

Preceding chapters of thishandbook discussed thevalue of clearly articulatingthe goals and objectivesof the violation process.Establishing goals provides aclear direction for what youwant to accomplish throughyour violation response sys-tem. This chapter discussesthe next important step ingoing forward—the imple-mentation of goals andtheir impact on offendersupervision.

In stating your violation goals, you should haveidentified many supervision-related issues thatrequire some attention to make those goalsattainable. You will most likely find it necessaryto address these supervision issues as part ofyour implementation process. These issues mayrelate to the overall objective of supervision orto more specific practices and procedures thathave a direct bearing on your violation process.What is also likely is that making changes toyour supervision goals and practices will requirea willingness to change some of the fundamentaloperations and attitudes present in your agency.Although this will be difficult and will takesome time, it is an integral part of pursuing yourviolation process goals.

43

Supervision: What Are We Trying to Achieve?Richard Stroker

C H A P T E R F I V E




Agree on goals





Well Done Is Better Than Well SaidOnce you have articulated your goals, the nextstep, which is no small task, is to find the bestway to accomplish them. This will involve sev-eral considerations, and each jurisdiction has tofind the best formula for itself. Some of the les-sons learned by other jurisdictions that havespent a considerable amount of time working ontheir violation processes are discussed in thenext sections.

Engage in a broad dialogue about yourintended course of actionMany different areas of your agency—and manyother agencies as well—may be affected by youractions. Solicit input from as many line andsupervisory staff in your agency as possible. It isalso important to discuss your intentions withappropriate supervising entities: judges, paroleboard members, jail administrators, prosecutors,and defense attorneys. Spending quality time upfront with as many individuals as possible whomay be affected by changes may prevent difficul-ty or misunderstandings later. The more clearlyyou articulate your goals and objectives, the bet-ter your staff and other entities will understandwhat is being suggested. Considering their feed-back before you implement changes will helpyou anticipate problems and craft the best possi-ble violation process.

Understand this is a long-term processYour changes will not be accomplished quickly.This process can take from a few months to sev-eral years to complete fully. Your current viola-tion practices were not developed overnight, andit will take considerable time to modify them

44

effectively. This issuegoes deeply into thereasons and methodsthat underlie yourwork, and some indi-viduals will be reluc-tant to change theirperspective or prac-tices in the short term.Be patient, try toappreciate the perspec-tives of others, and donot give up on yourgoals.

Be willing toexperiment withlarge ideas on asmall scaleMany jurisdictions that have worked on viola-tion response policy first developed a small“pilot” program to test out new ideas and meth-ods. This allows a jurisdiction to experiment andexercise some flexibility in its violation processbefore it fully commits to a particular course ofaction. Pilot-testing a program allows staff to seehow new procedures or processes will affecttheir work demands and diminishes overall con-cerns about the new practices. A pilot programalso provides the opportunity to determine theimpact your new procedures will have on otherareas of your work and on other entities.

Be flexible but committed about howyou move forwardAs you experiment with your violation practices,new ideas and other possible improvements willemerge. Be willing to change specific methods toimprove how work gets done, and demonstrateyour commitment to making this process suc-ceed. If you become inflexible about how to dowork, you may send the wrong message to oth-ers about what is most important. However,continue to stress the importance of strivingtoward your overall goals.

Embrace every opportunity to improveyour system and make it simplerThe data you accumulate, the flowcharts youcreate, and all the other information you collectwill help you understand how your current vio-lation system operates. This information alsowill help you clarify the ways you can improveyour violation practices. Become an advocate for

continuous improvement and simplification.Most violation systems are complicated andhave evolved to their current form over a con-siderable length of time. Look for steps in yourprocess that can be eliminated or shortenedand take advantage of every opportunity to iden-tify specific ways your system can work moreefficiently.

Maximize your available resourcesOne of the greatest resources available in thisarena is the staff of the supervision agency.Examine how staff currently use their availabletime and make certain that it is being devoted tothe activities that have the most significance foryour agency. Explore relationships with otherentities that can expand or create new violationoptions where they are needed. Consider deploy-ing staff in new ways, reassigning responsibili-ties, or accomplishing necessary activities withnew technologies or methods.

Try to keep all of this in mind as you redesignyour practices. Translating your ideas and visioninto reality may require adjustments in funda-mental beliefs and practices, such as how yourprobation or parole department thinks aboutsupervision. Some ideas may be too difficult toachieve, and some positive notions may have tobe sacrificed. However, keep moving forwardwith the implementation of ideas and innova-tions that further your violation goals. Having agood violation system in place is better thanhaving a great violation system that only existson paper.

When Allocating Resources, Focuson the Most Important Things FirstMany participating jurisdictions that sought tomake changes to their violation process foundthey had to reallocate their resources or redis-tribute work in ways that maximized their ability to reach their goals. Although your juris-diction may be able to secure some additionalfunding or other resources before implementingchanges, most jurisdictions that have gone for-ward in this area did so with little or no increas-es in staff or funding.

Limited resources force an agency to prioritizework assignments, analyze what work gets doneor is left undone, and assess how staff use theirwork time. In a previous chapter, the importanceof establishing goals was discussed. These goalswill become invaluable to an agency attempting

Become an advocate forcontinuous improvementand simplification. Mostviolation systems are com-plicated and have evolvedto their current form over aconsiderable length of time.Look for steps in yourprocess that can be elimi-nated or shortened andtake advantage of everyopportunity to identify spe-cific ways your system canwork more efficiently.

45

to prioritize its useof limited resources.Once the critical goalsand objectives of anagency are clear, re-sources must be reallo-cated so it can meetits goals. If an agencywants its officersto spend more timeidentifying violationbehavior, following upon violations, or inter-acting with offendersposing a higher risk offailure, the time mustcome from somewhere.Most probation andparole officers have rel-atively high caseloads,and simply shiftingcases from one officerto another may not bring an agency closer toreaching its overall goals. The following informa-tion briefly identifies some of the strategiesrecently developed by agencies to allow themto better meet their supervision or violationobjectives.

Understand the finite nature of yourresourcesMany jurisdictions have concluded that theirprobation and parole officers should devote themajority of their time to the supervision ofoffenders who appear to pose the highest likeli-hood of failing while under supervision. Suchpractices appear to be consistent with the desireto promote successful supervision outcomes,protect public safety, and allocate limitedresources on a risk-management basis. Similarly,other jurisdictions have determined that officersmust spend more time investigating andresponding to violations committed by higherrisk offenders. The problem, of course, is findingways to reallocate time or duties so that officershave the time available to engage in these neces-sary activities. To better allocate staff time,many jurisdictions use a classification system tobest determine which offenders pose the highestrisk of failing under supervision or committingnew offenses. (See exhibit 5–1, which presentsthe risk management approach of one jurisdic-tion that allocates resources based on the riskposed by the offender.) Some jurisdictions find,however, that as long as lower risk offenders

continue to be on an officer’s caseload, the officeris likely to continue to invest a considerableamount of time in them. There are several theo-ries about why officers spend so much time withlower risk offenders: Practical or policy provi-sions require contacts and followup, this popula-tion has unmet needs or issues, and officers havean interest in interacting with individuals whoare doing well under supervision.

Whatever the reason, some jurisdictions haveexperimented with methods that allow low-riskoffenders to be managed in new ways that mini-mize the time invested by the officer. One ofthese new methods involves the developmentof group reporting stations. These automatedstations collect information from offenders andfree the officer from spending time in routineinformation collection activities. Similarly,other jurisdictions have started using volunteers,administrative staff, or other nonofficer staffto monitor low-risk offenders. These staff mem-bers ask standard questions of low-risk offendersand report problems or nonreporting issues toofficers. The goal of these approaches seemsclear—to find the best way to use limited staffresources to attend to your most importantsupervision needs.

Understand that “time is money”Some probation and parole agents spend a con-siderable amount of time making home visits toa widely dispersed population of offenders. Thesame officers might also have to visit severaljails, offices, treatment providers, and so forth.Geographic assignment or deployment of staffmight result in an officer spending less time get-ting to an offender’s location and trying to deter-mine where or how to gather information aboutan offender’s compliance.

Closely related to this concept is communitypolicing. By becoming more closely aligned witha specific part of a city or county, an officermight be better able to understand an offender’scircumstances and more effectively use availabletime. By sharing information and working coop-eratively with local police, community treat-ment services, and other neighborhood entities,an officer may be able to provide more effectivesupervision to a geographic population of offend-ers. This concept may require a jurisdiction toconsider its values and goals and assess its will-ingness to share available information withother entities.

Many jurisdictions haveconcluded that their proba-tion and parole officersshould devote the majorityof their time to the supervi-sion of offenders whoappear to pose the highestlikelihood of failing whileunder supervision. Suchpractices appear to be con-sistent with the desire topromote successful super-vision outcomes, protectpublic safety, and allocatelimited resources on a risk-management basis.

46

Risk Management Flowchart forIntensive Supervision Cases

Structured Caseload System—Supervision Guidelines

E X H I B I T 5–1.

Score of 19 or greater

Regular supervision (lower risk)

Intensive level I (risk score of 19 or greater and/or ordered to electronic monitoring)

Intensive level II

Reassess risk

4 face-to-face contacts, 30 days elapsed, and successful behavior


Score of 18 or less

Regular supervision (higher risk)

Intensive level II (risk score of 18 or less)


Level of Supervision Risk Assessment Score Contact Schedule Home Visit

Intensive Level I 19 or greater and/or 1 per week 1 per monthcurrently on electronicmonitoring

Intensive Level II 19 or greater 2 per month 1 every other month

Regular high risk 19 or greater 1 per month 1 every other month

Regular low risk 18 or less 1 each quarter, for a minimum None requiredof 6 months, then at least 1 per year

47

Encourage compliance through incentives and rewardsSometimes you focus exclusively on trying tocontrol behavior through possible punishmentsand ignore the other side of the equation—encouraging compliance through incentivesand rewards. To encourage better program andreporting compliance and alleviate caseloaddemands, many jurisdictions have explored incen-tives that encourage positive actions on the partof the offender. These incentives include reducedreporting requirements, allowing reports throughphone calls or other methods that do not involveoffice visits, early termination of supervision, andextensions of time to accomplish specific activi-ties. This aspect of supervision has received muchless attention thanthe alternative—torespond to failureswith disciplinarysanctions. Tying earlytermination of super-vision to the comple-tion of particular caseobjectives is an espe-cially powerful one.Persuading the offend-er to accomplish hisor her supervisionrequirements anddemonstrating theirvalue to the offendercan have tremendousimplications. A casethat can be closed, orin which more compli-ance or success isoccurring, is one thatwill not require the same amount of supervisiontime from the officer. Using rewards to recognizepositive offender accomplishments can also bean important component of a violation systembecause it helps demonstrate to the offender thegoals of your agency and the benefits of his or herpositive action.

These are a few examples of ways in which juris-dictions have shifted priorities to allow officersmore time to focus on aspects of their work thatwill better allow the agency to meet its goals.Allocating limited resources is difficult and willnot please everyone. But if you can clearly artic-ulate your purpose and explain your preferencesand assumptions, you will be better able todemonstrate the logic associated with your par-ticular distribution of resources.

Focus on Preventing ViolationsAs you study your violation system, it maybecome apparent that almost all of the workdone by staff involves responding to violations.However, some jurisdictions have been interest-ed in investing more time and effort in prevent-ing violations from occurring. Such efforts areconsistent with a desire to protect public safetybecause the greatest safety is achieved when nooffender violations occur. Such efforts in thisarea include the following:

Better initial assessments andcase planningNumerous jurisdictions have been updating,validating, and improving their risk and needsidentification instruments. These tools aid theofficer in determining which offenders pose ahigh risk of failing while under supervision andindicate particular issues or problems that wouldcontribute to the likelihood of failure if notaddressed. When used properly, this informationshould help the officer establish a supervisioncase plan to help the offender successfully com-plete supervision. Again, helping the offenderunderstand the content of the case plan andwhat the officer expects from the offender can bea critical component of the supervision and vio-lation system. Toward this end, some jurisdic-tions spend considerably more time developinga case plan and reviewing it with the offender.

Offender orientation sessionsOther jurisdictions have developed more effectiveways to communicate their supervision require-ments and expectations to the offender. Theseformal orientation sessions involve explaining tothe offender, in great detail, the conditions ofsupervision and the reasons for those conditions.The offender’s family members and significantothers often are invited to attend these sessions.The offender is provided with a guidebook thatexplains and summarizes the supervision require-ments. Sharing this critical information with theoffender and his or her supporters may preventinadvertent violations, will enlist the aid of oth-ers in encouraging compliance, and can explainthe consequences of failing to meet specifiedconditions. For example, if one of your goals isto reduce the number of violations that occur,considering how offenders receive informationabout your supervision expectations is important.

As you study your violationsystem, it may becomeapparent that almost allof the work done by staffinvolves responding to violations. However, somejurisdictions have beeninterested in investing moretime and effort in preventingviolations from occurring.Such efforts are consistentwith a desire to protectpublic safety because thegreatest safety is achievedwhen no offender violationsoccur.

48

Keeping offenders aware of obligationsConsistent with the approach noted in the previ-ous section, some jurisdictions have found waysto encourage compliance by reminding offendersof upcoming obligations and appointments. Aprerecorded message, phone call, letter, or apostcard reminding the offender of what isexpected of him or her in the short term (e.g.,keep a substance abuse appointment during theweek, pay a fine or fee by the end of the month)will accomplish two objectives. First, it willdemonstrate that the officer knows what theoffender is supposedto do. Second, it willdemonstrate the offi-cer’s interest in havingthe offender meet thisobligation. It elimi-nates the offender’scommon excuse ofnot knowing about arequirement, and itwill help the final deci-sionmaker (judge,parole board) see howthe officer tried to aidthe offender in avoid-ing a violation of his or her supervision. Thesenotices and reminders can be sent by administra-tive staff, volunteers, or others.

Many offender violations involve the failureto fulfill specific, straightforward conditions.Preventing relatively minor violations ultimatelysaves your officers and your violation system aconsiderable amount of time and effort. Findingeffective ways to help offenders avoid minor vio-lations will save the time and effort associatedwith responding to them.

Case management of multiproblemoffenders and better problem solvingAnother technique being tried in some jurisdic-tions involves the use of case managementteams for offenders who appear to present multi-ple problems. This approach allows the team toaddress numerous issues while maintaining cen-tral control over an individual case. This avoidscase transfers that can result in the loss of infor-mation or insights about the case. It also allowsfor the development of more effective strategiesfor those offenders. To prevent violations byoffenders who present multiple issues, a case

management or team approach can help youanticipate problems and chart the best overallsupervision course.

These efforts reflect a simple but often neglectedtruth: The time invested in preventing a viola-tion will save the time it would take to respondto a violation.

Shortening the Length of Time toReach a Final DispositionAs described in chapter 4, it is critical for a juris-diction to create a flowchart or map of its viola-tion process so the steps and structure of thewhole system can be fully appreciated. Manyjurisdictions believe their violation process takestoo long to complete, is cumbersome, or involvestoo many decisionmakers. Generally, a flowchartwill demonstrate whether these beliefs are trueand will provide ideas about what needs to bedone.

Ultimately, each jurisdiction must decide foritself what level of review is required for eachdecision that occurs in the system. If an officeridentifies a probable violation, who must concurwith this assessment before any action can betaken? Who is empowered to impose certain low-level sanctions or responses? Who must agree tothe issuance of a summons or citation? Whattypes of responses can be imposed at the hearingstage? What other steps must be taken before afinal review can occur? The answers to thesequestions directly affect both your violationprocess and your available resources to conductsupervision. The more time and effort that staffmust devote to preparing paperwork, attendinghearings, and otherwise responding to a viola-tion, the less time they will have for othersupervision activities.

Some violation systems take months to reach afinal disposition. The length of time is frustrat-ing for staff and managers and may discouragestaff from swiftly responding to apparent viola-tions. For example, if one of the goals of yoursupervision agency is to hold offenders account-able, a drawn-out violation system is not helpingyou achieve this goal. The following is a list ofstrategies developed by jurisdictions to helpshorten the length of time involved in the viola-tion process.

