< Previous10 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 Automated Breathalyzer Kiosk Technologies David Kreitzer General Manager 2855 Country Drive, Suite 100 Little Canada, MN 55117 Phone: (651) 383.1213 Performance-Based Standards Learning Institute Kim Godfrey Lovett Executive Director 350 Granite Street, Suite 1203 Braintree, MA 02184 National Curriculum and Training Institute Gary Bushkin, President 319 East McDowell Road, Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85004-1534 Phone: (602) 252.3100 Northpointe Chris Kamin, General Manager Equivant Office: (608) 416-4302 Mobile: (608) 577-1755 Promise Diana Frappier, Chief Legal Officer 436 14th Street, Ste 920 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (415) 305.4560 Reconnect, Inc Sam Hotchkiss, Founder & CEO 1 Faraday Drive Cumberland, Maine 04021 RemoteCOM Robert Rosenbusch, President/CEO 2251 Double Creek Dr. Suite 404 Round Rock, TX 78664 Phone: (866)776-0731 SCRAM +LifeSafer Jed Rosenberg, Senior Marketing Manager Scram Systems 1241 West Mineral Avenue Littleton, CO 80120 Phone: (720) 261-6576 Securus Technologies Chris McDowell, Director of Marketing Securus Monitoring Solutions 5353 W Sam Houston Parkway N, Suite 190 Houston, TX 77041 Direct: (512) 515-1405 Mobile: (480) 215-3482 Shadowtrack Robert L. Magaletta ShadowTrack Technologies, Inc. Cypress Bend Office Building 1001 Ochsner Blvd., Ste. 425A Covington, LA 70433 Office: (985) 867.3771 Ext 120 Smart Start, Inc. Michelle H. Whitaker Conference and Promotions Coordinator 500 East Dallas Road,Grapevine, TX 76051 Phone: (919) 604.2513 Track Group Matthew Swando, VP of Sales and Marketing 1215 North Lakeview Court Romeoville, IL 60446 Phone: (877) 260.2010 TRACKtech Ben Williams, Vice President - Business Development 6295 Greenwood Plaza Blvd, Suite 100 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Phone: (303) 834-7519 Tyler Technologies Larry Stanton Director of Sales - Courts & Justice 5101 Tennyson Parkway Plano, TX 75024 Phone: (904) 654.3741 Uptrust Leo Scott, Program Manager 1 Sutter Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94104 765-469-1593 Website: Vant4ge Sean Hosman National Sales Leader – Public Sector Vant4ge P.O. Box 802, Salt Lake City, UT 84110 Phone: (877) 744-1360 appa associate members appa corporate members cont.11 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION In Memoriam: Dr. Edward J. Latessa BY BRIAN LOVINS, PHD – BOARD PRESIDENT, APPA Dr. Edward J. Latessa passed away from a long battle with pancreatic cancer—actually his second diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. In fact, Dr. Latessa was initially diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2008. He fought hard and won that round, but unfortunately the battle was not over. Living cancer free for 14 years, Ed was diagnosed again with pancreatic cancer in the summer of 2020. Known as a fighter, everyone believed he would battle through this round as well. Too strong to succumb to such a horrible disease, but in the end, cancer once again wins. But Dr. Latessa’s legacy isn’t that he is one a few million who not only survived pancreatic cancer but went on to be diagnosed again with it. No, Dr. Latessa’s legacy is the work he has done over the past 40 years to change the face of community corrections. As a young scholar, leaving Alabama for the University of Cincinnati, Ed, along with several of his colleagues began to carve out a formidable criminal justice department at UC. Over the years, the department grew and eventually evolved into a school. Ed’s first legacy was his students. Leaving in his wake thousands if not tens of thousands of students from undergrad to masters, and doctoral students who were shaped by Ed’s work. While Ed was a professor and the head of UC’s School of Criminal Justice, no one would confuse him for an armchair academician. Early in his career, he was always on the road, working in sites, conducting research, delivering training, and providing technical assistance to agencies in a way that most academics would not consider. Ed’s second legacy is the programs and the practitioners that saved community corrections. While others were discussing super predators and psychopaths, strategies to increase surveillance and catch people failing, Ed was the champion for his famous “What Works” presentation. He had given that talk 1000’s of times over his career. He spoke to legislators, providers, corrections staff, and law enforcement officers. He used the same practical, down-to-earth approach whether he was talking to a governor or a corrections worker on the line. He had an amazing way of translating academese to practical, on-the-ground concepts. His wit and storytelling were effective in disarming the staunchest of trail ‘em, nail ‘em, and jail ‘em types, opening them up to considering change-oriented approaches to people involved in the criminal justice system. He once told me that he wasn’t invested in any one specific idea, instead he was invested in the science of what works to change behavior. In fact, he often quipped if standing on your head in a corner showed to be effective in reducing reoffending, I would be up here preaching that we need to set up our programs to do effective head stands. He was passionate about his work. Always seeing the light at the end of the tunnel— we are changing corrections one program at a time. In fact, he has done more than that. He has impacted the