Protect the Community

Transcription

1 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Protect the Community

2

3 PREFACE HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS The Comprehensive Plan comes with a combination of pride, excitement, and concern for the future of Washington County Community Corrections. Two years ago we began delivering services under the Dosage Probation model that started with technical support and training from the National Institute of Corrections. We are now rolling dosage probation out across our entire Adult Probation Division. We remain challenged to provide the programming envisioned with dosage hours. What seems to be increasingly clear is that in order to effect change with clients it will take far more than a single cognitive behavioral intervention or program. On the staff level, they have learned so much and developed incredible skills as probation officers to assist clients in leading crime free lives. Staff have embraced the model of change and helped to drive it to a very high level. They have gotten down to the business of behavior change in routine probation visits. The use of a carrot to earn their way off of probation creates motivated clients, but it is probation officers who are rising to meet the challenge of providing these services. After 18 months we have saved over 41 years of probation supervision. This number is expected to grow significantly in future years. Employees are excited and proud of their incredible accomplishments. On the juvenile side of our services, this comprehensive plan tackles a system-wide challenge to keep up with best practices in light of the juveniles who are victims of human trafficking. We look forward to working with the Robert F. Kennedy Juvenile Justice Resource Center to train, assess and make recommendations towards that end in You can see from these kinds of initiatives, cause for pride and excitement. On the funding side, we are grateful that Community Corrections saw increased State funding on each of the last three biennia. This recent trend gives us hope for the long-term partnership between the State and counties. The best of those three increases in State funding came in Based on that best year, and assuming we added no staff or any other new initiatives, it would take more than 30 years to restore funding the balance of fifteen years ago. At that time it was roughly a 50/50 partnership between the State and Washington County in funding Community Corrections. Obviously, this is an area of concern. Having said that about funding, this is an optimistic time for our field, given the advancements in how we deliver our services. As you read this plan, hopefully you too are excited about the opportunities this plan presents to make a difference in client s lives and ultimately the community. Our 2018 budget is lean, just $4,300 over 2017 after covering increased costs for wages and benefits, and information and technology. The good news is that it will allow us to advance significant improvements in service.

4

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE Washington County Mission, Goals, Values 1 Community Corrections Mission & Goals 2 Community Corrections Goals and Indicators 3 Community Corrections Strategic Plan 6 Washington County Demographics 9 Washington County Organizational Structure 28 Judiciary 29 SECTION I: ADMINISTRATION AND ORGANIZATION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS SERVICES Advisory Board Structure 31 Organizational Structure 37 Personnel & Positions Staff Complement 41 Research and Evaluation 42 SECTION II: COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS SUPERVISION SERVICES Adult Supervision Services 43 Juvenile Supervision Services 48 SECTION III: COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS Community Corrections Programs 51 Departmental Programs 52 Community Partnership Programs 56 Services for Female Clients 60 Cultural Specific Services 61 Caseload Averages 62 SECTION IV: OUTCOMES REPORT Outcomes Report 63 SECTION V: APPENDIX Appendix 69 Budget Summary 71 Glossary of Community Justice Terms 75 i

6 ii

7 COUNTY VISION: WASHINGTON COUNTY A great place to live, work and play today and tomorrow. COUNTY MISSION: Providing quality services through responsible leadership, innovation, and the cooperation of dedicated people. GOALS: To promote the health, safety, and quality of life of citizens To provide accessible, high-quality services in a timely and respectful manner To address today s needs while proactively planning for the future To maintain public trust through responsible use of public resources, accountability, and openness of government VALUES: Ethical: to ensure public trust through fairness, consistency, and transparency Stewardship: to demonstrate tangible, cost-effective results and protect public resources Quality: to ensure that services delivered to the public are up to the organization s highest standards Responsive: to deliver services that are accessible, timely, respectful and efficient Respectful: to believe in and support the dignity and value of all members of this community Leadership: to actively advocate for and guide the County toward a higher quality of life 1

8 MISSION: Building Safer Communities COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Goals: To protect the Community To repair the Harm To reduce the Risk We accomplish these goals by providing research based program and services that: Hold clients accountable Respond to victim needs Develop client competency Protect the Community 2

9 GOALS AND INDICATORS GOAL: Protect the Community Community Corrections strives to protect the community by monitoring clients in the community at the most appropriate level of supervision. Community protection strategies employed by the department include conditional release supervision, enhanced supervision, electronic home monitoring, and drug and alcohol testing. The department also protects the community by petitioning the Court to send certain clients to jail or prison because they violated the terms of their probation. In addition, the department believes its effectiveness in protecting the community is enhanced when community members are involved in the work of the department. Protecting the community means the following: Responding to safety threats posed by clients under supervision Reducing recidivism by focusing on building client competencies Supervising clients at the level of risk they pose to the community The goal of protecting the community will be measured by: Percentage of adult and juvenile clients who are not convicted of a new felony offense following discharge from supervision Percentage of Conditional Release clients not re-incarcerated while under departmental pre-trial supervision Percentage of probation violations that result in the restructuring of a client s term of probation or incarceration Percentage of clients with a Court-ordered drug testing condition with a successful condition outcome Percentage of clients that successfully complete their electronic home monitoring sentence 3

10 GOAL: Repair the Harm Washington County Community Corrections believes that involving clients, victims, and community members in responding to crime helps to restore trust and reduce fear. Clients are held accountable by completing community work service, and/or paying financial restitution. Victims and community members are given the opportunity to be repaid and to share the impact of the client s actions. By the close of a departmentallysupervised case, a victim should be financially restored and a client should have a greater understanding of the harm caused by their crime. Repairing the harm means the following: Ensuring that victims with restitution orders receive restitution in full Providing victims with information, input, and opportunities for direct participation in crime resolution Restoring communities through the community work service of clients The goal of repairing the harm will be measured by: Restitution paid (for adult and juvenile cases) Percentage of cases with restitution fully paid at time of discharge Restitution amounts ordered and paid, and the percentage paid of amount ordered Sentence to Service (STS) work Number of STS crew hours completed Distribution of STS work hours, according to agency receiving services Number of jail bed days saved as a result of STS programming Dollar value of STS crew hours Community Work Service (CWS) Percentage of adult and juvenile CWS hours completed at time of discharge Dollar value of adult and juvenile CWS completed at time of discharge 4

11 GOAL: Reduce the Risk Reducing the risk involves assessing clients utilizing research-based criteria. Assessment results are used to develop individual case plans for clients that address their identified risk and need areas. Further assessment of specific problem areas, such as chemical dependency or mental health, may also be necessary and result in participation in an appropriate educational or treatment program. Longer-term risk reduction strategies place a greater emphasis on changing client behavior and strengthening their ability to be responsible members of the community. Behavior change is encouraged during continued case management and supervision and through the acquisition of new skills. Departmental staff assists clients in developing problem solving, anger management, effective communication, victim empathy, employment, and social skills. Reducing the risk means the following: Managing clients behaviors through effective supervision strategies Assisting clients with employment and education goals Developing clients skills and competencies The goal of reducing the risk will be measured by: Change in the risk/need level of clients (adult and juvenile) Education and employment Percentage of adult and juvenile clients who are employed Percentage of adult and juvenile clients who are in an education program Percentage of eligible clients that participate in and complete cognitive behavioral programming 5

12 STRATEGIC PLAN Community Corrections takes a very straightforward approach to strategic planning that involves asking the following question: How do our services need to change in the next two years in order to continue providing high quality effective services that meet the needs of our customers and stakeholders? Because the planning for the Comprehensive Plan is based on a two year cycle we tend to focus on a relatively specific set of items that will keep us moving forward. This year we have moved away from identifying the strategies as they relate specifically to a particular mission goal. However, as a department, we continue to provide services which are goal driven. Strategies: Review the department s mission and goals Implement a structured process for supervision meetings between probation officers and clients Develop baseline data for a dosage probation comparison group Expand cognitive behavioral program choices available to clients Develop an efficient internal process for training new staff in our risk reduction model Work with Juvenile Justice partners to complete a comprehensive system review of the juvenile delinquency system Implement updated proficiency measures as a decision making tool for probation officer promotions Increase cognitive behavioral interventions to targeted high-risk inmates in the jail Expand the use of one to one and group cognitive behavioral interventions in the Repeat Offender Program Identify and develop strategies to improve our evidence-based practices goals by implementing Phase IV of the Minnesota Association of Community Corrections Act Counties Continuous Quality Improvement Plan Evaluate the effectiveness of the Reentry Assistance Program in meeting identified objectives Orientate new system stakeholders to dosage probation model to ensure sustainability Identify the role of Community Corrections in addressing the opioid crisis Work with stakeholders to map out a continuum of care for drug related clients 6