Many jurisdictions believetheir violation processtakes too long to complete,is cumbersome, or involvestoo many decisionmakers.Generally, a flowchart willdemonstrate whether thesebeliefs are true and willprovide ideas about whatneeds to be done.

49

Empower line staff to impose certainlow-level violation responsesLine officers are in the best position to knowwhen a violation has occurred. Some jurisdic-tions have found ways to empower these staffmembers to impose sanctions such as publicservice, increased reporting requirements, or par-ticipation in particular programs. When an officercan take direct action in response to a violation,it reduces the time involved and demonstrates tothe offender the importance of compliance.

Eliminate multiple layers of administrative reviewSome jurisdictions have elaborate systems forreviewing every action an officer may wish to takeagainst a violation. Each layer of review takesadditional time and creates the impression thatthe officer cannot be relied on to take appropriateaction. If a jurisdiction is willing to allow an offi-cer to engage in offender supervision, it may needto consider eliminating certain layers of review

concerning violation behavior, including allowingofficers to issue summonses and warrants. Manycourts have granted supervision agencies the abili-ty to impose intermediate responses without a for-mal court hearing. If your jurisdiction lacks thisability, it may be an avenue worth pursuing.Exhibit 5–2 is an example of an attachment tostandard conditions allowing the imposition ofintermediate responses for some violations.

Create a meaningful probable causehearing by using available sanctionsIn response to decisions of the U.S. SupremeCourt, all jurisdictions have systems to meet the due process requirements associated withresponding to violations. Some jurisdictions alsohave found ways that empower individuals whoconduct probable cause hearings to impose mid-range or intermediate sanctions. If incarcerationdoes not seem necessary to address the viola-tion, and if other, more appropriate sanctions or responses are available, it would serve the

Defendant: ___________________________________________ Case No.: __________________________

The Adult Probation Department may implement the following conditions in a manner consistent with approved policy and procedure.

If so directed by the probation officer, you shall:

• Complete up to 24 hours of community service, ordered in increments of up to 8 hours.

• Be subject to a curfew for up to 21 days, ordered in increments of up to 7 days.

If so directed, and following a supervisory review, you shall:

• Participate in an approved drug program and abide by the program’s standard regulations.

• Complete up to 40 additional hours of community service.

• Be subject to a curfew, with or without electronic monitoring, for up to 30 days.

I have received a copy of these conditions of probation, which I understand and with which Iwill comply. I understand that if I violate any of the above conditions, the Court could revokemy probation and sentence me to the maximum sentence permitted by law.

Dated _______________ , 20______ Defendant _________________________________________________

Defendant signature _______________________________________________________________________

Witness signature _________________________________________________________________________

Dated _______________ , 20______

Attachment to Standard Conditions of Probation AllowingImposition of Intermediate Responses for Certain Violations

E X H I B I T 5–2.

50

interests of a jurisdiction to dispose of the viola-tion at the probable cause stage. As cases areremoved from the violation pipeline, valuablework hours are saved. These hours can then beused by the officer to engage in meaningfulsupervision or violation prevention activities.

Develop new violation responsesthrough partnershipsNot all violations, however, require punitivesanctions. Many violations are best dealt withthrough program or treatment referrals. Manyjurisdictions have cre-ated new ways ofensuring that offendersare enrolled in employ-ment, substance abuse,educational, vocation-al, or other programs.Chambers of com-merce, technicalschools, and a varietyof public- and private-sector organizationsmay work cooperative-

ly with you to develop meaningful offender initiatives. Do not overlook the possibilitiespresented by volunteers who can provide appro-priate counseling and educational opportunities.The key to creating these types of violationresponses is to understand that a violation maybe the manifestation of a supervision issue. If acircumstance is discovered earlier, the need toimpose sanctions may not arise.

There are innumerable ways to allocate resources,streamline processes, anticipate violations, andencourage the successful completion of supervi-sion. This chapter suggests some particular objec-tives or methods to accomplish them. Ultimately,you must determine the purpose of your supervi-sion activities and harmonize your supervisiongoals and objectives with your goals and objec-tives in the violation area. Once this is complet-ed, the best strategies for arriving at your desireddestination will become more apparent. Yourbelief that positive change within your agency isboth possible and desirable is an indispensableingredient to the new supervision and violationformula being developed.

The key to creating thesetypes of violation respons-es is to understand that aviolation may be the mani-festation of a supervisionissue. If a circumstance isdiscovered earlier, theneed to impose sanctionsmay not arise.

Thus far, this handbook hasdiscussed the benefits ofbringing a collaborativeteam together to encouragebroad-based acceptance andinput into the policymak-ing process, undertaking asystematic review of cur-rent practice, assessing thecore values and principlesof an agency’s violationprocess, and developingthat information into aneffective violation policy.This chapter discusses thebenefits of thoughtfullychoosing tools to help carryout that policy.

Once the initial activitiesare under way, most teamsask themselves, “What can this policy actuallydo for my jurisdiction?” Team members thenwill begin developing the methods and toolsto carry out the new policies and procedures.Members have invested a good deal of timethinking abstractly and deliberating; they nowwill begin crafting concrete instruments to puttheir policy into action. However, teams needto keep in mind several significant issues beforebeginning this part of the process.

TerminologyFirst, it is important to clarify some of the termsused in this chapter.

PhilosophyYour philosophy is the set of beliefs, concepts, val-ues, and attitudes of your agency. The philosophy

51




Agree on goals





of an agency is the theory underlying its activi-ties. For example, the Maricopa County, Arizona,Adult Probation Department’s philosophicalstatement says: “We believe that we can assistour clients to live a life of freedom through law-abiding behavior and compliance with conditionsof probation.”

PolicyThis term describes the definite course or methodof action selected to guide and determine presentand future decisions. It is a written explanationof what should occur, a high-level, overall planthat embraces the general goals of an agency.For example, one of the policies of Iowa’s SixthJudicial District’s Department of CorrectionalServices is, “When violations of probation occur,Department staff take corrective action in a con-sistent and proportional manner.”

ProcedureProcedures describe your protocols, or the estab-lished way of carrying out duties. Procedures arewritten descriptions of what actions will occur asa result of an agency’s philosophy and policy. Anexample of a procedure related to violations isthe following: “A Violation Severity Scale (Form22) will be completed on all offenders for everyviolation committed. The scale will be complet-ed according to the following instructions.”

In many jurisdictions, procedures have proven tobe essential to successful implementation of vio-lation policy. Policy quickly becomes ineffectiveif individuals are not given methods to imple-ment it. Thus, the level of compliance with apolicy is greatly increased when staff are provid-ed with tools that operationalize the policy.

Making It Work: Developing Tools to Carry Out the PolicyMadeline M. Carter and Ann Ley

C H A P T E R S I X

52

Tips and CautionsA common misconception is the belief that thetools discussed later in this chapter are synony-mous with policy. Policy, however, must bedeveloped before it is implemented. The instru-ments you create are the vehicle through whichpolicy is effectively implemented. The policy isborn of the team’s agreed upon values and phi-losophy about how todeal with offenderswho violate the termsof their probation orparole and includes theteam’s vision of effec-tive and appropriateviolation responses.That policy is imple-mented through theuse of various instru-ments and tools that, if well thought out, willgive weight to your policy and increase buy-in ofstaff and the larger community.

It should be emphasized that teams need to cre-ate these tools after they have examined currentpractice; agreed on their goals, mission, vision,and core values; and created a viable policy fromthat discourse. Only then can teams begin toconsider procedures and instruments to imple-ment their policy. It is through this process thatthe necessary tools are created. Without engag-ing in the process, teams may adopt instrumentsthat are incongruent with their jurisdiction’s val-ues, philosophy, or capacity. Jurisdictions in theNIC-sponsored projects that attempted to adopta “one size fits all” tool found that it failedbecause it did not effectively meet their needs.As a result, those jurisdictions became discour-aged and abandoned their efforts, resulting inwasted time and energy. Clearly defining one’sgoals, then, is a critically important step andmust precede the defining of solutions.

Creating successful procedures and instrumentsis an indispensable part of your effort to changepractice. If they are inadequate, generic, or inap-propriate, they will fail, and your policy will notbe properly implemented. The best tools andinstruments are clear, concise, and user friendly.They are tailored to the individual needs of juris-dictions and are created to diminish resistance(e.g., they do not just give line staff extra paper-work). They are helpful to officers and conduciveto their autonomous decisionmaking.

Many jurisdictions have put extensive workinto the development of violation procedures,and there currently are a number of examplesof implementation tools from which to draw.Following considerable deliberations, the teamsdetermined which could best carry out theirpolicies effectively. Some teams adapted previ-ously used tools, others developed their own.Following are some of the instruments devel-oped by the projects’ participating sites.

Risk AssessmentA critical piece of the violation puzzle is effectiveassessment of offender risk. Ideally, empiricallytested and validated risk assessment instrumentsare used to determine the level of risk posed byan offender. Because risk assessment is so impor-tant, many agencies have had to reconsider theirrisk assessment protocols and make certain thatthose they are currently using are state of the artand empirically tested. In addition, jurisdictionshave reevaluated their risk assessment processesto ensure that offenders continually are reassessedto determine how dynamic factors may changethe risk they present at any given time. Teamsare encouraged to examine closely their risk assess-ment protocols and refer to the extensive literatureon this topic as it relates to the development ofviolation policy.

Implementation Tools andInstrumentsA variety of common tools that jurisdictionsdeveloped and used throughout the course of thesix violation projects are described next, accom-panied by explanations of their intended purpose.

Violation logThe violation log was developed to document anoffender’s violation history in an easy-to-reviewformat. Many project teams discovered how dif-ficult it is to track offenders’ violation behaviorover time by reviewing case books or automatedrecords. Further, many jurisdictions realizedthey had no standard procedure for noting anofficer’s response to a violation. Particularly forthose jurisdictions that developed a policy thatrequires a response to every violation, this formhas proved to be a helpful means to documentboth violations and responses. It also serves as auseful method for supervisors to review theirofficers’ cases. Most jurisdictions developed the

That policy is implementedthrough the use of variousinstruments and tools that,if well thought out, will giveweight to your policy andincrease buy-in of staff andthe larger community.

53

Violation Log (Pima County, Arizona)

E X H I B I T 6–1.

Probationer’s Name: ___________________________________________ Criminal Record Number: __________________

Probation Start Date: ___________________ Probation Officer: __________________________________________________

form as a single sheet that can be easily auto-mated or placed into an officer’s casebook. Exhibit6–1 is an example of one jurisdiction’s efforts todocument violation behavior and responses.

Violation severity scaleNot all violations are alike. Many jurisdictionshave developed policies to distinguish the severityof different violations. The first step is to developan exhaustive list of offender violation behavior.Teams place violations on a continuum from lowseverity to high severity. The team decides how“low,” “medium,” and “high” are defined.

Taking the development of a violation severityscale a step further, most jurisdictions have con-cluded that the severity of a violation is relativeto other factors. That is, a first-time offender onsupervision for a low-level offense who fails toreport to a scheduled office visit is different froma repeat sex offender who fails to report for a

scheduled office visit. Thus, jurisdictions havefound that the simple delineation of violations ona scale of low to high severity is useful for com-paring like cases. For cases that are not alike, juris-dictions have developed more complex matricesto weigh several factors simultaneously. Exhibit6–2 provides an example of such a scale.

Violation response matrixViolation response matrices were developed in anumber of jurisdictions to incorporate an assess-ment of the offender’s risk and to use that toinform the violation response decision. Thesematrices generally factor in the offender’s risk(as determined by prior instances of violence,the original offense, and the offender’s score ona risk assessment instrument) and the severityof the offender’s violation. Together, these fac-tors guide the officer to a category of appropriateresponses. These tools were developed in a vari-ety of ways, ranging from decisionmaking trees

Admission Response Level OfficerDate Condition Violation (Y/N) High Med. Low Override Response

54

Violation Severity Scale (Pima County, Arizona)

E X H I B I T 6–2.

H Committing new offense H H H

H Possessing weapons H H H

H Denying access to residence and searches H H H

H Absconding H H H

H Testing positive for drugs H H H

H Testing positive for alcohol H H H

H Failing to register as a sex offender H H H

L Associating with felons, gangs, etc. L H H

L Possessing contraband L H H

L Violating travel restrictions L H H

L Failing to participate in treatment L H H

L Failing to submit urine/blood analysis L H H

L Failing to take antabuse L H H

L Failing to remit paycheck (Intensive L H HProbation Supervision)

L Failing to maintain employment L L H

L Failing to pay restitution, other fees L L H

L Failing to participate in education program L L H

L Failing to participate in community service L L H

L Changing residence without notice L L Hor permission

L Failing to report L L H

L Violating curfew/approved schedule L L H

L Making false statements L L H

L Failing to follow orders L L H

L Violating jail rules L L H

L Failing to notify sheriff’s office of change L L Hof address (sex offender)

L Being financially irresponsible L L H

H = highL = low

Severity Risk RatingRating Violation 1 2 3

55

to grid formats. Exhibits 6–3 through 6–8 provideexamples of different ways jurisdictions haveconceptualized violation response matrices.

In addition to these factors, some jurisdictionsadded others to the violation response matricesthey believed were also critical indicators of anoffender’s level of risk. These include the offend-er’s performance on the current period of super-vision, past violations (during the current orprevious periods of supervision), the offender’shistory of failure to report to court, and othermeasures of the offender’s prior history or cur-rent level of stability.

Some jurisdictions have included an officeroverride capability in their matrices. These pro-vide an officer the opportunity to downgrade orupgrade the violation response. Although theseprovide officers with added discretion, they alsocan undermine the agency’s efforts to instillconsistency and rationality into the decision-making process.

Many jurisdictions that adopted response matri-ces required their completion on each and everyviolation. Although initially concerned aboutthe time involved, most have been successful indeveloping easy-to-use instruments that can becompleted in a few minutes. Further, a numberof jurisdictions require a supervisor’s signatureon the matrix to ensure they are being complet-ed regularly and correctly, and some require thesubmission of the completed form to a supervi-sor when a warrant or summons is requested.Although the instruments result in new worktasks, those new work tasks more than likelyshift the work from one place to another—fromresponding to violations to preventing them—rather than adding new work on top of the exist-ing workload.

What is most important about the developmentof these types of instruments is that they be care-fully tested to determine their effectiveness inguiding response decisions. The issue of pilottesting is discussed later in this chapter.

Response options listResponse options lists provide officers with thevariety of options available to respond to viola-tion behavior. (Chapter 7 provides guidance onthe development of this list.) The responseoptions list can have multiple purposes. Somejurisdictions found that there were uneven

knowledge bases among officers regarding theresponses available to them. Second, the listserves as a helpful aid to new officers. Third,many jurisdictions have used the list to tier theirresponses in accordance with their violationseverity scale. For example, verbal reprimandmay be categorized as a low-level sanction andresidential treatment as a high-level sanction.Verbal reprimand would, therefore, not be anappropriate—or in some jurisdictions, even anavailable—response for a high-severity violation.Likewise, residential treatment would be unavail-able, or at least inappropriate, for a low-level vio-lation. The list therefore can serve to targetresources to the most appropriate cases. In thisregard, the list might also include the criteriafor imposing a given sanction as well as forchoosing one sanction over another. Exhibit 6–9provides an example of a jurisdiction’s responseoptions list.

WaiverIn their efforts to create a more responsive,less cumbersome violation process, jurisdictionsdeveloped methods to respond administrativelyto some categories of violations rather than tak-ing these cases to court. Eliminating the needto take certain cases through the court processsaves probation officers, court personnel, prose-cutors, and judges valuable time. Typically,jurisdictions have established administrativeprocesses for cases that are serious enough towarrant court review (as such, they are not usedfor lower level violation matters that can be easi-ly handled in the supervision agency), but wherecontinued probation with increased sanctionswill be recommended.

