probation - 2006 annual report

8/14/2019 Probation - 2006 Annual Report

1/62

49

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 Building301 North College Avenue

Bloomington, Indiana 47404(812) 349-2645

Community Corrections Office405 West 7th Street, Suite 2

Bloomington, Indiana 47404(812) 349-2000

Internet Websitehttp://www.co.monroe.in.us/probation


2/62

50

CHIEFS SUMMARY

By Linda Brady, Chief Probation Officer

The year 2006 will be remembered as a year of planning for expanded probation services due to theaddition 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 January1, 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 Courtreorganized judicial caseloads which had a significant impact on the Probation Department. EffectiveJanuary 1, 2005, the Criminal cases were assigned to three judges (the Criminal Division). Civil caseswere distributed amongst four Civil Division judges and the Commissioner. The new Circuit Courtjudge 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 CourtReporters, Probation Officers, Public Defenders, Prosecuting Attorneys, and Jail staff. These weeklymeetings were held to work through the significant logistics of the Court reorganization. The meetingsproved 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 towork 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 byJudge Ken Todd, the Ad Hoc meetings continued throughout 2006 and provided a regular means toresolve issues related to the jail population.

Due to federal budget cuts for the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JABG), in 2006 thedepartment received a reduced grant of $20,000 (48% reduction) from the Indiana Criminal JusticeInstitute to fund a program to address juvenile delinquency: the Serious Habitual OffenderComprehensive 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 expirecompletely at the end of September 2007.

The Monroe County Drug Treatment Court continued operations in 2006. In 2006, the Drug Courtwas primarily funded by an Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) through the Indiana CriminalJustice Institute. This grant is a one-year grant and is subject to a competitive process for possiblerenewal. The grant cycle runs April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2007. Although the match money forthis grant is paid from Court Alcohol and Drug Program user fees, such user fees alone are not sufficientto fund the Drug Court. The future of the Drug Court will depend on finding a secure, stable fundingmechanism.


3/62

51

In late 2005, the Probation Department entered into a contract with LifeServices Employee AssistanceProgram (EAP). The EAP provides free counseling services to all departmental employees and theirfamilies. 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 sentencedto a component of Probation and/or Community Corrections. There were 59 DNA samples collectedfrom October 1 through December 31, 2006.

PROBATION DEPARTMENT SUMMARY 2006

Indiana University students from the Indiana University Education Early Field Placementcontributed 222.5 volunteer hours to the juvenile after-school day reporting program, J.A.M.S. Atthe current starting hourly rate of $7.75 paid to part-time staff working for the Department, EarlyField 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 of110 volunteer hours. At the current starting hourly rate of $7.75 paid to part-time staff working forthe 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 SPEAService Corps program. In 2006, the SPEA Service Corp Fellows contributed more than 270 hoursof valuable service to the Probation Department. At the current starting hourly rate of $7.75 paid topart-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 35,535hours 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 300felons on the program.

The Family Preservation Program continued to serve families while saving county dollars. During2006, 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 costsof $1,023,000 to the tax payers of Monroe County in 2006. The Family Preservation Programcompleted its 13

thyear 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 548convicted drunk drivers fromMonroe County attending the presentations during the year.

$127,551 victim restitution was collected. Additionally, $1,151,020 in user fees was collected onbehalf of the Probation Department.

The Probation Department began offering clients the option of paying fees by credit card in May2004. The total collected in 2006 using the credit card option was $67,429.


4/62

52

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART


5/62

53

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

I. VICTIM RESTITUTION

The Probation Department assists the court in collecting victim restitution by enforcing restitutionorders. When the Courts place an offender under probation supervision, the offender may beordered to reimburse the victim for any loss incurred. The Probation Department ensures that thismoney is paid by the probationers. Restitution is collected by the Clerks Office and is disburseddirectly to the victim. In 2006, probationers paid $127,551 in victim restitution.

VICTIM RESTITUTION COLLECTED AND DISBURSED

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

TOTALS $126,533.06 $178,124 $123,842.39 $150,891.97 $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 employed76 persons, 44 of whom were Probation Officers (37 line Probation Officers and sevensupervisory/management-level Probation Officers). The Monroe County General Fund covered thefull salaries and fringe benefits of only four (4) Juvenile Probation Officers and two (2) members ofSupport Staff. The County General Fund also paid for partial salaries and partial fringe benefits foranother 19 Adult Probation Officers, three (3) Probation Supervisors, and the Chief ProbationOfficer, with the remainder of the salaries and fringe benefits of these staff members paid from userfees. 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 1 Assistant Chief Probation Officer 1 Supervisors 5 Line Probation Officers 37 Field Officers (Road Crew, CASP, SHOCAP, Drug Court) 8 Support Staff 8 Part-time Assistants 16

TOTAL STAFF 76 employees(60 full time)


6/62

54

III. PROBATION DEPARTMENT BUDGETS

The Probation Department works very hard to find innovative funding opportunities to provideprograms and services without having to dip into the strapped County General budget. The total2006 Probation Department was $3,894,836. Only $$957,719 (25%) of that amount came from theCounty General budget.

MONROE COUNTY PROBATION 2006 BUDGETS

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

% User Fees % Grant Funds % Contract % Tax

Adult Probation User Fees$411,037 100% -0- -0- -0-

Juvenile Probation User $39,387 100% -0- -0- -0-

Community Corrections

User Fees$734,675 100% -0- -0- -0-

Court Alcohol & DrugProgram Fees

$499,244 100% -0- -0- -0-

Drug Court Fees$17,483 100% -0- -0- -0-

Community CorrectionsGrant

$624,569 -0- 100% -0- -0-

SHOCAP (JABG grant)$20,000 -0- 100% -0- -0-

Federal Drug Court Grant(remainder/FINAL) $151,492 -0- 100% -0- -0-

Byrne Drug Court Grant(NEW/First year)

$165,281 -0- 100% -0- -0-

Family Preservation(DCS Contract)

$228,949 -0- -0- 100% -0-

County General Funds$957,719* -0- -0- -0- 100%

TOTALS $3,894,836 $1,701,826 $961,342 $228,949 $957,719

TOTAL % 44% 25% 6% 25%


7/62

55

IV. PROGRAM AND USERS FEES

In 2003 the state legislature enacted a new law which allowed user fees paid by persons placed underprobation supervision to be used to pay probation officer salaries. The new law increased probationuser 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 thatthese added funds will serve only as a supplement to Probation Officer pay and cannot be counted onto be the primary funding source for PO salaries.

