< Previous31 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION THE PRETRIAL ISSUE RE-WRITING RULES OF SUPERVISION TO REDUCE REVOCATIONS WITH ACTION RESEARCH TEAMS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was made possible by funding from Arnold Ventures and with support from CUNY ISLG. Applied research is a collaborative endeavor; it is not possible without the participation of many stakeholders. We are grateful for the assistance and cooperation of the Monroe Circuit Court Probation Department, as well as the judges, attorneys, and community members who made this work possible. We would also like to thank Emma Stone, Barb Broderick, and Justice System Partners. J urisdictions around the country are seeking solutions to temper the use of incarceration. Decreasing probation revocations is one avenue to achieve that goal. From 2019 to 2023, the Monroe Circuit Court Probation Department (MCCPD) in Bloomington, Indiana, worked with a team of researchers to better understand the dynamics leading to probation revocations in their county. During the first phase of this project, from September 2019 to July 2021, MCCPD and researchers from Indiana University and George Mason University collaboratively reviewed six years of administrative records for all clients ordered to probation. The partners also carried out primary data collection by developing and administering surveys and interviews to supplement administrative records. During the second phase, from September 2021 to September 2023, the teams worked together to implement interventions to interrupt probation revocations in Monroe County, Indiana, and tracked the impact of those interventions. One intervention focused on re- writing the rules of supervision and integrating Justice System Partners into an Action Research Team (ART) of practitioners, researchers, and change makers. This brief covers what we have learned to date and includes discussions of our approach to driving policy change through action-research, our preliminary findings, the process we engaged in to rewrite the rules, and lessons learned. The Research of the Action Research Team In the first phase of our work, we investigated the pathways that lead to probation violations and revocation. We examined a large dataset of administrative records for over 4,000 clients ordered to adult probation supervision in Monroe County, Indiana. We supplemented these data with a richer but smaller dataset derived from manual case file reviews of nearly 300 clients who had accumulated a large volume of violations and administrative sanctions. Using regression analyses, our research team examined factors that influenced violations, revocations, and the length of time clients were subject to supervision. We also identified and distinguished between different pathways of client compliance and non-compliance across supervision terms using social sequence analysis and case management records. Complementing this quantitative study, we conducted a thorough review of the relevant state and local policies that govern probation conditions and their enforcement. Finally, we conducted surveys and interviews with employees of the MCCPD to capture their perceptions of the system and their attitudes toward their role in it. Surveys and interviews were also administered to judges, prosecutors, and public defenders. One notable absence in our approach was the lack of involvement of justice-impacted individuals during the first phase of our work. Across all local- and state-run agencies reporting data to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, about 12% of all probation exits are due to incarceration (revocation) (Kaeble, 2023). The average revocation rate across all county-managed probation in Indiana is 26% for felony cases and 15% for misdemeanor cases (Indiana Supreme Court, Office of Justice Administration, 2022). Monroe County is aligned with these state and national numbers, as its revocation rate was 12%. Overall, the result of the quantitative analysis showed that approximately 60% of the violations filed with the court and 68% of the revocations were for technical reasons only. The main driver of revocation was client behavior, as opposed to client characteristics. However, probation officer (PO) characteristics and discretion also play a critical role in how non-compliance is handled. Our social sequence analysis showed that many clients follow a pathway characterized by an initial violation, which typically consists of a missed probation appointment or failed drug test, followed by a sustained period of compliance and a successful exit from supervision. The least successful pathways were characterized by repeated missed probation appointments or sequences of violations that alternated between missed probation appointments and substance use. Further, we noticed racial disparities in the clients who were caught up in these technical violations. Even after considering client factors, case factors, probation officer, and case assignment factors, the results showed that a larger 32 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 48, NUMBER 2 THE PRETRIAL ISSUE portion of Black clients