Probation - 2006 Annual Report

MONROE CIRCUIT COURT PROBATION DEPARTMENT

MISSION
The mission of the Monroe Circuit Court Probation Department is to promote a safer community by intervening in the lives of offenders, holding them accountable, and serving as a catalyst for positive change.

The Justice Building 301 North College Avenue Bloomington, Indiana 47404 (812) 349-2645

Community Corrections Office 405 West 7th Street, Suite 2 Bloomington, Indiana 47404 (812) 349-2000

Internet Website
http://www.co.monroe.in.us/probation 49

CHIEF’S SUMMARY

By Linda Brady, Chief Probation Officer
The year 2006 will be remembered as a year of planning for expanded probation services due to the addition of a new Circuit Court judge. In 2005, the Indiana State Legislature approved the addition of two new Circuit Court judges. The eighth Circuit Court judge was appointed by the Governor effective January 1, 2006. Effective January 1, 2008, the ninth Circuit Court judge will be appointed by the Governor. In preparation for the addition of the new judge for 2006, in late 2004, the Monroe Circuit Court reorganized judicial caseloads which had a significant impact on the Probation Department. Effective January 1, 2005, the Criminal cases were assigned to three judges (the Criminal Division). Civil cases were distributed amongst four Civil Division judges and the Commissioner. The new Circuit Court judge who assumed office on January 1, 2006 was assigned to the Civil Division. Indiana law permits counties to pursue additional tax revenues to support the addition of new courts. Due to the 2006 expansion of the court, the Probation Department was able to obtain six (6) additional Probation Officer positions. Three (3) of these Probation Officer positions were funded effective July 1, 2006. The remaining three (3) Probation Officers were funded effective January 1, 2007. In 2005, the Criminal Division judges began to hold weekly meetings with staff including Court Reporters, Probation Officers, Public Defenders, Prosecuting Attorneys, and Jail staff. These weekly meetings were held to work through the significant logistics of the Court reorganization. The meetings proved to be very successful in creating an opportunity to effectively work though issues and problems. Therefore, these meetings continued in 2006. Just as the weekly Criminal Division meetings proved successful, a new group began to meet weekly to work through the complicated issues surrounding the Monroe County jail population. This new group, known as the Ad Hoc Jail Committee, began to meet every Tuesday morning in early 2005. Chaired by Judge Ken Todd, the Ad Hoc meetings continued throughout 2006 and provided a regular means to resolve issues related to the jail population. Due to federal budget cuts for the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JABG), in 2006 the department received a reduced grant of $20,000 (48% reduction) from the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute to fund a program to address juvenile delinquency: the Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program, known as SHOCAP. This grant runs on the federal grant cycle (October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007). Due to further federal budget cuts, the grant may expire completely at the end of September 2007. The Monroe County Drug Treatment Court continued operations in 2006. In 2006, the Drug Court was primarily funded by an Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) through the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute. This grant is a one-year grant and is subject to a competitive process for possible renewal. The grant cycle runs April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2007. Although the match money for this grant is paid from Court Alcohol and Drug Program user fees, such user fees alone are not sufficient to fund the Drug Court. The future of the Drug Court will depend on finding a secure, stable funding mechanism.

50

In late 2005, the Probation Department entered into a contract with LifeServices Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The EAP provides free counseling services to all departmental employees and their families. Due to the success of this program, the EAP contract was continued throughout 2006. In October 2006, the Probation Department began collecting DNA from all convicted felons sentenced to a component of Probation and/or Community Corrections. There were 59 DNA samples collected from October 1 through December 31, 2006.

PROBATION DEPARTMENT SUMMARY 2006
• Indiana University students from the Indiana University Education Early Field Placement contributed 222.5 volunteer hours to the juvenile after-school day reporting program, J.A.M.S. At the current starting hourly rate of $7.75 paid to part-time staff working for the Department, Early Field Placement students provided a savings of more than $1,700 ($1,724.38) in volunteer labor. In 2006, the Department supervised thirteen (13) student interns who each contributed a minimum of 110 volunteer hours. At the current starting hourly rate of $7.75 paid to part-time staff working for the Department, interns provided a savings of more than $11,000 ($11,082.50) in volunteer labor. During the year, the Probation Department employed graduate students who are a part of the SPEA Service Corps program. In 2006, the SPEA Service Corp Fellows contributed more than 270 hours of valuable service to the Probation Department. At the current starting hourly rate of $7.75 paid to part-time staff working for the Department, SPEA Fellows provided a savings of more than $2,000 ($2,092.50) in volunteer labor. The Road Crew and Public Restitution programs combined provided the community with 35,535 hours of service; @ $5.15 minimum wage, equivalent to $183,005 in service to the community. CASP levels II through V supervised 303 felons which continued a four year trend of at least 300 felons on the program. The Family Preservation Program continued to serve families while saving county dollars. During 2006, Monroe County spent approximately $147, 300 to fund the Family Preservation Program. Estimates reveal the Family Preservation Program provided a potential net savings in per diem costs of $1,023,000 to the tax payers of Monroe County in 2006. The Family Preservation Program completed its 13th year of operation in 2006. In these 13 years of operation, it is estimated that the County has realized a net savings in placement per diem costs of over $9 million. The Impaired Driving Impact Panel continued in 2006, with 548 convicted drunk drivers from Monroe County attending the presentations during the year. $127,551 victim restitution was collected. Additionally, $1,151,020 in user fees was collected on behalf of the Probation Department. The Probation Department began offering clients the option of paying fees by credit card in May 2004. The total collected in 2006 using the credit card option was $67,429.

•

•

• • •

• • •

51

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

52

FINANCIAL INFORMATION
I. VICTIM RESTITUTION The Probation Department assists the court in collecting victim restitution by enforcing restitution orders. When the Courts place an offender under probation supervision, the offender may be ordered to reimburse the victim for any loss incurred. The Probation Department ensures that this money is paid by the probationers. Restitution is collected by the Clerk’s Office and is disbursed directly to the victim. In 2006, probationers paid $127,551 in victim restitution.

VICTIM RESTITUTION COLLECTED AND DISBURSED
2002 TOTALS $126,533.06 2003 $178,124 2004 $123,842.39 2005 $150,891.97 2006 $127,551

II.

FUNDING SOURCES The Probation Department is funded by various sources including the Monroe County General Fund (local tax base), user fees, grants and contracts. As of December 31, 2006, the department employed 76 persons, 44 of whom were Probation Officers (37 line Probation Officers and seven supervisory/management-level Probation Officers). The Monroe County General Fund covered the full salaries and fringe benefits of only four (4) Juvenile Probation Officers and two (2) members of Support Staff. The County General Fund also paid for partial salaries and partial fringe benefits for another 19 Adult Probation Officers, three (3) Probation Supervisors, and the Chief Probation Officer, with the remainder of the salaries and fringe benefits of these staff members paid from user fees. The remaining 53 staff members’ salaries and benefits were paid by a combination of user fees, program fees, contracts and grants. 2006 Staff Summary: • Chief Probation Officer • Assistant Chief Probation Officer • Supervisors • Line Probation Officers • Field Officers (Road Crew, CASP, SHOCAP, Drug Court) • Support Staff • Part-time Assistants TOTAL STAFF 76 employees (60 full time)

1 1 5 37 8 8 16

53

III.

PROBATION DEPARTMENT BUDGETS The Probation Department works very hard to find innovative funding opportunities to provide programs and services without having to dip into the strapped County General budget. The total 2006 Probation Department was $3,894,836. Only $$957,719 (25%) of that amount came from the County General budget.

MONROE COUNTY PROBATION 2006 BUDGETS
% User Fees Adult Probation User Fees Juvenile Probation User F Community Corrections User Fees Court Alcohol & Drug Program Fees $411,037 $39,387 $734,675 100% 100% 100% % Grant Funds -0-0-0% Contract -0-0-0% Tax -0-0-0-

$499,244

100%

-0-

-0-

-0-

Drug Court Fees Community Corrections Grant SHOCAP (JABG grant) Federal Drug Court Grant (remainder/FINAL) Byrne Drug Court Grant (NEW/First year) Family Preservation (DCS Contract) County General Funds TOTALS

$17,483

100%

-0-

-0-

-0-

$624,569 $20,000

-0-0-

100% 100%

-0-0-

-0-0-

$151,492

-0-

100%

-0-

-0-

$165,281 $228,949 $957,719* $3,894,836 TOTAL %

-0-0-0$1,701,826 44%

100% -0-0$961,342 25%

-0100% -0$228,949 6%

-0-0100% $957,719 25%

*County General $736,707 salary + 30% fringe benefits

54

IV.

PROGRAM AND USERS FEES In 2003 the state legislature enacted a new law which allowed user fees paid by persons placed under probation supervision to be used to pay probation officer salaries. The new law increased probation user fees and added an administrative fee for offenders sentenced to probation. The Probation Department collects the new Administrative Fees from both Adult and Juvenile offenders. The total collected in 2006 for these two new funds was only $58,918. It is clear that these added funds will serve only as a supplement to Probation Officer pay and cannot be counted on to be the primary funding source for PO salaries. Offenders sentenced in Monroe County, who reside out of State, may have their probation supervision transferred to their home state, if so ordered by the judiciary. Offenders who are granted this option are required to pay an Interstate Compact Transfer Fee before any paperwork can begin. In 2006, the Probation Department collected $2,100 in Interstate Compact Transfer Fees. In addition to paying probation officer salaries, user fees in Monroe County pay for many innovative rehabilitative programs, which otherwise would not be possible from the limited County General Fund. The important rehabilitative programs funded through user fees in Monroe County include: • • • • • • • • Electronic Monitoring equipment for Home Detention (radio frequency anklets, alcohol detect units, and GPS monitoring devices) Impaired Driving Impact Panel, winner of the Governor’s Exemplary Project Award SHOCAP (Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program) Match-money for Drug Court, which enabled the Court to accept a federal grant Anger Management Counseling Aggression Replacement Training (ART) program and Parental Aggression Replacement Training (PART) program Project SET (Supporting Education Together) PRIME for Life substance abuse education classes and Alcohol and Marijuana Education Classes

55

The Probation user fees also are used to pay for county expenses which would otherwise have to be paid from the County General Fund, such as: • • • Replacement computers and other office equipment; Rent: $75,000 per year; the Probation Department rents office space outside the Justice Building in order to house juvenile programs and the Community Corrections Program; and General operating expenses such as postage and office supplies. County General budgets have been “flat lined” for years, causing the probation user fee budgets to pick up the increases in postage, mileage, and other increasing costs.

The Probation Department is responsible for collecting adult and juvenile probation user fees and Community Corrections program fees. The Monroe County Clerk collects Court Alcohol & Drug Program fees, Alcohol and Marijuana Education School fees, PRIME for Life fees, Drug Court user fees, and Pretrial Diversion (PDP) Road Crew fees. In 2006, the Probation Department collected $880,637 in fees, a decrease of 16% from 2005. This figure, combined with the fees collected by the Clerk’s Office, totaled $1,147,331 in user fees collected on behalf of the Probation Department in 2006. This represents an overall 21% decrease in the collection of program and user fees.

PROBATION PROGRAM AND USER FEES COLLECTED
2002 Court Alcohol & Drug Program/AES* Drug Tests (SAD Account) Drug Court Fee* Adult Probation Fees Juvenile Probation Fees Project Income Community Corrections fees PDP Road Crew Fees* TIPP TOTALS * Collected by Clerk. $337,639 $18,615 $3,800 $222,296 $21,204 $483,031 $24,672 $2,145 $1,113,402 2003 $313,798 $3,488 $14,826 $249,234 $31,634 $542,773 $24,391 $1,976 $1,182,120 2004 $359,227 $70 $11,601 $355,139 $35,434 $543,650 $21,242 $2,660 $1,329,023 2005 $346,585 $-0$8,180 $431,508 $25,301 $602,239 $13,210 $1,050 $1,428,073 2006 $247,821 $-0$10,142 $365,363 $26,329 $488,645 $8,731 $300 $1,147,331

56

V.

COLLECTION RATES Despite efforts by the Probation Department to collect all fees assessed by the Courts, many offenders do not pay the user fees, program fees and restitution as directed. At the end of 2006, a report was generated that revealed $193,521 in past due 2006 fees (adult, juvenile user fees and Community Corrections fees). This indicates that the user fee collection rate for 2006 was about 81%, a decrease of about 4% from 2005’s collection rate. In 2006, Juvenile Home Detention fees of $5,809 were assessed and $3,619 (62%) of these fees was collected. This collection percentage is significantly lower than the department’s overall collection rate of 81% for the year, however, it is an increase from the 2005 collection rate of 59% for these fees. Collection of user fees, in general, from juvenile offenders remains a problem for the department.