Offenders sentenced in Monroe County, who reside out of State, may have their probationsupervision transferred to their home state, if so ordered by the judiciary. Offenders who are grantedthis 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 innovativerehabilitative 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, alcoholdetect units, and GPS monitoring devices)

Impaired Driving Impact Panel, winner of the Governors 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


8/62

56

The Probation user fees also are used to pay for county expenses which would otherwise have to bepaid 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 budgetshave been flat lined for years, causing the probation user fee budgets to pick up theincreases in postage, mileage, and other increasing costs.

The Probation Department is responsible for collecting adult and juvenile probation user fees andCommunity Corrections program fees. The Monroe County Clerk collects Court Alcohol & DrugProgram fees, Alcohol and Marijuana Education School fees, PRIME for Life fees, Drug Court userfees, 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 theClerks Office, totaled $1,147,331 in user fees collected on behalf of the Probation Department in2006. This represents an overall 21% decrease in the collection of program and user fees.

PROBATION PROGRAM AND USER FEES COLLECTED

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Court Alcohol & DrugProgram/AES* $337,639 $313,798 $359,227 $346,585 $247,821

Drug Tests (SAD Account) $18,615 $3,488 $70 $-0- $-0-

Drug Court Fee* $3,800 $14,826 $11,601 $8,180 $10,142

Adult Probation Fees $222,296 $249,234 $355,139 $431,508 $365,363

Juvenile Probation Fees $21,204 $31,634 $35,434 $25,301 $26,329Project Income CommunityCorrections fees $483,031 $542,773 $543,650 $602,239 $488,645

PDP Road Crew Fees* $24,672 $24,391 $21,242 $13,210 $8,731

TIPP $2,145 $1,976 $2,660 $1,050 $300

TOTALS $1,113,402 $1,182,120 $1,329,023 $1,428,073 $1,147,331

* Collected by Clerk.


9/62

57

V. COLLECTION RATES

Despite efforts by the Probation Department to collect all fees assessed by the Courts, manyoffenders do not pay the user fees, program fees and restitution as directed. At the end of 2006, areport was generated that revealed $193,521 in past due 2006 fees (adult, juvenile user fees andCommunity Corrections fees). This indicates that the user fee collection rate for 2006 was about81%, a decrease of about 4% from 2005s collection rate.

In 2006, Juvenile Home Detention fees of $5,809 were assessed and$3,619 (62%) of these fees wascollected. This collection percentage is significantly lower than the departments overall collectionrate of 81% for the year, however, it is an increase from the 2005 collection rate of 59% for thesefees. Collection of user fees, in general, from juvenile offenders remains a problem for thedepartment.

PROBATION DEPARTMENTFEE COLLECTION RATES

2003 2004 2005 2006

Departmental Probation/Program Fees Assessed $1,091,096 $1,223,871 $1,249,092 $1,028,102Probation/Program Fees Assessed During YearPast Due at Year End $202,446 $231,827 $192,994 $193,521Probation/Program Fees on Civil JudgmentDocket $82,155 $116,451 $86,598 $146,486

Overall Departmental Collection Rate 82% 81% 85% 81%

VI. CIVIL JUDGMENTS

The Courts reduce unpaid financial obligations to Civil Judgments. This year $146,486 of variousfees 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 betweenNovember 1, 1993 and December 31, 2006. Periodically the Probation Department sends outreminder 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 theProbation Department.


10/62

58

VII. STAFF STABILITY AND TURNOVER RATES

On January 1, 2004, a revised Probation Officer Minimum Salary Scale went into effect whichincluded pay raises commensurate with years of experience as a Probation Officer.

Prior to the implementation of this revised Probation Officer Minimum Salary Scale, the ProbationOfficer 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 inperspective, the department employed only 36 Line Probation Officers during those years. Many ofthose 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 withinthe community which require a four (4) year college degree, such as teachers. As a comparison, theMonroe County Community School Corporation starting teacher pay rate was $28,000 for the 2006-2007 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. Therewere three (3) additional Probation Officer positions which were set to begin January 1, 2007. Thehiring process for these 2007 positions was started in the fall of 2006. During the hiring process forthe new PO positions, four (4) Probation Officer applicants who were offered employmentwithdrew/resigned between their hire date and their scheduled first day of employment due to beingoffered 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 beexamined by the County Personnel Advisory Committee.


11/62

59

OFFENDER PROFILES - YEAR 2006 TRENDS

The most prevalent type of offense committed in 2006 by juveniles who were placed on probationsupervision was status-related offenses, accounting for 122 (38%) of all offenses committed by theseindividuals. Of this group, truancy was the number one offense, comprising 92 of the adjudications inthe group. In 2006, substance-related offenses were the second leading offense group, accounting for 60of the substance related offense referrals resulting in supervision. Illegal Consumption continued to bethe 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 thethird largest referral group for which supervisions were received. Other miscellaneous offenses, as agroup were the fourth most common offense group for which a juvenile received probation supervisionservices in 2006. As in 2004 and 2005, Violent/Battery related offenses were the least likely reason ajuvenile received supervision services in 2006.

The most prevalent adult offense type in 2006 was substance-related offenses, accounting for 52% of alloffenses committed by adult offenders. Of this offense group, Operating While Intoxicated was thenumber one offense, as it has been for the past 16 years, accounting for 37% of all adult probationeroffenses committed. The next most common type of offense committed by adult probationers was theft-

related offenses 18%, followed by Battery/violent offenses 11%.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

ADULT JUVENILE

2006 OFFENSE TYPESAlcohol/Drug

Theft

Battery/Violent

Other

Juvenile Status

ADULT JUVENILE

ALCOHOL/DRUG RELATED 724 (52%) 60 (20%)

THEFT RELATED 245 (18%) 58 (18%)

BATTERY/VIOLENT 147 (11%) 32 (10%)

OTHER 265 (19%) 46 (15%)

JUVENILE STATUS N/A 122 (38%)

TOTALS 1,381 318


12/62

60

ADULT DIVISION

Adult felony probation supervisions have been steadily increasing for the past decade. From 1985through 1993, the felony cases received by the Adult Division had consistently comprised about 25% ofthe overall new adult probation cases received. Since 1994, the felony supervisions have comprised anever-increasing percentage of the new cases received each year. By the end of 2006, the percentage ofnew 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 theserious nature of crimes committed by high risk offenders. Additionally, felony offenders typically areplaced 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) ProbationOfficers were assigned to the Intake Unit of the Adult Division. Three of the Adult Probation Officersassigned to the Supervision Unit were responsible for overseeing specialized caseloads (sex offendersand batterers). The remaining 10 Adult Probation Officers supervised non-specialized mixed caseloadsof 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 non-specialized adult probation caseload consisted of 119 offenders, a 34% decrease from 2005. Pursuant toWorkload Measures established by the Judicial Conference of Indiana, at least three (3) additional AdultProbation Officers would be necessary to appropriately supervise the number of probationers under thesupervision of the Adult Division at the end of 2006. This workload continues to be above the IndianaJudicial Conference Standards.

