NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION

Transcription

1 NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION Probation Officer Survey Report A Report by the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice ROBINA INSTITUTE OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE ROBINA INSTITUTE: PROBATION OFFICER SURVEY REPORT

2 NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION Probation Officer Survey Report A Report by the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice By Jason P. Robey Suggested citation: Jason P. Robey, Robina Inst. of Crim. Law & Crim. Just., New York City Department of Probation Probation Officer Survey Report (2018). Copyright Regents of the University of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.

3 3 NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION Probation Officer Survey Report Methods and Data Description: The Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (Robina) created this survey specifically for the New York City Department of Probation (DOP). The survey was designed for probation officers and questions asked about their experiences and opinions. The survey covered numerous topics, including: Executive Policies and Procedures (EPAPs), sanctions, incentives, restorative principles, and violations of probation (VOPs). With the help of the Department of Probation, the online survey link was distributed by to all 240 line probation officers in the five boroughs of New York City: Brooklyn, Bronx, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island. In total we received 167 complete responses, which is a response rate of 70%. As a result of its wide scope, this survey only speaks to the practice of the department generally. There are undoubtedly marked differences across the department in supervision practices, protocols, experiences, beliefs, and opinions. However, the data and results in Chart 1 provide a useful descriptive overview of the 167 officers experiences, beliefs, and opinions regarding probation supervision in New York City. Demographics of Responding Officers: The officers who responded to the survey are a fairly representative sample of the NYC Probation Department, whether in the boroughs they represent, the caseload types they supervise, or their years of experience. According to estimates provided by the probation department at the time of the survey distribution, there were 73 probation officers in Bronx, 62 in Brooklyn, 17 in Staten Island, 54 in Queens, and 34 in Manhattan. Chart 1 below shows the number of officers from each borough who responded to the survey. A few officers indicated that they work in multiple boroughs, which explains why the total number of responses in Chart 1 is higher than 167. Given the nearly 100% response rate from officers in Bronx and the higher overall number of officers located in that borough, their opinions are over-represented in the following survey results. Of the five boroughs, Staten Island had both the lowest number of responses and the lowest response rate. As a result, the opinions on the Staten Island officers are under-represented in the survey results. CHAPTER ONE # of Respondents (Response rate %) Chart 1. Borough Representation 72 of 73 (99%) 43 of 62 (69%) 8 of 17 (47%) 27 of 54 (50%) 23 of 34 (68%) Bronx Brooklyn Staten Queens Manhattan Island ROBINA INSTITUTE: PROBATION OFFICER SURVEY REPORT

4 4 CHAPTER ONE dents Caseload type Intensive Engagement Client Development Highest High Sex offenders Medium Sex Offenders Low Sex Offenders High Medium Chart 2. Respondents Caseload type Number of Respondents Community Progression 32 ACE 10 Investigations 8 Intake 4 Other 16 Chart 2 above shows the caseload types for the respondents. 1 Several officers indicated working with multiple caseload types. Overall, the respondents represent a variety of caseload types, with the most common caseload types being Client Development-High, Client Development-Medium, and Community Progression. According to an estimate provided by the DOP, there are close to 60 officers in the Anyone Can Excel (ACE) program, which suggests that the ACE officers are significantly underrepresented in the survey results. Throughout this report the beliefs and practices of the officers who responded are discussed generally, but there are undoubtedly differences across these divisions and caseload types. Those officers who responded to the survey had many years of experience as probation officers. The average number of years of experience of the probation officers was 16.0 years. (Histogram 1 shows the distribution of officers in their years of experience.) Of these 165 officers, 69% had at least 10 years of experience as a probation officer. Most officers had between 16 and 30 years of experience. However, there were also 30 officers (18%) who had less than four years of experience, suggesting they were hired by the department more recently under the current or previous commissioner. Overall, the officers surveyed brought a variety of experiences, including different boroughs of supervision, caseload types, and years of experience as officers. ROBINA INSTITUTE: THE CONTINUING LEVERAGE OF RELEASING AUTHORITIES

