MONROE CIRCUIT COURT PROBATION DEPARTMENT

Transcription

1 MONROE CIRCUIT COURT PROBATION DEPARTMENT MISSION The mission of the Monroe County 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. 44

2 CHIEF S SUMMARY By Linda Brady, Chief Probation Officer In 2004, the Probation Department expanded and enhanced programming for juveniles and worked to effectively manage high numbers of adult felons on probation. The Juvenile Division further increased the use of evidence-based correctional programming ( What Works ) in All juveniles referred to the Probation Department now undergo an initial risk assessment using the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment tool (WSJCA) which was validated for Monroe County s juvenile population by Dr. Tom Sexton of Indiana University. Results derived from the assessments help determine juvenile participation in the appropriate correctional programming. The Juvenile Alternative Management Services (J.A.M.S.) received a major overhaul in J.A.M.S. programming shifted to the implementation of an evidence-based cognitive-behavioral curriculum designed to reduce adolescent aggression and recidivism: Aggression Replacement Training (A.R.T.). A.R.T. is a multimodal intervention program designed to alter the behavior of aggressive youth. In addition to A.R.T., a complementary parental component was developed for implementation in early 2005, P.A.R.T. (Parental Aggression Replacement Training), which will be provided to the parent(s) of juveniles who are in the A.R.T. program. The Functional Family Therapy partnership program between the Monroe County Probation Department and the Center for Human Growth was selected as one of seven model diversion programs around the country by the National Institute for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice. The review was conducted in 2004 of over 200 programs nationwide. The program receives funding support from the Indiana Department of Correction through the annual Community Corrections grant. In 2004, the department received a $38,035 Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JABG) from the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute. This money is used to fund a program to address juvenile delinquency: the Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program, known as SHOCAP. This grant runs on the federal grant cycle. Due to federal budget cuts for JABG, the Probation Department will receive a reduced grant amount in October 2005 (48% reduction), with the grant expiring completely at the end of September The Indiana Association of Community Corrections Act Counties (IACCAC) recognized Monroe Circuit Court Judge Viola J. Taliaferro for her outstanding contributions as chair of the local Community Corrections Advisory Board. Judge Taliaferro received the Advisory Board Member Award at the IACCAC fall conference in The Monroe County Drug Treatment Court continued operations in The Probation Department received a $500,000 three-year federal Drug Court Implementation Grant in This grant funded a drug court which is operated by Judge Ken Todd. In 2004, the Office of Justice Programs approved a no-cost extension of the grant allowing the program to extend the original grant award into a fourth year. The Drug Court also was awarded an Edward Byrne Formula Grant through the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute in the amount of $158,038 for one year of drug court operations. In August of 2004, Labrentz and Associates submitted a three-year outcome evaluation report on the Monroe County Drug Treatment Court. Confirmed by both the process evaluation of 2003 and the outcome evaluation of 2004, the independent evaluators concluded that the program is exemplary. The outcome data indicated that the drug court has significantly reduced the number of days that felony offenders spend in jail, freeing up jail space for violent offenders. 45

3 The Department s Court Alcohol and Drug Program, which is certified by the Indiana Judicial Center to provide assessment, referral, and case management services to clients, focused on expanding educational services in The program began offering a second level of substance abuse education classes: Prime for Life Indiana, or PRIME, which is a 12-hour cognitive-based education program that includes a participant study guide and self-assessment. In 2004, the number of misdemeanant offenders on probation decreased while the number of felons on probation rose to record high numbers. The year ended with a total of 1,856 adults on probation. Most significantly, there were 1,074 adult felons on probation at the end of the year, the highest number of felons in the history of the Probation Department. It was also the third consecutive year in the history of the department that the number of felons on probation exceeded 1,000. At the end of 2004, the average adult probation caseload was 158 offenders per Probation Officer. That number continues to be well above the Indiana Judicial Center workload standards. Pursuant to Indiana Judicial Center Workload Measures, nine (9) additional Adult Probation Officers would be necessary to appropriately supervise the number of probationers under the supervision of the Adult Division at the end of PROBATION DEPARTMENT SUMMARY 2004 Indiana University students from the School of Education contributed 211 volunteer hours to the juvenile after-school day reporting program, J.A.M.S. The Road Crew and Public Restitution programs combined provided the community with 39,464 hours of $5.15 minimum wage, equivalent to $203,240 in service to the community. CASP levels II through V supervised 312 felons which was the highest number of felons in the program s history. The Family Preservation Program continued to serve families while saving county dollars. During 2004, Monroe County spent approximately $180,000 to fund the Family Preservation Program. Estimates reveal the Family Preservation Program provided a potential net savings in per diem costs of $1,045,000 to the tax payers of Monroe County in The Family Preservation Program completed its 11 th year of operation in In these 11 years of operation, it is estimated that the County has realized a net savings in placement per diem costs of over $7 million. The Impaired Driving Impact Panel continued in 2004, with 374 convicted drunk drivers from Monroe County attending the presentations during the year. $123,843 victim restitution was collected. Additionally, $1,329,022 in user fees were collected on behalf of the Probation Department, the largest user fee amount collected in the history of the Probation Department. This amount represents a 12% increase over 2003 user fee collections. The Probation Department began offering clients the option of paying fees by credit card in May The total collected in 2004 using the credit card option was $23,372. In 2004 a committee was established, comprised of Community Corrections and Probation officers, to review the current local adult criminal justice system and to propose changes to improve effectiveness in reference to What Works and Broken Windows literature. 46

