Probation Operations : GDC risk assessment and supervision standards revised since original review

Follow-Up Review 12-17

October 2012

Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts
Performance Audit Division
Greg S. Griffin, State Auditor Leslie McGuire, Director

Why we did this review
The Department of Audits and Accounts conducted this follow-up review to determine the extent to which recommendations presented in the performance audit of the Department of Corrections' (GDC) Probation Operations (09-15) have been addressed.
The purpose of the December 2009 audit was to determine if GDC had adequate means to assess a probationer's risk of recidivism and a probationer's treatment needs, if supervision policies were consistent with best practices, and if programming options were available.
Who we are
The Performance Audit Division was established in 1971 to conduct indepth reviews of state programs. The purpose of our reviews is to determine if programs are meeting their goals and objectives; provide measurements of program results and effectiveness; identify other means of meeting goals; evaluate the efficiency of resource allocation; assess compliance with laws and regulations; and provide credible management information to decision-makers.
Website: www.audits.ga.gov Phone: 404-657-5220 Fax: 404-656-7535

Follow-Up Review Probation Operations
GDC risk assessment and supervision standards revised since original review
What we found The Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC) has implemented several changes to the Probation Operations Division recommended in the original audit, including adopting a new risk assessment instrument and revising supervision standards to allocate additional resources to higher risk offenders. GDC has partially addressed recommendations related to needs assessments and programming.
At the time of the original audit, GDC management was evaluating recommended practices for the supervision of probationers and expected to implement those deemed suitable for the state. In early 2012, Probation Operations began using a newly developed automated and dynamic risk assessment tool. The new tool does not require probation officers to manually complete a risk assessment or re-assessment at set intervals. Instead, an offender's risk score is automatically updated based on information in the agency's SCRIBE information system (e.g., probation officer's case notes, drug test results, new arrest). During the tool's development, the factors associated with the likelihood of an offender's re-arrest while under probation supervision were analyzed and modified.
GDC also revised its probation supervision model, decreasing officer resources devoted to lower risk offenders and increasing resources devoted to higher risk offenders. In 2011, GDC began allowing lower risk offenders who have complied with probation terms to contact a Probation Reporting Contact Center (PRCC) instead of the probation officer. Offenders' probation officers review PRCC reports regarding offender noncompliance. In August 2012, approximately 27,000 offenders

GDC Probation Operations Follow-Up Review

2

reported to the PRCC. At the same time, GDC has increased the required number of interactions with higher risk probationers and required that more of these interactions occur outside of the probation office setting. For example, during the original audit, higher risk probationers (non-sex offender) had four to six contacts with the probation officer in a three-month period, and no more than one of these visits was required to take place in the field. GDC's new supervision model requires nine interactions during the three-month period (three per month) and three to six of those interactions must be in the field.

For high risk probationers, GDC continues to conduct needs assessments to determine if they may benefit from treatment programs, though the agency has recently changed instruments. In July 2012, GDC began using an instrument developed by the vendor that created its new risk assessment tool. This new needs assessment instrument referred to as the Bridge Assessment will be evaluated over the next 12 to 18 months and will then be replaced with a shorter version tailored to GDC's population. During the original audit, GDC had been using a valid, industry-accepted tool COMPAS for approximately one year. GDC officials stated that the change was made due to increasing contract costs and GDC's increased desire to maintain ownership of assessment data, which were the property of the COMPAS vendor.

During the original audit, we found that probation offices were unnecessarily completing the risk assessment portion of the COMPAS, were not completing the associated case plans in a timely manner, and were not fully completing the case plans. Before discontinuing COMPAS, Probation Operations personnel stated that they were still completing the entire COMPAS assessment at the request of GDC's Risk Reduction Services (RRS) unit. However, RRS reviews showed that probation circuits had improved compliance with timeliness and accuracy standards. From early 2009 to late 2011, the percentage of case plans completed in a timely manner increased from 42% to 61% and the percentage completed properly increased from 34% to 53%.

