A Ten-Step Guide to 

Transforming 

Probation Departments 

to Reduce Recidivism

A report prepared by the

Council of State Governments Justice Center

for the

Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice

Pew Center on the States Public Safety Performance Project

Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Community Justice Assistance Division

Travis County (TX) Community Supervision and Corrections Department

Tony Fabelo, PhD

Geraldine Nagy, PhD

Seth Prins, MPH

Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice
This project was supported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. 

Department of Justice (under grant # 2009-DD-BX- K139); the Pew Center on the States Public Safety 

Performance Project; the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Community Justice Assistance Division (TDCJCJAD); and the Travis County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD) Adult Probation 

Department. 

Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official 

position or policies of the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Pew Center on the States Public Safety Performance 

Project; the supporting Texas agencies; or members of the Council of State Governments. The funding agencies 

reserve the right to reproduce, publish, or translate all or any part of the copyrighted material contained in this 

publication.

About the Justice Center: The Council of State Governments Justice Center is a national nonprofit organization 

that serves policymakers at the local, state, and federal levels from all branches of government. The Justice 

Center provides practical, nonpartisan advice and consensus-driven strategies—informed by available evidence—

to increase public safety and strengthen communities.

About BJA: The Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, supports 

law enforcement, courts, corrections, treatment, victim services, technology, and prevention initiatives that 

strengthen the nation’s criminal justice system. BJA provides leadership, services, and funding to America’s 

communities by emphasizing local control, building relationships in the field, developing collaborations and 

partnerships, promoting capacity building through planning, streamlining the administration of grants, 

increasing training and technical assistance, creating accountability of projects, encouraging innovation, and 

ultimately communicating the value of justice efforts to decision makers at every level. Visit www.ojp.usdoj.gov/

BJA for more information.

About Pew: The Pew Center on the States is a division of The Pew Charitable Trusts that identifies and advances 

effective solutions to critical issues facing states. Pew is a nonprofit organization that applies a rigorous, 

analytical approach to improve public policy, inform the public, and stimulate civic life. Launched in 2006, The 

Public Safety Performance Project helps states advance fiscally sound, data-driven policies and practices in 

sentencing and corrections that protect public safety, hold offenders accountable, and control corrections costs. 

For more information, visit www.pewcenteronthestates.org.

About TDCJ: TDCJ-CJAD administers community supervision, or adult probation, in Texas. TDCJ-CJAD does 

not work directly with offenders; rather, it works with the local probation departments to provide training, 

monitor standards and distribute and administer state probation funding. For more information, see 

http://tdcj.state.tx.us/cjad/cjad-what.htm.

About Travis CSCD: The Travis Adult Probation Department (CSCD) is responsible for supervising adults on 

court-ordered probation and monitoring their compliance with the conditions set forth by the court in Travis 

County, Texas (Austin).

This report is informed by a report produced for Texas officials in March 2009 titled Ten Strategies to Sustaining 

More Effective Practices in a Probation Department by the Council of State Governments Justice Center, with the 

support of the TDCJ-CJAD and Travis County CSCD. 

Council of State Governments Justice Center, New York 10005

© 2011 by the Council of State Governments Justice Center

All rights reserved. Published 2011.

Cover design by Mina Bellomy. Interior design by David Williams.
Contents

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................... v

Introduction.......................................................................................................vii

Setting the Agenda for Change ........................................................1

Step 1: Engage and Inform Key Stakeholders......................................................1

Step 2: Review and Evaluate Current Departmental 

Policies and Practices ............................................................................5

Step 3: Analyze the Evaluation and Develop a Mechanism 

for Overseeing Change..........................................................................10

Redesigning Departmental Policies and Practices.........................13

Step 4: Improve Probationer Screening and Assessment Processes ..................13

Step 5: Align Supervision Plans with Screening and Assessment Results...........20

Step 6: Redesign Incentive and Sanctioning Strategies .....................................26

Step 7: Develop Recidivism-Reduction Training .................................................29

Implementing Procedures to Ensure Quality and 

Monitor Progress...........................................................................33

Step 8: Develop and Implement a Process- and 

Outcome-Accountability System ...........................................................33

Step 9: Retool the Personnel Evaluation System to 

Reinforce Agency-wide Recidivism-Reduction Efforts .............................37

Step 10:Review Progress and Set Goals for Continuous Improvement.................40

Conclusion.....................................................................................43

Notes................................................................................................................44

Appendix A: Sample Subcommittee Work Plan..................................................46

Appendix B: Structure of Travis County Central Assessment Report...................47

Appendix C: Travis County Risk and Criminogenic Assessment Matrix................48

Appendix D: Sample Violation Response Table...................................................49

Appendix E: Travis County’s Fidelity Study Data Collection Forms......................51

Appendix F: Travis County’s Subcommittee Structure........................................56

v

Acknowledgments

The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center staff and board of directors 

would like to thank Dr. Geraldine Nagy, director of the Travis County Community 

Supervision and Corrections Department (which is Travis County’s adult probation 

department). This guide is based largely on the work that the CSG Justice Center did 

under her direction with the agency during a multi-year effort to implement evidencebased practices. The work would not have been possible without the dedication and 

support of the department’s managers, staff, and probation officers. The full support 

of Travis County judges, prosecutors, members of the defense bar, and county officials 

also was invaluable. Initial support for the project was generously provided by the Open 

Society Foundation and continued with funding from Texas State and Travis County; the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice; and 

the Pew Center on the States Public Safety Performance Project.

Special thanks are due to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Community 

Justice Assistance Division, for its support of this project, first under the leadership of its 

former director Ms. Bonita White and then current director Ms. Carey Welebob.

The editing contributions from Mindy Werner helped make this document a 

stronger and more reader-friendly guide. The authors also appreciate the help of CSG 

Justice Center staff members. Director Michael Thompson provided his usual valuable 

feedback and direction. Justice Reinvestment Project Director Marshall Clement offered 

feedback on early drafts. Public Affairs Manager Matt Schwarzfeld helped shepherd 

the document to completion. Former CSG Justice Center Policy Analyst Katherine 

Brown Cortes provided a critical review. The authors would also like to thank Justice 

Center Communications Director Martha Plotkin for her guidance and former Deputy 

Communications Director Regina Davis for her careful copyedit.

vii

Introduction

Probation officials across the country increasingly have to do more with less. They 

oversee agencies that are responsible for record numbers of people under community 

supervision; according to recent estimates, 1 in 45 adults in the United States are on 

probation or parole.i

 Though their budgets are being cut, probation departments are 

expected to improve the success rates of the increasing numbers of individuals they 

supervise and to reduce crime in the community by preventing reoffending. These high 

expectations and the intense public scrutiny that follows a high-profile failure require 

that probation officials revisit their agency’s goals, processes, and measures for success. 

The core mission of a probation department is to reduce probationer recidivism. 

Reviewing a growing body of knowledge and experience, experts point to four core 

practices that are essential to probation agencies’ success in achieving this mission. 

Based on current best practices, probation departments should

1. Effectively assess probationers’ criminogenic risk and need, as well as their 

strengths (also known as “protective factors”);

2. Employ smart, tailored supervision strategies;

3. Use incentives and graduated sanctions to respond promptly to probationers’ 

behaviors; and 

4. Implement performance-driven personnel management practices that promote 

and reward recidivism reduction.

To maximize its positive impact in the community, a probation department must 

fully implement each of the four practices. Many departments have made efforts to 

put in place some of these practices, but few have been able to design and implement 

a comprehensive plan that reflects all four. In many cases, agencies committed to 

transformation have encountered practical barriers that have impeded implementation 

of one or several of the practices even if they succeed at implementing others. For 

example, a probation department may have adopted a new assessment tool to determine 

an individuals’ criminogenic risk and need, but if department officials were unsuccessful 

in using the findings to determine the conditions of supervision, then the tool likely 

had limited or no impact. Similarly, if the department’s strategies for sanctioning 

probationers do not support its supervision and treatment goals and the judiciary doesn’t 

ensure that supervision and sanctioning policies are consistent, then those goals will be 

undermined. 

Transforming a department to implement each of the four practices of recidivism 

reduction can seem impossibly complex, especially for agencies facing funding cuts and 
viii Transforming Probation Departments

1. For more information on strategies for communicating the need for transformation, see Elyse Clawson and Meghan Guevara, Putting the Pieces 

Together: Practical Strategies for Implementing Evidence-Based Practices (Washington, DC: Crime and Justice Institute, Community Resources 

for Justice, 2011), available at http://nicic.gov/Library/024394. 

growing numbers of probationers. Department transformation is not a simple or quick 

process, but is possible (as is evidenced by the case study described in this guide). This 

guide provides a 10-step action plan to see the department through the transformation 

from beginning to end and align it with the four practices of recidivism reduction. The 

10 steps are meant to work in tandem. Departments undergoing a transformation should 

pursue each step to maximize effectiveness.

Audience

The guide is meant for officials at probation departments already committed to 

recidivism reduction, as well as the county and state leaders prompting change. These 

departments have already reached a consensus that transformation is necessary, and 

that the agency’s mission should bring recidivism reduction to the front and center. As 

such, this guide does not offer advice to stakeholders about making the initial case for 

transforming their probation agency.1

 Rather, it focuses on actions department leaders 

should take after stakeholders have agreed that agency transformation is necessary. 

How to Use this Guide

The 10 steps outlined in the guide help probation officials refocus the agency toward 

reducing crime and re-offense rates among probationers. As a whole, they provide an 

action plan for realizing the practices of recidivism reduction. They are presented in 

three phases: 1) setting an agenda for change; 2) redesigning the department’s policies 

and practices; and 3) implementing procedures to ensure quality and monitor progress. 

(See Figure 1, page ix, for a depiction of the ten steps and three phases.)

It is important to note that the 10 steps are not all meant to function as a sequence 

of events; in particular, the steps in phase two will often be concurrent actions (e.g., step 

four may happen at or around the same time as step seven). The probation department 

should, therefore, plan to pursue these steps at the same time, rather than staggering 

one after the other. When the department starts one step, it should immediately start 

thinking about commencing the subsequent steps—rather than waiting until completion 

of the prior step. Officials must ensure that the time that lapses between steps doesn’t kill 

the momentum of the project or lead to distractions that derail it. Furthermore, the steps 

won’t all take the same length of time; officials may accomplish some in a single meeting, 

whereas others may take years to complete. 

Each of the steps described in this guide must be in place and well integrated 

to create a major cultural and philosophical shift in the agency. To help agencies 
ix INTRODUCTION

assess their progress, a checklist of key activities is at the end of each step. The guide 

also provides a resource section that relates to the topics in each step, and includes 

appendices with sample documents from a probation department that underwent a 

transformation similar to what is described in this guide.

Shepherding a probation organization through the lengthy and intricate process of 

change is not easy. Probation departments are complex structures with many moving 

parts. (Figure 2, page xi, represents the different points at which a probationer comes 

in contact with a probation department.) They perform many functions; not only do 

they manage the massive number of daily needs of individuals under their supervision, 

but they also oversee complicated administrative and operational systems. To achieve 

any meaningful measure of success, department administrators and involved personnel 

must fully commit to the transformation endeavor and agree on shared goals. Equally 

important, leaders involved in the transformation project must remain flexible, patient, 

and optimistic as the effort may take multiple years. This guide will help departments 

keep these important points in mind as they get started. 

Background and Development of the Guide

This guide draws extensively on the experience of a multi-year effort in Travis County, 

Texas (Austin), to implement each of the four recidivism reduction practices. The 

fieldwork in Travis County emerged from an on-the-ground reality: Although much had 

been written about evidence-based practices in parole agencies, little or no research had 

been conducted on how the individual elements of effective probation practices can be 

used together to produce positive agency-wide outcomes. Moreover, in the probation 

Figure 1. Overview of the Guide

Setting an Agenda for Change

Redesigning Departmental 

Policies and Practices

Implementing Procedures to 

Ensure Quality and Monitor 

Progress

Step 1: Engage and 

Inform Key Stakeholders

Step 2: Review and Evaluate Current 

Departmental Policies and Practices

Step 3: Analyze the Evaluation and 

Develop a Mechanism for Overseeing 

Change

Step 4: Improve Probationer Screening 

and Assessment Processes 

Step 5: Align Supervision Plans with 

Screening and Assessment 

Step 6: Redesign Incentive and 

Sanctioning Strategies 

Step 7: Develop Recidivism-Reduction 

Training 

Step 8: Develop and Implement a 

Process- and Outcome-Accountability 

System

Step 9: Retool the Personnel Evaluation 

System to Reinforce Agency-wide 

Recidivism-Reduction Efforts

Step 10: Review Progress and Set Goals 

for Continuous Improvement
x Transforming Probation Departments

2. The statistics that follow are for 2005–2008. More information can be found in a series of reports available online at 

http://www.co.travis.tx.us/community_supervision/TCIS_Initiative.asp.

studies that do exist, the level of rigor used to examine the four practices of recidivism 

reduction—validated risk assessment, tailored supervision strategies, incentives and 

graduated sanctions, and performance-driven personnel management policies—is fairly 

uneven. Given this, researchers from the CSG Justice Center, led by Dr. Tony Fabelo, 

observed the agency’s transformation. From 2005 to 2008, researchers worked with 

leaders from Travis County’s probation department, along with judges, prosecutors, 

members of the defense bar, and county officials, to design and integrate each of the four 

essential transformation practices into the department’s everyday processes. Several 

years later, researchers returned to examine the long-term impact of the department’s 

transformation and to document their findings.

The experience in Travis County demonstrates that implementing the four practices 

of recidivism reduction is not only possible, but that it can also yield dramatic and 

positive improvements for the involved agency, the community, and probationers. 

Researchers saw tremendous developments in Travis County:2

• Felony probation revocations declined by 20 percent.

• Felony technical revocations fell by 48 percent—the largest reduction in the five 

most populous counties in Texas, and nearly 10 times the statewide reduction of 5 

percent.

• The decreased number of technical revocations averted $4.8 million in state 

incarceration costs.

• Reductions in motions to revoke probation averted close to $400,000 in local jail 

costs in one year (based on costs of $24 per day, per person).

• The one-year re-arrest rate for probationers fell by 17 percent, compared with 

similar probationers before the departmental overhaul.

• Re-arrest rates for low-risk offenders declined by 77 percent.

To anchor the guide’s recommendations in the real world, Travis County’s 

experience is highlighted throughout the document. Similarly, “Tips,” or lessons learned 

from probation departments that have undergone a similar transformation, are also 

spotlighted.
xi INTRODUCTION

Figure 2. Multi-Level Model of Probation System 

Components

Develop

eective

collaboration

strategies

Conduct and

use research

to measure

eectiveness

Design and

use quality

control process

strategies

Conduct training

and personnel

evaluations that

support practices

Organizational supports by department

Diagnosis of oenders using

validated risk and needs

assessment tool

Segmentation of population

by risk and needs to recommend

conditions of supervision

Set conditions of supervision

Programs and

interventions

targeted at

specic populations

Dierential supervision

strategies based on

assessment of risk and needs

JUDICIARY

DEPARTMENT

= JUDICIARY

= DEPARTMENT

Progressive

sanctions

for violations

Incentives

for positive

behavior

1

Setting the Agenda 

for Change

Setting the agenda for change involves galvanizing stakeholders (Step 1), assessing the 

agency’s current policies and procedures (Step 2), and putting a comprehensive plan 

for department transformation into motion (Step 3). The major impetus for change 

should be clear before embarking on this multistep process; it may have been sparked for 

myriad reasons by any number of individuals or sources, such as a judge or a probation 

director or by a community taskforce or state-level mandate. (It is presumed that readers 

of this guide already have committed to department transformation and are looking for 

practical guidance in this process.)