4 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART MONROE CIRCUIT COURT PROBATION DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATIONAL CHART CIRCUIT I CIRCUIT II CIRCUIT III CIRCUIT IV CIRCUIT V CIRCUIT VI CIRCUIT VII Judge Hoff Judge Kellams Judge Todd Judge Diekhoff Judge Bridges Judge Galvin Judge Welch PRESIDING JUDGE-JUDGE HOFF CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER-LINDA BRADY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR Thomas Rhodes JUVENILE DIVISION ADULT DIVISION COURT ALCOHOL & OFFICE SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR DRUG PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR Christine McAfee Brenda Ogborn DIRECTOR Kathy Mills Susan Allen Special Programs Office Manager CASP Juvenile Division Supervision Unit Support Staff Supervisor Tonya Sutherlin Supervisor Jill Barnett Jim Adcock Intake Unit Monica Bartlett Lori Matthews Jeffrey Hartman Pam Cain Heath Adkins Michelle Hall Lori Ridge Receptionist Troy Hatfield Leah Baker Saundra Moss Melissa Smith Community Jennifer Dustin CASP Case Mandy Hutchison Ken Bugler-Sex Offenders Christina Strunk Services Managers Angela Chalfant Drug Court Natalie Wisniewski Coordinator Community Ted Berry Family Preservation Andy Chandler-Domestic Coordinator Brittany Murphy PT Christy Scheid Corrections Valerie Collins Brier Frasier-Coord. Ellen Kerby Steve Malone Kylie Shaw PT Part-Time Debbie Murphy Amy Matney Dena Novak Day Reporting Sarah Cleves Michael Titus Leah Snow Drug Court Case Coordinator Scott Emely CASP Field Rebecca Acton Brent Townsend Managers Kelley McKinney Amy Gibson Officers Renee Campos-Spanish Marsha Anderson Jacklyn Glaze DJ Capps SHOCAP Coordinator Erin Werner Rhonda Welp Road Crew Bennie Hatch Tracy Carlson Joe Ahr Katie Buis PT Seth Tackett (floater) Charles Cohenour Anthony Whitlow Beth Kinst Troy Greene Juvenile Corey Schlegel PT Drug Court Field Doug Laux Alternative Stephanie Walden PT Officer Amanda Paritz Management Shea Reliford Becca Streit Services Cale Worley Debbie Wray Dawna Haswell PT Aja Romano PT Juvenile Case Manager Wally Campbell Nikki Falectic Juvenile Field Officer Cory Knowles Chart updated August 1,

5 FINANCIAL INFORMATION I. VICTIM RESTITUTION The Probation Department assists the court in collecting victim restitution by enforcing restitution orders. When the Courts place an offender under probation supervision, the offender may be ordered to reimburse the victim for any loss incurred. The Probation Department ensures that this money is paid by the probationers. Restitution is collected by the Clerk s Office and is disbursed directly to the victim. In 2004, probationers paid $123, in victim restitution. VICTIM RESTITUTION COLLECTED AND DISBURSED TOTALS $209, $207, $126, $178,124 $123, 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, 2004, the department employed 75 persons, 43 of whom were Probation Officers (36 line Probation Officers and seven Probation Supervisors). The Monroe County General Fund covered the full salaries and fringe benefits of only four Juvenile Probation Officers and 2.5 members of Support Staff. The County General Fund also paid for partial salaries and partial fringe benefits for another 16 Adult Probation Officers, three (3) Probation Supervisors, and the Chief Probation Officer, with the remainder of the salaries and fringe benefits of these staff members paid from user fees. The remaining 48.5 staff members salaries and benefits were paid by a combination of user fees, program fees, contracts and grants Staff Summary: Chief Probation Officer 1 Supervisors 6 Line Probation Officers 36 Field Officers (Road Crew, CASP, JAMS) 6 Support Staff 8 Part-time Assistants 18 TOTAL STAFF 75 employees (57 full time) III. PROBATION DEPARTMENT BUDGETS The Probation Department works very hard to find innovative funding opportunities to provide programs and services without having to dip into the strapped County General budget. The total 2004 Probation Department is $3,461,114. Only $803,571 (23%) of that amount will be paid from the County General budget. 48

6 MONROE COUNTY PROBATION 2004 BUDGETS Total Budgeted % User Fees % Grant Funds % Contract % Tax Adult Probation User Fees $401, % Juvenile Probation User Fees $60, % Community Corrections User Fees $659, % Court Alcohol & Drug Program Fees $437, % Community Corrections Grant $640, % SHOCAP (JAIBG grant) $49, % Drug Court (federal grant) $162, % Family Preservation (OFC Contract) $245, % -0- County General Funds $803,571* % TOTALS $3,461, $1,560,06 $851,833 $245,645 $803,571 TOTAL % TOTAL 45% 25% 7% 23% *County General $680,992 salary + 18% fringe benefits TOTAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET $3,461,114 Juvenile Probation 2% 60,976 Family Preservation 7% 245,645 Court Alcohol & Drug Program Fees 13% 437,507 County General Funds 23% 803,571 Project Income 20% 659,587 Adult Probation 11% 401,995 Community Corrections Grant 19% 640,733 Drug Court 4% 162,084 SHOCAP/JAIBG Grant 1% 49,016 49