delivery of core correctional practices and the integration of risk, need, and responsivity (RNR) across this country and the world. But ultimately, Dr. Latessa’s legacy is his family. He was married to Sally Latessa, and they had four children, three daughters—Amy, Jennifer, and Allie and one son, Michael. Even with traveling and saving rehabilitation from the brinks of the get tough on crime era, Ed was always there for his family. Making pancakes on Sunday morning, coaching a little league team, or just being there to help support their maturation, Ed was a family man. And that is how he treated all of us, as part of his family. He took us in and provided guidance, wisdom, and support. He was tough when he needed to be and soft at others. In fact, his good friend Larry Johnson, Dean of the CECH referred to him as a hard candy with a soft middle. In the end, Dr. Edward J. Latessa had a profound impact on the field of corrections. From assessment to interventions, from validation of risk assessments to studying the effectiveness of interventions, Ed was instrumental in bringing change-oriented work back to community corrections. His legacy is enormous. He has shaped many of us and much of our work. He was a giant among giants. Dr. Edward J. Latessa—you will be missed but not forgotten. Your legacy runs through all of us. And if there was ever one piece of advice that Ed provided to us that stuck over the years, it was “Don’t ‘f’ this up”. He is right. Our work is too important to mess it up. We are great people, and we need to do great things. Our communities are counting on us to help people find paths forward.12 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 Dr. David J. Simourd passed away on January 1, 2022, at the age of 62. Not only was he a clinical psychologist who worked with underserved populations, but he also was a strong believer in using science to guide clinical practice, and he contributed to the field by conducting and publishing substantial amounts of research. His contributions were so respected that he was elected as a Fellow of the Canadian Psychological Association, an honor quite uncommon for a clinician. He was undoubtedly most known to the Perspectives audience as a corrections consultant to agencies intent on implementing evidence-based practices, effectively helping them work through their struggles in establishing such practices. In fact, Dave was instrumental to many agencies beginning in the earliest years that our industry began paying attention to correctional science. In his consultation work, he was most known for his expertise on of risk/need assessments (particularly the Level of Service instruments) and identifying and dealing with criminal attitudes through cognitive-behavioral programming (he developed a number of nuanced criminal attitudes assessments/scales as well as a cognitive-behavioral curriculum—the Criminal Attitudes Program). I am greatly honored to share my remembrances of Dave, my mentor and personal friend. Moreover, I am certain that my experiences are not unique, as Dave undoubtedly touched and influenced many others throughout his prolific consulting career. In Memoriam: Dr. David J. Simourd BY JASON STAUFFER – PERSPECTIVES CO-EDITOR13 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION I first met Dave in the mid-2000s when I was a rookie program director in a county probation office. I saw him at a conference presenting work he was doing with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections regarding the LSI-R, and I was looking for an LSI-R trainer for my agency. To shorten the story, he agreed to train my staff. Never did I imagine that procuring a one-time contract with Dave would result in the professional mentorship and friendship that quickly developed. The most lasting lesson that I learned from Dave was the importance of adhering to science in all that we do. He was stubbornly adamant about having research support, and he was equally stubborn when it came to the quality of research used to support initiatives. Indeed, whenever I find myself insisting on examining data that has been provided with a skeptical eye, I am reminded of his lessons. Dave had an unrivaled, genuine excitement for producing quality research. He often shared with me drafts of research for which he planned to seek publication, because he knew that I was also a research junkie. When he e-mailed me a draft paper with his most recent findings on whatever topic he was researching, his tone was reminiscent of an eager childhood neighbor who was hankering to show off a new Christmas or birthday gift to each and every friend. Dave seemed to view teaching others about the importance of adhering to science in correctional practices as an important mission. I am confident that this is why he enjoyed consulting. Anyone who had the pleasure of participating in Dave’s training would observe his passion and knowledge. These attributes made him effective. However, it was his ability to engage and his friendly demeanor that made him one of the best in the business. His personality was infectious in that way. Although I had several opportunities throughout the years to work with Dave professionally, it was always a nice surprise to get the call or e-mail saying that he would be passing through Pennsylvania and was hoping to get together. If the weather cooperated, it would be on the golf course. My friend and colleague at the PA Department