The day-to-day management of an effort to transform a probation department 

may be different in every jurisdiction. For example, the change process may be led by 

individuals holding very diverse positions or even by groups of differing composition, 

and may require that strategies are tailored to distinct agency or jurisdiction 

circumstances.3

 The steps that follow recognize (and account for) these differences 

among jurisdictions.

step 1: Engage and Inform Key Stakeholders

In many jurisdictions, there is minimal dialogue among personnel from the probation 

department and colleagues in other components of the criminal justice system or 

with social service system providers and administrators. Law enforcement officials, 

prosecutors, judges, pre-trial service agencies, and other criminal justice professionals 

may not feel they have a stake in the day-to-day operations of probation agencies, 

even though the success (or failure) of probation departments in reducing reoffending 

and recidivism has an impact on their agencies. In some cases, stakeholder agencies 

may even have an entrenched interest in maintaining the status quo. By engaging and 

educating these officials, as well as probation staff, other county officials, social service 

system representatives, and members of the community, probation leaders will build 

broad support that provides the critical foundation for improving the performance of the 

department.

3. For the sake of simplicity, this guide uses the general terms probation leaders and probation department managers to refer to the individuals 

spearheading such efforts, and department or agency when referring to the entity being transformed. 
2 Transforming Probation Departments

At the outset of the planning process, the head of the probation department should 

appoint high-level officials from all operational areas of the agency to form an executive 

committee. The probation chief, who should head this executive committee, should also 

reach out to leaders from law enforcement, courts, pre-trial services, other community 

corrections agencies, and community organizations (such as mental health and 

substance abuse treatment organizations and victims groups) to engage them in advising 

probation department leaders who oversee the transformation. Representatives from 

other agencies should understand how the probation department functions, and should 

have a basic understanding of the challenges faced by the department and its officers.

These partnerships allow the probation department to address stakeholders’ 

concerns and elicit buy-in at critical moments during the change process. Collaboration 

with stakeholders provides opportunities for the probation department to convey to its 

partners how the department’s transformation 

will affect them. For example, the department 

may determine that the incentives and 

graduated sanctions its officers use do not 

complement those used by communitybased treatment and service providers, and 

vice-versa. Engaging this partner allows the 

department to explain this problem and work 

cooperatively to address it. The purpose of 

working with stakeholders is not to convince

them of the need for transformation, but 

rather to engage with a partner with whom the 

department can pursue solutions to specific 

problems.

If key representatives in a jurisdiction 

are not engaged, all subsequent planning 

activities may be complicated. For example, 

there may be key stakeholders who present 

obstacles to change, even when included in 

the planning process from the beginning. By 

engaging them early in the process, probation 

leaders can anticipate problems, calm anxiety 

over the specifics of agency change, and 

ease implementation of the plan. Resolving 

these issues requires strong leadership and ongoing participation in the executive-level 

committee by the heads of the probation department and partner agencies. If obstacles 

arise from the competing interests of different stakeholders (for example, between 

the public defenders and prosecutors), tackling these issues, identifying shared goals, 

and devising appropriate compromises can ultimately result in a stronger probation 

department.

Encourage 

Judicial 

Involvement

The support of judges is 

particularly important for the 

probation department to succeed 

in transforming itself. Judges 

have a distinct ability to mandate 

or motivate change. Probation 

department transformation can only 

be realized if judges understand and 

fully support the plan and agree to 

abide by new standards or policies 

that they will be responsible for 

implementing and enforcing. This 

collaborative role may be a new one 

for some judges who are accustomed 

to directive decision-making. 

Probation department leaders should 

cultivate a champion among the 

judges in their jurisdiction and be 

sure to reach out to the judiciary 

early in the process.

TIP
Setting the Agenda for Change 3

Once probation leaders have identified and engaged key stakeholders, they should 

schedule orientation sessions to educate these stakeholders on key aspects of department 

operations and the need for transformation. These sessions should explain the rationale 

for reworking the department’s current practices and provide an overview of the process 

through which the transformation will 

occur. Sessions should be tailored to specific 

audiences. 

These information sessions should 

highlight how the probation department 

functions in key day-to-day activities. 

Department leaders can organize these 

orientation sessions around the four practices 

of recidivism reduction (described in the 

introduction). One session can talk about the 

importance of using risk assessments. Another 

can review how the department designs its 

supervision strategies. A third can talk about 

the incentives and graduated sanctions 

used by the department. And a fourth can 

cover personnel management, training, and 

evaluation issues.

Before these orientation sessions, the department should compile and create 

materials that describe department processes and the limitations of these processes. 

In particular, probation leaders can develop a flow chart or conceptual model that 

graphically represents how a person under probation supervision proceeds from 

arrest to court to probation supervision and identifies the key steps and decisions the 

probation department must make during this process. This flow chart shows how the 

Provide 

Tailored 

Orientations 

to Judges

Leaders may want to consider 

providing one-on-one presentations 

to judges and seminars with key 

officials. Ideally, outside experts—

such as consultants from a technical 

assistance organization—can 

facilitate the presentations to lend 

an additional air of objectivity. 

Practitioners can seek assistance 

from the National Institute of 

Corrections or other experts.

The managers of Travis County probation’s transformation process are advised by 

an outside multidisciplinary committee. Travis County has a “community justice 

council” that meets monthly. Headed by the local district attorney, the council brings 

together key stakeholders, including criminal justice practitioners, community 

service providers, and citizens. By law, the council has to approve the biennial plans 

presented by the probation department to the state. It also provides specific guidance 

on the transformation project.4

Travis County’s Planning Process

4. For an example of the most recent community corrections plan as of this writing, see http://www.co.travis.tx.us/community_supervision/pdfs/

cj_plan_2010-2011.pdf.

TIP
4 Transforming Probation Departments

probation department interacts with other parts of the criminal justice system, and helps 

stakeholders see how probation transformation might affect them. Sharing the model 

early in the planning process will prepare staff and stakeholders for the change process 

and show how the proposed transformation is linked to broader, agreed-upon goals such 

as reducing costs or improving public safety. (For an example of a conceptual model, see 

Figure 2 on page xi.)

Once leaders have identified the need for change and provided an orientation on 

department functioning to key stakeholder groups, department leaders should organize 

ongoing agency-wide meetings. At these meetings, leaders should present the conceptual 

model described above. They should also explain to probation department staff the 

planning and evaluation process that will drive the changes in agency administration, 

day-to-day work plans of staff, and other organizational or personnel changes needed to 

support the initiative.

Checklist for Step 1: Engage and Inform Key 

Stakeholders

Engage a key judge, prosecutor, member of the defense bar, county official, and a leader from 

other partnering disciplines to understand and support the goals of the project and designate 

them to be liaisons with their peers in the jurisdiction. 

Convene a multidisciplinary executive committee, headed by the chief of the probation 

department and representing other stakeholder groups, to advise agency transformation.

Create and compile materials that document the rationale for reworking the department’s 

current practices. In particular, these materials should highlight the need for improving risk 

assessment, reconfiguring supervision strategies, implementing graduated sanctions and 

incentives, and designing performance-driven personnel management. 

Design seminars and presentations to educate key stakeholders on the basic elements of and 

need for the change process. Explain their role in both planning and reviewing strategies and 

any opportunities for focused problem solving. 

Hold focused meetings with specific community stakeholder groups or organizations, such as 

those committed to mental health treatment or housing services, to discuss the implications 

of probation agency transformation for improved collaboration. 

Document areas of stakeholder concern to investigate further, as needed. Share a model for 

stakeholders to review that indicates the direction of the agencies’ efforts.

Organize ongoing agency-wide meetings to explain the planning and evaluation process that 

will drive the changes in agency administration, day-to-day work plans of staff, and other 

organizational or personnel changes needed to support the initiative.
Setting the Agenda for Change 5

step 2: Review and Evaluate Current 

Departmental Policies and Practices

In many probation departments, little is known about which particular strategies and 

practices reduce probationers’ criminal activities. Consequently, administrators often 

do not know which policies and procedures need to be modified and which need to be 

eliminated altogether. Probation managers, along with the advisory committee, should 

closely analyze their policies and procedures to gauge the degree to which they are 

adhering to the four practices of recidivism reduction described in the introduction 

(assessing for criminogenic risk and need, basing supervision strategies on assessment 

results, implementing graduated sanctions and incentives, and designing performancedriven personnel management). A comprehensive evaluation that takes into account the 

realities of the department provides a baseline against which future performance can be 

compared and guides an orderly change process toward implementing these practices. 

The evaluator should collect quantitative data from databases. These data include 

the number of people under supervision, the number revoked (and why they were 

revoked), the number who successfully complete supervision, and more. The evaluator 

should also collect qualitative information from other sources. These other sources 

Recommended Reading

Peggy Burke, “Involvement of Noncorrectional Stakeholders,” in TPC Reentry Handbook: 

Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model (Washington, DC: 

National Institute of Corrections, 2008), 12–14, http://nicic.gov/Library/022669. 

—, “Preparing the Organization for Change,” in TPC Reentry Handbook: Implementing the 

NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model (Washington, DC: National Institute of 

Corrections, 2008), 42–44, http://nicic.gov/Library/022669. 

Council of State Governments, “Policy Statement 1, Recommendation B: Identify key stakeholders 

and engage them in a discussion regarding reentry,” in Report of the Reentry Policy Council (New 

York: Council of State Governments, 2005), http://reentrypolicy.org/Report/PartI/ChapterI-A/

PolicyStatement1/Recommendation1-B. 

Crime and Justice Institute, Implementing Evidence-based Principles in Community 

Corrections: Leading Organizational Change and Development (Washington, DC: National 

Institute of Corrections, 2004), http://nicic.gov/Library/019344. 

Roger K. Warren, “Evidence-Based Practice to Reduce Recidivism: Implications for State 

Judiciaries,” in Implementing Effective Correctional Management of Offenders in the 

Community: An Integrated Model (Washington, DC: The Crime and Justice Institute and the 

National Institute of Corrections, August 2007), http://cjinstitute.org/files/Judicial_BoxSet_

Sep09.pdf.
6 Transforming Probation Departments

include a review of department policies, focus 

groups with a cross-section of staff at all levels 

of the department, and lengthy discussions 

with department officials and outside 

stakeholders (such as those listed in Step 1). 

Table 1 (page 7) provides examples of the types 

of questions that an evaluator should seek to 

answer. An evaluator can use these questions 

as a starting point for planning a formal 

evaluation. 

On completing his or her work, the 

evaluator should write a summary of findings 

that provides an appropriate level of detail. 

Probation leaders should then solicit feedback 

on the evaluation and identify a process for 

responding. The findings should be presented 

to the entire department staff (key points alone 

might suffice when presenting to the entire 

department at an agency-wide staff meeting). 

A summary of the findings should also be made available to each of the stakeholder 

groups identified in Step 1. The presentations of findings should be tailored to the needs 

of the different stakeholders. Probation agency leaders may require a complete, detailed 

report, but partners may only need a summary of the major takeaway points. Tailoring 

the dissemination of findings to various stakeholders will help ensure that both the 

findings and feedback to it are nonconfrontational and constructive, errors or other 

mistakes are caught before wide dissemination, 

and the process establishes an open dialogue 

that includes a forum for employees to voice 

their opinions in ways that can improve the 

department.

To help probation leaders pore through 

the results of the department evaluation, the 

evaluator(s) should organize the resulting 

report according to the four practices of 

recidivism reduction (described in the 

introduction). This way, those leading the 

transformation effort can determine the 

department’s progress (or lack thereof) toward 

implementing each of the four practices. How 

they translate the findings into action is the 

subject of the next step.

Engage an 

Outside 

Evaluator

Ideally, the probation department 

manager should engage an outside 

expert, such as a veteran evaluation 

researcher with probation experience 

or a probation policy expert from a 

think tank or technical assistance 

center, to conduct a thorough 

review of the department’s existing 

strengths and weaknesses. An 

outside evaluator is less likely to be 

influenced by internal organizational 

politics. In the absence of an outside 

evaluator, an experienced in-house 

researcher or group can lead the 

investigation if impartiality can be 

assured.

Share 

Evaluation 

Results with 

the Probation 

Manager First 

The probation director should be 

given an opportunity to carefully 

review the detailed findings in 

private and in advance of broader 

dissemination to ensure the validity 

of the evaluation approach, confirm 

the accuracy of the findings, and 

determine what context might be 

necessary to convey before the 

results are made public.

TIP

TIP
Setting the Agenda for Change 7

5. Assessment instruments that have been “validated” are those that have been statistically determined to accurately predict outcomes for the 

population served in the issue areas being assessed. Validity applies to both face value (whether the instrument or process used makes sense 

to those who use it) and predictive validity (whether the instrument or process can predict and measure risks such as recidivism with statistical 

accuracy). Validation processes have found that tools validated previously may not be valid for all populations: what works for probationers may 

not work for prisoners.

6. Instruments that have been “normed” to the local population have been calibrated to ensure that results for the new population, such as the 

population of prisoners in a particular facility, are as valid as they are for the population for which the instruments were developed.

Table 1: Sample Questions for a Departmental 

Evaluation

Area of Study Sample Questions to Ask

Stakeholders and 

Organizational Change 

Does the department have a forum for collaborating with stakeholder agencies, such as a 

community corrections council, that meets on a regular basis?

Does the department periodically develop and revise a general plan for how individuals are 

supervised in the community, and is this plan reviewed by all stakeholders?

How are judicial policies and perspectives integrated into the agency’s policies, strategies, and 

operations?

Profile of Probation 

Population

What is the gender and racial composition of the probation population?

What is the average age, education level, employment history, and other demographic 

information of the probation population?

How many individuals were enrolled in Medicaid and other federal benefits prior to community 

supervision?

What are their specialized needs, such as mental health and substance abuse treatment needs?

How many have dependent children and/or child support obligations?

Where do people under probation supervision live?

Staff Readiness In past operational changes, how involved were high-level personnel?

Do key personnel support a significant change in operating culture?

Operations Are policies and procedures manuals available?

How often are policies and procedures manuals updated?

What is the process for updating policies and procedures manuals?

How is feedback from probation officers solicited and incorporated into program and policy 

adjustments?

Screening and Assessment Does the department screen and assess for individuals’ criminogenic risk and need?

What screening and assessment instruments does the agency use?