The waiver is used to indicate the offender’sagreement to accept the imposition of new sanc-tions in lieu of a formal revocation proceedingin court. For example, in some jurisdictions, acourt hearing is required prior to increasing anoffender’s supervision requirements to includeelectronic monitoring. In this instance, theoffender might be offered the opportunity towaive his or her right to a court hearing andvoluntarily agree to the imposition of this newsanction. Typically, signing the waiver does notmean the offender admits responsibility for theviolation but, rather, simply accepts the addi-tional sanctions. Exhibit 6–10 is an example ofa waiver form.

56

Offender Risk Violation Severity

Medium Low High-severity Less severeHigh risk risk risk violations violations

B felony C & D felony Misdemeanor Noncompliance with residential All otherSexual assault and score of 27 placement types ofSex-related offense Score of 22–26 or higher violationsAssault 1, 2 (misdemeanor Failure to comply with evaluation Arson, risk of injury only) All motor vehicles or treatment for mental health Firearms, burglary 1, 2 and sex offender casesSale/possession with Harassment B & C

intent to distribute misdemeanor Deliberate pattern of narcotics (except noncompliance

harassment)Current or recent Absconder after 60 daysassaultive or violent behavior Multiple electronic monitoring

curfew violationsScore of 21 or less

Driving while intoxicated cases: Driving without a license

Offender’s behavior directly threatens an identifiable victim(s)

Decisionmaking Matrix (New Haven, Connecticut)

E X H I B I T 6–3.

High High High A high-range responseis generally appropriate.A medium- or low-range response requires staffing.*

Medium High Medium A medium-range responseor is most appropriate. A

Low High Medium high-range responserequires staffing.

High Low Medium A low- or medium-rangeor response is generally

Medium Low Low appropriate. A high-rangeresponse requires staffing.

Low Low Low A low-range response isgenerally appropriate.High-range and residentialtreatment responsesrequire staffing.

Warrant

Summons toappear

Residential(alternative toincarcerationcenter, halfwayhouse, or treatment)

Day incarcerationcenter

Electronic monitoring (housearrest or curfew)

Intensive supervision

Alternative toincarceration center

Extension of probation

Court reprimand

Residentialtreatment (outpatient toinpatient)

Nonresidential

Charitable contributions

Communityhours

Curfew

Urinalysis

Home/fieldvisits

Increasecontact

Counseling

Reprimand

* Staffing is a case conference between the probation officerand a designated staffing officer.

Violation Response Guidelines VOP Responses

Medium LowRisk Severity Response Guidelines High range range range

57

Current Situation Checklist

The offender’s current situation is considered low unless one or more is checked:

___ Unstable residence

___ Not in treatment

___ Intermediate sanctions currently imposed for previous violation

___ Special population offender

___ Positive urine analysis/blood analysis in the last month

Probation officer signature/date

Probationer signature/date

Probation Violation Matrix (Weld County, Colorado)

E X H I B I T 6–4.

Offender name:

Date:

Completed by:

Offender Risk (Level of Service Violation Current DecisionmakingInventory Score) Severity Situation Level

Maximum High N/A Violation Review Board or revocation

Low High Case staffing

Low Probation officer

Medium High High Violation Review Board

Low Case staffing

Low High Case staffing


Minimum High High Case staffing


Low N/A Probation officer

N/A = not applicable

58

Violation Response Matrix (Sixth Judicial District, Iowa,Department of Correctional Services)

E X H I B I T 6–5.

Violation Offender Behavior Level of Severity Risk Level Risk Level Decisionmaking

Class A High High Judicial

Low Supervisory

Low High Supervisory

Low Agent

Class B High High Judicial

Low Supervisory

Low High Agent

Low Agent

Violation Response Matrix (Pima County, Arizona)E X H I B I T 6–6.

High if:

• Original IntensiveProbation Supervisionmatrix score is 8 ormore.

• The probationer is asex offender.

• The probationer is anacknowledged mem-ber of a street gang.

• The probationer hasmore than two DUIswithin the last 5 years.

• The original offenseinvolved a predatory,assaultive crime against a person.

• Use the ViolationSeverity Table to deter-mine severity.

• If the violation is notincluded in the table,case is staffed with theunit supervisor todetermine level.

• If no violations havebeen documented during the preceding6 months or more, the current violationshould be considered a“first” violation for thepurpose of determiningseverity.

If two or more of the following factors exist, the risk is high:

• Use of drugs or alcohol and/or failure to complete treatment.

• Current or recent pattern of avoiding officer contact.

• Emotional instability/distress—probationer or family—includingdomestic violence.

• Current or recent unacceptablepattern of employment, resi-dence, or associations.

Do other situational factors existwhich could suggest an increasedrisk to reoffend? If yes, these should be documented and the situation considered high risk.

H = high

M = moderate

L = low

Is Offender Risk High Is Severity of Violation Is Current Situation Response or Low? High or Low? Risk High or Low? Level?

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

NHM/L

Y

N

(Y = yes, N = no)

MM/L

MLLL

59

Probation Violation Decision Guidelines (Macomb County, Michigan)

E X H I B I T 6–7.

Response Range 4 Response Range 3 Response Range 2 Response Range 1

Serving on StaffingViolation Assaultive Offender’s Court With Supervisor ResponseSeverity Offense? Risk Procedure Required? Range

Minor Violations Yes High Warrant Yes 4

Medium Warrant Yes 4

Low Warrant/show cause Yes 3

No High Warrant Yes 4

Medium Warrant/show cause Yes 3

Low Warrant/show cause Yes 3

Major Violations Yes High Warrant/show cause Yes 3

Medium Show cause/informal No 2

Low Show cause/informal No 2

No High Show cause/informal No 2

Medium Show cause/informal No 1

Low Show cause/informal No 1

Any response or combination of responses in ranges 1–3

And/or:

• Electronic monitoringup to 1 year

• Jail up to 1 year

• Prison

Any response or combination of responses in ranges 1–2

And/or:

• Day reporting up to 90 days

• Electronic monitoringup to 180 days

• Probation residentialcenter placement

• Detention center placement

• Jail term up to 180days

• Boot camp

Any response or combination of responses in range 1

And/or:

• Day reporting center up to 30 days

• Residential substanceabuse or mental healthtreatment

• Electronic monitoringup to 90 days

• Jail up to 3 days

• Verbal warning or counseling

• Add special conditions

• Drug/alcohol testing

• Outpatient counseling

• Community service

• Extend term of probation

• Increase level of supervision

• Day reporting center up to 7 days

• Jail 5 days or less

• 24-hour home confinement (electronicmonitoring systemoffenders)

60

Sample Violation Response Worksheet (Front)E X H I B I T 6–8.

Offender Name: ________________________________________ Offender #: ________________________ Date: ___________________

Most Severe Current Violation: ■■ Multiple Violations Offender Status: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (see comments)

CATEGORY

Criminal History No felony or assaultive arrests=1 pt. Non-assaultive felonies=2 pts.Juvenile and Adult Arrests Assaultive offenses=3 pts.

Supervision History None=0 pts. Prior supervision=2 pts. Prior revocation orJuvenile and Adult Supervision has absconded=3 pts.

Current Supervision Compliant/no other known violations=0 pts. Agent intervention has been necessary=2 pts. Major non-compliance=3 pts.

Relationship of Violation to None=0 pts. Indirect=2 pts. Direct=3 pts.Convicted Offense

Severity of Violation Non-criminal or non-adjudicated misdemeanor violation=1 pt.Misdemeanor=2 pts. Felony/assaultive/Federal/absconded=3 pts.

LEVEL (1–7 pts.=Minimum) (8–12 pts.=Medium) (13 pts.=Maximum) SCORE:

RECOMMENDED RESPONSES

Medium MaximumMinimum (may include appropriate minimum responses) (may use appropriate min./med. responses)

■■ Outpatient treatment ■■ Inpatient treatment ■■ Commitment to jail■■ Community service ■■ Diversion program ■■ Commitment to prison■■ Structured work search ■■ Electronic monitoring■■ Vocational/educational program ■■ Restart EM■■ Psychoeducational classes: ■■ Home confinement w/o EM______________________________________ ■■ Home confinement with EM■■ Cornerstone ■■ Intensive supervision■■ Payment schedule ■■ Restart ISP■■ Financial counseling ■■ Intensive drug supervision■■ Antabuse ■■ Referral to CCC■■ UA’s/breathalyzer ■■ Day reporting center■■ Curfew (initiate or modify) ■■ Restart probation/parole■■ Limit contacts/associations ■■ Jail time■■ Modify special conditions ■■ Other: ____________________________■■ Increase supervision standards■■ Hold violation in abeyance■■ Other: ____________________________

Do the recommended responses adequately address the offender’s needs? ■■ Yes ■■ No

Adjusted Level: ________________________ Justification for Adjustment: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional Comments: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PROCESS

■■ Informal Action ■■ Formal Court/Board Hearing

Agent Name Supervisor (print): __________________________________________ Signature: ________________________________ Date: ___________________

Final Disposition: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

■■ Probation ■■ Parole■■ ISP Probation ■■ ISP Parole

Utah Department Division ofof Corrections VIOLATION RESPONSE WORKSHEET Field Operations

continued

61

VIOLATION RESPONSE WORKSHEET DEFINITIONSOffender Name: Name of offender as it appears on the face sheet.

Offender Number: Assigned offender tracking number.

Date: Date matrix is completed.

Most Severe Specify violation for which matrix is being used. In the case of several violations, use the most seriousCurrent Violation: according to agent opinion.

Multiple Violations: Check box and list all violations in Comments section.

Offender Status: Indicate if offender is on Probation, ISP Probation, Parole, or ISP Parole.

Criminal History: Includes offense(s) presently under supervision. Consider all previous arrests as a juvenile or adult, regardless of conviction. The behavior is an important factor.

1 Point: If offender has any non-assaultive arrests which are not a felony.2 Points: If the offender has previous non-assaultive felony arrests.3 Points: If the offender has assaultive felony or misdemeanor arrests.

NOTE: According to the UDC Risk/Needs Assessment: “An assaultive offense is one in which an offender is involved in the useof a weapon, physical force, which could or does result in bodily injury. An assaultive offense could include aggravated assault,incest, or sexual offenses involving aggression. Arson would also be included.”

Supervision History: If the offender has been previously supervised, formally or informally, on probation or parole as a juvenile Juvenile or Adult or adult, in any state or jurisdiction (including Federal):

0 Points: Not known previous supervision.2 Points: Previous supervision on probation or parole.3 Points: Prior supervision revocation or has absconded supervision.

Current Supervision: Consider the offender’s attitude and compliance with the current period of supervision.

0 Points: Offender has been compliant with no other known violations.2 Points: Agent intervention has been necessary. Alternatives have been utilized and offender’s

attitude has been somewhat compliant. Conditions may have been modified.3 Points: Offender has been non-compliant; displays negative attitude; and has shown little effort

to do what is required.

Determine if a relationship exists between the present violation and the convicted offense(s) for which theoffender is under supervision.

0 Points: No relationship.2 Points: An indirect relationship exists between violation behavior and convicted offense(s).3 Points: A direct relationship exists between violation behavior and convicted offense(s).

Severity of Violation: In the case of several violations, use the most severe for scoring the matrix.

1 Point: Violation is a non-criminal violation of the conditions of supervision or non-adjudicatedmisdemeanor offense.

2 Points: Violation is a misdemeanor criminal offense for which the UDC or an outside agency intends to pursue adjudication through a court or the BOPP.

13 Points: Violation is a felony, an assaultive offense, or a Federal criminal offense for which the UDCor an outside agency intends to pursue adjudication through a court or the BOPP, and/or a warrant has been requested because the offender has absconded supervision.

Recommended Based on the matrix score and resultant assigned level (minimum, medium, maximum), review Responses: recommended responses within each level. More than one response may be selected, but only check

response(s) which will actually be used to address the violation. As the levels increase, all lower level responses may be included for consideration.

Adjusted Level: If the recommended response(s) does not meet the needs of the offender, cannot be provided due to limits within the system, or does not provide for adequate community protection, the agent may elect to adjust the offender’s level. A written justification must be provided on the matrix for any level adjustments.

Process: Informal action includes a supervision review, a waiver, or any process less than formal action. Formal action is a hearing before Court/BOPP requiring a personal appearance by the offender.

Agent Name: Agent completing matrix must print their name with the date matrix was completed.

Supervisor Signature: Supervisor approving form must sign and date.

Final Disposition: What the offender was actually required to do (including incarceration) as a result of the violation.

Sample Violation Response Worksheet (Back)E X H I B I T 6–8.continued

Juvenile and Adult Arrests

Relationship ofViolation toConvicted Offense(s):

62

Counseling or reprimand by the probation officer is the most common response to minorviolations of probation. It involves confronting the probationer with the apparent violation,listening to his or her side of the story, and delivering a stern admonition or warning.

For the probationer who commits minor violations such as not keeping appointments orfinding full-time employment, an effective strategy is to increase his or her reportingrequirements to multiple times per week.

One condition of probation is that the probationer not leave the county or the State withoutthe permission of the probation officer. Although not appropriate for all probationers, with-holding this permission may be an effective consequence for those who have committedadministrative violations and who enjoy frequent trips around the State. This could alsoinclude imposing a curfew for the probationer to restrict his or her freedom to move aboutwithin the community for a period of time. The court limits officers imposing a curfew to atotal of 14 days, with no more than 7 days for each violation. Following a supervisoryreview and authorization, a curfew of up to 30 days may be imposed, with or without elec-tronic monitoring.

This is the most common response with a probationer who tests positive for drugs or alco-hol. The officer can either increase the frequency of random drug tests or, for more regularviolators, place the probationer on a twice-a-week testing schedule. This allows the officerto closely monitor the probationer.

Referring a probationer for treatment or education should be considered any time there is ademonstrated need that directly relates to the probationer’s ability to satisfactorily completeprobation. This may include treatment and/or education for alcohol or drug abuse, mentalhealth problems, financial difficulties, or family or social dysfunction. Departmental studieshave shown that probationers who complete education programs are more likely to suc-cessfully complete their period of probation.

Restructuring payment plans should also be considered when the probationer demon-strates an inability to pay in accordance with the established payment plan. This could bethe result of a change in employment status or income, temporary disability, or an exces-sive number or amount of initial payments. For probationers who earn sufficient income,payments may be increased as well. Priority for monies owed should be (1) restitution,(2) probation fees, (3) fines, and (4) other fees.

If a probationer has not paid all the restitution ordered by the sentencing judge, the officermay petition the court to extend probation for a period of up to 3 years for felony convic-tions and up to 1 year for misdemeanors to give the probationer more time to completepayment to the victim. This is the only reason that probation may be extended.

Available Community Sanctions and Consideration Criteria(Examples)

CounselingorReprimandby Officer orSupervisor

IncreasedReportingRequire-ments

TreatmentandEducationReferrals

RestructuringPayments

Loss ofTravel orOtherPrivileges

IncreasedDrug/AlcoholTesting

ExtensionofProbation

E X H I B I T 6–9.

continued

63

Community Service (CS) is an appropriate sanction to use as punishment or as a means ofholding a probationer accountable for an administrative violation of the conditions of theprobation. CS can serve as a meaningful sanction for dealing with a broad range of viola-tions such as not reporting as scheduled; failure to maintain employment; and failure tofollow through with treatment, education referrals, or programs. One method for using CSas a sanction is to require a specified number of hours of CS for each missed appointment.The court limits officers imposing CS to a total of 24 hours, with no more than 8 hours fora single violation, and limits supervisors to authorize an additional 40 hours.

A probationer who needs to be monitored closely because of a failure to comply with condi-tions should be considered for electronic monitoring (EM). The probationer would generallymeet the criteria for Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) as well as need enhanced surveil-lance to monitor and restrict his or her community activities. By using electronic monitoring,the probationer’s risk to the community and likelihood of committing new violations willbe reduced. A period of time between 30 and 90 days should be specified. The court hasauthorized the department to impose up to 30 days of EM for administrative violations. Thisrequires the approval of a supervisor and a referral to the EM team. The department has alimited number of EM units; therefore, officers should call the EM team prior to making areferral.

