(3) Invest in strategies that will reduce risk.
(4) Encourage the use of and fully fund locally tailored, evidence-based supervision and sanctions practices.
(5) Mandate accountability to verify progress.
(1) Give probation departments the necessary resources to identify, recruit, and retain highly qualified probation officers. It is imperative that departments are given the tools to realize their full potential and ensure quality supervision of probationers. With proper funding, they can hire additional staff and pay them commiserate wages, as well as implement departmental strategies that will improve probation officers’ morale and job satisfaction, in turn (a) lowering turnover rates among probation officers and direct care staff in probation departments, and (b) boosting probationers’ success.
(a) Reduce turnover rates at probation departments. In 2008, the Community Justice Assistance Division (CJAD) of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice commissioned a self-report survey of state probation officers and direct care staff in regards to high voluntary turnover rates. Their study finds that “[low] pay and [poor] benefits” was the most significant factor in turnover. Also, an alarming 41.3% of respondents have “serious thoughts about leaving in the near future or are actively looking for alternate employment.”[i] To ward off a potential staffing crisis at probation departments, the State must increase funding for the departments, which will also help to reduce the negative consequences of high turnover rates, such as the currently high number (40%) of supervision officers within departments that have three years or less of experience supervising probationers, as well as “unstable caseload sizes, inexperienced staff, training issues, decreased quality of supervision, and lower staff morale.”[ii]
(b) Assist probationers in improving their chances of success. A key factor contributing to probationer success is how they view their relationship with their probation officer. In other words, if departmental culture is improved and probation officers believe that probationers can change their behavior, their interaction will be much more positive – producing better results. The State must provide probation departments with resources to conduct intensive trainings for newly hired probation officers that focus on recognized best practices, such as “motivational interviewing” (e.g., reflective listening, identifying inconsistencies, using open-ended questions, and reinforcing positive behaviors), that improve probation officer/probationer interaction.
(2) Reduce probation officers’ caseloads for high- and medium-risk individuals, and increase programming opportunities for probationers (as needed) in additional efforts to improve probationer success. While the prison population growth is stabilizing, the number of people on probation is growing – increasing the caseloads for current probation officers. If probation officers’ caseloads were reduced by half, they could keep a better eye on probationers during the critical early period: most probationers who re-offend do so in the first two years, and the majority of those re-offend within the first eight months. Reducing caseloads will also give probation officers more time to devote to helping probationers secure housing and jobs, receive treatment, and support their families – and thus better ensure that probation terms are achievable so that revocations decrease and the flow to prison is slowed.
But in addition to caseload reduction, programming for probationers (including substance abuse treatment, as well as cognitive thinking programs that target individuals’ antisocial thinking and antisocial personality) must be available to best ensure that probationers successfully meet their terms. Note: Probationers considered between “medium” and “high” risk levels are most benefited by properly implemented recidivism-reduction programming. Probationers considered low risk will do worse if overly programmed and overly supervised; likewise, when low-risk probationers are placed in programs with high-risk probationers, they also tend to do worse.
(3) Invest in strategies that will reduce risk. Prisons only contain risk. Probation – if properly implemented – reduces risk. As such, probation should not (as it currently does) operate mostly to oversee the judge-ordered requirements mandated to probationers. A risk-reduction strategy should be implemented to affect all areas of administration, including funding and management, and the design of supervision and sanctioning practices. Such a strategy will likely lead to a change in culture and in the attitudes of probation officers and administrators, which will better accomplish Texas’ public safety needs.
(a) Increase basic funding for departments. Again, current funding structures – under which probationers’ fees are providing probation departments’ income – create incentives to keep probationers on probation too long. Each probation department’s fiscal incentive for implementing long supervision periods should be eliminated by increasing basic budget funding (e.g., for operational costs and treatment), which will compensate for decreased probationer fees – especially from early terminations. These terminations are critical to slowing the number of people entering prison; as such, departments should be supplemented to make up for any missing income. Departments should not be penalized for the success of those they supervise.
An increase in funding for departments will also help probationers remain law-abiding citizens. Most probationers who are employed hold minimum wage jobs; in addition to supporting themselves and, in many instances, their families with the income they obtain from these low-paying jobs, probationers are also responsible for paying a high number of court-mandated fees and supervision-related fines, such as restitution fees, program fees, etc. The financial burden imposed by probation fees increases the likelihood of probationers absconding and/or failing to meet their probation terms. Allowing for and encouraging early termination from probation – especially by offsetting fee loss through increased departmental funding – will help ensure probationer success.
(b) Continue to implement shorter and stronger probation terms. Departments should focus probation officer resources where they are needed most. Again, supervision should be front-loaded so that it is heaviest during the early critical period (the first eight months) of probation terms, with officer caseloads adjusted accordingly. Limiting the time they spend supervising non-violent property and drug offense probationers will give them additional time to supervise individuals who are convicted of more serious crimes or who pose a flight risk or threat to public safety. Note: Early release should be used as a meaningful incentive for good probationer performance. By rewarding the completion of requirements rather than the punishments associated with non-compliance, departments can provide probationers with a roadmap to success while still holding them accountable for taking initiative and responsibility.