had violations filed against them at the front end of the revocation process (i.e., in violations filed), but this disproportion was not found at the tail end of the process (i.e., revocations ordered). Overall, a closer look at the technical, or rule, violations was a top priority for the ART. Regarding PO characteristics, we saw significant variance between POs in the rate at which they filed violations and revocations. The average revocation rate by officer (without adjustments for client demographics or case characteristics) was 23%. However, four officers revoked 33% or more of their clients, while five officers revoked 13% or fewer of their clients. We only found one strong predictor of this variation, which was officer experience, as less experienced POs were more likely to file violations while more experienced POs were less likely to resolve violations with formal filings. Overall, POs demonstrated a willingness to work with clients on noncompliance issues, particularly if the client had a previous period or periods of compliance, and this inclination was found across the quantitative, survey, and interview data collections. Together, findings from the first phase generated questions about timely and relevant interventions that might help shift clients who begin to accumulate technical violations and administrative sanctions toward a more successful pathway. THE PURPOSE AND COMPOSITION OF THE ACTION RESEARCH TEAM: SELECTING AND IMPLEMENTING INTERVENTIONS Once the initial research results were in, we began the challenge of pursuing actual policy and practice change, with the overarching goal of reducing the total number of revocations in Monroe County. As the task shifted from research to policy change, the composition and purpose of the ART also changed and expanded. Phase I research was primarily led by the researchers who directed the interviews, surveys, and other data collection in coordination with the leaders of the probation department. However, during Phase II, the task changed from “research tasks” like observing and assessing to “action tasks” such as selecting appropriate interventions. For these tasks, the ART expanded to include many more stakeholders, described below, who could assess the most needed interventions and work together on implementation. We employed a sequenced strategy summarized in Figure 1 to identify and build support around a subset of interventions. Figure 1 shows the eight steps that the original ART and the expanded ART teams went through to get from an exhaustive list of ambitious recommendations to a set of core interventions to implement. These eight steps involved a crucial deliberative process requiring significant time and resources. Using the research findings as a guide, the original ART team produced an ambitious list of nearly 30 interventions that may interrupt cycles of technical violations that led to higher revocation rates. This initial draft was made without regard to expense, time, or other resources needed to implement the interventions. Next, we assessed each intervention to determine whether it aligned with the principles described in the 2004 report produced by the Crime and Justice Institute under FIGURE 1: Moving from Research to Intervention & Assessment33 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION THE PRETRIAL ISSUE National Institute of Corrections sponsorship that laid out eight principles of effective intervention (Bogue et al., 2004). Interventions that adhered to these principles were retained. Individual members of the original ART then engaged in “Shark Tank”-style proposals to each other, making the case for specific interventions to help narrow the pool of interventions. Following these competitions, the original ART needed to determine which interventions were feasible in terms of time, cost, and impact (Version 1 in Figure 1 above), and this challenge necessitated expanding the ART to include additional stakeholders. To arrive at the second and third versions of interventions, internal discussions between the original ART and the expanded ART (which included MCCPD probation officers and judges) were held to prioritize interventions. MCCPD’s Chief Probation Officer was a key facilitator, advocating for select interventions to the presiding judge. The presiding judge, in turn, was essential to cultivating buy-in and consensus among the judiciary. These exchanges took several months, during which the reduced set of interventions was expanded and then whittled down and reframed based on stakeholder interest and support as well as time, cost, and anticipated impact. To gain final approval and support, prosecutors and public defenders were integrated into stakeholder meetings and deliberations with MCCPD, the presiding judge, and the original ART team. The final three core interventions consisted of (a) revising the probation conditions, (b) expanding client incentives, and (c) improving case plans. Although these three core interventions were developed with wider input beyond the original ART, supervisory probation officers were ultimately the key to their successful adoption, because they were in charge of implementation. Thus, it