Upload
clifton-hill
View
231
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
FRANKLIN COUNTY ADULT PROBATION
Quality Assurance/Continuous Quality Improvement
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
About Our Department
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
Where We Started
Caseload Audits
Observation of Office Visits
Offender Surveys
Criminal Thinking Surveys
Changes We Have Made
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
Caseload Audits
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
Caseload Audits
Audit results were collected and shared with staff
Caseload Audits
Updated ORAS
Correct Tool Timely man-ner
Accurate As-sess
Sup Approp Supervision Plan
October-Decem-ber 2013
0.924528301886792
0.905660377358492
0.760869565217391
0.966666666666667
0.865384615384616
0.461538461538462
January-March 2014
1 0.966666666666667
0.924528301886792
0.909090909090909
0.96296296296296
0.600000000000001
April-June 2014
0.938271604938273
0.950000000000001
0.840579710144928
0.957446808510638
0.941176470588236
0.692307692307693
July-Sep-tember 2014
1 0.9672 0.859600000000002
0.9286 0.918 0.861100000000001
10.00%30.00%50.00%70.00%90.00%
110.00%
Section IIAssessment Information
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
Benefits of Audit Data
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
Observing Office Visits
Barriers to Implementing EPICS
Department Size Officer Resistance
Caseload Size
Consistency among coaches
Department Size 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
Officer Resistance 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
EMVP AWARD
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.
Booster Sessions 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
Booster Sessions
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.
Caseload Size 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
Consistency Among Coaches 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
Coaching Checklist
Prior to giving feedback:1. I listened to the entire tape. Yes No2. I have filled out all applicable sections on the feedback form. Yes No3. I have included positive feedback for the officer on the form. Yes No4. 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 No2 I asked permission to give feedback. Yes No3. I applied the sandwich approach (strengths/areas for improvement/strengths) when giving feedback. Yes No5. 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?
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
Benefits of Observing Office Visits
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
Offender Surveys
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.
Sample of Survey Questions
Survey Results
My P.O. listened to meMy P.O. helped me to learn how to solve my problems.
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Group 1Group 2Group 3Group 4
Stro
ngly
Agr
ee
Agree
Disagr
ee
Stro
ngly
Disa
gree N/A
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Group 1Group 2Group 3Group 4
Identifying Barriers
Transportation Nothing Reporting too often Missing Work Getting/Staying Clean Color Drops0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Group 1Group 2Group 3Group 4
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!
Positive Feedback
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
Benefits of Surveys
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)
Criminal Thinking Surveys
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
Criminal Thinking Surveys
Consists of 36 questions and uses Likert scale
Answers are divided into 6 domains1. 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)
Criminal Thinking Scales
Intake Post Test T-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 Scores 20.0 19.3 0.06*
Entitlement 15.3 14.6 0.15
Justification 16.1 15.9 0.40
Power Orientation 20.3 19.3 0.07*
Cold Heartedness 23.8 23.2 0.27
Criminal Rationalization 24.1 22.3 0.02*
Personal Irresponsibility 21.1 19.8 0.04*
Results with CTS
Intake Post Test T-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 Scores 20.3 19.4 0.04*
Entitlement 15.5 14.7 0.10*
Justification 16.4 16.2 0.30
Power Orientation 20.5 19.4 0.08*
Cold Heartedness 24.2 23.3 0.19
Criminal Rationalization 24.5 22.3 0.01*
Personal Irresponsibility 21.6 20.3 0.05*
Results with CTS after Removing Judicial Release Cases
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
Benefits of CTS
Officer resistance
Increase in responsibilities for management staff
Department size
Training
Barriers to the QA/CQI Process
Sara Shields Quality Assurance ManagerFranklin County Adult Probation Department
(614) 525-4687
Contact Information