Are they validated?5

Does the agency norm such instruments to its own probation population?6
8 Transforming Probation Departments

Table 1, continued

Area of Study Sample Questions to Ask

Screening and Assessment,

continued

Is the screening and assessment process properly considered when conditions of supervision 

are imposed and supervision case plans are developed?

Are personnel trained in administering and applying the results of instruments?

Supervision Is the population divided into caseloads according to their criminogenic risk and need? If not, 

how are people assigned to different types of caseloads?

Does the deployment of program resources match the criminogenic risk and need of the 

population?

Incentives and Sanctions Does the department use incentives and graduated sanctions?

Are sanctions administered swiftly? Are they predictable and consistent?

Is there judicial agreement on incentives and graduated sanctions?

Are there mechanisms to monitor the use of progressive sanctions and the way they are 

matched to the criminogenic risk and need of the population?

Social Service and 

Treatment Programs

Has an inventory of available community service and treatment programs been conducted?

Are there mechanisms to certify the quality of external programs and adjust the capacity of 

programs to meet changing demands?

Are there evaluations of internal programs using sound research designs?

Are programs based on cognitive-behavioral approaches, and do these programs use 

community and neighborhood resources?

Personnel Training 

and Evaluation

Is there training to enhance key personnel skills, including motivational interviewing, casework, 

and effective supervision planning?

Is the personnel evaluation system oriented towards measuring and promoting performance 

related to these skills as well as toward recidivism reduction?

Information 

Technology

Are information systems designed in such a way that data from assessments, program 

evaluations, and performance measures can be entered easily and the fields can be modified 

or adapted to specific needs?

Can probation information systems be linked to social service and treatment program 

information systems? 

If not linked, can information sharing be improved in other ways?

Are there safeguards in place to ensure HIPAA and other privacy mandates are met when 

exchanging protected health and substance abuse treatment information?

Can reports on population profile and key indicators (number of revocations per year, 

caseload size, workload measures, successful completions) be generated electronically and 

automatically?

Research and Evaluation Are there effective research-, audit- and/or assessment-based feedback systems to promote 

performance and administrative accountability?

What is the department’s internal research and evaluation capacity? 

Does it have partnerships with universities or other research entities?
Setting the Agenda for Change 9

Checklist for Step 2: Review and Evaluate Current 

Departmental Policies and Practices

Contract with an expert or set up a process for unbiased internal review to thoroughly 

document the department’s current systems, policies, and practices. 

Compile both quantitative and qualitative data that draw on multiple sources and 

appropriately engage all stakeholders in the evaluation.

Review and respond to the list of questions provided in this guide.

Develop stakeholder-tailored summaries of findings.

Present the findings to each audience in ways that invite feedback and improve the quality of 

a final report.

Establish a process for integrating the feedback into the planning and improvement process.

Recommended Reading

Brad Bogue, Bill Woodward, Nancy Campbell, Mark Carey, Elyse Clawson, Dorothy Faust, Kate 

Florio, Andrew Goldberg, Lore Joplin, and Billy Wasson, Implementing Effective Correctional 

Management of Offenders in the Community: Outcome and Process Measures (Washington, 

DC: The Crime and Justice Institute and the National Institute of Corrections, 2005), 

http://nicic.gov/Library/021041. 

Peggy Burke, TPC Reentry Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison 

to the Community Model (Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, 2008), 16, 

http://nicic.gov/Library/022669. 

Peggy McGarry and Becki Ney, “Document and Assess Current Policies and Practices,” in Getting 

It Right: Collaborative Problem Solving for Criminal Justice (Washington, DC: Center for 

Effective Public Policy, 2006), http://nicic.gov/Downloads/PDF/Library/019834. 

National Institute of Corrections, Community Corrections Division, U.S. Department of 

Justice, “Implementing Effective Correctional Management of Offenders in the Community” 

series, in Intermediate Measures and Database Handbook and Instruction Manual 

(Washington, DC: The Crime and Justice Institute and the National Institute of Corrections, 

2007), http://www.cjinstitute.org/files/int_measures_%20user_manual_110107.pdf.
10 Transforming Probation Departments

step 3: Analyze the Evaluation and Develop 

a Mechanism for Overseeing Change

Once the evaluation from Step 2 is completed, probation leaders face a considerable 

challenge in sorting through the mountain of data. They must now prioritize the 

findings, determine what actions to take, and put mechanisms into place to make 

sure those actions adhere to the findings. Probation leaders should hold a strategic 

planning session with other stakeholders on the executive committee to review the data 

from the evaluation. From this review, they 

should identify major challenges faced by the 

department and the goals for addressing them. 

The purpose of the session is to consider how 

close the department is to embodying the four 

practices of recidivism reduction (described 

in the introduction), based on the results of 

the evaluation. Probation leaders, with their 

colleagues from other agencies, should identify 

the set of challenges facing the department, 

determine which other stakeholders to involve 

in the process and in what capacities, and 

agree upon a set of specific and measurable 

objectives for the reform effort. 

Some common challenges in each of the four recidivism reduction practices, which 

provide a starting point for discussion during the strategic planning session, are listed 

below.

Recidivism Reduction Practice Common Challenge/Topic for Discussion

Effectively assess probationers’ 

criminogenic risk, need, and strengths 

(protective factors)

Screening and assessment procedures are not standardized or validated, resulting 

in ineffective or unreliable identification of probationers’ criminogenic risk, need, and 

strengths.

Employ smart, tailored supervision 

strategies

Supervision strategies are only compliance-oriented and not geared toward problem 

solving to reduce recidivism—that is, they are not focused on the complex social, 

economic, health, and behavioral health challenges that probationers must overcome 

to break the cycle of violating or reoffending that results in incarceration.

Use incentives and graduated sanctions 

to respond promptly to probationers’ 

behaviors

Probation officers and community-based treatment and service providers are not 

using consistent or complementary sanctions, incentives, and supervision strategies 

and techniques.

Implement performance-driven 

personnel management practices 

that promote and reward recidivism 

reduction

The probation agency lacks appropriate training and the ability to develop its training 

capacity. Staff training opportunities and personnel performance evaluations are not 

aligned with the objectives of supervision and the goals of the agency.

Choose an 

Off-Site Venue 

for Strategic 

Planning

Holding this strategic planning 

session off site may help focus 

participants’ attention and prevent 

interruptions from day-to-day 

demands.

TIP
Setting the Agenda for Change 11

This planning session will yield a long list of issues and areas to further explore. 

Though critical, the tasks that emerge from this planning session may become subordinate 

to the top challenges facing department leaders. Leaders can ensure that the department 

will make continual progress in its transformation by charging formal subcommittees with 

oversight of specific aspects of change that will affect their members and audiences, and 

directing these subcommittees to establish detailed work plans and timelines. 

These subcommittees should be organized by the topics and challenges identified 

by the executive committee. One subcommittee may focus on how assessments 

are conducted. Another may look at supervision strategies and techniques. Others 

may look at graduated sanctions and incentives, information management, staff 

development and training, and personnel 

evaluations. Different subcommittees 

should be responsible for overseeing the 

implementation of the steps in this guide 

that correspond with their topic area. 

They should be charged specifically with 

collecting information about those topics 

and overseeing how the agency transforms 

itself in an area identified by the executive 

committee. (See Appendix F for a list of 

Travis County’s subcommittees, along with 

descriptions of their assignments.)

The subcommittee structure provides 

the transformation initiative its shape and 

momentum. These are the bodies that move 

the effort forward. They do the background 

work necessary to make recommendations 

to the executive committee. To ensure that 

subcommittees’ work is put to good use, 

agency leaders who serve on the executive 

committee should establish a process to 

review and approve each subcommittee’s 

recommendations. Committee’s schedules, 

expectations, and deliverables should 

be clearly defined, as should their scope of work. Subcommittees should comprise 

not only policy staff, but also line-level workers. Members of stakeholder groups—

law enforcement, professionals who work in the pre-trial services and in the courts, 

representatives of community-based treatment and service agencies—also should be 

invited to participate. Key stakeholders not invited to participate on a subcommittee 

should be given an opportunity to offer feedback to proposed changes that would affect 

their own roles, departments, or objectives. 

Standardize the 

Subcommittee 

Process

Subcommittee chairpersons should 

use identical forms to chart their 

group’s work plan and schedule; ideally, 

using a detailed one-year timeline 

with milestones. These documents 

enable the chair and members of the 

subcommittee, as well as members 

of the executive-level committee, to 

quickly understand specific tasks, 

assign point people to help complete 

each task, and track the group’s 

progress. The subcommittee work 

plans and timelines also enable the 

executive committee to monitor overall 

progress and recommend adjustments 

when necessary. (See Appendix A for a 

sample subcommittee work plan and 

Appendix F for a list of subcommittees 

implemented in Travis County.)

TIP
12 Transforming Probation Departments

Some of the changes identified by the executive committee and researched and 

then implemented by the subcommittees may take years to fully realize. Nonetheless, 

a realistic initial project timeline with key goals and phases—taking into account the 

size of the department and available resources—can help maintain pressure on the 

subcommittees to complete the assigned tasks while also providing a reasonable, 

attainable period for the department to complete the transformation (for example, two 

years). 

Checklist for Step 3: Analyze the Evaluation and 

Develop a Mechanism for Overseeing Change

Identify objectives for agency transformation, based on the findings from Step 2.

Establish a subcommittee structure to perform specific aspects of the strategic plan.

Establish work plans and timelines for each subcommittee’s tasks, as well as a schedule for 

completing the initial department-wide reform effort.

Recommended Reading

Peggy Burke, TPC Reentry Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison 

to the Community Model (Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, 2008), 16, 

http://nicic.gov/Library/022669. 

Center for Effective Public Policy, Prisoner Reentry Initiative Coaching Packet 3: Strategic 

Planning (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2009), http://www.cepp.com/

coaching.htm. 

Crime and Justice Institute, Lighting the Way: Improving Corrections Policies and 

Practices: Real World EBP: Keys to Success (Boston: Crime and Justice Institute, 2009), 

http://www.cjinstitute.org/files/CJI_Integrated_Model_Booklet.pdf.
13

Redesigning 

Departmental 

Policies and Practices

The second phase of agency transformation activities focuses on how the probation 

department can be retooled to reduce recidivism and reoffending among probationers 

(as such, the steps in this phase mirror the four recidivism reduction practices stated 

in the introduction and throughout the guide). Extensive research shows that using 

screenings and assessments more effectively (Step 4), ensuring that supervision 

strategies are informed by the assessment and screening results (Step 5), tailoring 

sanctioning and incentive strategies to advance supervision goals (Step 6), and 

improving staff training (Step 7) can help reduce recidivism.7

step 4: Improve Probationer Screening 

and Assessment Processes 

Screening and assessing probationers are critical steps in effectively allocating 

supervision and service resources. These processes help departments develop tailored 

supervision strategies and better understand the needs and characteristics of the 

people the agency serves. In spite of their importance, many probation departments’ 

screenings and assessments are often ad hoc processes using instruments that have been 

developed internally, tinkered with over time, and never validated in a scientific manner. 

Restructuring and standardizing screening and assessment procedures is arguably one of 

the most important aspects of transforming a probation department to bring recidivism 

reduction into its mission. 

Part of improving the agency’s screening and assessment processes involves 

collecting and reviewing all related tools, intake forms, and paperwork presently used 

to develop supervision strategies. A flow chart or process map of when screenings and 

assessments are conducted, and by whom, can help show how the current activities 

7. Don A. Andrews and James Bonta, The Level of Service Inventory-Revised (Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, 1995); D. A. Andrews, J. Bonta, and 

R. D. Hoge, “Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 17, 1990: 19–52; D. A. Andrews, 

I. Zinger, R. D. Hoge, J. Bonta, P. Gendreau, and F. T. Cullen, “Does correctional treatment work? A clinically-relevant and psychologically informed 

meta- analysis,” Criminology, 28, 1990: 369–404; J. Bonta, “The Responsivity Principle and offender rehabilitation,” Forum on Corrections 

Research, 7(3), 1995: 34–37; P. Gendreau and C. Goggin, “Principles of effective programming with offenders,” Forum on Corrections Research, 

8(3), 1996: 38–40.
14 Transforming Probation Departments

are organized and how information is shared within the department, with the court, 

and with stakeholders. The flow chart should be used to identify if the probation 

department’s screening and assessment duplicates that of pre-trial services or the court, 

if information is not used or needed, and if information needed to shape supervision 

strategies is not being collected systematically. At a minimum, the process of developing 

this flow chart should answer the following questions:

• What information is collected and at what point is it collected?8

• Does screening and assessment of probationers yield enough detailed information 

about their risk of revocation, re-offense, and treatment and social service needs?

• Is the information collected and presented in a uniform format that enables 

individuals to be more easily classified and compared?

• What information should be shared with which staff or stakeholders?9

• At what point does reassessment take place? Is it regularly scheduled (e.g., annually) 

or does it occur when a significant violation occurs or when the probationer meets a 

major benchmark in his or her supervision plan?

Ideally, a probation department would commission the development of customized 

screening and assessment instruments designed for its population profile and tailored 

to the sentencing and programming options of that particular jurisdiction. In reality, 

not all probation departments have the resources to develop their own screening and 

assessment instruments and will adopt existing instruments; however, it is important 

to note that modifying or customizing existing instruments impair their validity and 

reliability and should be done with caution. 

Short of commissioning completely customized screening and assessment 

instruments, probation agencies can adopt existing instruments. The screening and 

assessment subcommittee should lead this effort, along with a contracted or in-house 

researcher. As part of the effort of identifying instruments, the researcher should look 

for aspects of potential instruments that are problematic or that might skew or overlook 

unique characteristics of the population the department works with (for example, certain 

instruments may use national averages for rates of unemployment and substance abuse, 

whereas the jurisdiction may have a higher-than-average rate). This information will 

8. The following information is collected typically during screening and assessment: demographics (for example, race, age, gender, employment 

and housing status, educational attainment, and financial assets and obligations); offense and criminal history; substance use and mental health 

status; risk level for violence, re-offense, and suicide; supervision level; and county of conviction.

9. The subcommittee should also review the literature on privacy and confidentiality to ensure the agency complies with all state and federal laws. 

The subcommittee can start to learn more on privacy matters and how to share information by reviewing Information Sharing in Criminal JusticeMental Health Collaborations: Working with HIPAA and Other Privacy Laws by John Petrila and Hallie Fader-Towe (2010), which can be found at 

http://www.consensusproject.org/jc_publications.
REDESIGNING DEPARTMENTAL POLICIES AND PRACTICES 15

10. For definitions of validating and norming, see footnotes 5 and 6 on page 7.

With the help of a consultant, Travis County’s probation department adapted 

and validated the Wisconsin Risk Assessment Instrument, originally developed in 

Wisconsin in the late 1970s.ii The instrument consists of 11 weighted items that are 

associated with the risk of re-arrest and revocation. The scores for each item are 

added and the total is used to categorize probationers as low, medium, or high risk. 

To determine probationers’ needs, the probation department uses an assessment tool 

called “Strategies for Case Supervision” (SCS). 