was crucial to ensure that probation supervisors actively supported the interventions and worked to cultivate buy-in among probation officers in order to make these interventions lasting aspects of the Monroe County Probation Department’s organizational culture. As such, responsibility for implementation was achieved using distinct workgroups (see Figure 2) in which both supervisory and line probation officers were able to have a voice. However, final approval rested with the chief probation officer and the judges. THE ACTION OF THE ACTION RESEARCH TEAM: THE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS OF REWRITING THE RULES OF PROBATION We focus below on one of the three interventions, the one that required the most consensus building and that involved the greatest range of stakeholders: revising the standard rules of probation. Monroe County mirrors the rest of the state of Indiana in that roughly half of its revocations are due to technical violations. In other words, people who cannot keep appointments or who fail to complete treatment are being revoked in similar numbers to those actively committing new crimes. Since client noncompliance resulting in technical violations is the largest driver of revocations in our data, it is important to clearly understand how the standard conditions define the set of problematized behaviors for which probation officers are instructed to file violations. The standard conditions of probation are the mandatory conditions, or rules, automatically applied during sentencing (Table 1). These conditions direct why, and to some extent when, probation officers should file violations and revocations. Monroe County’s standard conditions focused on concepts of accountability without reference to ability. Moreover, standard conditions were somewhat negatively phrased and did not focus on FIGURE 2: Composition of ART and WorkgroupsPERSPECTIVESVOLUME 48, NUMBER 2 THE PRETRIAL ISSUE positive goal achievement. With that set of standard conditions in place, probation officers tended to focus on enforcing a general list of rules that did not apply to all clients and did not assist clients in making positive changes. Therefore, one main goal was to reduce the number of rules and rewrite the remaining rules to be more positive and change-oriented. Step 1: Frame Recommendations The ART framed the recommendation for the larger Workgroup A tasked with revising the standard conditions (see Figure 2). The revisions to the rules were intended to align the rules with the Principles of Effective Intervention (Bogue et al., 2004) so that the revised rules would enhance intrinsic motivation; target interventions on the basis of risk, need, and individual characteristics; and incorporate treatment. To align the old standards with these principles, Workgroup A worked on reframing each condition, moving from a narrow compliance model toward a strengths-based or positive outcome-based model. For example, “working toward sobriety” could replace “shall not use substances” as a basic probation condition. Conditions that are oriented toward positive growth give POs more tools for addressing the criminogenic needs of their clients and discussing progress rather than compliance (Lovins et al., 2022). Condition Number Original ConditionRevised Condition 1 You shall not commit a criminal offense or operate a vehicle without a valid license. I will not commit a new criminal offense. 2 You shall report any arrest or criminal charge to the Probation Department within 24 hours. I will report any new criminal charge to the probation department by my next scheduled appointment. 3 You shall report to the Probation Department immediately following your sentencing hearing or, if incarcerated, within 72 hours of release. (Removed from conditions and included in a paragraph on the sentencing order.) 4 Thereafter, you shall report as directed to the Probation Department and… (continued in row 5) I will maintain contact with my probation officer as directed. 5(started in row 4) …provide truthful information.(Eliminated) 6 You shall notify the Probation Department in writing within 48 hours of any change in address, phone, employment or educational status. I will inform my probation officer where I am staying at each scheduled appointment. 7 You shall permit authorized representatives of the Probation Department to visit you in your home and elsewhere at reasonable times. I will allow the probation department to visit me in my home or elsewhere. 8 You shall maintain or seek suitable employment or pursue a course of study or vocational training. (Eliminated; see row 13) 9 If convicted of a felony offense, you shall provide a DNA sample and you shall not leave the State of Indiana without written permission of the Court. (Removed from conditions and is included in a paragraph on the sentencing order.) 10 You shall not carry, use or possess any firearms, air or gas- propelled guns, ammunition, explosive devices, or deadly weapons. I will not carry, use, or possess any weapons and/ or ammunition that could be used to harm myself or others. 