PROBATION DEPARTMENT FEE COLLECTION RATES
2003 Departmental Probation/Program Fees Assessed Probation/Program Fees Assessed During Year Past Due at Year End Probation/Program Fees on Civil Judgment Docket Overall Departmental Collection Rate $1,091,096 $202,446 $82,155 82% 2004 $1,223,871 $231,827 $116,451 81% 2005 $1,249,092 $192,994 $86,598 85% 2006 $1,028,102 $193,521 $146,486 81%

VI.

CIVIL JUDGMENTS The Courts reduce unpaid financial obligations to Civil Judgments. This year $146,486 of various fees were entered on the Civil Judgment Docket. There is a running total of $1,054,057 in past due probation user fees and program fees between November 1, 1993 and December 31, 2006. Periodically the Probation Department sends out reminder letters to former probationers whose fees have been entered on the Civil Judgment Docket. However, there is no formal process for collecting these fees beyond the letters generated by the Probation Department.

57

VII.

STAFF STABILITY AND TURNOVER RATES On January 1, 2004, a revised Probation Officer Minimum Salary Scale went into effect which included pay raises commensurate with years of experience as a Probation Officer. Prior to the implementation of this revised Probation Officer Minimum Salary Scale, the Probation Officer turnover rate had been a significant issue for the Probation Department for many years. Over a four year span (2000 through 2003), 29 Probation Officers resigned. To put this in perspective, the department employed only 36 Line Probation Officers during those years. Many of those resignations were due to inadequate pay. Upon implementation of the revised minimum salary scale, during 2004, the Probation Officer (PO) turnover rate dropped dramatically from 27% in 2003 to only 8% (3 resignations) in 2004. In 2005, four (4) POs resigned a turnover rate of 11%. In 2006, eight (8) Probation Officers resigned, a turnover rate of 18%. The Probation Officer pay scale proved to be a barrier to hiring qualified POs in 2006. With a starting pay rate of $27,047 in 2006, this salary proved to be low compared to other positions within the community which require a four (4) year college degree, such as teachers. As a comparison, the Monroe County Community School Corporation starting teacher pay rate was $28,000 for the 20062007 school year (teachers are paid for approximately 10 months of work). In 2006, there were three (3) new Probation Officer positions approved to begin July 1, 2006. There were three (3) additional Probation Officer positions which were set to begin January 1, 2007. The hiring process for these 2007 positions was started in the fall of 2006. During the hiring process for the new PO positions, four (4) Probation Officer applicants who were offered employment withdrew/resigned between their hire date and their scheduled first day of employment due to being offered other employment with starting salaries between $8,000 and $22,000 more than the starting PO salary. If Probation Officer turnover continues to climb, the starting pay of Probation Officers should be examined by the County Personnel Advisory Committee.

58

OFFENDER PROFILES - YEAR 2006 TRENDS
The most prevalent type of offense committed in 2006 by juveniles who were placed on probation supervision was status-related offenses, accounting for 122 (38%) of all offenses committed by these individuals. Of this group, truancy was the number one offense, comprising 92 of the adjudications in the group. In 2006, substance-related offenses were the second leading offense group, accounting for 60 of the substance related offense referrals resulting in supervision. Illegal Consumption continued to be the most common substance-related offense for which a juvenile received supervision services; representing 26 of the substance-related supervisions received in 2006. Theft offenses comprised the third largest referral group for which supervisions were received. Other miscellaneous offenses, as a group were the fourth most common offense group for which a juvenile received probation supervision services in 2006. As in 2004 and 2005, Violent/Battery related offenses were the least likely reason a juvenile received supervision services in 2006. The most prevalent adult offense type in 2006 was substance-related offenses, accounting for 52% of all offenses committed by adult offenders. Of this offense group, Operating While Intoxicated was the number one offense, as it has been for the past 16 years, accounting for 37% of all adult probationer offenses committed. The next most common type of offense committed by adult probationers was theftrelated offenses 18%, followed by Battery/violent offenses 11%.

2006 OFFENSE TYPES
Alcohol/Drug 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 ADULT JUVENILE Theft Battery/Violent Other Juvenile Status

ADULT ALCOHOL/DRUG RELATED THEFT RELATED BATTERY/VIOLENT OTHER JUVENILE STATUS TOTALS 724 (52%) 245 (18%) 147 (11%) 265 (19%) N/A 1,381

JUVENILE 60 (20%) 58 (18%) 32 (10%) 46 (15%) 122 (38%) 318

59

ADULT DIVISION
Adult felony probation supervisions have been steadily increasing for the past decade. From 1985 through 1993, the felony cases received by the Adult Division had consistently comprised about 25% of the overall new adult probation cases received. Since 1994, the felony supervisions have comprised an ever-increasing percentage of the new cases received each year. By the end of 2006, the percentage of new felony supervisions received was 41% of all new supervisions. The increase in felony probation caseloads over the past several years has caused concern due to the serious nature of crimes committed by high risk offenders. Additionally, felony offenders typically are placed under probation supervision for longer periods of time compared to misdemeanant offenders, thus increasing caseload sizes overall. During 2006, 13 Adult Probation Officers were assigned to the Supervision Unit and four (4) Probation Officers were assigned to the Intake Unit of the Adult Division. Three of the Adult Probation Officers assigned to the Supervision Unit were responsible for overseeing specialized caseloads (sex offenders and batterers). The remaining 10 Adult Probation Officers supervised non-specialized mixed caseloads of misdemeanants and felons. One of the 10 Adult Probation Officers speaks Spanish and supervises adults on probation who speak primarily Spanish. At the end of the year 2006, the average nonspecialized adult probation caseload consisted of 119 offenders, a 34% decrease from 2005. Pursuant to Workload Measures established by the Judicial Conference of Indiana, at least three (3) additional Adult Probation Officers would be necessary to appropriately supervise the number of probationers under the supervision of the Adult Division at the end of 2006. This workload continues to be above the Indiana Judicial Conference Standards. Since their inception in 2001, specialized offender caseloads within the Supervision Unit have helped the Adult Division to better manage the workload numbers. The Adult Probation Officer assigned to supervise the sex offender caseload has enabled the Department to make significant strides toward improving community safety by providing a higher level of monitoring and supervision for one of the highest risk offender populations. This sex offender caseload is smaller than the average adult caseload in order to permit increased supervision. There were 74 sex offenders under probation supervision at the end of 2006, a 20% decrease from 2005. Another specialized caseload within the Adult Division is the battery/domestic violence caseload. Like the sex offender caseload, the specialized caseload for persons convicted of battery, particularly domestic battery, allows the Probation Department to provide increased supervision for this high risk, and potentially dangerous, population. When this specialized caseload was originally created, there were approximately 35 battery/domestic violence offenders on this caseload, therefore, the Probation Officer assigned to this caseload also supervised a small “regular” adult probation caseload. However, the number of battery/domestic violence offenders on probation has grown over the years, with 150 such offenders being supervised at the end of 2006, a 13% increase from 2005. As the number of persons on probation for battery/domestic battery increased, the addition of another Adult Probation Officer to more closely supervise this potentially dangerous population was necessary. At the end of 2006, the Department had two (2) Adult Probation Officers assigned to the supervision of violent offenders.

60

In 2001 the Probation Department received a 3-year federal Drug Court Implementation Grant to expand the Drug Court Pilot Project. This grant provided funds to hire a Drug Court Program Coordinator, a Case Manager, and Field Probation Officer. The grant was due to expire in September 2004, however, the Office of Justice Programs approved a no-cost extension of the grant allowing the program to extend the original grant award into a fourth year. Also, in 2004, Drug Court was awarded an Edward Byrne Formula Grant through the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute in the amount of $158,038 for one year of drug court operations. This grant was originally to expire in June 2005. However, a grant extension and amendment was approved by the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute which increased the grant award to $165,281 and extended the grant cycle to end on March 31, 2006. In 2006, the Drug Court was awarded a Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) through the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute in the amount of $151,492. The grant cycle for the Justice Assistant Grant is April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2007. This grant may be renewed pursuant to a competitive grant process. The year 2006 began with 72 Drug Court participants; the year ended with 71 participants in the program. By the end of 2006, 95 participants had graduated from the two-year Drug Court since the program’s inception. The Department’s Court Alcohol and Drug Program is certified by the Indiana Judicial Center to provide assessment, referral, and case management services to probationers. In 2004, the program began offering a second level of substance abuse education classes: Prime for Life Indiana, or PRIME. PRIME is a 12-hour cognitive-based education program that includes a participant study guide and selfassessment. In addition to offering PRIME to the Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Diversion Program, Probation Officers may refer appropriate clients to the class. In 2006, there were 1,222 Alcohol and Marijuana Education School referrals and 246 referrals to PRIME for Life. At the end of 2006, there were 1,456 adults on probation, 672 misdemeanants and 784 felons, an overall 22% decrease from 2005. Of significance however, is the fact that 54% of these adult probationers were felons.

61

I.

ADULT CASES RECEIVED In 2006, there were 1,225 new adult probation supervisions received (717 new misdemeanor supervisions and 508 new felony supervisions), an overall decrease of 24% from 2005. In response to increasing caseloads, in 1995 the Board of Judges began to make a concerted effort to reduce the workload of probation officers. These efforts resulted in the Probation Department receiving fewer misdemeanor cases for probation supervision. By 2003, new misdemeanor supervisions received fell to near-record low numbers. In 2006, 717 new misdemeanor supervisions were received, a decrease of 26% from the year 2005. This number represents the lowest number of misdemeanor cases received for supervision in the past seven (7) years. In 2004, the lower number of misdemeanor probation cases received corresponded to a 12% decrease in misdemeanor case filings (cases filed with court). In 2005, misdemeanor case filings decreased by 13% for the year, and in 2006 this number further decreased by 3%, representing three consecutive years of fewer misdemeanor cases being filed with the Court. Additionally, in 2005 new felony cases received for probation supervision decreased by 22% and by 2% in 2006. These numbers correspond to a decrease in felony case filings. In 2005, felony case filings decreased by 20% for the year, and in 2006, this number decreased by another 2%, representing two consecutive years of fewer felony cases being filed with the Court.

ADULT PROBATION SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED
2001 Misdemeanor Felony TOTALS 1,046 (66%) 549 (34%) 1,595 2002 1,061 (60%) 721 (40%) 1,782 2003 842 (53%) 750 (47%) 1,592 2004 839 (53%) 736 (47%) 1,575 2005 970 (60%) 650 (40%) 1,620 2006 717 (59%) 508 (41%) 1,225

For the past 12 years, the felony percentage of the probation caseload has increased steadily. From 1985 through 1993, the felony probation cases received by the Adult Division had consistently comprised about 25% of the overall new adult probation cases received. Since 1994, the felony supervisions received have comprised an increasing percentage of the new cases received each year. In 2006, felony cases represented 41% of all supervisions received.

ADULT SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED PERCENTAGES
100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 1985 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Felony New Supervisions Received

Misdemeanor New Supervisions Received

62

II.

CASE TYPES FOR ADULT PROBATION SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED In 2006, the majority of offenders placed on probation with the Adult Division had been convicted of alcohol/drug related offenses, 52% of all adult probationer offense types. Of this offense group, Operating While Intoxicated was the number one offense, as it has been the past 16 years, accounting for 491 convictions, 37% of all adult probationer offenses committed. The next most common type of offense committed by adult probationers was theft-related offenses 18%, followed by Battery/violent offenses 11%. In 2006, there were 39 adult probationers convicted of Non-support of a Dependent (3% of adult offenses, and another 31 were convicted of Resisting Law Enforcement (2% of adult offenses). Approximately 3% (35) of adult probationers committed some type of violation involving driving while suspended or driving after having been adjudged to be a habitual traffic violator.

TYPE OF OFFENSE FOR SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED
2001 Alcohol/Drug Theft-Related Battery/Violent All Others TOTALS 950 (57%) 272 (16%) 111 (7%) 349 (20%) 1,682 2002 1,013 (54%) 392 (21%) 125 (7%) 330 (18%) 1,860 2003 911 (53%) 309 (18%) 142 (8%) 354 (21%) 1,716 2004 963 (56%) 318 (18%) 157 (9%) 297 (17%) 1,735 2005 928 (54%) 312 (18%) 142 (8%) 338 (20%) 1,720 2006 724 (52%) 245 (18%) 147 (11%) 265 (19%) 1,381

2006 TYPE OF OFFENSE FOR SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED
Theft-Related 18% Battery / Violent 11%

Alcohol / Drug 52% All Others 19%

63

III.

OPERATING WHILE INTOXICATED OFFENSES In the year 2006, 491 probationers were convicted of the offense of Operating While Intoxicated. This represents a decrease of 25% from 2005’s numbers. The offense of Operating While Intoxicated remains the single most prevalent offense committed by adult probationers, 37% of all adult offense types.