5 5 Number of Officers Histogram 1. Years of Experience as a Probation Officer Mean = Std. Dev. = N = 165 CHAPTER ONE Number of Years Executive Policies and Procedures (EPAPs): The survey asked officers to state their level of agreement to a series of statements about the Executive Policies and Procedures (EPAPs). The responses of the officers are shown in Histogram 1. The results suggest strong awareness and support for the EPAPs. In particular, over 90% of officers agreed at some level that they are aware of and utilize the EPAPs. 87% of officers said the EPAPs provide useful information to officers supervising clients. Despite the general support for the EPAPs, the respondents showed mixed feelings about the policies in one response. 76% of respondents agreed that the practices described in the EPAPs were being utilized before the EPAPs were created. Thus, although the respondents support the EPAPs, many believe they formalized practices already in place. Executive Policies and Procedures I am aware of the Executive Policies and Procedures (EPAPs). I utilize the information in the EPAPs. The EPAPs provide useful information to officers supervising clients. Different officers utilize the EPAPs in different ways. Strongly Somewhat Probation officers have been utilizing the practices described in the EPAPs, since before the EPAPs were created. Some officers do not utilize the EPAPs. ROBINA INSTITUTE: NATIONAL PAROLE SURVEY REPORT

6 6 The survey also asked officers how frequently they reviewed and utilized the EPAPs. Two thirds of the officers reviewed the EPAPs on a monthly basis for information or guidance on supervision techniques, while just 14% of officers reviewed the EPAPs more frequently. Almost one-fifth of the officers never reviewed the EPAPs for information or guidance. When asked the same question about the sanctions and incentives response grid found in the Supervision and Case Management Protocol EPAP, 36% of the officers admitted never reviewing the grid. The majority of the officers, 64%, reviewed the grid either monthly, weekly, or daily. There are two factors which likely explain the significant percentage of officers who stated they never review the EPAPs. First, the respondents were shown to have numerous years of experience as probation officers. For these very experienced officers, the EPAPs are very well-known and periodic review is unnecessary. Secondly, and more importantly, when the DOP issues a new EPAP, all affected officers must acknowledge receipt of the policy, and supervisors hold training sessions regarding the new policies. For these reasons, a periodic review of the EPAPs is not essential to upholding the Department s protocols or the supervision of clients. How often do you review the EPAPs for information or guidance on supervision techniques? Never 19% Daily 4% Weekly 10% How often do you utilize the sanctions and incentives response grid from the Supervision and Case Management Protocol EPAP? Never 36% Daily 9% Monthly 42% Weekly 13% Sanctions and Incentives: In the survey, there were two separate sections; one on sanctions and one on incentives. For comparison the sanctions and incentives results are analyzed together. First, the respondents utilize sanctions more freqently than incentives. 30% of officers reported never utilizing incentives, whereas only 23% of officers reported never utilizing sanctions. Overall, the officers were more likely to use sanctions than incentives. Regarding incentives, two imporant factors may have affected the response: the caseload type and the respondents defintion of incentives. Officers in more intensive caseloads working with sex offenders would be less likely to use incentives than those in the ACE program. Also, some officers may be using incentives, such as verbal praise or mentoring classes, but do not interpret those actions as part of the incentives asked about in the survey. How often do you utilize sanctions? Monthly 67% Never 23% Daily 9% Monthly 39% Weekly 29% ROBINA INSTITUTE: NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION

7 7 How often do you utilize incentives? Never 30% Monthly 36% Daily 7% Weekly 27% How often do you utilize early discharge? Never 68% Daily 3% Weekly 3% Monthly 26% CHAPTER TWO Compared to sanctions and incentives, early discharge was used less often. Over two-thirds of officers never utilized early discharge. However, it is important to note that although the early discharge process is initiated by the line probation officer, there are other factors oustide the officer s control involved in the utilization of early discharge, including judicial discretion and offender compliance. The option for early discharge is only available if the offender is complying with conditions of probation, and the early discharge can only be approved by a judge. Moreover, the use and protocols for early discharge will vary depending on the officer s caseload type. Officers who supervise sex offenders will rarely utilize early discharge, whereas officers in the ACE unit use early discharge more frequently. Nevertheless, the rarity of early discharge is a significant finding. Officers were asked identical opinion questions about the use and effectiveness of sanctions and incentives. Overall, the officers were very supportive of both sanctions and incentives, but there was notably less support for incentives compared to sanctions. When asked if they believe in sanctions as one of the probation tools, 90% of officers agreed to some degree. When asked the same of incentives, 81% of officers agreed. There was more ment with the statement about incentives; 8% of officers did not believe in incentives as one of the probation tools, compared to just 2% for sanctions. For both sanctions and incentives, officers were less likely to agree about their effectiveness in reducing recidivism. 72% of officers agreed that the use of sanctions will reduce recidivism, compared to just 60% for incentives. Moreover, one in five officers d with the statement that incentives will reduce recidivism. General Use of Sanctions and Incentives I believe in using sanctions as one of our probation tools. I believe in using incentives as one of our probation tools. The use of sanctions will reduce recidivism. The use of incentives will reduce recidivism. Strongly Somewhat ROBINA INSTITUTE: PROBATION OFFICER SURVEY REPORT

8 8 CHAPTER TWO In addition to asking parallel questions about sanctions and incentives, the survey directly asked officers to compare sanctions and incentives. In general, officers were supportive of the use of sanctions and incentives in conjunction with each other. Specifically, 69% of officers believed that if a client received a sanction for an action (such as a failed drug test or missed meeting), they should receive an incentive for the opposite action (passed drug tests or arriving on time for meetings). Moreover, 75% of officers believed that sanctions were more effective when combined with incentives for positive behavior. The officers responses to the two other comparative statements are more difficult to interpret. In response to one statement, 43% of officers indicated that they believe sanctions are more effective than incentives; 31% neither agreed nor d with the statement; and 26% d with the statement. On the other hand, the responses were similar for the reciprocal statement asking if incentives are more important and valuable than sanctions; 41% agreed with this statement, 32% neither agreed nor d; and 27% d with the statement. The officers simultaneously agreed that sanctions are more effective, while incentives are more important and valuable. One interpretation of this is that the officers understood the words effective, important, and valuable as uniquely different from one another. Thus, they view sanctions as more effective as a means of reducing violations. Meanwhile, incentives are more important or valuable as a potential resource to the clients, but not necessarily effective in reducing violations. Another interpretation focuses on the proportion of officers who neither agreed nor d, which suggests the officers were largely ambivalent about comparing the effectiveness, value, or importance of sanctions and incentives. Comparing Sanctions and Incentives If clients receive a sanction for an action (failed drug tests, missed meetings), they should receive an incentive for the opposite action (passed drug tests, arrive on time for meetings). Sanctions are most effective when coupled with appropriate incentives for positive behavior. Sanctions are more effective than incentives. Incentives are more important and valuable than sanctions. Somewhat Strongly ROBINA INSTITUTE: NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION

9 9 Sanctions should be graduated (structured, incremental responses to non-compliant behavior while under supervision). Incentives should be graduated, or increase in magnitude with every positive behavior. Sanctions should be given in a swift and certain manner. Incentives should be given in a swift and certain manner. Implementation of Sanctions and Incentives Somewhat Strongly CHAPTER TWO When asked about the implementation of sanctions and incentives, officers showed great support for a graduated structure with swift and certain principles. As we observed earlier, the support was greater in relation to sanctions compared to incentives. Almost 90% of officers agreed that sanctions should be graduated, or structured, incremental responses to non-compliant behavior while under supervision. Meanwhile, a smaller majority of officers, 72%, believed incentives should be graduated, or increase in magnitude with every positive behavior. A similar pattern follows for the statements about sanctions and incentives being given in a swift and certain manner. For sanctions, 85% of officers agreed with this statement, while 70%, agreed for incentives. The officers overwhelmingly supported three statements about explaining sanctions, incentives, and early discharge to clients at the beginning of probation. For all three of these statements, over 30% of officers strongly agreed and more than 80% agreed in some manner. Explanation of Sanctions, Incentives, and Early Discharge The range of possible sanctions and when sanctions will be used should be explained to the client at the beginning of probation. Possible incentives and how to earn them should be explained to the client at the beginning of probation. Early discharge and how to obtain it should be described to the clients at the beginning of probation. Somewhat Strongly ROBINA INSTITUTE: PROBATION OFFICER SURVEY REPORT