13 Make modifications to the Offender Recovery Program based on the 2017 evaluation Update the succession plan in preparation for projected staff turnover and the subsequent hiring Develop future leaders within the organization using coaching and mentoring, training, performance goals, committee assignments, project management opportunities and job assignments Juvenile Probation System Review In 2018, Washington County Community Corrections will lead a comprehensive probation system review in a continuing effort to advance juvenile justice reform. Probation departments, like a number of other longstanding agencies, function within a framework of statutes, policies and practices that were established over the course of many years. Typically, there has been little time or effort to reflect on that framework to determine how well it is working and whether it functions in a manner that results in the achievement of desired youth outcomes and effective system performance. This rigorous system review will be facilitated by the Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) National Resource Center for Juvenile Justice. Robert F. Kennedy National Resource Center for Juvenile Justice is a nationally recognized organization known for leading efforts to enhance the capacities of communities and jurisdictions nationwide to better serve all youth and families involved in the juvenile justice systems. The RFK National Resource Center has developed a proven review and analytic approach that can be used in partnership with state and local jurisdictions to enhance probation department performance. Expected outcomes from the probation system review will provide countywide benefit positively impacting the entire Washington County juvenile justice system. From this, a long term plan for comprehensive probation system improvement opportunities will be developed through: Effective and efficient court and probation management performance Improved utilization of evidence-based system and program practices Development of interagency agreements that support improved alignment and collaboration for access to services and efficient practices Improved methods of data collection, management and performance measurement towards enhanced system accountability This review will be a collaborative effort involving the following Washington County departments and juvenile justice partners: Community Corrections, Community Services, County Attorney s Office, Public Defender s Office, Guardian Ad Litem, and Court Administration. External local juvenile justice stakeholders will also participate. 7

14 MACCAC Evidence-Based Practices Continuous Quality Improvement Plan The continuous evolution of Evidence-Based Practices (EBP) in the field of corrections has significantly changed the methods by which we provide services to clients. Agencies are well on their way to developing competencies in core EBP skill areas and, subsequently, are better equipped to promote positive changes in their client populations. The application of Motivational Interviewing, Effective Alliance, Risk Assessment, Case Planning, and Cognitive Interventions is essential to the success of EBP. However, simply launching these initiatives is not enough. Agencies must invest in sufficient training of staff, reinforce methods of continuous improvement, and measure outcomes in order to assure quality services and programming. Research shows that when delivered with fidelity, Evidence-Based Practices will enhance public safety through sustained reductions in recidivism. In 2019, Washington County Community Corrections will complete Phase IV. The goal of Phase IV is to review agencies outcomes for fidelity and Effective Alliance, Risk Assessments, Motivational Interview, Case Plans, and delivery of Cognitive Skills techniques. Phase V is Implementing Evidence Based Practices with High Fidelity. 8

15 DEMOGRAPHICS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA Established: October 27, 1849 County Seat: Stillwater Population: 251,015 (2015 Metropolitan Council) Area: 423 Square Miles Board Meetings: Community Corrections Advisory Board Fourth Thursday in January, March, May, August, October, and second Thursday of December 9

16 POPULATION Washington County Population (+5.4% since 2010) 251,015* Median Age (both genders) 35.1 (2000) 39.3 (2014) ** Population Rank in Minnesota 5 of 87 counties * Population age 18 years and over 189,219 ** Population age 65 years & over 33,609 ** Percent with Bachelor s Degree or 42.6% ** higher Housing Units 96,295 ** Households 92,669 * Average Household Size 2.69 ** Projected Growth 2010 to 2040 Number of New Residents 92,064 (+ 39%) *** Forecast Number of New Households 42,231 (+ 48%) *** Forecast Projected Population in ,200 *** Projected Households in ,090 *** Projected Employment in ,410 *** Source: * Metropolitan Council Estimates as of April 1, 2015 ** 2014 American Community Survey (margin of error not included) *** Metropolitan Council Thrive MSP 2040 Forecasts, adopted July 8, 2015 ECONOMIC Median Household Income $87,995 * Per Capita Personal Income (2015) $58,163 ** Percent of People Below the Poverty Level 5.1% * Percent of Families Below the Poverty Level 4.0% * Median Residential Taxable Market Value-pay $246,100 **** 2016 New Houses (Single Family 724*** Dwelling/Townhouse/Condo) Started (Assessment year 2016) Mean Commute Travel Time for Work 25.8 minutes * Source: * 2015 American Community Survey (margin of error not included) ** U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis **** Washington County Property Records and Taxpayer Services LABOR FORCE Employment Statistics (a) Annual Labor Force 137,668 Number of County Residents Employed 133,330 Unemployed 4,338 Unemployment Rate (MN 3.7%) 3.2% 2016 Top 10 Taxable Market Values (b) Xcel Energy 456,065,300 Tamarack Village Shopping Center 86,442,500 Ramco-Gershenson Properties 62,564,100 3M Company 51,749,500 Larson Family Real Estate 40,055,100 Woodbury Village Shopping Center 38,704,400 Menard Inc 38,352,900 Dayton Hudson Corp 35,111,900 Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust 33,139,500 Ax Oakdale Village LP 32,858,600 Occupations (c) Management, business, science, and arts 45.6% Service 16.2% Sales and office 22.9% Natural resources, construction, and maintenance 6.4% Production, transportation, and material moving 8.9% Source: (a) Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (2015 annual average not seasonally adjusted) (b) Washington County Property Records and Taxpayer Services (c) 2015 American Community Survey (margin of error not included) HUMAN SERVICES No Health Insurance Coverage 3.2% * Rate of Homelessness per 10,000 residents (2015) 3.7% ** Minnesota Healthcare Programs ( 2015) $203.8 million *** Cash & Food Support ( 2015) $18.8 million *** Source: * 2015 American Community Survey (margin of error not included) ** Wilder Research, Minnesota Homeless Study *** Washington County Community Services Includes civilian non-institutionalized population 10

17 LAND USE Total Acres Residential 52, Commercial 3, Industrial 4, Institutional; Park & Recreational 30, Major Roadways 2, Agricultural and undeveloped 150, Mixed use and Airport Open Water Bodies 25, % Total 270, Source: Metropolitan Council Generalized Land Use Historical Data Set 2010 GEOGRAPHY Total Area sq. miles * Land Area (Without Water) sq. miles ** Maximum county width 13.8 miles Maximum county length 40.4 miles County total area rank in Minnesota 83 of 87 counties * Washington County Parks 7 parks Lake Elmo Park Reserve 2,317 acres * Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park acres * Pine Point Park 312 acres * Point Douglas Park 9 acres * Square Lake Park 25 acres * St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park 584 acres * Big Marine Park Reserve 120 acres * Number of major water bodies *** Source: * Minnesota Land Management Information Center data 2003 ** U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 (SF1-Percent data) *** Lakes and type 3, 4, 5 wetlands. Wetlands are defined as over 10 acres in unincorporated areas or 2 ½ acres in incorporated areas. Lakes are defined as all natural enclosed depressions, 10 acres or more in area, which have substantial banks capable of containing water, and which are discernible on aerial photographs, from Inventory of Minnesota Lakes, Minnesota Conservation Department, Bulletin No. 25, Department of Natural Resources Protected Waters Inventory WASHINGTON COUNTY FACILITIES Types of Facilities Contact Number # Government Center -Stillwater (County Seat) (651) County Service Center-Cottage Grove (651) County Service Center- Forest (651) Lake/Headwaters County Service Center Woodbury (651) County Branch Libraries (651) License Centers (651) County Parks (651) Historic Courthouse (651) Law Enforcement Center (651) Household Hazardous Waste (651) Transportation Offices (651) LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENTS & DISTRICTS Number of Cities 27 * * Includes portions of Hastings and White Bear Lake located in Washington County. Number of Townships 6 Watershed Districts Contact Number Brown s Creek (651) x26 Carnelian Marine (651) Comfort Lake Forest Lake (651) Ramsey-Washington Metro (651) Rice Creek (763) South Washington (651) Valley Branch (Engineer) (952) Independent School Districts Contact Number I.S.D. 200 (Hastings) (651) I.S.D. 622 (North St. Paul) (651) I.S.D. 624 (White Bear Lake) (651) I.S.D. 831 (Forest Lake Area) (651) I.S.D. 832 (Mahtomedi) (651) I.S.D. 833 (South Washington (651) County) I.S.D. 834 (Stillwater Area) (651) I.S.D. 916 (Valley Crossing) (651) I.S.D (Chisago Lakes) (651) I.S.D (Crosswinds) (651)