OPERATING WHILE INTOXICATED OFFENSES
1990 611 1991 701 1992 581 1993 686 1994 500 1995 555 1996 464 1997 428 1998 450 1999 572 2000 653 2001 628 2002 704 2003 626 2004 637 2005 653 2006 491

800 600 400 200 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

OWI / .08% BAC OFFENSES

Pursuant to plea agreements, some Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) cases resulted in judgment being entered to the offense of Reckless Driving. In 2006, there were 42 cases of Reckless Driving referred to probation supervision, a decrease of thirty-five (35) cases from 2005.

RECKLESS DRIVING OFFENSES
1997 42 1998 42 1999 48 2000 72 2001 60 2002 62 2003 76 2004 52 2005 77 2006 42

64

IV.

CASES DISCHARGED During 2006, the Adult Division discharged 918 misdemeanants and 708 felons from probation, a total of 1,626 persons discharged from probation. Overall, the Division discharged seven (7) more persons in 2006 than in 2005. Additionally, the year 2006 started with 473 offenders being monitored who were classified as “Other Administrative,” which includes offenders who have transferred to another county or state for probation supervision yet remain under the jurisdiction of the Monroe County Probation Department. This category also includes offenders who were sentenced to the Community Alternative Supervision Program (CASP) without probation. In 2006, the Adult Division received 253 fewer misdemeanor supervisions and discharged 39 more misdemeanants than in 2005. In 2006 the Division received 142 fewer felony supervisions than in 2005 and discharged 32 fewer felons than in 2005. The year 2006 ended with 672 misdemeanants and 784 felons on probation, a net decrease of 201 misdemeanants and a decrease of 200 felons on probation for the year. The year 2006 ended with an additional 118 misdemeanants and 400 felons under probation supervision classified as “Other Administrative.”

ADULT FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR SUPERVISIONS DISCHARGED
2001 Misdemeanor Felony TOTAL 1,157 549 1,706 2002 990 549 1,539 2003 1,060 730 1,790 2004 898 696 1,594 2005 879 740 1,619 2006 918 708 1,626

65

V.

YEAR END CASELOADS The Adult Division began 2006 with 1,857 probationers. Additionally, the year began with another 473 offenders on probation classified as “Other Administrative.” This classification includes offenders who are sentenced to the Community Alternative Supervision Program (CASP) with no probation, or offenders who have transferred to another county or state for probation supervision yet remain under the jurisdiction of the Monroe County Probation Department. There were 1,225 new probation cases received in 2006 and 1,626 cases discharged during the year. By the end of 2006, there were 1,456 adults on probation which is a decrease of 401 cases from 2005’s year-end caseload of 1,857. Of the 1,456 adult probationers under supervision at the end of 2006, 672 were misdemeanants and 784 were felons. Additionally, at the end of 2006, there were 518 offenders under supervision classified as “Other Administrative.” Including this latter category of cases, a grand total of 1,974 adult offenders were under the supervision of the Adult Division, Community Alternative Supervision Program (CASP), and Drug Court at the end of 2006. The 1,184 felons being supervised by the Probation Department at year-end (including “Other Administrative”) is one of the highest numbers of felons on probation in the recorded history of the department. In 2005, felons comprised 58% of total persons under the supervision of the Probation Department (including “Other Administrative”). In 2006, felons comprised 60% of total persons under the supervision of the Probation Department (including “Other Administrative”).

ADULT FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR YEAR END CASELOADS*
2000 Misdemeanors Felonies 1,099 843 2001 988 842 2002 1,059 1,014 2003 841 1,034 2004 782 1,074 2005 873 984 1,857 2006 672 784 1,456

TOTAL 1,942 1,830 2,073 1,875 1,856 *These caseload numbers do not include cases classified as “Other Administrative.”

66

2,500

ADULT FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR YEAR END CASELOADS

2,000

NUMBER OF CASES

1,500

1,000

500

0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 FELONY 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

MISDEMEANOR

In 1994, the Judicial Conference of Indiana adopted the Indiana Probation Workload Measures and Case Classification System for mandatory use by all probation departments in the state. The Case Classification System required that all probation clients receive a standardized evaluation to determine their risk of re-offending. Based on the results of these offender risk evaluations, probation clients are placed in one of the following risk categories, which are defined in terms of the risk the offender will commit a new offense: high, medium, low, and administrative (administrative cases are those for which the Courts have ordered no formal probation supervision). The Workload Measures Formula is used in combination with the offender risk evaluation to determine the number of probation officers required to provide adequate offender supervision. Since the inception of the Workload Measures system in 1994, the Adult Division of the Probation Department has demonstrated a continued need for additional probation officers. In 1994, Workload Measures demonstrated a need for 10.5 additional adult probation officers. Over the years, additional probation officer positions have been added through grants, such as the Drug Court grant of 2001 which added three (3) Probation Officers to operate the Drug Court. Further, in 2001 the County Council approved adding two (2) adult probation officers in response to workload need. These additions have made an impact, lowering the average non-specialized adult caseload size from 250 in 1999 to 158 at the end of 2004. With the addition of an eighth Circuit Court in 2006, the County Council approved hiring six (6) new probation officers, three (3) in July 2006 and three (3) in January 2007. The addition of the three (3) new Probation Officers in 2006 reduced the average non-specialized adult caseload size to 119 per officer by the end of the year. Although caseloads decreased, the Workload Measures demonstrated a need for three (3) additional adult probation officers to appropriately supervise the adult probation caseload/workload. 67

AVERAGE ADULT PROBATION YEAR-END CASELOADS
Non-specialized Adult Caseload Averages TOTAL 2001 176 2002 158 2003 163 2004 158 2005 181 2006 119

VI.

PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATIONS The Adult Division conducted 167 Presentence Investigations in 2006. This represents an increase of 30% from 2005. In 1993, the Board of Judges began to purposely reduce the number of offenders required to participate in Presentence Investigations in an effort to increase the time available for supervision by Probation Officers. The reduction in the number of Presentence Investigations was also due to a shortage in Probation Officer personnel. In 1992, there were 1,786 Presentence Investigations completed; the 2006 figures reflect a 91% reduction in Presentence Investigations over the past fourteen (14) years. In 1994, Presentence Investigation statistics reflected, for the first time in the previous 15 years, the Probation Department conducted more felony investigations than misdemeanor investigations. This trend has continued for the past eleven (11) years. In 2006, 89% of all Presentence Investigations completed by the department were for felony cases, which is a slightly lower percentage for felony Presentence Investigations than in 2005. This averages less than one (1) misdemeanor Presentence Investigation per criminal court per month and four (4) felony Presentence Investigations per criminal court per month for 2006.

ADULT FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR INVESTIGATIONS COMPLETED
2001 Misdemeanor Felony 35 (16%) 187 (84%) 2002 28 (11%) 229 (89%) 2003 44 (17%) 209 (83%) 253 2004 20 (10%) 172 (90%) 192 2005 10 (8%) 118 (92%) 128 2006 18 (11%) 149 (89% ) 167

TOTALS 222 257 Drug Court Intakes = 40 in 2006

VII.

TRANSFER CASES The Adult Division provides courtesy supervision to felons as well as misdemeanant probationers sentenced in other counties or states. The division also accepts transferred cases from other Indiana Court Alcohol and Drug Programs. In 2006, 120 probationers sentenced in other jurisdictions were received by the Adult Division for supervision.

68

VIII.

OTHER ADULT OFFENDER PROGRAMS AND SERVICES A. Alcohol / Drug Assessment and Referral The Monroe Circuit Court Alcohol and Drug Program is an integral part of the Adult Division. The Court Alcohol and Drug Program is certified by the Indiana Judicial Center. In 2003, the Program was granted a four-year re-certification by the Indiana Judicial Center. The Court Alcohol and Drug Program is administered by the Director who is responsible for the daily operation of the Adult Intake Unit and who is also responsible for ensuring that all staff members receive ongoing training regarding substance related issues. All adult probation officers within the department are certified as substance abuse professionals and must complete a minimum of 25 hours of alcohol/drug education every year in order to maintain their certification. Probation Officers hired after January 1, 2005 who supervise adult offenders as part of the Court Alcohol and Drug Program must obtain and maintain a Court Substance Abuse Management Specialist credential (CSAMS) within two years. To obtain the credential, the staff member must have a baccalaureate degree from an accredited university; must complete and document at least 1,500 hours of experience in the assessment of people with substance abuse problems; complete at least 500 hours of a supervised practicum in the areas of assessment, referral and case management of substance abuse clients; complete 70 hours of approved training; submit a signed statement to adhere to a code of ethics; must be at least 21 years of age; and take and pass a written exam. Adult Probation Officers conduct substance abuse screenings on all new cases referred by the courts for probation, regardless of case type. If the referring offense involved drugs or alcohol, or the offense was somehow related to the use or abuse of such substances, the Adult Probation Officers perform more extensive substance abuse evaluations. In 2006, 650 offenders were referred to the Court Alcohol and Drug Program for assessment and referral post-conviction, a 25% decrease from the previous year. In addition, 40 substance abuse assessments were completed on potential Drug Treatment Court participants. Another 38 assessments were completed during the Presentence Investigation process on offenders charged with substance related offenses. Following the completion of the substance abuse evaluation, the Probation Officer develops an individualized service plan for each offender. This service plan typically includes a referral to a substance abuse education or treatment program. The Probation Officer then monitors the probationer’s compliance with the terms of substance abuse education or treatment. The Court Alcohol and Drug Program does not provide any direct treatment services.

69

B. Alcohol Education School The Court Alcohol and Drug Program operates a six-hour substance abuse information class, Alcohol and Marijuana Education School, known as AES. The AES curriculum targets minor first-time alcohol and marijuana offenders and is utilized by the Prosecutor’s Office for Pre-Trial Diversion Program participants. In 2006, 1,222 persons attended the class, a 33% decrease from 2005. Of these class participants 857 (70%) were Indiana University students. Upon the request of the Prosecutor’s Office, during 2003 Alcohol Education School was expanded to include information on marijuana research. In 2006, the class received 135 referrals for first-time marijuana offenders in addition to minor alcohol offenders. The Department offers a 12-hour substance abuse education program utilizing the cognitivebased Prime for Life Indiana (PRI) curriculum. PRI is offered to second time Pre-Trial Diversion participants being charged with marijuana and minor alcohol-related offenses and probationers who have been determined to need substance education. The program began in September 2003. In 2006, 50 offenders referred by the Prosecutor’s Office completed the PRI class. Another 196 PRI participants were Probation referrals. In 2006, 246 persons attended the class, a 31% decrease from 2005. C. Administrative Probation Modifications The Probation Department utilizes the Administrative Probation Modification (APM) process to efficiently and effectively deal with minor or technical violations of probation. In 2006, 161 APM meetings were completed due to technical violations, a decrease from the APMs completed in 2005. In 2006, three (3) of the APM meetings were conducted due to the commission of a subsequent offense. In addition to the 161 completed APM meetings, another 131 such meetings were attempted in 2006 but were not completed due to client failure to comply, resulting in the filing of Petitions to Revoke Suspended Sentence. For 2006, this represents a 42% successful APM completion rate, a 10% decrease from 2005’s 54% successful completion rate. However, in 2006 a total of 295 APM meetings were scheduled compared to 387 in 2005, a decrease of 24%. D. Impaired Driving Impact Panel The Adult Division provides a community-based restorative justice program for all offenders who have been convicted of drunk driving. In 1994, this program expanded to allow referrals from surrounding counties. During 2006, five panels were conducted with 548 Monroe County convicted impaired drivers attending the presentations. The Impaired Driving Impact Panel is a service provided at no cost to the offender.

70

IX.

DRUG COURT In November 1999, Judge Ken Todd, Monroe Circuit Court Division III, began the “Drug Court Pilot Project” with the aid of a federal Drug Court Planning Grant. Since the inception of the Drug Court, the program has relied on funding from a series of federal grants. • • • • • September 2001 - Probation Department received $500,000 federal Drug Court Implementation Grant. The three-year grant enabled the department to expand the Drug Court Pilot Project. 2004 - Office of Justice Programming approved an extension to the Implementation grant, allowing the Drug Court to continue to utilize federal funding into a fourth year. 2005 - Drug Court program received $158,038.Edward Byrne Formula grant. 2005 - Drug Court program received 9-month Byrne Grant extension, increasing funding to $165,281. 2006 - Drug Court program was awarded a Justice Assistant Grant (JAG) through the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute in the amount of $151,492. This grant cycle runs April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2007.

In 2006, the Monroe County Drug Treatment Court was chosen to participate in a statewide evaluation of drug courts in Indiana. Outcomes from the study are anticipated in 2007. In 2003, the Drug Treatment Court expanded the daily reporting schedule to increase random drug testing. Participants in the first phase of the program are required to report six (6) days a week, including Saturday, for random drug testing. In 2006, the Drug Treatment Court ordered 4,354 urine drug screens on participants. In 2006, there were four (4) drug free babies born to Drug Treatment Court participants.