(c) Encourage judges to learn more about the use of evidence-based practices. Judges can be agents of positive change by encouraging individuals’ voluntary compliance with all conditions of probation. As such, they should educate themselves about how effective the community-based corrections programs within their jurisdictions are in reducing recidivism, and, when appropriate, utilize those programs shown to be effective. Judges should also be aware of the “stages of change” model, which is a useful tool for understanding an individual’s readiness to change and the corresponding strategies that have proven most effective in facilitating that behavioral change.[iv] Furthermore, like probation officers, judges should consider the use of “motivational interviewing” techniques (discussed in Solution 1 (b)). Finally, judges should avoid threatening, lecturing, shaming, arguing with, or sympathizing with the individual. To achieve multiple sentencing objectives (e.g., risk reduction (rehabilitation), punishment, and behavioral control), treatment provisions must be successfully integrated with intermediate sanctions and behavioral controls.iii
Note: It is imperative that prosecutors are also exposed to best practices that reduce the risk of recidivism. They must communicate with probation, as well as the judiciary, in a constructive way to facilitate this.
(4) Encourage the use of and fully fund locally tailored, evidence-based supervision and sanctions practices.
(a) Expand the use of validated and verified diagnostic tools, and make training available to all departments so that they can most effectively use the results of the diagnostic. Validated instruments are essential in determining each probationer’s risk level and propensity for criminal behavior. They are also critical for departments that want to use their resources efficiently; they allow officers to maintain a sufficient level of supervision without wasting time and funding. However, each department must be provided with assistance (through trainings) to enable probation officers to properly utilize the results of these tools and offer each probationer an individualized supervision plan. This much-needed training will ensure the best use of supervision resources and better ensure probationer success.
(b) Fully fund progressive sanctions. Departments should provide locally tailored, swift, certain, and proportionate punishments according to the severity and frequency of each probation violation. Each department must be provided the resources to implement best practices and encourage the sharing of program ideas that prove to be successful within their own departments. This will aid in program development and better respond to the needs of each probationer in each situation. Furthermore, sanctions that are immediately administered and proportionate to the offense provide more clear and direct feedback to probationers, making future violations less likely.
(5) Mandate accountability to verify progress.
(a) Strengthen the Community Justice Assistance Division (CJAD) and provide technical assistance/accountability grants to eligible probation departments to implement progressive sanctions. To facilitate the adoption and realization of best practices over time, technical assistance should be given to departments; they should have access to expert consultants that can assist them with the implementation of new, proven programs. Local departments should be required to submit evidence-based program proposals to CJAD before being given program funding for the assistance. Technical assistance and grants should be provided for (i) organizational change, (ii) supervision strategies, (iii) accountability and auditing of programs, and (iv) program improvements supporting risk reduction. To secure renewed funding, programs should be subject to periodic review based on a cost-benefit analysis of outcome measures of risk reduction, including recidivism and probationer success rates.
Note: The State should increase funding to CJAD so that it can hire additional staff to effectively oversee funds allocated to probation departments – as well as the programs on which those funds are spent – and to meet the technical needs of the field in all areas.
Specifically, CJAD should be given additional staff to do the following:
− Ensure that funds distributed to the field are properly spent and effectively utilized.
− Conduct routine evaluations of all rehabilitation programs and services designed to reduce re-incarceration and revocation rates, and conduct audits for compliance with CJAD rules and standards.
− Provide much needed technical assistance to the field to further the mission and goals of effective community supervision.
− Provide meaningful ongoing training to probation officers so they can become certified within the period prescribed by law, as well as enhance their professional development.
− Broaden CJAD’s current training capabilities on best practices for judges, district attorneys, and probation departments. Note: CJAD hosts a successful biannual conference on sentencing issues; the agency should be provided funding to host more frequent regional trainings – at the very least, annually.
− Conduct research that will identify emerging trends and best practices in the field of community corrections, which will be useful to the members of the Legislature.
(b) Promote the sharing of what works. CJAD should compile an annual report to be distributed to judges and probation directors that assesses the successes and failures of all programs using the outcome measures of (i) completion, and (ii) recidivism rates of program participants. Post-completion program evaluations should include an examination of rates of probationer recovery, employment, and educational attainment.
[i] Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, 2008 Turnover Survey – Overview, (2008), 1-2, http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/cjad/2008%20Turnover%20Survey%20
Fact%20Sheet.pdf.
[ii] Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, 2008 Salary Survey – Overview and Outcomes, (2008), 1-2, http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/cjad/2008%20Salary%20Survey%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.
[iii][iv] Gretchen Zimmerman and others, “A 'Stages of Change' Approach to Helping Patients Change Behavior,” American Family Physician, (2000). http://www.aafp.org/afp/20000301/1409.html.