Since their inception in 2001, specialized offender caseloads within the Supervision Unit have helpedthe Adult Division to better manage the workload numbers. The Adult Probation Officer assigned tosupervise the sex offender caseload has enabled the Department to make significant strides towardimproving 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 caseloadin order to permit increased supervision. There were 74 sex offenders under probation supervision at theend of 2006, a 20% decrease from 2005.

Another specialized caseload within the Adult Division is the battery/domestic violence caseload. Likethe sex offender caseload, the specialized caseload for persons convicted of battery, particularlydomestic battery, allows the Probation Department to provide increased supervision for this high risk,and potentially dangerous, population. When this specialized caseload was originally created, therewere approximately 35 battery/domestic violence offenders on this caseload, therefore, the ProbationOfficer 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 onprobation for battery/domestic battery increased, the addition of another Adult Probation Officer to moreclosely supervise this potentially dangerous population was necessary. At the end of 2006, theDepartment had two (2) Adult Probation Officers assigned to the supervision of violent offenders.


13/62

61

In 2001 the Probation Department received a 3-year federal Drug Court Implementation Grant to expandthe Drug Court Pilot Project. This grant provided funds to hire a Drug Court Program Coordinator, aCase 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 extendthe original grant award into a fourth year. Also, in 2004, Drug Court was awarded an Edward ByrneFormula Grant through the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute in the amount of $158,038 for one year ofdrug 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 awardeda 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 DrugCourt participants; the year ended with 71 participants in the program. By the end of 2006, 95participants had graduated from the two-year Drug Court since the programs inception.

The Departments Court Alcohol and Drug Program is certified by the Indiana Judicial Center toprovide assessment, referral, and case management services to probationers. In 2004, the programbegan 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 self-assessment. In addition to offering PRIME to the Prosecutors Pre-Trial Diversion Program, ProbationOfficers may refer appropriate clients to the class. In 2006, there were 1,222Alcohol and MarijuanaEducation 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 overall22% decrease from 2005. Of significance however, is the fact that 54% of these adult probationers werefelons.


14/62

62

I. ADULT CASES RECEIVED

In 2006, there were 1,225 new adult probation supervisions received (717 new misdemeanorsupervisions 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 toreduce the workload of probation officers. These efforts resulted in the Probation Departmentreceiving fewer misdemeanor cases for probation supervision. By 2003, new misdemeanor

supervisions received fell to near-record low numbers. In 2006, 717 new misdemeanor supervisionswere received, a decrease of 26% from the year 2005. This number represents the lowest number ofmisdemeanor 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 filingsdecreased by 13% for the year, and in 2006 this number further decreased by 3%, representing threeconsecutive years of fewer misdemeanor cases being filed with the Court. Additionally, in 2005new felony cases received for probation supervision decreased by 22% and by 2% in 2006. Thesenumbers correspond to a decrease in felony case filings. In 2005, felony case filings decreased by20% 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 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Misdemeanor 1,046 (66%) 1,061 (60%) 842 (53%) 839 (53%) 970 (60%) 717 (59%)

Felony 549 (34%) 721 (40%) 750 (47%) 736 (47%) 650 (40%) 508 (41%)

TOTALS 1,595 1,782 1,592 1,575 1,620 1,225

For the past 12 years, the felony percentage of the probation caseload has increased steadily. From1985 through 1993, the felony probation cases received by the Adult Division had consistentlycomprised about 25% of the overall new adult probation cases received. Since 1994, the felonysupervisions 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

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

1985 -

1993

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

Felony New Supervisions Received Misdemeanor New Supervisions Received


15/62

63

II. CASE TYPES FOR ADULT PROBATION SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED

In 2006, the majority of offenders placed on probation with the Adult Division had been convictedof 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 mostcommon 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 adultoffenses, 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 drivingwhile suspended or driving after having been adjudged to be a habitual traffic violator.

TYPE OF OFFENSE FOR SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Alcohol/Drug 950 (57%) 1,013 (54%) 911 (53%) 963 (56%) 928 (54%) 724 (52%)

Theft-Related 272 (16%) 392 (21%) 309 (18%) 318 (18%) 312 (18%) 245 (18%)

Battery/Violent 111 (7%) 125 (7%) 142 (8%) 157 (9%) 142 (8%) 147 (11%)

All Others 349 (20%) 330 (18%) 354 (21%) 297 (17%) 338 (20%) 265 (19%)

TOTALS 1,682 1,860 1,716 1,735 1,720 1,381

2006 TYPE OF OFFENSE FOR SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED

Alcohol / Drug52%

Theft-Related

18%

Battery /

Violent

11%

All Others

19%


16/62

64

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 2005s numbers. The offense of Operating WhileIntoxicated remains the single most prevalent offense committed by adult probationers, 37% of alladult offense types.

OPERATING WHILE INTOXICATED OFFENSES

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200

611 701 581 686 500 555 464 428 450 572 653 628 704 626 637 653 49

0

200

400

600

800

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 judgmentbeing entered to the offense of Reckless Driving. In 2006, there were 42 cases of Reckless Drivingreferred to probation supervision, a decrease of thirty-five (35) cases from 2005.

RECKLESS DRIVING OFFENSES

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

42 42 48 72 60 62 76 52 77 42


17/62

65

IV. CASES DISCHARGED

During 2006, the Adult Division discharged 918 misdemeanants and 708 felons from probation, atotal of 1,626 persons discharged from probation. Overall, the Division discharged seven (7) morepersons in 2006 than in 2005.

Additionally, the year 2006 started with 473 offenders being monitored who were classified asOther Administrative, which includes offenders who have transferred to another county or state forprobation supervision yet remain under the jurisdiction of the Monroe County ProbationDepartment. This category also includes offenders who were sentenced to the CommunityAlternative Supervision Program (CASP) without probation.

