Key Probation Practices

Probation Departments across the State of California are responsible for providing effective services and programs to the individuals under their supervision. There are several key probation practices that are used by Probation Departments to reduce the likelihood of future involvement in the juvenile and criminal justice systems. These practices include evidence-based practices, data collection, research and evaluation, and collaborative efforts.

Evidence Based Practice

Over the years, Probation Departments in California have increasingly adopted a research-based approach to public safety that relies on evidence-based practices and data-driven decision-making, utilizing the eight principles of effective interventions for community corrections. There are varying examples of evidence-based practices for juveniles in the juvenile justice system and evidence-based practices for adults in the criminal justice system.

Eight Principles of Effective Interventions for Community Corrections

The first principle is to “assess actuarial risk and needs.”

There are numerous Risk and Need Assessment instruments that based on the specific risk they are assessing. There are different tools that are used with different populations and at different stages in the process. For example, there are specific assessment instruments for probation supervision for juveniles and adults. There are also assessment instruments to be used with the adult pretrial population. Additionally, there are also assessment instruments to assist juvenile detention facilities with detain and release decisions. However, the science and research behind each of these tools is similar and they have all been normed and validated for their specific populations and purpose. Risk assessment instruments focus on dynamic factors (characteristics that can change over time, such as substance abuse) and static factors (characteristics that are historical or unchangeable, such as age at first arrest). These assessments also profile criminogenic needs (dynamic risk factors that when addressed or changed, affect the risk for recidivism). Appropriate use of these assessments requires that they have been validated on a similar population (eventually being validated on the county’s specific population).

There are specific risk factors that have been determined to lead to recidivism. Read More

The second principle is to “enhance intrinsic motivation.”

There are many reasons individuals struggle with behavior change. Lasting behavior change requires some level of intrinsic motivation. A probation officer can assist in building an individual’s intrinsic motivation through the use of Motivational Interviewing.

Motivational Interviewing is a process that uses open ended questions, empathy, affirmations, and the use of open communication with the individual to understand what motivates them. Feelings of ambivalence that usually accompany behavior change can be explored through Motivational Interviewing techniques. When the individual begins to present arguments against change, research strongly suggests that Motivational Interviewing techniques are more effective than persuasion tactics.

The third principle is to “target Interventions.”

Any interventions provided to the individual should follow the following principles:

Risk Principle: It is critical to prioritize supervision and treatment resources to individuals who are assessed as higher-risk and provide less supervision and resources to individuals assessed as lower-risk.

Need Principle: It is important to ensure that cognitive behavioral interventions match the needs of the individual. By targeting the criminogenic risk factors that lead to criminal behavior, lasting behavior change can occur. If the wrong interventions are offered to the individual, it can actually increase criminal behavior. It is important to target the top three or four criminogenic risk factors for long lasting change.

Responsivity Principle: Probation officers should be responsive to temperament, learning-style, motivation, gender, and culture when placing individuals in evidence-based programming.

Dosage Principle: Individuals assessed as higher-risk should spend a large percentages of their time in structured evidence-based activities. The required number of hours spent in cognitive behavioral interventions should increase with the individual’s risk level.

The fourth principle is to “skill train with directed practice.”

Individuals need to practice what they learn. They need to learn new skills to deal with life stresses. This is an important factor in building success. In cognitive behavioral programs, participants learn new skills, practice these skills, and report back on their use of the new skills. To successfully deliver this treatment, staff must be well-trained in antisocial thinking, social learning, and appropriate communication techniques.

The fifth principle is to “increase positive reinforcements.”

By rewarding appropriate behavior while still sanctioning negative behavior, the individual is more likely to make lasting changes. Having the probation officer focus on positive reinforcement is key to behavior change. People are more likely to continue positive behavior when they feel it is acknowledged and appreciated.

Probation Departments often use a Rewards Matrix in conjunction with a Sanctions Matrix matrix to build consistency and reinforce behavior change. Research shows that providing four rewards to one sanction makes a significant difference in lasting behavior change. Examples of rewards may be as simple as a thank you or acknowledgement of a positive behavior, a certificate, a later curfew, a gift card, less frequent appointments with their probation officer, or early termination or dismissal of probation. Rewards may be given for completion of a program, good grades in school, attendance in programs, or other positive behavior.

For times when a sanction is warranted, a sanction matrix takes into consideration the risk level of the individual and the severity of the violation. Many sanctions matrices increase in severity when there are continued incidents of low-level violations. Sanctions may include an earlier curfew, additional drug testing, more probation appointments, global positioning satellite (GPS), or attending additional evidence-based programs. An arrest is the most severe sanction and should only be used for serious violations or a pattern of violations after other sanctions have not diminished the negative behavior.