71

A. Drug Court Referrals Drug Court began 2006 with 72 participants in the program. During the year, the Drug Court Team received 62 cases for review for potential acceptance into the program. Of the 62 referrals, 14 chose not to participate in the program and 19 cases were found not to meet the program criteria for eligibility. Of the 62 referrals to the program in 2006, 29 offenders were made eligible and began to receive services. The year ended with 71 participants in the Drug Court program. B. Services Provided and/or Referred The Drug Court Program completed 40 substance abuse screening assessments on potential program participants in 2006, a 26% decrease from the previous year. The Drug Court provided intensive case management to all participants in the program. Participant compliance was supervised by the Drug Court Team, including Judge Todd and the designated case manager assigned to the case. Participants were required to complete random drug testing, daily check-ins, employment checks, home visits and intensive substance abuse services provided by local substance abuse treatment providers. Participants were also referred for ancillary services such as housing assistance, mental health counseling and employment and education coaching programs. C. Program Completions During 2006, 19 participants graduated from the Drug Court program. These participants met all program goals including successful completion of substance abuse treatment and remaining substance-free for a period of two (2) years. Including the 19 participants who graduated from the Drug Court program in 2006, the total number of Drug Court graduates was 95 by the end of 2006. D. Terminations In 2006, the Drug Court terminated eleven (11) program participants unsuccessfully due to program violations.

DRUG COURT SUMMARY
2003 Participants carried forward from previous year New referrals received for Team review Number of referrals accepted into the program Number of successful terminations through graduation Number of unsuccessful terminations from the program
*1 participant is on administrative supervision

2004 78 101 32 22 15

2005 74 84 38 24 16

2006 72 62 29 19 11

64 150 48 26 8

72

JUVENILE DIVISION
The year 2006 will be remembered as the “year of the move” for the Juvenile Division. In July 2006, Juvenile Division staff members who were housed in the Justice Building Probation office moved into newly vacated offices in the Community Corrections building, 405 West 7th Street. This move allowed the entire Juvenile Division to share one common location. Juvenile Division staff continued to provide Aggression Replacement Training (A.R.T.) programming for clients meeting specific criteria. This evidence-based program was provided, at no additional charge, to over 55 students in 2006. In addition to A.R.T., the parental component of Aggression Replacement Training, P.A.R.T, continued to be available to parents of those students participating in A.R.T. In 2006, P.A.R.T. was provided to 49 parents. Due to staff turnover, A.R.T. training was not scheduled for 2006; it is anticipated that training for new staff will be held in the spring of 2007. After reaching an all time departmental high in 2005, truancy referrals decreased slightly (8%) in 2006. Although slightly less (18) than 2005 numbers, the 188 truancy referrals received represents the highest number of referrals for truancy received since 2000. The growth of referrals in this area is believed to be a reflection of the continued partnerships between the Monroe County Community School Corporation, Richland-Bean Blossom School Corporation, and the Monroe Circuit Court Probation Department. Of the 188 truancy referrals received in 2006, 92 cases received probation supervision. In addition to supervision services, juveniles referred for attendance problems are eligible for cost-free supportive educational programming offered by the Probation Department. This educational support programming was provided to more than 50 students in 2006. The Juvenile Division Intake Team continued to meet weekly throughout 2006. This Team reviewed all of the initial recommendations made for each youth through a Preliminary Inquiry. In 2006, 360 cases were reviewed by the Intake Team. The partnership between Community Corrections and the Center for Human Growth, Indiana University continued in 2006. Through this partnership, more than 200 families have been provided the opportunity to participate in Functional Family Therapy, an evidence-based family therapy service. Because this service is funded by a Department of Correction grant, these families were able to receive family therapy at no cost. In 2000 the Probation Department developed, with financial support from a Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG), the Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program, known as SHOCAP. SHOCAP provides intensive supervision for the most serious, habitual juvenile offenders. Throughout the years, the federal grant funding has decreased, but the commitment to the program has remained solid. Due to federal budget cuts for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG), in 2006 the department received a reduced grant of $20,000 from the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute to fund SHOCAP. This grant runs on the federal grant cycle, October 1 through September 31. Due to anticipated federal budget cuts, funding for this program may expire at the end of September 2007. The Juvenile Division ended 2006 with 12 full time staff and three part-time Probation Officer Assistants. The full time, professional staff included: one Supervisor; one Intake officer; two (2) traditional Line supervision probation officers; four (4) Family Preservation Officers (although one position remained vacant for most of 2006); three (3) JAMS / truancy supervision probation officers; and two (2) SHOCAP officers. Due to the loss of one (1) ‘traditional supervision’ position, the average non-specialized Juvenile probation caseload was 75 clients per officer at the end of 2006, compared to 43 at the end of 2005. 73

I.

JUVENILE CASES RECEIVED A. Referrals Received Unlike the adult probation system where adult offenders are not introduced to the probation system until after a conviction, probation is the starting place for a juvenile’s interaction with the juvenile justice system. All juvenile cases processed through the juvenile justice system begin with a written report, or referral. The Juvenile Division receives referrals from various sources, including law enforcement, parents, schools, businesses, and the public. Juveniles are referred to the Probation Department for committing delinquent acts. Delinquent acts are defined as acts that would be crimes if committed by an adult, or status offenses. Status offenses are acts of delinquency that are not crimes for adults, and include Truancy, Incorrigibility, Curfew Violation, and Runaway. In 2006, the Juvenile Division received 855 new referrals, a 10% increase over the 816 referrals received in 2005; however significantly lower than the 967 referrals received in 2004. Of the 855 new referrals received in 2006, 194 (23%) had no offense noted on the report. These reports are often completed by law enforcement and other referral sources as an informational tool for the Probation Department. Of the remaining 661 referrals, 26 (4%) were returned to the county of the child’s residence. An additional 198 referrals (30%) resulted in no action being taken by the Prosecuting Attorney; the reasons for declining to proceed with prosecution are as varied as the circumstances involving each case. Of the remaining 437 new referrals received for 2006, 2 (<1%) were for probation violations where no new delinquency offense was noted. The remaining 435 referrals did receive some type of intervention or service from the Probation Department. This number reflects a 29% decrease (177 fewer referrals) from 2005. Many juveniles referred to the Juvenile Division for illegal behavior were involved in several offenses at one time. In 2006, the 435 juveniles referred to the Probation Department and who received some level of service from the Division committed a total of 766 offenses. Of these 766 offenses, 249 were for status, or non-criminal offenses while 517 were for non-status, or offenses that would be crimes if committed by an adult. As in years past, the most prevalent offense group for which a juvenile was referred to the department was for a status offense. Included in this group are the offenses of: Truancy; Runaway; Incorrigibility; and Curfew. As a group, this referral category accounted for 249 (33%) offense types of the 766 offense referrals received. Of the offenses included in this category, truancy referrals continue a six (6) year reign as the number one status referral offense; of the 249 status referrals received, 188 (76%) referrals were for truancy. Runaway referrals continued to be the second most common status referral received in 2006; of the 249 status referrals received, runaway allegations accounted for 38 (15%) referrals. Incorrigibility referrals were the third most common status offense referral received in 2006 of the 249 status referrals 10 (4%) were identified as being for incorrigibility.

74

The effects of the legal battle over the constitutionality of Indiana’s curfew law continued in 2006. After Indiana’s Curfew law was ruled unconstitutional in 2003, a revised law was enacted in 2004. The revised law, however, was quickly appealed. As the appeal continues, many jurisdictions have chosen to limit their enforcement of the current Indiana curfew law; Monroe County is one of those jurisdictions. Because of this, only five (5) Curfew referrals were received in 2006 with zero (0) of those referrals resulting in supervision services being offered. It is important to note, however, if a young person was cited for multiple offenses, it is quite likely supervision services were offered to the client, but for different offenses. As in 2004 and 2005, the second most prevalent offense group for which a juvenile was referred to the Juvenile Division was for a substance-related offense. Of the 766 specific offenses referred to probation in 2006, 193 (25%) offenses were substance-related. In considering all non-status offenses (517 total offenses), substance-related offenses were responsible for 37% of all referrals. Of this category, Illegal Consumption of Alcohol continued to hold its position of the number one substance related referral for juveniles. Illegal Consumption of Alcohol was responsible for 111 (58%) of the 193 substance-related referrals received. This number represents a slight decrease in the number of referrals received in 2005, however, represents a higher total percentage of substance related offenses. Theft-related offenses continued to be the third most prevalent offense group for which referrals were received. Of the 766 specific offenses referred to probation in 2006, 145 (19%) of all nonstatus offenses were theft-related referrals. Conversion (shoplifting) was the single most commonly referred offense in this category, consisting of 94 (65%) of the 145 theft-related referrals received. Miscellaneous or “other” offenses, as a group, were responsible for the fourth largest number of referrals received Offenses in this category include: Criminal Mischief, Criminal Recklessness, Criminal Trespass, Disorderly Conduct, Driving without a license, Escape, False Reporting, Leaving the scene of an accident, Residential Entry, and Resisting Law Enforcement. Of this group, 111 referrals were received. Battery and other violent offenses were the least common referral category in 2006. Of the 766 specific offenses referred to probation in 2006, 68 (9%) were for a battery or violent offense. Battery, as a misdemeanor if committed by an adult, was the most commonly referred battery / violent offense, accounting for 46 (68%) of all referrals in this category.

75

JUVENILE REFERRALS RECEIVED
2001 TOTAL 999 2002 1,069 2003 880 2004 962 2005 816 2006 855

TYPE OF OFFENSE FOR REFERRALS RECEIVED*
2002 Alcohol / Drug Theft-Related Battery / Violent Status All Others 358 (29%) 208 (17%) 119 (9%) 390 (31%) 171 (14%) 2003 263 (25%) 179 (16%) 117 (11%) 309 (29%) 204 (19%) 2004 205 (24%) 191 (22%) 81 (8%) 216 (25%) 179 (21%) 2005 239 (27%) 156 (18%) 63 (7%) 279 (32%) 137 (16%) 2006 193 (25%) 145 (19%) 68 (9%) 249 (33%) 111 (14%)

TOTALS 1,246 1,072 872 874 766 *Referral offense types only for juveniles referred to the Division who received some level of intervention or service.

76

B. Probation Supervisions Received A juvenile referral, or incident report, is submitted to the Probation Department from various sources for a variety of reasons. Regardless of the source or purpose of the information, each new referral is tracked and logged into the Probation Department case management computer database. Often, one child receives multiple referrals during any period. For caseload statistical purposes, however, one child, with multiple referrals who receives some level of supervision, is only reflected as one supervision received. This can result in the appearance of low supervision to referral ratios. In 2006, the Division received 855 new referrals. Of these, 435 juveniles (51%) received some level of intervention or service from the Probation Department. The balance of the referrals, 420 (49%) were submitted to the Division for “information only” purposes, were returned to the county of the child’s residence, had no crime noted in the report, were not pursued by the prosecutor, or were for probation violations not involving a new offense. Of the 435 juveniles who were referred to the Department and received some level of service from the Division in 2006, 292 juveniles received probation supervision. This is the lowest number of juvenile supervisions received since such statistics began to be recorded by the Probation Department in 1984.

JUVENILE SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED
1992 TOTAL 360 1993 369 1994 726 1995 674 1996 513 1997 595 1998 657 1999 531 2000 423 2001 439 2002 425 2003 355 2004 351 2005 333 2006 292

JUVENILE REFERRALS AND SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED 1992 - 2006

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1500 1000 500 0 Supervisions Received Referrals Received

77

C. Intake Team In September 2004, the Juvenile Division established an Intake Team. This team, comprised of juvenile probation staff, meets weekly to review the investigative report completed on each new referral and discuss recommendations. The purpose of this review is to monitor the utilization of the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment, address questions or concerns about cases, and ensure consistent application of the information provided through the assessment instrument.

INTAKE TEAM
2005 Total Cases Reviewed Under Rides Overrides 435 53 8 2006 360 5 (1%) 26 (7%)

78

II.

