Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:19 pm
Time: 12:19 pm
Results for probation caseload
4 results foundAuthor: Title: Indiana Workload Evaluation: A Multi-Methods Investigation of Probation Supervision Summary: Virtually everyone agrees that probation has grown as a sanction over the past few decades. When considering this growth in the probation sanction, it is common for commentators to discuss the number of probationers or the size of probation officer caseloads. Less frequently, however, is attention given to the actual workload of probation officers and the way these workloads have changed over time. Indeed, it is not enough to say that probation officer caseloads have grown. Instead, it is necessary to focus on the changes in workload that have accompanied this increased reliance on the probation sanction. In this project, the research team used a variety of techniques to examine issues related to workload in probation agencies across Indiana. Methods utilized included interviews with probation chiefs, conversations with members of the advisory board, and a sophisticated time study. The majority of data for this evaluation come from a time and motion study completed by 338 officers across 24 probation departments from October 1, 2012 through November 14, 2012. The researchers gathered data about sixty-nine different types of tasks. In total, the data provided information about more than two million minutes of workload performed by the officers over the five week time period. Officers recorded 74,239 tasks, with 80 percent (n = 59,746) supervision activities, 10 percent (n = 7,649) reporting activities, 4.4 percent (n = 3,299) non-case related, 1.3 percent (n = 989) juvenile intake activities, .5 percent (n = 390) equipment management activities, and 3 percent (n = 2,256) administration activities. Key findings from this study included the following: - The average time per task was 28.22 minutes. - Of the activities in which an officer spent time with an offender, about 23 percent of the time the offender was high or very high risk. - On average, adult probation officers spent about 23 minutes per task, adult pre-trial spent about 30 minutes, juvenile probation officers spent about 24 minutes, and alcohol and drug officers spent about 23 minutes per activity. - The two most frequent activities were face-to-face meetings with offenders and generating and responding to emails, phone calls, or letters. - Non-case and administrative time accounted for nearly 8 percent of all tasks recorded. - Face-to-face meetings with offenders are slightly longer (26.9 minutes) than are meetings with others (20.9 minutes). - It is estimated that juvenile intake averaged about 4.5 hours to complete. - On average, officers spent more than seven hours on each pre-sentence investigation. - Officers spent just over two hours per offender dealing with equipment issues related to electronic monitoring and global position satellite systems over the five week period. - Comparisons between sex offenders, domestic violence offenders, and other offenders revealed that the amount of time spent on activities was similar for the different offender groups. - Supervision activities are the most frequent type (n = 59,730, 80 percent) of activities that officers completed during the data collection period and while they took less time to complete than many other activities (averaging 23 minutes), they still accounted for nearly two-thirds of all the time officers spent working during the five week time period. Details: University Park, PA: Justice Center for Research, Penn State University, 2014. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 30, 2014 at: http://justicecenter.psu.edu/research/projects/indiana-workload-evaluation-a-multi-methods-investigation-of-probation-supervision/IndianaFinalReport.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://justicecenter.psu.edu/research/projects/indiana-workload-evaluation-a-multi-methods-investigation-of-probation-supervision/IndianaFinalReport.pdf Shelf Number: 133874 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbation CaseloadProbation Officers (Indiana)Probationers |
Author: Cotten, P. Ann Title: Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services: Parole and Probation Agent Workload Study. Final Report Summary: The Maryland General Assembly required the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) to conduct a workload study of the department's parole and probation agents. The Office of Community Supervision Support (CSS), in turn, contracted with the Schaefer Center for Public Policy at the University of Baltimore's College of Public Affairs (Schaefer Center) to conduct a study that included a review of the literature relating to parole and probation agent staffing, an analysis of agents' workload including a time study of agents, an analysis of the supervision caseload, and the collection of comparative caseload data from other states. From the research, the Schaefer Center team was charged with producing staffing recommendations, average caseload counts, and recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of parole and probation supervision. The primary focus of the research is agents who directly supervise offenders on parole and probation. As part of the research, the team also produced an analysis of how Court Liaison Unit (CLU) agents, Liaison Waiver (LAW) agents, and Warrant Apprehension Unit (WAU) officers spend their work time, and solicited input into recommendations for improving the effectiveness of their work. To fulfill its charge, the research team employed a mix of quantitative and qualitative strategies listed below. A comprehensive literature review of all known English language articles on community supervision and staffing. A four-week time study with 114 parole/probation agents and Warrant Apprehension Officers. Participants recorded 25,743 hours of work activity. Time observations were reported for work relating to 6,388 offenders. A caseload analysis that included all offenders under supervision on September 29, 2014. A review of agent case notes for a 12-month period for 215 randomly selected offenders. Fifteen focus groups with 137 participants including: 71 supervising agents, 42 supervisors, 5 agents and 1 supervisor from the Court Liaison Unit, 9 agents and 1 supervisor from the Liaison Waiver Unit, and 9 Warrant Apprehension Officers. A national survey of state parole and probation agencies. Details: Baltimore, MD: Schaefer Center for Public Policy University of Baltimore – College of Public Affairs, 2015. 149p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 3, 2017 at: http://dlslibrary.state.md.us/publications/JCR/2014/2014_116(v3).pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://dlslibrary.state.md.us/publications/JCR/2014/2014_116(v3).pdf Shelf Number: 147534 Keywords: Community SupervisionOffender SupervisionParole CaseloadParole OfficersParoleesProbation CaseloadProbation OfficersProbationers |