10 10 CHAPTER TWO The survey polled officers about the use of small scale sanctions and incentives, which the officers generally supported. For these small scale tools, the officers actually showed similar support for sanctions and incentives, which is contrary to the previous trend of greater support for sanctions. In fact, the officers showed greater support for verbal praise (88% agreed) compared to verbal sanctions or reprimands (79% agreed). One explanation for the overwhelming support for verbal praise is that all of the officers can use this incentive at no monetary cost. Moreover, the implementation of verbal praise as an incentive requires far less effort than the implementation of any more formal incentive system. Thus, there is little reason to disapprove of verbal praise. A series of questions polled the officers beliefs about specific incentives to more accurately assess their support or disapproval for particular incentive practices. 58% of officers agreed with the involvement of clients in deciding which incentives to use. This shows a general consensus that clients should be involved, but the agreement is weak compared to the level of agreement for other statements in the survey. The statement about verbal praise as an incentive is repeated here for comparison; verbal praise received the greatest support from officers, with 88% of officers agreeing that verbal praise is an acceptable and effective incentive. The officers showed similar but slightly lower levels of support for the statements about certificates of completion (79%) and reduced reporting Small Sanctions and Incentives Small sanctions impact my clients. Small incentives impact my clients. Even the smallest violation should receive a sanction. Verbal sanctions/reprimands have an impact on my clients. Verbal praise is an acceptable and effective incentive. Somewhat Strongly Statements about Particular Incentives to be Used Clients should be involved in deciding what incentives are used. Verbal praise is an acceptable and effective incentive. Certificates of completion to recognize when clients complete classes or treatment programs are acceptable and effective incentives. Reduced reporting frequency is an acceptable and effective incentive. Movie passes, gas cards, restaurant gift cards of smaller value ($10 $15) are acceptable and effective incentives. Somewhat Strongly Reduced community service hours is an acceptable and effective incentive (with court approval where necessary). ROBINA INSTITUTE: NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION

11 11 Providing incentives to clients for compliance with conditions is not a good use of probation officer time. It doesn t make sense to reward clients for things they should already be doing (e.g., showing up for appointments on time, seeking employment, etc.). frequency (77%). Meanwhile, less than 50% of the officers agreed with the use of monetary gifts valued around $10 to $15 or reduced community service hours. However, more officers supported these incentives than opposed them (due to a significant percentage who were neutral), which suggests a meager level of support for the practices. Overall, these results suggest a clear hierarchy of preferred incentives, with verbal praise as the most favored incentive. The survey also assessed the officers beliefs about incentives by asking poignant negative questions about incentives. The first statement refers to incentives as not a good use of probation officer time and the second demonstrates the idea that clients should not be rewarded for certain tasks that are expected of them. Overall, the officers were ambivalent about these two statements, with almost equal proportions agreeing and ing. This suggests there are some negative opinions surrounding Negative Beliefs about Incentives Somewhat Strongly the idea of incentives, or at least these particular ideas about incentives. Violations of Probation (VOPs): Officers responded to two general statements about when they file VOPs and the corrective options available to them before filing a VOP. Over 80% of officers agreed they only file a VOP after exhausting all other corrective options to bring a client into compliance, while only 4% of officers d with this statement. This suggests overwhelming support for the department s policies on VOPs as a last resort. Moreover, 65% of officers agreed they have enough corrective options available to them, while just 12% d with that statement indicating they want more corrective options. Overall, the majority of officers believe both that they have enough corrective options available to them, and that they are utilizing all of those options before filing a VOP. CHAPTER THREE General Beliefs about VOPs I only file a VOP after I have exhausted all other corrective options (sanctions, admonishments, treatment, resources, etc.) to bring a client into compliance. I have enough corrective options available to bring a client into compliance before filing a VOP. Somewhat Strongly ROBINA INSTITUTE: PROBATION OFFICER SURVEY REPORT