The probation department developed a color-coded system for offender risk and 

criminogenic classifications to assist sentencing officials in synthesizing the complex 

information gathered by these tools. The matrix provides levels of risk on the vertical 

axis and SCS classification (type of intervention for needs) on the horizontal axis, and 

consists of 15 possible categories in which individuals may be classified, represented 

by cells on the grid. 

Unlike previous practices, the department does not recommend whether 

individuals should or should not be placed on probation using this new procedure. The 

department only states the assessment results and the type of supervision strategy 

that would apply should the court place the offender on probation. For example, lowrisk, pro-social individuals with a stable lifestyle or with some skill deficit or isolated 

treatment need will be placed in the “yellow” category. Probationers who are classified 

mainly as posing a medium risk—those who are impulsive, lack skills, are easily led 

and have displayed destructive thinking, low self-esteem, and emotional problems—

will be placed in a “blue” category. Offenders who are classified mainly as high risk 

and display destructive or criminal thinking will be subjected to the most restrictive 

supervision strategy and will be classified in the “red” category. (See Figure 3 on 

page 18 for a depiction of the matrix and Figure 4 on page 22 for supervision 

strategies associated with the color codes.)

Travis County’s Criminogenic Risk 

and Need Assessment Process

prove useful to the subcommittee when making recommendations to the executive 

committee about which instruments to acquire.

Early in its work, subcommittee members, along with a researcher, should 

determine whether their instruments have been validated and normed for the population 

they serve and whether staff have been trained to administer the tools effectively.10

Validating and norming the assessment tools are critical steps to ensure that they are 

truly measuring the factors they purport to measure. The process of validating screening 

and assessment instruments is one that should be conducted or supervised by an 

experienced researcher. 
16 Transforming Probation Departments

The subcommittee should examine the format in which screening and assessment 

information is made available to the probation department and to judges. Robust 

screening and assessment information, when summarized concisely and presented 

in a clear format, improves judges’ ability to set effective conditions of supervision. 

Similarly, it enables probation staff to better classify probationers, allocate caseloads, 

design differentiated supervision strategies and plans based on an individual’s unique 

characteristics, and devise clear outcome measures for different offender populations (see 

Step 8 for more on measuring outcomes of the department’s work with probationers). 

Improving the way this information is summarized and presented saves staff time that 

can be better used to engage probationers, and helps avoid errors or oversights. 

Figure 3: Travis County’s Risk Assessment Matrix

Initial

Risk

SCS Score – Classification

SIS SIT ES CC LS

Low Yellow

Medium Blue

High Red

SCS Classification Characteristics

SIS = Selective Intervention Situational Generally law-abiding individual

SIT = Selective Intervention Treatment Individual unstable in one area like substance abuse

ES = Environmental Structure Individual with impaired intellectual ability and poor life 

skills

CC = Casework Control Individual with chronic instability in several areas of life

LS = Limit Setting Individual with criminal orientations

Criminogenic SCS Classifications

Risk Score Results
REDESIGNING DEPARTMENTAL POLICIES AND PRACTICES 17

Many probation departments have found that having all individuals screened, 

assessed, and diagnosed by a central unit streamlines the process and improves 

efforts to ensure that the quality of information collected is consistent. Compared 

with departments in which many probation officers conduct the criminogenic risk 

and need assessments (which usually 

include an assessment for mental health 

and substance use disorders) with 

minimal guidance from supervisors, 

or in which assessment information is 

collected through the pre-sentencing 

investigation, a centralized assessment 

process brings many advantages. First, 

it improves quality by ensuring that 

specifically trained personnel conduct 

the assessment. In a large department 

with hundreds of probation officers 

conducting their own assessments, 

inconsistencies in the assessment 

process are likely. Second, centralizing 

the assessment process provides a focal 

point for managers to conduct periodic 

quality assurance tests to identify major 

inconsistencies and quality concerns 

that can be resolved through training. 

(Quality assurance of the assessment 

process is discussed in more detail in 

Step 5, and training is discussed in Step 

7.) Managers can easily conduct tests in 

which the personnel in the central diagnosis unit are asked to assess the same cases 

to check if there any discrepancies in how they score the same individuals. Third, by 

replacing the pre-sentence investigation (which many probation departments rely 

on as the exclusive criminogenic risk and need assessment), the central assessment 

process provides the court more timely assessment information.11

11. In Travis County, the time to complete an assessment was reduced to about eight hours per case from up to 18 hours under the old presentencing investigation process.

12. For example, were they revoked for negative behavior, such as committing a technical violation or a new offense, or were they released from 

probation authority for successfully complying with the rules or completing the term of supervision.

Collect Data 

on Individuals 

Terminated from 

Supervision

Data on individuals terminated from 

supervision is just as important to 

collect as data on individuals currently 

under supervision, as it provides a 

crucial comparison group and can help 

isolate information that may indicate 

or help predict failure. In addition to 

the data that have been collected as 

part of the screening and assessment 

processes, information such as the type 

of termination,12 reason for revocation, 

length of supervision, and the risk and 

supervision level should be recorded for 

individuals terminated from supervision. 

These data can help the department 

understand why people did or didn’t 

succeed while under supervision, and can 

inform supervision practices in the future. 

TIP
18 Transforming Probation Departments

Table 2: How Travis County Revised Its Intake and 

Assessment Procedures

Area Previous System Improved System

Screening and 

Assessment Tools

Screening and assessment tools were redundant. 

These included pre-sentencing investigation (PSI) 

reports, risk assessments, substance use and 

mental health screening tools, and supervision 

tools.

The agency established a centralized assessment 

center that conducts a consolidated assessment.

One cohesive assessment form integrates all 

validated assessment tools upon entry into 

probation supervision; redundant questions have 

been eliminated.

Risk Assessment 

Timing

Risk assessments were conducted after conditions 

of supervision were set, and were rarely used for 

the development of case supervision strategies.

The agency established integrated screening and 

assessment, which it conducts before conditions of 

supervision are set. These are coded into a tiered 

matrix that reflects criminogenic risk and need and 

distinguishes “control” and “treatment” supervision 

conditions.13

Reports to the 

Court

Courts relied heavily on PSI reports, which were 

duplicative and lacked a cohesive structure. Judges 

interpreted these PSIs inconsistently because they 

had lengthy narratives and were not standardized. 

Judges receive recommendations in a standardized, 

structured report built around the results of the 

validated screening and assessment processes, 

minimizing lengthy narratives. 

Salient criminogenic factors are clearly identified in 

a matrix along a severity-scoring index.

Validating 

Instruments

No internal mechanism was in place to monitor the 

use of risk assessment results and regularly test 

the validity of risk assessment instruments. 

Risk assessment tools are now validated and 

integrated into routine processing prior to 

sentencing. 

Supervision Supervision was based on current offense, as well 

as criminal history, and oriented toward compliance 

with supervision conditions.

Field supervision procedures now require 

development of an individualized case plan oriented 

toward addressing the assessed criminogenic risk 

and need of the individual to reduce recidivism and 

produce better outcomes.

Probation 

Caseloads

There weren’t enough probation officers trained to 

supervise all high-risk offenders (the department 

requires specialized training to supervise this 

population).

By reducing repetitive paperwork, specially 

trained officers now have more time to supervise 

probationers.

Incentives and 

Sanctions

Sanctions varied, depending on the experience and 

philosophy of probation officers supervising the 

case.

Progressive incentives and sanctions schemes 

are designed to be tailored to each probationer—

what motivates that individual—while putting all 

probationers on notice of the kinds of responses 

that will follow various acts of noncompliance or 

offending.

13. A person in the “control” category would have to report more frequently and the officer would make visits in the field more frequently. He or 

she would receive more required contacts with a probation officer and greater restrictions on where he or she can go. A person in the “treatment” 

group may be referred to AA or NA. 
REDESIGNING DEPARTMENTAL POLICIES AND PRACTICES 19

Checklist for Step 4: Improve Probationer Screening 

and Assessment Processes

	Develop or acquire criminogenic risk and need assessment instruments.

	Validate and norm assessment instruments for supervised population.

	Inventory all screening and assessment, intake, and field supervision forms and tools, 

including information from other agencies that could be shared.

	Chart current screening and assessment processes (using a flow chart) to identify what 

information is being collected, and at what times.

	Determine how to reduce redundant data collection processes and questions. 

	Develop an assessment procedures manual that reflects this streamlined process.

	Focus on how information can be properly shared with all appropriate agencies and 

individuals to make the most effective use of resources.

	Collect data on individuals terminated from supervision.

Recommended Reading

DA Andrews and Craig Dowden, “The Risk-Need-Responsivity Model of Assessment and Human 

Service in Prevention and Corrections: Crime-Prevention Jurisprudence,” Canadian Journal of 

Criminology and Criminal Justice, October 2007.

Brad Bogue, Bill Woodward, Nancy Campbell, Mark Carey, Elyse Clawson, Dorothy Faust, Kate 

Florio, Andrew Goldberg, Lore Joplin, and Billy Wasson, Implementing Effective Correctional 

Management of Offenders in the Community: Outcome and Process Measures (Washington, 

DC: The Crime and Justice Institute and the National Institute of Corrections, 2005), 

http://nicic.gov/Library/021041.

James Bonta, “Offender Risk Assessment: Guidelines for Selection and Use,” Criminal Justice 

and Behavior Vol. 29 no. 4 (August 2002): 355–79.

Crime and Justice Institute, Intermediate Measures & Database Handbook and Instruction 

Manual (Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, 2007), http://www.cjinstitute.org/

files/int_measures_%20user_manual_110107.pdf. 

Tony Fabelo, Geraldine Nagy, Jose Villarreal, and W. Carsten Andresen, Measuring 

Process Efficiency to Improve Probation Management Strategies: Travis Community 

Impact Supervision Incubation Report IX (Washington, DC: The JFA Institute, 2007), 

http://www.co.travis.tx.us/community_supervision/tcis/travisincubator9.pdf.
20 Transforming Probation Departments

step 5: Align Supervision Plans with 

Screening and Assessment Results 

Even when good screening and assessment practices are in place, in many jurisdictions 

the results are not always translated into effective caseload management strategies 

and techniques. Once the screening and assessment practices have been retooled and 

implemented, the information that is gathered must be used to devise individualized 

supervision plans. Information from screening and assessment processes by other 

criminal justice agencies (for example, pre-trial services) should also be provided to the 

court to guide the determination of conditions of supervision. Probation screening and 

assessment staff should be available to communicate with judges and respond to their 

questions when the latter are developing conditions of supervision. Conditions that are 

required by law should be distinguished from special conditions set by the judge, such as 

a judge’s discretionary condition that a probationer participates in a specific program or 

provides community service work. 

When designing the supervision plan, it is important for probation officials to 

distinguish which special conditions are designed to help control the probationers’ 

behavior and which are meant to increase participation in treatment or other program 

interventions. With supervision conditions designed to control behavior (“control 

conditions”), the probation agency should have a very low tolerance for violations. In 

contrast, the probation agency may allow for minor infractions of supervision conditions 

related to the individual’s treatment plan (“treatment conditions”) without initiating 

a violation report to the courts.14 Obviously, the degree to which the probation agency 

responds to violations of control and treatment conditions depends on the level of risk 

presented by the probationer’s behavior.

A probationer’s supervision plan should be individualized based on a thorough 

classification process. Supervision decisions should not be based on risk level alone. 

Instead, departments should base the degree of supervision on both criminogenic risk 

and need. The subcommittee responsible for revamping supervision strategies should 

develop an assessment matrix or other rational decision-making guide that helps 

administrators sort probationers into different categories, each of which provides a 

unique supervision plan based on the assessed risk and need. Whatever categories the 

department chooses should be labeled simply and in a way that’s easy to remember, and 

should correspond to particular, clearly articulated supervision strategies.

As part of the probation department’s revised mission to reduce recidivism, 

officials should change the measures of success for a probation officer. Specifically, 

the department should move away from focusing on meeting “contact standards”—the 

number and type of meetings between an officer and individuals under supervision—

14. For example, a probationer fails to take some of his or her medication or misses an appointment with a treatment provider.
REDESIGNING DEPARTMENTAL POLICIES AND PRACTICES 21

as a measure of success. It is important that community corrections officers maintain 

discretion in their interactions with probationers. Rather, probation officers should 

be required and enabled to spend proportionally more time with those individuals in 

higher-risk categories.15

A probationer’s first visit with a probation officer should be scheduled once he or 

she is assigned a supervision category (in Travis, a yellow, red, or blue assignment) 

and the court imposes conditions of supervision. The probation officer should use the 

person’s assessment results to discuss those factors that increase the likelihood of 

The assessment matrix used by Travis County (see Figure 3) cross-references initial 

risk scores with assessment scores for needs. This allows the department to separate 

probationers into three color-coded supervision tiers, ranging from those who are 

relatively stable (at the low end) to those who demonstrate criminal thinking and 

orientation (on the high end). 

Probationers who score lower in both criminogenic risk and need (yellow 

category) receive fewer interventions. The expectation is that these probationers 

will comply with the rules without much need for supervisory involvement. Officers 

make sure these probationers know the rules they have to follow, address any 

issues with which they may need assistance, and conduct follow-up reporting. These 

probationers are placed on a “low risk caseload” with minimal contact requirements. 

Officers have greater tolerance for minor violations, such as failure to report a 

change in employment or to report the completion of a GED class. For the mid-range 

probationers (blue category), the strategies include more reporting requirements and 

more intensive treatment interventions. Individuals with the highest risk and need (red 

category) are subject to the most restrictive and intense supervision, including field 

visits, surveillance programs, and low tolerance for any violations.

Supervision strategies are decided based on the assessment results following 

standard procedures developed by the department. Judges are well aware of what 

the supervision strategies entail for each color on the grid, and can modify or add 

conditions to these strategies as they see fit. There are also “off-the-grid” strategies 

for certain types of offenses, such as sex offenses, as probationers charged with 

these crimes often cause special concern for community members. In general, 

however, judges defer to standardized supervision protocols, as they know these have 

been designed to provide the best evidence-based practices to match the related 

assessments.

Travis County’s Scheme for Relating 

Supervision Strategies to Assessment

15. For more on the importance of moving away from contact standards as a benchmark for a department’s success, see Amy Solomon, Jenny 

Osborne, Laura Winterfield, Brian Elderbroom, Peggy Burke, et al., Putting Public Safety First: 13 Parole Supervision Strategies to Enhance 

Reentry Outcomes (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, December 2008).
22 Transforming Probation Departments

him or her recidivating (e.g., criminogenic risk factors)—such as who he or she spends 

leisure time with—and his or her needs, such as employment training or substance 

abuse counseling. At that point, the officer and probationer should start working on a 

supervision agreement and plan. During the first visit, the officer should work with the 

probationer to determine the ranking of criminogenic and social service issues and the 

two sides should come up with some ways to address these issues. During the second 

visit, the officer, with the input of the probationer, should develop a supervision plan 

that incorporates criminogenic risk and need information, which the officer will monitor 

in subsequent contacts. The officer should use “motivational interviewing” techniques to 

elicit the best responses from the probationer and engage him or her in the behavioral 

change process.16 The supervision plan should be revisited after a reassessment is 

conducted—which takes place either at a scheduled point (e.g., annually), when the 

individual commits an infraction, or when the individual hits a benchmark in his or her 

supervision plan.