JUVENILE PROBATION SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED CASE TYPES Of the 292 new juvenile probation supervisions received in 2006, 133 (46%) were for status offenses and 150 (51%) were for juveniles who had committed a non-status, or criminal act, as their primary delinquent behavior. Of the remaining supervisions received, eight (8) (3%) cases were transferred into Monroe County from other jurisdictions and 1 (<1%) were for offenses listed as ‘other.’ As with juveniles referred to probation, youth placed on probation often have committed more than one delinquent act resulting in supervision. For instance, a juvenile may be placed on probation consuming alcohol, illegally possessing alcohol, and battery. This one ‘supervision’ would result in four offense notations for caseload statistical purposes. In 2006, the 292 new supervisions received were responsible for 318 offenses. Of this number, 196 (62%) were non-status offenses. Between 2002 and 2004, substance related offenses ranked as the number one offense group committed by juveniles who receive probation supervision. However, in 2005 and 2006, status offenses, or non-criminal offenses, were the number one reason a juvenile received supervision services in 2006. These offenses represent 122 (38%) of all supervision offenses noted received in 2006. Of the offenses in this group, supervision for a Truancy referral was the leading cause. The second most common offense group, for which a juvenile was placed on probation in 2006, was Theft related offenses. These offense types, as a group accounted for 66 (21%) supervisions received in 2006. Conversion (shoplifting) continued to be the number one offense resulting in supervision, resulting in 47 (81%) of all theft related offense type supervisions. Juveniles receiving supervision for substance related offenses maintained the third most common offense group for which a juvenile received some level of supervision in 2006. In 2006, 60 substance-related offense supervisions were received. This number reflects 21% of all offense type supervisions received, and 31% of all non-status (crime delinquent) offense type supervisions. Of this group, Illegal Consumption of Alcohol continued to be the most likely offense for which a juvenile received supervision services. Illegal Consumption of Alcohol accounted for 26 (43%) of all substance related supervisions. Miscellaneous offenses, collectively referred to as “Other,” are responsible for the fourth largest referral group for which supervisions were received in 2006; 38 (12%) such offenses were noted. This offense group includes offenses such as Criminal Mischief, Criminal Recklessness, Criminal Trespass, Disorderly Conduct, Driving without a License, False Informing/Reporting, Obstruction of Justice, Public Indecency, Reckless Driving, Residential Entry, and Resisting Law Enforcement, Violent/Battery related offenses were the least likely reason a juvenile received supervision services in 2006. Of the 196 non-status offenses received for supervision in during the year, only 32 (10%) Violent/Battery related offenses were noted. Of this, Battery as a misdemeanor offense was responsible for 30 (94%) offense types resulting in supervision.

79

TYPE OF OFFENSE FOR SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED
2001 Alcohol/Drug Theft-Related Battery/Violent Status All Others TOTALS 133 (26%) 139 (27%) 31 (6%) 160 (31%) 55 (10%) 518 2002 132 (29%) 115 (25%) 29 (7%) 61 (13%) 118 (26%) 455 2003 110 (25%) 92 (21%) 41 (9%) 101 (23%) 95 (22%) 439 2004 128 (34%) 97 (25%) 31 (8%) 59 (15%) 68 (18%) 383 2005 96 (25%) 85 (23%) 25 (7%) 102 (27%) 68 (18%) 376 2006 60 (19%) 66 (21%) 32 (10%) 122 (38%) 38 (12%) 318

TYPE OF OFFENSE FOR SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED 2006
THEFT RELATED 21% BATTERY / VIOLENT 10%

ALL OTHERS 12%

ALCOHOL / DRUG RELATED 19%

STATUS 38%

80

III.

CASES DISCHARGED Once placed on any level of supervision, a client-specific case plan is developed. The objective of this case plan (also known as the Terms and Conditions of Probation) is to aid the client and family in decreasing the likelihood of continued involvement in the juvenile justice system. Goals included in case plans include: treatment/education recommendations, program recommendations, educational objectives, family involvement criteria, and monetary obligations. Failure to comply with any one of these objectives can result in an unsuccessful discharge from probation. Not all unsuccessful terminations, therefore, are a result of a client re-offending. The Juvenile Division discharged 303 juveniles from probation supervision in 2006. Of the cases discharged, 188 (62%) were discharged successfully. Of the 303 juveniles released from probation, 64 (21%) had a substance-related offense as the primary reason for services; 41 (64%) of the 64 substance-related cases discharged in 2006 were discharged successfully. Of the 239 non-substancerelated supervisions, 147 (62%) were closed successfully.

IV.

YEAR-END CASELOADS The Juvenile Division began 2006 with 183 active supervisions and ended the year with 172 supervisions, a net loss of 11 cases. As with the Adult Division, the Juvenile Division has specialized caseloads. In addition to responsibilities to the Aggression Replacement Training Program (A.R.T.), the Juvenile Alternative Management Services (J.A.M.S.) Coordinator and two Juvenile Case Managers also provide supervision services to those clients identified with school attendance problems (truancy). In 2006, the Case Managers were providing supervision services to 21 individual cases at year end.. The Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program (SHOCAP) was providing supervision to four (4) juveniles at the conclusion of 2006. The Family Preservation Program, which employed three (3) Probation Officers throughout the majority of 2006, ended the year providing supervision to 17 total juveniles (cases). Due to the loss of one “traditional supervision” position, the average non-specialized juvenile probation caseload rose from 43 at the end of 2005 to 75 at the end of 2006.

JUVENILE YEAR END CASELOADS
2000 Non-specialized Caseload Averages TOTAL 56 225 2001 50 283 2002 49 232 2003 45 195 2004 39 200 2005 43 183 2006 76 172

81

V.

JUVENILE DETENTIONS AND PLACEMENTS When a juvenile is placed in secure detention, he/she is transported to one of several secure detention facilities within the State of Indiana: Bartholomew County Juvenile Services Center, Columbus; Jackson County Juvenile Detention Facility, located in Brownstown; Johnson County Juvenile Detention Center (JCDC), located in Franklin; or Southwest Regional Youth Village (SWIRYV) located in Vincennes. A. Detention Costs In 2006, Monroe County spent in excess of $339,499 in per diem fees to pay for youthful offenders held in various secure detention facilities. This cost, which includes only ‘room and board,’ is an increase from 2005 detention costs by approximately $81,499. The actual cost of detaining youthful offenders involves more than merely food and shelter. The ancillary costs of detaining youth include: the costs associated with transporting youthful offenders to and from detention facilities; transporting youth to and from court hearings; medical expenses incurred while in detention; and the payment of staff to supervise youth prior to transport/court, etc. These ancillary detention costs are not tracked at this time, therefore an allinclusive financial impact report is not available. B. Detention Statistics In 2006, 110 individual juvenile offenders (79 male and 31 female) were held in secure detention facilities throughout Indiana. The 110 individual youthful offenders detained in 2006 were admitted to various facilities 182 separate times throughout 2006. Of these admissions, 3011 days were billed to Monroe County, for a cost of over $339,499.

DETENTION STATISTICS
Year Individual Admissions Male Female Total Admissions Days Cost 2004 117 97 20 194 2,184 $235,000 2005 84 62 22 148 2239 $258,000 2006 110 79 31 182 3011 $339,499

82

C. Youth Shelter Placement In 2006, the Monroe Circuit Court authorized the placement of 51 individuals into youth shelter placement. These 51 individuals represent 88 total admissions into youth shelters. D. Residential and Hospital Placement In 2006, the Monroe Circuit Court placed 59 juveniles in out-of-home placements. Six (6) juveniles were court-ordered into in-patient settings for treatment and/or diagnostic evaluations.

JUVENILE DETENTIONS AND PLACEMENTS
2001 Secure Detention (total admissions) Placement Secure Hospital Detention Youth Shelter 147 26 34 20 2002 219 54 33 46 2003 200 41 30 59 2004 194 37 23 114 2005 148 49 19 57 2006 182 59 6 51

83

VI.

PREDISPOSITIONAL REPORTS/PRELIMINARY INQUIRIES The Juvenile Division utilized a full-time Intake Probation Officer to complete the majority of the 481 preliminary inquiries completed in 2006. Of this number, 118 (25%) were for a substance related referral. The balance of preliminary inquiries, 363 (75%), were for non-substance related offenses. Juvenile probation officers completed 14 pre-dispositional reports in 2006. These reports are typically prepared by the client’s supervising probation officer, and provide current information to the court concerning the client and family.

PREDISPOSITIONAL REPORTS AND PRELIMINARY INQUIRIES COMPLETED
2001 Predispositional Reports Preliminary Inquires TOTAL 69 538 607 2002 52 580 632 2003 64 604 668 2004 42 518 570 2005 21 524 545 2006 14 481 495

PRELIMINARY INQUIRIES - SUBSTANCE RELATED VERSUS NON-SUBSTANCE RELATED
2001 Preliminary Inquires-Substance Preliminary inquiries Non-substance TOTAL 119 (22%) 419 (78%) 538 2002 147 (25%) 433 (75%) 580 2003 145 (24%) 459 (76%) 604 2004 164 (32%) 354 (68%) 518 2005 141 (27%) 383 (73%) 524 2006 118 (25%) 363 (75%) 481

VII.

JUVENILE HOLDOVER PROGRAM In cooperation with Indiana University the Probation Department was able to obtain partial funding through the Department of Correction to operate a Juvenile Holdover Program. In this program, Indiana University police officers and cadets are trained to serve as holdover attendants. These attendants monitor juvenile arrestees at the Indiana University Police Department for short periods of time after arrest (by any law enforcement agency) until a parent or guardian is able to take custody of the child. For the calendar year 2006, 11 individuals were detained through the Holdover Program.

JUVENILE HOLDOVER REFERRALS
2002 Total Holdover Referrals 12 2003 5 2004 16 2005 9 2006 11

84

VIII.

FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM The Family Preservation Program began in 1994 under a contract with the Office of Families and Children (now Department of Child Services, DCS). The original contract allowed one Family Preservation Officer (a certified probation officer) to be hired to provide intensive, home-based services to juvenile offenders and their families. Additional Family Preservation positions were added in 1996, 1998, and 1999. The Family Preservation Program provides home-based services to families of juveniles who are ordered into the program. This population includes: 1) juveniles who are court-ordered into out-ofhome placement; 2) juveniles who are returning home from placement; and 3) juveniles who are placed in the program to avoid placement. Family Preservation Officers have limited caseload size (maximum of 12), intensive contact with collateral agencies, the family and local resources. In 2003, the criteria for accepting youth into the Family Preservation Program was expanded in response to the local Wraparound Committee’s recommendation that the community needs to focus more on prevention and early intervention. The added criteria includes children of elementary school age who are referred to probation; children with a parent or guardian on active probation or parole; children with other siblings who are either on active probation or who have a significant history of involvement with juvenile probation; and children in families who have had a significant history or involvement with criminal justice agencies. The Family Preservation Program tracks success rates through the use of an instrument entitled “The Family Risk Scales”, which is utilized by the Indiana Association of Residential Child Care Agencies (IARRCA) to determine outcome-based data for agencies providing services to families. This instrument assists in measuring specific risks believed to contribute to, or precipitate the need for, out-of-home-placement. Family Preservation completes an assessment on each family, at the time of placement in the Family Preservation Program, and again at their termination from the program. Successful completion of the Family Preservation Program is based on the successful completion of the terms of probation as well as improved outcome measurements as determined from this Family Risk Scales instrument. Successful termination indicates that the risk for continued problems in a variety of areas decreased during the families’ participation with the Family Preservation Program (i.e., suitable/stable housing, financial stability, decreased parental substance use, increased parental cooperation, child’s supervision, child’s school adjustment, etc.). A. Family Preservation Referrals Family Preservation began 2006 with 18 children participating in the program. During the year, Family Preservation received 37 new referrals to the program. Of the 37 new referrals received, 25 (68%) children and families received an assessment only. Families receiving an Assessment only were recommended for other services that would more appropriately meet the needs of the family. Reasons for this recommendation are varied, but common themes include: the family is already involved in a variety of service agencies; the family is not interested in the program and/or the child’s behavior has escalated to the point where out-of-the home placement is required. The remaining 12 new referrals received some level of services from the program during the year. At year-end, 17 children and families were receiving Family Preservation services. 85

B. Terminations During 2006, 27 children were discharged from the Family Preservation Program and, of that number, 18 (85%) were successfully terminated. The Family Preservation Program filed reimbursement claims with the Department of Child Services for approximately $147,300 for services rendered in 2006. By avoiding out-of-home placements, the County recognized a potential net savings of over $1,000,000. The Family Preservation Program completed its 13th year of operation in 2006. In these 13 years of operation, it is estimated that the County has realized a net savings in placement per diem costs of over $9 million. Family Preservation continues to provide Monroe County with a costeffective, successful alternative to out-of-home placements.

FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM
2002 Number of families carried forward from previous year Total number of participant and assessments only for year Total number of new referrals receiving assessment and referral to other service Total number of participants in program for year Total number of Successful Terminations Unsuccessful Terminations Percentage of Successful discharges TOTAL Families Terminated Families continued into next year 19 93 30 63 26 14 65% 40 23 2003 23 96 37 59 30 18 63% 48 11 2004 11 66 28 40 25 15 60% 40 9 2005 9 90 18 72 29 5 85% 34 18 2006 18 78 25 53 18 6 75% 24 17

FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM COST VS. POTENTIAL SAVINGS
1999
Program Cost Potential Net Savings

2000 $170,000 $964,000

2001 $160,000 $960,000

2002 $165,000 $835,972

2003 $154,000 $900,000

2004 $180,000 $1,045,000

2005 $165,000 $1,061,000

2006 $147, 300 $1,023,000

$142,390 $1,057609

86

IX.