Low-level sanctions can be handled between the probation officer and the individual and do not require court intervention. However, any sanction that includes a commitment to global positioning satellite, or a period of incarceration (excluding flash incarceration) will require a formal violation of probation to be filed with the court. Under this circumstance, the probation officer will make a recommendation to the court and the court will make the final court order for the sanction.

The sixth principle is to “engage ongoing support in natural communities.”

Having a support system is key to behavior change. The support may come from family, friends, other peers in programs, and staff who are guiding the programs. Prosocial activities utilize community support for success; this may include education, employment, or volunteer activities. Probation officers can actively engage pro-social supports for individuals and/or encourage and support the individual in finding the support themselves.

The seventh principle is to “measure relative processes/practices.”

Evidence-based practice calls for probation officers to routinely assess an individual’s cognitive and skill development and determine progress in behavior change. This may be done through measures such as a reduction in technical violations, reduction in new offenses, or the number of program hours completed. If the interventions are not working, it may be necessary to amend what is being offered. It is also important to monitor and assess staff performance for fidelity to program design, service delivery, and outcomes.

The eighth principle is “provide measurement feedback.“

Quality assurance is necessary to monitor delivery of services and maintain and enhance fidelity and integrity. Routine feedback is useful to the individual by focusing on accountability and continued motivation for behavior change. However, it is equally important that feedback is also provided to staff, groups, divisions, programs, and outside providers.

Core Correctional Practices (CCP): Some Probation Departments throughout the State use a structured way of supervising those on community supervision that translates the principles of effective intervention into practice during face-to-face interactions with both adults and youth on supervision caseloads. CCP includes the use of relationship-building skills; effective use of reinforcements, disapproval, and authority; pro-social modeling; cognitive restructuring; social skills training; effective communication strategies; and, problem-solving skills. There are various Core Correctional Practices models such as Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS), Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS), and Integrated Behavioral Intervention Strategies (IBIS).

Data Collection

Data collection is required for almost every funding stream, whether the source is county, state, federal or private funding. In recent years, data collection has expanded beyond a focus on outputs (eg.., number of clients served, number of risk assessments completed, number of evidence-based classes attended) to also track outcomes. For instance, evaluating whether the number of hours an individual attended an evidence-based program resulted in a reduction in the individual’s recidivism in terms of revocations, arrests, and convictions.

The framework for data collection varies based on the Probation Department and on the program. Most programs collect data on age, gender, race, and ethnicity. Many will look at the risk level and program needs of the individuals. For example, in a pretrial program it is important to collect data on numbers who appear in court or who do not commit a new offense while on the pretrial program.

A robust data collection framework includes not only quantitative data, but also qualitative data. This can be accomplished by conducting case studies of individual clients, convening focus groups, and conducting key informant interviews. Reviewing case files is also a great way to verify data.

Research and Evaluation

As data-driven decision-making and the use of evidence-based practices have become more embedded in Probation Department operations, departments increasingly conduct research and evaluations to ensure probation practices are having the intended effect. Probation Departments across the State of California are performing these functions at different levels and in different manners. Some Probation Departments have in-house staff, while other Probation Departments contract with outside evaluators or with local colleges and universities.

Jurisdictions collect, analyze, and report a variety of data elements to evaluate the success of their programs.

There are inherent limitations when conducting research and evaluation. Some of these limitations include: multiple databases/tracking; inability to run necessary queries; manually collection; varying timeframes between agencies; inconsistent definitions; cross referencing data; and human error.

Reporting

Some Probation Departments are able to produce their own reports, while other departments contract with outside agencies. These reports allow Probation Departments to determine what is and is not working, create improvement plans, celebrate successes, and discuss lessons learned.

Reports of research and evaluation may take the form of monthly dashboards, quarterly evaluation reports, or annual evaluation reports. It is common for these reports to be shared with the Board of Supervisors, the Superior Court Judges, the Community Corrections Partnership, the Juvenile Justice Commission, or the Grand Jury, among other relevant stakeholders.

Collaborative Efforts

Probation Departments collaborate with a variety of public and private agencies in providing evidence-based, supportive, and transitional services. As a county agency, Probation Departments rely on other county agencies and partnerships with community-based organizations to provide services. Probation Departments also often work in teams with other justice partners to solve larger system priorities. Within these partnerships, Probation Departments serve the state court and are the county department responsible for carrying out the court’s orders.