7 IV. PROGRAM AND USERS FEES In September 2002, the Judicial Conference of Indiana adopted a revised Probation Officer Minimum Salary Scale which went into effect January 1, This revised minimum salary scale included pay raises commensurate with years of experience as an Indiana Probation Officer. Prior to the implementation of this revised Probation Officer Minimum Salary Scale in 2004, the Probation Officer turnover rate had been a significant issue for the Probation Department for many years. Over a four year span (2000 through 2003), 29 Probation Officers resigned. To put this in perspective, the department employs only 43 Probation Officers (as of year-end 2004). Many of these resignations were due to inadequate pay. During 2004, the Probation Officer (PO) turnover rate dropped dramatically from 27% in 2003 to only 7% (3 PO resignations) in It is hoped that the new PO pay scale will enable the Probation Department to hire and retain qualified probation officers and reduce the costly turnover rate. In order to assist Indiana counties to comply with the revised PO salary scale, in 2003 the state legislature enacted a new law which allowed user fees paid by persons placed under probation supervision to be used to pay probation officer salaries. The new law increased probation user fees and added an administrative fee for offenders sentenced to probation. Prior to 2003, the Indiana probation user fees had not been increased since On July 1, 2003, the Probation Department began collecting the new Administrative Fees from both Adult and Juvenile offenders. The total collected in 2004 for these two new funds was $83,770. Offenders sentenced in Monroe County, who reside out of State, may have their probation supervision transferred to their home state, if so ordered by the judiciary. Offenders who are granted this option are required to pay an Interstate Compact Transfer Fee before any paperwork can begin. In 2004, the Probation Department collected $3,690 in Interstate Compact Transfer Fees. In addition to paying probation officer salaries, user fees in Monroe County pay for many innovative rehabilitative programs, which otherwise would not be possible from the limited County General Fund. The important rehabilitative programs funded through user fees in Monroe County include: Electronic Monitoring equipment for Home Detention (radio frequency anklets, alcohol detect units, and GPS monitoring devices) The Teenage Intervention and Prevention Program, a substance abuse intervention program which won the Governor s Exemplary Project Award; Impaired Driving Victim Impact Panel, in cooperation with MADD, winner of the Governor s Exemplary Project Award SHOCAP (Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program) Seed money which started an Alternative to Suspension Program $166,667 match-money for Drug Court; enabled Court to accept a $500,000 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 50

8 The Probation user fees also are used to pay for county expenses which would otherwise have to be paid from the County General Fund, such as: Replacement computers and other office equipment; Rent: $75,000 per year; the Probation Department rents office space outside the Justice Building in order to house juvenile programs and the Community Corrections Program; and General operating expenses such as postage and office supplies. County General budgets have been flat lined for years, causing the probation user fee budgets to pick up the increases in postage, mileage, and other increasing costs. The Probation Department is responsible for collecting adult and juvenile probation user fees and Community Corrections program fees. The Monroe County Clerk collects Court Alcohol & Drug Program fees, Alcohol and Marijuana Education School fees, Drug Court fees, Pretrial Diversion (PDP) fees and PDP Road Crew fees. In 2004, the Probation Department collected $936,953 in fees, an increase of 13% from This figure, combined with the fees collected by the Clerk s Office, totaled $1,329,023 in user fees collected on behalf of the Probation Department in This represents an overall 12% increase in the collection of program and user fees. The total $1,329,023 in user fees collected on behalf of the Probation Department during the year is the largest user fee amount collected in the history of the Probation Department. PROBATION PROGRAM AND USER FEES COLLECTED Court Alcohol & Drug Program/AES* $268, $268,517 $337,639 $313,798 $359,227 Drug Tests (SAD Account) $67, $91, $18,615 $3,488 $70 Drug Court Fee* Not applicable Not applicable $3,800 $14,826 $11,601 Adult Probation Fees $255, $236, $222,296 $249,234 $355,139 Juvenile Probation Fees $21, $17, $21,204 $31,634 $35,434 Project Income Community Corrections fees $407, $402, $483,031 $542,773 $543,650 PDP Road Crew Fees* Not available Not available $24,672 $24,391 $21,242 TIPP $2,003 $2,327 $2,145 $1,976 $2,660 TOTALS $1,023, $1,019, $1,113,402 $1,182,120 $1,329,023 * Collected by Clerk. 51