SERIOUS HABITUAL OFFENDER COMPREHENSIVE ACTION PROGRAM In early 2000, the Monroe County Probation Department, on behalf of the City of Bloomington and Monroe County Government, applied for and received a Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JABG). This federal grant was used to begin a collaborative probation-based program to address juvenile delinquency: the Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program, known as SHOCAP. This program is designed to enhance the communication, cooperation and collaboration of local agencies in order to provide intensive supervision to the population of juvenile offenders who commit the most serious crimes and/or who commit an inordinately high number of crimes. This program utilizes the expertise of law enforcement, schools and the criminal justice system to form a Community Team. This team is responsible for the screening of the referred juvenile and, if accepted, the development of an individualized case plans for each Serious Habitual Offender (SHO). The SHOCAP program began accepting referrals in July 2001. In 2006 the Probation Department received $20,000 in federal funding to support this program. It is expected that funding for this program will continue to be reduced, or eliminated in the coming years. A. SHOCAP Referrals The year 2006 began with six (6) juveniles in the program. During the year, five (5) juveniles were referred to SHOCAP. Of these referrals, all five (5) were placed into the SHOCAP Program. Therefore, a total of 11 juveniles participated in SHOCAP during the year 2006. B. Individualized Case Plans As part of the SHOCAP initiative, each client deemed appropriate for SHO status (serious habitual offender status) has an Individual Case Plan (I.C.P.) created. This document is developed through input from the SHOCAP Team members (law enforcement, juvenile justice, education) and from the juvenile and family members. The goal of the plan is to promote the development of successful decision making skills while providing the necessary amount of structure, supervision, and consequences to maximize compliance. The I.C.P. can address employment concerns, counseling, treatment and/or educational issues as well as family participation, anger management, budgeting, and no-contact orders. C. Terminations Of the 11 juvenile offenders who participated in SHOCAP in 2006, four (4) continued their involvement in the program into 2007. Of the seven (7) juveniles discharged from the program, one (1) juvenile was committed to the Indiana Department of Correction, one (1) juvenile absconded from the program and was ultimately closed unsuccessfully, two (2) juveniles were closed unsuccessfully, and three (3) juveniles had their cases closed successfully.

87

SHOCAP REFERRAL INFORMATION
2003 Number of clients carried forward from previous year Total number of referrals screened Total number of referrals PENDING at year end Total number of clients participating in program during year Number of Successful Completions of Program Number of Unsuccessful Termination from Program Percentage of Successful Discharged TOTAL Clients Terminated during year Clients Inactive/Wanted on Warrant Clients continued into next year 7 31 0 15 2 6 25% 8 0 7 2004 7 17 0 12 2 8 18% 11 0 3 2005 3 10 0 12 0 4 0% 6 (2 moved) 0 6 2006 6 5 0 11 4 3 43% 7 0 4

X.

JUVENILE ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT SERVICES (J.A.M.S.) The juvenile division of the Monroe County Probation Department continued to provide services to those students struggling academically and those students who were considered “at risk” for aggressive behaviors. Programs implemented provide supervision and structure for both before and after school hours. A. Tutoring Program Since August 2004, the Probation Department has offered supportive educational services and tutoring to juveniles on probation. These services are available Monday through Friday during school and non school hours. This tutoring program is available to all juvenile probationers, at no charge. Services made available in this program include one-on-one tutoring, homework help, examination preparation, access to the Internet, and remedial support. Assistance is provided by Probation Officer Assistants, as well as interns enrolled in the School of Education through Indiana University, completing their internships with Monroe County Community Corrections. As of December 31, 2006, 58 juvenile probationers have received services from this educational program. In 2006, college students from the Indiana University Education Early Field Placement contributed 222.5 volunteer hours (166.50 spring and 56 fall) to the juvenile after-school day reporting program, J.A.M.S. At the current starting hourly rate of $7.75 paid to part-time staff working for the Department, Early Field Placement students provided a savings of more than $1,700 ($1,724.38) in volunteer labor.

88

B. Aggression Replacement Training (A.R.T.) In 2005, the Probation Department implemented an evidence-based cognitive-behavioral curriculum designed to reduce adolescent aggression and recidivism: Aggression Replacement Training (A.R.T.). The program encourages youth to modify behaviors by improving anger control, reducing the frequency of acting-out behaviors, and increase the frequency of constructive, pro-social behaviors. A.R.T. is a 10-week, 30-hour intervention administered to groups of 8 to 12 juvenile offenders three times per week. The program relies on repetitive learning techniques to teach participants to control impulsiveness and anger and use more appropriate behaviors. In addition, guided group discussion is used to correct anti-social thinking. At year end, 55 clients had been referred to the A.R.T. program in 2006. C. Parental Aggression Replacement Training (P.A.R.T.) In addition to A.R.T., a complementary parental component was developed for implementation in early 2005, P.A.R.T. (Parental Aggression Replacement Training). The program continued into 2006 with 49 parent(s) of A.R.T. participants involved in learning the new skills and behavior techniques their children received in A.R.T. It is believed this support outside the classroom will increase skill development and utilization for the juveniles. D. Juvenile Home Detention In 2006, 30 juveniles were placed on Electronic Home Monitoring. Of this number 28 were placed on the program for committing non-status offenses. Of these, 19 participants committed acts that would be a felony if committed by an adult. In 2006, 70% of those placed on Home Detention completed the program successfully.

XI.

TRUANCY CASELOAD In 2005, departmental resources were restructured to allow a greater emphasis to be placed on juveniles who were not attending school, as required by law. In years past, the Probation Department provided minimal direct services to address the unique needs of students who were not attending school, but otherwise not involved in the juvenile justice system. Beginning in and continuing throughout 2006, three (3) Case Managers shared responsibility to evaluate, monitor and supervise juveniles who were identified as having school attendance issues.

89

XII.

FUNCTIONAL FAMILY THERAPY A. Indiana Family Project In 2001, the Indiana Family Project began as a collaborative effort between the Monroe County Probation Department and the Center for Adolescent and Families Studies at Indiana University. The project was funded by a grant from the Indiana Department of Correction. The goal of this project was to implement Functional Family Therapy, an evidence based intervention program in Monroe County. In addition, the aim was to study this implementation to determine the degree to which the program was successful and what program changes might need to be made to improve its effectiveness in a local Indiana community. Functional Family Therapy is an intervention for at-risk and juvenile justice involved youth ages 11-18 years old and their families. Problems for families who receive Functional Family Therapy typically range from acting out to conduct disorder, to substance abuse to violence. Functional Family Therapy can be provided in a variety of contexts, including homes, school, child welfare, probation, and mental health settings. Families typically receive an average of 12 sessions for dose of treatment over the course of 3-6 months. Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is an evidence-based “what works” program. It has been studied and the Surgeon General, Blueprints Program, and Center have recognized its results nationally for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP). The FFT program is also internationally recognized for effectively intervening in the lives of families and providing skill development, which reduces recidivism. This project is the first implementation of FFT in Indiana. B. Study Results Results from Pre and Post service tests (COM-A and COM-P) suggest the families who received services from the Indiana Family Project experienced noticeable and relevant changes in the family since they began counseling. On average, the adolescents perceived the family to be “a lot better”. Additionally, both the parents perceived the family to be some better. These responses indicate that most of the families improved communication and parenting skills. They also suggest a reduction in family conflict level and an increase in parental monitoring. These results are consistent with FFT national data and also suggest the FFT project to be successful. C. Other Results The Indiana Family Project collaborative program recently received a significant national designation. IFP was recognized and named by the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice Blueprint for Change: A Comprehensive Model for the Identification and Treatment of Youth with Mental Health Needs in Contact with the Juvenile Justice System (2007) as one of the 20 exemplary national programs for diverting youth in the juvenile justice system. This designation and honor represents recognition of the success and quality of the Indiana Family Project and the collaboration between CAFS and Monroe County.

90

D. Conclusions of Indiana Family Project Study Parent involvement in treatment is critical to family functioning, youth functioning, and parent functioning outcomes. Parents are typically found to describe problems in an adolescentfocused, blaming, and negative manner. If this definition of the problem is not targeted in treatment, then it is likely that there will not be improvements in parent functioning and likely that this lack of improvement in parent functioning will have a negative impact on youth functioning and family functioning. Without parent involvement in treatment, it is likely that while there are improvements in proximal youth functioning outcomes, it is unlikely that these immediate outcomes will be maintained long-term. E. Current Status of Project Through continued partnership with the Center for Human Growth and the Indiana Department of Correction, families involved in Juvenile Probation continued to have access to free FFT services in 2006. Since the outset of this project, over 200 families have received an evidencebased family-based intervention at no cost to them. In addition, a follow-up study to assess rates of recidivism of adolescents in all three groups is being conducted. Recidivism rates 1-2 years following treatment will be reported in the next year end review. F. Functional Family Therapy Referrals In 2006, the Probation Department made 40 referrals to Functional Family Therapy. Of this number, six (6) cases never participated in the program for various reasons. Of the 51 cases involved in FFT throughout 2006, 41 cases completed FFT and 10 continued into 2007. Of the cases terminated in 2006, 21 cases (51%) terminated successfully, while 20 cases terminated unsuccessfully. It is noteworthy to mention, however, of the 20 unsuccessfully terminated cases, only 25% (5) were due to program dropouts. Given that up to 75% of youth typically drop out of treatment programs, a 25% drop out rate is reflective of a successful program. Of the families who did not successfully complete the program, 3 (15%) stopped treatment because the family was directed to other programs, 3 (15%) terminated counseling upon completion of probation; 5 (25%) terminated were not able to be contacted or did not have reliable transportation, and 4 (20%) moved, and 5 (25%) were due to program drop out.

FUNCTIONAL FAMILY THERAPY
Functional Family Therapy Total referrals Successfully terminated Unsuccessfully terminated* Referrals that never started** Families carried over to next year 2005 35 21 1 5 17 2006 40 21 20 6 10

91

COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
The Monroe County Community Corrections Program is a division of Monroe Circuit Court Probation Department. The Community Corrections Director is also the Assistant Chief Probation Officer. Community Corrections Case Managers are certified probation officers who supervise caseloads of offenders who are serving jail/prison sentences on the Community Alternative Supervision Program (CASP). The CASP probation officers/case managers perform probation supervision duties along with conducting Community Corrections intakes and performing detailed risk assessments using the Level of Service Inventory Revised (LSI-R) instrument. In 2006, Monroe County completed its 23rd year of receiving grant funding from the Indiana Department of Correction. Funding is granted on a yearly cycle from July 1 to June 30 of each state fiscal year. From July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006, the Department of Correction awarded Monroe County $624,569 for Community Corrections programming. Monroe County judges have proven throughout the years that they will make every effort to place offenders in Community Corrections programs, or other local programs, and will typically only send offenders to the Department of Correction as a last resort. Statistics have shown that judges will also divert class A and B felons to Community Corrections for supervision, which is a great indicator of trust and confidence in the program. The chart below demonstrates the program’s increased supervision of felony offenders who, in the past, may have been committed to the Indiana Department of Correction.

Percentage of Felons vs. Misdemeanants Supervised on CASP Levels II-V
2006 Misdemeanor Felony Misdemeanor 2005 Misdemeanor Felony Misdemeanor Felony Misdemeanor Felony 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Felony

2000-2004

1995-2000

1985-1994

92

In 2006 the Monroe County Jail continued to face jail overcrowding. Without the option of Community Corrections, the situation of jail overcrowding would be virtually insurmountable without constructing a new jail facility and somehow finding the financial resources to operate it. In 2006, Judges granted some work release participants “CASP eligibility.” If an inmate successfully completes one-half of his/her Work Release commitment, then he/she may be released from the jail to complete the commitment on descending sanction levels of the Community Alternative Supervision Program (CASP). CASP utilizes Day Reporting and Home Detention with electronic monitoring. In 2005, Monroe County Community Corrections began using a new electronic monitoring vendor, BI. On July 1, 2005, Indiana law instituted a change which required that sex offenders and violent offenders who are placed on Home Detention must be monitored by a Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring unit. In response to this new law, the Community Corrections Program added the option of passive GPS monitoring. In 2006, thirty-six offenders were placed on GPS monitoring. The Road Crew Program experienced significant decreases in referral numbers in 2006. In late 2006 the Community Corrections Advisory Board and the Monroe County Board of Judges approved a revised work schedule and plan for Road Crew. Previously, Road Crew operated seven days per week and seven hours per day. Due to the decrease in referrals, as of December 1, 2006, the Road Crew began operating five days per week (Wednesday to Sunday) and five hours per day (7:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.).