18 Crime Rates Part 1* Crime Rates in Washington County and Minnesota, Part I Crime Rate* Minnesota Percent change from previous year Washington County Part I Crime Rate* Percent change from previous year , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , *Per 100,000 people and includes crimes of murder; rape; robbery aggravated assault; burglary; theft; motor vehicle theft; and arson. State and Metro Counties: 2015 Part I Crime Rates (per 100,000 people) 4,000 3,500 3,334 3,000 3,018 2,500 2,550 2,368 2,234 2,000 1,985 1,748 1,500 1,188 1, Hennepin Ramsey Anoka Minnesota Dakota Washington Scott Carver Part II* Crime Rates in Washington County and Minnesota,

19 Part II Crime Rate* Minnesota Percent change from previous year Part II Crime Rate* Washington County Percent change from previous year , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,098 2 *Per 100,000 people and includes crime of other assaults; forgery and counterfeiting; fraud; embezzlement; buying, receiving or possessing stolen property; vandalism or destruction of property; violating weapons laws; prostitution and commercialized vice; sex offenses; narcotics offense; liquor law violations; gambling violations; offenses against family and children; driving under the influence; disorderly conduct; vagrancy; and all other offenses. State and Metro Counties: 2015 Part II crime Rates (per 100,000 people) 6,000 5,000 4,976 4,000 4,098 3,803 3,399 3,257 3,173 3,000 2,835 2,000 2,078 1,000 0 Hennepin Washington Scott Anoka Ramsey Minnesota Dakota Carver 13

20 Characteristics of Probation Clients Open on January 1, 2017 Adult/Juvenile Probation Clients Adult 96% Juvenile 4% N=4,487 Probation Clients by Gender Male 74% Female 26% N=4,487 14

21 Characteristics of Probation Clients Open on January 1, 2017 Racial Breakdown of All Probation Clients White 80% American Indian 2% Asian 5% Black 13% N=4,196 Racial Breakdown of Probation Clients with Washington County Address White 85% American Indian 1% Asian 4% Black 9% N=1,743 15

22 Racial Breakdown of Washington County Residents Asian - 5% White - 87% Black - 4% Other - 4% N=246,670 Source: 2015 Amercan Community Survey 100 Racial Breakdown - County Residents Compared to Probation Clients 80 80% 87% Probation Clients County Residents % 4% 5% 5% 4% 2% White Black Asian Other 16

23 Racial Breakdown of Washington County compared to Washington County Prison (Oak Park Heights and Stillwater) Population Washington County Population County Prison Population County Population Less Prison Population Race Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White 214,624 87% % 213,785 87% Asian 12,855 5% 48 2% 12,807 5% Black 9,474 4% % 8,525 3% Other 9,717 4% % % Total 246, ,591 Note: Washington County population from the 2015 American Community Survey and the prison population from the Department of Corrections for the inmate population on August 9, ,500 Juvenile Court Case Filings for Per 100,000 Juvenile Population 3,000 2,500 2,603 2,581 2,000 1,500 2,015 1,751 1,714 1,689 1,497 1, Ramsey Hennepin Dakota Washington Anoka Carver Scott 17

24 Washington County Community Corrections Juvenile Detention and Probation Analysis January 2016 to December 2016 The data represented in the charts and tables below reflect Juvenile Probation and Detention Clients from the Court Services Tracking System. (CSTS) The following chart and table reflect 2016 Juvenile Detention Placements by race. If a client is detained in Washington County Juvenile Law Enforcement Center and then immediately placed in another facility this is counted as one placement. For four individuals whose combined placement spanned both Detention-Secure and Detention- Non Secure, these were counted as Detention-Secure which was their first detention type. Individual clients may have multiple detention placements. This data does not represent unduplicated clients. The percentages in the call out boxes represent the percentages of all detentions both secure and non-secure. The were no non-secure detentions for Asian/Pacific islander or American Indian/Alaska Native category. 7 placements that included time served in 2015 or 2016 were excluded % 2016 Juvenile Detention by Race # Placements % 2.1% 0.7%.7%.7% White Black Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Secure - Detention Non-Secure Detention N=143 *4 individuals with combined placements were taken first to Secure-Detention and then moved to Non Secure. They were counted in Detention-Secure. White Black Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska native Total Secure Non-Secure Average Stay(days) Max Stay(days) Median Stay(days)

25 2016 Racial Breakdown of Juvenile Probation Clients The chart and table below represent unduplicated Probation Clients with at least one case closed during RACIAL BREAKDOWN OF 2016 JUVENILE PROBATION CLIENTS Other/Unknown 3% Asian/Pacific Islander 3% American Indian/Alaska Native 1% Black 23% White 70% Asian/ Pacific Islander American Indian/ Alaska Native White Black Other/Unknown Total 2016 Juvenile Probation Clients

26 The chart below represents the racial breakdown of children aged in Washington County from the American Community Survey 2016 population estimate. Margin of error is not included. "Other" race is estimated for year olds based on the % of "Other" race in the total Washington County population. RACIAL BREAKDOWN OF WASHINGTON COUNTY CHILDREN AGED Other 7% Asian 6% Black 6% N=29,866 White 81% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 81% Racial Breakdown - Juvenile County Residents Compared to Juvenile Probation Clients, Secure Detention Placements and Secure Detention Clients 70% 67% 62% 35% 32% 23% 6% 7% 4% 6% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% White Black Other Asian County Juveniles Juvenile Prob Clients Secure Detention Placements Secure Detention Clients For Juvenile Probation Clients, Asian category includes Pacific Islanders. For Juvenile Probation Clients, the Other category includes 1% American Indian/Alaska Native. Secure Detention Clients are unduplicated. The data show that White, Asian and Other Clients are underrepresented in Probation and Detentions when compared to the population of Washington County Juveniles whereas Black Clients are overrepresented in both Probation and Detentions when compared to the population of Washington County Juveniles. 20

27 Characteristics of Probation Clients Open on January 1, 2017 Probation Client Addresses Other County 58% Washington County 42% N=4,487 Age Range of Open Probation Clients 50% 40% 30% 31% 29% 20% 18% 10% 3% 2% 12% 5% 0% Under Plus Age Range N=4,487 Note: Clients between the ages of 18 and 25 comprise 19% of the department s probation caseload 21

28 Probation Cases Open on January 1, 2016 and Most Common Probation Case Offenses % 19% 19% 18% 10 10% 12% 5% 6% 4% 5% 4% 4% Most Common Adult Probation Offenses* 30 25% 20 20% 14% 14% 10 8% 8% 8% 7% 5% 6% 4% 4% 0 F-Drugs GM-DWI F-Assault F-Criminal Sexual Conduct F-Theft M-Assault * Adult probation offenses include only those cases supervised on an adult traditional or specialized caseload. Not included are those cases supervised on an administrative /monitored caseload or those cases transferred out and being supervised by another jurisdiction 22

29 4000 Probation Cases Open January 1st by Supervision Type (N=4,767) 2017 (N=5,037) Administrative Traditional Transfer-out Warrant Transfer-out Other pending Includes Adult and Juvenile Cases ,000 Probation Clients Supervised Annually (Adult & Juvenile) 9,000 6,000 6,621 6,143 5,812 5,617 5,709 3,

30 Adult Probationer Education Levels Community Corrections records client education level when risk/needs assessments are administered. Not all adults under departmental supervision receive an assessment, but for those who do, they are asked whether they ve completed grade level twelve at the time of the assessment. The results from the last five years of initial assessments are detailed in the table below. Percentage of Adult Offenders who had Completed Grade 12 at the time of Initial Risk/Needs Assessment % 81% 79% 82% 81% 24