A probationer with a history of substance abuse problems and recent drug use should bereferred to a designated program for screening only after the officer has made treatmentreferrals, increased urine testing, and used other intermediate sanctions without success.Curfews, frequent contacts, mandatory treatment, and regular drug testing all are part ofthe current drug treatment protocol.

If a probationer has committed frequent or serious violations; is exhibiting significant prob-lems controlling his or her life; and requires more frequent contacts, regular schedules, andcloser monitoring to prevent violations, IPS may be an appropriate recommendation. Theaverage length of time a probationer remains on IPS is approximately 13 months.

The probationer must have a place to live, and other adults living in the house must beinterviewed and agree to reside with an IPS probationer. Although IPS might be appropri-ate for some probationers with chronic substance abuse problems, drug treatment may bea more appropriate referral for this population.

Recommendations for imposing jail time in response to violations should be consideredwhen probationers have willfully and consistently failed to abide by the conditions and reg-ulations of probation and other less severe sanctions have been unsuccessful or would sig-nificantly detract from the seriousness of the situation. Short jail sentences can be used topunish seriously recalcitrant probationers or to stabilize violation probationers who havemental health or serious drug abuse problems while other arrangements are made tosupervise them in the community.

Available Community Sanctions and Consideration Criteria(Examples)

ElectronicMonitoring

DrugTreatment

IntensiveProbationSupervision

Jail Time


CommunityService

64

Sample WaiverE X H I B I T 6–10.

Agreement of Violation and Sanction

Name of defendant , you are hereby notified of the following alleged violationof the terms and conditions of your probation/deferment:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Pursuant to the Probation Violation Guidelines, the following is the sanction recommended bythe Adult Probation Department for this violation:

Recommended action: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Adult Probation Department is recommending that this sanction be administered withinthe Adult Probation office by agreement between Adult Probation and me. If I accept thisagreement, complete the recommended action and have no further violations within a six(6)-month period, no further action will be taken on this violation.

However, if I do not complete the recommended action or have further violations of theterms and conditions of probation in the six (6)-month period, a more severe action will berecommended.

I understand that I can accept this agreement and have this violation taken care of withinAdult Probation without court action.

If I have not committed the violation or do not agree with and accept the recommendedaction, I understand that the necessary steps Adult Probation may take to address this allegedviolation may include court intervention.

I understand that I may consult with my attorney before I decide to accept this agreement.

I admit to the violation and agree to perform the recommended action. My decision to handlethe violation by agreement within Adult Probation without a court hearing is made voluntarilyand of my own free will. No one is putting pressure on me to accept this agreement. I willcomplete the recommended action by date .

_________________________________________________________________Defendant Date

Witnessed by:

___________________________________________________

Defendant’s comments: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Approved by the Court:

___________________________________________________Judge

65

Incentive listMany jurisdictions found that it is as—and pos-sibly more—important to reward positive behav-ior as it is to respond to unwelcome behavior.This approach is affirmed in the “what works”literature. Some jurisdictions have developedlists of incentives that officers can use to rewardoffenders’ positive behavior. Often, the incentivelist also includes the criteria the offender mustmeet to be eligible to receive an incentive as wellas the incentive’s intended purpose. For example,a supervising agency may stipulate that after 3months of reporting as scheduled, an offenderwho is otherwise in compliance with the termsand conditions of supervision is permitted tomiss the next regularly scheduled appointment.Exhibit 6–11 lists the incentives used by onejurisdiction.

Other Innovations in ViolationManagementIn addition to the instruments and tools previ-ously discussed, agencies have developed othermethods to ensure that their policies are carriedout consistently and effectively.

Case staffingsMany agencies that participated in the NIC-sponsored projects determined that their viola-tion processes were significantly lacking inoversight. Some jurisdictions did not requiresubstantial review or oversight of offender casemanagement, and in some instances, there wasno significant oversight to violation responses oreven revocation requests. To remedy these situa-tions, jurisdictions have created formal methodsto ensure communication and discussionbetween officers and supervisors. Case staffingsprovide the officer an opportunity to meet withhis or her supervisor to discuss violation cases;they consider the offender’s history of violationbehavior (i.e., the violations log), review theseverity of the current situation (e.g., the viola-tion response matrix), and determine the mosteffective response to the current behavior. Casestaffings also offer the supervisor an opportunityto work through individual cases with officersand intervene when assistance is needed, eitherin terms of handling a specific situation or work-ing with the officer in general regarding thedirection they are taking in supervising the case-load as a whole. Exhibit 6–12 provides languagefrom one jurisdiction’s policy and proceduresregarding case staffings. Exhibit 6–13 is a samplecase staffing worksheet.

1. Reduce supervision level• Early termination of supervision• Amend contact standards

2. Waive fines• Reward treatment fees (treatment scholarship)

3. Modify treatment/nontreatment conditions• Curfew time, useful public service hours, intensive home detention time

4. Positive recognition• Affirmation postcards• Certificate of completion• Reference letters (employer, school, court)

5. Summons in lieu of warrant

Incentive List (Weld County, Colorado)E X H I B I T 6–11.

66

Date _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Officer _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Supervisor _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Defendant’s Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Case # _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Offense _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

In responding to a probationer’s violation behavior in which a case conference is indicated,the officer and the supervisor shall discuss the nature of the violation and select a propor-tional response. The response will take into account the severity of the violation and therisk posed by the defendant. These factors are determined by the following issues:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Criminal record

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Previous petitions to revoke

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Circumstances of the present violation

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Intermediate interventions previously employed _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ verbal counseling _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ increased reporting _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ decreased reporting _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ meeting with supervisor _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ change in assigned probation officer _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ memo to the court _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ staffing with peers _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ other: _______________________________________________________________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Social history considerations

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Substance abuse and treatment history

Other considerations: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Conference outcome/violation response: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Sample Case Staffing WorksheetE X H I B I T 6–13.

A violation staffing is an assessment, by the agent or supervisor, of the facts of the offender’scase to determine an appropriate course of action, which shall be consistent with the natureand seriousness of the violation(s) and the risk posed by the offender.

The purpose of the staffing is to decide the most appropriate response based on all availablefacts relevant to the violation and the offender’s behavior while under supervision.

Violation Staffing: Sample Policy and Procedure DefinitionE X H I B I T 6–12.

67

Staff forumSimilarly, at least one jurisdiction developed astaff forum, which encourages officers to discussextremely difficult cases and plan strategies withtheir peers. Different from case staffings, whichare typically between a single officer and his orher supervisor, these larger meetings offer sup-port to the officers from their peer group as wellas other supervisors. This can enhance problemsolving on specific cases as well as increase thestandardization of both philosophy and violationresponses among the staff.

Administrative and judicial hearingsAdministrative and judicial hearings, also knownin some jurisdictions as violation review boardsor misconduct review boards, divert serious casesthat would otherwise result in court proceed-ings. A board of individuals, generally composedof senior-level staff and officers, review certaincategories of violation cases. (Some jurisdictionshave recruited individuals from outside theagency to serve on these boards.) Typically,the board reviews cases that are deemed by theofficer to be high risk and makes a violationresponse decision. The types of cases referredto administrative or judicial hearings varyfrom jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Exhibit 6–14describes the philosophy of and expectationsabout administrative hearings in one jurisdic-tion. Exhibit 6–15 describes another jurisdic-tion’s process—a violation review board. Exhibit6–16 is a sample “Notice to the Court,” drawnfrom several jurisdictions. Exhibit 6–17 is a sam-ple hearing notice to an offender.

Probationer or parolee handbookIn addition to giving clarity to policymakers on the violation process, what constitutes a violation, and how violations will be respondedto, it is also important to ensure that offendersare clear on these expectations. Many jurisdic-tions, therefore, have developed handbooks foroffenders that detail this information. Somejurisdictions developed these so they can be indi-vidualized to include information on the offend-er’s reporting schedule and special conditions.These handbooks contain the basic informationthe offender must know to successfully complywith the terms of supervision, and they are usedin individual orientation sessions between theofficer and the offender or in group orientationmeetings.

Testing the InstrumentsThis chapter has described many instrumentsand tools jurisdictions have designed to carry outtheir violation policies and the process teamsshould use to develop them. Their development,however, does not conclude the team’s work.After they are developed, the policy team shouldconduct a pilot test of these instruments onactual cases. Although each jurisdiction mustdevelop its own procedures, the followingdescribes the process that was used by many ofthe jurisdictions involved in the NIC-sponsoredviolation projects.

Dry runYour team can begin testing its instruments byrandomly choosing a number of actual case files(20 should be sufficient for the first test). Themain goal is to ensure that the tool is effectiveand meets the desired goals before making itavailable to others. For example, if a team hasdecided that a violation response matrix is anappropriate tool for the jurisdiction, it shouldindividualize and develop such a tool and applyit to its own cases to ensure that it does, in fact,assist officers in consistently choosing an appro-priate response to violation behavior. Invariably,the team will need to revise the tool and test itagain. The initial testing and revising of the toolmay require several repetitions.

Pilot testThe team should next conduct a full pilot testof the instruments by having officers use thetool(s) for a certain amount of time. The numberof officers used will vary for each jurisdiction;a few officers, many officers, the whole agency,or only the committee members can be selectedto test the instrument. A pilot test of 3 to 6months can provide the team with sufficientfeedback to determine how the tools should berefined to ensure maximum potential, althoughmore time may be needed. During the pilotphase, the team periodically should check withthe participating officers to offer assistance oranswer questions as needed.

During this process, the team should be collect-ing and looking at the tools to assess how con-sistently they are being used and interpreted bythe officers. The team also should track thesecases to ensure that the desired results are beingobtained. At the conclusion of the pilot, the

68

Sample Policy: Philosophy and Departmental ExpectationsE X H I B I T 6–14.

The department expects its personnel to act in ways that encourage or aid offenders in completing their super-vision in the community. These actions by departmental personnel may occur over an array of circumstancesand are collectively termed “selective interventions.” The purpose of each intervention is to address issues orproblems in the particular case. Ultimately, the department expects its personnel to engage in selective inter-ventions that are calculated to reduce the likelihood of future serious criminal conduct. Sometimes, the issuesin a case may be the violation of one or more of the conditions of supervision. In such cases, departmental per-sonnel are expected to assess the severity of the violation and the individual risks posed by the offender and torespond or recommend a response to the violation. In fashioning a response, the department expects all com-munity supervision options to be considered first, with incarceration reserved as a last option. Our administra-tive hearing process is intended to assist the department in accomplishing its broader purposes and reflects thedepartment’s belief that community supervision is the most appropriate criminal justice sanction for the vastmajority of adult criminal offenders. Thus, it is the department’s expectation that every effort will be taken tomaintain offenders in the community, even when violations of their conditions may occur. This effort willinclude appropriate guidance from the supervising agent, referral to community resources and followup whenspecialized problems are apparent, and presentation of the offender before a departmental hearing officer witha recommendation for one of the available options in the continuum of sanctions.

Allowing an offender to remain in the community under supervision enables the offender to maintain familyand social ties, continue to work or seek gainful employment, pay restitution to victims, aid his or her commu-nity through public service work, and have access to an array of social service agencies.

The department has developed a variety of “tools” to use as responses to various types of violations. It is ourintention to match the particular offender with a response that is reasoned, necessary, and appropriate. Ouradministrative hearing process provides the agent with an objective, fair, and speedy route for dealing withoffenders who have violated the conditions of supervision. Only when all appropriate options have beenexhausted, absent severe violations of the conditions of supervision, will a recommendation for revocation bemade.

Offenders encountering problems meeting the conditions of supervision will be formally notified by the agentas soon as possible following the violation. Responses by the agent will be commensurate with the nature ofthe violation. Any consideration of a change in the conditions of supervision should be formally staffed anddocumented with the agent’s supervisor. Offenders should be maintained under the least restrictive supervisionconditions required to address the individual offender’s circumstances.

By addressing violations in these ways, we strengthen our ability to hold offenders accountable, appropriatelyrespond to risks and needs, be proactive in the handling of our responsibilities, and help fulfill our broadersupervision purposes.

Departmental Goals and Expectations1. To promote appropriate and proportional responses as well as internal consistency in the

handling of violations by setting forth broad departmental expectations.

2. To establish a framework and guidelines within which agents, hearing officers, the board,and the courts can exercise their discretion in a meaningful way.

3. To generate workable and innovative methods of responding to violations that benefit theoffender without presenting undue risk to the community.

1. Violations should be responded to in a manner that reflects the severity of the offense.

2. The severity with which violations are responded to should be in a proportional manner.

3. Individuals who demonstrate a general unwillingness to abide by supervision require-ments or who pose undue risk to the community should be removed from the community.

4. Not all violations require the issuance of citations or warrants or full revocation. Manyviolators can continue in the community.

5. All violations that are detected should result in a punishment response that is proportion-al to the severity of the violation.

Goals

Depart-mental expectations

continued

69

team should survey the officers who participatedto determine the tools’ strengths and weakness-es, and elicit suggestions for improvement.Depending on the extent of the modifications,another pilot test may be necessary. After finalrevisions and discussions, the tool(s) should beready for full implementation.

EvaluationDuring the pilot test of the tools, the teamshould begin to consider data collection for mon-itoring and evaluation, which are crucial compo-nents of a policy implementation strategy. Awell-developed, consistently applied monitoringsystem will help ensure the long-term successor failure of the violation process. This topic isdiscussed more in depth in chapter 9.

Staff TrainingDuring the implementation of these instru-ments, jurisdictions generally noticed that sup-plemental materials and activities are requiredto fully institutionalize the tools and help themachieve their potential.

With the adoption of a new policy, your jurisdic-tion will need to conduct training on severalissues for all staff. For example, one training willinstruct supervision staff on how to use the newinstruments. Another training will orient allstaff to the new violation policy. Collectiveinstruction will increase the degree of compli-ance with the new tools and the policy. Trainingmanuals should be developed to ensure that eachstaff training session is conducted in a standard-ized manner. There may also need to be a “train

6. All concerned personnel will be encouraged to use that response which best reflects thesituation in light of the nature of the violation, the offender’s circumstances, the generalrisk of the offender and the adjustment of the offender to the community, and the needto maintain the respect of the offender for adherence to the conditions of supervision.

7. Agents will document justifications for responses to violations.

8. Hearing officers will make findings of fact in support of recommendations and orders.

9. The board and the court will make determinations of fact in support of revocationorders.

10. The board and the court may impose special conditions in all appropriate circumstances.

11. Hearing officers will be empowered with wide discretion to impose any special condi-tions permitted by law and policy as a means of reducing or better managing the risksposed by the offender while maintaining them in their community.

Sample Policy: Philosophy and Departmental ExpectationsE X H I B I T 6–14.continued

The Violation Review Board (Weld County, Colorado)E X H I B I T 6–15.

The Violation Review Board (VRB) provides a forum for the delegation of sanctions fromthe Court to the Probation Department. The purpose of VRB is to provide a rational andpurposeful decisionmaking process that contributes to consistent and equitable responsesto offender misconduct.

The probation officer will refer to the probation violation matrix to determine the severity of the violation and risk posed by the probationer. The officer then will use the case staffingform to determine if the case should be presented to VRB for more intensive sanctions.Upon the findings of VRB, the probationer must agree to the sanctions that VRB seeks toimpose as an alternative to a revocation complaint being filed with the court. A “waiverform” will be signed by the VRB representative and the probationer and forwarded to theCourt for review and approval.

70

Sample Notice to the Court of a Violation and Imposition of an Intermediate Response

E X H I B I T 6–16.

State of ___________________, ) CR–00000Plaintiff, )

vs. ) NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND IMPOSITION OF) INTERMEDIATE RESPONSE

(Defendant’s name), )Defendant )

__________________________________________ )

On (date), the above named defendant was adjudged guilty of (offense[s]), and was placed on probation for_____ years, to (date) from (date). The attached conditions were imposed and a copy given to the defendant.