Finally, GDC had continued to modify its programming and counselor distribution. GDC replaced two substance abuse courses with a series developed by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Also, in November 2011, GDC had 37 counselors in the probation circuits, up from 33 two years earlier. An additional 51 counselors were assigned to Day Reporting Centers, which serve probationers deemed in need of additional services. Finally, GDC has not assessed whether in-house or private providers are the most effective providers of circuit programming. Probation offices without counselors or specially trained probation officers cannot offer programming in-house and must refer probationers to private providers. Officers in some of these offices reported increased non-compliance because the probationer could not afford the treatment costs.

GDC Response: GDC stated that it concurred with the findings of the follow-up review.

GDC Probation Operations Follow-Up Review

3

The following table summarizes the findings and recommendations in our 2009 report and actions taken by the Department of Corrections to address them. A copy of the 2009 performance audit report may be accessed at http://www.audits.ga.gov/rsaAudits.

GDC Probation Operations Follow-Up Review, October 2012

Original Findings/Recommendations
GDC management should be commended for pursuing many of the recommended practices in community probation. However, challenges to successful implementation in field operations are likely.
We recommended GDC: continue emphasizing outcome measures;
and continue emphasizing the importance of the
quality of contacts (instead of quantity) between officers and probationers.

Current Status
Fully Implemented GDC has continued to emphasize several output and outcome performance measures for management of the program, as well as individual circuits, offices, and officers. Since the original audit, GDC has increased the emphasis on the quality of interactions between probation officers and probationers. The department tracks the prevalence of case notes as an indicator of whether an officer is simply making contact with a probationer or if an officer is effectively communicating and assessing a probationer's particular situation.

While the actuarial risk assessment instruments used by the Probation Operations program to classify offenders largely meet industry standards, a number of deficiencies related to their current use are present.
We recommended GDC: develop an updated risk assessment
instrument, including a consideration of research indicating that different factors predict recidivism for males and females; periodically review the instrument for continued validity; educate probation staff on the instrument's validity; use a validated reassessment tool; and clarify to staff regarding when use of the Static-99 risk assessment instrument for sex offenders is appropriate.

Fully Implemented In March 2012, GDC launched a new, automated risk assessment instrument that continually adjusts probationers' risk scores based on information in the probationers' file. The computer-based tool relies on information entered into GDC's information system. The risk assessment is based on an updated study of the factors that contribute to the likelihood of re-arrest while under probation supervision, which the researchers determined were different for males and females. The tool takes the place of both the old assessment and reassessment instruments. GDC officials also indicated that they intend to periodically test the validity of the new instrument.
Regarding the sex offender risk assessment instrument, GDC implemented the newer Static02R since the original audit. We did not test whether the tool had been improperly applied to those convicted of statutory rape; however, the training presentation delivered to officers responsible for administering the test clearly stated the cases in which the Static02R should not be used.

GDC Probation Operations Follow-Up Review

4

GDC Probation Operations Follow-Up Review, October 2012

Original Findings/Recommendations

Current Status
Fully Implemented Since the original audit, GDC has implemented a new supervision model that adjusts the frequency and types of interactions between officers and probationers. In addition, interactions are now required on a monthly basis, instead of quarterly.

Although GDC has adopted several recommended practices for supervision, additional policy changes are required to improve supervision of higher-risk offenders.
We recommended GDC: reduce resources devoted to lower risk
offenders, through greater use of technology and shortened active supervision in some cases; and redirect resources to higher risk offenders.

For the lowest risk probationers, the frequency of interactions did not decrease but the method of interaction was changed. In 2011, GDC implemented a call center the Probation Reporting Contact Center (PRCC) that handles the routine, monthly compliance reporting for standard level probationers who have demonstrated compliance with probation terms. The probationers are still assigned to a probation officer, who reviews reports by the PRCC. In August 2012, approximately 27,000 offenders reported to the PRCC.
The frequency of interactions with probationers designated as high risk increased in most cases. For example, at the time of the original audit, a regular probationer (non-sex offender) classified as high or maximum risk required four and six contacts per quarter, respectively. The new supervision model requires nine interactions per quarter for high risk probationers.