31 Supervision Division COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS KEY STATISTICS Probation Clients-Adult 5,648 5,366 5,156 5,291 Probation Clients-Juvenile Supervised Release Clients-All Level of Service Inventories- LS/CMI Youth Level of Service-Case Management Inventories 1,278 1,259 1,138 1, Juvenile Placement Days 6,500 5,443 5,687 5,446 Juvenile Placements Juvenile Placement Expenditures $1,355,411 $1,221,219 $886,699 $928,664 Diversion Clients-Adults Diversion Clients-Juveniles Court Ordered Services Clients- All Community Justice Programs Division Sentence to Service (STS) Clients STS Hours Worked 77,108 74,608 80,824 79,064 STS Jail Days Saved-Number 9,639 9,326 10,103 9,883 STS Jail Days Saved-Value $1,089,207 $1,053,838 $1,141,639 $1,116,779 Pre-Trial Division Conditional Release Clients- Adults 891 1,029 1,163 1,393 Bail Evaluations 1,085 1, ,261 Pre-sentence Investigations Completed Sentencing Worksheets completed

32 ADULT OFFENSE REPORT Probation Cases open on January 1, 2017 OFFENSE FELONY 2017 GROSS MISDEMEANOR MISDEMEANOR Arson Assault Burglary Crime Against Family Crime Against Government Crime Against Justice Criminal Sexual Conduct Criminal Vehicular Operation Disturbing the Peace Drugs DWI Escape/Flight Forgery Gambling Homicide Kidnapping/False Imprisonment Obscenity/Indecent Exposure Other Property Damage Receiving Stolen Property Robbery Sex Related Theft/Theft Related Traffic (non-dwi) Vehicle Theft Weapons TOTAL 1,332 1,090 1,546 GRAND TOTAL 3,968 26

33 JUVENILE OFFENSE REPORT PROBATION CASES OPEN ON JANUARY 1, OFFENSE GROSS FELONY MISDEMEANOR MISDEMEANOR Alcohol Arson Assault Burglary Crime Against Government Crime Against Justice Criminal Sexual Conduct Criminal Vehicular Operation Disturbing the Peace Drugs DWI Escape/Flight Forgery Homicide Kidnapping/False Imprisonment Obscenity/Indecent Exposure Other Property Damage Receiving Stolen Property Robbery Sex Related Theft/Theft Related Traffic (non DWI) Vehicle Theft/Related Weapons TOTAL GRAND TOTAL

34 WASHINGTON COUNTY ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE JUDICIARY COUNTY BOARD COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ADVISORY BOARD DIRECTOR COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS COUNTY BOARD In Washington County, general administration is the responsibility of the Board of County Commissioners. There are five districts in the county, with a commissioner elected to represent each. The County Board, through its administrator, appoints the Director of Community Corrections. The County Board appoints the Community Corrections Advisory Board members and has final approval of the Community Corrections Act Comprehensive Plan prior to its submission to the State Commissioner of Corrections. The County Board also establishes the budget for Community Corrections. WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Fran Miron District 1 Stan Karwoski District 2 Gary Krisel District 3 Karla Bigham District 4 Lisa Weik District 5 28

35 JUDICIARY Washington County is one of eight counties that makes up the Tenth Judicial District for the State of Minnesota. The Washington County Bench consists of ten jurists who, in addition to criminal matters, also preside over civil, family, juvenile, probate, traffic, and conciliation court. Washington County Tenth Judicial District Judges Seated in Washington County Honorable B. William Ekstrum Honorable Gregory G. Galler Honorable Mary E. Hannon Honorable John C. Hoffman Honorable Richard C. Ilkka Honorable Tad V. Jude Honorable Ellen L. Maas Honorable John R. McBride Honorable Susan R. Miles Honorable Gary R. Schurrer 29

36 30

37 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ADVISORY BOARD STRUCTURE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ADVISORY BOARD AD HOC COMMITTEE AD HOC COMMITTEES An Ad Hoc Committee may be created on a motion, vote, or consensus of the Advisory Board when there is a specific need for such a committee. The Board Chair appoints a member of the board to chair the Ad Hoc Committee. The Board Chair or the Committee Chair can add additional members from the board and may include Community Corrections staff, private citizens, or professionals with an interest or expertise in the particular area under study. Meetings are scheduled by the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee. The Advisory Board charges the Ad Hoc Committee with a specific task, identifies areas requiring recommendations to the full board, and sets a completion date for the final report. Interim reports from the committee to the board are expected. Ad Hoc committees are disbanded upon completion of their task. The administrative Committee assists in presenting financial implications of the Ad Hoc committee s final recommendations to the full Advisory Board. Community Corrections Advisory Board The Community Corrections Advisory Board of Washington County actively participates in the formulation of the comprehensive plan for the development, implementation, and operation of the correctional programs and services, as prescribed by statute. It makes formal recommendations to the County Board, at least annually, concerning the comprehensive plan and its implementation. 31

38 The Community Corrections Advisory Board consists of the following eighteen members: Five citizen members one appointed from each County Commissioner District One lay citizen representing ethnic minorities One administrator from a school district in Washington County One victim representative One Community Corrections staff representative Two representatives from law enforcement one from the County Sheriff s Office and one from local (city) law enforcement Two representatives from Community Social Services, one represents mental health Two attorneys one prosecuting attorney and one public defender Three judges from the Washington County Tenth Judicial District Members John Miller, Chairman Citizen Member, District 1 Andrew Jackola Citizen Member, District 2 George Dierberger, Vice- Citizen Member, District 3 Chairman Jennifer Bovitz Citizen Member, District 4 Anthony Tedesco Citizen Member, District 5 Anthony Carr Citizen Member, Ethnic Minority Representative Chris Otto Educational Administrator Representative Christine VonDelinde Victim Representative Sharon Currier Community Corrections Staff Representative Dan Starry Law Enforcement Representative, Sheriff s Office Dan Starry Law Enforcement Representative, Local Jim Wojcik Community Social Services, Mental Health Representative Vacant Community Social Services Pete Orput Attorney Representative, Prosecution Nathan Sosinski Attorney Representative, Public Defense Ellen Maas Judge, Tenth Judicial District William Ekstrum Judge, Tenth Judicial District Richard Ilkka Judge, Tenth Judicial District Ex Officio Members Tom Adkins Stan Karwoski Kevin Corbid Annette Fritz Molly O Rourke Randy Tenge Director, Community Corrections County Commissioner Representative Deputy Director Administrator Liaison, Court Administrator County Administrator Liaison, Minnesota Department of Corrections 32

39 John Miller, Chairperson, Citizen Member-District 1: John represents district 1 on the Advisory Board. He has over 25 years of experience working in Community Corrections in Ramsey County. John has acted as an agent and supervisor in a variety of capacities including; intensive supervised release, adult probation/parole, juvenile probation, juvenile detention and residential treatment. George Dierberger, Vice-Chairperson, Citizen Member-District 3: George represents District 3 on the Advisory Board. He served on the Stillwater School Board for four years and as board chair for two years. He is retired from 3M and is currently a full-time faculty member at Augsburg College in the school of business. George consults for the outdoor, office products and pet industries. George has two graduate degrees and a doctorate from the University of St. Thomas. Andrew Jackola, Citizen Member-District 2: Andrew represents District 2 on the Advisory Board. He has been a practicing attorney in the State of Minnesota since 2005 and has been an Assistant Anoka County Attorney since January of His primary focus involves municipal litigation, but also representing the State in criminal appeals. He has been involved professionally in a number of matters involving Anoka County Corrections, including matters involving incidents at the juvenile and adult correctional facilities in Lino Lakes, as well as the employment performance of probation officers, correction agents, and staff at the correctional facilities in Anoka County. He is also a member of the Safety Committee in Birchwood Village. Jennifer Bovitz, Citizen Member-District 4: Jennifer is a Senior Assistant Director at the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. As a Senior Assistant Director, Ms. Bovitz is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of lawyer misconduct and enforcing the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. Ms. Bovitz earned her J.D. from William Mitchell College of Law in 2001 and served as a felony prosecutor before her employment at the Office of Lawyer s Professional Responsibility. Jennifer s trial experience includes a wide range of criminal cases, and her experience extends to appellate practice at both Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court. Jennifer has served as adjunct faculty at Mitchell Hamline College of Law, is a member of the Minnesota State Bar Association and is a past Board President of Friends in Need Food Shelf serving South Washington County. Anthony Tedesco, Citizen Member-District 5: Anthony represents District 5 (Woodbury) on the Advisory Board. Anthony has been a City Prosecutor for 13 years, mostly working on DWIs and domestics. He is active in several local communitybased organizations. 33