THE COURT IS HEREBY NOTIFIED OF THE FOLLOWING ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLATIONS:

(1)

(2)

In lieu of filing a Petition to Revoke Probation, the following intermediate response(s) was (were)imposed:

(1)

(2)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Unit Supervisor Adult Probation Officer

Sample Hearing NoticeE X H I B I T 6–17.

Date _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Offender _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Department of Probation and Parole

-vs-

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Notice of Hearing

You are notified that a hearing will be conducted by a neutral Hearing Officer on the ________ day of __________,

20____, at ________ M. at _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

You may retain an attorney at your expense. The Department of Probation and Parole is not required to provideyou with counsel in this matter. If you cannot afford to hire an attorney, you may, at your hearing, petition foran appointed attorney. An attorney will not be appointed except in the more extraordinary circumstances. Youhave the right to question any person making allegations against you at this hearing. It is your responsibility tomake arrangements for any witnesses and your attorney, if you have one, to appear at your violation hearing.

I hereby acknowledge notification of the hearing in my case.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Supervising Agent Probationer/Parolee Date

Distribution: Hearing Section (Original)Probationer/ParoleeSupervising Agent’s Field File

71

the trainer” event for those conducting theagency’s ongoing staff training.

Furthermore, while examining the tools andforms you currently use, you may find some thatcan still be used but will need to be revised foryour new policy.

To prepare your team for the work outlined inthis chapter, exercise 6–1 provides a frameworkto discuss the various tools and instruments you might need to implement your new viola-tion policy.

The goal of this exercise is to provide your team with a structured way of thinking aboutthe tools or instruments needed to implement your violation policy. This exercise is to beconducted after the policymaking is finalized.

1. Before beginning this exercise, which will help the team begin thinking about policyimplementation, ensure that your team’s new policy is outlined fully.

2. Many jurisdictions have found that their policies are best implemented through the useof the following tools or instruments: an agency mission statement, a statement ofsupervision philosophy, a statement of values and principles underlying supervision andviolation practices, a list of specific procedures, a delineation of roles, operating princi-ples, training curriculums that introduce staff to these policies and practices, and a set oftools, forms, and instruments. In the process of creating new violation policy, the teammay have begun to define or redefine some of these pieces.

3. What other pieces do you want to define or redefine to implement your new violationpolicy? Discuss what tools are needed to aid in the implementation of your policy. Besure to discuss:

• The purpose of the tools and what they should contain.

• How you will develop these tools.

• Who will use them.

• When they will be used.

4. Consider any other work that is needed to ensure the effective implementation of viola-tion policy in your jurisdiction. Discuss:

• The roles of various levels of management staff.

• How to ensure that staff “buy into” the policy.

• A training and implementation plan.

5. After this work is completed, revisit the issue in several meetings to determine whetheror not there are any changes needed in the process itself (e.g., streamlining, eliminatingsteps or paperwork, resource sharing, changing who is involved at certain points) thatwill help you to more efficiently develop violation policy.

Examining Implementation



Sentencing judges, paroleboards, and probation agen-cies have become familiarwith the use of intermedi-ate sanctions as credibleoptions at the sentencingstage. The use of intermedi-ate sanctions as a responseto violations is a naturalprogression from this expe-rience. If criminal activityfalls along a range of seri-ousness and risk warrantinga range of sanctioningresponses, technical viola-tion behavior also fallsalong a similar continuum.Although many agencies’past and current practiceshave relied on revocation asthe primary response toviolations, that picture is changing.

Specifying a Range of IntermediateSanctionsEarlier, this handbook discussed the importanceof developing a common understanding of the“baseline” from which you are working, includ-ing a profile of the offender population movingthrough the violation process, the policy direc-tives, and the options you currently have inplace to respond to violations. This chapter willhelp you identify existing sanctions and beginthinking about those sanctions in new ways.

To begin developing an inventory of availablesanctions, conduct brainstorming sessions amongstaff to identify every possible sanction available.Also survey staff and check resource directoriesto create an exhaustive list. This process will

73

Filling in the Gaps: Increasing the AvailableRange of Responses to ViolationsPeggy Burke

C H A P T E R S E V E N




Agree on goals





also help identify community resources ofwhich few may be aware or that have not beenconsidered previously as a response to violationbehavior.

Once the resources are identified, group themin logical ways. What services are similar to oneanother? How are they the same, and, moreimportant, how are they different from oneanother? It may be prudent to talk to those whoprovide the services to determine the offenderpopulations with whom they can and cannoteffectively work. With this knowledge, alongwith input from staff, it may be possible todevelop guidelines on the appropriate times toinvoke one sanction over another.

This process is likely to identify gaps in servicesand sanctions. The research on intermediatesanctions indicates that, at most, 10 percent ofprobationers and parolees participate in suchsanctions1 and that,even with the continu-ous discussion and sup-port of intermediatesanctions, they havebeen poorly funded forthe most part. Manyjurisdictions, there-fore, will find them-selves looking forresources to fill thegaps in their continu-um of sanctions. Thefirst solution thatcomes to mind—toooften—is to create new programs. Fiscally, thismay not be possible, but it also may not be nec-essary. Instead, once gaps and overlaps in thesystem of sanctions are identified, many jurisdic-tions successfully retool existing services to fillthe gaps at little or no cost.

Many jurisdictions will findthemselves looking forresources to fill the gaps intheir continuum of sanc-tions. The first solution thatcomes to mind—toooften—is to create newprograms. Fiscally, this maynot be possible, but it alsomay not be necessary.

74

The following are some questions to considerabout your current array of sanctions:

Should you change how you use yourexisting options? First, you should reexamine your current optionsand again consider how you use them. Is youragency using them to their best effect? Aresome overused or underused? Are the availableresponses being matched with appropriate offend-ers? Particularly for responses that are expensiveand scarce, are you adequately targeting them tothe higher risk, higher stakes offenders? The lit-erature concludes that when interventions aretargeted to higher risk offenders, the highest pay-off is received in terms of reduced recidivism.Therefore, you may want to redirect some optionsto those offenders. Changing how you use whatyou currently have may be the first place to lookto increase your available sanctions.

Should you consider redeployingresources to create different or additional options?At least one jurisdiction with which we workedredeployed resources from one type of drug treat-ment to another to allow for faster responses tooffenders showing signs of relapse. Other juris-dictions invested more resources in cognitivebehavioral programming and reduced expendi-tures in other areas.

Should you consider adding incentivesanctions—at little or no cost?In discussing responses to violations, the focusis almost exclusively on responses to negativeoccurrences, such as violations, previolationbehavior, and signs of relapse. If, for example,a goal is to encourage success, you might focusmore on incentives. Early termination of super-vision, lowering the level of supervision, andreducing work service hours are a few possibleincentives that are cost free and potentiallycost saving.

Should you seek funding for additionalsanctions or access further sanctionsfrom other agencies?In addition to exhausting all the possibilities forretooling, redeploying, or using existing sanc-tions in different ways, you may need to explorethe need for additional resources. Many Stateshave created funding streams for community-based sanctions to control the use of State

resources for prison beds. Federal funding isanother source, particularly in the drug treat-ment arena.

Arraying Services and SanctionsOnce all available resources have been identi-fied—and gaps are filled to the extent possibleand reasonable—it is important to consider howthe sanctions can logically be arrayed along acontinuum of increasing punishment, control,and intensity of treatment. The notion is notonly to generate a wide range of possibleresponses to violation behavior but to designa purposeful strategy to respond to violationsthrough the use of specific options that achievespecific goals. Inevitably, sanctions that includeloss of liberty (e.g., house arrest) or serious con-straints on movement (e.g., electronic monitor-ing) are found toward the top of the continuum,while less onerous or controlling sanctions (e.g.,increased reporting or screening for substanceabuse) are found toward the middle or lower end.How sanctions are arrayed and used has every-thing to do with local practices and the availabil-ity of resources and differs significantly from onejurisdiction to the next. Diagram 7–1 provides anexample of the range of responses to violationsavailable in many jurisdictions, arrayed along acontinuum of increasing levels of control, puni-tiveness, and intensity.

Developing Policy to Guide the Useof ResourcesAfter identifying resources and designing aframework within which resources can beviewed as a “continuum,” the next task is todevelop guidance for staff on how to use them.The “glue” that holds these disparate elementsin place is policy. Policy is the official languagethat identifies the factors to be considered, withwhat weight, and what action should typicallybe taken, given a particular configuration ofthese factors. For example, for an offender with ahigh-severity violation who himself is classifiedas high risk, the policy might indicate quickissuance of a warrant and recommendation forrevocation. With a low-severity and low-risk vio-lation, combined with a low-risk offender, thetypical course of action might be an adjustmentof the offender’s reporting schedule and a verbalreprimand. (See exhibit 1–1 in chapter 1 for anexample of some typical language found in policydirectives concerning these “new generation”responses to violations.)

75

ConclusionUnderstanding the array of sanctions andresponses available to respond to offenders’ violation behavior in your community is animportant step in developing violation policy.Identifying the full range of responses, creatingnew responses when appropriate, and developingcommon agreements about when to use variousresponses will assist agency staff in thinking

more clearly about the selection of one responseover another, ensuring that the full range ofresponses is considered, and more appropriatelymatching sanctions to the behaviors and needsof individual offenders.

Note1. Petersilia, Joan, 1999, “A Decade of ExperimentingWith Intermediate Sanctions: What Have We Learned,”Perspectives (Winter): 41.

Illustrative Range of Intermediate ResponsesD I A G R A M 7–1.

Violation Response Chart

Decisionmaking Violation Severity and Level Risk Assessment Response

Probation officer Lower severity and risk • Curfew (up to 7 days)

• Community service (up to 8 hours)

• Loss of travel or other privileges

• Counseling or treatment

• Begin or increase drug/alcohol testing

• Increased reporting

• Counseling or reprimand by unit supervisor

• Counseling or reprimand by probation officer

Supervisor staffing Moderate severity and risk • Direct program

• Community service (20–40 hours)

• Electronic monitoring release for work (up to 30 days)

• Curfew (up to 30 days)

• Increase supervision level

• All listed above

Court hearing High severity and risk • Prison

• Jail

• Jail with work furlough

• Residential treatment

• Intensive probation supervision

• Electronic monitoring house arrest (or more than30 days’ work furlough)

• All listed above

When agencies first beginlooking at their handlingof violations, they are con-cerned primarily aboutwhether or not to revoke.Typically, the discussionis driven by resource con-cerns, public safety, orfrustrations over chronicnoncompliance. The discus-sion often poses the issueas an “either/or” choice,much like the basic sen-tencing question of “proba-tion or prison.” However,agencies quickly realizethat violations do not fallneatly into two categories—those for which revocationand incarceration are appro-priate, and those for whichcontinuation on probation is appropriate. Infact, violations represent a range of severity andrisk concerns for which a range of responses is

77

Beyond the Continuum of Sanctions:A Menu of Outcome-Based InterventionsPeggy Burke

C H A P T E R E I G H T




Agree on goals





appropriate. A “continuum of sanctions” (seediagram 8–1) is a framework of the variousoptions that are available.

The Limits of the ContinuumGiven the contrast between probation at oneextreme and prison at the other, there is a ten-dency to think of punishment and control as theorganizing principles underlying the continuum.The previous chapter outlined a fairly commoncontinuum of sanctions. This continuum includ-ed less restrictive options such as a verbal repri-mand and increased reporting at the low end,with house arrest, electronic monitoring, andcurfew at the high end. For purposes of punish-ment, incapacitation, or control, a continuumwith these ordering principles is quite helpful.

The complexity lies in the fact that punishmentand control are not the only interests we havein responding to offenders’ violation behavior.Indeed, if we look thoughtfully at the evaluationresearch on the impact of intermediate sanctions,we find the combination of surveillance and

Continuum of SanctionsD I A G R A M 8–1.

Continuum of Intermediate Sanctions

Regular Prison/jailprobation

“Two sizes do not fit all”

78

treatment seems to have the power to affectfuture criminality. Joan Petersilia summarizeswhat has been learned from evaluations of theintermediate sanctions experience:

These results bring into question two basicpremises of intermediate sanctions, i.e., thatincreased surveillance acts as a constraint onthe offender and that the likelihood of detectionacts as a deterrent to crime. The University ofMaryland project, which summarized evalua-tions across the full range of intermediate sanc-tions, concluded: [E]xcept in a few instances,there is no evidence that these programs are

effective in reducing crime as measured by offi-cial record data. . . .

[A]n important and tantalizing finding—con-sistent across all the evaluations regardless ofprogram design—points to the importance ofcombining surveillance and drug treatmentprogram participation. In the RAND IntensiveSupervision Program demonstration, offenderswho had participated in treatment, communityservice, and employment programs—prosocialactivities—had recidivism rates 10 to 20 per-cent below that of those who did not partici-pate in such additional activities.

Violation Policy (Sixth Judicial District, Iowa, Department ofCorrectional Services)

The primary purpose in responding to violation behavior is to determine the level of response needed to man-age the risk and gain future compliance.

Violations of probation should be handled, to the extent possible and consistent with community safety, throughthe use of community sanctions. Those sanctions should encourage future compliance, provide resources torespond to offender needs that may be contributing factors to the violation behavior, and use only thoseresources required to achieve the objectives of supervision.

The purpose of responding to violation behavior is to manage the risk demonstrated by the underlying viola-tion behavior through treatment/support and/or control. The nature of the response is determined by the will-ingness and ability of the offender to cooperate in treatment and support services. The higher the risk posedby the offender, the higher that offender will be moved on either the continuum of treatment/support, or thecontinuum of control. When the offender is unwilling or unable to cooperate in treatment or participate insupport services, then risk will be managed through responses that increase the control exercised over theoffender in proportion to the risk presented.

Organizing and using community resources effectively into “a continuum of responses” to probation viola-tions has been undertaken from the theoretical premise that criminal behavior does not fall neatly into twocategories—one deserving of incarceration and one deserving of probation. In recent literature, BetweenPrison and Probation: Intermediate Punishments in a Rational Sentencing System,* Norval Morris and MichaelTonry contend that criminal behavior falls along a continuum of severity and even culpability that warrants arange of sanctions scaled roughly in punitiveness in proportion to the severity of the criminal offense. Hence,community corrections practitioners should think of various punishments arrayed along a scale of punitive-ness and that these should be applied according to a national sentencing scheme. The same argument canbe made for response to violation behavior—that violation behavior does not fall into two categories—onedeserving of revocation and incarceration and one deserving of continued probation without modification.Rather, such behavior probably falls along a continuum of severity that warrants a range of responses scaledby punitiveness and applied according to a policy framework that guides the actions of probation officers andthe courts.

However, sanctioning interests in proportionate punishment do not stand alone. A multiplicity of sanctioninggoals are involved in developing “a continuum of responses” because there are clearly interests in incapacitat-ing dangerous offenders and addressing offenders’ needs for rehabilitative services or the community’s needfor restoration. A single continuum of sanctions arrayed along a scale of punitiveness suggests that as offend-ers have difficulties complying at lower levels, the response is to move them into increasingly higher levels ofpunishment/control. Simply arraying community sanctions along a two-dimensional continuum, moving fromless punitive or intrusive to more punitive or intrusive, does not adequately address the problem, for example,of an offender who has relapsed into drug use despite sincere efforts at abstinence. Or what if an offender hasfailed to pay fees or restitution because of a lack of employment? Increasing the fee or amount of restitution asa response does not seem a sensible approach if the basic problem is the offender’s unwillingness, or eveninability, to pay.

E X H I B I T 8–1.

continued

79

Researchers have found similar results inMassachusetts, Oregon, and Ohio. . . . Theempirical evidence regarding intermediate sanc-tions is decisive: Without a rehabilitation com-ponent, reductions in recidivism are elusive.1

Thus, if we are attempting to do more thansimply punish or hold offenders accountable fornoncompliance, and if we are also attempting alonger lasting impact on offenders’ likelihood ofcommitting future crimes, it seems importantto move beyond the concept of a “continuumof graduated sanctions” to what we might calla “menu of outcome-based interventions.”

