Sometimes it feels like probation and parole officers are the trashcans of the criminal justice system. Offenders are eaten up by the cops and digested by the system. Whatever remains is tossed out and we’re left to shovel around the waste.
Now, with nationwide budget shortfalls and budding early inmate release programs, suddenly those trash cans are getting a whole lot fuller, a whole lot quicker. Not only is the garbage starting to stink, but it’s also starting to spill.
The “experts” are encouraging “incentives” to get people out of prison without considering the impact, which can be explained in three easy steps:
1. States release inmates to relieve overcrowding and/or reduce costs
2. Probation and parole officer caseloads increase (even as their budgets and resources are disappearing)
3. There is little doubt that this can lead to nothing but trouble
What’s the true cost?
It is frequently assumed by politicians — and much of the public — that althought it costs a lot of money to house an inmate, it will cost very little to supervise that same inmate in the community.
But is this really true?
Each probation and parole officer has a finite amount of time per day, week, and month to spend per client.
Thus, increasing caseloads decreases the quantity — and therefore the quality — of work done with clients. The result is increased violations, increased crime rates, and in turn, increased returns of clients to full custody.
And make no mistake, the effectiveness of probation and parole services will decrease in step with increased caseloads.
The “cost” of this decreased effectiveness will be born by the general public as criminal activity spikes and their daily lives are infected with fear and loss.
In the end, the “client” becomes an “inmate” again, returning to prison with a new sentence, which is added to the balance of his original sentence.
So you tell me: Where is the cost savings?
Coal for Christmas
Probation and parole services are not going to receive any additional funding or help in the current economic and political climate.
The Pew Center on the States reports that my state of New Hampshire spent $89.73 per offender per day to incarcerate an inmate in 2008. Pew says that in that same year, the Granite State spent $2.13 per offender per day to supervise a client on probation or parole. Further, 2008 spending, when compared to 2003, increased 16 percent per prisoner, and decreased 37 percent per probation/parole client. Don’t just take my word for it — you can see the entire study at www.pewcenteronthestates.org/publicsafety.
This, however, does not mean that probation and parole officers can do nothing to change the situation. Many professions have standards of practice that prohibit overloads that can lead to disasters.
Isn’t it time that probation and parole officers start obeying our professional standards of practice?
Crunch your numbers, present your facts
The American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) has adopted and published a position on adult caseload standards. Dr. Durrell, Director of the Executive Master of Arts Program at the Department of Criminal Justice at Temple University, determined adult caseload standards as follows:
Intensive cases: No more than 20 cases per officer; or
Moderate to High Risk: No more than 50 cases per officer; or
Low Risk: No more than 200 cases per officer.
Juvenile caseload standards are as follows:
Intensive cases: No more than 15 cases per officer; or
Moderate to High Risk: No more than 30 cases per officer; or
Low Risk: No more than 100 cases per officer
A formula to test a mixed caseload is possible:
• Adult Caseload deviation = 5 (# of Intensive cases) + 2 (# of Moderate/High Risk cases) + 0.5 (# of Low Risk cases) – 100.
• Juvenile caseload deviation = 6.67(# of Intensive cases) + 3.34(# of Moderate/High Risk cases) + (# of Low Risk cases) – 100.
The result of “0” is a full caseload. A positive number is the percent overload (Source: Durrell, William D., Issue Paper on Caseload Standards for Probation and Parole, Perspectives 31, p.37-41, spring, 2007.)
Here is an example:
A probation or parole officer has a caseload of adult mixed cases.
Sorting the cases for risk, he finds that he has 30 moderate to high risk cases - or cases that he sees face to face at least once a month and, sometimes, has much as 4 times per month. He has been assigned 10 Intensive Supervision (ISP) cases with special supervision standards, and has 65 other cases that are considered low risk and need to be seen less than once per month.
Using the formula, he calculates his caseload deviation as follows:
Caseload deviation =5(10) + 2(30) + 0.5(65) – 100
Caseload deviation = +42.5%
This officer’s caseload is 42.5% above caseload standards as established by the APPA.
These APPA standards are “not to exceed” standards. This officer should stand up against the injustice.
Track your caseload and let your boss know every month. Document the overload!
Be strong, hold fast
State governments and Department of Correction heads all over the country are “dumping” their problems on the probation/parole agencies in order to improve their image and budgets.
The enforcement of caseload standards is the best way to put a stop to this abuse and improve the quality of community supervision.
If we can achieve this, the public will get what it pays for and supervision will again become effective.
With the APPA benchmark in place, agencies can increase and decrease budgets, personnel, and support staff in accordance with the numbers of clients to be served while simultaneously presenting their rationale for doing so.
The APPA is the only professional organization with the resources to provide a caseload standard. The above standards are published and have been for two years.
It is time for the APPA to follow up and report to the membership, and the general public, the adherence of the states to their standard. And it’s our job to provide them with the numbers to do so.