40 Anthony (Tony) Carr, Citizen Member-Ethnic Minority Representative: Tony is the Director of Community Programs for the American Red Cross-Twin Cities Area Chapter. He served as the chairman of the Human Rights Commission in Stillwater. Tony was also a member of the BioSmart Advisory Board for Arlington High School in St. Paul. Tony is a public speaker on diversity awareness, addressing issues related to racial stereotypes and bias. He was inducted into the Wisconsin Basketball Coaches Association Hall of Fame in Tony lives in Stillwater with his spouse Amy and their four daughters. Chris Otto, Educational Administrator Representative: Chris Otto is a School Counselor with Stillwater Area Public Schools. She has more than 25 years of experience serving young people and their families in education as a teacher, high school and junior high school counselor, and interim assistant principal. She is also Adjunct Faculty at Adler Graduate School, instructing and mentoring aspiring school counselors. Chris has served as President of the Minnesota School Counselors Association as well as held other leadership positions at the local, regional, and state levels. She loves living and working in the Stillwater community. Christine VonDelinde, Victim Representative: Christine VonDelinde is a Victim Witness Coordinator with the Washington County Attorney s Office. Christine has nine years of experience providing direct service to victims and witnesses. She has studied Business Management at Metropolitan State University. Christine is a graduate of the 2006 Minnesota Victim Assistance Academy and a 2005 graduate of Beginning Victim Advocate Professional Training. She has obtained training in Basic Skills Civil Mediation through Metropolitan State University. She previously served on the steering Committee for the Minnesota victim Assistance Academy Planning Committee. Before becoming a Victim Witness coordinator, she had worked as a Legal Assistant in the Washington County Attorney s Office in both the criminal and juvenile divisions and also worked as a Legal Assistant in private practice with an emphasis on workers compensation and personal injury. Sharon Currier Community Corrections Staff Representative: Sharon Currier has been employed by Washington County for over twenty years. She began her career as a Correctional Officer in the Washington County Jail where she worked for ten years. She moved to Community Corrections in 2007 and worked as a Sentence to Service Crew Leader for six years, and has worked as a Probation Officer in our Intake Unit conducting Pre-Sentence Investigations for the past four years. Sharon has served on multiple committees and training groups throughout her tenure with Washington County, and most recently trained our staff on the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. She has a bachelor s degree in Sociology of Law, Criminology, and Deviance, in addition to a Master s Degree in Business Administration. In her free time, Sharon enjoys traveling and watching her boys sporting events. 34

41 Dan Starry, Law Enforcement Representative-Sheriff s Office: Sheriff Starry has worked in law enforcement for Washington County since 1993 in numerous capacities in the Sheriff's Office. He was appointed Chief Deputy under then Sheriff Hutton in October Other positions he has held include patrol deputy, crime prevention officer, field training officer, DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) officer, Explorer advisor, narcotics officer, youth unit investigator, a K9 officer with companion Smokey, Sergeant, and Commander. Sheriff Starry has a bachelor of science degree from St. Mary s University, and a Criminal Justice Education Certificate from the University of Virginia. He has attended the FBI National Academy and the FBI Law Enforcement Executive Development Association program. He is on the Board of Directors for the United Way of Washington County East and an executive board member for North Central High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. He and his wife Jeanice, live in Stillwater and have been married 24 years; they have two beautiful daughters. Bill Sullivan, Law Enforcement Representative-Local: Bill is currently the Chief of Police for the City of Oakdale, having served in this position since Bill became an adjunct member of the Center for Public Safety in Bill s law enforcement career began as a Military Police Officer in the U.S. Army; continued after discharge with municipal departments in the State of Iowa, and ultimately led to his current position with the City of Oakdale. He holds a Master of Arts degree in Organizational Management and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Organizational Management and Communication for Concordia University in ST. Paul, and has begun working toward his doctorate in Public Administration from Hamline University in St. Paul. Bill is a graduate of the FBI s LEEDS Executive Development Program, Harvard University s Senior Executives in State and Local Government Program, and Harvard s Crisis Management Program. In addition to teaching at Northwestern, Bill is an adjunct faculty member in the criminal justice program at Metropolitan State University in St. Paul, the Upper Midwest Community Policing Institute, and a variety of other colleges and universities. He has been published in The Police Chief Magazine and was substantially involved in the development of the racial profiling/impartial policing model policy adopted by the Minnesota Peace officers Standards and Training Board. Bill presents instruction in Labor/Management Relations for the School of Police Staff and command (SPSC). Bill is a resident of Oakdale. He is married and has two grown children and three grandchildren. Jim Wojcik, Community Social Services-Mental Health Representative: Jim Wojcik, Ph.D., L.P., is Chief Psychologist and Director of Training at Canvas Health. He has been a member of the Canvas Health staff since 1984, serving in various clinical and management roles. Jim manages the psychological assessment services for Canvas Health. His clinical training includes work in schools, substance abuse, corrections and medical settings. His professional interests include family psychology and family therapy, addictive behavior, personality disorder, cognitive behavioral therapy, and clinical and outcome assessments. He has been a part of many community and state corrections and social services teams. 35

42 Pete Orput, Attorney Representative-Prosecution: Pete was elected to the Office of County Attorney in November Before becoming County Attorney, Pete served as an Assistant Hennepin County Attorney in the violent crime section of that office where he prosecuted robberies, weapons and homicide cases primarily. Pete has also served as general counsel to the Minnesota Department of Corrections, in the Minnesota Attorney General s Office as the Deputy Attorney General in charge of public protection section, and also as lead prosecutor for a state anti-gang initiative for five years. In his position with the Attorney General s Office, Pete prosecuted gang murders and drug dealing offenses throughout the states. Pete formerly served for seven years as an assistant Washington County Attorney. Pete is on the faculty of St. Mary s University in their Law Enforcement Program where he teaches Legal Aspects of Police Leadership. He has also served on the faculty at the National District Attorneys College in Columbia, South Carolina for numerous prosecutor courses including Complex Trial Advocacy, Persuasion, and Cross Examination. Pete is a former high school teacher, Marine, and has served as legal counsel to the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association since 1994 Nathan Sosinski, Attorney Representative-Public Defense: Nathan took over as Managing Attorney for the Washington County Public Defender s Officer in May Before this, Nathan was the Managing Attorney for Public Defender s Office in the PICK (Pine, Isanti, Chisago, and Kanabec) Counties from November 2011 to May Prior to working for the Public Defender s Office, Nathan was an Assistant Pine County Attorney for five years as well as a Judicial Law Clerk for the Honorable Karen Asphaug, who is chambered in Dakota County. Since June 2014, Nathan has served as an instructor at the Minnesota Public Defender s Office Trial School. Since 2008, Nathan has volunteered as a judge for both the High School and Intercollegiate Mock Trial programs. Nathan is a resident of Lino Lakes. He is married and has two children. 36

43 Community Corrections Organizational Structure East Central Regional Juvenile Center Joint Powers Director Community Corrections Advisory Board Division Manager Deputy Director Sr. Management Analyst 1 Management Analyst I 1 Adult Services Juvenile Services Administrative Support Adult Intake Adult Adult Adult Supervisor Sr. Office Supervisor Supervisor Evaluation/ Budget Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervision Prob. Off. I, II, III 6 Diversion Case Management Specialist 1 PLACE Prob. Off. I, II, III 1 Teacher 1 Aide 1 Multi-Systemic Therapy Supervisor 1 Office Support II / Sr. Office Support 5.5 Office Specialist 4 Administrative Assistant 1 Sr. Financial Analyst 1 Financial Systems Technician 1 Sentence to Serve Probation Officer III 1 Sentence to Serve Crew Leaders 6 Repeat Offender/ Enhanced/Warrant/ Prob. Off. I, II, III 3 HR Coordination Intake Prob. Off. I, II, III 6.5 Diversion Prob. Off. I, II, III 0.5 Conditional Release Prob. Off. I, II, III 2 Domestic Abuse Unit Prob. Off. I, II, III 2 Adult Supervision Prob. Off. I, II, III 3 Sex Offender Supervision Prob. Off. I, II, III 4 Offender Recovery Program Prob. Off. I, II, III 1 Female Offender Prob. Off. I, II, III 1 Case Management Specialist 6 Adult Supervision Prob. Off. I, II, III 2 Monitoring Unit Prob. Off. I, II, III 1 Adult Restitution Prob. Off. I, II, III.5 Adult Re-entry Prob. Off. I,II,III 1 Transfer Out Prob. Off. I, II, III 5 Adult Supervision Prob. Off. I, II, III 5.8 COG Prob. Off. I, II, III 1 EBP Coordinator 1 Therapist 2 Community Options Program Canvas Health January 2017 Domestic Violence Tubman Canvas Health Juvenile Diversion Youth Service Bureau Forest Lake Area Youth Service Bureau Key Department Head Supervisor Board Contract 37