12 12 CHAPTER THREE Before filing a VOP, I have utilized family and friends for help when a client is not in compliance. Before filing a VOP, I have reached out for help from community partners (victims advocates, criminal justice groups, resource centers, services, advocacy groups, social organizations). I utilize the Circles of Influence (or Circles of Care). The Circles of Influence (or Circles of Care) are effective in gaining compliance before a VOP is filed. Restorative Principles in VOPs Somewhat Strongly The officers showed modest support for four statements about the use of restorative principles in VOPs. Approximately 70% of officers utilized family, friends, or community partners before filing VOPs, with less than 10% ing with those statements. Two-thirds of the officers utilized the Circles of Influence, 2 while 56% found the Circles of Influence effective in gaining compliance. These results suggest that many of the respondents do not use the Circles of Influence, but the vast majority of officers who utilize the Circles of Influence believe they are effective. As with other areas of the supervision practice highlighted in this report, the use of restorative principles varies based on the division or caseload type. Judges and VOPs The survey utilized two methods to assess the officers opinions about the judges decisions in VOP cases. First, officers rated their level of agreement with a statement about whether they support the decisions made by the judges on VOP cases. Almost two-thirds of the officers agreed with the statement, while 21% neither agreed nor d with the statement and just 14% d. These percentages were similar across all five boroughs. 3 Overall, this suggests a significant level of support for judicial decisions on VOPs. Percentage of Officers 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Support for Judicial Decisions by Borough All boroughs Bronx Brooklyn Staten Island Queens Manhattan In general, I support the decisions made by the judges on my VOP cases. Somewhat agree Neither agree nor Somewhat Strongly ROBINA INSTITUTE: NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION

13 13 Number of Respondents Histogram 2. Estimated Percentage of VOPs Requesting Revocation Mean = Std. Dev. = N = CHAPTER THREE When you file a VOP, in what percentage of these cases do you want a revocation? However, the results of the following questions suggest significant ment between the officers and the judges on the decision to revoke. Histograms 2 and 3 below display the results of a two part question. The question asked officers to estimate the percentage of their VOPs where they request a revocation and the percentage of those cases where the client is actually revoked. Histogram 2 shows the officers responses to the first part of the question: When you file a VOP, in what percentage of those cases do you want a revocation? 44 officers indicated that they ask for a revocation in 95 to 100% of their VOPs. Moreover, 59% of the officers estimate that they request a revocation in at least three quarters of their cases. In other words, most officers request a revocation most of the time. It is important to note that although officers frequently ask for a revocation when they file a VOP, this does not mean that most cases end in a revocation. The request for a revocation is not the first step in the process, rather it is the last resort of the supervising officers when all other options have been exhausted. Officers utilize many tools, and resources before filing the VOP request. Recall that earlier, 65% of respondents agreed that they had enough corrective options available to them before filing the VOP. In fact, the DOP has decreased the overall number of revocations, and the number of technical violations in particular has decreased. Nevertheless, when the respondents reached the point of filing a VOP, the majority of them requested a revocation. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PROBATION OFFICER SURVEY REPORT

14 14 CHAPTER THREE Number of Respondents Histogram 3. Estimated Percentage of VOPs Resulting in Revocation Mean = Std. Dev. = N = What percentage of your VOPs result in a revocation? Histogram 3 shows greater variation in the actual percentage of cases revoked. The most common responses were between 45% and 55%, with 23 officers believing their cases had a near equal chance of actually being revoked. If we look at the upper end of the percentages, only 26% of officers estimate that three quarters of their VOPs end in revocation. In other words, very few officers get most of their clients revoked. The results in Histograms 2 and 3 demonstrate a clear disconnect between what the officers request in their VOPs and the perceived results of the judicial decision. ROBINA INSTITUTE: NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION

15 15 The results of this survey provide many important indicators of the beliefs and practices of Adult Operations probation officers in New York City. Due to the high response rate, these results are representative of the officers across the five boroughs, different caseload types, and years of experience. The first major finding of this survey is that the respondents have several years of experience, with an average of 16 years and more than two-thirds of officers with over 10 years of experience. The officers responded with great support for the Executive Policies and Procedures, but there were signs of neutrality. Although 90% utilized the EPAPs, and found them to be useful, a smaller majority of officers believed their fellow officers were not utilizing the EPAPs. Moreover, three-quarters of the officers believed these practices were in use before the EPAPs were created. This ambivalence towards the EPAPs may be explained by the number of years these officers have been in probation, as most of the officers have worked for multiple administrations. Numerous questions revealed significant utilization and support for sanctions, incentives policies and best practices. Sanctions, however, received more support than incentives when the officers were asked identical questions about sanctions and incentives. Another important finding is the respondents agreement that sanctions are more effective when combined with incentives. While the support for incentives varied based on the type of incentive (verbal praise, reduced reporting frequency, reduced community service hours, monetary gifts), the officers are generally open to the implementation of incentives. For both sanctions and incentives, the officers supported two common principles for implementation; a graduated structure and swift and certain responses. Lastly, the officers believed that the protocols for implementing sanctions, incentives, and early discharge should be explained to probationers at the beginning of probation. Summary of Results With regard to filing VOPs, more than 80% of officers only filed a VOP after exhausting all of the available corrective options. This response suggests a high level of perceived compliance with department policies, but also indicates some room for improvement among officers who are not utilizing all of the available options. Meanwhile, twothirds of the officers believe they have enough of these corrective options available. While officer compliance with policies may be a significant issue, there is seemingly a greater need for creating more corrective options. The use of restorative principles and Circles of Influence is one area that may need more options or improved options. The majority of officers utilize restorative principles and Circles of Influence, but only 56% find the Circles of Influence to be effective. Meanwhile, 72% of officers believe sanctions are effective, while 60% believe incentives are effective. Thus to gain greater support, the Circles of Influence may need improvement. Once officers filed their VOPs, they often felt a disconnect between their recommendations and the judges decision. Although two-thirds of the officers supported the decisions made by the judges, a great disconnect was shown in the parallel questions that specifically asked about when the officers requested revocation and when the judge granted revocation. When filing their VOPs, most respondents asked for a revocation in at least 75% of their cases. Meanwhile, only 26% of officers believed the revocation was actually granted in 75% of their cases. Thus, there is a divide between officer recommendations and judicial decisions. CHAPTER THREE ROBINA INSTITUTE: PROBATION OFFICER SURVEY REPORT

