1. Quality Assurance/Continuous Quality Improvement

2.  We supervise approximately 6,000 offenders a year  We have 60+ supervision officers, a PSI unit, a pre-trial unit and programming staff  We have 7 managers and 12 seniors

3.  We had some checks and balances in place, but no cohesive system  Officers and managers were attempting to adhere to evidence based practices, but again there was no systematic way to evaluate how well we were doing  In 2013, we received funding to add two Quality Assurance positions in our department

4.  Caseload Audits  Observation of Office Visits  Offender Surveys  Criminal Thinking Surveys

5.  Each manager was responsible for doing audits on members of their team  Most audit questions were related to documentation in case files  Audit results were reviewed with the individual officer  Managers review audits on a random basis and can be assigned to any officer in the department  Audit questions were updated to be evidence based and examine how officers are interacting with offenders  Audit results tracked for department

6.  Audit procedures were developed for the department (how often audits would be completed, what would happen with audit results, what happens if corrections need made, etc)  Audit guidelines were also distributed to officers explaining what managers would be looking for in each section of the audit

7.  Audit results were collected and shared with staff

8.  Allows us to identify department strengths  Helps us identify areas where officers are struggling  Staff can see the results of their work and get an idea of how they compare to the rest of the department

9.  Prior to implementing EPICS, office visits were never routinely observed and officers got very little feedback about how they were interacting with offenders  Officers now turn in audio tapes of office visits and get very detailed feedback from EPICS coaches  Results from tapes are tracked and progress documented

10.  Department Size  Officer Resistance  Caseload Size  Consistency among coaches

11.  Trained officers in three different waves  Needed to recruit a large number of coaches  Officers turn in a tape every month, but get feedback on one tape over a two month period

12.  EPICS supported by chief and management team  Coaches emphasize positive steps and find even “small victories” to encourage officers  Officers are given choices about which booster session to attend  Officers that demonstrate proficiency can be moved to a different schedule of observation

13.  Officers must get 85% satisfactory on overall score for a minimum of 3 tapes.  Officers must have an answer of yes on at least 75% of their caseload audits for question #III b.  Once officers are deemed an EMVP, they will need to submit a tape once every 4 months. They will also be required to attend one booster session every 4 months.  Officers can be moved back to the regular recording schedule if their manager has any issues/concerns or if the scoring on their tapes significantly declines.

14.  Coaches identify areas that need improvement to focus on during booster sessions  Officers are required to attend one session in a two month period  Booster sessions are limited to 12 participants to encourage participation and allow environment for practicing skills

15.  Do your offenders ever come into your office visit with problems? This session will focus on deciding which intervention/tool would be most appropriate to use. Different scenarios will be played and officers will break into groups and discuss how they would handle the scenarios.  Do you help your offenders set goals during office visits? Goal setting is an important, but often missed step in the EPICS session. This training will focus on setting goals and include a review of what should happen during the check-in and review sections.

16.  Officers added additional report days, allowing more time to meet with offenders  Caseload management based on risk level and need areas instead of conditions  Low risk offenders moved to quarterly reporting  Efforts were made to reduce paperwork, allowing officers more time with offenders

17.  Due to department size, 12 coaches were trained  With help from UC, developed coaching checklist that all coaches fill out with feedback form  Meetings held once every two months to discuss coaching progress or concerns

18. Coaching Checklist Prior to giving feedback: 1. I listened to the entire tape. Yes No 2. I have filled out all applicable sections on the feedback form. Yes No 3. I have included positive feedback for the officer on the form. Yes No 4.I have included specific suggestions/recommendations on how the officer can improve on the form. Yes No During feedback: 1. I asked the officer several open ended questions. Yes No 2 I asked permission to give feedback. Yes No 3. I applied the sandwich approach (strengths/areas for improvement/strengths) when giving feedback. Yes No 4.I was able to answer all of the officer’s questions during feedback. Yes No If no, what question(s) were you not able to answer? After feedback: 1. What do you think went well during the feedback? 2. What could you have done better during the feedback?

19.  Allows us to determine how effectively officers are using skills  Allows us to provide positive feedback to officers and constructive criticism  Allows us to reward officers that are effectively applying techniques they have learned

20.  In July of 2013 we started to give offenders a survey to complete about their experience with probation and their P.O.  Prior to this date, offenders had never been asked for any formal feedback  Administered privately and can be anonymous

21.  My P.O. is firm but fair.  My P.O. helped to arrange services or programs for me.  My P.O. listened to me. I felt heard and understood.  My P.O. helped me to learn how to solve my problems.  What was the most difficult part of being on supervision for you?  Please feel free to include any additional comments.

22. My P.O. listened to me My P.O. helped me to learn how to solve my problems.

24.  My P.O. has saved my life and I am a different person because of her!  My P.O. is a positive role model and always took time to listen to my life problems and to help solve them.  I would really like to thank my P.O. for treating me like a person and not a felon.  My P.O. always encouraged me and told me that I was doing good. Once he said he was proud of me!

25.  Allows us to get the offender’s perspective of his/her experience on supervision  Helps us identify barriers for offenders and enables us to reduce some of those barriers  Gives positive feedback to P.O.s and validates the work they are doing with offenders

26.  We piloted two criminal thinking surveys with our intensive officers to see if we were impacting criminal thinking among our officers  We used the CSS-M (Criminal Sentiment Scale- Modified) and TCU’S CTS (Criminal Thinking Scales)

27.  Collected data for a year  Had offenders fill out a survey at intake and at the 6 month mark  The CTS gave us better results than the CSS-M

28.  Consists of 36 questions and uses Likert scale Answers are divided into 6 domains 1. Entitlement (feelings of privilege) 2. Justification (minimizing the seriousness of antisocial acts) 3. Power Orientation (the need for power) 4. Cold Heartedness (callousness) 5. Criminal Rationalization (negative attitudes toward law and those in authority) 6. Personal Irresponsibility (lack of ownership for one’s actions)

29. IntakePost TestT-Test Results Average Pre-Test Score for 63 probationers who completed post-test (All cases) Average Post-test score for 63 probationers p-value Overall Scores20.019.30.06* Entitlement15.314.60.15 Justification16.115.90.40 Power Orientation20.319.30.07* Cold Heartedness23.823.20.27 Criminal Rationalization24.122.30.02* Personal Irresponsibility21.119.80.04*

30. IntakePost TestT-test Results Average Pre-Test Score for 56 probationers who completed post-test (Non Judicial Release cases) Average Post-test score for 56 probationers p-value Overall Scores20.319.40.04* Entitlement15.514.70.10* Justification16.416.20.30 Power Orientation20.519.40.08* Cold Heartedness24.223.30.19 Criminal Rationalization24.522.30.01* Personal Irresponsibility21.620.30.05*

31.  Allows us to have an objective measure to determine what impact we are having on reducing criminal thinking  Allows us to determine areas that need more focus  Will continue to collect data, but will look at 9 month intervals

32.  Officer resistance  Increase in responsibilities for management staff  Department size  Training

33. Sara Shields Quality Assurance Manager Franklin County Adult Probation Department sara_shields@fccourts.org (614) 525-4687