9 V. COLLECTION RATES Despite efforts by the Probation Department to collect all fees assessed by the Courts, many offenders do not pay the user fees, program fees and restitution as directed. At the end of 2004, a report was generated that revealed $231,827 in past due 2004 fees (adult, juvenile user fees and Community Corrections fees). This indicates that the user fee collection rate for 2004 was about 81%, a decrease of 1% from 2003 s collection rate. In 2004, Juvenile Home Detention fees of $8,055 were assessed and $3,571 (44%) of these fees was collected. This collection percentage is significantly lower than the department s overall collection rate of 81% for the year, and is a reduction from the 2003 collection rate of 77% for these fees. Collection of user fees, in general, from juvenile offenders remains a problem for the department. PROBATION DEPARTMENT FEE COLLECTION RATES Departmental Probation/Program Fees Assessed $878,254 $1,018, $1,091,096 $1,223,871 Probation/Program Fees Assessed During Year Past Due at Year End $173, $166, $202,446 $231,827 Probation/Program Fees on Civil Judgment Docket $68, $98, $82,155 $116,451 Overall Departmental Collection Rate 80% 84% 82% 81% VI. CIVIL JUDGMENTS The Courts reduce unpaid financial obligations to Civil Judgments. This year $116,450 of various fees were entered on the Civil Judgment Docket. There is a running total of $872,631 in past due probation user fees and program fees between November 1, 1993 and December 31, Periodically the Probation Department sends out reminder letters to former probationers whose fees have been entered on the Civil Judgment Docket. However, there is no formal process for collecting these fees beyond the letters generated by the Probation Department. In March 2004, the Probation Department sent letters to persons who had fees placed on the Civil Judgment Docket through March 15, These letters generated $3,721 in collection of fees. 52

10 OFFENDER PROFILES - YEAR 2004 TRENDS In 2004, the most prevalent type of offense committed by juveniles who were placed on probation supervision was substance-related offenses, accounting for 34% of all offenses committed by these individuals. Of this group, Illegal Consumption was the number one offense, comprising 54% of the adjudications in the group. In 2004 theft-related offenses were the second leading offense group, accounting for 97 (25%) of all offense types committed by youth who received supervision. Conversion (shoplifting) continued to be the most common theft-related offense for which a juvenile received supervision services; of the 97 theft-related supervisions received in 2004, 64 (66%) were for Conversion. Miscellaneous offenses, collectively referred to as Other, are responsible for the third largest referral group for which supervisions were received in Of this group (which includes offenses such as Criminal Mischief, Criminal Recklessness, Criminal Trespass, Disorderly Conduct, etc.) 68 (18%) supervision offenses were noted. Status offenses, as a group were the fourth most common offense group for which a juvenile received probation supervision services in 2004, with Truancy being the number one status offense type. Violent/Battery related offenses were the least likely reason a juvenile received supervision services in The most prevalent adult offense type in 2004 was substance-related offenses, accounting for 56% of all offenses committed by adult offenders. Of this offense group, Operating While Intoxicated was the number one offense, as it has been for the past 14 years, accounting for 37% of all adult probationer offenses committed. The next most common type of offense committed by adult probationers was theftrelated offenses (18%), followed by Battery/violent offenses (9%). 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, ADULT JUVENILE ALCOHOL/DRUG THEFT RELATED BATTERY/VIOLENT OTHER JUV STATUS TOTALS ADULT JUVENILE ALCOHOL/DRUG RELATED 963 (56%) 128 (34%) THEFT RELATED 318 (18%) 97 (25%) BATTERY/VIOLENT 157 (9%) 31 (8%) OTHER 297 (17%) 59 (15%) JUVENILE STATUS N/A 68 (18%) TOTALS 1,

11 ADULT DIVISION Adult felony probation supervisions have been steadily increasing for the past decade. From 1985 through 1993, the felony cases received by the Adult Division had consistently comprised about 25% of the overall new adult probation cases received. Since 1994, the felony supervisions have comprised an ever-increasing percentage of the new cases received each year. By the end of 2004, the percentage of new felony supervisions received was 47% of all new supervisions. The increase in felony probation caseloads over the past several years has caused concern due to the serious nature of crimes committed by high risk offenders. Additionally, felony offenders typically are placed under probation supervision for longer periods of time compared to misdemeanant offenders, thus increasing caseload sizes overall. As the felony caseload has grown over the past decade, the Adult Division caseload has proportionately grown. During 2004, 12 Adult Probation Officers were assigned to the Supervision Unit and two Probation Officers were assigned to the Intake Unit of the Adult Division. Two of the Adult Probation Officers assigned to the Supervision Unit were responsible for overseeing specialized caseloads (sex offenders and batterers); the remaining ten Adult Probation Officers supervised non-specialized mixed caseloads of misdemeanants and felons (one of the ten Probation Officers speaks Spanish and supervises adults on probation who speak primarily Spanish). At the end of the year 2004, the average non-specialized adult probation caseload consisted of 158 offenders, a 3% decrease from Pursuant to Indiana Judicial Center Workload Measures, at least nine (9) additional Adult Probation Officers would be necessary to appropriately supervise the number of probationers under the supervision of the Adult Division at the end of This workload continues to be above the Indiana Judicial Center Standards. Since their inception in 2001, specialized offender caseloads within the Supervision Unit have helped the Adult Division to better manage the workload numbers. The Probation Officer assigned to supervise the sex offender caseload has enabled the Department to make significant strides toward improving community safety by providing a higher level of monitoring and supervision for one of the highest risk offender populations. This sex offender caseload is smaller than the average adult caseload in order to permit increased supervision. There were 55 sex offenders under probation supervision at the end of Another specialized caseload within the Adult Division is the battery/domestic violence caseload. Like the sex offender caseload, the specialized caseload for persons convicted of battery, particularly domestic battery, allows the Probation Department to provide increased supervision for this high risk, and potentially dangerous, population. When this specialized caseload was originally created, there were approximately 35 battery/domestic violence offenders on this caseload, therefore, the Probation Officer assigned to this caseload also supervised a small regular adult probation caseload. However, the number of battery/domestic violence offenders on probation has grown over the years, with 107 such offenders being supervised at the end of If the number of persons on probation for battery/domestic battery continues to increase, the addition of another Probation Officer to more closely supervise this potentially dangerous population would be indicated. 54