Author: Tallarico, Suzanne Title: Alabama Juvenile Probation Officer Weighted Workload Assessment Study Summary: Excessive caseloads for Juvenile Probation Officers (JPOs) jeopardize both public safety and the quality of supervision officers can provide to the youth they supervise in the community. The quality of investigation and supervision services is directly related to the number of Juvenile Probation Officers available to handle the probation investigation and supervision work in Alabama. Currently, the state of Alabama does not use workload standards on which to base its need for Juvenile Probation Officers. In order to be more objective in determining their staffing needs for Juvenile Probation Officers, the Alabama Administrative Office of Courts contracted with the National Center for State Courts to develop workload standards for Juvenile Probation Officers, taking into account all activities Juvenile Probation Officers are statutorily required to perform. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has conducted workload assessment studies for many years. The weighted caseload method uses time as a measure for workload and is based on the assumption that the more time required to process, manage, or supervise a case, the more work is involved. In this study, a case weight or workload values is defined as the average amount of time it takes to investigate or supervise a particular type of case. Workload values are computed based upon the average number of minutes it takes to complete tasks associated with juvenile probation investigations and supervision. Using case weights, the number of probationers can be translated into workload for Juvenile Probation Officers. Details: Denver: National Center for State Courts, 2010. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 3, 2017 at: http://www.ncsc.org/topics/court-management/workload-and-resource-assessment/~/media/8E11806349FD44FC96795BCBE0C3D5FA.ashx Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncsc.org/topics/court-management/workload-and-resource-assessment/~/media/8E11806349FD44FC96795BCBE0C3D5FA.ashx Shelf Number: 147535 Keywords: Juvenile ProbationProbation CaseloadProbation Officers |
Author: Cotten, P. Ann Title: Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services: Parole and Probation Agent Workload Study Report on Agent and Officer Focus Groups Summary: The Maryland General Assembly required the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) to conduct a workload study of the department's parole and probation agents. The Office of Community Supervision Support (CSS), in turn, contracted with the Schaefer Center for Public Policy at the University of Baltimore's College of Public Affairs (Schaefer Center) to conduct a study that included a review of the literature relating to parole and probation agent staffing, an analysis of agents' workload including a time study of agents, an analysis of the supervision caseload, and the collection of comparative caseload data from other states. From the research, the Schaefer Center team was charged with producing staffing recommendations, average caseload counts, and recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of parole and probation supervision. The primary focus of the research is agents who directly supervise offenders on parole and probation. As part of the research, the team also produced an analysis of how Court Liaison Unit (CLU) agents, Liaison Waiver (LAW) agents, and Warrant Apprehension Unit (WAU) officers spend their work time, and solicited input into recommendations for improving the effectiveness of their work. To fulfill its charge, the research team employed a mix of quantitative and qualitative strategies listed below. A comprehensive literature review of all known English language articles on community supervision and staffing. A four-week time study with 114 parole/probation agents and Warrant Apprehension Officers. Participants recorded 25,743 hours of work activity. Time observations were reported for work relating to 6,388 offenders. A caseload analysis that included all offenders under supervision on September 29, 2014. A review of agent case notes for a 12-month period for 215 randomly selected offenders. A national survey of state parole and probation agencies. To gain a good understanding about the work of the agents and variation in the work across regions, the research team conducted fifteen focus groups with 137 participants including: 71 supervising agents, 42 supervisors, 5 agents and 1 supervisor from the Court Liaison Unit, 9 agents and 1 supervisor from the Liaison Waiver Unit, and 9 Warrant Apprehension Officers. The findings from the focus groups are presented in this supplemental report Details: Baltimore, MD: Schaefer Center for Public Policy University of Baltimore - College of Public Affairs, 2015. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 4, 2017 at: http://dlslibrary.state.md.us/publications/JCR/2014/2014_116(v2).pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://dlslibrary.state.md.us/publications/JCR/2014/2014_116(v2).pdf Shelf Number: 147555 Keywords: Parole CaseloadParole OfficersProbation CaseloadProbation Officers |