44 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PERSONNEL & POSITIONS Management/Administrative Division Tom Adkins Director Terry Thomas Deputy Director Ren Clinton Division Manager Molly Hakko Supervisor Tracy Jenson Supervisor Karen Keller Senior Office Supervisor Brenda Martin Supervisor Sara Morrell Supervisor Rick Smith Supervisor Dave Wiles Supervisor Denise Garner Management Analyst I Sylvia Mutyabule Financial Systems Technician Dan Pepper Senior Management Analyst Jamie Petersen Senior Financial Analyst Diane Crawley Administrative Assistant Pre-Trial Division Mercy Adams Probation Officer III Kris Anderson Probation Officer III Fran Brabender Office Specialist Sharon Currier Probation Officer II Scott Dawson Probation Officer III Susan Morrow Probation Officer II Amy Mortimer Probation Officer III Molly O Keefe Probation Officer I Breanna Potter Senior Office Support Meghan Quinn Probation Officer III Alison Raveling Office Support II Gregg Wacker Probation Officer III Olivia Wilkins Probation Officer I Sentence to Service Byron Evans Crew Leader Reese Glaser Crew Leader Nathan Heilman Crew Leader Charles Ihrke Crew Leader Michelle McMonigal Crew Leader Allie Schield Office Specialist Rick Tungseth Crew Leader Scott Wahl Probation Officer II 38

45 PLACE Charles Henderson EBP Coordinator Archie Weatherspoon IV Probation Officer III Probation Officer III Supervision Division Michelle Albertson Office Specialist Ben Andreachi Probation Officer III Jessica Berghorst Probation Officer III Sharon Christiansen Probation Officer III Tracy Dillard Probation Officer III David Fink Probation Officer II Patty Gaffney Probation Officer III Sherry Gauster Case Management Specialist Erik Hansen Probation Officer III Ali Hassan Case Management Specialist Paula Harrison Case Management Specialist Brian Hibbs Probation Officer II Adam Johnson Probation Officer III Amber Johnson Probation Officer I Nanette LaChapelle Probation Officer III (.8) Katie Shafer Office Support II (.5) Mike Mastrian Probation Officer III Jake McNulty Probation Officer II Jill Nasvik Case Management Specialist Emmanuel Olagbaju Case Management Specialist Amber Patton Probation Officer I Becky Pettet Probation Officer III Jami Philip Office Support II Nancy Phillips Probation Officer III Jennifer Rice Probation Officer I Christina Richert Case Management Specialist (.5) Ben Rueter Probation Officer II Jessica Rumpel Probation Officer II (.5) Tami Schmitz Probation Officer III Janet Simonson Probation Officer III Gayle Sundeen Probation Officer III Nicole Tupy Case Management Specialist (.5) Vacant Probation Officer I Vacant Probation Officer I Vacant Office Support II 39

46 Transfer Out Unit Jessica Kimmen Jessica Reeves Jeff Stone Josh Sundsmo Vacant Juvenile Unit Fred Bernard Marty Boury Lori Freund Sufian Kalil Mike McGrath Dawan Propps Daniele Szeliga Kathie Walsh Probation Officer I Probation Officer II Probation Officer III Probation Officer I Probation Officer I Probation Officer III Probation Officer III Office Specialist Probation Officer I Probation Officer III Case Management Specialist Probation Officer I Probation Officer III 40

47 Washington County Community Corrections 2018 Staff Complement 85.8 FTE's Supervision 41.3 FTE's 48% Programming 10 FTE's 12% Administration 7 FTE's 8% Monitoring 8.5 FTE's 10% Pre-Trial 19 FTE's 22% 2018 Projected Budget Expenditures $10,982,600 Supervision $5,137,000 47% Programming $2,378,800 22% Administration $886,700 8% Monitoring $717,100 6% Pre-Trial $1,863,000 17% 41

48 Research and Evaluation Introduction The department s research and evaluation efforts are undertaken in support of its mission of building safer communities. The aim is to use client and case data to understand and describe the department s impact on clients and the wider community, taking into account the many influences on human behavior. The department engages in practical, rather than scholarly, research and evaluation which informs our work. Typically, evaluation is conducted to determine the success of implementing and operating programs, services, and practices proven effective by university-level research. Community Corrections believes that the responsibility for research and evaluation is a department-wide effort, as the use of data is only meaningful when it involves the interaction and assistance of all staff. Utilizing Program Data Community Corrections inputs, stores, and tracks client data in the CSTS database. CSTS also allows the department to supply data to other county departments, to other probation agencies, to statewide databases, and to undertake in-depth data analysis. Furthermore, the department believes that utilizing information management systems that meet the case management needs of staff improves their ability to supervise clients and streamlines departmental business practices. The department s goal is to accurately collect, maintain, and use data that supports its mission. Two department analysts conduct ad-hoc queries to calculate statistics for use in management operations, performance measurement, legislative analysis, and external reporting. Ad-hoc queries allow for the combining of client data with cost and service data to provide a richer picture of the impact of Community Corrections. Data analysis is also used for strategic and program planning, as well as evaluation efforts. The department continues to track and report on a comprehensive set of organizationalwide indicators. A different set of indicators is reported monthly, quarterly, and annually and include activity, process, and outcome measures. The tracking and reporting of data included in the indicator reports have informed department staffing decisions, resource allocation, planning processes, and day-to-day operational decisions. In addition, the department reports annually on a set of outcome measures that are tied to its three major goal areas. Annual outcome measures provide feedback on departmental performance. 42

49 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS SUPERVISION SERVICES A central objective of Community Corrections supervision approach is to provide an accurate assessment of clients to identify individual strengths and need areas and predict potential risk to the community. Assessment leads to a road map used for matching clients with specific programs, supervision requirements, and strategies that are designed to repair the harm and reduce the risk to victims and communities. Further, departmental supervision practices help clients develop competencies to modify or change destructive behaviors. Adult Supervision Services Pre-Trial Conditional Release Pre-Trial Evaluation, Assessment, Investigation Adult Probation Supervision Administrative Supervision Elevated Supervision Standard Supervision Dosage Supervision Sex Offender Supervision Enhanced Supervision Transfer-Out Supervision Supervised Release Pre-Trial Conditional Release Community Corrections provides pre-trial monitoring of Court-ordered conditions imposed on clients between court appearances. Pre-trial conditions may include electronic monitoring, use of alcohol monitoring equipment, random drug and alcohol testing, as well as telephone and/or in-person contacts with a probation officer. Violating pre-trial conditions results in offenders being taken into custody and returned to jail, pending Court review. Pre-Trial Services Pre-trial services include pre-plea worksheets, bail evaluations, and pre-sentence investigations on offenders when ordered by the Court. Departmental pre-trial services also involve assessing offenders in the areas of risk/needs, chemical dependency, mental health, domestic violence, and gambling. The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) continues being administered to all domestic violence clients to determine appropriate programming interventions. The LSI-R Screening Version tool is used on all sentenced gross misdemeanor cases, including DWI but excluding other traffic related cases. It is also used on all misdemeanor person offenses, including Disorderly Conduct charges amended from Domestic Assaults. An offender scoring high on the pre-screen is administered the full LS/CMI. 43

50 Risk/Needs Assessment The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) is a quantitative assessment tool that identifies a client s re-offense risk. In addition, it identifies criminogenic need areas and determines the department s level of supervision. The instrument contains forty-three questions grouped into the following eight domains: Criminal History Education/Employment Family/Marital Leisure/Recreation Companions Alcohol/Drug Problems Pro-criminal Attitude/Orientation Antisocial Pattern The LS/CMI is administered in a semi-structured interview format and is complemented with record checks and collateral contacts. Research indicates that the LS/CMI reliably predicts offender risk to re-offend and identifies crime related need areas. LS/CMI results are instrumental in case planning and in determining appropriate supervision levels for clients. The department s LS/CMI score ranges used to determine supervision levels are as follows: Supervision Level/Range of LS/CMI Scores Supervision Level Range of LS/CMI Scores Enhanced Supervision Traditional Supervision Elevated Supervision Standard Supervision 30 and above Administrative Supervision Monitoring Unit (MU) 0-14 The department enters risk/needs data into a statewide electronic database. The statewide database helps Minnesota gain a better understanding of the risk/needs of all probation clients. It also allows Washington County to analyze its client population better. 44