16 16 APPENDIX A Appendix A: Supervision Protocols Below is a description of the supervision protocols for each caseload type. These descriptions are found in the Department of Probation s Executive Policies and Procedures. Intensive Engagement-Highest Four Office Visits per month, must have in person contact weekly (physical presence of the probation client) Two Field Visits per month (One must be a positive home visit) Six Collateral Contacts per month related to the risk/needs areas identified (requires a third party verification of the probation clients information) Merit Credit: After three to six months, if the probation client is compliant with the Conditions of Probation and the Individual Achievement Plan (IAP), and there is documentation of merit credit activities, the probation client can be credited one client contact per month.* After nine months of supervision the case must be reassessed utilizing the Risk and Needs Assessment. The probation client will be eligible for step down at this point, and a reassessment score will factor into the step down decision. Non-Sex Offenders are eligible for step down in months (see criteria under Case Transfer Protocols) Sex Offenders are eligible for step down to Intensive Engagement High after months of supervision (see criteria below under Case Transfer Protocols) Intensive Engagement- High Sex Offenders Four Office Visits per month, must have in person contact weekly (physical presence of the probation client) One Home Visit a month (Two must be positive with the probation client every quarter, a positive Home Visit reduces the Office Visits to three Office Visits) Two Collateral Contacts per month related to the risk/needs area identified (requires a third party verification of the probation client s information) Merit Credit: After three to six months, if the probation client is compliant with the Conditions of Probation and the IAP, and there is documentation of merit credit activities, the probation client can be credited one in person office contact per month. After nine months of supervision the case must be reassessed utilizing the Risk and Needs Assessment Sex Offenders are eligible for step down to Intensive Engagement Medium in nine to twelve months (see criteria under Case Transfer Protocols) Intensive Engagement- Medium Sex Offenders Two Office Visits per month One Collateral Contact a month related to the risk/needs area identified (requires a third party verification of the probation clients information) One Home Visit a month (one must be positive with the probation client every quarter) Merit Credit: If the probation client is compliant with the Conditions of Probation and the IAP, and there is documentation of merit credit activities, the probation client can be credited one client contact per month. Sex Offenders are eligible for Step Down to Intensive Engagement Low in six to nine months (see criteria under Case Transfer Protocols) ROBINA INSTITUTE: NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION

17 17 Intensive Engagement- Low Sex Offenders One Office Visit a month One Collateral Contact a month related to the risk/needs area identified (requires a third party verification of the probation client s information) One Home Visit a month (One must be positive with the probation client every quarter) Client Development- High Four Office Visits per month, must have in person contact weekly (physical presence of the probation client) One Home Visit a month (Two must be positive with the probation client every quarter, a positive Home Visit reduces the Office Visits to three Office Visits) Two Collateral Contacts per month related to the risk/needs area identified (requires a third party verification of the probation client s information) Merit Credit: After three to six months, if the client is compliant with the Conditions of Probation and the IAP, and there is documentation of merit credit activities, the probation client can be credited one in person contact per month. After nine months of supervision the case must be reassessed utilizing the Risk and Needs Assessment Eligible for Step Down in nine to twelve months (see criteria under Case Transfer Protocols) APPENDIX A Client Development-Medium Two Office Visits per month One Collateral Contact a month related to the risk/needs area identified (requires a third party verification of the probation client s information) One positive Home Visit during the first 45 days from the initial contact with the supervision PO; and thereafter only as needed. Merit Credit: If the probation client is compliant with the Conditions of Probation and the IAP, and there is documentation of merit credit activities, the probation client can be credited one client contact per month. Eligible for Step Down in six to nine months (see criteria under Case Transfer Protocols) Community Progression One Contact per month Collaterals as needed Home Contacts as needed Eligibility for Early Discharge consideration after nine months ROBINA INSTITUTE: PROBATION OFFICER SURVEY REPORT

18 18 APPENDIX B Appendix B: Full Panels of Survey Responses This appendix displays all of the statements from the five separate sections of the survey. Most of these statements were evaluated throughout the report, but the statements were rearranged to make comparisons. I am aware of the Executive Policies and Procedures (EPAPs). I utilize the information in the EPAPs. The EPAPs provide useful information to officers supervising clients. Different officers utilize the EPAPs in different ways. Probation officers have been utilizing the practices described in the EPAPs, since before the EPAPs were created. Panel 1. Executive Policies and Procedures Somewhat Some officers do not utilize the EPAPs. Strongly I utilize all of the appropriate resources before filing a VOP. There are enough community-based resources in my borough. The probation department in my borough has enough resources (treatment programs, classes, employment resources, etc.). There are affordable resources available for clients with financial difficulties. Panel 2. Resources Somewhat Strongly ROBINA INSTITUTE: NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION

19 19 I only file a VOP after I have exhausted all other corrective options (sanctions, admonishments, treatment, resources, etc.) to bring a client into compliance. Before filing a VOP, I have reached out for help from community partners (victims advocates, criminal justice groups, resource centers, services, advocacy groups, social organizations). Before filing a VOP, I have utilized family and friends for help when a client is not incompliance. In general, I support the decisions made by the judges in my VOP cases. Panel 3. Filing VOPs Somewhat APPENDIX B I have enough corrective options available to bring a client into compliance before filing a VOP. Strongly I utilize the Circles of Influence (or Circles of Care). The Circles of Influence (or Circles of Care) are effective in gaining compliance before a VOP is filed. The range of possible sanctions and when sanctions should be used should be explained to the client at the beginning of probation. I believe in using sanctions as one of our probation tools. Sanctions should be graduated (structured, incremental responses to non-compliant behavior while under supervision). Sanctions should be given in a swift and certain manner. Sanctions are most effective when coupled with appropriate incentives for positive behavior. Sanctions grids are useful in identifying appropriate sanctions for clients. The use of sanctions will reduce recidivism. Even the smallest violation should receive a sanction. Verbal sanctions/reprimands have an impact on my clients. Panel 4. Sanctions Somewhat Strongly Sanctions are more effective than incentives. Small sanctions impact my clients. The current sanctions grid is useful. I currently utilize a sanctions grid to [provide] consequences [for] my clients. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PROBATION OFFICER SURVEY REPORT

20 20 APPENDIX B Verbal praise is an acceptable and effective incentive. Possible incentives and how to earn them should be explained to the client at the beginning of probation. Early discharge and how to obtain it should be described to the clients at the beginning of probation. I believe in using incentives as one of our probation tools. Panel 5. Incentives Certificates of completion to recognize when clients complete classes or treatment programs are acceptable and effective incentives. Reduced reporting frequency is an acceptable and effective incentive. Incentives should be graduated, or increase in magnitude with every positive behavior. If clients receive a sanction for an action (failed drug tests, missed meetings), they should receive an incentive for the opposite action (passed drug tests,...). Incentives should be given in a swift and certain manner. Small incentives impact my clients. It doesn t make sense to reward clients for things that they should already be doing (e.g., showing up for appointments on time, seeking employment, etc.). Somewhat Strongly Clients should be involved in deciding what incentives are used. Movie passes, gas cards, restaurant gift cards of smaller value ($10 $15) are acceptable and effective incentives. The use of incentives will reduce recidivism. Reduced community service hours is an acceptable and effective incentive (with court approval where necessary). Providing incentives to clients for compliance with conditions is not a good use of probation officer time. I currently utilize an incentives grid when my clients do something correctly. Incentives are more important and valuable than sanctions. The current incentives grid is useful. ROBINA INSTITUTE: NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION

21 21 END NOTES 1 See Appendix A for a full description of the supervision protocols for each caseload type. 2 The Circles of Influence, also known as Circles of Care, are a policy for supervising clients. The Circles involve the officer making contacts with individuals in the client s life who may influence them, positively or negatively. These individuals include family, friends, employers, teachers, and anyone else with an influence in their life. 3 In Staten Island none of the respondents were unsupportive of the judicial decisions, but only seven Staten Island officers responded to this question. APPENDIX B ROBINA INSTITUTE OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice The Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice engages in original, interdisciplinary research that examines critical issues in the field of criminal justice. The Institute works to achieve transformative change in sentencing law and policy and correctional policies and practices. By partnering with state and local jurisdictions, the Institute focuses nationally on sentencing guidelines systems, parole release and revocation, and community supervision, as well as locally on the Minnesota criminal justice system. The Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice was established in 2011 at the University of Minnesota Law School thanks to a generous gift from the Robina Foundation. Created by James H. Binger ( 41), the Robina Foundation provides funding to major institutions that generate transformative ideas and promising approaches to addressing critical social issues. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PROBATION NATIONAL PAROLE OFFICER SURVEY REPORT

22 ROBINA INSTITUTE OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL x TH AVE SOUTH x N160 MONDALE HALL x MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55455