Exhibit 8–1 is an example of policy languagefrom one jurisdiction that sought to movebeyond the notion of a single continuum.

A Menu of Outcome-BasedInterventions, or a MultidimensionalContinuumDiagram 8–2 illustrates a familiar representationof a continuum of sanctions. This is a stairstepdiagram applied to offender violation behavior,reflecting that along a continuum of control andaccountability, a violation response is chosen

Violation Policy (Sixth Judicial District, Iowa, Department ofCorrectional Services)

Another dimension of concern over the notion of a single continuum of sanction for violators is that the appro-priateness and effectiveness of interventions will depend heavily on whether the offender is cooperative or not.If failure in drug or alcohol treatment, for example, is a relapse associated with the chronic nature of the diseaseor a result of placement in a modality inappropriate for the particular needs of the offender, a shift in therapeu-tic approach may be appropriate. However, if the offender simply will not attend treatment, an intervention thatimposes more control may be appropriate.

Thinking in terms of the multiplicity of concerns represented by offenders’ behavior, our responses may like-wise be thought of as falling along continuums of punitiveness, control, and support. A response may take intoaccount several considerations, in that it should be designed to be proportionate in its punitiveness to the seri-ousness of the offender’s violation behavior, controlling in proportion to the risk presented by the offender, andsupportive or rehabilitative in proportion to the needs of the offender. It is important to consider interactionsamong the dimensions depending on their relative importance. If, for example, risk is a primary concern, thena higher risk offender might expect a more intensive type of response for the same behavior than a lower riskoffender might expect.

For example, a high-risk offender who does not report might warrant a more stringent response than a low-riskoffender who does not report. However, it is important to create an upper level threshold above which minortechnical violations do not warrant a response—regardless of the risk of the offender. Otherwise, we leave thedoor open to imposing serious responses—e.g., offender incarceration—for violation of technical conditionsof probation for an original offense that did not warrant incarceration. It is also important to think of the risk asincorporating the likelihood of future criminal behavior with some sense of its severity as well. It may be thatsome low-level offenders (e.g., check writers), are risky because they are likely to reoffend. In the instance ofcheck writers, the stakes involved may not be high enough to warrant the use of resources as a response. Sexoffenders, however, represent a high-stakes risk indicating the need for more extreme use of resources.

A practical way to implement our multiplicity of concerns across dimensions is to think of the resources wehave to deploy. First is officer time; second is control and punishment mechanisms (surveillance, electronicmonitoring, etc.); third is treatment of different types; and fourth is intensity of treatment. In this vein, a con-tinuum of responses consisting of the level of supervision, control/punishment, and treatment/support has beendeveloped to guide decisionmaking. For individuals whose risk concerns predominate, higher levels of controlare appropriate, coupled with appropriate treatment type and intensity. For individuals with lower risk concerns,lower levels of supervision/control are appropriate.

This philosophy is consistent with the mission and goals of community-based corrections, which are to(1) ensure public safety using the least restrictive control measure feasible; (2) assist adult offenders in becomingsocially responsible and self-sufficient individuals; and (3) manage resources and provide accountability in themost efficient, effective, and practical manner attainable while being cognizant of and sensitive to victim rights.

* Morris, Norval, and Michael Tonry, 1990, Between Prison and Probation: Intermediate Punishments in aRational Sentencing System, New York: Oxford University Press.


80

that is proportional to the severity of the viola-tion and the risk of the offender. Relatively lessintrusive interventions are to the left, moreintrusive ones to the right. However, this dia-gram is three dimensional rather than onedimensional. The multidimensional nature ofthe diagram allows for selection along a continu-um of responses for each step. Thus, a violationmay have at its root different issues that requiredifferent responses, not in severity, but in type.For example, if an offender is involved in viola-tion behavior that is relatively minor—such asfailure to report a change of address within thesame neighborhood—and is a relatively low-riskoffender, it may be appropriate to require morefrequent reporting for a period of time. Thiswould address the agency’s accountability con-cerns. However, if the offender’s move is theresult of a job loss and an inability to pay rent, itmay be more appropriate to intervene by impos-ing employment-related consequences, such asrequired attendance at a job-readiness program.

Creating depth for each step on the continuumadds another dimension to violation responses. Ateach step of the continuum, we might conceiveof a menu of interventions that are appropriateto an individual offender’s unique circumstances.As the severity and risk concerns increase—andmore intrusive sanctions are appropriate—themenu of interventions becomes more important.If a serious technical violation is associated withdrug use, it seems important not only to thinkabout accountability and incapacitation but also

to examine the menu of options to connect thatoffender with prosocial activities that willaddress the drug use in ways that a sanctionused purely for punishment cannot.

Applying a decision tree process tothe use of the continuumDiagram 8–3 represents a decisionmakingprocess that illustrates how one might thinkabout a “menu” of interventions related to spe-cific concerns with an offender involved in tech-nical violation behavior. On this decisionmakingtree, imminent risk and high-severity viola-tions—however those are defined in a particularjurisdiction—result in quickly moving to thecontinuum of sanctions geared to increasing con-trol. In lower level and midlevel risk and severi-ty situations, however, the probation or paroleofficer might consider which menu of sanctionsis appropriate to the offender and the situation atthat level. A drug or alcohol abuse menu mightinclude a range of treatment options geared todifferent learning styles, work schedules, orrelapse cycles. Another menu of interventionsmight be directed specifically at garneringaccountability for low-level, repetitive noncom-pliance. When thinking errors are involved, amenu of cognitive skills programming mightbe appropriate. Similarly, when noncomplianceinvolves failure to pay fees or restitution, theremight be a financial menu providing for resched-uling of payments, substitution of work for pay-ments, or the like.

A Three-Dimensional Continuum of Responses to ViolationsD I A G R A M 8–2.

Menu of Interventions

Prison/jail

Residential facility

Electronic monitoring

Curfew

Specialized caseloads

Intensive supervision

Probation

81

The purpose: responses that increasethe likelihood of compliance and successThe purpose of the multidimensional continuumconcept is to match interventions to the specificissues underlying offenders’ noncompliance toenhance the likelihood of compliance in thefuture. For example, if an offender is havingtrouble paying fines and fees because he or shelost a job, increasing reporting requirements orthe level of supervision falls short of addressingthe real problem. The more logical solution is tointervene in a way that will secure the outcomebeing sought, in this instance, enabling theoffender to make his or her required payment.

ConclusionJurisdictions involved in the NIC-sponsoredprojects discovered that thinking beyond thetraditional continuum of sanctions allowed

them to focus on what it takes to make offenderssuccessful. The objective of responding to offend-ers’ violation behavior is not only to provideincreasing levels of punishment for increasinglevels of violations but also to provide inter-ventions that prevent future violations—bothtechnical and criminal.

As you work to develop your policy-drivenresponses to violations of probation and parole,you need to go beyond the notion of a continu-um of graduated sanctions. Identify and imple-ment those menus of options that will addressthe problems your probationers and parolees faceas they—and you—try to move toward success-ful completion of supervision.

Note1. Petersilia, Joan, 1999, “A Decade of ExperimentingWith Intermediate Sanctions: What Have We Learned?”Perspectives (Winter): 42.

Menu of Violation ResponsesD I A G R A M 8–3.

TECHNICALVIOLATION

Successful/compliant supervision

Go to control continuum

Serious community safety concerns?

High severity?

Drug treatment menu

Accountability menu

Cognitive skills menu

Financial menu

Community service menu

NO

NO

YESYES

A jurisdiction that is defin-ing new or refining existingprobation and parole viola-tion policies understandsthe significant investmentof time and energy thatunderscores this effort. Thischapter addresses the stepsyour jurisdiction shouldtake to assess how wellyour violation policies areachieving your targetedgoals. If you were diligentin gathering a clear pictureof where your jurisdictionwas when it began theprocess of developing new—or refining existing—viola-tion policies, you shouldnow be able to compareprepolicy and postpolicyconditions and more accurately draw conclu-sions about the relationship between your viola-tion policy and changes in practice, culture, andoutcomes. Monitoring the impact and progressmade toward intended outcomes is a logical pro-gression in your work.

Activities suggested in this chapter are frequent-ly cross-referenced with those described in chap-ter 4. That chapter focused on the necessity ofgathering information at the outset of the processfrom many system sectors and through a widerange of activities to describe the following:

• Operationally, how violation responses weremade prior to the new or refined policy (muchof this is learned from mapping exercises).

• Qualitatively, what philosophies and goalsdrove decisionmaking and what degree of con-sistency typified violation decisionmaking

83

Keeping It Alive: Monitoring the Impact ofViolation Response PolicyDonna Reback

C H A P T E R N I N E




Agree on goals





among the different players in the system(this information comes from interviews withindividuals and groups responsible for imple-menting the various aspects of your violationpolicy).

• Quantitatively, what criminal justice resourceswere used, how cost effective they were, howviolation decisions affected public safety, howmany and what types of violations were com-monly processed prior to the new or refinedpolicy, and how violations were disposed (thisinformation is derived from analyses of theoffender population).

Thus, if your jurisdiction created a description ofthe baseline conditions related to violation deci-sionmaking, you are ready to focus on monitoring.

What Does Monitoring Require?From a practical standpoint, monitoring enablesa jurisdiction to follow and chart its progresstoward intended goals and outcomes through aset of ongoing, regularly scheduled activities.The capacity to monitor the impacts, outcomes,and effects of violation policies requires that thecriminal justice system recognize informationgathering as a critical activity and create aninfrastructure with dedicated staff, informationsystems technology, and resources to undertakethis task. Too often, new policies are implement-ed without the development of a mechanism fordetermining the extent of their impact. Thepresence of a monitoring capacity is a furtherdemonstration that policymakers are committedto achieving the goals of their policy.

What should you monitor?At a minimum, a jurisdiction should assess howits violation policies affect:

84

• Changes in the use of criminal justiceresources as a result of the policy.

• Changes in the culture around violation policies.

• Changes in offender responsiveness andaccountability.

• Public safety.

Additionally, ongoing collection and examina-tion of information should be designed to helppolicymakers recognize:

• The extent to which the policy has achievedits intended effects.

• What, if any, unintended consequences haveresulted from the policy.

• Obstacles impeding implementation of the policy.

• Ways to strengthen the ability of the policy tomeet the articulated goals of the jurisdiction.

• Areas of the policy that should be altered orabandoned.

When should you monitor?Policies are not implemented in a day. On thecontrary, policy change is accompanied by aperiod of learning, resistance, growth, and adap-tation. Frequently, jurisdictions wait until a poli-cy is fully implemented before monitoring itsimpacts. Although this may sound logical, it isour experience that full implementation of anypolicy often takes longer than expected. Externaland unexpected factors often intervene to slowdown full implementation or change its course.If monitoring policy impacts is tied to full policyimplementation, years could pass before a juris-diction is able to assess how well the violationpolicy has attained its goals. And by not moni-toring practices and impacts as they evolve, ajurisdiction may be unable to correct or save apolicy that resulted in unintended outcomes.

Some monitoring activities should be conductedon an ongoing basis. Specifically, offender popu-lation data that describe offender characteristics,offense behavior, and sanctioning decisionsshould be collected routinely. Other activities,such as updating the violation process map andassessing how the goals, philosophies, and prac-tices of individual decisionmakers have respond-ed to policy, should take place at wider intervals.

The following discussion provides guidelines onhow and when to monitor the impacts and out-comes of your violation policy.

Using your baseline information as a referencepoint, you are ready to update information tomeasure changes and compare preimplemen-tation and postimplementation conditions.Following is a discussion of changes and out-comes, reasons, and methods to monitor.

Monitoring changes in the use ofcriminal justice resources as a resultof policy changesMany States and counties are interested indeveloping clear probation and parole violationpolicies that maintain public safety throughdecisions and actions that manage risk and buildoffender accountability without overusing incar-ceration. If, for example, one of your goals forimplementing a probation or parole violationpolicy is to manage the use of criminal justiceresources in the most effective and cost-efficientway, a jurisdiction will want to determine howthat policy affects the use of expensive prison,jail, and community-based resources. Therefore,policymakers will want to determine what, ifany, change resulted from implementation of apolicy by answering the following questions:

• How does the violation policy affect the number of offenders revoked to some form of incarceration?

• How does the violation policy affect thenumber of offenders being maintained undercommunity supervision?

• Is that supervision intensified? If so, how hasthe use of community-based resources beenaffected?

• What are the overall costs to the jurisdictionresulting from the policy?

Strategies for monitoring

Collect offender data. It is important to continueto collect data on new and existing cases as theyenter and move through the system. This requiresthe maintenance of a data collection system,either manual or automated, that uses offenderrecords as the place to record the aforementionedinformation. A means of collecting these data inan organized way is essential (see diagram 9–1for suggestions).

85

This data collection approach provides jurisdic-tions with the ability to compile an aggregatedescription of specific factors through simplestatistical methods. The capacity of someinformation systems may require working withoutside resources, such as local universitiesor consultants, to help set up mechanisms forthese valuable analyses.

Offender information should be collected on aday-by-day basis as part of ongoing casework.Compile and analyze aggregate informationfrom all the individual offender data collectionsources every 6 months, at least for the first yearthe policy is in place. If, at the end of this peri-od, the data indicate that the violation policiesare achieving the desired outcomes, it may be

possible to extend this process to an annual basis.Exhibit 9–1 provides a sample monitoring proto-col developed by one of NIC’s project sites.

Update your map. Another valuable source ofinformation about how violation decisionmak-ing takes place in and affects all parts of thecriminal justice system is the system map. Referto the mapping exercise described in chapter 4.Plan to revisit the map at 6-month intervals. Ifyou were able to document the flow and volumeof different types of cases through the systemprior to adopting new violation policy, revisitthe map with the same group to observe how thenumbers and types of violations flowing throughthe system and decisionmaking patterns wereaffected. Reexamining the map also provides

Suggested Data Collection ApproachD I A G R A M 9–1.

Create a form for supervision agency staff to complete. Whether this is a paper-and-pencilor computer-generated form will depend on your jurisdiction’s technological capacity. Whatis important is that the form include all the elements required to measure changes in:

• The rate of violations and revocations resulting in incarceration (with a new convictionand without a new conviction).

• The rate of violations resulting in a parole or probation “restart” (through either an inter-nal or court decision to impose nonincarcerative or alternative additional sanctions).

• The rate of violations resulting in a parole or probation termination.

It is also important to track changes in the type and quantity of nonincarcerative responsesused to manage violators in the community. Therefore, it is important to identify:

• The number of nonincarcerative responses used (and violations noted) before a revoca-tion to incarceration.

• The number of nonincarcerative responses used before terminating a case without arevocation.

• The range of responses to violations created and used. (Have these changed? Are therenew, more, or less sanctions and responses available for violation decisionmaking?)

• The length of time elapsed from the filing of a violation to decision or disposition.

• The length of time elapsed to complete supervision (from beginning to termination).

Individual offender records need to provide a place to record what sanction or outcomewas imposed as a result of the violation. To be complete, the information needs to indicatemuch more about the offender. Record the following:

• Original offense.

• Criminal history.

• The nature of the violation (technical or new law).

• Supervision history (compliance history, length of time between supervision periods).

• Demographic information.

• Information related to criminogenic needs.

• Risk assessment scores (if risk assessment scales were used to assess the offender).

86

1. Rate of revocation

Rationale: A goal of the new process is to reduce the rate of prison revocations for paroleand probation violators.

Definition: Rate of revocation is the number of parole or probation revocations divided bythe number of offenders on parole or probation, respectively. This rate should be comparedbefore and after implementation of the new policy to show if the rate has been reduced.

Additional measurements:

• Rate of revocations resulting in a prison admission with a new conviction.

• Rate of revocations resulting in a prison admission without a new conviction.

• Rate of revocations resulting in a jail stay.