51 Adult Probation Supervision Washington County Community Corrections utilizes an approach to supervising adult offenders that balance accountability/public safety, harm restoration, competency development, and targets the most resources to the highest-risk offenders. Administrative Supervision Administrative supervision of adult offenders is provided by the department s Monitoring Unit (MU). The Monitoring Unit probation staff supervise large caseloads of low-level misdemeanor, and low-risk gross misdemeanor, and felony clients. Sex offenders and supervised release clients are ineligible for MU Supervision. In addition to monitoring compliance with Court-ordered conditions, MU staff complete restitution investigations, prepare reports to the Court, participate in Sanction Conferencing and appear in court to provide relevant case information. Standard & Elevated Supervision Clients assessed, per the LS/CMI, as medium risk to re-offend receive Standard probation supervision. Clients who are assessed as high-risk to re-offend in the community have a supervision level of Elevated, with a higher level of supervision and probation intervention. Supervised caseloads consist of probation and supervised release offenders who reside in Washington County. Elevated and Standard supervision is structured and community-based. Probation staff complete risk assessments, develop case plans, monitor client compliance with Courtordered conditions, investigate violations of probation, complete Sanctioning Agreements, submit reports to the Court with recommendations, and conduct presentence investigations, if clients commit new offenses while under supervision. Probation officers are trained in the utilization of effective case management and motivational strategies and techniques. Case plans that address the client s risk areas are developed with the client and become the focus of probation contacts. Probation Officers refer clients to appropriate programs and services that target needs identified in the case plans. The department s probation officers are trained to utilize approaches and provide resources that enable the client to repair the harm caused by their crime, reduce the risk of further criminal behavior, and develop competencies. Victims and the community are incorporated into the process whenever possible. Restitution collection remains a focus for our department. 45

52 Dosage Supervision Dosage probation offers qualified clients the opportunity to improve their life course and earn a successful early discharge from probation through active engagement in activities demonstrated to be effective in reducing risk to re-offend. These activities focus on the top five criminogenic needs: Antisocial Cognition (thoughts & beliefs); Antisocial Personality (temperament/coping skills); Antisocial Associates; Family/Marital; and Substance Abuse. Interventions that target these areas with fidelity count towards a set amount of program hours needed for a client to be discharged from probation. Program hours are determined by a person s risk to re-offend in the community. The tool we use to determine hours is the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory tool: 300 hours (25+); 200 hours (24-20); 100 hours (19-15). Sex Offender Supervision Four probation officers work solely with the supervision of sex offenders who are required by law to register as predatory sex offenders or are convicted of other crimes involving sexually-deviant behavior. Supervision practices include the use of assessment tools specific to sex offenders. Probation officers spend a great deal of time in the community monitoring offender behavior, potential victim contact, and getting to know people in the community and family networks of offenders. Those strategies enable staff to respond to issues when they arise more proactively. Sex offender supervision emphasizes attention to victim needs, collaborative programming and supervision, and effective treatment and assessment modalities. Polygraph testing is also an integral part of the supervision of sex offenders. Offenders completing sex offender treatment and aftercare, who are assessed as a lower risk to re-offend and who have a relapse prevention plan in place, may be eligible for group supervision. Offenders must successfully attend monthly groups for a minimum of eighteen months, at which time they may be eligible for quarterly group supervision for the remainder of their probation term. Group supervision is provided by specially trained departmental probation officers. Enhanced Supervision The department has provided enhanced supervision for very high-risk offenders (defined as a score 29 or above on the LS/CMI) for many years. Enhanced supervision incorporates the results of the LS/CMI into a dynamic case plan that guide offenders through the behavior change process. Case plans may require offenders to complete specialized programming, such as cognitive behavioral groups, job skills programming, substance abuse treatment or mental health treatment. Offenders under enhanced supervision often benefit from a structured schedule that incorporates a treatment component along with other needed programs and services. 46

53 The enhanced model of probation moves away from traditional surveillance and monitoring to a behavior change model. Supervision contact standards are high with a heavy emphasis on case planning that addresses the offender s top criminogenic needs. Technology such as GPS and electronic monitoring are used on an individual basis as opposed to a one size fits all approach. Client contact is reduced as the risk to re-offend is reduced. Once the offender has shown success with reduced supervision and programming, they are transitioned back to elevated or standard probation. Transfer-Out Supervision The department provides transfer out supervision to non-washington County offenders from the time of sentencing until they are accepted for supervision in their county or state of residence. Once accepted for transfer, the offender s home jurisdiction is responsible for the direct case supervision, although the case remains open in Washington County until the probation term expires. The probation officers in the transfer unit are responsible for progress, violation and discharge reports, as well as for making recommendations to the court. A transfer unit s probation officer monitors the case progress for offenders sentenced in Washington County but transferred for supervision in another jurisdiction. Supervised Release The Community Corrections Department supervised offenders released from states correctional facilities who are allowed to remain in the community as long as they adhere to certain conditions set by the MN Department of Corrections (DOC). The responsibility for supervised release offenders and for determining their conditions of release remains with the DOC, Community Corrections probation officers provide the day-to-day supervision. The highest-risk offenders released from state correctional institutions are placed under Intensive Supervised Release (ISR). In Washington County, the number of offenders under ISR has historically been very low, such that community Corrections cannot justify staffing a separate program. Thus, the MN Department of Corrections directly supervises those offenders. Washington County is responsible for supervision of discretionary ISR cases. 47

54 Juvenile Supervision Services Juvenile Risk/Needs Assessment Juvenile Probation Supervision Administrative Supervision Traditional Supervision Sex Offender Supervision Juvenile Parole Juvenile Risk/Needs Assessment The department screens all new juvenile cases petitioned to court in order to make initial recommendations for disposition. Following disposition, youth are assessed using a mental health screen, an assessment of the youth s criminal risk and needs, and a specialized assessment for youth who have committed a sex offense, if appropriate. The Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument (MAYSI-2) is a brief screening to detect potential mental health problems. The MAYSI-2 is a fifty-two item, true-false questionnaire completed by the youth. A youth who scores above the established cutoffs are referred to a mental health professional for further assessment. The Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLSI/CMI) is used in assessing juvenile s risk to re-offend and to identify their criminogenic need areas. The results of the assessment are used to determine the appropriate level of supervision and to develop case plans that address high-risk areas. The YLSI/CMI is comprised of questions across the following domains: Offenses/Dispositions Family/Parenting Education/Employment Peer Relations Substance Abuse Leisure/Recreation Personality/Behavior Attitudes/Orientation Supervision Level/Range of YLSI-CMI Scores: Range of YLSI-CMI Scores Supervision Level Males Females Very High Supervision High Supervision Medium Supervision Low Supervision

55 The Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (ERASOR) is a specialized assessment designed to estimate the risk of a sexual re-offense for youth age who have previously committed a sexual offense. The ERASOR is used in conjunction with the YLSI/CMI to guide decisions regarding placement and treatment for youth who have committed sexual offenses. Juvenile Probation Supervision Administrative Supervision The department provides administrative supervision primarily to juveniles having committed petty or traffic offenses. Juveniles under administrative supervision are assigned to a case management specialist who monitors their compliance with courtordered conditions. Conditions may include community work service, chemical dependency and mental health evaluations, education programs, restitution, and fines. Juveniles under traditional supervision may be transferred to administrative supervision if their YLSI/CMI score falls into the low-risk to re-offend range. Traditional Supervision Traditional supervision is targeted at juvenile offenders between the ages of 10 and 18 who are placed on probation by the court. Juveniles designated Extended Jurisdiction Juveniles (EJJ) may be supervised until age 21. Traditional supervision provides a structured community-based and restorative approach to supervising juvenile offenders. Probation officers hold youth accountable for complying with the court-ordered conditions of probation. Financial restitution and community work service are emphasized as means of making reparation for the harm caused by criminal behavior. Cognitive interventions and treatment services that match offender risk and needs are emphasized as a means of reducing the youth s risk to re-offend. Probation officers are trained in the utilization of effective case planning and Motivational Interviewing strategies. Case plans that address the youth s risk areas are developed with the youth and become the focus of probation contacts. Probation officers also work with mental and chemical health professionals, educators, and families to coordinate services and interventions. Sex Offender Supervision Two juvenile probation officers have received specialized training in issues related to the assessment and supervision of adolescents who commit sex offenses. All cases involving a sex offense are assigned to one of these probation officers. The department s supervision practices for juvenile sex offenders include specialized assessment, adopting specific intensive classification and contact standards, and using an additional set of individualized probation rules. The probation officers are trained to utilize the ERASOR (Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism) which 49