The supervision subcommittee should consider the size and composition of officers’ 

caseloads. Department administrators typically distribute probationers evenly across 

16. For more on motivational interviewing, see: http://www.motivationalinterview.org.

Yellow Blue Red

Lowest reporting 

requirements

No need for intensive discretionary 

programs

Applications of low to moderate 

responses to administrative violations 

using violation grid

Incentives for early discharge

Increased reporting requirements

Mix of visits to probation officer and 

home visits by probation officer as 

necessary

Discretionary programs to address 

skill/emotional deficits, mainly drug 

treatment, anger management, and 

cognitive programs

More restrictive responses to 

administrative violations

Incentives to move to “Yellow” on 

successful reassessment

Highest reporting requirements of all 

supervision levels, including field visits 

by probation officer

Use of surveillance programs, 

supplemented by cognitive programs 

and other programs as needed

Most restrictive and swift responses 

to administrative violations of all 

supervision levels

Incentives to move to “Blue” on 

successful reassessment but cannot 

move to “Yellow”

• Overrides allowed based on policy

• Sex offenders classified “outside” grid

Figure 4: Travis County Supervision Strategies 

Related to Assessment Scheme
REDESIGNING DEPARTMENTAL POLICIES AND PRACTICES 23

caseloads, which limits the discretion individual probation officers have to allocate time 

among the individuals in their charge. The American Probation and Parole Association 

(APPA) has explored caseload standards for individuals under probation supervision. 

In general, the number of individuals an officer supervises should decrease if the officer 

is supervising high-risk/high-need offenders.iii That said, there is no ideal caseload 

size. According to APPA’s research, the quality of contacts between probation officers 

and probationers is more important than the quantity of contacts. Officers with small 

caseloads comprising only individuals with similar risk levels and social service needs 

may be better able to detect fluctuations in any criminogenic behaviors or treatment 

progress and respond in a more targeted, flexible manner than officers with large, mixed 

caseloads. However, small, dedicated caseloads may not be feasible for all probation 

departments, such as small departments in rural areas. 

Probation departments with the capacity should consider placing some individuals—

especially those with serious mental illnesses—on specialized caseloads. Officers working 

on such caseloads should have significant and sustained specialized training for their 

caseloads’ target population and collaborate extensively with community-based service 

providers.iv Other specialized caseloads can be used to provide a subset of probationers 

with focused resources such as job training, or to concentrate on sanctions for a specific 

type of offense.v

To help their probationers break the cycle of revocations and re-offending, 

probation officers should leverage informal networks that can support probationers 

in the community, including family members, social contacts, and religious groups. 

These networks may exert positive pressure that effectively inhibit individuals from 

re-offending, or may provide resources or social relationships that help probationers 

succeed in the community.vi As much as possible, officers should be trained to work 

with pro-social informal networks to involve them into the case plan. In neighborhoods 

with a high concentration of probationers, probation leaders (through the supervision 

subcommittee, which makes recommendations to the executive committee) should 

In Travis County, officers are assigned probationers using a rotation system. This has 

an unintended consequence: dozens of probation officers supervise individuals that 

may be clustered in a single or small number of neighborhoods. For example, in one 

high-concentration Austin neighborhood, 120 officers supervise 688 probationers. 

Based on an average caseload size of approximately 100 probationers per officer, the 

same number of probationers could be supervised by seven officers. A place-based 

case assignment system for areas with high numbers of probationers—instead of 

a random rotation system—can improve department efficiency and allow officers to 

develop expertise in the neighborhood and the resources to which they can refer their 

probationers.

 Probationer Assignments in Travis County
24 Transforming Probation Departments

consider the possibility of deploying officers on a neighborhood basis, so they may 

become more familiar with some of the resources and programs available in the 

community. For example, with place-based caseloads, a probation department may 

assign officers to particular neighborhoods where large numbers of probationers reside 

to increase efficiency and provide officers with a more comprehensive picture of what is 

going on in their probationers’ lives.

When probation departments develop specialized or place-based caseloads, it is 

important for staff to have up-to-date inventories of all treatment programs and related 

resources in the jurisdiction, particularly because the department is not likely to directly 

operate or fund such services. A subcommittee focusing on programming, along with 

department staff with prior experience linking their probationers to treatment and 

other services, should develop a list of available programs and resources, identifying the 

providers and their goals, eligibility criteria, and the capacity or number of individuals 

they each serve. This inventory should distinguish between services (such as parenting 

classes), sanctions (such as short-term incarceration), and treatment programs that 

address probationers’ criminogenic characteristics. For treatment programs, staff should 

distinguish among programs of different intensity, such as outpatient and inpatient 

treatment for substance abuse. Staff must also understand any admissions criteria.

To ensure that the programs in which probationers participate will help to reduce 

their rates of recidivism, the programming subcommittee must familiarize itself with 

the literature on program quality (or fidelity) review tools. Program quality review 

tools have been developed for assessing key characteristics of correctional intervention 

programs to determine how closely the programs adhere to the known principles of 

effective intervention. Of particular note is the Correctional Program Checklist (CPC) 

developed by the University of Cincinnati.17 Fidelity review tools are implemented by a 

team of evaluators who collect data through structured interviews with program staff, 

observations made through focus groups, and reviews of program documentation. The 

evaluators then score programs, identify areas of weakness, and make recommendations 

for improvements. Programs that score high on the CPC are likely to reduce recidivism, 

whereas those scoring low on the CPC are not.

Once they have conducted a program quality review, the department, through the 

programming subcommittee, should make necessary adjustments to ensure the quality 

of programs to which they link probationers. Although probation agencies may have 

little ability to suggest or impose changes on external programs, at a minimum they 

should distinguish among possible partners and providers in the community and refer 

probationers to the most effective programs available. In some cases, the department 

may be able to partner with the providers or other public agencies that monitor the 

provision of social services to influence standards. Such partnerships can be realized 

through the executive committee overseeing the department transformation (see Step 1). 

17. To learn more about the CPC, see http://www.uc.edu/corrections/training.html#ProgramEval.
REDESIGNING DEPARTMENTAL POLICIES AND PRACTICES 25

For example, stakeholders in Missouri found that behavioral health care for probationers 

varied considerably across the state, and established guidelines that providers needed to 

meet to receive referrals from the probation department.vii

Although fostering linkages to high-quality treatments and services is crucial, it 

should not come at the expense of the probation department focusing on strategies over 

which it can exert the most control: improving their own operations and supervision 

practices and the community corrections practices that are proven to reduce recidivism.

Checklist for Step 5: Align Supervision Plans with 

Screening and Assessment Results

Use screening and assessment results to help inform judges who set conditions of supervision.

Classify probationers based on a clear risk and need matrix into categories that correspond 

with different supervision strategies.

Encourage probation officers to tailor supervision agreements and plans to each individual.

Modify caseload composition and distribution to determine the benefits of specialized 

caseloads and to focus resources on high-risk offenders that require the strongest 

interventions to reduce recidivism.

Conduct an inventory and review the quality of programs available to probationers.

Recommended Reading

James Austin, “The Proper and Improper Use of Risk Assessment in Corrections,” Federal 

Sentencing Reporter Vol. 16 (February 2004), http://www.jfa-associates.com/publications/

pcras/proper%20userand%20misuse%20of%20risk.pdf. 

Peggy Burke, “Case Management: A Critical Element of the TPC Model,” in TPC Reentry 

Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model

(Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, 2008), http://nicic.gov/Library/022669. 

Eric Cadora, Tony Fabelo, and Geraldine Nagy, Thinking About Location: Orienting Probation to 

Neighborhood Based Supervision: Travis Community Impact Supervision Incubation Report V 

(Washington, DC: The JFA Institute, 2007), http://www.co.travis.tx.us/community_supervision/

tcis/TravisIncubator5.pdf. 

Frank Domurand, So You Want to Develop Your Own Risk Assessment Instrument (Washington, 

DC: National Institute of Corrections, 1999), http://nicic.gov/Library/period160. 

National Institute of Corrections, A Framework for Evidence-Based Decision Making in 

Local Criminal Justice Systems (Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, Federal 

Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice, 2009), http://www.cepp.com/documents/

EBDM%20Framework.pdf.
26 Transforming Probation Departments

Seth J. Prins and Fred C. Osher, Improving Responses to People with Mental Illnesses: The 

Essential Elements of Specialized Probation Initiatives (New York: Council of State Governments 

Justice Center, 2009), http://consensusproject.org/jc_publications/probation-essentialelements. 

Amy L. Solomon, Jenny Osborne, Laura Winterfield, Brian Elderbroom, Peggy Burke, Richard 

P. Stroker, Edward E. Rhine, and William D. Burrell, Putting Public Safety First: 13 Parole 

Supervision Strategies to Enhance Reentry Outcomes (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice 

Policy Center, 2008), http://www.urban.org/publications/411791.html. 

Faye S. Taxman, Eric S. Shepardson, Jayme Delano, Suzanne Mitchell, James M. Byrne, 

Adam Gelb, and Mark Gornik, “Assessment and Planning,” in Tools of the Trade: A Guide to 

Incorporating Science into Practice (Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, 2004), 

http://nicic.gov/Library/020095.

step 6: Redesign Incentive and 

Sanctioning Strategies

In many jurisdictions, probation officers are required by law or department policy to 

start the probation revocation process when probationers commit a minor or technical 

violation of the terms of their community sentence. Where probation officers can apply 

strategies other than revocation, they may not have received appropriate training on how 

to apply them. Often, agencies lack a cohesive policy on incentives and sanctions that 

is both clear to all probation officers and is consistently backed by administrators and 

supported by the judiciary. 

Once risk assessment and supervision strategies are aligned and integrated, a 

subcommittee—comprising staff, judicial officials, and community representatives—

should develop incentives and graduated sanctions as well as a process to deploy 

them. Incentives and graduated sanctions give probation officers a range of responses 

to probationers’ behavior that helps build accountability and discourage recidivism. 

They also help ensure that each officer responds to violations with a level of swiftness 

and severity that is directly related to the probationer’s risk level and the condition of 

supervision that has been violated. 

Standardizing responses provides a measure of fairness while giving officers 

necessary flexibility. A low-severity sanction might involve increased monitoring. 

Higher-severity responses could include placement in a residential treatment facility 

or a short, immediate jail sanction. (Appendix D provides Travis County’s “Violation 

Response Table,” which identifies the different levels of graduated sanctions depending 

on the type of infraction.)

Responses to an individual’s behavior should take into account the individual’s risk 

level. Failure to match sanctions to risk levels can have unexpected results; in particular, 

targeting low-risk offenders with intensive supervision can actually increase their 
REDESIGNING DEPARTMENTAL POLICIES AND PRACTICES 27

likelihood of recidivating.viii If probation officers monitor low-risk individuals extremely 

closely, they may be more likely to detect minor technical violations. Furthermore, 

frequent reporting to a probation officer may interrupt the very activities that are likely 

to result in positive behaviors; this may be the case when a probationer has to leave a 

job to travel to check-ins when compliance was likely in any case. Also, it is common 

for people with substance use disorders to relapse early in the recovery process; for 

individuals deemed a low risk of recidivating, this should not automatically require 

severe sanctions or probation revocation. (Serious sanctions may be in order, however, if 

such an individual poses a high public safety risk or has a history of dangerous behavior 

when intoxicated.)

The probation agency should instruct 

officers to use incentives to promote positive 

behavior whenever appropriate. Research 

suggests that using positive incentives 

alongside punitive sanctions reduces 

recidivism rates; incentives should be used 

four times as often as sanctions “to enhance 

individual motivation toward positive behavior 

change and reduced recidivism.”ix Effective and 

common incentives include early termination 

from supervision, reduced restitution hours, 

and reduced contacts with the officer. 

The incentives and graduated sanctions 

subcommittee should develop specific protocols 

that govern the use of jail as a consequence 

reserved for serious noncompliance, especially 

for individuals involved in community-based 

treatment or social service programs. These 

protocols should be documented in writing, 

and should be shared with all stakeholder 

agencies represented in the transformation 

initiative. Probation agencies should explore alternatives such as intermediate-sanction 

facilities or day-reporting centers that are staffed by probation officers as well as 

community service providers. These facilities’ staff support continuity of care and can 

help prevent further involvement with the criminal justice system. 

Probation officers should participate in the subcommittee that designs graduated 

responses to technical violations. By involving probation officers in this process, 

department leaders will ensure that line staff understand the reasoning behind 

department actions. This will help departments promote consistent, effective, and 

transparent application of graduated responses. Departments implementing incentives 

and graduated sanctions should issue a comprehensive report enumerating the range of 

actions (which should be as exhaustive as possible) and the corresponding responses. 

This report should be shared with partner agencies.

Changing 

State Policy 

to Implement 

Incentives and 

Graduated 

Sanctions

Implementing comprehensive 

and standardized incentives and 

sanctions in a jurisdiction where they 

do not exist will likely involve changes 

to policy or statute, a complete 

review of which is beyond the scope 

of this document. The Pew Center 

on the States’ Policy Framework to 

Strengthen Community Corrections

provides detailed suggestions on 

developing state statutes that 

authorize probation officers to 

implement graduated sanctions and 

incentives.x

TIP
28 Transforming Probation Departments

Checklist for Step 6: Redesign Incentive and 

Sanctioning Strategies

Work with judges, prosecutors, and other stakeholders to develop a range of supported 

options and new procedures for employing incentives and graduated sanctions that are 

tailored to probationers’ level of criminogenic risk and identified need.

Issue a comprehensive report that details the transparent procedures to be followed. 

Train officers to ensure the procedures are carried out fairly and in swift response to a 

violation.

Emphasize the use of incentives rather than relying exclusively on punitive sanctions. 

Reserve jail and revocations for the most serious violators, and ensure that supervision 

continues to be focused on individuals identified as high risk.

Recommended Reading

Center for Effective Public Policy, Responding to Probation and Parole Violations: A Handbook 

to Guide Local Policy Development (Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, 2001), 

http://nicic.gov/Library/016858. 

Peggy McGarry and Becki Ney, “Understand and Specify the Goals and Outcomes of Sanctions,” 

in Getting It Right: Collaborative Problem Solving for Criminal Justice (Washington, DC: Center 

for Effective Public Policy, 2006), http://nicic.gov/Downloads/PDF/Library/019834. 

National Institute of Corrections, A Framework for Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local 

Criminal Justice Systems (Washington, DC: A Collaborative Project among the Center for 

Effective Public Policy, The Pretrial Justice Institute, and the Justice Management Institute, 

August 2009).

Faye Taxman, Eric S. Shepardson, Jayme Delano, Suzanne Mitchell, James M. Byrne, Adam Gelb, 

and Mark Gornik, “Incentives to Shape Offender Behavior,” in Tools of the Trade: A Guide to 

Incorporating Science into Practice (Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, 2004), 

http://nicic.gov/Library/020095.
REDESIGNING DEPARTMENTAL POLICIES AND PRACTICES 29

step 7: Develop Recidivism-Reduction 

Training

Probation departments seeking an increased focus on recidivism reduction must ensure 

that probation officers provide the motivation that helps probationers change, rather 

than focusing solely on their compliance with conditions of community sentences. To 

guide probationers to positive behavior change, probation staff must be trained on the 

new strategies and priorities brought about by the department’s reorientation toward 

recidivism reduction. 