Additionally, a greater portion of interactions must now occur in the field (outside the office). In 2009, probationers designated high risk had no field contacts and those designated maximum risk had one per quarter. Now, high risk probationers are required to receive between three and six face to face field visits per quarter.

GDC uses a state-of-the-art instrument to identify probationer treatment needs. However, more time and officer resources are spent executing the assessment than is necessary given its current application.

Not Implemented GDC has not changed the policy requiring that the entire COMPAS be completed for high risk probationers. According to personnel in the Risk Reduction Service Unit (RRS), the risk assessment portion of the instrument is used within GDC facilities and Day Reporting Centers (that serve some probationers) as "part of screening for program placement." However, RRS also noted that, at the time of the original audit, the risk scale was still being considered for use within probation. (As noted above, Probation Operations eventually adopted a different, automated risk assessment tool.)

We recommended GDC modify policy to require staff to only complete the portions of the COMPAS necessary to assess needs.

It should be noted that GDC recently discontinued the use of COMPAS. GDC officials stated that the decision was based on contract costs and GDC's desire to maintain ownership of the assessment data. On July 1, 2012, GDC began using a needs assessment instrument developed by the vendor that created GDC's automated risk assessment tool. This new needs assessment instrument will be evaluated over the next 12 to 18 months and will then be replaced with a shorter version tailored to GDC's population.

GDC Probation Operations Follow-Up Review

5

GDC Probation Operations Follow-Up Review, October 2012

Original Findings/Recommendations
Many probation offices are not meeting timeliness and accuracy standards for COMPAS assessments and case plans. However, given that probation officers only recently obtained these responsibilities, continued quality assurance reviews will likely improve compliance rates.
We recommended GDC: educate field staff on the importance of
timely completion of COMPAS; and explore opportunities to use non-officer staff
to assist in the assessment and case planning processes.

Current Status
Partially Implemented Many of GDC's probation circuits have improved compliance with RRS timeliness and accuracy standards. Between January and June 2009, 42% of case plans were created in a timely manner. The percentage has improved to 61% for the July 2011-January 2012 timeframe. During the same timeframe, the percentage completed properly improved from 34% to 53%.
As noted in the previous finding, GDC discontinued use of COMPAS as of July 1, 2012.

GDC properly emphasizes the delivery of evidence-based programs to probationers classified as high or maximum risk. However, programming is absent in some parts of the state and significant improvement seems unlikely given the current number and distribution of counselors.
We recommended GDC: continue its move to evidence-based
programs; determine if in-house or private providers
were the most appropriate provider of the programming; and reassign counselors to the extent possible to improve the distribution of in-house programming and use existing data to inform the hiring of future counselors.

Partially Implemented According to GDC, it has continued to modify its programming options to emphasize those proven effective. Risk Reduction Services personnel stated that one substance abuse class was dropped due to cost and two others replaced due to the adoption of two others created by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
GDC has not determined if in-house or private providers are the most effective providers of circuit programming. Therefore, probation offices continue to rely upon both types of providers, with the availability of counselors and probation officers trained to deliver a particular course varying across the state. When services cannot be provided in-house, probationers must pay for services in the community, if the services are available.
Finally, GDC has increased the number of counselors available to probationers. Within the probation circuits, the number increased from 33 to 37 (as of November 2011). Six circuits experienced an increase in counselors and each of the six had a high ratio of probationers to counselors during the original audit. In addition to those in the circuit offices, GDC had an additional 51 counselors in the Day Reporting Centers that serve probationers deemed in need of additional services.

3 Fully Implemented

6 Recommendations

2 Partially Implemented

1 Not Implemented

For additional information or for copies of this report call 404-657-5220 or see our website: http://www.audits.ga.gov/rsaAudits