In 2006, the Adult Division received 253 fewer misdemeanor supervisions and discharged 39 moremisdemeanants than in 2005. In 2006 the Division received 142 fewer felony supervisions than in2005 and discharged 32 fewer felons than in 2005. The year 2006 ended with 672 misdemeanantsand 784 felons on probation, a net decrease of 201 misdemeanants and a decrease of 200 felons onprobation for the year.

The year 2006 ended with an additional 118 misdemeanants and 400 felons under probationsupervision classified as Other Administrative.

ADULT FELONY AND MISDEMEANORSUPERVISIONS DISCHARGED

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Misdemeanor 1,157 990 1,060 898 879918

Felony 549 549 730 696 740 708

TOTAL 1,706 1,539 1,790 1,594 1,619 1,626


18/62

66

V. YEAR END CASELOADS

The Adult Division began 2006 with 1,857 probationers. Additionally, the year began with another473 offenders on probation classified as Other Administrative. This classification includesoffenders who are sentenced to the Community Alternative Supervision Program (CASP) with noprobation, 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 from2005s year-end caseload of 1,857. Of the 1,456 adult probationers under supervision at the end of2006, 672 were misdemeanants and 784 were felons. Additionally, at the end of 2006, there were518 offenders under supervision classified as Other Administrative. Including this latter categoryof 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 thedepartment. In 2005, felons comprised 58% of total persons under the supervision of the ProbationDepartment (including Other Administrative). In 2006, felons comprised 60% of total personsunder the supervision of the Probation Department (including Other Administrative).

ADULT FELONY AND MISDEMEANORYEAR END CASELOADS*

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Misdemeanors 1,099 988 1,059 841 782 873 672

Felonies 843 842 1,014 1,034 1,074 984 784

TOTAL 1,942 1,830 2,073 1,875 1,856 1,857 1,456

*These caseload numbers do not include cases classified as Other Administrative.


19/62

67

ADULT FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR

YEAR END CASELOADS

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

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

NUMBEROFCASES

MISDEMEANOR FELONY

In 1994, the Judicial Conference of Indiana adopted the Indiana Probation Workload Measures and CaseClassification System for mandatory use by all probation departments in the state. The CaseClassification System required that all probation clients receive a standardized evaluation to determinetheir risk of re-offending. Based on the results of these offender risk evaluations, probation clients areplaced in one of the following risk categories, which are defined in terms of the risk the offender willcommit 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 incombination with the offender risk evaluation to determine the number of probation officers required toprovide adequate offender supervision.

Since the inception of the Workload Measures system in 1994, the Adult Division of the ProbationDepartment has demonstrated a continued need for additional probation officers. In 1994, WorkloadMeasures demonstrated a need for 10.5 additional adult probation officers. Over the years, additionalprobation officer positions have been added through grants, such as the Drug Court grant of 2001 whichadded three (3) Probation Officers to operate the Drug Court. Further, in 2001 the County Councilapproved adding two (2) adult probation officers in response to workload need. These additions havemade 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) newprobation 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 perofficer by the end of the year. Although caseloads decreased, the Workload Measures demonstrated aneed for three (3) additional adult probation officers to appropriately supervise the adult probationcaseload/workload.


20/62

68

AVERAGE ADULT PROBATION YEAR-END CASELOADS

Non-specialized Adult Caseload Averages 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

TOTAL 176 158 163 158 181 119

VI. PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATIONS

The Adult Division conducted 167 Presentence Investigations in 2006. This represents an increaseof 30% from 2005. In 1993, the Board of Judges began to purposely reduce the number of offendersrequired to participate in Presentence Investigations in an effort to increase the time available forsupervision by Probation Officers. The reduction in the number of Presentence Investigations wasalso due to a shortage in Probation Officer personnel. In 1992, there were 1,786 PresentenceInvestigations completed; the 2006 figures reflect a 91% reduction in Presentence Investigationsover the past fourteen (14) years.

In 1994, Presentence Investigation statistics reflected, for the first time in the previous 15 years, theProbation Department conducted more felony investigations than misdemeanor investigations. Thistrend has continued for the past eleven (11) years. In 2006, 89% of all Presentence Investigationscompleted by the department were for felony cases, which is a slightly lower percentage for felonyPresentence Investigations than in 2005. This averages less than one (1) misdemeanor PresentenceInvestigation per criminal court per month and four (4) felony Presentence Investigations percriminal court per month for 2006.

ADULT FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR

INVESTIGATIONS COMPLETED

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Misdemeanor 35 (16%) 28 (11%) 44 (17%) 20 (10%) 10 (8%) 18 (11%)

Felony 187 (84%) 229 (89%) 209 (83%) 172 (90%) 118 (92%) 149 (89% )

TOTALS 222 257 253 192 128 167

Drug Court Intakes = 40 in 2006

VII. TRANSFER CASES

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


21/62

69

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, theProgram 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 thedaily operation of the Adult Intake Unit and who is also responsible for ensuring that all staffmembers receive ongoing training regarding substance related issues. All adult probationofficers within the department are certified as substance abuse professionals and must complete aminimum of 25 hours of alcohol/drug education every year in order to maintain theircertification.

Probation Officers hired after January 1, 2005 who supervise adult offenders as part of the CourtAlcohol and Drug Program must obtain and maintain a Court Substance Abuse ManagementSpecialist 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 atleast 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 andcase management of substance abuse clients; complete 70 hours of approved training; submit asigned statement to adhere to a code of ethics; must be at least 21 years of age; and take and passa written exam.

Adult Probation Officers conduct substance abuse screenings on all new cases referred by thecourts 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 ProbationOfficers 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, a25% decrease from the previous year. In addition, 40 substance abuse assessments werecompleted on potential Drug Treatment Court participants. Another 38assessments werecompleted during the Presentence Investigation process on offenders charged with substancerelated offenses.

Following the completion of the substance abuse evaluation, the Probation Officer develops anindividualized service plan for each offender. This service plan typically includes a referral to asubstance abuse education or treatment program. The Probation Officer then monitors theprobationers compliance with the terms of substance abuse education or treatment. The CourtAlcohol and Drug Program does not provide any direct treatment services.


22/62

70

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 minorfirst-time alcohol and marijuana offenders and is utilized by the Prosecutors Office for Pre-TrialDiversion Program participants. In 2006, 1,222 persons attended the class, a 33% decrease from2005. Of these class participants 857 (70%) were Indiana University students.