of Corrections, Rich Podguski—who shared a similar relationship with Dave—would often spearhead these meetings. When I informed Rich that Perspectives was honoring Dave with this article, he reminded me of the important life lessons we learned from Dave beyond our professional relationships. Those who knew him were acutely aware of his upbeat and positive nature. He was the kind of person that others wanted to be around. That mattered to Dave, because people mattered to him. He focused on the positive and encouraged others to do the same. It did not matter if you played golf poorly (“poorly” applying to Rich or me, as Dave routinely shot in the 70s), his focus in the pub after the round was on that great drive, approach, or putt that you made. That said, Rich was always left wondering how Dave’s 12-foot putt turned into a 24-foot putt by the end of the night! When I think about Dave’s influence on my own life, I think about how it all started. I wonder how many others he influenced similarly. Given his extensive consulting work around the world, I imagine it could be hundreds. I think about how many science-adherent agencies with leaders touched by his influence there are—and how much better off they are because of him. He was just one person, but he was a person who made a difference. His work also impacted the lives of so many who were under the charge of correctional agencies and, in turn, certainly had a positive effect on public safety in numerous jurisdictions. Although this was not an original cliché, I often referred to EBP implementation as “fighting the good fight” during my conversations with Dave. He was a monumental figure in the good fight, and he was a stellar example of how to fight. I hope that I can honor his memory by following his example as I carry on in his notable absence, and I hope that the many others similarly influenced aspire to do the same. 14 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 115 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION BY WESLEY G. JENNINGS, PH.D. AN EVIDENCE-BASED AND ENHANCED STAFFING ANALYSIS APPROACH FOR PROBATION AND PAROLE Implications for Recruitment and Retention16 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY AN EVIDENCE-BASED AND ENHANCED STAFFING ANALYSIS APPROACH FOR PROBATION AND PAROLE: IMPLICATIONS FOR RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION Introduction The primary role of probation and parole officers (PPOs) is to supervise offenders in the community. Having said this, their job duties and responsibilities usually fall into three broad categories: (a) probationer/parolee supervision and punishment, (b) probationer/parolee rehabilitation and reintegration, and (c) administrative/ paperwork/training (DeMichele, 2007). In addition, a critical component of the job is the expectation for the PPOs to build and foster a therapeutic relationship and support system with the offenders (Miller, 2015; Ohlin, et al., 1956; Raynor & Vanstone, 2016; Spiess & Johnson, 1980) while still promoting offender accountability and the threat of sanctions in the event of offender noncompliance with either the conditions of probation or parole or for the commission of a new criminal offense. Given the nature of the relationship between PPOs and the offenders on their caseload and the need to fulfill the above expectations, PPOs are vulnerable to work- related stress stemming from a long list of factors that affect retention and even recruitment. These factors include exposure to an offender’s criminal history (i.e., police reports, victim impact statements), exposure to an offender’s own traumatic life experiences, exposure to an offender’s family members’ difficulties stemming from the offender’s criminal history/involvement and related outcomes, etc. (Kirk & Hardy, 2014; Lewis, et al., 2013; Wilson et al., 2013). Other factors that have been documented among corrections staff that negatively influence recruitment and retention include burnout, role ambiguity, lack of role autonomy, high workload/ caseload, limited administrative and organizational support, financial concerns, and unnecessary paperwork (Finney et al., 2013; Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000; Slate et al., 2003). In the most comprehensive synthesis of the extant literature to date, Page and Robertson (2021) performed a systematic review of 19 studies that examined work-related distress among PPOs. Broadly speaking, the results illustrated high levels of burnout, emotional exhaustion, depression, secondary trauma, and low levels of a sense of personal accomplishment and job satisfaction among community corrections personnel. Historical Staffing Analysis Approaches for Probation & Parole Similar to many occupations and jobs that include caseloads, discussion regarding appropriate caseload size has been a frequent topic for probation and parole agencies. Early on, the “magic number” was 50 probationers/parolees per probation/parole officer. Following the 1967 report of the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, the prescribed optimal caseload size was reduced to 35 probationers/parolees per probation/parole officer. Soon thereafter, following a series of mixed research findings assessing the effectiveness of various caseload sizes (see Petersilia & Turner, 1993), the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) Issues Committee released a report in 1991 in an effort to promote a caseload