Specialty Courts

Some counties operate specialty courts, which are collaborative courts based on a drug court model. These courts include all the collaborative partners that serve the individual, such as representatives from superior court, the district attorney’s office, the public defender’s office, the Probation Department, behavioral health services, substance abuse services, and community-based organizations.

In these specialty court programs, the individual will report to court on a regular basis, eg,, anywhere from weekly, bi-weekly or monthly. During these proactive court appearances, the judge is provided an opportunity to hear how the individual is doing from all of the entities that provide services to him/her. This allows the judge to recognize the individual when he/she is doing well and provide incentives to acknowledge and encourage on-going success. The proactive court appearance also allows the judge to admonish the individual when he/she is not doing well or not participating in counseling or evidence-based programming. If necessary, the judge may sanction the individual. This may take different forms such as more frequent court appearances, a referral to an evidence-based program, or by detaining the individual or placing them in custody for a period of time, such as a weekend. The purpose of regular contact with the individual and all of the involved parties is to prevent more serious behavior and avoid the need for a more serious sanction.

Counties vary in the number and type of specialty courts they operate. Two of the most common specialty court programs in operation are drug courts and mental health courts.

The focus in drug court is on substance abuse treatment and assisting the individual to become clean and sober. Substance abuse treatment providers in the community are part of the team. Some counties utilize county staff while others work with non-profit treatment providers in the community. Treatment providers may work in out-patient settings or in residential treatment.

A mental health court has the dual focus of assisting those with significant mental health issues to remain out-of-custody as well as out of psychiatric hospitals. The collaborative team includes mental health clinicians, psychiatrists, day treatment programs, and in some counties, crisis residential settings in addition to the justice system partners.

Other possible examples of specialty courts in operation throughout the state are:

• Transitional Age Youth Courts
• Driving Under the Influence Courts
• Domestic Violence Courts
• Veterans Courts
• Homeless Courts
• Gender Responsive Courts

Sex Offender Treatment

There are other ways probation works in partnership with the community. An example is in the area of sex offender treatment. In California, the containment model is used for sex offender treatment. There are five components to the containment model. First is a philosophy that values public safety, victim protection, and restitution to the victim. The second component is an interagency treatment team. The third component is the containment approach model to case management. The fourth component is a development strategy that looks at informed and consistent public policy. The last component is quality control to ensure compliance. The team includes a probation officer with specific training in the area of sex offenders, a polygraph examiner, and sex offender treatment professionals. These components help ensure public safety while providing the individual with appropriate treatment. At times, these teams may bring in law enforcement to assist with searches such as the program that monitors sex offenders on Halloween to assure individuals are not engaging in illegal behavior.

Task Forces

Probation Departments throughout the State participate in a number of task forces. These task forces are multi-agency collaborations that pool resources to address an issue or specific problem that the county is facing. Some task forces are long-standing and have been in existence in a county for decades; while other task forces have a limited scope and duration.

Most task forces are comprised of representatives from the following agencies: Probation Department, State Parole, Sheriff’s Office, and District Attorney’s Office. Other law enforcement agencies may also be involved in the task force for special circumstances. Some of these agencies may be the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security, or the Department of Justice.

Depending on the focus of the task force, there may also be members of other county agencies such as Behavioral Health Services, Child Welfare Services, or Public Health Services. Additional members may also include representatives of community-based or faith-based organizations.

Examples of some multi-agency task forces are:

• Drug sales
• Illegal marijuana grows
• Human Trafficking
• Sex Trafficking
• Stolen Vehicles
• Gangs

Education

Probation Departments work closely with local school districts as well as the County Office of Education. These collaborations may be in local school districts, in court schools in the juvenile detention facilities, or in community schools at the middle or high school level. These collaborations may include having a probation officer in the classroom at least part of the day to assist with behavior management. The team may also include a school resource officer from local law enforcement. Additionally, in some counties, probation officers are assigned to specific schools in the school district. They may not not always be on campus, but are available to see the youth who are on probation or to assist in delinquency prevention. Probation officers may attend after school events such as football games to help monitor behavior.

Wrap-Around Services

Assembly Bill 163 was passed in 1997, which led the way for funding counties to work with abused and neglected children and youth in the juvenile justice system to keep them at home. Wraparound programs are intensive in-home programs focusing on the specific needs and goals of the family. These programs allow the use of child welfare foster care funds to keep youth at home. The program brings together child welfare social workers and probation officers along with mental health clinicians, parent advocates, and community aides to assist families at-risk of separation. Each family has their own treatment plan focusing on their specific issues. Goals include safety in the family home, getting community supports, engagement in their community, and positive decisions.