• Rate of revocations resulting in a parole or probation restart.

• Rate of revocations resulting in termination.

Availability of data: All data, including historical data that allow for before and after comparisons, are available on the automated database.

2. Number of revocations for lower risk offenders

Rationale: The new violation policy is designed to help agents distinguish between offenders violating supervision under circumstances that pose a risk to the community and should result in revocation and those less serious circumstances that do not merit revocation.

Definition: The violation policy classifies the violation as minimum, medium, and maximumrisk using specific assessment items. In this measure, the numbers of revocations for violations in the minimum-, medium-, and maximum-risk categories are reported.

Additional measurements: None.

Availability of Data: Data will become available as violation worksheets are entered in theautomated database.

3. Rate of convictions for new felonies for probationers and parolees

Rationale: The logic behind tight enforcement of the conditions of probation and paroleis to stop offenders from committing new crimes. Any effort to reduce the revocation rate should be accompanied by an evaluation of the effect on new felony offenses. Thisrequires a comparison of the rate of new convictions before and after implementation ofthe new policy.

Definition: The rate is measured by counting the number of new felony convictionsreceived by offenders who are already on parole or probation divided by the number ofoffenders on parole or probation. This rate is compared before and after implementation of the new policy to evaluate the impact of the change in violation policy on this measure.

Additional measurements:

• Rate of felony convictions by type of offense.

• Rate of felony convictions by degree of offense.

Availability of data: All data, including historical data that allow for before and after comparisons, are available on the automated database.

Sample Monitoring Protocol

SuggestedMeasure-ments

E X H I B I T 9–1.

continued

87

4. Use of graduated responses to revocation and the impact on conviction and revocation rates

Rationale: Graduated responses are being used in place of revocations in a number ofcases. In addition, it is important to find out if increased numbers of formally defined graduated responses are reducing revocation rates. It is possible that the criteria for revocation have not actually changed because of the use of graduated responses.

Definition: The rate of alternative responses is measured using the number of supervisionreviews divided by the number of offenders on probation or parole. For each month, thisrate is compared with the new felony conviction rate and the revocation rate (describedpreviously). Comparisons of the relationships before and after implementation of the newpolicy is made.


Availability of Data: All data, including historical data that allow for before and after com-parisons, are available on the automated database.

5. Rate of terminations for parole and probation by types of termination

Rationale: One possible outcome of a revision of the violation policy is an increase in therate of successful completions of parole or probation. Giving offenders more chances tosucceed in the community might result in earlier or more successful terminations. Thecommittee expressed interest in reviewing any changes in other types of terminations suchas expirations or probation terminations for absconding.

Definition: This rate is measured by using the number of terminations of each type dividedby the number of offenders on probation or parole. Comparisons are made of rates beforeand after implementation of the new policy.


Availability of data: All data, including historical data that can be used for before and aftercomparisons, are available on the automated database.

6. Time to termination of probation and parole

Rationale: Another possible outcome of a revision of the violation policy is a change in thetime required to complete parole or probation or a change in the time before a revocation.

Definition: This is measured by looking at the time between the beginning of supervisionand the termination and whether the termination is a successful completion or a revoca-tion. Length on supervision is calculated separately by type of termination. Comparisonsare made between these times before and after implementation of the new policy.


Availability of data: All data, including historical data that can be used for before and aftercomparisons, are available on the automated database.

7. Pattern of alternative responses, violations, and revocations

Rationale: The new data collection system describes patterns of violations and revocationssuch as the number of violations and alternative responses before a revocation.

Definition: The number of alternative responses and the number of violations are measuredbefore a revocation. The number of alternative events and violations are measured before atermination without a revocation.


Availability of data: Data will become available as violation worksheets are entered in theautomated database. No data currently are available.

Sample Monitoring ProtocolE X H I B I T 9–1.continued

continued

88

8. Appropriate use of alternative responses

Rationale: A goal of the new violation process is to encourage more appropriate use ofalternative responses. Measure the range of responses to violations reported on the auto-mated database. In addition, ask private contract providers for information on utilization.

Definition: The number of different types of responses is measured by month. Details onhow use of private providers is measured have to be worked out with the contractors.


Availability of data: Data will become available on the range of responses as violationworksheets are entered in the automated database. No data currently are available. Theavailability of private provider data will be determined with the providers.

9. Standardization and consistency of responses to violations

Rationale: A goal of the new violation process is to increase standardization and consisten-cy of agent responses to violations. Standardization means that agents across the State andacross regions determine similar responses to similar violations within the guidelines ofpolicy. Standardization can be measured by looking at override rates and reasons given foroverrides or the rate with which recommended responses for a violation category wereactually used.

Definition: The override rate is measured using the number of overrides divided by thenumber of violations recorded for probationers and parolees. These rates are comparedacross the State, across regions, and among agents. Reasons for overrides have been clas-sified into a small number of categories on the automated database. The number of eachtype of override is measured. The number of responses given to the violation that matchesthe violation category is measured. In addition, responses to violations are comparedacross offender groups by legal status and classification.


Availability of data: Data will be available on these topics as violation worksheets areentered in the automated database. No data currently are available.

10. Offender accountability

Rationale: A goal of the new violation process is to increase offender accountability.Suggested measurements include time on supervision (previously discussed), paymentof financial obligations, completion of conditions of supervision, and successful termina-tions (previously discussed).

Definition: Payment of obligations is measured by looking at the percentage of orderedfines and restitution paid per month of supervision. Completion of conditions can be meas-ured only at termination of supervision by looking at the percentage of conditions complet-ed at termination.


Availability of data: Data will become available as use of the automated database increases.

11. Agents’ attitude toward themselves as risk managers

Rationale: An emphasis of the new process is on the agent as a manager of offender risk inthe community. The best way to measure this is through an attitude survey given to agentsand supervisors.

Definition: This currently is undefined.



continued

89

another opportunity to identify what intendedand unintended changes emerged as a result ofthe policy.

Monitoring changes in culturearound violation policiesPolicy changes reflect a shift in, or clear articula-tion of, the philosophy and vision of an agencyor jurisdiction. It is essential that the culture ofthat agency or jurisdiction supports the policy toensure its proper implementation. This requiresengaging those who have a stake in the outcomeof the policy.

How probation and parole staff at all levels executethe policy is critical to the policy’s inherent abilityto achieve its intended outcomes. Therefore, itis important to develop concrete ways to assesschanges in:

• The extent to which supervisory and line staffsupport and use policies.

• The level of consistency exercised in violationresponses to like kinds of circumstances.

• The number of overrides used in violationdecisionmaking.

• The degree of training and supervision provid-ed to support the application of policies.

Beyond probation and parole officials exists arange of stakeholders from the broader criminaljustice system and the community at large whosephilosophies, practices, concerns, and perceptionsmust be assessed. The views and attitudes ofjudges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys arecritical to policy development and implementa-tion. Equally important in ensuring that policiesare relevant and well supported are the views

Availability of data: None. This is a time-consuming process that requires designing a ques-tionnaire to measure this attitude, delivering the questionnaire, and analyzing the results.

12. Use of the classification system

Rationale: A possible outcome of the new violation process is that offenders are makingmore progress through the classification system. For example, if parolees are not returnedto prison as often, a greater percentage of them might make it to medium- or minimum-classification categories. This could help offset the increase in caseload sizes resulting fromthe new violation policy by cutting supervision requirements for some offenders by reduc-ing their classification.

Definition: Use of the system is measured by looking at changes over time in the percent-age of parolees and probationers in each of the three classification categories. Month tomonth tracking of these percentages can start as early as 1990.


Availability of data: Data currently are available on the automated database; however, anyimpact on the classification system will take many months, perhaps years, to demonstrate.

13. Acceptance of the policy by the board, courts, and prosecutors

Rationale: A possible outcome of the new policy is increased credibility with the board andthe courts. The committee would like to find out how the new policy is viewed by thesegroups now that it is in place. The committee suggests that informal interviews with judgesand board members can provide this information.

Definition: Informal.


Availability of data: None. If preliminary conversations are held with judges and boardmembers, areas warranting further investigation will become obvious, and further refine-ments of this item are possible.


90

and concerns of victims and members of thecommunity. Finally, it is important to identifywhat resources the jurisdiction has dedicated tocarrying out the policy.

How to monitor

In chapter 4, methods and examples of inter-viewing key stakeholders in individual andgroup settings were described. These methodsare intended to help jurisdictions develop a qual-itative understanding of the degree of consensusor disagreement on goals underlying violationdecisionmaking.

It is recommended that acquiring this type ofinformation be undertaken at 6-month intervalsduring the first year of policy implementation.In returning to those who were interviewed at the beginning of this process, attempt todetermine:

• What people like and dislike about the policy.

• What is understood and misunderstood about it.

• How the policy has changed the attitudes andpractices of decisionmakers.

• What additional information, education, andtraining is required for successful implementa-tion of the policy.

• How the criminal justice system has modifiedits support for carrying out the policy.

• How the policy has changed the community’sperception of the accountability and effective-ness of the criminal justice system.

If these interviews and conversations reveal ahigh level of support for the policy over thatperiod, waiting another 12 months before revisit-ing these interviewees is possible. However, ifthese conversations reveal ongoing confusionwith, misunderstanding of, or opposition to thepolicy, it will be necessary to take additionalsteps to build the needed skills, resource capaci-ty, technical capacity, and support for the poli-cy’s implementation.

Remember, surveying decisionmakers and stake-holders in face-to-face meetings of any type pro-vides critical opportunities to build relationshipsas well as to gather information. Taking the timeand devoting the resources to communicatingdirectly with them can provide a powerful mech-anism for building a supportive environment inwhich new policy can thrive.

Monitoring changes in offenderresponsiveness and accountabilityNew or refined violation policy focuses onchanging offenders’ behaviors by bringing theminto compliance with the conditions of theirsentences; the goal is to increase public safetythrough the prevention of reoffenses. When thecircumstances of a violation indicate that theoffender can continue to be managed in the com-munity, albeit with additional sanctions andrequirements, it is important to determine howthe policy affected the offender’s accountabilityto the criminal justice system, the victim, andthe community at large. Therefore, it is useful tomonitor the following dimensions of an offend-er’s legal obligations and supervision status:

• The extent to which offenders pay financialobligations that are conditions of the sentence.

• The extent to which offenders fulfill otherconditions, such as participating in treatment,attending anger management classes, refrain-ing from contact with individuals, and pursu-ing job training and education.

• How the policy affects the amount of timeoffenders spend on supervision.

• How the policy affects offenders’ movementthrough the classification system (on a contin-uum from higher to lower status) as indicatedby changes over time in the percentage ofoffenders in different case management classi-fication levels.

• The percentage of successful terminations.

How to monitor

If the jurisdiction has committed to collectinginformation on each offender (as described inthe section “Monitoring changes in the use ofcriminal justice resources as a result of policychanges”), it will have information related tooffender compliance with the conditions andsanctions resulting from violations. Again, atleast every 6 months, compile an aggregatedescription of the previously mentioned factorsand compare it with the same conditions at thestarting point of your project. At 6-month inter-vals, chart the changes (if any) and use thatinformation to determine what modificationsare required to achieve the intended policy goals.For example, additional employment trainingand education resources are required, the assess-ment tools used to determine supervision levels

91

and sanctions need to be revised, or the availabletreatment resources are not meeting the needs ofthe current offender population. One’s ability toidentify where and how conditions have changedin relation to the implementation of a new poli-cy is directly tied to the success or failure of thatpolicy initiative.

Monitoring impacts on public safetyBecause different offenders pose different risks tothe public, a jurisdiction should, at a minimum,track changes in both the frequency and type ofnew arrests and convictions within the popula-tion of probation or parole violators prior to andafter the violation policy is implemented.

How to monitor

Build consensus around what public safety meansand how it will be measured. Policymakers shouldidentify indicators they believe are associated withthe safety of the community. Although recidivismrates are often used, the ways they are measuredvary from place to place. For some states andcounties, measuring public safety means exam-ining rates of re-arrest. In other locations, publicsafety is measured by rates of reconviction. Stillothers think about more complex factors suchas whether reoccurrence of criminal behavioris demonstrating trends of more or less seriousactivity, or how much time has elapsed betweenincidents, or how overall patterns of compliancewith conditions are emerging.

Collect and analyze data. Once definitions ofpublic safety measures are agreed on, collect datafrom a combination of sources, including offend-er records citing criminal history and data fromlaw enforcement reporting agencies. It is impor-tant to link these analyses to all other efforts. Itis, therefore, recommended that these data beanalyzed at least twice a year.

Validate or refine the assessment instrument ormatrix. There is an assumption that probation

and parole responses will be better equipped toenhance public safety when they include assess-ments of factors related to risk. Therefore, manyviolation policies create matrices or assessmentscales to guide decisionmaking along multipledimensions, including:

• The risk the offender poses to the public.

• The severity of the violation.

• The probability of the offender complyingwith the conditions of probation or parole.

It is critically important to evaluate regularlyany form of risk assessment that influencessupervision decisions and imposition of sanc-tions on probation and parole violators. If thedesired public safety outcomes are not beingrealized, the process of assessment should bereevaluated.

ConclusionMonitoring the progress of policies is integralto the successful implementation of the goalsof policies.

The process of monitoring requires that:

• Data related to the goals and articulated outcomes sought by your violation policyare collected on an ongoing basis.

• Data are analyzed in aggregate periodically tomeasure progress toward goals.

• The violation flowchart is updated periodically.

• Regular meetings and interviews with key stake-holders and decisionmakers are conducted.

The willingness and capacity to monitor theimpact of the violation response policy ensurethat a dynamic process of change is alive, well,and dedicated—and thereby ensure that desiredoutcomes are achieved.

Probation and paroleagencies play a key rolein protecting public safetythrough the effective man-agement of offenders undertheir supervision. The man-ner in which agencies res-pond to violation behavior isa critical piece of an agency’soverall supervision strategy.Nonetheless, in many juris-dictions, this issue has notreceived the level of atten-tion and concern its serious-ness demands.

Process VersusProductThis handbook, therefore,describes a process jurisdic-tions can follow to better understand their cur-rent violation practices and develop policy toguide decisionmaking when offenders violate theterms of their supervision. What this handbookhas not provided is a “model” of violation policyto replicate and implement. There are two pri-mary reasons for this: First, the effectiveness ofmodel replication is dependent on the similarityof one jurisdiction to another. Models do nottake into consideration the variation in philoso-phies, values, the volume of cases in the system,or resources. The vast differences among juris-dictions diminish the effectiveness of any model.Second, to offer a model would be to suggestthat its underpinnings are well grounded inresearch. Unfortunately, little research to datehas focused on this aspect of offender supervi-sion. For these reasons, this handbook is con-cerned with how to develop violation policy(i.e., the process), rather than what that policy

93

Results: What Are the Tangible Outcomes?Madeline M. Carter

C H A P T E R T E N




Agree on goals





should look like. There is a clear need, however,for additional research in this area to betterunderstand how agencies can be most effectivein their efforts to respond to violation behavior.

The process highlighted throughout this hand-book has emerged from our work with the 29jurisdictions that participated in six rounds ofNIC-sponsored training and technical assistanceprojects during the past 12 years (1988–2000).The process described was born from our obser-vations of what was—and what was not—suc-cessful across jurisdictions. In summary, thatprocess includes:

• Establishing a collaborative body—an internalcommittee from the supervision agency, anexternal group representing key stakeholders,or, preferably, both.

• Developing a shared understanding of currentpractice in the violation response area amongthe members of the collaborative team,including:

— An evaluation, using a system map, of howviolations are currently being handled.

— The examination of existing policies andpractices, both formal and informal.

— Identification of the resources that can betapped to respond effectively to offenders’violation behavior.

— An examination of empirical data to ensurea clear understanding of the impact of cur-rent practice.

• Developing clearly articulated goals for super-vision and the violations process.

• Creating explicit policy that reflects thesegoals.

94

• Developing methods to ensure that this policyis carried out effectively, through both stafftraining and the development of tools orinstruments that operationalize the policystatements.