Upon the request of the Prosecutors Office, during 2003 Alcohol Education School wasexpanded to include information on marijuana research. In 2006, the class received 135 referralsfor first-time marijuana offenders in addition to minor alcohol offenders.

The Department offers a 12-hour substance abuse education program utilizing the cognitive-based Prime for Life Indiana (PRI) curriculum. PRI is offered to second time Pre-TrialDiversion participants being charged with marijuana and minor alcohol-related offenses andprobationers who have been determined to need substance education. The program began inSeptember 2003. In 2006, 50 offenders referred by the Prosecutors Office completed the PRIclass. 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 toefficiently and effectively deal with minor or technical violations of probation. In 2006, 161APM meetings were completed due to technical violations, a decrease from the APMs completedin 2005. In 2006, three (3) of the APM meetings were conducted due to the commission of asubsequent offense. In addition to the 161 completed APM meetings, another 131 such meetingswere attempted in 2006 but were not completed due to client failure to comply, resulting in thefiling of Petitions to Revoke Suspended Sentence. For 2006, this represents a 42% successful

APM completion rate, a 10% decrease from 2005s 54% successful completion rate. However,in 2006 a total of 295 APM meetings were scheduled compared to 387 in 2005, a decrease of24%.

D. Impaired Driving Impact Panel

The Adult Division provides a community-based restorative justice program for all offenderswho have been convicted of drunk driving. In 1994, this program expanded to allow referralsfrom surrounding counties. During 2006, five panels were conducted with 548 Monroe Countyconvicted impaired drivers attending the presentations. The Impaired Driving Impact Panel is aservice provided at no cost to the offender.


23/62

71

IX. DRUG COURT

In November 1999, Judge Ken Todd, Monroe Circuit Court Division III, began the Drug CourtPilot 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 federalgrants.

September 2001 - Probation Department received $500,000 federal Drug CourtImplementation Grant. The three-year grant enabled the department to expand the DrugCourt 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 IndianaCriminal 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 statewideevaluation 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 drugtesting. 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 urinedrug screens on participants.

In 2006, there were four (4) drug free babies born to Drug Treatment Court participants.


24/62

72

A. Drug Court Referrals

Drug Court began 2006 with 72 participants in the program. During the year, the Drug CourtTeam received 62 cases for review for potential acceptance into the program. Of the 62 referrals14 chose not to participate in the program and 19 cases were found not to meet the programcriteria for eligibility. Of the 62 referrals to the program in 2006, 29 offenders were madeeligible 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 potentialprogram participants in 2006, a 26% decrease from the previous year. The Drug Court providedintensive case management to all participants in the program. Participant compliance wassupervised by the Drug Court Team, including Judge Todd and the designated case managerassigned 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 abusetreatment providers. Participants were also referred for ancillary services such as housingassistance, 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 allprogram goals including successful completion of substance abuse treatment and remainingsubstance-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 toprogram violations.

DRUG COURT SUMMARY

*1 participant is on administrative supervision

2003 2004 2005 2006

Participants carried forward from previous year 64 78 74 72

New referrals received for Team review 150 101 84 62

Number of referrals accepted into the program 48 32 38 29Number of successful terminations throughgraduation 26 22 24 19Number of unsuccessful terminations from theprogram 8 15 16 11


25/62

73

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 intonewly vacated offices in the Community Corrections building, 405 West 7 th Street. This move allowedthe entire Juvenile Division to share one common location.

Juvenile Division staff continued to provide Aggression Replacement Training (A.R.T.) programmingfor clients meeting specific criteria. This evidence-based program was provided, at no additionalcharge, to over 55 students in 2006. In addition to A.R.T., the parental component of AggressionReplacement Training, P.A.R.T, continued to be available to parents of those students participating inA.R.T. In 2006, P.A.R.T. was provided to 49 parents. Due to staff turnover, A.R.T. training was notscheduled 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 highestnumber of referrals for truancy received since 2000. The growth of referrals in this area is believed tobe a reflection of the continued partnerships between the Monroe County Community SchoolCorporation, 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. Inaddition to supervision services, juveniles referred for attendance problems are eligible for cost-freesupportive educational programming offered by the Probation Department. This educational supportprogramming was provided to more than 50 students in 2006.

The Juvenile Division Intake Team continued to meet weekly throughout 2006. This Team reviewed allof the initial recommendations made for each youth through a Preliminary Inquiry. In 2006, 360 caseswere reviewed by the Intake Team.

The partnership between Community Corrections and the Center for Human Growth, Indiana Universitycontinued 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 receivefamily therapy at no cost.

In 2000 the Probation Department developed, with financial support from a Juvenile AccountabilityBlock Grant (JABG), the Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program, known asSHOCAP. 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 hasremained solid. Due to federal budget cuts for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG), in 2006the department received a reduced grant of $20,000 from the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute to fundSHOCAP. 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 OfficerAssistants. The full time, professional staff included: one Supervisor; one Intake officer; two (2)traditional Line supervision probation officers; four (4) Family Preservation Officers (although oneposition 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 averagenon-specialized Juvenile probation caseload was 75 clients per officer at the end of 2006, compared to43 at the end of 2005.


26/62

74

I. JUVENILE CASES RECEIVED

A. Referrals Received

Unlike the adult probation system where adult offenders are not introduced to the probationsystem until aftera conviction, probation is the starting place for a juveniles interaction with thejuvenile justice system. All juvenile cases processed through the juvenile justice system beginwith 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. Delinquentacts are defined as acts that would be crimes if committed by an adult, or status offenses. Statusoffenses 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 referralsreceived 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 informationaltool for the Probation Department. Of the remaining 661 referrals, 26 (4%) were returned to thecounty of the childs residence. An additional 198 referrals (30%) resulted in no action beingtaken by the Prosecuting Attorney; the reasons for declining to proceed with prosecution are asvaried as the circumstances involving each case. Of the remaining 437 new referrals received for2006, 2 (


27/62

75

The effects of the legal battle over the constitutionality of Indianas curfew law continued in2006. After Indianas Curfew law was ruled unconstitutional in 2003, a revised law was enactedin 2004. The revised law, however, was quickly appealed. As the appeal continues, manyjurisdictions have chosen to limit their enforcement of the current Indiana curfew law; MonroeCounty is one of those jurisdictions. Because of this, only five (5) Curfew referrals werereceived 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 quitelikely 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 referredto the Juvenile Division was for a substance-relatedoffense. Of the 766 specific offensesreferred to probation in 2006, 193 (25%) offenses were substance-related. In considering allnon-status offenses (517 total offenses), substance-related offenses were responsible for 37% ofall referrals. Of this category, Illegal Consumption of Alcohol continued to hold its position ofthe number one substance related referral for juveniles. Illegal Consumption of Alcohol wasresponsible for 111 (58%) of the 193 substance-related referrals received. This numberrepresents a slight decrease in the number of referrals received in 2005, however, represents ahigher total percentage of substance related offenses.