standard that accounted for varying workloads (APPA, 1991). Specifically, the Committee argued that not all caseloads are created equal and that an example of a hypothetical caseload that accounts for workload would be: (a) 20 cases per probation/ parole officer for high-priority cases, (b) 60 cases per probation/parole officer for medium-priority cases, and (c) 120 cases per probation/parole officer for low-priority cases. In this scenario, if an officer were assigned a high priority caseload of 20 cases, they would have the same workload of an officer overseeing a low-priority caseload of 120 cases even though their caseloads would not be equivalent. This is because high risk/high priority cases take more time than medium risk/medium priority and low risk/low priority cases and medium risk/medium priority cases take more time that low risk/low priority cases. Ultimately, the APPA did not advocate adoption of a specific caseload standard. It instead offered guidance for agencies and recommended that agencies consider implementing a workload strategy to inform staffing needs and caseload size that takes into account agency needs, agency priorities, etc. Burrell (2006) examined and commented on the issue, and he did suggest caseload standards for probation and parole, with a differentiation of caseloads into the various workload types of intensive, moderate to high risk, and low risk. He argued that this categorization and classification should be based on key criteria including 17 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY risk of re-offending, offense type, and criminogenic needs. Emphasizing the importance of framing caseload standards as numbers not to be exceeded, he made recommendations for adult caseloads of 20:1 for intensive, 50:1 for moderate to high risk, and 200:1 for low risk. In a more comprehensive study, DeMichele (2007; see also DeMichele & Payne, 2007) sent out a request for information to those on the APPA mailing list, asking that they complete a questionnaire regarding a number of issues relevant for probation and parole caseloads, workload allocation, and strategies for managerial decision-making. A total of 228 respondents returned a usable questionnaire, and the majority of the respondents indicated that their caseload and/or workload were either “slightly too large” or “much too large.” On average, the respondents self-reported their caseloads as 106:1. In contrast, the respondents self-reported a caseload of 77:1, on average, as being the appropriate caseload to ensure adequate supervision. The Current Study In recognition of the myriad of work-related stressors that affect the recruitment and retention of PPOs, the existing guidance and standards on PPO caseloads, and the current climate surrounding staffing shortages in the field of criminal justice in general and in community corrections in particular (Viglione et al., 2020), the current study presents an evidence-based and enhanced staffing analysis approach for probation and parole using mixed methods as a guide for recruitment and retention and as a framework for making evidence-based requests for additional staffing resources for probation and parole agencies. An Evidence-Based and Enhanced Staffing Analysis Approach for Probation and Parole Table 1 presents Steps 1-4 of the 10-step, evidence- based and enhanced staffing analysis approach for probation and parole with hypothetical data for illustrative purposes. Step 1 is to identify the existing staff positions in the probation/parole department. For example, the hypothetical agency has 14 total staff; specifically, two sworn supervisors (managers), 10 sworn probation/ parole officers, and two non-sworn, civilian (secretary) positions. Step 2 involves collecting and documenting the work schedules and shifts for the staff positions. In this example, all agency personnel are scheduled to work 8-hour shifts, Monday-Friday (5 days a week), for 40 total hours worked per week, which results in a total number of hours of coverage needed of 2,086 hours per year per staff position (40 hours multiplied by 52.14 weeks). Step 3 focuses on collecting data on the staff regarding Positions Shift Length # Hours on Days # Hours on Nights # Hours on Graves #Hours Worked per Week # of Days Worked per Week # of Hours of Coverage Per Year (*52.14 hours) # Hours Taken Off per Year Net Annual Work Hours Supervisor- Managers (2) 88004054,172a350b3,822c Probation/ Parole Officer- Officer (10) 880040520,8601,50019,360 Civilian- Secretary (2) 88004054,172300 3,872 Table 1. Hypothetical Evidence-Based and Enhanced Staffing Analysis Approach for Probation and Parole. a 40 hours per week * 52.14 weeks * 2 managers= 4,172 hours b 175 average hours taken off annually * 2 managers= 350 hours c 4,172 hours (number of hours of coverage per year * 2 managers)– 350 hours (average hours taken off annually * 2 managers)= 3,822 net annual work hours 18 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY Positions Net Annual Work Hours Shift Relief Factor Shift Relief Factor * Number of Staff Workload Distribution (Probationer/ Parolee Supervision and Punishment) Workload Distribution (Probationer/ Parolee Rehabilitation and Reintegration) Workload Distribution (Administrative/ Paperwork/ Training) Supervisor- Managers (2) 3,8221.09 2.180%0%100% Probation/ Parole Officer- Officer (10) 20,7201.0810.8060% 10%30% Civilian- Secretary (2) 3,8721.082.160%0%100% Total Staffing