12 The Probation Department received a 3-year federal Drug Court Implementation Grant in This grant enabled the department to expand the Drug Court Pilot Project by providing funds to hire a Drug Court Program Coordinator, a Case Manager and Field Probation Officer. The grant was due to expire in September 2004, however, the Office of Justice Programs approved a no-cost extension of the grant allowing the program to extend the original grant award into a fourth year. Also, in 2004, the Drug Court also was awarded an Edward Byrne Formula Grant through the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute in the amount of $158,038 for one year of drug court operations. This grant will expire in March 2006 and may be renewed pursuant to a competitive grant process. The federal Drug Court Implementation Grant required that the Drug Court obtain an independent process and outcome evaluation. Private contractors Labrentz and Associates were chosen to conduct these evaluations due to their thorough evaluation of another Indiana drug court. In August of 2004, Labrentz and Associates submitted a three-year outcome evaluation report on the Monroe County Drug Treatment Court. Confirmed by both the process evaluation of 2003 and the outcome evaluation of 2004, the independent evaluators concluded that the program is exemplary. The outcome data indicated that the drug court has significantly reduced the number of days that felony offenders spend in jail, freeing up jail space for violent offenders. The year 2004 began with 78 Drug Court participants with 71 participants in the program at year-end. At the end of 2004, fifty-one (51) participants had graduated from the two-year Drug Court program. The Department s Court Alcohol and Drug Program, which is certified by the Indiana Judicial Center to provide assessment, referral, and case management services to clients, focused on expanding educational services in Since the inception of the program more than 25 years ago, a seven hour alcohol information class has been offered for some first time offenders. This information class, the Alcohol and Marijuana Education School, continues to be offered for offenders participating in the Prosecutor s Pre-Trial Diversion Program. In 2004, the program began offering a second level of substance abuse education classes: Prime for Life Indiana, or PRIME. PRIME is a 12-hour cognitive-based education program that includes a participant study guide and self-assessment. In addition to offering PRIME to the Prosecutor s Pre-Trial Diversion Program, Probation Officers may refer appropriate clients to the class. In 2004, there were 1,787 Alcohol and Marijuana Education School Referrals and 283 referrals to PRIME for Life. At the end of 2004, there were 1,856 adults on probation, 782 misdemeanants and 1,074 felons, an overall 1% decrease from Of significance is that fact that 58% of these adult probationers were felons; the 1,074 adult felons on probation at the end of the year was the highest number of felons on probation at any one time in the history of the Probation Department. It was also the third consecutive year in the history of the department that the number of felons on probation exceeded 1,

13 I. ADULT CASES RECEIVED In 2004, there were 1,575 new adult probation supervisions received. This represents an overall decrease of 1% from During the year, there were 839 new misdemeanor supervisions received and 736 new felony supervisions received. Because of increasing caseloads in the Adult Division, in 1995 the Board of Judges began to make a concerted effort to reduce the workload of the Probation Department. These efforts resulted in a clear pattern of the Probation Department receiving fewer and fewer misdemeanor cases for probation supervision. During the years 1999 through 2002, new misdemeanor supervisions received were slightly above 1,000 per year. However, in 2003 and 2004, new misdemeanor supervisions received fell to near-record low numbers. In 2004, only 839 new misdemeanor supervisions were received, a slight decrease (less than 1%) from the year This was the second decrease in misdemeanor supervisions received since 1998, and is the third lowest number of misdemeanor supervisions received in the past 16 years (only 1990 and 1998 had lower numbers, 789 both years). In 2003, the low number of misdemeanor probation cases received corresponded to a 12% decrease in misdemeanor case filings (cases filed with court). However, in 2004, misdemeanor case filings actually increased by 14% for the year, which does not correspond with the slight decrease in misdemeanor probation cases received. Additionally, new felony cases received for probation supervision decreased by 2% in Felony filings decreased by 20% in The overall decrease in filings may partially explain the slight (less than 1%) decrease in adult probation supervisions received in ADULT FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED Misdemeanor 1,039 (68%) 1,136 (68%) 1,046 (66%) 1,061 (60%) 842 (53%) 839 (53%) Felony 664 (39%) 537 (32%) 549 (34%) 721 (40%) 750 (47%) 736 (47%) TOTALS 1,703 1,673 1,595 1,782 1,592 1,575 56