56 is a checklist designed to assist evaluators in estimating the risk of sexual re-offense for youth who have previously committed a sex offense. This tool is used in conjunction with the general risk assessment tool (YLSI/CMI) to guide decisions regarding placement and treatment services. Probation officers providing supervision to sex offenders are also authorized to use polygraph testing as necessary. The specialized probation officers attend sex offender-specific training annually and have access to a group of consultants that includes psychologists and treatment providers. Juvenile Parole The Community Corrections Department is responsible for providing supervision to juveniles who are released from a state correctional facility following a commitment to the Commissioner of Corrections. The authority for juvenile parole clients and for determining their conditions of parole remains with the Minnesota Department of Corrections, while Community Corrections probation officers provide the day-to-day supervision. 50

57 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS The Community Corrections Department provides programs and services in support of its mission. Programs and services are directed at reducing the probability of future criminal behavior and holding offenders accountable for repairing the harm caused by crime to victims and communities. They are community-based and incorporate research-based practices. In order to provide programs of the highest quality, the department utilizes a mix of service models. Some programs are operated and managed solely by the department, some programs are provided in partnership with other organizations, and community agencies operate some on a contractual basis. Department Operated Programs Adult Diversion Cognitive Behavioral Programming Juvenile Employment Training (JET) Sentence to Service (STS) Repeat DWI Offender Program (ROP) Voices Programs Operated in Partnership with Community Agencies Juvenile Diversion People Learning A Cooperative Existence (PLACE) Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) Community Options Program (COP) Reentry Assistance Program (RAP) Collaborative Participation Juvenile Out-of-Home Placement Juvenile Detention Lethality Assessment Protocol (LAP) Offender Recovery Program (ORP) Adult Residential Adult Non-Residential Adult Local Incarceration and Detention 51

58 DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS Adult Diversion Community Corrections provides assessment and monitoring services for the County Attorney s Adult Diversion Program. The purpose of diverting certain low-level felony cases is to reduce the court s calendar by limiting the number of court hearings. The diversion process is initiated when an offender requests consideration for the program. The prosecuting attorney then screens the case for qualification criteria. Offenders must plead guilty to participate in the program, but the judge will not accept the plea. After determining that a case meets the program criteria, it is referred to Community Corrections. The department s Adult Diversion Coordinator sets and monitors the conditions of an offender s diversion program. Once an offender meets the established program conditions, the court and prosecuting attorney are notified, and the case is dismissed. Offenders failing to fulfill the conditions of the program have their original guilty plea accepted by the court. The County Attorney has a Veteran s Program. Community Corrections supervises those cases when a Veteran is diverted, as well as cases where a veteran is sentenced in court to probation. Cognitive-Behavioral Programming Research studies of correctional programming have found that cognitive-behavioral interventions, when targeted at appropriately assessed high-risk offenders, have positive results in changing offender thinking and behavior. Cognitive-behavioral programs focus on the development of cognitive skills (how to think) or attempt to restructure cognitive processes (what to think). Behavioral approaches are combined with cognitive-restructuring or skill-building methods to reinforce learning and to model, shape, and reward the pro-social behavior of offenders. The Community Corrections Department offers six cognitive skill-based programs for juvenile and adult offenders on probation supervision. Aggression Replacement Therapy (ART) ART is a cognitive intervention program designed to alter the behavior of aggressive youth, reduce anti-social behaviors, and offer an alternative of pro-social skills. The program s three-part approach includes Pro-social Skills, Anger Control, and Moral Reasoning. Two juvenile probation officers have been trained to provide Aggression Replacement Training. The curriculum is taught to high-risk juvenile offenders at the PLACE Program. 52

59 Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment (Strategies for Self- Improvement and Change) The program was developed by correctional researchers for offenders who have experienced multiple failures in traditional chemical dependency treatment programs. It utilizes cognitive-behavioral approaches that are augmented with specific exercises and discussions focused on the challenges of overcoming chemical dependency. The program s curriculum is used as the treatment component of the juvenile Community Options Program and Canvas Health s New Choices for Recovery program. Voices Voices is a gender-specific program targeting female youth who are high risk to reoffend in the community. The program encourages girls to seek and celebrate their true selves by giving them a safe space, encouragement, structure, and support to embrace their important journey of self-discovery. The program advocates a strengthbased approach that helps girls identify and apply their power and voices as individuals and as a group. Program participants are Washington County residents who are under the supervision of Community Corrections. The program lasts approximately eighteen weeks and is closed to new participants once the first session starts. Moving On Moving On is a twenty-two session program, developed specifically for women involved in the criminal justice system. The program utilizes a combination of methods and strategies including Solution-Focused Intervention, Motivational Enhancement Therapy, and Cognitive-Behavior Skills Training. The program s goal is to help higher risk women offenders develop the skills necessary to choose alternatives to criminal activity by assisting them in identifying and utilizing personal and community resources. Thinking for a Change (T4C) Thinking for a Change is a 50-hour program that was researched and developed in 1997 as a multi-modal Integrated Cognitive Behavior Change Program by the National Institute of Corrections. The program has three main components: Cognitive Self- Change, Social Skills Development, and Problem-Solving Skills. Participants engage in an objective, systematic approach to identifying thinking, beliefs, attitudes, and values. Participants learn problem-solving skills in a structured format. Critical social skills are targeted throughout the program to support the cognitive restructuring process. Participants are encouraged and empowered to participate in their own learning and self-development. T4C is facilitated by probation officers trained in the curriculum. 53

60 Decision Points Decision Points is a co-facilitated open entry/exit cognitive behavioral intervention program. Decision Points was published by the authors in 2012 and is implemented with both adult and youth offender groups. The program is an evidence based correctional program that targets anti-social thoughts and skill deficits through an interactive cognitive behavioral approach. Participants are required to attend a minimum of eight sessions and are facilitated by probation officers trained in the curriculum. Juvenile Employment Training (JET) JET is an employment skill-building program designed to help high-risk juvenile clients overcome barriers in pursuing and obtaining employment. The curriculum focuses on employment readiness. JET is currently offered to juveniles participating in the department s PLACE and Sentence to Serve programs. Repeat DWI Offender Program (ROP) The ROP program is designed for repeat DWI offenders and provides a combination of enhanced probation along with cognitive-behavioral and chemical health programming. Clients are Court-ordered into the program and participate in lieu of an extended jail or prison sentence. Clients must be residents of Washington County with a current DWI offense that is either their third in ten years or their fourth ever. The ROP program consists of three phases. Each phase lasts at least ninety days and includes modified house arrest, remote electronic alcohol monitoring, random and unannounced visits by a probation or law enforcement officer, weekly AA attendance, participation in a MADD Victim Impact Panel, and the development of a relapse prevention program. The program attempts to lengthen offender sobriety and reduce criminal behavior 54

61 Sentence to Serve (STS) Sentence to Service (STS) is a jail alternative program designed to repay the community harm incurred by an offense. The program reduces the cost of incarcerating offenders, provides work projects that are of benefit to the citizens of Washington County and improves the competencies of offenders through meaningful work experiences. In addition, offenders in the program can make amends for their actions by contributing on work projects that add significant value to organizations and communities throughout the county. STS affords lower-risk offenders the opportunity to labor in organized work crews on various projects throughout the county. Under the direction of STS crew leaders, work projects are completed for public, private non-profit, and government agencies. Work projects include cutting grass and shoveling snow for elderly/disabled individuals, trail and prairie restoration for state and county agencies, recycling for county buildings, natural disaster relief, painting, clean-up, and general maintenance. In 2016, the department s STS program saved taxpayers over one million dollars in incarceration costs by alleviating the need for 9,883 jail days for offenders who participated in the program. Offenders in the program completed 79,064 hours of work during the year. Buckthorn Removal in Washington County Parks Lawn Care for Disabled Social Service Clients 55