Theft-related offenses continued to be the third most prevalent offense group for which referralswere received. Of the 766 specific offenses referred to probation in 2006, 145 (19%) of all non-status offenses were theft-related referrals. Conversion (shoplifting) was the single mostcommonly referred offense in this category, consisting of 94 (65%) of the 145 theft-relatedreferrals received.

Miscellaneous or other offenses, as a group, were responsible for the fourth largest number ofreferrals 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 thisgroup, 111 referrals were received.

Battery and other violent offenses were the least common referral category in 2006. Of the 766specific 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.


28/62

76

JUVENILE REFERRALS RECEIVED

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

TOTAL 999 1,069 880 962 816 855

TYPE OF OFFENSE FOR REFERRALS RECEIVED*

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Alcohol / Drug 358 (29%) 263 (25%) 205 (24%) 239 (27%) 193 (25%)

Theft-Related 208 (17%) 179 (16%) 191 (22%) 156 (18%) 145 (19%)

Battery / Violent 119 (9%) 117 (11%) 81 (8%) 63 (7%) 68 (9%)

Status 390 (31%) 309 (29%) 216 (25%) 279 (32%) 249 (33%)

All Others 171 (14%) 204 (19%) 179 (21%) 137 (16%) 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.


29/62

77

B. Probation Supervisions Received

A juvenile referral, or incident report, is submitted to the Probation Department from varioussources for a variety of reasons. Regardless of the source or purpose of the information, eachnew referral is tracked and logged into the Probation Department case management computerdatabase. Often, one child receives multiple referrals during any period. For caseload statisticalpurposes, 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 supervisionto referral ratios.

In 2006, the Division received 855 new referrals. Of these, 435 juveniles (51%) received somelevel 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 thecounty of the childs residence, had no crime noted in the report, were not pursued by theprosecutor, 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 servicefrom 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 theProbation Department in 1984.

JUVENILE SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

TOTAL 360 369 726 674 513 595 657 531 423 439 425 355 351 333 292

JUVENILE REFERRALS AND SUPERVISIONS

RECEIVED 1992 - 2006

0500

10001500

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Supervisions Received Referrals Received


30/62


31/62

79

II. JUVENILE PROBATION SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED CASE TYPES

Of the 292 new juvenile probation supervisions received in 2006, 133 (46%) were for status offensesand 150 (51%) were for juveniles who had committed a non-status, or criminal act, as their primarydelinquent behavior. Of the remaining supervisions received, eight (8) (3%) cases were transferredinto Monroe County from other jurisdictions and 1 (


32/62

80

TYPE OF OFFENSE FOR SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Alcohol/Drug 133 (26%) 132 (29%) 110 (25%) 128 (34%) 96 (25%) 60 (19%)

Theft-Related 139 (27%) 115 (25%) 92 (21%) 97 (25%) 85 (23%) 66 (21%)

Battery/Violent 31 (6%) 29 (7%) 41 (9%) 31 (8%) 25 (7%) 32 (10%)

Status 160 (31%) 61 (13%) 101 (23%) 59 (15%) 102 (27%) 122 (38%)

All Others 55 (10%) 118 (26%) 95 (22%) 68 (18%) 68 (18%) 38 (12%)

TOTALS 518 455 439 383 376 318

TYPE OF OFFENSE FOR SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED2006

ALCOHOL / DRUGRELATED 19%

STATUS 38%

BATTERY / VIOLENT 10%THEFT RELATED 21%

ALL OTHERS 12%


33/62

81

III. CASES DISCHARGED

Once placed on any level of supervision, a client-specific case plan is developed. The objective ofthis case plan (also known as the Terms and Conditions of Probation) is to aid the client and familyin decreasing the likelihood of continued involvement in the juvenile justice system. Goals includedin 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 allunsuccessful terminations, therefore, are a result of a client re-offending.

The Juvenile Division discharged 303 juveniles from probation supervision in 2006. Of the casesdischarged, 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 64substance-related cases discharged in 2006 were discharged successfully. Of the 239 non-substance-related supervisions, 147 (62%) were closed successfully.

IV. YEAR-END CASELOADS

The Juvenile Division began 2006 with 183 active supervisions and ended the year with 172supervisions, a net loss of 11 cases.

As with the Adult Division, the Juvenile Division has specialized caseloads. In addition toresponsibilities to the Aggression Replacement Training Program (A.R.T.), the Juvenile AlternativeManagement Services (J.A.M.S.) Coordinator and two Juvenile Case Managers also providesupervision 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, whichemployed three (3) Probation Officers throughout the majority of 2006, ended the year providingsupervision 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 theend of 2006.

JUVENILE YEAR END CASELOADS

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Non-specialized Caseload Averages 56 50 49 45 39 43 76

TOTAL 225 283 232 195 200 183 172


34/62

82

V. JUVENILE DETENTIONS AND PLACEMENTS

When a juvenile is placed in secure detention, he/she is transported to one of several securedetention facilities within the State of Indiana: Bartholomew County Juvenile Services Center,Columbus; Jackson County Juvenile Detention Facility, located in Brownstown; Johnson CountyJuvenile 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 youthfuloffenders held in various secure detention facilities. This cost, which includes only room andboard, 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. Theancillary costs of detaining youth include: the costs associated with transporting youthfuloffenders 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 totransport/court, etc. These ancillary detention costs are not tracked at this time, therefore an all-inclusive financial impact report is not available.

B. Detention Statistics

In 2006, 110 individual juvenile offenders (79 male and 31 female) were held in secure detentionfacilities throughout Indiana.

The 110 individual youthful offenders detained in 2006 were admitted to various facilities 182separate times throughout 2006. Of these admissions, 3011 days were billed to Monroe County,

for a cost of over $339,499.