11 You shall not consume alcohol and shall not possess, consume, inhale, inject, or apply controlled substances unless prescribed to you for valid medical reasons by a properly licensed healthcare provider. I will not use alcohol and I will not use controlled substances unless prescribed to me for valid medical reasons by a properly licensed healthcare provider. 12 You shall submit to drug/alcohol tests, at your expense, when requested by the Probation Department or treatment providers. I will submit to drug/alcohol tests, at my expense, when requested by the probation department. 13 You shall complete, at your expense, the terms of your probation case plan and provide proof of completion of any classes, counseling, groups, inpatient or outpatient treatment, or correctional programs directed by the Probation Department. I will meet with my probation officer to develop and follow an individualized plan, at my expense, that focuses on goals designed to support my success. TABLE 1: Original and Revised Standard Conditions of Supervision AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION THE PRETRIAL ISSUE The number of conditions was also a consideration. Although there are nominally seven standard conditions, some had subparts. The ART analysis of policy and practice found that, functionally, probation officers were tied to tracking their clients’ adherence to 13 standard conditions (see Table 1). Also, the standard conditions are only the baseline, as individual sentences sometimes include imposition of additional conditions. The ART interviews indicated that tracking compliance with all the mandatory conditions places a significant burden on officer time, despite a generally positive orientation toward the rules. Moreover, for the client more conditions meant more opportunities to fail. Thus, each condition needed to have true rehabilitative or community safety benefits. The ART’s recommendation to Workgroup A was to reduce and revise the standard conditions of supervision. Judges would still be assigning additional conditions tailored to the individual client’s criminogenic needs, but, given the improved standard conditions, probation officers overall would be better able to prioritize the most crucial issues in their work with clients. Step 2: Dialogue and Building Consensus The implementation of the revised standard rules involved the most decision makers and the most complex consensus process. Drawing on past experience with other efforts at systemic reform, we engaged Justice System Partners to provide professional outside facilitation. Prior to this project, in 2015 and 2016, Monroe County relied on outside facilitation from the National Institute of Corrections to establish a formal pretrial services program. At that time, an outside consultant proved to be the indispensable locus of momentum driving the discussion forward to a successful outcome. Thus, the department knew that collaboration with Justice System Partners would be essential in engaging the decision makers in the effort to change the standard rules. Justice System Partners facilitated three group discussions between August 2022 and March 2023 in which probation officers, probation supervisors, members of the courts (i.e., judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys), the research team, and community research partners met. Two of the three meetings were in person with a Zoom attendance option, and one meeting was fully conducted via Zoom. Additionally, the workgroup met two additional times without the moderator present. All conversations covered sensitive and complicated topics such as, for example, whether the condition to ban firearms was crucial to field officer safety or an unintended barrier to probation success. Many conversations would not have been successful or reached consensus if they had been led by department staff or by moderators with limited experience in probation. Step 3: Compromise When Necessary In these meetings, the majority of attendees were open to revising the conditions to more closely cohere to evidence-based principles and a strengths-based model of supervision. Some attendees were less inclined to do so and had concerns arising from perspectives related to their position and role. For example, prosecutors were concerned that language such as “working toward sobriety” would pose significant challenges to prove in a courtroom. Ultimately, to achieve the needed buy-in, the extent of the policy revisions had to be drastically reduced. Table 1 shows a side-by-side comparison of the old wording and revised wording. In the final revision, two sub-conditions have been merged, and a more active sentence structure shifts some of the remaining conditions toward a slightly more positive framing. Suggested rule changes aimed at reducing barriers for clients (i.e., drug testing) were not modified as a standard condition but, instead, could be excluded based on each individual’s presenting factors when sentencing decisions are made by a judge. Reflecting on the Revised Rules The revised conditions went into effect for individuals with cases sentenced after August 1, 2023, at which point clients received the revised rules. As of this writing, only eight months later, it is too