14 Felony supervisions have been increasing steadily for the past eleven years. From 1985 through 1993, the felony probation cases received by the Adult Division had consistently comprised about 25% of the overall new adult probation cases received. Since 1994, the felony supervisions received have comprised an increasing percentage of the new cases received each year. In 2002, 40% of all new supervisions received were felonies and in 2003, this percentage jumped to 47% of all new supervisions received. In 2004, the felony supervisions received remained at 47%. The increase in felony probation caseloads over the past several years has caused concern due to the serious nature of crimes committed by high risk offenders. Additionally, felony offenders typically are placed under probation supervision for longer periods of time compared to misdemeanant offenders, thus increasing caseload sizes overall. ADULT FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED PERCENTAGES 1985 THROUGH % 75% 50% 25% 0% Felony New Supervisions Received Misdemeanor New Supervisions Received 57

15 II. CASE TYPES FOR ADULT PROBATION SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED In 2004, the majority of offenders placed on probation with the Adult Division had been convicted of alcohol/drug related offenses, 53% of all adult probationer offense types. Of this offense group, Operating While Intoxicated was the number one offense, as it has been the past 14 years, accounting for 642 convictions, 37% of all adult probationer offenses committed. The next most common type of offense committed by adult probationers was theft-related offenses (18%), followed by Battery/violent offenses (9%). In 2004, there were 45 adult probationers convicted of Resisting Law Enforcement (3% of adult offenses) and another 2% (35) of adult probationers committed some type of violation involving driving while suspended or driving after having been adjudged to be a habitual traffic violator. TYPE OF OFFENSE FOR SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED Alcohol/Drug 1,032 (54%) 1,015 (57%) 950 (57%) 1,013 (54%) 911 (53%) 963 (56%) Theft-Related 357 (19%) 284 (16%) 272 (16%) 392 (21%) 309 (18%) 318 (18%) Battery/Violent 142 (7%) 107 (7%) 111 (7%) 125 (7%) 142 (8%) 157 (9%) All Others 400 (20%) 356 (20%) 349 (20%) 330 (18%) 354 (21%) 297 (17%) TOTALS 1,931 1,762 1,682 1,860 1,716 1, TYPE OF OFFENSE FOR SUPERVISIONS RECEIVED Theft-Related 18% Alcohol / Drug 56% Battery / Violent 9% All Others 17% 58

16 III. OPERATING WHILE INTOXICATED OFFENSES In the year 2004, 637 probationers were convicted of the offense of Operating While Intoxicated. This represents an increase of 2% from 2003 s numbers. The offense of Operating While Intoxicated remains the single most prevalent offense committed by adult probationers, 37% of all adult offense types. OPERATING WHILE INTOXICATED OFFENSES OWI /.08% BAC OFFENSES Pursuant to plea agreements, some Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) cases resulted in judgment being entered to the offense of Reckless Driving. In 2004, there were 52 cases of Reckless Driving referred to probation supervision, a decrease of twenty-four (24) cases from RECKLESS DRIVING OFFENSES

17 IV. CASES DISCHARGED During 2004, the Adult Division discharged 898 misdemeanants and 696 felons from probation, a total of 1,594 persons discharged from probation. Overall, the Division discharged 196 fewer persons in 2004 than in Additionally, the year 2004 started with 390 offenders on probation classified as Other Administrative, which includes offenders who have transferred to another county or state for probation supervision yet remain under the jurisdiction of the Monroe County Probation Department. This category also includes offenders who were sentenced to the Community Alternative Supervision Program (CASP) without probation. In 2004, the Adult Division received three (3) fewer misdemeanor supervisions and discharged 122 fewer misdemeanants than in In 2004 the Division received 14 fewer felony supervisions than in 2003 and discharged 34 fewer felons than in The year 2004 ended with 782 misdemeanants and 1,074 felons on probation, a net decrease of 59 misdemeanants and an increase of 40 felons on probation for the year. The year 2004 ended with an additional 100 misdemeanants and 366 felons under probation supervision classified as Other Administrative. ADULT FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR SUPERVISIONS DISCHARGED Misdemeanor 898 1,127 1, , Felony TOTAL 1,574 1,740 1,706 1,539 1,790 1,594 60

18 V. YEAR END CASELOADS The Adult Division began 2004 with 1,875 probationers. Additionally, the year began with another 390 offenders on probation classified as Other Administrative. This classification includes offenders who are sentenced to the Community Alternative Supervision Program (CASP) with no probation, or offenders who have transferred to another county or state for probation supervision yet remain under the jurisdiction of the Monroe County Probation Department. There were 1,575 new probation cases received in 2004 and 1,594 cases discharged during the year. By the end of 2004, there were 1,856 adult probationers which is a 1% decrease from 2003 s yearend caseload of 1,875. Of the 1,856 adult probationers under supervision at the end of 2004, 782 were misdemeanants and 1,074 were felons. Additionally, at the end of 2004, there were also 466 offenders under supervision classified as Other Administrative. Including this latter category of cases, a grand total of 2,322 adult offenders were under the supervision of the Adult Division, Community Alternative Supervision Program (CASP), and Drug Court at the end of The 1,440 felons being supervised by the Probation Department at year-end (including Other Administrative ) is the all-time highest number of felons on probation in the recorded history of the department. In 2003, felons comprised 59% of total persons under the supervision of the Probation Department (including Other Administrative ). In 2004, felons comprised 62% of total persons under the supervision of the Probation Department (including Other Administrative ). ADULT FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR YEAR END CASELOADS* Misdemeanors 789 1,090 1, , Felonies ,014 1,034 1,074 TOTAL 1,624 2,009 1,942 1,830 2,073 1,875 1,856 *These caseload numbers do not include cases classified as Other Administrative. 61