DETENTION STATISTICS

Year 2004 2005 2006

Individual Admissions 117 84 110

Male 97 62 79

Female 20 22 31

Total Admissions 194 148 182

Days 2,184 2239 3011

Cost $235,000 $258,000 $339,499


35/62

83

C. Youth Shelter Placement

In 2006, the Monroe Circuit Court authorized the placement of 51 individuals into youth shelterplacement. 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 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Secure Detention (total admissions) 147 219 200 194 148 182

Placement 26 54 41 37 49 59

Secure Hospital Detention 34 33 30 23 19 6

Youth Shelter 20 46 59 114 57 51


36/62

84

VI. PREDISPOSITIONAL REPORTS/PRELIMINARY INQUIRIES

The Juvenile Division utilized a full-time Intake Probation Officer to complete the majority of the481 preliminary inquiries completed in 2006. Of this number, 118 (25%) were for a substancerelated referral. The balance of preliminary inquiries, 363 (75%), were for non-substance relatedoffenses.

Juvenile probation officers completed 14 pre-dispositional reports in 2006. These reports are

typically prepared by the clients supervising probation officer, and provide current information tothe court concerning the client and family.

PREDISPOSITIONAL REPORTS ANDPRELIMINARY INQUIRIES COMPLETED

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Predispositional Reports 69 52 64 42 21 14

Preliminary Inquires 538 580 604 518 524 481

TOTAL 607 632 668 570 545 495

PRELIMINARY INQUIRIES - SUBSTANCE RELATED VERSUSNON-SUBSTANCE RELATED

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Preliminary Inquires-Substance119 (22%) 147 (25%) 145 (24%) 164 (32%) 141 (27%) 118 (25%)

Preliminary inquiriesNon-substance 419 (78%) 433 (75%) 459 (76%) 354 (68%) 383 (73%) 363 (75%)

TOTAL 538 580 604 518 524 481

VII. JUVENILE HOLDOVER PROGRAM

In cooperation with Indiana University the Probation Department was able to obtain partial fundingthrough 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. Theseattendants 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 takecustody of the child. For the calendar year 2006, 11 individuals were detained through the HoldoverProgram.

JUVENILE HOLDOVER REFERRALS

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Total Holdover Referrals 12 5 16 9 11


37/62

85

VIII. FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM

The Family Preservation Program began in 1994 under a contract with the Office of Families andChildren (now Department of Child Services, DCS). The original contract allowed one FamilyPreservation Officer (a certified probation officer) to be hired to provide intensive, home-basedservices to juvenile offenders and their families. Additional Family Preservation positions wereadded in 1996, 1998, and 1999.

The Family Preservation Program provides home-based services to families of juveniles who areordered into the program. This population includes: 1) juveniles who are court-ordered into out-of-home placement; 2) juveniles who are returning home from placement; and 3) juveniles who areplaced 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 inresponse to the local Wraparound Committees recommendation that the community needs to focusmore on prevention and early intervention. The added criteria includes children of elementaryschool 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 significanthistory of involvement with juvenile probation; and children in families who have had a significanthistory or involvement with criminal justice agencies.

The Family Preservation Program tracks success rates through the use of an instrument entitled TheFamily Risk Scales, which is utilized by the Indiana Association of Residential Child CareAgencies (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 needfor, out-of-home-placement. Family Preservation completes an assessment on each family, at thetime of placement in the Family Preservation Program, and again at their termination from theprogram.

Successful completion of the Family Preservation Program is based on the successful completion ofthe terms of probation as well as improved outcome measurements as determined from this FamilyRisk Scales instrument. Successful termination indicates that the risk for continued problems in avariety of areas decreased during the families participation with the Family Preservation Program(i.e., suitable/stable housing, financial stability, decreased parental substance use, increased parentalcooperation, childs supervision, childs 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 Assessmentonly were recommended for other services that would more appropriately meet the needs of thefamily. Reasons for this recommendation are varied, but common themes include: the family isalready involved in a variety of service agencies; the family is not interested in the programand/or the childs behavior has escalated to the point where out-of-the home placement isrequired. The remaining 12 new referrals received some level of services from the programduring the year. At year-end, 17 children and families were receiving Family Preservationservices.


38/62

86

B. Terminations

During 2006, 27 children were discharged from the Family Preservation Program and, of thatnumber, 18 (85%) were successfully terminated.

The Family Preservation Program filed reimbursement claims with the Department of ChildServices 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 yearsof operation, it is estimated that the County has realized a net savings in placement per diemcosts of over $9 million. Family Preservation continues to provide Monroe County with a cost-effective, successful alternative to out-of-home placements.

FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Number of families carried forward from previous year 19 23 11 9 18

Total number of participant and assessments only for year 93 96 66 90 78Total number of new referrals receiving assessment and referral toother service 30 37 28 18 25

Total number of participants in program for year 63 59 40 72 53

Total number of Successful Terminations 26 30 25 29 18

Unsuccessful Terminations 14 18 15 5 6

Percentage of Successful discharges 65% 63% 60% 85% 75%

TOTAL Families Terminated 40 48 40 34 24

Families continued into next year 23 11 9 18 17

FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAMCOST VS. POTENTIAL SAVINGS

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Program Cost $142,390 $170,000 $160,000 $165,000 $154,000 $180,000 $165,000 $147, 300

Potential Net Savings $1,057609 $964,000 $960,000 $835,972 $900,000 $1,045,000 $1,061,000 $1,023,00


39/62

87

IX. SERIOUS HABITUAL OFFENDER COMPREHENSIVE ACTION PROGRAM

In early 2000, the Monroe County Probation Department, on behalf of the City of Bloomington andMonroe County Government, applied for and received a Juvenile Accountability Incentive BlockGrant (JABG). This federal grant was used to begin a collaborative probation-based program toaddress 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 juvenileoffenders who commit the most serious crimes and/or who commit an inordinately high number ofcrimes. This program utilizes the expertise of law enforcement, schools and the criminal justicesystem to form a Community Team. This team is responsible for the screening of the referredjuvenile and, if accepted, the development of an individualized case plans for each Serious HabitualOffender (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 isexpected that funding for this program will continue to be reduced, or eliminated in the comingyears.

A. SHOCAP Referrals

The year 2006 began with six (6) juveniles in the program. During the year, five (5) juvenileswere referred to SHOCAP. Of these referrals, all five (5) were placed into the SHOCAPProgram. 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 (serioushabitual offender status) has an Individual Case Plan (I.C.P.) created. This document isdeveloped 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 thedevelopment of successful decision making skills while providing the necessary amount ofstructure, supervision, and consequences to maximize compliance. The I.C.P. can addressemployment concerns, counseling, treatment and/or educational issues as well as familyparticipation, anger management, budgeting, and no-contact orders.