The executive committee should designate a subcommittee to develop a training 

curriculum and materials. The training subcommittee should first review current 

training practices and make recommendations for alterations. Working with probation 

agency leaders, the subcommittee should make recommendations to the executivelevel committee on how to link the new training strategies to the overall goals of agency 

transformation, and should communicate this information to all personnel.

With the input of the training subcommittee, department leaders should set an 

aggressive training agenda to familiarize personnel with the goals and implications 

of agency transformation, build skills that will help staff engage and work with 

probationers, and support the implementation of specific changes to assessment or 

supervision strategies. The subcommittee should consider developing training to help 

officers

• Administer a comprehensive criminogenic risk and need assessment, analyze the 

findings, and translate them into a case management plan;

• Conduct motivational interviews; 

• Develop strategies to address relapse; and 

• Adopt evidence-based practices, such as establishing “firm but fair” relationships 

with their probationers that are authoritative, not authoritarian, and characterized 

by caring, trust, and problem solving (as opposed to relying on threats of 

incarceration or other negative pressures) to address compliance issues.xi

In some cases, training will have to help officers “unlearn” old priorities and 

practices. For example, probation leaders should recognize that prior to the department 

undertaking a transformation, most incentives prompted officers to focus on identifying 

and sanctioning any and all violations. For each of the steps of this guide, officers 

should learn how that particular activity helps promote the agency’s newly adopted 

mission of recidivism reduction. Unless probation staff members fully understand how 

departmental goals and training for new skills are connected, it may be more challenging 
30 Transforming Probation Departments

for them to reorient their daily work. Veteran 

staff may feel anxious and resist changes to 

their familiar routines while more recent hires 

may not know how to accomplish what is 

expected of them. 

Ongoing skill-based training, critical to 

ensuring officers perform in a high-quality 

manner and adhere to new techniques, 

should be active and participatory, rather 

than passive—especially for more-seasoned officers. For example, instead of observing a 

presentation about motivational interviewing, officers should perform practice sessions 

that are taped and then evaluated for feedback by senior officers or trainers. Training 

should also give staff a chance to practice hypothetical scenarios (for example, roleplaying interactions between officers and their probationers). 

The training subcommittee should identify officers throughout the department who 

excel at these desired skills and enlist them as trainers or coaches for their colleagues. 

They can also tap the network of stakeholders brought together through the committee 

structure of the transformation initiative to provide training on topics germane to their 

expertise.

Staff training should emphasize the important role of the principals, especially 

the judge, in the supervision strategies that promote positive changes in probationers’ 

behavior and reduced recidivism. Training should provide an opportunity for probation 

leaders to explain to staff the purpose and value of collaborating with other criminal 

justice agencies and community groups. Cross-training should also be promoted. 

Convening a conference or training event for relevant stakeholders across the 

Travis County probation administrators train officers to ensure that new assessment 

tools produce the same results regardless of which officers use them. Officers were 

specifically selected to conduct assessments in the centralized assessment unit based 

on their presumed ability to engage probationers through motivational interviewing. 

Then the officers were trained in the scoring of the criminogenic risk and need 

assessment instruments. At least once per year, officers are provided documents and 

taped interviews from the same cases as an internal reliability test; the results of 

the assessment by each officer are then analyzed to determine if they score similar 

cases the same. Any major discrepancies are highlighted and reviewed to sensitize 

the officers to areas in which they need to improve their assessment. The officers are 

also trained to enter collected information directly into a computer database, when 

possible, to reduce paperwork and time in completing the assessment process.

Training in Travis County

Train 

Alongside 

Colleagues

Regular unit-based training can build 

teamwork and ensure that instruction 

is grounded in actual experiences and 

realistic examples and adapted to the 

needs of particular units.

TIP
REDESIGNING DEPARTMENTAL POLICIES AND PRACTICES 31

jurisdiction may enhance understanding of all key roles and objectives, and promote a 

collective vision regarding the probation agency transformation. 

Probation leaders should convey the importance of training to the entire 

department. Managers, senior staff, and line-level supervisors should also be trained and 

should regard training and coaching as a central part of their job. Supervisors must have 

the authority to ask staff to participate in trainings that will address skill deficiencies 

identified in personnel evaluations. 

Checklist for Step 7: Develop Recidivism-Reduction 

Training

Adjust staff training curricula and instruction methods to support new departmental 

objectives and incorporate judicial perspectives.

Help staff members become proficient in techniques used to reduce the likelihood of 

probationers recidivating and to enhance probationers’ motivation.

Promote ongoing learning and improvement through the use of peer support, coaches, and 

mentors.

Educate personnel at all levels—line staff, supervisors, managers, and others who will support 

the agency’s new objectives.

Promote cross-training opportunities with stakeholders to foster agency transformation 

objectives and enhance understanding of resources and capabilities.

Recommended Reading

James Bonta, Tanya Rugge, Terri-Lynne Scott, Guy Bourgon, and Anne K. Yessine, “Exploring the 

Black Box of Community Supervision,” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation Vol. 47 (July 2008), 

248–70.

Peggy Burke, “Implementing the Model,” in TPC Reentry Handbook: Implementing the NIC 

Transition from Prison to the Community Model (Washington, DC: National Institute of 

Corrections, 2008), http://nicic.gov/Library/022669. 

Ghislaine Cote, “A Probation and Parole Service Delivery Model: The Ontario Experience,” 

Corrections Today Vol. 65 No. 1 (February, 2003).

Crime and Justice Institute, Implementing Evidence-Based Principles in Community 

Corrections: Leading Organizational Change and Development (Washington, DC: 

National Institute of Corrections, Community Corrections Division, 2004), http://nicic.gov/

Library/019344. 

Crime and Justice Institute, Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in Community Corrections: 

The Principles of Effective Intervention (Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, 

2004), http://nicic.gov/Library/019342.

33

Implementing 

Procedures to 

Ensure Quality and 

Monitor Progress

The third phase of a department’s transformation focuses on setting up systems and 

procedures to keep the department moving toward the long-term goal of reducing 

revocations and reoffending. Steps in this phase include devising and putting into 

practice a process- and outcome-accountability system (Step 8), adapting the personnel 

evaluation system to reflect recidivism-reduction goals and related operational changes 

(Step 9), and routinely reviewing the department’s progress and setting goals for 

continuous improvement (Step 10). 

step 8: Develop and Implement a Processand Outcome-Accountability System

Probation departments must measure their performance on an ongoing basis to ensure 

that they are successfully reaching the goals of agency transformation. This is especially 

true as the number of people on supervision grows and the probation department 

must stretch its resources and make difficult choices about allocating staff time to meet 

the demands placed on it. Increasing efficiency and effectiveness requires collecting 

detailed information at the beginning of the change process to set a baseline (see Step 

2), and then collecting additional data over the course of agency transformation to gauge 

progress. 

The department should look at probationer cases and develop a feedback system 

that routinely provides department leaders with process and outcome data in aggregate. 

This will enable the department to capture data relevant to its evolving activities and to 

make course corrections if necessary. These data will help the department answer the 

following questions:

• Does the department assign probationers to specialized or nonspecialized caseloads 

consistent with new screening and assessment procedures?

• Are screening and assessment results used to shape or modify supervision plans?

• Are higher-risk probationers supervised more closely than lower-risk individuals?
34 Transforming Probation Departments

• When probationers are reassessed (either on a regular schedule, when the 

probationer hits a benchmark in his or her supervision plan, or if a significant 

violation occurs) are appropriate changes made to their supervision levels or 

strategies?

• Are recidivism or revocation rates lower after the department transformation effort 

commenced? 

• If not, should supervision strategies be revised?

• Are there particular neighborhoods where a disproportionate number of 

probationers live that might warrant a place-based caseload assignment?

An information management subcommittee should review what data are needed 

and recommend a strategy for integrating such data collection processes into routine 

operations. This subcommittee may suggest adding data fields to case-processing 

forms or other existing paperwork, creating new pen-and-paper data forms, or, ideally, 

implementing or augmenting electronic information management systems. (The degree 

of integration of data collection into routine operations will depend in large measure on 

the jurisdiction’s technological capacity.) 

The information management subcommittee should design reports that enable 

probation administrators to review key process and outcome measures regularly. 

Process measures highlight how well procedures are being carried out. They include such 

measures as the number of individuals screened for criminogenic risk, substance use, 

mental illness, or other needs; the number who have attended, and how many of those 

who have completed treatment or social service programs; weekly or monthly contacts 

each probationer made with an officer and/or service providers; court-ordered fees, 

fines, or child support collected; and violation reports filed. Outcome measures help 

determine the impact of an initiative. They measure such things as the number and type 

of probation terminations/revocations, the reasons for violations, rates of re-arrests, and 

the reasons for re-arrests. Outcome data about participants’ improvements in mental 

health, substance use recovery, or other social service areas also are useful. 

Officers and managers use a “Process Maintenance Tracking Report” to follow nine 

to 13 process measures on an ongoing basis. Examples of these process measures 

include 

• the number and percent of cases in which criminogenic risk and need 

re-assessments are overdue, 

• cases in which fee payments have not been made, and 

• cases pending a motion to revoke and the average number of days since the 

violation reports and motions were issued.

Travis County’s Process Measures
IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES TO ENSURE QUALITY AND MONITOR PROGRESS 35

Members of the information management subcommittee should use these 

measures to create a “dashboard” of basic information for the executive committee that 

measures the progress of the department’s transformation. For example, department 

administrators may want to easily and regularly review aggregate data on the number of 

cases in which probationers are delinquent on their fees. These data should be presented 

across the entire department as well as by managerial unit. Individual managers will 

also be interested in these aggregate reports. They may be more interested in indicators 

involving officer caseloads, such as which officer has the most high-risk cases or which 

officer has the most overdue risk reassessments. 

In addition to the quantitative process and outcome measures described above, 

probation departments should make an effort to collect qualitative information as well. 

Qualitative data enrich the interpretation of the “hard numbers,” highlight needed 

procedural changes, and help maintain the integrity of key processes such as intake 

and assessment practices. They can also be useful in underscoring the successes and 

challenges of agency transformation and recidivism-reducing supervision practices. 

Such data might include measures of officers’ dissatisfaction with how time-consuming 

and difficult it is to implement some new supervision strategies, their satisfaction with 

other particular procedures, and probationers’ ratings of the quality of supervision and 

services they receive. For example, the Maricopa County Probation Department tracks 

probationers’ perception of the quality of their department’s services; this provides 

the department with feedback on issues that may need to be addressed.xii To analyze 

and distribute this data, the information management subcommittee should develop 

feedback protocols. 

A probation department undergoing transformation requires basic research 

capacity. Researchers can either be in-house personnel trained in research methods or 

contracted professionals from a local university or one of the several technical assistance 

centers that provide such services. 

The Travis County Community Supervision and Corrections Department has a 

research division that looks at the quality of processes that have been adopted by the 

department every year. Researchers test adherence to the evidence-based practices 

approved through its planning process, especially in the areas of assessment and 

the use of graduated sanctions. This process helps the department better match 

conditions of supervision to probationers’ assessment results, enhances the quality 

of supervision by promoting better interactions between probation officers and 

probationers, and equips officers to better respond to violations using graduated 

sanctions.xiii The research division then analyzes data from a sample of cases and 

presents it to the managers to make adjustments in practices as needed. (See 

Appendix E for the forms Travis County uses to collect data from the case files to 

measure fidelity to key protocols.)

Travis County’s Research Division
36 Transforming Probation Departments

Checklist for Step 8: Develop and Implement a Processand Outcome-Accountability System

Develop or contract for research expertise.

Use an information management subcommittee to make recommendations. 

Agree on process and outcome measures to track progress on goals and objectives.

Identify available process and outcome data and identify missing data, as well as any new or 

revised procedures for collection.

Develop a baseline for later data comparisons to trace improvements.

Develop a format and process for the data report’s release and distribution that is tailored to 

line-level, managerial, and administrative needs.

Analyze caseload assignments and adherence to risk- and need-driven supervision strategies 

to identify opportunities for reallocating cases and supervision resources.

Develop routine fidelity studies to determine if actual practices are matching the protocols for 

the evidence-based practices that the department has instituted.

Collect qualitative data from personnel, probationers, and stakeholders and develop feedback 

protocols among key personnel regarding report results.

Recommended Reading

Crime and Justice Institute, “The Responsivity Principle 4,” in Implementing Evidence-Based 

Practice in Community Corrections: The Principles of Effective Intervention (Washington, DC: 

National Institute of Corrections, 2004), http://nicic.gov/Library/019342. 

Meghan Howe and Lore Joplin, Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in Community 

Corrections: Quality Assurance Manual (Washington, DC: Crime and Justice Institute and the 

National Institute of Corrections, 2005), http://nicic.gov/Library/021258. 

Peggy McGarry and Becki Ney, “Document and Assess All the Resources Available to You,” in 

Getting It Right: Collaborative Problem Solving for Criminal Justice (Washington, DC: Center 

for Effective Public Policy, 2006), http://nicic.gov/Downloads/PDF/Library/019834.
IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES TO ENSURE QUALITY AND MONITOR PROGRESS 37

step 9:

Retool the Personnel Evaluation 

System to Reinforce Agency-wide 

Recidivism-Reduction Efforts

Probation departments often have well-developed personnel evaluation systems, but 

they typically measure whether staff made the necessary number of contacts with 

probationers rather than whether these contacts resulted in fewer revocations or new 

offenses. Probation officers should be evaluated on activities that are critical to reducing 

recidivism, such as their ability to engage and motivate probationers to participate in 

their supervision plans and change their behaviors. Officers in a department focused on 

recidivism reduction should serve as case managers, liaisons between the department 

and the community, and effective brokers of services. 

The personnel evaluation system should reinforce the changes taking place in 

the probation department by promoting officers’ positive attitudes and skills that are 

critical to managing probationers’ varying levels of risk and need. (See Table 3, page 38, 

which identifies potential criteria for evaluating personnel.) Evaluations should foster 

skills such as good interpersonal communication; efficiency in casework; applying new 

problem-solving strategies and techniques; and establishing relationships characterized 

by caring, firmness, fairness, and trust. The new evaluation system should measure 

the results of casework and supervision strategies, rather than simply measuring an 

officers’ tendency to follow procedures and complete paperwork. Evaluations should be 

tailored to reflect the distinct responsibilities and related skills associated with different 

staff positions—e.g., probation officers, managers, and counselors. Probation officers 

should not be evaluated on any new standards or skills for which they have not yet been 

explicitly trained (see Step 7). 

The executive committee should task a personnel evaluation subcommittee with 

developing consensus among stakeholders, including employees at all levels of the 

probation department, around a new evaluation system that measures these skills. 