• Establishing activities to monitor the effec-tiveness and impact of these changes.

This process has enabled most of the jurisdictionsthat participated in the NIC-sponsored projectsto develop methods to tailor effective responsesto violation behavior based on the severity andrisk posed by offenders. Jurisdictions have accom-plished this in a variety of ways; many haveimplemented protocols to manage these casesand decision trees that reflect clearly defined cri-teria to guide officer decisionmaking. These areillustrated in exhibits 10–1 and 10–2. Otherapproaches have been highlighted throughoutthis handbook.

Lessons From the 29 Project SitesAlthough no two approaches are the same in theprojects’ 29 sites, similarities have emerged inboth the conceptual and the hands-on approachto violation response policy work. Several keylessons have emerged as well.

There are no simple solutions to this issue andno shortcuts through the process. Jurisdictions

face varying levels of complexity—in the num-ber of supervision agents, the number of offend-ers under supervision, the extent of the resourcesavailable, and the extent to which there is inter-est in this issue across the system.

Most supervising officers and many judgesindicate that the management of violation casesis the most frustrating part of their jobs. Theaverage violation process in most jurisdictionstakes months—sometimes up to 1 year—to com-plete, from the time of filing to final disposition.Although most supervision agents are extremelyfrustrated by these cases, most fear losing discre-tion over their caseloads and therefore initiallyresist the notion of policy-driven decisionmaking.Many jurisdictions offer little training, or evenguidance, for their supervision agents about howto react when an offender violates the terms ofhis or her conditions. Generally, officers developtheir own philosophies that dictate how theyrespond in these cases.

Violations also consume extraordinary humanresources. Officers spend countless hours prepar-ing paperwork on these cases and sitting in hear-ings. These hearings consume the equally valuabletime of judges, prosecutors, defenders, and courtstaff. In a large percentage of the cases that pro-ceed to court or to the parole board, offenders arereturned directly to supervision with few or nochanges to the conditions of their supervision.

Violation Response: Sample Decision TreeE X H I B I T 10–1.

Assess violation severity

Assess offender risk

Assess behavior risk

These assessments determine the level of decisionmaking

Supervision officer and supervisor conference

Court or parole board Supervision officer

High-level sanctionsMedium-level sanctions

Low-level sanctions

95

Many jurisdictions have little understanding ofhow their violation process works. It is rare tofind an individual who can explain the entireprocess, and even rarer to find someone whoknows the extent of violations within their juris-diction, the number of jail beds used on technicalviolators, the rate of use of summonses versuswarrants, or how long a technical violator willsit in the county jail waiting for his or her caseto be heard.

Many jurisdictions lack formal policy regardingviolations. Often, the only policy that existssimply addresses how to file a revocation ratherthan the ways to respond and the circumstancesunder which it is appropriate to respond. Agenciesthat undertake the policy development processdescribed in this handbook have discoverednew ways to view their work and manage theiragencies. Staff have been rejuvenated, offenders’behavior has improved, and the concurrencerates between the supervision agency and thecourt or parole board have soared. Jurisdictionsthat have developed policy to guide violationdecisionmaking have witnessed increases in

offender compliance and decreases in violationbehavior and rearrests. Public safety has beenenhanced through their efforts.

The Tangible Outcomes

Interagency and intraagency impactsJurisdictions have reported that their work inconnection with the NIC-sponsored projects hasresulted in positive changes both within theiragencies and across agencies. These impacts arehighlighted in exhibits 10–3 and 10–4 and aredescribed in the following section:

Clarity of purpose

Many supervision agencies have told us that thesingle most important outcome of the projectshas been the clarity of purpose the work hasbrought to their agencies. They report that priorto beginning this work, their supervision goalswere unclear or shared by only a few membersof the agency, and there was much conflict anddisagreement on how to respond to violation

Violation of Probation Protocol (New Haven, Connecticut)E X H I B I T 10–2.

Court warrant

application process

Internalaffidavitreview

Assessrisk/

severity

Violationbehaviordetected

Supervisionof

offender

Staffing

Warrant issued/arrest

Court

Modified/continued/

no VOP

Revoked/terminated

Officerresponse

withinguidelines

Officerresponseoutside

guidelines

96

behavior. Examining the violation process, how-ever, proved to be a catalyst for open discussionsabout these issues and resulted in clearly articu-lated language about goals and outcomes thatwas adopted by the full agency staff.

Consistency

As a result of achieving this clarity in purpose,these same agencies experienced more consistencyacross agency staff in how violations are moni-tored and managed. Greater consistency at theline and management levels has created morecohesive environments and promoted offendermanagement practices that are more equitable.

Heightened understanding

The process of examining violations also hasresulted in a heightened awareness among agen-

cies and actors within the system about oneanother, offender supervision, and the violationprocess. Many jurisdictions report they haveenhanced their appreciation of one another andeach other’s challenges and responsibilities. Thishas resulted in increased information sharing andcollaboration—in the violation response area aswell as other initiatives under way in the juris-diction—and has brought new attention to theimportance of decisively responding to violations.

Decreased revocations and increased concurrence rates

In addition, some jurisdictions reported that fol-lowing the implementation of their new policies,the rate of filings for revocation have decreasedwhile the concurrence rate between the supervi-sion agency and the court or parole board hasincreased. These agencies indicate that more time

Tangible Outcomes: A View From the BenchE X H I B I T 10–3.

I joined the Weld County Probation Department in a multidisciplinary collaboration aimed atconsidering how our community could better respond to probation violations. Our worktogether has brought about some dramatic changes.

Previously, I would have 30 defendants on any given day who had complaints against themfor not successfully completing probation. Every complaint looked the same, had similarlanguage, and gave the same general information alleging failure to perform a condition ofprobation. I could not distinguish the incorrigible from the contrite, the failures from thosethat just needed a push in the right direction. It was the most frustrating part of my job.

Once I worked with the probation department and the other members of our collaborationteam, two dramatic changes took place. First, I developed a better grasp of the roles andresponsibilities of probation. Second, I helped them to create tools to assist them to dotheir own work more effectively. Working with probation, we defined the goal of probationsupervision, what a violation is, and what types of responses would be used to encouragecompliance. Probation improved communication with the court by developing a violationreview log that is attached to the complaint. Now, I can turn immediately to the violationreview log and quickly see whether the probationer just did not show up, has had ups anddowns while on supervision, or simply had downs. I know immediately the types of viola-tion behavior the probationer has exhibited in the past and exactly what the probation offi-cer has done about it. This information helps me to determine what type of bond isappropriate for warrants, whether there were successes on probation that can be reestab-lished, or whether the only time the defendant is interested in probation is for the 5 minuteshe or she is standing at the podium. I have faith that probation is systematically respondingto violations while working at bringing the person back into compliance—before filing acomplaint. I inform the defendant that the probation department will respond to each viola-tion, already has my permission to use certain intermediate sanctions, and always has thepower to ask that probation be revoked and a different sentence be imposed.

The number of complaints to revoke probation has decreased, the information available tome to make a good decision on resentencing has increased, and the increased trust andcommunication between probation and the courts is the surprise byproduct and perhapsthe greatest outcome of all.

Judge Carol M. Haller19th Judicial DistrictWeld County, Colorado

97

is spent effectively managing cases and less timeis wasted preparing paperwork and sitting inhearing rooms.

System impactsIn addition to the significant interagency andintraagency benefits, two significant systemoutcomes have emerged, although these out-

comes are byproducts of the work rather thanobjectives of the work.

Lower rates of revocation and new crimes;decreased use of jail and prison beds

Time and again jurisdictions developed an appre-ciation for the extraordinary resource pressure

Tangible Outcomes: A View From the Supervision AgencyE X H I B I T 10–4.

What can your community corrections program achieve by creating a policy-drivenapproach to offender violations? This is what our department asked as we undertook thetask of reengineering our own violation policy in hopes of achieving the many outcomesexpected of us in a world of limited resources.

We knew going into this project that it would not be sufficient to simply find a good modelthat worked well somewhere else, incorporate it into our local policy, and then sit back andexpect it to alter significantly our outcomes. We knew this would not work because how wedo our jobs is born mostly out of individual and agency core beliefs and values, and for thatreason we could not just pick up and implement another jurisdiction’s work. Our instinctsabout this were soon reinforced. We quickly discovered the importance of seeking commonground among our stakeholders, both within and outside of our organization. Their partici-pation in the process was essential to developing consensus on the principles that latershaped our new policy.

Through our work together, we experienced many positive outcomes that we did not origi-nally envision. Some of these are listed below.

• We developed a guide on responses to violations that assists officers to carry out moreeffectively the mission of the department.

• We have increased the consistency among staff in their responses to offender violations.

• Supervisors and officers now use a decisionmaking tool that aids them in responding tooffender violations, whether the offender exhibits high-risk behavior or chronic, low-risk,noncompliant behavior.

• We now have a common language to discuss violations.

• A comprehensive regional resource guide was developed. Officers now have at their fin-gertips a single source that describes all the resources available to respond to an offend-er’s violation behavior.

• Priorities have been established on the use of available resources, enabling us to betterallocate our limited departmental resources.

• A handbook was created for offenders that promotes improved understanding of courtand community expectations during the term of supervision.

• Officers now have greater credibility when bringing cases before the court for proceedings.

• The safety of victims and community members is now clearly guiding our decisionmaking.

• We now base decisions on what we know from the data we have and continue to collect.

• We have experienced a reduction in the number of overall probation revocations due tothe fact that supervision staff are dealing with low-risk violations swiftly and carefully,with measured interventions, rather than seeking formal proceedings with these cases.

We also discovered that the creation of our policy was not a panacea for all problems or theend of our journey. However, the increased level of collaboration among stakeholders hasprompted further systemic activities with the aim of improving public safety and promotingeffective justice practices within our local community.

1st District Probation DepartmentJefferson County, ColoradoResponse to Violations Committee

98

violation cases were placing on the system. Inno other place was that more easily quantifiablethan in the use of jail and prison beds. NumerousState and national studies have documented theextraordinary admission rates of violators—largelyon technical violations—to jail and prison. Thesedata were affirmed in many of the projects’ sites.However, these rates were significantly affectedby the implementation of new policy. For exam-ple, between 1988 and 1995, caseload size inMissouri doubled while the number of returnsto prison for revocation of probation and paroleremained virtually constant. In Wayne County,Michigan, a comparative analysis across yearsreflected a 21.9-percent reduction in probationviolation warrants issued, a 16.2-percent reduc-tion in probation violation sentences, and a 12.4-percent reduction in the number of probationviolators sentenced to prison. In Macomb County,Michigan, during a study from 1991 to 1994, com-mitments to the county jail for revocation of pro-bation dropped from 28 percent to 18 percent.The Department of Corrections estimated thatfor 1994 only, the savings in bed space alonesaved the county and the State more than$580,000.

The reductions previously cited have far greaterimpact than cost savings in bed spaces, however.In addition to conserving resources, the changesbrought about by this policy development workalso seem to affect offender behavior. None ofthese jurisdictions have reported increases innew crime rates among those under supervision.In fact, during 1990–92 in South Carolina, stud-ies indicated that although parole caseloads grewby more than 42 percent, technical violationsdecreased by 10 percent, and new crimes com-mitted by those under supervision decreased bynearly 19 percent. Similarly, during the samestudy period, probation caseloads grew nearly21 percent while technical violations and new

offense violations increased at a much slowerpace, by 9 percent and 2 percent, respectively.

ConclusionTo date, relatively little quantitative researchhas been conducted on the impact of violationpolicy on supervision and other criminal justiceagencies, the use of jail and prison bed space,and most important, the performance of offend-ers under supervision. However, the experienceof jurisdictions participating in NIC’s projectsclearly indicates that work in this area offersgreat promise.

The violations process outlined in this handbookwas developed to encourage more effective man-agement of the offenders who fail to comply withthe terms and conditions of supervision, withthe ultimate aim of enhancing public safety.We suggest that supervision agencies think ofthe violations process as a means to determinewhich offenders are likely to pose the greatestrisk to public safety and to respond swiftly inthose cases. We also recommend that supervisionagencies view the violation process as a meansto assist those offenders who do not present apublic safety risk to successfully complete super-vision rather than viewing it only as a mechanismto revoke noncompliant offenders. Experienceacross numerous jurisdictions indicates thateffective management of violation behavior canresult in decreased use of jail and prison bedspace as well as higher levels of complianceamong those under supervision.

In addition to these tangible outcomes, work inthis area can lead to more effective supervisionpractices in general, greater degrees of collabora-tion across the criminal justice system, andclearer policies regarding the management ofnoncompliant offenders.

Contacts

Kenneth J. AudArea ManagerOakland County Circuit Court Probation

Department1200 North TelegraphNorth Office BuildingPontiac, MI 48341Phone: 248–858–0307Fax: 248–858–0423

Madeline M. CarterCenter for Effective Public Policy8403 Colesville Road, Suite 720Silver Spring, MD 20910Phone: 301–589–9383Fax: 301–589–3505

Janet RothackerAssociate Probation Program AnalystNew York State Division of Probation and

Correctional Alternatives4 Tower PlaceAlbany, NY 12203Phone: 518–485–5164Fax: 518–485–5159

Richard P. StrokerGeneral CounselSouth Carolina Department of CorrectionsP.O. Box 21787Columbia, SC 29221–1787Phone: 803–896–8508Fax: 803–896–1766

Recommended ReadingBurke, Peggy. Center for Effective Public Policy.1997. Policy-Driven Responses to Probation andParole Violations. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.

McGarry, Peggy A., and Carter, Madeline M.1993. The Intermediate Sanctions Handbook:Experiences and Tools for Policymakers.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,National Institute of Corrections, and Alexandria,Virginia: State Justice Institute.

National Institute of Corrections(NIC) Contact InformationNIC Information Center1860 Industrial Circle, Suite ALongmont, CO 80501Toll free: 800–877–1461Phone: 303–682–0213Fax: 303–682–0558E-mail: [email protected] site: www.nicic.org

To request technical assistance specificallyrelated to prisons or community corrections,contact the Prisons Division or the CommunityCorrections Division at:National Institute of Corrections320 First Street N.W.Washington, DC 20534Phone: 800–995–6423Fax: 202–307–3361Prisons Division e-mail: [email protected] Corrections Division e-mail:

[email protected]

For technical assistance specifically related tojails or training activities, contact the JailsDivision or the Academy Division at:National Institute of Corrections1960 Industrial CircleLongmont, CO 80501Phone: 800–995–6429Fax: 303–682–0469Jails Division e-mail: [email protected] Division e-mail: [email protected]

99

Appendix A. Resource List

101

Appendix B. User Feedback Form

Please complete and return this form to assist the National Institute of Corrections in assessing thevalue and utility of its publications. Detach from the document and mail to:

Publications FeedbackNational Institute of Corrections320 First Street N.W.Washington, DC 20534

1. What is your general reaction to this document?

_________ Excellent _______ Good _______ Average _______ Poor _________ Useless

2. To what extent do you see the document as being useful in terms of:

Useful Of some use Not useful

Providing new or important information

Developing or implementing new programs

Modifying existing programs

Administering ongoing programs

Providing appropriate liaisons

3. Do you believe that more should be done in this subject area? If so, please specify the types of assistance needed. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. In what ways could this document be improved?__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. How did this document come to your attention?__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6. How are you planning to use the information contained in this document?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7. Please check one item that best describes your affiliation with corrections or criminal justice. If a governmental program, please also indicate the level of government.______ Citizen group ______ Legislative body______ College/university ______ Parole______ Community corrections ______ Police______ Court ______ Probation______ Department of corrections or prison ______ Professional organization______ Jail ______ Other government agency______ Juvenile justice ______ Other (please specify) ________________________

8. Optional:

Name:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Agency:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Address:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Telephone:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

U.S. Department of Justice


Washington, DC 20534

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARDPOSTAGE & FEES PAID

U.S. Department of JusticePermit No. G–231

a handbook to guide local policy development

Documents