C. Terminations

Of the 11 juvenile offenders who participated in SHOCAP in 2006, four (4) continued theirinvolvement 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 wereclosed unsuccessfully, and three (3) juveniles had their cases closed successfully.


40/62

88

SHOCAP REFERRAL INFORMATION

2003 2004 2005 2006Number of clients carried forward fromprevious year 7 7 3 6

Total number of referrals screened 31 17 10 5Total number of referrals PENDING atyear end 0 0 0 0Total number of clients participating inprogram during year 15 12 12 11Number of Successful Completions ofProgram 2 2 0 4Number of Unsuccessful Terminationfrom Program 6 8 4 3

Percentage of Successful Discharged 25% 18% 0% 43%

TOTAL Clients Terminated during year 8 116

(2 moved) 7

Clients Inactive/Wanted on Warrant 0 0 0 0

Clients continued into next year 7 3 6 4

X. JUVENILE ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT SERVICES (J.A.M.S.)

The juvenile division of the Monroe County Probation Department continued to provide services tothose students struggling academically and those students who were considered at risk foraggressive behaviors. Programs implemented provide supervision and structure for both before andafter school hours.

A. Tutoring Program

Since August 2004, the Probation Department has offered supportive educational services andtutoring to juveniles on probation. These services are available Monday through Friday duringschool and non school hours. This tutoring program is available to all juvenile probationers, atno charge. Services made available in this program include one-on-one tutoring, homeworkhelp, examination preparation, access to the Internet, and remedial support. Assistance isprovided by Probation Officer Assistants, as well as interns enrolled in the School of Educationthrough Indiana University, completing their internships with Monroe County CommunityCorrections. As of December 31, 2006, 58 juvenile probationers have received services fromthis 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 dayreporting program, J.A.M.S. At the current starting hourly rate of $7.75 paid to part-time staffworking for the Department, Early Field Placement students provided a savings of more than$1,700 ($1,724.38) in volunteer labor.


41/62

89

B. Aggression Replacement Training (A.R.T.)

In 2005, the Probation Department implemented an evidence-based cognitive-behavioralcurriculum designed to reduce adolescent aggression and recidivism: Aggression ReplacementTraining (A.R.T.). The program encourages youth to modify behaviors by improving angercontrol, reducing the frequency of acting-out behaviors, and increase the frequency ofconstructive, 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 repetitivelearning techniques to teach participants to control impulsiveness and anger and use moreappropriate behaviors. In addition, guided group discussion is used to correct anti-socialthinking.

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 implementationin 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 andbehavior techniques their children received in A.R.T. It is believed this support outside theclassroom 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 wereplaced on the program for committing non-status offenses. Of these, 19 participants committedacts 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 onjuveniles who were not attending school, as required by law. In years past, the ProbationDepartment provided minimal direct services to address the unique needs of students who were notattending school, but otherwise not involved in the juvenile justice system.

Beginning in and continuing throughout 2006, three (3) Case Managers shared responsibility toevaluate, monitor and supervise juveniles who were identified as having school attendance issues.


42/62

90

XII. FUNCTIONAL FAMILY THERAPY

A. Indiana Family Project

In 2001, the Indiana Family Project began as a collaborative effort between the Monroe CountyProbation 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 inMonroe County. In addition, the aim was to study this implementation to determine the degreeto which the program was successful and what program changes might need to be made toimprove its effectiveness in a local Indiana community.

Functional Family Therapy is an intervention for at-risk and juvenile justice involved youth ages11-18 years old and their families. Problems for families who receive Functional FamilyTherapy 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 12sessions 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 AbusePrevention (CSAP). The FFT program is also internationally recognized for effectivelyintervening 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 receivedservices from the Indiana Family Project experienced noticeable and relevant changes in thefamily 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. Theseresponses indicate that most of the families improved communication and parenting skills. Theyalso suggest a reduction in family conflict level and an increase in parental monitoring. Theseresults 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 nationaldesignation. IFP was recognized and named by the National Center for Mental Health andJuvenile JusticeBlueprint for Change: A Comprehensive Model for the Identification andTreatment 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 IndianaFamily Project and the collaboration between CAFS and Monroe County.


43/62

91

D. Conclusions of Indiana Family Project Study

Parent involvement in treatment is critical to family functioning, youth functioning, and parentfunctioning outcomes. Parents are typically found to describe problems in an adolescent-focused, blaming, and negative manner. If this definition of the problem is not targeted intreatment, then it is likely that there will not be improvements in parent functioning and likelythat this lack of improvement in parent functioning will have a negative impact on youthfunctioning 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 theseimmediate outcomes will be maintained long-term.

E. Current Status of Project

Through continued partnership with the Center for Human Growth and the Indiana Departmentof Correction, families involved in Juvenile Probation continued to have access to free FFTservices in 2006. Since the outset of this project, over 200 families have received an evidence-based family-based intervention at no cost to them. In addition, a follow-up study to assess ratesof recidivism of adolescents in all three groups is being conducted. Recidivism rates 1-2 yearsfollowing 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 thisnumber, six (6) cases never participated in the program for various reasons. Of the 51 casesinvolved 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 casesterminated unsuccessfully. It is noteworthy to mention, however, of the 20 unsuccessfullyterminated cases, only 25% (5) were due to program dropouts. Given that up to 75% of youthtypically drop out of treatment programs, a 25% drop out rate is reflective of a successfulprogram.

Of the families who did not successfully complete the program, 3 (15%) stopped treatmentbecause the family was directed to other programs, 3 (15%) terminated counseling uponcompletion of probation; 5 (25%) terminated were not able to be contacted or did not havereliable transportation, and 4 (20%) moved, and 5 (25%) were due to program drop out.

FUNCTIONAL FAMILY THERAPY

Functional Family Therapy 2005 2006

Total referrals 35 40

Successfully terminated 21 21

Unsuccessfully terminated* 1 20

Referrals that never started** 5 6

Families carried over to next year 17 10


44/62

92

COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

The Monroe County Community Corrections Program is a division of Monroe Circuit Court ProbationDepartment. The Community Corrections Director is also the Assistant Chief Probation Officer.

Community Corrections Case Managers are certified probation officers who supervise caseloads ofoffenders who are serving jail/prison sentences on the Community Alternative Supervision Program(CASP). The CASP probation officers/case managers perform probation supervision duties along withconducting Community Corrections intakes and performin

probation - 2006 annual report

Documents