Although developing an evaluation system for probation officers is its top priority, 

When the Travis County probation department fully implemented the four recidivism 

reduction practices (described in the introduction), the percentage of “paperwork- or 

process-related tasks” in probation officers’ performance evaluation forms decreased 

from 78 percent of the evaluation items to 42 percent. The “casework-related tasks” 

increased from 22 percent in the prior personnel evaluation protocols to 58 percent in 

the new ones.xiv

Modifications to Evaluation Forms 

in Travis County
38 Transforming Probation Departments

The Travis County Community Supervision and Corrections Department initially used 

the old and new personnel evaluations simultaneously for an entire year, but only 

“counted” the old evaluation. This signaled to officers the sort of evaluation they’d be 

receiving in the future without introducing the new measures too abruptly.

How Travis County Adapted to

New Personnel Evaluations

Table 3: Examples of Improved Personnel Evaluation 

Domains and Metrics

Table 3 identifies some of the domains and metrics by which personnel might be evaluated once the probation 

department has adopted the principles of recidivism reduction.

Domain Examples of Metrics

Communication • Uses strong verbal and written communication skills

• Collaborates effectively with other team members

• Clearly articulates expectations to probationers and maintains transparent processes

Problem Solving • Collects relevant data

• Defines problems

• Identifies and considers possible solutions

• Involves partners and identifies resources in crafting and implementing solutions

• Follows up on critical issues and determines effectiveness of responses

Initiative • Looks for opportunities to improve performance and stays current on new information 

and emerging issues

• Takes needed action and works cooperatively with colleagues

• Champions new projects or strategies

Casework • Develops effective supervision plans that reflect results of screenings and assessments 

and respond to identified treatment and service needs

• Provides quality day-to-day supervision that focuses on advancing recidivism-reduction 

goal rather than just compliance

• Uses graduated sanctions and incentives properly

Commitment • Supports department’s mission and values

• Tries new ways of doing business to advance department goals
IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES TO ENSURE QUALITY AND MONITOR PROGRESS 39

this subcommittee should also seek to update the evaluation system for managers, 

administrative staff, and others involved in the department’s efforts to improve success 

rates among probationers and reduce recidivism.

Before adopting the new evaluation system, the department should consider piloting 

any changes that require supervisors to observe and audit staff. In all likelihood, the 

new evaluation system’s focus on both communication and effective casework requires 

an evaluator to directly observe an officer in action. This may appear to be a more 

subjective analysis; for example, answering the question of how effectively officers help 

probationers solve their specific and unique challenges—from arranging transportation 

and social service appointments to maintaining abstinence from illegal substances—

requires a degree of professional experience and insight. Special attention should be 

placed on developing solid observation and auditing procedures so that the legitimacy of 

the evaluation process is not compromised. 

Implementing a new personnel evaluation system may take longer than other steps 

described in this guide. (In some jurisdictions, it required as many as two years of the 

personnel evaluation subcommittee’s work to collect input from key personnel and 

build consensus.) A deliberately measured pace should help staff understand that the 

changes to the evaluation system will not be sudden and arbitrary; it gives officers time 

to understand and adapt to the new standards that will be valued and rewarded by the 

department.

Checklist for Step 9: Retool the Personnel Evaluation 

System to Reinforce Agency-wide RecidivismReduction Efforts

Assign a subcommittee to help review current personnel performance evaluation systems and 

make recommendations for change.

Agree on domains and measures that will reveal whether probation officers’ skills, attitudes, 

and activities support recidivism reduction and are consistent with training and other 

department goals. 

Develop a new personnel performance evaluation system for probation officers that uses a 

transparent process.

Tailor evaluations for different personnel to reflect their roles and responsibilities, including 

managers, probation officers, and administrative staff.

Make changes to the personnel performance evaluation system for administrative staff that 

responds to staff concerns.

Pilot the new evaluation system.

Plan for a gradual transition to full implementation after addressing issues raised in pilottesting.
40 Transforming Probation Departments

Recommended Reading

Peggy Burke, “Implementing the Model,” in TPC Reentry Handbook: Implementing the NIC 

Transition from Prison to the Community Model (Washington, DC: National Institute of 

Corrections, 2008), http://nicic.gov/Library/022669. 

Crime and Justice Institute, “Appendix F: Structural Supports for Change,” in Implementing 

Evidence-Based Principles in Community Corrections: Leading Organizational Change and 

Development (Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, 2004), http://nicic.gov/

Library/019344. 

Mario A. Paparozzi and Paul Gendreau, “An Intensive Supervision Program that Worked: Service 

Delivery, Professional Orientation, and Organizational Supportiveness,” The Prison Journal Vol. 

85 (2005).

step 10: Review Progress and Set Goals for 

Continuous Improvement

It is important for probation leaders and their partners to have realistic expectations for 

the duration of time it will take to transform the department. Successfully completing the 

process of change, which affects so many components of the department, will likely take 

more than two years. Furthermore, it is fair to say that the project is never “completed,” 

as the department will make numerous adjustments long after the subcommittees have 

adjourned. Because of the ongoing nature of this work, the department should plan to 

evaluate progress at several intervals after the formal conclusion of the transformation 

effort—for example, two years down the road.

In light of the prolonged nature of this work, to keep staff motivated and committed 

it is important that department officials offer praise for measurable progress toward 

the long-term goal of transforming into a 

department focused on recidivism reduction. 

During the transformation, leaders should 

characterize the department as a “learning 

organization” or an organization that examines 

key operations routinely to continue growing 

and evolving.

As part of its ongoing review process, the 

department should compare current data on 

its established performance measures (see 

Step 8) to the baseline data collected at the 

outset (see Step 2), and identify successes 

and areas requiring further work. The 

Celebrate 

Interim 

Successes

If staff do not feel that aspects or 

phases of the agency transformation 

efforts are “completed,” they may 

become frustrated and feel less 

compelled to continue the process. 

Once the early and intensive efforts 

to change the department’s basic 

structure and culture have been 

accomplished, staff can celebrate as 

they meet certain milestones.

TIP
IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES TO ENSURE QUALITY AND MONITOR PROGRESS 41

information management subcommittee 

should highlight the major accomplishments 

that the department has achieved and 

present this information to department 

leaders, who in turn should promote these 

findings internally and externally. Reductions 

in recidivism should be highlighted, as 

should any other interim indication that the 

department is moving in the right direction. 

As stated previously, the subcommittee, on 

behalf of department administrators, should 

commission or conduct routine “fidelity 

studies” to determine if the new processes adopted are implemented faithfully. 

Any goals and objectives on which the department has fallen short should be 

openly acknowledged, and a work plan and timeline to accomplish them should be 

developed. This transparency exemplifies what it means to be a learning organization. 

Along the same lines, each step within this guide should be revisited periodically by 

probation leaders and the executive committee formed at the outset, as informed by 

the subcommittees, to ensure that all aspects of the department’s activities are geared 

toward reducing recidivism and are working in concert. The department should commit 

Find 

Successes, 

Even in 

Setbacks

It is important to remember that 

in many cases the lessons learned 

from challenges and setbacks can 

be framed as accomplishments, 

especially when course corrections 

are made as a result. 

TIP

Early results from the first comprehensive outcome study of the Travis County 

experience conducted in mid-2009 were promising.xv Travis County experienced 

the steepest decline in felony probation revocations among Texas’s most-populous 

counties between 2004 and 2009, according to the year-end 2009 performance 

measuring report by the state agency overseeing the probation system. Felony 

probation revocations declined in Travis County by 20 percent during this period, 

compared to declines of 3 percent to 16 percent in six other counties and increases 

of up to 65 percent in three other counties.xvi

Other internal tracking done by the Travis County Community Supervision 

and Corrections Department shows the percentage of felony probationers revoked 

for administrative reasons declining from a high of 54 percent before the full 

implementation of the evidence-based practices model in fiscal year 2004 to 36 

percent in fiscal year 2010, and the number of felons absconding at the end of 

August 2010 declining by 50 percent from the same period in 2004.18

Outcomes from Travis County

18. Internal tracking reports are available from the Travis County Community Supervision and Corrections Department, 

http://www.co.travis.tx.us/community_supervision/default.asp.
42 Transforming Probation Departments

to regularly considering policy and administrative changes, performing self-evaluations, 

and making adjustments whenever needed.

Probation leaders should regularly involve stakeholders, through the executive 

committee, to review progress and set goals for further improvement. High-ranking 

officials serving on the executive committee should also identify opportunities for 

reaching out to the media and elected and appointed officials who may be instrumental 

in shaping public opinion and funding for the probation agency. Publicly released 

status reports can also generate broad-based support for connecting probationers to 

community-based treatments and services. 

Checklist for Step 10: Review Progress and Set Goals for 

Continuous Improvement

Design a process for continually improving the agency’s efforts—with a particular focus on 

maintaining the fidelity of the assessment process to evidence-based practices and ensuring 

supervision strategies are guided by assessment results.

Evaluate department progress several years after the implementation of agreed-upon 

changes.

Recognize and celebrate improvements revealed by performance measures.

Identify next steps to continue improving the organization.

Analyze yearly trends and conduct periodic recidivism outcome evaluations.

Report accomplishments and remaining goals to stakeholders and the public, including the 

media and elected officials, to encourage support and understanding.

Recommended Reading

Peggy Burke, “Implementing the Model,” in TPC Reentry Handbook: Implementing the NIC 

Transition from Prison to the Community Model (Washington, DC: National Institute of 

Corrections, 2008), http://nicic.gov/Library/022669.

Crime and Justice Institute, Implementing Evidence-based Principles in Community 

Corrections: Leading Organizational Change and Development (Washington, DC: National 

Institute of Corrections, 2004), http://nicic.gov/Library/019344.
43

Conclusion

After going through the transformation process to refocus its mission away from strictly 

monitoring probationer compliance and toward reducing recidivism, a probation 

department will function more efficiently and probationer outcomes will be improved. 

The department will operate more seamlessly as a whole. Thorough and effective 

assessments of probationers’ criminogenic risk, need, and strengths (protective 

factors) will inform supervision strategies that are tailored to each probationer. Officers 

will respond to probationer behavior with incentives and graduated sanctions that 

are applied swiftly and without ambiguity. Meanwhile, the overall architecture of 

transformation will be supported by new performance-driven personnel management 

practices that promote and reward recidivism reduction. In all, these changes will lift 

morale among both officers and probationers.

The 10 steps enumerated in this guide provide a blueprint for implementing the 

principles of recidivism reduction—from effective assessments to revised personnel 

management practices. They should be overseen by a committee-subcommittee structure 

that fosters buy-in from department staff as well as collaboration with key stakeholder 

agencies and community partners. The virtues of this committee-subcommittee 

structure are numerous; in particular, they allow the department to pursue the 10 steps 

concurrently, rather than sequentially. This will allow the department to make progress 

and to realize success more quickly than it otherwise might.

This overview of the 10 steps for a probation department is meant to be a starting 

point. Volumes could be written on each step, but it is hoped that this concise guide and 

its recommended resources will position probation agencies to make more effective use 

of their resources. 

The lessons learned from the experience and research conducted in the Travis 

County probation department in Austin, Texas, demonstrates that full-scale 

transformation efforts are possible. How they implemented processes that gained 

widespread acceptance internally and externally can serve as a useful template for other 

jurisdictions interested in creating an integrated model that can help probationers avoid 

criminal activity and lead healthy, productive lives.
44

Notes

i. Pew Center on the States, One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections (Washington, 

DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, March 2009).

ii. Mike Eisenberg, Validation of Risk Assessment Factors (Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, April 2005); Tony Fabelo and Jason Bryl, Travis 

County Risk Score Validation and Related Analysis: Report One (Washington, DC: The JFA 

Institute, 2006); Tony Fabelo and Jason Bryl, Travis County Risk Score Validation: Updated 

Analysis with Additional Cases, Report Two (Washington, DC: The JFA Institute, 2006).

iii. Bill Burrell, Caseload Standards for Probation and Parole (Lexington, KY: American 

Probation and Parole Association, 2006), http://nicic.gov/Library/021896; M. T DeMichele, 

Probation and Parole’s Growing Caseloads and Work Allocation: Strategies for Managerial 

Decision Making, (Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association, 2007), 

http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/SMDM.pdf.

iv. Seth J. Prins and Laura Draper, Improving Outcomes for People with Mental Illnesses 

under Community Corrections Supervision: A Guide to Research-Informed Policy and Practice

(New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2009); Seth Prins and Fred C. Osher, 

Improving Responses to People with Mental Illnesses: The Essential Elements of Specialized 

Probation Initiatives (New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2009).

v. National Institute of Corrections Information Center, Essay: Specialized Caseloads

(Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, 1989).

vi. Faye S. Taxman, Eric S. Shepardson, and James M. Byrne. Tools of the Trade: A Guide to 

Incorporating Science into Practice (Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, 2004), 

http://www.nicic.org/Library/020095; Peggy B. Burke and Michael Tonry, Successful Transition 

and Reentry for Safer Communities: A Call to Action for Parole (Silver Spring: Center for 

Effective Public Policy, 2006).

vii. Peggy Burke, The TPC Reentry Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to 

the Community Handbook (Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections and the Center for 

Effective Public Policy, 2008).

viii. Edward Latessa, Lori Brusman Lovins, and Paula Smith, Follow-up Evaluation of 

Ohio’s Community Based Correctional Facility and Halfway House Programs—Outcome 

Study (Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research, February 

2010); Christopher Lowenkamp and Ed Latessa, “Increasing the Effectiveness of Correctional 

Programming Through the Risk Principle: Identifying Offenders for Residential Placement,” 

Criminology and Public Policy 4(2) (2005): 263–90.
notes 45

ix. Crime and Justice Institute, Implementing Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in 

Community Corrections, second edition (Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, 

2009), http://www.cjinstitute.org/files/ Community_Corrections_BoxSet_Oct09.pdf.

x. The Public Safety Performance Project of the Pew Center on the States, Policy Framework to 

Strengthen Community Corrections (Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2008).

xi. Seth J. Prins and Laura Draper, Improving Outcomes for People with Mental Illnesses under 

Community Corrections Supervision: A Guide to Research-Informed Policy and Practice (New 

York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2009).

xii. R. Cherkos, J. Ferguson, and A. Cook, “Do We Really Care What Offenders Think?” 