early for us to share the outcomes of the revised rules. Cases managed under the old conditions will continue to make their way through the courts for some time. We expect it to take approximately two years before we will see datasets that are composed exclusively of cases managed under the revised rules. At that point, we will be able to provide a better understanding of whether, and how, the revised rules influenced other outcomes. The focus of this brief is not on the impact of the rules on probation success but is instead on how to utilize Action Research Teams to change policies and practice. Our reflections are primarily related to what we have learned about cultural change at this stage. The deliberative process we developed to achieve the revisions enacted to date constitutes a cultural step in a positive direction. It has accelerated familiarity with EBP principles throughout the justice system. The ART team retained the trust and respect of the practitioners throughout this process. Of crucial importance, and VOLUME 46, NUMBER 2 THE PRETRIAL ISSUE worth special emphasis, is that we formed a strong basis for ongoing reform work with Monroe County. The ART and workgroup partnerships have demonstrated that with patience and collaboration an action-research pairing allows successfully engagement with diverse stakeholders and builds a dialogue that leads to systemic policy and practice reforms. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE ACTION RESEARCH TEAM AND WORKGROUP PARTNERSHIPS Professional Outside Facilitation Is Invaluable The justice system is a human system: it derives stability from the repetition of routine interactions between its various parts, each with its own mandate, relational dynamics, and institutional memory. High-level change that affects this entire system is difficult to generate from inside the homeostasis of the organization. An outside facilitator can create a positive degree of disruption safely, break down habitual roles and power dynamics to make space for productive discussions, and consistently drive the process forward. Involve Justice-Involved Individuals Individuals with lived experiences have unique and valuable perspectives that should be central to reform efforts. They understand how evenly policies are implemented across departments. They understand the intended and unintended impacts of policies. What we learned is that creating spaces that will foster respectful conversation between a wide variety of stakeholders— from judges to attorneys to justice-involved clients—is a daunting task. Nevertheless, involving justice-involved clients would have benefited the project and its outcome, and we now strive to do a better job of this in our continuing work together. The Higher Level the Reform, the Longer to Implement Even though we built deliberative time into our implementation plans, the actual deliberations took even longer. There was change in scope of the reform effort, from the originally planned revisions (i.e., big step) to the more modest revisions (i.e., smaller steps). Our original proposal may have overestimated how fast the existing culture would be able to assimilate a new philosophy. In the end, patience and persistence were key. Seek Progress, Not Perfection Pursuing policy change at this level can be slow and frustrating. Nonetheless, whereas a standard research study might provide recommendations that go nowhere, our professionally facilitated dialogue cultivated the systemic buy-in necessary to result in a concrete action, however small. The long-term potential of these relationships is incalculable. REFERENCES Bogue, B., Woodward, B., Campbell, N. M., Clawson, E., & Faust, D. (2004). Implementing evidence-based practice in community corrections: The principles of effective intervention. Crime and Justice Institute. https://nicic.gov/resources/nic-library/all-library-items/ implementing-evidence-based-practice-community- corrections Indiana Supreme Court, Office of Justice Administration. (2022). Indiana probation report: Summary and statistics. in.gov/courts/iocs/statistics/trail-probation-2022 Kaeble, D. (2023). Probation and parole in the United States, 2021 (305589; Probation and Parole Populations). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https:// bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/probation-and-parole- united-states-2021 Lovins, B. K., Brusman Lovins, L. A., & Latessa, E. J.(2022). Reimagining probation reform: Applying a coaching model to probation departments. In E. Jeglic & C.Calkins (Eds.), Handbook of issues in criminal justice reform in the United States (pp. 291–305). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 030-77565-0_16THE PRETRIAL ISSUE AUTHOR BIOS Linda Brady is the Chief Probation Officer for the Monroe Circuit Court in Bloomington, IN. She is the serves on the National Association of Probation Executives (NAPE) Board of Directors representing the Central Region of the United States. Eric Grommon is a Paul H. O’Neill Professor in the O’Neil School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Indianapolis. He is an applied criminologist who conducts research and evaluation on justice system policy and practice with and for practitioner and community partners. Troy Hatfield, MS, is Deputy Chief Probation Officer for the Monroe Circuit Court Probation Department in Indiana. He oversees adult and juvenile probation, the court alcohol and drug program, and coordinates research activities for the department. He holds a Bachelor’s degree from Indiana University and a Master’s degree from Indiana State University. Brian Lovins is the immediate past president of the American Probation & Parole Association and the president of Justice System Partners. He routinely works with agencies to improve the practices of the criminal justice system. Evan M. Lowder is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University. Her work examines strategies to reduce use of incarceration and connect individuals with needed services and supports in the community. Miriam Northcutt Bohmert is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at Indiana University – Bloomington. Her work focuses on reentry, community corrections, and how these are experienced by marginalized individuals. Michelle Ying, MS, is a research coordinator at Indiana University, Bloomington. Her work focuses on providing support to research in the Criminal Justice field across projects involving the courts and community corrections.Membership Application YES! I WOULD LIKE TO JOIN APPA: REFERRED BY:___________________________ (U.S. currency) (1 year) $25 (1 year) $50 (3 year) $135 ( 900 + staff - 1 year)$ 3 ,000 Student Membership Individual Member Individual Member Level I Agency Member Level II Agency Member ( 6 00- 8 99 staff - 1 year) $ 2,000 $ 1,100 $ 600 $250 $1,000 $8,000 $150 $60 $300 CONTACT INFORMATION: First Name: Last Name: Title: Email: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: Fax: Agency/Organization: Check if same address as above Agency/Org. Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: Fax: Website: METHOD OF PAYMENT: Check Purchase Order Check Enclosed Government Purchase Order Enclosed; PO # _________________________________________________ For credit card payments, please call Kimberly Mills at 859.244.8204. Mail or fax application and payment to: APPA c/o The Council of State Governments 1776 Avenue of the States • Lexington, KY 40511-8482 Fax: (859) 244-8001 For further information, call (859)244-8204 or email appamembership@csg.org Individual applicants, please complete the following: Less than 2 years 2-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years More than 26 years LENGTH OF EXPERIENCE IN COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Female Male GENDER African American Asian Caucasian Hispanic Native American/ Alaska Native Other______________ RACE/ETHNICITY Associate’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree GED High School Diploma Master’s Degree Doctorate HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION Urban (Pop. >50,000) Rural (Pop. <50,000) Both Urban and Rural GEOGRAPHIC WORK AREAS City County Federal Province State Tribal Alaskan Village Other _____________ JOB JURISDICTION Case Management/Planning Controlled Substances Criminogenic Risk/Needs Diversity Domestic Violence DUI Electronic Monitoring Evidence-Based Practice Family Justice Fines, Fees & Restitution Gangs International Interstate Compact/Commission Judicial Juvenile Justice Offender Employment Offender Mental Health Officer Safety/Wellness Parole Pretrial Probation Professional Development Public Policy Public Relations Recidivism Research/Evaluation Restorative Justice Sex Offender Management Supervision Strategies Technology Victims Issues Workplace Other: _____________ I AM INTERESTED IN: Academia Adult Correction Adult Parole Adult Probation Community Justice Juvenile Parole Juvenile Probation Judicial Non-Profit Pretrial Services Private Residential Treatment Provider APPA Advocacy Stances Awards & Spotlights Career Center Executive Summit Leadership Institute Marketing Opportunities Online Training Courses Specialized Services Training Institutes Writing for Quarterly Journal PRIMARY WORK SECTOR APPA OFFERINGS Administrator Attorney Commissioner/Director/Chief Consultant Educator Grant Coordinator Judge Line Officer Parole Board Member Private Project Director Retired Specialist Student Supervisor Trainer Transition Specialist PROFESSIONAL CATEGORY *FornewAffiliatemembershipsacopyoftheorganization’scurrentlistofboardofdirectorsand/orelected officersand writtenmissionstatement.AllAffiliateapplicationsaresubjecttoapprovalbytheAPPAboardof directors. A vote will be taken at the next regularly scheduled board meeting to approve new affiliates. (Individual must meet qualification criteria. Additional materials will be mailed to youupon receipt of this form to completeyour application) AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION Level IV Agency Member Level V Agency Member Affiliate Member Associate Member Corporate Member Educational Institution Library Subscription Lifetime Member (50 - 2 99 staff - 1 year) (1-49 staff - 1 year) (1 year) (1 year) (1 year) (1 year) (1 year) (Lifetime) ( 3 00- 5 99 staff - 1 year) $ 1,500 Level II I Agency MemberNext >