Needs Net Staffing Needs Table 2. Hypothetical Evidence-Based and Enhanced Staffing Analysis Approach for Probation and Parole with Workload Distribution and Probationer/Parolee-to- Probation/Parole Officer Ratio Adjustments. the number of hours per year that they actually take off. Oftentimes staffing analysis models rely on accrual time versus actual time taken off, which is a limitation if the staff are not actually taking off all of the time accrued because of an inability to do so attributable to current (low) staffing levels. An average is to be taken for all staff by position (i.e., calculate the average time taken off among supervisors, calculate the average time taken off for probation/parole officers, calculate the average time taken off for civilians). Step 4 is calculating the total net annual work hours for all staff by position, which is done by taking the total number of hours of coverage per year, subtracting the number of hours taken off per year, and then multiplying the result by the number of staff. (See Miller et al., 2016, for an additional description of net annual work hours.) Steps 5-10 are displayed in Table 2. Step 5 is calculating the shift relief factor for staff by position (number of hours of coverage per year divided by net annual work hours). Step 6 involves multiplying the shift relief factor by the number of staff by position. Step 7 involves a qualitative analysis-informed calculation of the percentage distributions of the workload for all staff by position. Essentially, probation/parole officer staff members should be randomly selected by shift to participate in focus groups in which they are presented a questionnaire and provide a researcher/academic answers regarding their best estimation of their workload distribution during a “typical day/shift” across the three broad categories mentioned earlier, i.e., (a) probationer/parolee supervision and punishment, (b) probationer/parolee rehabilitation and reintegration, and (c) administrative/ paperwork/training. The percentage distributions for each interviewee for each workload category should be recorded by the researcher/academic and then averaged among the interviewees (i.e., if three probation/parole officers are randomly selected to participate in the focus groups then their recorded percentages are averaged for each workload category). 19 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY Probationer/Parolee Supervision and Punishment Relief Factor Multiplier Probationer/ Parolee Rehabilitation and Reintegration Relief Factor Multiplier Shift Relief Factor * Number of Staff * Probationer/ Parolee Supervision and Punishment and/ or Rehabilitation and Reintegration Relief Factor Multiplier 84:1 Probationer/ Parolee-to-Probation/ Parole Officer Ratio Multiplier Projected Population Growth Estimate Multiplier 0%0%2.182.18 (n/a multiplier)2.40d 15%15%14.04a16.29b17.92 0%0%2.16 2.16 (n/a multiplier)2.38 20.6322.70 6.63c8.70 a. 10.80 * .30 (30%) = 3.24 + 10.80 = 14.04 b. 14.04 + (current probationer/parolee-to-probation/parole officer ratio of 100:1; need to adjust by an increase of 16% to reach optimal 84:1 ratio)= 14.04 + (14.04 * .16)= 16.29 c. 20.63 (total staffing needs) – 14 (existing staff)= +6.63 staff (net staffing needs) d. 2.18 * .10 (10% projected population growth over the next decade)= 2.40 Step 8 involves applying a probationer/parolee supervision and punishment and/or a probationer/parolee rehabilitation and reintegration multiplier. For example, if an agency prioritizes supervision and punishment equally to rehabilitation and reintegration, then the percentage of a PPO’s workload that is devoted to administrative/ paperwork/training needs coverage in order to avoid periods throughout the workday where either or both of these agency priorities are not being actively “worked on.” As reported in Table 2, the agency priorities in the hypothetical staffing analysis are equally valued, and thus the percentage of the probation/parole officer’s workload that is allocated to administrative/paperwork/ training (30%) is evenly split toward coverage for the “lost time” for supervision and punishment (15%) and rehabilitation and reintegration (15%). Step 9 focuses on applying the optimal probationer- to-probation officer (or parolee-to-parole officer) ratio multiplier to the agency’s existing probationer/parolee- to-officer ratio. The optimal ratio is determined based on an average of Burrell’s (2006) recommended APPA caseload standards (20 cases for intensive + 50 cases for moderate to high risk + 200 cases for low risk = 270/3 = 90:1) and the optimal caseload standard (77:1) self- reported by APPA survey respondents in DeMichele’s 2007 study (again, see also DeMichele & Payne, 2007). The average caseload from these two estimates equals 83.5, which is rounded up to 84:1. After comparing the optimal probationer/parolee-to-probation/parole officer ratio multiplier with the agency’s existing supervision ratio, the final result indicates that the total staffing needs for the hypothetical agency are 20.63 staff (2.18 supervisors, 16.29 probation/parole officers, and 2.16 civilians), as compared to the current staffing level of 14 staff. That means a need for 6.63 additional staff. In the final step, Step 10, staffing needs are adjusted based on population growth estimates for the agency’s jurisdiction as projected by the U.S. Census Federal- State Cooperative for Population Estimates (FSCPE, Next >