Perspective 32, 2008, 53–58.

xiii. Carsten Andresen, “Study to Test the Fidelity to Evidence Based Practices: Travis County 

Adult Probation,” July 31, 2009; and “The Second Annual Study to Test the Fidelity to Evidence 

Based Practices: Travis County Adult Probation,” March 4, 2010.

xiv. Dawn Marie Heikkila, Travis Community Impact Supervision Model: The Challenges of 

Implementing a Personnel Evaluation System under an Evidence-Based Practices Probation 

Supervision Mode (Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, Master Thesis, December 

2008).

xv. Mike Eisenberg, Jason Bryl, and Tony Fabelo, Travis County Community Impact Supervision 

Project: Analyzing Initial Outcomes (New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 

2009).

xvi. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, “Report 

to the Governor and Legislative Budget Board on the Monitoring of Community Supervision 

Diversion Funds,” December 2009, http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/cjad/cjadpublications-home.htm.
46

Appendix A: 

Sample Subcommittee

Work Plan

Diagnosis Committee

Administrator Responsible Name (member of Steering Committee)

Goal of Committee Review Assessment Process and Develop New Diagnosis Process

Committee Chair Name (person in-charge of committee)

Committee Names Names

Action Item Responsibility Start Date Completion Date Status

Collect diagnosis and intake forms use 

throughout the department, identifying which 

units use which forms and the flow of paper 

work through the units

Joe Doe, Margaret Doe 10/25/05 11/15/05 Completed on time

Review all forms and flow chart the intake and 

diagnosis process

TA team working 

with Joe Doe and 

Margaret Doe

11/15/05 12/15/05 Completed on time

Committee meeting to review flow chart and 

agree on strategy to streamline paperwork and 

consolidation in one form and Central Diagnosis 

Unit

Committee and 

TA team

12/20/05 12/20/05 Completed on time

Recommendation to redesign of paperwork flow 

and consolidation of forms to streamline paper 

processing

Committee and 

TA team

12/20/05 1/25/06

2/10/06

Completed at later date 

because review of legal 

issues related to consent 

forms delay process

Redesign of forms and streamlining 

recommendations to Executive Committee 

for preliminary approval

Administrator assigned 

to committee

2/10/06 2/21/06

3/2/06

Completed later due to 

Executive Committee 

longer review process

Creation of draft of Central Diagnosis Form Joe Doe with 

Committee and 

TA Team help

3/2/06 6/1/06 In Process

Testing of new Central Diagnosis Form Joe Doe working with 

PSI staff

6/1/06 8/1/06

Final modification and adoption of Central 

Diagnosis Form and plan to create Central 

Diagnosis Unit

Joe Doe working 

committee and 

TA Team

8/1/06 9/1/06

Development of specification for automating 

the Diagnosis Form

TA Team with IT staff 

and committee

9/1/06 10/1/06

Testing of new automated system, certification 

and recommendation for start date for new 

diagnosis process pending other committees 

TA Team with IT staff 

and committee

10/1/06 1/1/07
47

Appendix B: 

Structure of Travis County 

Central Assessment 

Report

Identifiers and Case 

Processing Information

Offense and 

Criminal History

Victim Information

Assessment Highlight 

in Narrative Format

Diagnosis Matrix Risk 

and SCS

Supervision Strategy and 

Conditions of Supervision

Part 1: Identifiers/

Demographics

Part 2: Present Offense–

Criminal History

Part 3: Strategies for Case 

Supervision (SCS)

Part 4: Substance Abuse 

Assessment

Part 5: Risk Assessment

Part 6: Diagnosis Summary 

Report

Report to 

the Court

Appendix

Required forms 

signed by person

Assessment

Tools
48

Appendix C: 

Travis County Risk and 

Criminogenic Assessment 

Matrix

Note: Criminogenic classifications from Client Management Classification (CMC)/Strategies For Case Supervision 

(SCS) instrument, Strategies for Case Supervision, Twelfth CJAD Edition, Revised January 2000.

Initial

Risk

SCS Score – Classification

SIS SIT ES CC LS

Low Yellow

Medium Blue

High Red

SCS Classification Characteristics

SIS = Selective Intervention Situational Generally law-abiding individual

SIT = Selective Intervention Treatment Individual unstable in one area like substance abuse

ES = Environmental Structure Individual with impaired intellectual ability and poor life 

skills

CC = Casework Control Individual with chronic instability in several areas of life

LS = Limit Setting Individual with criminal orientations

Criminogenic SCS Classifications

Risk Score Results
49

 Appendix D: 

Sample Violation 

Response Table

Travis County Community Supervision and Corrections Department: Violation Response Table

Level 1 

Sanctions

Behavioral contract

Offender writes a letter of apology to victim

Offender submits itinerary

Verbal admonishment by the PO

Verbal admonishment by the Senior Probation Officer

Verbal admonishment by the Supervisor

Letter of Reprimand

Increased reporting to PO/field visits for specified amount of time

Financial budget with receipts to verify income and expenses

Community service hours with department work crew

Increase number of NA or AA meetings attendance

Referral to counseling or psychological evaluation

Second referral to alcohol or drug education program

More restrictive curfew

Level 2 

Sanctions

Referral for job placement or Texas Workforce Commission

Referral to GED

Referral to TAIP

Referral to anger management counseling

Referral to family violence counseling

Referral to cognitive program

Referral to parenting classes

Referral to psychological evaluation

Referral to TAIP or MHMR assessment

Increase in outpatient treatment level

Increase length of treatment/cognitive program

Increase in number of community service hours

Increase frequency of alcohol and drug testing

Increase frequency of home, field, collateral, or treatment contacts by PO

PO has authority to choose from Level 1 or 2 Sanctions without Supervisory approval so long as P

O

follows 

Guidelines for 

Graduated Violations and sanction does not involve jail time.

(LEAST SEVERE)
50 Transforming Probation Departments

Level 3 

Sanctions

Placement on specialized caseload

Electronic monitoring

Sex offender computer monitoring

Inclusion of the SCRAM device

Residential treatment

Extension of probation term

Add additional fine for conversion of CSR @ $10.00 per hour

Amend conditions with added restrictions/ requirements/interventions/

referrals

Inclusion of Ignition Interlock System

Inclusion of driving restriction

Increase in number of community service hours

Verbal admonishment by Judge (Summons)

Placement in SMART or other CCF

1–3 day jail commitment (Bench Warrant)

Level 4 

Sanctions

Issuance of a Bench Warrant

Placement in high risk regular caseload w/ zero tolerance

Extension of probation term

Placement in the residential substance abuse treatment

Placement into the Intermediate Sanction Facility

Jail time as a condition of probation

Placement into the SAFPF

Placement into the SAFPF Relapse Program

Placement in the State Boot Camp

Automatic motion for revocation/adjudication

Supervisory/Administrative Hearing (

Must Follow 

Required Court Procedures—e.g., 

Amended Conditions)

Violation Report with Revocation 

Review Committee

(MOST SEVERE)

Recommendations outside of guidelines for level 3 or level 4 must be staffed and approved by the 

Court via a modification of conditions
Appendix E: 

Travis County’s Fidelity 

Study Data Collection Forms 

1

TRAVIS COUNTY ADULT PROBATION DEPARTMENT

Individual Felony Case File Review Form

January, 2009  Placements: Review Period _January  June 2009

Offender:____________ 

Date of Birth:____________ Age:_________

Gender:____________ SID No:____________

Highest grade:____________

Supervising PO:____________ Unit:____________

Caseload Type:____________

 (use attached code)

Court:____________

Cause No:____________

Employed: 

2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Employed 

Y/N

Offense: ____________

Offense Code:____________

Date of Probation:____________

Sentence: ____________

Shock: No

ASSESSMENT-RISK/NEED/SCS/DOMAINS

Initial Field Risk/Needs Scores: Date:_________________

__R___N _________Level

No Score Explain_____________________________________

Reassement completed Date:________________

_____R ______N _______level 

 Significant Event noted  Yes  No

SCS completed 

Type/Score: SI ES CC LS

Comments (explain any discrepancies between PSI SCS score 

and the Field SCS score):

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

______________________

1. Address 

Changes

7.Prior 

Supervision

2.Employment 

Percent

8.Prior 

Revocations

3.Alcohol use

9.Prior Felony 

Adj.

4.Drug use

10.Adult Adj. 

for Thefts..

5.Attitude

11. Assaultive 

Adj.

6.Age of Guilt

Intial Risk scores

Most Recent Reassessment

1. Address 

Changes

7.Prior 

Supervision

2.Employmen

t Percent

8.Prior 

Revocations

3.Alcohol use

9.Prior Felony 

Adj.

4.Drug use

10.Adult Adj. 

for Thefts..

5.Attitude

11. Assaultive 

Adj.

6.Age of Guilt

Notes: (any diffenence in PSI/Initial Assessment) if yes Explain:
52 Transforming Probation Departments

2

PSI 

Recommendation

Original 

Order

Referral 

Date

Completed 

X=Yes

Amended

Ct Order

Referral 

Date

Completed 

X=Yes

Officer Referrals

Not Ct ordered

Assessment -

CES

Family Violence

Assessment -

MHMR

Post Sentence

Psychological/iatric

TAIP

Caseload, i.e. Spec.

CSR

Classes -

Achieve

Anger Management

Drug - 15

DWI  12

DWI  30

GED

Parenting

Theft

Incarceration

CCF

Jail Serve County 

SAFPF

State Jail

TDCJ-ID

SAFPF - Halfway 

Hs

SAFPF - Travis Cty

Incarceration -

SAFPF

Surveillance

ELM

Ignition Interlock

SCRAM

Treatment

Cognitive

Cognitive Relapse

Counseling Center 

In-Patient

Out-Patient

SOMP

SMART Facility

AA/CA/NA-support 

groups

Other____________

List any other specifics about conditions not include above:

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

List any waivers of fees or other conditions of probation: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
appendices 53

3

Requirements Per Conditions/Assessment

Treatment Required Yes No

Treatment attended Yes No

External Vendor  Counseling Center  

Other:____________________________________________

 

Reports/Collaterals documented in file Yes No

Comments: 

 Actual Reporting/Contacts

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

Office Visits

Field Visits

Court Vists

Collaterals/Phone Calls

Totals:

Supervision Agreement

Filed in case file No Yes 

Signed by Probationer No Yes 

Negotiated No Yes 

W/I 60 DAYS No Yes  if not, 

how long:______________

Crimonogenic needs identified?

  No Yes N/A 

Are Domains the same per PSI 

No Yes 

Domains 

1.

2.

3.

Comments: If Domains Different is reason explained?

Notes for Misd:

Supervision/Use of MI

Do the circumstances of the case/offender warrant the of MI No Yes 

If YES, Does PO use MI? Never 0 1 2 3 4 5 Always

 0 = No evidence of use of MI

 1 = Use of MI limited to one instance documented in case file

 2 = Use of MI limited to two instances  initial ov/supervision plan, not carried through in subsequent visits, as applicable.

 3 = Use of MI found in several instances and in different forms 

 4 = Use of MI consistently used from initial ov and carried through to subsequent visits, also use of MI in different forms

 5 = 



	


	

	

	



tc.

 

 Use of EPE guideline/EPE approach 

 PO uses collaborative approach 

 PO clarifies dual role & tonomy 

 Use of OARs 

 Probationer leads and problems solves 

 Recognize/elicit change talk 

 



	

 Use of change tools (e.g. pros/cons list) 

 Stage of Change for identified 
54 Transforming Probation Departments

4

Is Supervision Agreement foundation for office visits? Yes  No 

Do Office Visits document discussion specific to Criminogentic Need areas? Yes  No 

Is  compliant w/goals in Supervision Agreement? Yes  No 

Referrals: 

Are referrals responsive to age, gender, SCS, Risk, etc. Yes  No  Court Orders Yes  No  P.O.Initiated  Yes No

Comments: Notes: for changes after June, 2009

Violations/Sanctions/Incentives

Violations Type: Violation Level: (1, 2, 3 or 4) Level Applied:

Rush VR  Yes No Summons ordered  Yes No Warrant Ordered  Yes  No Why do 

we care about summons/warrant? 

Bal:2344.00 Del: 921.00 Fees  ___ ___ 

Assign:100.00 Comp:9.75 CSR  ___ ___

 FTR  ___ ___

 Tmt  ___ ___

 Class  ___ ___

 Other ______________________ ___ ___

 _____________________

Violations addressed timely?  Yes  No Recommendations__________________________________________

How: MTR  Yes  No Date___________

 Admin Hearing  Yes  No Date___________

 Sup Hearing  Yes  No Date___________

 Admonished  Yes  No Date_____________________________________________

 

Court Guidelines/Sanctions Model Followed?  Yes  No 

 If No, explain specific action taken as violation response in comments, below

Incentives used appropriately? Yes  No 

Comments:

Test Date Test Type By Results Positive For 

07/03/08 URINE 1140 NEGATIVE 

01/15/09 URINE 1201 NEGATIVE 

02/18/09 URINE 1201 POSITIVE THC 

04/20/09 BREATH 1140 NEGATIVE 

05/06/09 BREATH 1140 NEGATIVE 

Total tests 

administered 

5 

ACTION TAKE AFTER THIS REVIEW PERIOD

How: MTR  Yes  No Date_________ __________________________________

 Admin Hearing  Yes  No Date_________ __________________________________

 Sup Hearing  Yes  No Date_________ __________________________________

 Admonished  Yes  No Date_________ __________________________________

 

Court Guidelines/Sanctions Model Followed?  Yes  No 

 If No, explain specific action taken as violation response in comments, below

Case REVOKED , 
appendices 55

5

Summary Questions:

DIAGNOSIS

Was the Diagnosis Correct?  Yes  No 

Risk Correct?  Yes  No 

Domains Correct ?  Yes  No 

If Not what should it have been? comments:______________________________________________________________________

What was the consequence of the incorrect Diagnosis, Risk, Domains? Comments:___________________________________

CONDITIONS OF PROBATION

Were the Conditions of Probation appropriate to the Diagnosis and Risk?  Yes  No 

If not what should they have been? Comments:____________________________________________________________

What was the consequence of the incorrect conditions of probation?____________________________________________

SUPERVISION

Was the Supervision Appropriate?________________________________________________________________________

If not what should have been the appropriate supervision?_____________________________________________________

VIOLATIONS

Were the Violations address appropriately?__________________________________________________________________

If not what how should they have been addressed? ___________________________________________________________

Notes of all actions from July to end of audit period: 

Additional Information/Comments:

Staff: Date:
56

Appendix F:

Travis County’s 

Subcommittee Structure

Steering Committee

• Monitors Work Plans and Timelines for Committees

• Set Priorities

• Develops and Administers Department-Wide and 

Outside Communication Strategies

Diagnosis Committee

• Design New Diagnosis Process

• Design New Assessment/Diagnosis Forms and 

Streamline Forms

• Guide Validation Research

• Guide Testing of New Process

Staff Development Committee

• Review Training Competencies and Gaps

• Make Recommendations to Realign Training with 

Goals of EBP

• Start Training Related to EBP Skills

Supervision Committee

• Conduct Inventory of Programs

• Develop EBP Conditions of Supervision

• Design for EBP Supervision Strategies

• Plan to Match New Diagnosis Strategies to Conditions 

of Supervision and Supervision Strategies

Quality Control Committee

• Review Available Management Reports and 

Their Purposes

• Identify More Relevant Process Measures

• Identify More Relevant Outcome Measures

• Recommend New Reporting Structure

Sanctions Committee

• Review and Redesign of Absconder Policies

• Design Plan for Progressive Sanctions

• Design Judicial Engagement Strategy for Progressive 

Sanctions

Personnel Evaluation Committee

• Review Personnel Evaluation Forms and Policies

• Develop Personnel Evaluation Indicators Related to 

EBP and Strategies to Measure Them

• Develop Implementation and Internal Support 

Strategies