19 2,500 ADULT FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR YEAR END CASELOADS NUMBER OF CASES 2,000 1,500 1, MIS DEMEANOR FELONY In 1994, the Judicial Conference of Indiana adopted the Indiana Probation Workload Measures and Case Classification System for mandatory use by all probation departments in the state. The Case Classification System required that all probation clients receive a standardized evaluation to determine their risk of re-offending. Based on the results of these offender risk evaluations, probation clients are placed in one of the following risk categories, which are defined in terms of the risk the offender will commit a new offense: high, medium, low and administrative (administrative cases are those for which the Courts have ordered no formal probation supervision). The Workload Measures Formula is used in combination with the offender risk evaluation to determine the number of probation officers required to provide adequate offender supervision. Since the inception of the Workload Measures system in 1994, the Adult Division of the Probation Department has demonstrated a continued need for additional probation officers. In 1994, Workload Measures demonstrated a need for 10.5 additional adult probation officers. Over the years, additional probation officer positions have been added through grants, such as the Drug Court grant of 2001 which added three (3) Probation officers to operate the Drug Court. Further, in 2001 the County Council approved adding two adult probation officers in response to workload need. These additions have made an impact, lowering the average non-specialized adult caseload size from 250 in 1999 to 158 at the end of However, at the end of 2004, the Workload Measures demonstrated a need for nine (9) additional adult probation officers to appropriately supervise the adult probation caseload/workload. AVERAGE ADULT PROBATION YEAR-END CASELOADS Non-specialized Adult Caseload Averages TOTAL

20 VI. PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATIONS The Adult Division conducted 192 Presentence Investigations in This represents a decrease of 24% from In 1993, the Board of Judges began to purposely reduce the number of offenders required to participate in Presentence Investigations in an effort to increase the time available for supervision by Probation Officers. The reduction in the number of Presentence Investigations was also due to a shortage in Probation Officer personnel. In 1992, there were 1,786 Presentence Investigations completed; the 2004 figures reflect an 89% reduction in Presentence Investigations over the past twelve (12) years. In 1994, Presentence Investigation statistics reflected, for the first time in the previous 15 years, the Probation Department conducted more felony investigations than misdemeanor investigations. This trend has continued for the past nine (9) years. In 2004, 90% of all Presentence Investigations completed by the department were for felony cases, which is a slightly higher percentage for felony Presentence Investigations than in This averages less than one (1) misdemeanor Presentence Investigation per court per month and three (3) felony Presentence Investigations per court per month for ADULT FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR INVESTIGATIONS COMPLETED Misdemeanor 57 (18%) 37 (16%) 35 (16%) 28 (11%) 44 (17%) 20 (10%) Felony 266 (82%) 198 (84%) 187 (84%) 229 (89%) 209 (83%) 172 (90%) TOTALS Drug Court Intakes = 47 in

21 VII. TRANSFER CASES The Adult Division provides courtesy supervision to felons as well as misdemeanant probationers sentenced in other counties or states. The division also accepts transferred cases from other Indiana Court Alcohol and Drug Programs. In 2004, 132 probationers sentenced in other jurisdictions were received by the Adult Division for supervision. 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 are certified by the Indiana Judicial Center. In 2003, the Program was granted a three-year re-certification by the Indiana Judicial Center. The Court Alcohol and Drug Program is administered by the Director who is responsible for the daily operation of the Adult Intake Unit and who is also responsible for ensuring that all staff members receive ongoing training regarding substance related issues. All probation officers within the department are certified as substance abuse professionals and must complete a minimum of 25 hours of alcohol/drug education every year in order to maintain their certification. Adult Probation Officers conduct substance abuse screenings on all new cases referred by the courts for probation, regardless of case type. If the referring offense involved drugs or alcohol, or the offense was somehow related to the use or abuse of such substances, the Adult Probation Officers perform more extensive substance abuse evaluations. In 2004, 943 offenders were referred to the Court Alcohol and Drug Program for assessment and referral post-conviction, a 12% increase from the previous year. In addition, 47 substance abuse assessments were completed on potential Drug Treatment Court participants. Another 81 assessments were completed during the Presentence Investigation process on offenders charged with substance related offenses. Following the completion of the substance abuse evaluation, the Probation Officer develops an individualized service plan for each offender. This service plan typically includes a referral to a substance abuse education or treatment program. The Probation Officer then monitors the probationer s compliance with the terms of substance abuse education or treatment. The Court Alcohol and Drug Program do not provide any direct treatment services. 64