93

I.

COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ADVISORY BOARD Pursuant to IC 11-12-1-2, the Monroe County Community Corrections Advisory Board (CCAB) was established on November 8, 1982 for the purpose of assisting in the coordination of the Community Corrections Program. Over the years, the Monroe County Community Corrections Program has become a well-established part of the local criminal justice system. All Community Corrections program components have the common purpose of serving as a more appropriate sanction for some offenders who would have otherwise faced either prison/jail or straight probation. In January 2006, the CCAB formally adopted the mission statement currently in use by the Probation Department as Community Corrections is a division of the Probation Department. The CCAB also approved guiding principles for establishing future programming in various aspects of Forensic Diversion. In April 2006, the CCAB agreed to a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Liberty Hall, who supervises Monroe County’s Community Transition Program clients. This MOU allows Community Corrections to keep more grant monies within the county to be used for other purposes. In August 2006, the CCAB reviewed information from the Department of Correction’s annual audit regarding financial obligations and receipts and found no concerns. The CCAB was also informed that the Community Corrections building was leased for another three years. In October 2006, the CCAB approved a plan to change the Community Service program by altering the availability of Road Crew and increasing the user fees. The approved change called for Road Crew to be available Wednesday-Sunday from 7:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The 2007-2009 Department of Correction grant application was also reviewed and approved for submission.

94

II.

COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVE SUPERVISION PROGRAM (CASP) The Community Alternative Supervision Program (CASP) incorporates a “continuum of sanctions” approach to corrections. This “continuum of sanctions” allows Community Corrections staff to administratively move offenders through various levels of supervision intensity, allowing offenders to experience immediate rewards for appropriate conduct and immediate consequences for violating program and probation rules. By providing various incentives to clients for successful completion of program supervision levels, clients are motivated to successfully complete the required programming in less time, thereby maximizing the staff resources available to supervise the caseload. Prior to the implementation of CASP, the Work Release Program, Day Reporting Program and House Arrest Program were all separate Community Corrections program components. In 1999, CASP was created by merging Home Detention and Day Reporting programs together into a multilevel continuum of sanctions system. The CASP is comprised of five levels of supervision: Level I Level II Work Release Home Detention combined with Day Reporting and “active” Electronic Monitoring Home Detention with “active pager” electronic monitoring Curfew verified by “active” electronic monitoring Day Reporting with daily check-ins only and with no movement restrictions

Level III Level IV Level V

A. Presumptive Placement on CASP Initial presumptive placement on Community Corrections in lieu of incarceration begins at either CASP Level I (Work Release) or CASP Level II (combination of Home Detention with Day Reporting). This placement allows for more direct “face to face” contact with clients by Community Corrections personnel in order to better assess the needs and risks associated with each case. Higher risk offenders remain under greater restrictions and with more supervision while those clients demonstrating progress are rewarded by movement to lesser levels of restriction. Courts may order an offender strictly to Home Detention, Day Reporting, or Work Release without allowing the offender to be eligible for CASP. Typically this occurs as a result of a negotiated plea agreement. During 2006, there were 129 (33%) out of 395 referrals to CASP levels I through IV who were made eligible to move through the level system.

95

B. CASP Level I – Work Release The Work Release component is operated using bed space provided by the Monroe County Jail. The Work Release Program Case Manager arranges offender activities with the Jail Commander. Occasionally, Work Release participants are transferred out of the county to Volunteers of America or Riverside in order to complete their sentence. These programs aid Community Corrections in serving more people and freeing local bed space in the Monroe County Jail for our clients. During 2006, there were 149 referrals to the Work Release program, thirteen (13) less than in the previous year. Of that number, 63 Work Release inmates were eligible for CASP during 2006, 42% of all Work Release participants for the year. CASP participants who are ordered to begin at Level I, Work Release, may earn their way onto Level II, Home Detention combined with Day Reporting, by successfully completing one-half of their jail sentences on Work Release. The potential average reduction of jail time was 47 days per offender in 2006.

CASP-ELIGIBLE WORK RELEASE PARTICIPANTS
2000 CASP Eligible Not CASP Eligible TOTAL 42 (28%) 108 (72%) 150 2001 36 (28%) 94 (72%) 130 2002 49 (34%) 94 (66%) 143 2003 27 (21%) 103 (79%) 130 2004 69 (48%) 76 (52%) 145 2005 33 (20%) 129 (80%) 162 2006 63 (42%) 86 (58%) 149

Of the 149 Work Release referrals for the year, 110 (74%) were for felony offenses, 39 (26%) were for misdemeanor offenses. The most common type of offense committed by offenders referred to the Work Release Program was substance offenses, as a group, accounting for 38% of Work Release referrals. Of those Work Release participants discharged in 2006, 58% were successfully discharged. The average number of actual days to serve on Work Release in 2006 was 104 days as compared to 95 days in 2005. During most of 2006, the Work Release Program was below capacity. Some of this could be due to severe jail overcrowding which at times, limited available beds.

96

WORK RELEASE REFERRALS
1999 Misdemeanor Felony TOTALS 58 (40%) 88 (60%) 146 2000 46 (31%) 104 (69%) 150 2001 40 (31%) 90 (69%) 130 2002 42 (29%) 101 (71%) 143 2003 35 (27%) 95 (73%) 130 2004 41 (28%) 104 (72%) 145 2005 59 (36%) 103 (64%) 162 2006 39 (26%) 110 (74%) 149

WORK RELEASE TYPE OF OFFENSES
2001 Substance Related Probation Violation Theft/Property Related Violence Related Sexual Deviant Related Other TOTAL 46 (35%) 36 (28%) 21 (16%) 14 (11%) 0 13 (10%) 130 2002 67 (47%) 39 (27%) 21 (15%) 1 (1%) 0 15 (10%) 143 2003 40 (31%) 29 (22%) 25 (19%) 7 (6%) 0 29 (22%) 130 2004 48 (34%) 22 (15%) 42 (29%) 12 (8%) 0 (0%) 21 (14%) 145 2005 86 (53%) 5 (3%) 29 (18%) 15 (9%) 5 (3%) 22 (14%) 162 2006 57 (38%) 0 (0%) 40 (27%) 20 (13%) 0 (0%) 32 (22%) 149

2006 WORK RELEASE OFFENSE TYPES
Other 22% Substance Related 38%

Violence Related 13%

Theft/Property Related 27%

97

C. CASP Level II - Home Detention combined with the Day Reporting With CASP Level II, Home Detention is combined with the Day Reporting Program. Offenders are required to report for daily check-ins at the Community Corrections office in addition to being under strict Home Detention supervision that includes electronic monitoring. CASP Level II participants are required to report daily to the Community Corrections Office, Monday through Friday, for alcohol and drug testing and to advise program staff of their planned activity. These program participants are required to participate in a combination of gainful employment, education classes, substance abuse treatment, life skills classes or community service work totaling a minimum of 40 hours per week. Offender compliance with program requirements is verified through daily offender check-in appointments, telephonic curfew checks, electronic monitoring and home/field contacts by program staff. During 2006, 100 offenders referred to CASP began serving their sentences at Level II supervision, combined Home Detention/Day Reporting. This was a decrease of 34 from the prior year. CASP participants who are ordered to begin at Level II (and made eligible by the Court) may earn their way off of the combined Home Detention/Day Reporting by completing required program conditions successfully. The Defendant may work his/her way down to Level V supervision, the least restrictive CASP level, by successfully completing requirements for each preceding CASP level, if allowed by the Court. D. CASP Level III - Home Detention Level III CASP involves participation on Home Detention with “active pager” electronic monitoring. Full Home Detention restrictions apply, including wearing the electronic monitoring device 24 hours a day. The daily reporting to the Community Corrections office required by CASP Level II is no longer required for participants who have earned their way onto CASP Level III. CASP Level III can also be described as “Home Detention.” Some courts specifically order Home Detention, without benefit of CASP eligibility. In 2006 there were 114 who began their commitments on CASP Level III. E. CASP Level IV – Curfew Under CASP Level IV, the full Home Detention restrictions are eased and participants are no longer confined to their homes. Although electronic monitoring continues, participants’ compliance with a daily curfew is verified by “active” electronic monitoring. In 2006, 39 offenders participated on CASP Level IV.

98

F. CASP Level V – Day Reporting CASP Level V program participants must report to the Community Corrections office daily, Monday through Friday, for breath alcohol tests. Level V participants are also subject to drug screening but have no required curfew and have no other movement restrictions. Courts may place offenders directly into CASP Level V. Many times, participation in CASP Level V is a condition of pre-trial release, a condition of probation supervision or a condition of receiving a hardship driver’s license. In 2006, 266 adult offenders were placed on CASP Level V, a 14% increase from 2005.

LEVEL V CASP (DAY REPORTING REFERRALS)
2000 Adult Offenders 66 2001 147 2002 175 2003 215 2004 172 2005 230 2006 266

99

G. CASP Referrals - Levels II through V The Community Alternative Supervision Program (CASP) is utilized by the courts as an alternative to jail and prison. If the Court allows, program participants can be moved up and down the levels based on risk and compliance issues as pre-authorized by the Court. In Monroe County, CASP is also an option for pre-trial release of adult offenders. In 2006, 512 persons were placed on the program, an 8% decrease from 2005. In 2006, the program supervised 303 felons and 209 misdemeanants.

CASP REFERRALS
2000 Adult Misdemeanor Adult Felony TOTALS 147 (39%) 232 (61%) 379 2001 160 (41%) 226 (59%) 386 2002 153 (35%) 279 (65%) 432 2003 147 (32%) 310 (68%) 457 2004 149 (32%) 312 (68%) 461 2005 198 (35%) 360 (65%) 558 2006 209 (41%) 303 (59%) 512

CASP REFERRALS 2006

Adult Misdemeanor 198 (41%) Adult Felony 360 (59%)

100

H. CASP Offense Type – Levels II through V The most common offenses committed by adult offenders placed on CASP Levels II-V in 2006 were drunk driving offenses, such as Operating While Intoxicated /.08% BAC/.15% BAC, with 179 offenders having been convicted of such offenses, 35% of CASP Levels II-V referrals. Substance-related offenses, including drunk driving offenses and various drug offenses comprised 49% of CASP Levels II-V referrals in 2006. The CASP Levels II-V successfully discharged 68% of all program participants in 2006.

COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVE SUPERVISION PROGRAM TYPE OF OFFENSES (Levels II through V)
ADULT Substance Related Probation Violation Theft/Property Related Violence Related Sexual Deviant Related Other TOTALS 2002 218 (50%) 68 (16%) 81 (19%) 37 (9%) 2 (<1%) 26 (6%) 432 2003 268 (59%) 43 (9%) 87 (19%) 28 (6%) 1 (<1%) 30 (7%) 457 2004 238 (52%) 29 (6%) 109 (24%) 27 (6%) 6 (1%) 52 (11%) 461 2005 288 (52%) 15 (3%) 139 (25%) 23 (4%) 6 (1%) 87 (15%) 558 2006 250 (49%) 26 (5%) 117 (23%) 38 (7%) 3 (1%) 78 (15%) 512

2006 ADULT CASP LEVELS II-V OFFENSES
Other 15% Sexual Deviant Related 1% Violence Related 7%

Substance Related 49%

Theft/Property Related 23% Probation Violation 5%

101

III.

PUBLIC RESTITUTION AND ROAD CREW In 2006 there were 633 offenders referred to the Public Restitution Program, a decrease of 229 (27%) from the previous year. Of this number, 566 (89%) were adult Probation referrals and 43 (7%) were juvenile Probation referrals. Additionally, there were 24 (4%) adult referrals from the Defendant Accountability Program (DAP) to complete Public Restitution. In 2006 the Road Crew Program received a total of 550 referrals, which is a 21% overall decrease from 2005. Included were 287 (52%) adult Probation referrals, a 5% decrease from 2005. Additionally, there were 263 (48%) adult DAP referrals to the program during the year which is a 34% decrease from 2005. During 2006, the Road Crew and Public Restitution programs combined provided the community with 35,535 hours of service, a 17% decrease from 2005. Many special community events depend on these programs to provide necessary labor. Road Crew provided labor to assist at the following community events in 2006: Little 500, Taste of Bloomington, IU Fun Frolic, IU soccer/football cleanup, the Monroe County Fall Festival in Ellettsville, the Stinesville Fall Festival, Bloomington July 4th fireworks, the Monroe County Fair, Bloomington High School North and South and Ellettsville High School football games, and preparation of Monroe County’s Courthouse and downtown holiday light display. Computed on the basis of minimum wage ($5.15 per hour), Community Corrections provided $183,005.25 worth of labor to the community in 2006. In 2006 the Community Corrections Advisory Board and the Monroe County Board of Judges approved a revised work schedule and plan for Road Crew. Previously, Road Crew operated seven days per week and seven hours per day. Due to the decrease in referrals listed above, as of December 1, 2006, the Road Crew began operating five days per week (Wednesday to Sunday) and five hours per day (7:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.).

COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS COMMUNITY SERVICE
1998 1999 Hours Completed 55,341 59,688 *Cost Contribution* $285,006 $307,393 * Present minimum wage = $5.15 2000 59,956 $308,774 2001 57,922 $298,298 2002 57,325 $295,224 2003 42,301 $217,850 2004 39,464 $203,240 2005 42,937 $221,125 2006 35,535 $183,005

102

IV.

THINKING FOR A CHANGE Thinking for a Change (T4C) is an integrated, cognitive behavior change program for offenders that includes cognitive restructuring, social skills development, and development of problem solving skills. T4C is designed for delivery to small groups in 22 lessons and can be expanded on to meet the needs of specific participant group. The curriculum was developed by Barry Glick, Ph.D., Jack Bush, Ph.D., and Juliana Taymans, Ph.D., in cooperation with the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). The NIC makes available the T4C offender program materials plus a curriculum for training program facilitators. The T4C program is used in prisons, jails, community corrections, probation, and parole supervision settings. Participants include adults and juveniles, males and females. Thinking for a Change is one option in a continuum of interventions to address the cognitive, social, and emotional needs of their offender populations. This program teaches offenders a variety of social skills and alternative ways of thinking by identifying an offender’s core values and beliefs. The intense program meets for 22 sessions over an 11 week period. In 2006, Community Corrections began contracting with the Center for Behavioral Health to provide this program to offenders referred to the Community Corrections program. In 2006 only nine (9) out of 23 offenders completed the program successfully. Issues regarding the reasons for the low rate of successful completion will be targeted and addressed in 2007.

V.

LIFE SKILLS CLASSES Community Corrections provides a variety of life skills programming to benefit the offenders. Most of the life skills classes are taught on a volunteer basis by professionals from the community who have a particular expertise in that area. The Monroe County Extension Office and the Workforce Development Office send staff members to teach classes at Community Corrections as part of the mission of those agencies. During 2006, the following skill building classes were offered: • • • • • budgeting parenting nutrition job interview skills and job readiness training consumer credit counseling

103

VI.

LEVEL OF SERVICE INVENTORY - REVISED The Level of Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R™) assessment is a quantitative survey of offender attributes and offender situations relevant for making decisions about levels of supervision and treatment. The instrument’s applications include assisting in the allocation of resources, helping to make probation and placement decisions, making appropriate security level classifications, and assessing treatment progress. The 54 LSI–R items are based on legal requirements and include relevant factors for making decisions about risk level and treatment. The LSI-R measures attributes in the areas of criminal history, education/employment, financial, family/marital, accommodations, leisure/recreation, companions, alcohol/drug use, emotional/personal, and attitudes/orientation. LSI–R scores are proven to help predict parole outcome, success in correctional halfway houses, institutional misconduct, and recidivism. Scores can then be used in conjunction with professional judgment to arrive at valid placement decisions. The Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) requires Community Corrections to complete a Level of Service Inventory - Revised on all offenders who are assigned to a Community Corrections program for over 180 days. Each offender is given an LSI-R at the beginning of their program and another one at the completion of their program. Of the offenders who fall into the above category, 19 clients completed successfully in 2006. Their average decrease in LSI-R scores was four and one-half (4.5) points.

VII.

COMMUNITY TRANSITION PROGRAM The Community Transition Program (CTP) is a program whereby felons serving sentences at the Department of Correction (DOC) are released early to participate in transitional programming. In July 2003 Monroe County began utilizing the services of Liberty Hall in Indianapolis for Community Transition Program participants. The cost of placing offenders at Liberty Hall for CTP is funded 100% by the Department of Correction. During 2006 there were four (4) offenders placed on CTP at Liberty Hall with all four (4) successfully completing.

104

VIII.

DRUG SCREENING A. Community Corrections Drug Screening Program In 2006, Community Corrections conducted an average of 808 drug tests per month. These tests are performed on offenders who are participating in any of the following programs: Community Corrections, Adult and Juvenile Probation, Court Alcohol and Drug Program, and Drug Court. The Community Corrections Program participates in a Department of Correction (DOC) drug screening program whereby the DOC pays for the cost of certain types of drug tests. Under the terms of the testing program, offenders placed on Community Corrections for any felony offense or for a class A misdemeanor offense undergo baseline drug screens. If the offender tests positive on a baseline drug screen, the DOC will pay for up to three follow-up screens. A further feature of the drug screening program is that the eligible participants’ names are placed on a list sent to the DOC each month and the DOC selects, at random, a number of offenders to undergo drug tests. B. Results During 2006, Community Corrections conducted 9,699 drug tests. This represents a 5% decrease from the tests conducted in 2005. During 2006, 1,634 drug tests showed positive for at least one substance, approximately 20% of all tests conducted.

DRUG TEST RESULTS
2003 Negative Screens Positive Screens TOTAL SCREENS CONDUCTED 7,882 (85%) 1,435 (15%) 9,317 2004 7,738 (82%) 1,664 (18%) 9,402 2005 8,432 (82%) 1,822 (18%) 10,254 2006 8,065 (80%) 1,634 (20%) 9,699

C. Results by Age The percent of positive drug screens was higher for offenders under the age of 18, 29% compared to 16% positive for adult offenders.

2006 DRUG TEST RESULTS BY AGE
Under 18 Negative Screens Positive Screens TOTAL SCREENS CONDUCTED 579 (71%) 233 (29%) 812 18 and over 7,486 (84%) 1401 (16%) 8887 TOTAL 2006 8,065 1,634 9,699

105

D. Drug Types Found During 2006, a total of 1,942 drugs were found in the 1,634 positive screens. The most prevalent drug found was marijuana, with 916 positive tests, 47% of all positive drug screens. The next most prevalent drug detected was opiates with 380, 20% of all positive drug screens. Although there were 46 tests which showed the presence of alcohol, Alco-Sensor units (portable breath test units) are used as the primary method of testing for alcohol.

DRUG SCREEN RESULTS FOR POSITIVE TESTS
2002 Marijuana Opiates Benzodiazepines Cocaine Alcohol Barbiturates Amphetamines Methadone TOTALS 1,202 (68%) 183 (10%) 102 (6%) 114 (7%) 39 (2%) 23 (1%) 101 (6%) Did not test 1,765 2003 1,090 (66%) 165 (10%) 122 (7%) 105 (6%) 31 (2%) 20 (2%) 86 (5%) 36 (2%) 1,655 2004 1,204 (62%) 202 (10%) 122 (6%) 133 (7%) 43 (2%) 20 (1%) 128 (7%) 85 (5%) 1,937 2005 1,143 (54%) 318 (15%) 158 (7%) 131 (6%) 65 (3%) 13 (1%) 179 (9%) 104 (5%) 2,111 2006 916 (47%) 380 (20%) 123 (6%) 179 (9%) 46 (2%) 29 (2%) 153 (8%) 116 (6%) 1,942

2006 RESULTS FOR POSITIVE TESTS
Methadone 6% Amphetamines 8% Barbiturates 2% Alcohol 2%

Cocaine 9%

Marijuana 47%

Benzodiazepines 6%

Opiates 20%

106

E. Drug Types Found by Age In comparing 2006 drug test results between juvenile and adult probationers, it was found that a total of 251 drugs were detected in the 233 positive drug tests for juvenile probationers compared to a total of 1,521 drugs detected in the 1,401 positive drug tests for adult offenders. For both adult and juvenile probationers, the most prevalent drug found was marijuana. For juvenile probationers, marijuana was detected in 174 of the 233 positive drug tests, 75% of all positive juvenile drug tests. For adult offenders, marijuana was found in 47% of the positive drug tests in 2006, compared to 52% of the positive drug tests in 2005. Though both percentages decreased in 2006, Marijuana seems to continue to be most prevalent drug of choice for both the adult and juvenile probationers in 2006. For adult offenders, the next most prevalent drug class detected was opiates which were detected in 20% of adult positive drug screens. For juvenile offenders, the second most prevalent drug class detected was amphetamines, which was detected in 20% of the positive juvenile drug screens.

2006 RESULTS FOR POSITIVE TESTS BY AGE
Under 18 Marijuana Opiates Benzodiazepines Cocaine Alcohol Barbiturates Amphetamines Methadone TOTALS 174 6 4 7 1 6 49 4 251 18 and over 742 374 119 172 45 23 104 112 1,691 2006 916 380 123 179 46 29 153 116 1,942

107

SUPPORT DIVISION
The Support Division provides service that is vital to the efficient functioning of the Probation Department. Support Staff members provide the department with receptionist services, bookkeeping, cashiering, filing, data entry and numerous other functions. Support Staff is typically the first part of the department with which offenders and the public come into contact. In this role, Support Staff members serve a unique function of setting the tone for how offenders and the public will be served by the department. Because the Probation Department’s offices occupy two separate locations, the Justice Building and the Community Corrections office, Support Staff functions must be highly coordinated in order to effectively serve both locations. The primary location of the majority of the Probation Department functions is the Justice Building. The Community Corrections office is located at 405 W. 7th Street in Bloomington. The Community Corrections office has been in operation at that location since 1995. The Community Corrections Support Staff consists of the Office Manager, Receptionist, and a part-time Probation Officer Assistant. With such a small Support Staff, all Community Corrections staff members are crosstrained to substitute for absent Support Staff when needed. The Justice Building Support Staff consists of an Office Administrator, an Administrative Assistant, a Bookkeeper/Cashier, Adult Probation Secretary, Juvenile Probation Secretary, and Receptionist. The Justice Building Support Staff includes part-time Probation Officer Assistant positions. These staff members assist with managing “walk-in” traffic from court. These staff members also perform data entry functions that assist both the Justice Building Support Staff and the Community Corrections Support Staff. There are now seven (7) Probation Officer Assistants in the Justice Building office. With most misdemeanor offenders continuing to be sentenced by the Court without Presentence Investigation Reports, the data entry workload for Support Staff for these “walk-in” probationers has remained constant. In 2006, there were 832 “walk-ins” processed by Support Staff, compared to 1,217 in 2005, a 32% decrease.

108

OTHER PROBATION PROGRAMS
I. INTERN PROGRAM The Probation Department continues to operate an Internship Program in cooperation with Indiana University and other colleges and universities from around the state of Indiana. Although these internships are unpaid, the students do receive college credit. The Department supervises student interns from various departments at Indiana University including the Criminal Justice Department, School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA), the College of Arts & Science, and General Studies. In 2006, the Department supervised thirteen (13) student interns who each contributed a minimum of 110 volunteer hours. At the current starting hourly rate of $7.75 paid to part-time staff working for the Department, interns provided a savings of more than $11,000 ($11,082.50) in volunteer labor.

II.

SPEA FELLOWSHIP In 2006, the Probation Department began a new partnership with Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA). During the year, the Probation Department employed graduate students who are a part of the SPEA Service Corps program. The Service Corp partnership is an extension of the I.U. internship program within the Probation Department, but two distinct factors make this partnership unique. Service Corps students are in the master's program, thus they already are college graduates who have a maturity and experience level beyond most undergraduates. Second, the required two-year assignment gives the students a chance for making a greater impact because they have considerably more time with their community agency than the one-semester assignments common with other internship programs. The SPEA students are paid a stipend each semester which allows SPEA to recruit excellent students, who assume responsibilities for the program while taking a full academic course load. In 2006, the SPEA Service Corp Fellows contributed more than 270 hours of valuable service to the Probation Department. At the current starting hourly rate of $7.75 paid to part-time staff working for the Department, SPEA Fellows provided a savings of more than $2,000 ($2,092.50) in volunteer labor.

109

III.

STAFF TRAINING The Judicial Conference of Indiana adopted training standards for Probation Officers, mandating that certified officers complete a minimum of 12 hours of continuing education per year. Because of the training requirements for certified Court Alcohol and Drug programs, all Monroe County Probation Officers must complete a minimum of 25 hours of drug/alcohol/mental health training every year. The Department sends all Probation Officers to the Probation Officer Annual Meeting sponsored by the Indiana Judicial Center. In addition to the required drug/alcohol training, Probation Department staff also attended several inhouse training programs which were made available to interested staff. During 2006, the following training sessions were offered in-house and through the local mental health center’s community training series: • • • • • • • • • • • Communicable Diseases Post-partum Depression Grief and Loss Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Domestic Violence and Mental Heath Mental Health: Funding, Families and Ethical Issues Problem Gambling Violence’s Effects on Children Challenges in Methamphetamine Treatment Dialectical Behavioral Therapy Use of Pepper Spray

110