22 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 targets minor first-time alcohol and marijuana offenders and is utilized by the Prosecutor s Office for Pre-Trial Diversion Program participants. In 2004, 1,787 persons attended the class, a 14% increase from Of these class participants 1,266 (71%) were Indiana University students. Upon the request of the Prosecutor s Office, during 2003 the Alcohol Education School was expanded to include information on marijuana research. In 2004, the class received 153 referrals for first-time marijuana offenders in addition to minor alcohol offenders. The Department offers a 12-hour substance abuse education program utilizing the cognitivebased Prime for Life Indiana (PRI) curriculum. PRI is offered to second time Pre-Trial Diversion participants being charged with marijuana and minor alcohol-related offenses. The program began in September In 2004, 211 offenders referred by the Prosecutor completed the PRI class. Another 72 PRI participants were Probation referrals. C. Administrative Probation Modifications The Probation Department utilizes the Administrative Probation Modification (APM) process to efficiently and effectively deal with minor or technical violations of probation. In 2004, 89 APM meetings were completed due to technical violations, a 14% decrease from the APMs completed in In 2004, none of the APM meetings were conducted due to the commission of a subsequent offense. In addition to the 89 completed APM meetings, another 50 such meetings were attempted in 2004 but were not completed due to client failure to comply, resulting in the filing of Petitions to Revoke Suspended Sentence. For 2004, this represents a 68% successful APM completion rate, a 21% increase from 2003 s 68% successful completion rate. D. Drunk Driving Victim Impact Panel The Adult Division provides a community-based program for all offenders who have been convicted of drunk driving: The Drunk Driving Victim Impact Panel is co-sponsored by the local chapter of Mother s Against Drunk Driving (MADD). In 1994, this program expanded to allow referrals from surrounding counties. During 2004, two panels were conducted with 374 Monroe County convicted drunk drivers attending the presentation. 65

23 IX. DRUG COURT In November 1999, Judge Ken Todd, Monroe Circuit Court Division III, began the Drug Court Pilot Project with the aid of a federal Drug Court Planning Grant. In September 2001, the Probation Department received a federal Drug Court Implementation Grant. The three-year, $500,000 grant enabled the department to expand the Drug Court Pilot Project. In 2004, the Office of Justice Programming approved a no cost extension to the three-year grant allowing the Drug Court to continue to utilize federal funding into a fourth year. In addition, during 2004, the Drug Court Program received an Edward Byrne Formula grant award in the amount of $158,038. In 2003, Labrentz and Associates completed a Process Evaluation on the program. Their written conclusion was that the Monroe County Drug Treatment Court is judged to be an exemplary program that meets virtually every benchmark and guide for drug treatment courts. In August 2004, Labrentz and Associates completed their Outcome Evaluation Report on the program using participant data from September 2001 to June The study found that the graduation rate for the Monroe County Drug Treatment Court was 67.2%, which is relatively high when compared with other programs and in light of the high risk offenders that are the target population for the program. The overall recidivism rate (re-arrest for new offenses) for successful Drug Treatment Court participants was 7.7%, well below the 15% standard set in the program objectives. Moreover, the recidivism rate for all those who participated in the program (combined group of current participants, successful and unsuccessful participants) was 16.6% suggesting that participation itself has a positive influence on lowering the recidivism rate of offenders. The Outcome Evaluation of the program found that 100% of all participants received a medical/mental heath/social needs assessment by the end of the program and were referred on for a range of treatment and ancillary services as needed. This was noteworthy because the program targets repeat offenders with multiple substance abuse issues, thus diverting them from repeated involvement with the court system. Labrentz and Associates also reported that those offenders who participated in the Drug Treatment Court experience 64% fewer post-conviction days in jail than do those offenders who choose not to participate. In addition, the reduction in commitments to the Indiana Department of Correction was 25%, further supporting the effectiveness of the Drug Treatment Court in diverting offenders from overcrowded correctional facilities. In 2003, the Drug Treatment Court expanded the daily reporting schedule to increase random drug testing. Participants in the first phase of the program are required to report six (6) days a week, including Saturday, for random drug testing. In 2004, the Drug Treatment Court ordered 4,205 urine drug screens on participants. In 2004, an Alumni Association was established by former graduates of the program with the assistance of the Drug Treatment Court staff. The Association provides support for both graduates and current participants. 66

24 A. Drug Court Referrals Drug Court began 2004 with 78 participants in the program. During the year, the Drug Court Team received 101 cases for review for potential acceptance into the program. Of the 101 referrals, 21 chose not to participate in the program and 47 cases were found not to meet the program criteria for eligibility. Of the 101 referrals to the program in 2004, 32 offenders were made eligible and began to receive services. The year ended with 71 participants in the Drug Court program. B. Services Provided and/or Referred The Drug Court Program completed 47 substance abuse screening assessments on potential program participants in 2004, a 41% decrease from the previous year. The Drug Court provided intensive case management to all participants in the program. Participant compliance was supervised by the Drug Court Team, including Judge Todd and the designated case manager assigned to the case. Participants were exposed to random drug testing, daily check-ins, employment checks, home visits and intensive substance abuse services provided by local substance abuse treatment providers. Participants were also referred for ancillary services such as housing, mental health counseling and employment and education coaching programs. C. Program Completions During 2004, 22 participants graduated from the Drug Court program. These participants met all program goals including successful completion of substance abuse treatment and remaining substance-free for a period of two (2) years. Including the 22 participants who graduated from the Drug Court program in 2004, the total number of Drug Court graduates was 51 by the end of D. Terminations In 2004, the Drug Court terminated fifteen (15) program participants unsuccessfully due to program violations. DRUG COURT SUMMARY Participants carried forward from previous year New referrals received for Team review Number of referrals accepted into the program Number of successful terminations through graduation Number of unsuccessful terminations from the program *1 participant is on administrative supervision 67